Blog @ MoreWhat.com

This is not political rhetoric or some lobbyist’s scheme to support a strategy not in the public interest. It is what this country has been missing lately. Plain, everyday, good old-fashioned American common sense.

An excerpt from a WaPo report on health reform provides a reasonable introduction to what’s wrong and why a step by step approach to reform the wise choice.

Their efforts suggest a return to the frenzied pace of last year’s health-care debate, which prompted more than $200 million in advocacy ads and broke records for lobbying. Companies and trade groups last year hired more than 4,500 lobbyists to influence health reform — amounting to about eight lobbyists for each member of Congress, according to an analysis released last week by the Center for Public Integrity.

Reacting to President Obama’s recent statements that he will move ahead with legislation, health insurance companies have enlisted hundreds of lobbyists in a full-court press against the proposed overhaul, which would force dramatic cuts and increased regulation on the industry. At the same time, insurers are pushing back against a separate bill approved by the House last week that would remove the industry’s antitrust exemption.

Assuming the article’s facts are straight, ‘eight lobbyists for each member of Congress’ should tell you all you need to know. But add to that all the talk of ‘agendas’ and what some POLS are obviously trying to do and it becomes clear there is little in the way of public interest included in this legislative nightmare.

For instance, by itself in the spirit of ’step by step’ do you suppose anyone would object to a ban on deals between drug manufacturers to keep generics off the market? That’s right. The only ones who would object are the drug manufacturers and their lobbyists.

Would anyone object to allowing insurance companies to compete across statelines? Sure, state and local POLS who claim their legislation protects the public by allowing only approved players to participate. Do you suppose any of the same political shenanigans are involved at the state level?

These are some of the cost-cutting ideas that may come from either side of the aisle and appear to have merit without benefit of reading specific legislative language that may render them less than ideal. But the point is without taking unthinkable risk with national debt and deficits in addition to what already exists, doing things step by step would remove the all or nothing pitfalls from what is otherwise just more politcal theatre.

Our nation needs to address health issues. But the manner in which it is being done currently does not resemble anything close to the word reform. You might want to tell your elected representative we should take a break, eliminate the insanity and take a common sense step by step approach to solving health issues.

Sure, the step by step idea has been a GOP mantra for some time now. So if you are a liberal you naturally oppose it. But this post does not suggest all the GOP talk is correct. But there is no benefit to dismissing all the GOP or the Democrats say just to present an argument. The generic deals ban mentioned above may quite possibly be a Democrat’s idea. It seems reasonable. Step by step was proposed by the GOP. Another reasonable idea.

So let’s scrap these reform bills that are nothing more than political agendas. And do it right one piece at a time.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Poor Pluto. No, not the Disney character or mythological god but the planet that science demoted from its planet status. Sort of like science being demoted from its former status as something higher than current regard given the AGW scandals. And given this report from earlier in the year it should be no surprise why interest in exploration or organizations like NASA has fallen.

Hubble sees Pluto changing color, ice sheet cover

The report states ‘newly released photos’ but that is only because astronomer Marc Buie waited to announce his ‘findings.’ It is difficult to tell from the AP account if the delay was from fear of being wrong or if it took all that time to perform the analysis. Which raises the natural questions of what do scientists get paid for and how do they perform their tasks relative to the rest of us?

Yes, it’s so unfair. Wondering why photos taken in 2002 took until 2010 to be included in an astronomer’s evaluation of them? But what troubles most people about science is for all the money spent what practical solutions does it serve? Even conceding the point that scientific research is necessary and discoveries or knowledge acquired can take many years to produce, it is just as reasonable to be a little suspicious of how things are done.

For one who has been supportive of science for much of the past as well as a former fan of NASA and other scientific endeavors frequent criticism of the scientific community cannot always be ignored. One simple example should suffice.

Given health issues are dominating the public debate these days one aspect of the topic is rarely discussed. If it is true that American healthcare is the best in the world or second to none why is it that cures for disease are seldom produced yet drugs and procedures to battle human ills litter the landscape?

