HEALTH CARE - part I

• "Without the stimulus package unemployment will exceed 8%"; it is fastly approaching 10%.
• "A new era of fiscal responsibility"; National debt will double in 5 years and triple in 10
• "Net spending cut after targeting earmarks and wasteful spending"; budget has over 9,000 earmarks and trimmed $100 million in spending (.0003%)
• "No new taxes on 95% of Americans"; cigarette tax affects Americans in all tax brackets.
• "I do not want to take over GM"; said the day he took it over GM
• "The public option is a tool to discipline insurance companies"; It is actually the first step in taking over health care.

What makes anyone think Obama does not want to take over the health care industry in the U.S.? Obviously, just because he says something doesn't mean he actually means it.

If you still doubt the intention of our government see what the BILL actually says. (Check out page 16) After the bill is put into law no private insurer will be able to enroll a new individual on a plan with a starting date prior to the law. Eventually the private insurers will be driven out of the market and all that is left is Socialized Medicine. It is goal of the democrats of the federal government. It is there in black & white in the bill on page 16.

Why not Socialized Medicine?

What does the government run more effective than the private sector? What is more efficient when there is an absence of competition? We have federal monopoly laws to prevent markets without a competitive environment because the general public gets taken advantage. Why would we want to expose 17% of our GNP to a system without competition? Just look at their track record of the federal government. Social security bankrupt. Medicare bankrupt. Actually, the federal government is so far into debt to China it is virtually bankrupt.

Let's break this down: the government plans to add coverage for 47 million uninsured Americans, increase the scope of coverage, eliminate pre-existing condition and reduce the costs. I am sorry, but that just does not add up! The only cost savings idea discussed is requiring providers to electronically store records to avoid mistakes and add efficiencies but the savings (if any) will not make up the difference. My Senator has said that insurance companies "slow pay" claims and deny coverages to save money. There may be an instance of bad faith here or there but insurance companies are obligated contractually to pay claims and do so within the scope of the contract but some things do fall outside the contract and those are the items people complain about and the government sites. Did you ever wonder if insurers (allegedly) do these things to save money and the government will not, how can they save money? No pre-existing condition? The purpose of pre-existing conditions is to keep people from buying coverage AFTER they become sick. Its not to keep from paying legitimate claims. If people only bought insurance after the onset, the system cannot work.

Let's put on our thinking caps and take a look at this. The only way to save money is to cut some of the benefits paid or to pay the providers less for what they provide. Yet they are going to cover more? If they cut what they pay doctors and hospitals and drug companies than they will make less money. High cost of education, less return on that investment means fewer people entering the medical profession. Hospitals will have to cuts expenses and quality of care will have to decline. Drug companies will invest less into R&D and fewer new drugs will be invented. But, how do they cover more conditions yet still cut benefits? They will review what procedures are provided for each condition and dictate what benefits will be paid. The government will determine who gets the care and what care they get NOT THE DOCTOR. Older Americans or ones with conditions that will not extend the life for very much longer will get denied certain procedures. It is inevitable. If you doubt it, get on the Internet and search for your self. Care is rationed. If it is not cost effective, it will not be covered. The President all but said this in his (media softball throwing questions) press conference he said the proper treatment "based on what works." Who will determine "what works" in any given situation? Each situation is different and only the doctor, with all his training and experience, can make the best decisions.

There are several countries that have national healthcare. The ones that are mostly used as model are Canada and Great Britain because their economic models are similar to the U.S. Both of these plans have rationed care. It is the only way to control the costs while still providing the standard care. The World Health Organization ranks the the U.S. #1 in quality of care although our costs are 30% higher. (It also ranks U.S. 37th overall only because not everyone is insured.) The President prices his plan at $50 to $65 billion a year. Everything costs more than the government estimates. We can rest assured that whatever the government predicts this universal plan will cost, it will cost much more. Who will pay? The President promised not to burden the middle class so that means small business and the wealthy. Sounds good to the middle class until their employer shuts the door or reduces their pay to compensate for the increased burden put on their profitablity.


** soon to come ** part II - Healthcare Solution

Press Conference

I have been working on my blog on Healthcare reform so I watched the President's press conference the other night to get more information. Healthcare was the subject and he had the nation's ear, a great opprotunity to persuade America in the face of falling poll numbers but he missed the target and now everyone is talking about something else. The President was so passionate at one point, in an otherwise bland and too rehearsed pressor, he now has America talking about (not healthcare) but Race in America.

The subject came up about a police officer arresting a friend of his, a black professor from Harvard, Professor Henry Lewis Gates. Most of the facts of the case are undisputed. A neighbor called police after watching two men with backpacks struggling to enter the house. The officer responded and found one man in the house who would not come to the door. The officer entered the house where the man identified himself as the owner. The officer asked for proof and the man went into the kitchen followed by the officer. After the officer was satisfied he attempted to leave only to be followed out to the porch expressing his discontent and demanding the officer's badge number. The entire episode aggitated the professor who after several warnings to stop his behavior continued badgering the officer and was finally arrested.