Although that was largely a rhetorical question here is one answer. If you cure a disease the profit potential diminishes dramatically. It is more profitable to address the symptoms and other temporary conditions than offer a one time cure.

Humans don’t take very good care of themselves and could be to blame for much of their own health problems. The medical industry often expresses prices are great in order to recoup the cost of research. Yet much of that research comes from institutions outside the corporate door. And many other factors influence the state of healthcare.

The final question of this post is for the scientific community. So where are all the cures?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Just a brief post on the summit to this point. (1PM EST).

Just when Eric Cantor and others were getting to the meat of the issue President Obama said rather than go on with a ‘back and forth’ others should be allowed to speak.

Interpretation: When about to lose ground on reform the President side-stepped the very debate he said he wanted to have.

The Dems have cited anecdotes for an emotional appeal while members of the GOP have tried to move the discussion to the real debate of why we cannot afford the legislation as it will only make healthcare more expensive through taxes and other excessive regulatory restrictions.

Now they broke for ‘a House vote that has to be taken now’. They knew this summit was on for today. With all the days Congress takes off, why did they have to have a vote now. Sounds like step two in the dodge and weave to regroup as the GOP had the stronger arguments.

And if you listened to Washington Journal this a.m. prior to the summit you could have listened to Congressman Clyburn express the Dems goal is to provide unlimited coverage to Medicare as well as private insurance.

Then how do they expect anyone to believe we can afford healthcare reform? The answer is they don’t. They expect as most believed to takeover healthcare as a major step in bringing European socialism to the United States.

That is not a wild accusation. The evidence for the argument is all around you. All you have to do is open your eyes and observe. It is not that difficult.

Stay tuned to Cspan to ‘observe’ the liberal conspiracy first hand during this so-called healthcare summit. How many more times will Obama side-step the real debate when confronted by the GOP on the flaws of the Democratic majority’s healthcare component of their liberal agenda?

Currently we have witnessed side-step one and two (see above).

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

related:

“A Reading Guide to the Senate Bill’s Backroom Deals” (Michelle Malkin) 

An interesting slice of this video report reveals other freedoms that are abridged in the workplace. Specifically, freedom of speech disappears at the employer’s door.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Here’s a suggestion for evaluating the soon to be televised (on Cspan) health summit hosted by the White House. You may recall President Barack ‘Mr Transparency during the 2008 campaign’ Obama was complicit in efforts by the Democratic party to exclude the Republican party from the business of crafting so-called healthcare reform legislation. Correction, that is now ‘health insurance reform.’

Just in case you forgot the following excerpt is provided as a reminder that much of the latest push in Congress and the White House for ‘reform’ has been behind opaque rather than transparent doors.

C-SPAN questions follow Obama

President Barack Obama might just wish he had opened even one health care meeting to the C-SPAN cameras.

The issue is starting to follow him around.

Once again Tuesday, he faced a question about it, from a high school student in Nashua, N.H., who asked him to grade the White House’s transparency efforts, given the fact that all the health care discussions have been behind closed doors.

Now that Obama has realized the mistake in hiding negotiations he expresses a ‘warning.’

President Obama warned lawmakers on both sides of the aisle Saturday not to turn the upcoming White House health-care summit into “political theater,” but rather “to seek common ground in an effort to solve a problem that’s been with us for generations.”

The ‘problem’ for the Dems is they have been trying to takeover healthcare for ‘generations.’

The standard rhetoric from the left now that they have initiated damage control for their lack of transparency is that the GOP is the party of ‘no’ and has no plans. The GOP counters with examples of their plans and a website to publish them. The right fears a setup or ambush by the left in this overdue suggestion of transparency. The left has the majority in DC as well as most of the cards yet have been unable to move their liberal agenda forward. It is reasonable to suspect all of this from both sides is politics as usual.

Everyone has an agenda including you and I. An agenda can be a good thing. But finding one in Washington DC that is good is next to impossible. Can politicians escape politics in this upcoming ’summit.’? Not likely.

The public is not happy with the Obama agenda or Congress. It is quite possible the GOP prefers the Dems own this one, meaning Obamacare. If health related legislation is passed in Congress without GOP support and turns out to be the disaster expected they can say we told you so. The Dems want the GOP to have ’skin in the game’ by signing on to this legislation without benefit of participation in its crafting. Obama’s health summit is likely a maneuver with that in mind.

Once again you are on your own to evaluate what is really going on. The upside is November 2010 holds the key. Tell the White House and Congress what you think with your vote.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

related: Reconciliation, the public option, and Demcare revival (Michelle Malkin)

Transparency and accountability have been a focus in the long battle to defeat liberal control of healthcare in the United States. While the antiseptic qualities apply, described in the phrase, sunshine is the best disinfectant, public demand to review healthcare reform legislation and have input is key. President Obama’s release of his budget proposal for 2011 which begins in October requires the same scrutiny and public focus.

Are you kidding me? A three point eight trillion dollar budget ($3.8 trillion) is not what the doctor ordered. Just as the Democratic party and their agenda is on life support so is the US economy. Given that the vast majority of federal budgets are entitlements and discretionary spending this budget number is preposterous. Like the stark reality being experienced by the unemployed and under-employed the White House and Congress need a wake up call.

The plan includes big increases in personal and business taxes, modest spending cuts and increased outlays for education, defense and jobs initiatives.

First of all, tax increases are nonsense in this economy. Second, modest spending cuts are equally ignorant. As for education, sure, it is important. But the simple fact that everyone will have to suffer includes education. So your college plans are postponed for a year or two. Join the Peace Corps or something. And why do we think education can only be improved by spending money. That hasn’t improved student or teacher performance yet.

Cutting more entitlements would certainly help paying for any defense needs. And who the hell needs a jobs bill now that needs to be paid for over ten years? $80 to $100 billion over ten years for government make work jobs? That’s ridiculous.

And enough with the future timelines for reducing spending, deficits and the national debt. Do it now. Right now, in this budget in this year turn the corner and halt the damage being done by government malfeasance. As an ending note to this post Lamar Alexander put it best in describing current politics in Washington.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.), appearing on the same program, praised Mr. Obama for talking about spending and tax cuts, but said his ideas were flawed. “I’ll give the president some credit,” he said. “He’s in the right church but the wrong pew.”

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

BTW, following links to the WSJ articles is worth the trip.  And so is the following link.

Debt deluge: Here comes the $1.6 trillion flood of red ink (Michelle Malkin) 

Every politician invokes the use of ’spin’ to some degree and with some frequency during their their term or terms in office. That is the essence of politics. And that is the dominant feature which cripples effective governance. Political games are often defended as a ncessary evil in government and public affairs. Of couse, politicians and those who craft strategy are the only ones who subscribe to that philosphy. And it is responsible for Scott Brown’s victory in the Massachusetts special election held last week.

But politicians and community organizers are addicted to that unfortunate part of the process. Enter President Barack Obama. Defined by supporters, of which there are less these days, as the consummate campaigner President Obama is once again embracing that which had served him well in getting elected. Even though it is largely responsible for his falling approval rating, failing agenda, dismal first year in office and party prospects in 2010.

White House officials say they understand why emotions are running high. The president’s top political aide says President Obama has had to take unpopular action to deal with an economic crisis far worse than anyone expected when he took office.

David Axelrod says he warned the president early on that his public approval ratings were likely to drop. “I said to him a year ago, Mr. President your numbers are going to be considerably worse a year from now than they are today because you can not govern in an economy like this without great disaffection,” he said.

Axelrod told the ABC television program This Week that he believes the president did the right thing. “I have no regrets about that. I think history will look back and say the President of the United States met his responsibilities,” he said.