In my estimation and by the police protocal, the officer acted properly. Prof. Gates was probably tired from a long trip and frustrated by the struggle to open his front door that he failed to understand the officer's duty. If the Professor was one of the invaders or if he was being threatened by one of the invaders and the officer left after being told he was the owner the officer would have been persecuted. In telling of the incident, Professor Gates emphasized he did not invite the officer in the house and did not invite him to follow him into the kitchen. Once again, if he would have come outside the officer would know he was not being threatened or when he went into the kitchen if he was an intruder he could be going for a weapon. This house call was handled by the book and the non-incident became an incident by the Professor's actions.

When the President weighed in on the incident he admittly did not know all the facts but was eager enough to pass judgement on the officer who was a hand selected instructor from his African-American commander to instruct other officers on how to avoid racial profiling. To this day the President stands by his assessment of the incident. The President stated that anyone would understandable be upset in this situation. I wouldn't! I appreciate the police doing what they do to protect my family. On top of that I learned a long time ago if you just respond with respect the problem can be easily resolved. The President reverted back into his community organizer days where race was THE problem. When things go wrong you just call "Racism" and the black leaders jump in and grab a microphone and put their face in front of a camera and call out the authority figure and the media obliges.

The President, as he admitted in his pressor, that the U.S. has made tremendous advances on the subject of race relations and he is the prime example. There will always be bigots and most people will still have some prejudices they still own but for the most part this country can look beyond the color and look at the character. We elected an Afican-American to the highest office in the land, what more can be done to prove it. The problem is the black leaders are not willing to let go of the power they derive from minorites thinking they are discriminated against and the head community leader is our current President of the United States. He denied ever hearing Reverend Wright spew his discourse of white hatred yet he has demonstrated twice now that he is a loyal disciple. First, he nominates a Supreme Court Justice who has made a ruling based on the color of a man's skin over the facts of the case and now he sides with a man who incited an incident by his reprehensible behavior. When asked about this situation the President had an opprotunity to wait until he knew all the facts or at the very least take a politically neutral stance but he chose to offend the officer involved, police around the country as well as many Americans including many who voted for him. In other words, he responded Stupidly.

Palin

Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin was thrust onto the national spotlight with her introduction as the republican running of Sen. John McCain. Her grass roots conservative resume' ignited the republican base and vaulted the republican ticket to the same heights as the media darling democratic ticket. That very same media spent the next few months destroying the enthusiasm generated by her arrival. Even since the election the media, the democratic party, comedians and even members of her own party have exposed her to a kind of scrutiny and attack never seen in American politics. Why?

It has always been an unwritten rule that the family of politicians is off limit. Have we ever heard a story about Malia or Sasha Obama? Maybe they are not as news worthy as the Palin pregnancy but who knows? What about Biden's son's hedge fund scandal? Or how about Al Gore's son drug arrest? Ever hear anything about those juicy tidbits? Even the Bush daughters were somewhat left alone except for a drinking incident. Late night comedians regularly joke about the Palin family until Letterman stepped over the line with an off-color joke about their minor daughter. The family issues overshadow the personal attacks on her person which go beyond the normal candidate jokes. The "slutty stewardess" remarks makes you think that the only woman acceptable in American politics is an ugly one in a pants suit.

As soon as Sarah Palin was announced as VP candidate a herd of attorneys were beseeched upon the great northwest to find any incriminating evidence against the Governor. This is a typical vetting process of most candidates but they went to far and have not left. She has had to defend herself against 15 ethics charges which have all been dismissed. Have you ever heard of such a determined attempt to discredit an individual in American politics before?

I love Sarah Palin's politics. I am a true conservative and her values match my beliefs almost universally, but I am not convinced she is the right person to lead the republican resurgence. I like the idea of her using her popularity to energize the base and to help candidates fund raise and gather crowds but I do not believe she has the national appeal to win a presidential election. I do not claim to understand all the reasons for this recent move to resign but if she plans a run at the Presidency in 2012 I will support her. If resigning early plays to her advantage is yet to be seen but it certainly can be spun to her advantage and let's face it, the spin is more important thatn the truth in politics.

Here is my problem: Sarah Palin is everything the democratic party claims they represent. The democrats always champion the cause of the average Joe, the guy who did not come from a wealthy family and does not have the benefit of an Ivy League education. They are always making policy to promote the cause of the discriminated, minorities and women. Sarah Palin is exactly the type of American they say their policies are meant to protect. BUT, the difference is she did it without their help. She is proof that the policies of the left are not needed to succeed in this country, she proves that people can achieve without the help of government and that is what scares them. If people do not believe that they need the government, that "the man" is not what is holding them back then the liberals are powerless. Republicans tell the voters that the government is not the solution but is the problem while the Democrats promise to fix all their problems. If the government is not needed for an individual to ascend above their own hurdles then the government needs to get out of the way and that just does not sound good the the left.