Someone is smoking crack if they think reaction to Obama’s agenda is due to ‘an economic crisis far worse than anyone expected when he took office.’ Or have they forgotten all the Bush bashing in his last year of office over the ‘worst financial crisis since the Great Depression’?

Of course Axlerod suggests what history will say about Obama. There is nothing he can point to currently putting the President in a favorable light. The same goes for the President and the Democratic party’s agenda. Nothing positive is promised until years in the future with the expectation it can be passed and the sham will not be noticed for years.

With all this President Obama continues the spin strategy of politics.

Going into year two, political strategists expect the president to re-center himself Wednesday as a hard-fighting, bank-busting, Obama-on-your-side jobs president, while acknowledging the hiccups in getting to this point.

At the State of the Union, the state of the presidency may be the question that most needs answering.

“It’s going to be jobs, jobs, jobs. Economy, economy, economy,” said Democratic strategist Joe Trippi. “Year two’s gonna be this guy.”

And when that doesn’t work it will be some other guy. The never ending campaign continues.

Now, he is taking a more populist approach - focusing on the day-to-day issues that create money woes for many families.

He says it is part of an effort to show the administration cares about workers who are struggling to pay their bills or have anxieties about losing their jobs.

An entire year goes by before the tranformational President of hope and change recognizes the economy and jobs are the largest concern for voters. How reassuring.

Jan. 25 (Bloomberg) — President Barack Obama will propose a three-year freeze on federal spending outside of national security to save an estimated $250 billion over a decade as part of an effort to rein in record deficits, administration officials said.

Let’s see. Push a New Deal, eighty year liberal pursuit of the nanny state holy grail of government-run healthcare at 2 1/2 trillion dollars and then suggest a pultry $250 billion savings over the same time period as a new agenda strategy. It is remarkable his ratings are quoted at only down to about 50%. There must be a considerable number of people in favor of more job killing entitlements.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

“Anyone who isn’t insured, we bump their pay up. They go through the Connector,” he said, referring to the state agency that connects residents with health plans.Massachusetts is the only state that requires universal health coverage, although there are exceptions. About 97 percent of residents are insured.

Coakley provides coverage for her workers.

Brown said his 12 campaign staffers are independent contractors - which also allows him to avoid payroll taxes - and most were already insured.

At first glance it may have appeared to Martha Coakley that exploiting information about Scott Brown’s campaign staffers was a smart move. If that’s the case she should have taken a second look. While the item above is a brief report from the Boston Herald’s Jessica Fargen more attention is paid to Brown’s staffers than Coakley’s. The focus is on how Brown’s staffers are covered and reference to the infamous MA universal healthcare plan passed by the liberal legislature and signed by then Governor Mitt Romney. All it says about Coakley’s staffers is that Coakley provides coverage. So does Brown.

Is Coakley drawing a comparison between Taxachusetts universal healthcare mandates and those currently on the table in Washington? Even if that was not the intent it is the effect. Everyone under Demcare will be required to have health insurance. And the choices available to employers and employees will be similarly limited. The only thing that won’t be limited is what we have to pay for it.

In the case of Scott Brown’s staffers they chose to work for his campaign. Those who did not have coverage had their pay increased and followed the options under the state’s healthcare mandates. Of course the report does not provide the details on the coverage for Coakley’s staffers for comparison. But you have to ask yourself the question. Given the sad state of affairs with Martha Coakley’s liberal senate campaign why would she choose this pathetic attempt to make healthcare an issue in Massachusetts? With most Democrats uneasy about reform and the vast majority of voters downright angry about it Coakley’s choice here may explain her lagging in the polls.

One last note on the story deserves attention. Brown’s campaign staffers just like Coakley’s did not sign up for a permanent campaign job. Regardless of the outcome on January 19th some will transition to new jobs with the victor while others will move on to something else. It is not likely that health insurance was a high priority in their decision to participate.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Clinton, like many who’ve studied the health-care bills, has problems with them. But to steal an Obama line, don’t let the perfect stand in the way of the good. We can either get a toe in the reform door now and fix things as we go along - like we fixed every piece of major legislation ever passed. Or we can “go back to the drawing board,” as Brown says, which means: Forget about it.

Whether the special election in Taxachusetts for Ted Kennedy’s vacant seat is about broader issues or simply political math for healthcare reform the piece above from the Boston Herald touts the liberal spin and perhaps unknowingly makes an argument against it.

Conceding the ability to produce a ‘perfect’ bill right now but fixing it later is how we get into problems with entitlements. Three quarters of the budget in recent years and probably longer is spending on entitlements. Social security, Medicare and Medicaid are unsustainable. This is what the liberal agenda has given us since FDR.

It’s natural that citizens who did not voluntarily contribute to these programs through payroll deductions expect to receive the benefits after a lifetime of paying for them. There in lies the rub. The liberal agenda is patient. They try to convince the public their agenda is in the public interest. Over time the cost goes up and the benefits go down but the government gets bigger and the political power is secure. Too bad the same cannot be said for your future or that of your children.

‘Like we fixed every major piece of legislation ever passed.’ Does it really seem to you right now that anyone EVER fixed entitlements? Touching the third rail of politics causes political suicide. So all POLS can muster is ignoring the problems all together or continuing to raise taxes and reduce benefits to pay for programs that are simply not feasible.

Martha Coakley would tow the party line abusing majority status to heap more liabilities on American taxpayers in the name of reform. At least Scott Brown offers a chance to correct the problems and pursue reasoned solutions to critical issues. We cannot continue to spend money we don’t have. That is part of what caused the issues we face now…. spending what we don’t have.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

What’s the single largest problem with passing healthcare reform in one of its current versions or proposals in Congress? The funding of currently proposed legislation for healthcare reform starts almost immediately if passed. Whether you can keep your current coverage may begin to change in as little as one year. But the reform part, good, bad or ugly does not begin until 2014.

Start paying for reform as soon as any legislation passes but wait for any perceived benefit for four years. The most troubling issue with that condition is Congress can continue to alter the game after initial passage and make ‘reform’ worse than it is right now as the public loses interest over time. If you review most legislation that moves through Congress that is what it does, alters previous legislation.

So your chances for any benefit from what proponents call reform starts with pay for no play and diminishes from there. Opponents of healthcare reform point to higher taxes, higher premiums and less choice on medical care. If they’re right, regardless of your opinion of reform, you stand to lose immediately by paying for what reform covers with no chance to benefit for at least four years. And your chances beyond that period of time are small.

So even if you live in Nebraska or Louisiana where Senators Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA) sold their yes votes on healthcare reform for Medicaid deals for their respective states, you lose. And even residents of those two states stand to lose over time regardless of initial perks for selling their votes. Another member of Congress, Rep Joseph Cao (R-LA) from the 2nd district sold his vote for healthcare on the mere promise from President Obama that he would help him with healthcare issues. Well, that’s the public version of what happened.

For something of a reality check on healthcare reform and its politics here is an excerpt and link to Kimberly A. Strassel’s take on the situation.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The Health Lady Has Yet to Sing

JANUARY 14, 2010, 10:35 P.M. ET
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL

Critics of the legislation shouldn’t get their hopes too high. The Democratic leadership is now clinically obsessed with passage. No first-round yes vote has yet jumped ship, and even if some do, Mrs. Pelosi has options. Prior no votes might be convinced that a more “moderate” Senate bill gives them cover to flip. Three no votes, including Tennessee’s John Tanner, are retiring, and may feel liberated. The White House no doubt has a list of plum jobs it can offer people as consolation prizes for voting yes and losing their seats.

The point is rather that there is now officially enough nervousness that anything can happen. Whatever the Tuesday election outcome, Mr. Brown already claims victory for rattling Democratic minds. And should he win, health care becomes even more toxic. This isn’t over yet.

Urge Democratic Leader to Comply with Open Government Act of 2007
Jan 12 2010

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., and Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., today joined 21 of their Senate Republican colleagues in signing a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., asking him to provide a list of all earmarks and congressional directed spending in the Senate health care bill, as well as in any future version of the health care bill that House and Senate Democrats might push to a vote.

Isakson and Chambliss have repeatedly criticized the lack of transparency throughout the process of drafting the $2.5 trillion health care bill, as well as the backroom deals that Reid made with certain Senate Democrats in order to secure their votes.

The text of the letter is below:

Dear Majority Leader Reid,

We write to express our concern over the inclusion of several provisions in the Manager’s Amendment to The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Since the nearly 400 page amendment was introduced, we discovered over half a dozen provisions that appear to have been included for the primary purpose of benefitting some states in particular. Though your office has referred to these provisions as “a normal part of the legislative process,” we are concerned that the inclusion of these items without appropriate disclosure may violate The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007.

The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-81) changed Senate rules to enhance transparency in the legislative process. The relevant change requires any amendment sponsor to publicly disclose each congressionally directed spending item and limited tax benefit included in that amendment. The design of this provision was to ensure that the American people know which lawmakers advocated for specific carve outs and earmarks.

It is clear that the Manager’s Amendment, in addition to the underlying bill, includes specific provisions which benefit some states and not others. We therefore ask you, as the sponsor of the Manager’s Amendment and underlying bill, to provide a list of all earmarks and congressional directed spending as required by The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. We request this information be shared with our offices and posted on the majority’s website within 24 hours.

Finally, we anticipate that in coming weeks you and Speaker Pelosi will introduce a bill combining the House and Senate health bills. Upon the introduction of that bill we request a similar list of provisions, as required by The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, be shared with our offices and posted on the majority’s website within 24 hours.

The American people deserve a transparent Congressional process. All Americans should know which States and entities will benefit from Congressional negotiations related to the health bills and amendments.

You gotta love the CBO. Okay, you don’t have to but they’re so cool they have been added to this blog’s resource list in the sidebar. Both the CBO and The Director’s Blog have a link. This reaction to the CBO could change at any time as with other links featured here. But certainly the work of the CBO in the current political climate deserves credit.

Both sides of the healthcare debate as well as other issues have frequently referred to the CBO’s analysis to make their case. But just like the one presented on this blog today you need to follow the link to make up your own mind and form an opinion.

The linked excerpts below highlight the business as usual aspects of the current healthcare debate on one aspect of the so-called reform. Proponents of the Democrats’ healthcare reform legislation love to say it will strengthen Medicare. Opponents, including this blog, say it will weaken it.

The title of the Director’s Blog post featured here describes the analysis presented. This particular one was published one day before Democrats in the Senate forced through ‘reform’ late at night on Christmas Eve.

Effects of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on the Federal Budget and the Balance in the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund

The permanent charade by politicians and program financing such as Medicare is highlighted in the next link.

The HI trust fund, like other federal trust funds, is essentially an accounting mechanism.

The effect of this accounting is explained as follows and again is nothing new.

However, because the government has used the cash from the trust fund surpluses to finance other current activities rather than saving the cash by running unified budget surpluses, the government as a whole has not been truly prefunding Medicare benefits.

Why this is important in the current debate is explained below.

Unified budget accounting shows that the majority of the HI trust fund savings would be used to pay for other spending under the PPACA and would not enhance the ability of the government to redeem the bonds credited to the trust fund to pay for future Medicare benefits.

Clearly, those suggesting current healthcare reform strengthens Medicare are WRONG. With Social Security and Medicare and probably with the remainder of the staggering three fourths of the annual budget which is entitlements, it is all smoke and mirrors. But CBO was polite enough to simply call it an accounting mechanism. After pressure applied by the White House on the CBO it is understandable. That’s another reason CBO is cool.

This is not new or some sort of revelation. If one reviews the experience of government programs, the legislation that causes it as well as modifying it from time to time one fact remains clear. The costs always exceed the forecasts. Certainly at the outset Social Security and Medicare were never predicted to become insolvent. Nor were their proponents suggesting a continuous increase in the taxes needed to keep them from going broke.

The same applies to current healthcare reform. As an example, the CBO often reminds the public about the limitations of its analysis. Projecting outcomes over a ten year analysis has some uncertainty but appears manageable. However, analysis beyond the initial ten year window is all but meaningless. The variables of what may happen over that much time are too difficult to predict. No one can take into account all the events that may happen by then. Including more meddling by politicians that always occurs.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

As the Democrat parade assembled this week for a five minute news conference on healthcare with giddy exuberance Speaker Pelosi dodged real questions on the issue. Sharing her giddiness as well as offering no substance to the discussion were the committee chairs from the House. Rangel, Waxman, Miller and Slaughter are Pelosi’s expendable accomplices.

At the time it appeared reasonable to visit the websites of the fearful foursome to review their respective positions on the matter. Because this blogger has less familiarity with George Miller of CA the review started with him.

After a few clicks to view various items related to the subject the last stop illuminated the puppet mentality of the four. Miller had what first appeared as a generous list of resources for review sporting titles that indicate a group of summarized and detailed references on healthcare legislation.

The most appealing referred to a list of those who support the legislation. Given every major and not so major poll for months has indicated most Americans oppose the legislation one could hardly resist taking a look.

Not a surprise that the link merely redirects one to Speaker Pelosi’s website. The list of supporters is dominated by labor unions and other special interests and agendas yet to be determined here.

One example of the support from a source unknown to this blogger stood out. Pay particular attention to the quote in the excerpt below that includes the word ‘ensure’. Then read the excerpt from the CBO director.

Barbara Kennelly, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare
“The Affordable Health Care for America Act includes substantial benefits, improvements, and protections that are very important to our members…

“Contrary to the rhetoric heard from opponents, this bill does not cut Medicare; rather it includes provisions to ensure that we are receiving high quality care and the best value for our Medicare dollars.” [10/29/09]

from the CBO Director on November 18, 2009
Based on the extrapolation described above, CBO expects that Medicare spending under the bill would increase at an average annual rate of roughly 6 percent during the next two decades—well below the roughly 8 percent annual growth rate of the past two decades (excluding the effect of establishing the Medicare prescription drug benefit). Adjusting for inflation, Medicare spending per beneficiary under the bill would increase at an average annual rate of roughly 2 percent during the next two decades—much less than the roughly 4 percent annual growth rate of the past two decades. Whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care is unclear.

To emphasize the folly of either side of the debate suggesting absolute conclusions the more reasoned approach is found in the CBO Director’s letter to Harry Reid and repeated below:

Whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care is unclear.

The single feature of healthcare reform that was to garner support from one and all focused on the spiraling costs and reducing them. To bend the cost curve downward was a familiar expression over many months. There is no convincing evidence to support that notion in proposed legislation.

That collection of revenue for either the House or Senate version of healthcare reform would start in 2010 yet no claimed improvements would begin before 2014 should send up red flags for any observer. It’s the classic sucker punch from politicians. Pass legislation that increases revenue (taxes) immediately and promise outlays (expenditures) related to the revenue (taxes) at some point years in the future. This avoids the nasty repercussions of accountability by wearing down the public’s attention span as well as cementing bad policy and legislation for years to come.

It’s really simple math. Social security, Medicare and Medicaid are unsustainable programs. The only way to balance the books is increase revenue (taxes) or cut outlays (expenditures) or both.

Some of those supporting as well as some of those opposing currently proposed healthcare reform legislation do so for personal gain. They have chosen a position based on their own situation and not yours. The rest of us would like things to improve but have little confidence the current proposals will help. The speed of the process suggests those in the majority in Congress, etc., want passage before the scam completely falls apart. That’s another one of those red flags you should have noticed. Ignore them at your own peril (and unfortunately the peril of your fellow citizens)

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Dec 24 2009