Blog @ 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.

The Dems were giddy in a news confernence this week on their healthcare scam. The GOP is giddy about their chances in 2010. Pundit claims are all over the map. But all POLS should be concerned about what would make American citizens giddy. Those who do may actually win in the next election cycle. Scott Brown is hopefully one of those who will win.

As the piece below explains with some authority even sources in the MSM are taking notice and perhaps offering some reasonable coverage on the topic. (don’t get excited yet)

Some Folks Are Strangely Enjoying the Boston Globe These Days

One of the recurring questions from Massachusetts readers is why the Boston Globe’s coverage of the Senate race in that state is so . . . good, and reasonable, and fair, and perhaps even laudatory to Republican Scott Brown lately. It defies their expectations; here’s the beginning of a profile of Brown from today:

Taxachusetts is a blue state no doubt. The Kennedy clan has dominated the political machine there for years as the letter to the editor below points out. But maybe not all residents are dyed-in-the-wool liberals. And even some on the left may see value in Scott Brown winning the special election to fill the vacancy left by the passing of Ted Kennedy.

Vote for real change Jan. 19
To the Editor:

The special election on Jan. 19 will mark a historic political moment here in the commonwealth of Massachusetts.

For the first time since 1953, it will actually be OK if the fellow named Kennedy doesn’t win.

So now is the perfect opportunity to actually bring some long overdue change to that Senate seat. And it is past time to take a hard look at the same old corrupt political maneuvering that has been the ongoing story of Democrat Party politics here in the Bay State.

The majority of the MSM attention to this special election focused on endorsements for Martha Coakley of course featuring that of Vicki Kennedy. But it may be the other endorsements that Coakley has received that should bothersome? Or do liberals in the blue state of MA support the corruption of ACORN as well?

Coakley’s skeletons…..

The Democratic candidate, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, was one of only six attorneys general to receive a grade of A+ from ACORN in 2008. In her news release, Ms. Coakley said, “I am honored to have received this recognition from ACORN.”

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

update:

Earlier this week polls showed Scott Brown only trailing Coakley by nine points.  That was good news.  Here’s some even better news….

Bombshell: Brown leads Coakley in MA Senate race; Update: Globe poll shows Coakley up 15 (Michelle Malkin)

Two shining examples of elected Representatives in the House allowing their votes to be bought for so-called health reform are Bart Stupak and Joseph Cao. A pair in the Senate likewise demonstrate the 60 vote fraud that is the Democratic party’s reform, Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson.

After a brief review of manager’s amendment of Senate Majority Leader and vote buyer (with your money) Harry Reid a search of the vague and openended legislative item produced 19 references to abortion. From instances of where federal funding is prohibited for abortions to where it is allowed and various provisions demonstrating differences between federal and state wiggle room on the topic Reid’s back room deals are a masterpiece of arrogance and ignoring public opposition to this bill.

One might not expect provisions regarding firearms possession and similar items within a bill on health reform but that merely emphasizes the culture of corruption in Washington and a common description in most legislation allowing ‘and for other purposes’ to cover any deal POLS make.

Here are a few less contentious references to the Harry Reid manager’s amendment.

There are arrangements for using an arbitrary percentage to determine among other things rebates to premium payers under certain circumstances.

from the amendment….

In determining the percentages under paragraph (1), a State shall seek to ensure adequate participation by health insurance issuers, competition in the health insurance market in the State, and value for consumers so that premiums are used for clinical services and quality improvements.

‘‘(3) ENFORCEMENT.—The Secretary shall promulgate regulations for enforcing the provisions of this section and may provide for appropriate penalties.

Sure, the public sector, aka, your government will ’seek to ensure’ participation, competition and value for the consumer in a role in which it has never succeeded. But you can bet they will come up with penalties. After all, what a better way to raise more revenue from the private sector to waste on more governmet interference. It’s like you paying a thief to rob you.

On the issue of more bureaucracy and more waste comes another

‘‘(d) MEDICAL REIMBURSEMENT DATA CENTERS.— ‘‘(1) FUNCTIONS.—A center established under
subsection (c)(1)(C) shall— ‘‘(A) develop fee schedules and other database tools that fairly and accurately reflect market rates for medical services and the geographic differences in those rates;

The devil’s in the details…..

‘‘(B) use the best available statistical methods and data processing technology to develop such fee schedules and other database tools; ‘‘(C) regularly update such fee schedules and other database tools to reflect changes in charges for medical services;
‘‘(D) make health care cost information readily available to the public through an Internet website that allows consumers to understand the amounts that health care providers in their area charge for particular medical services; and ‘‘(E) regularly publish information concerning the statistical methodologies used by the center to analyze health charge data and make such data available to researchers and policy makers.
‘‘(2) CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.—A center established under subsection (c)(1)(C) shall adopt by laws that ensures that the center (and all members of the governing board of the center) is independent and free from all conflicts of interest. Such bylaws shall ensure that the center is not controlled or influenced by, and does not have any corporate relation to, any individual or entity that may make or receive payments for health care services based on the center’s analysis of health care costs.
‘‘(3) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to permit a center established under subsection (c)(1)(C) to compel health insurance issuers to provide data to the center.’’.

And one tiny example of how YOUR government will raise costs not only on established transactions but new ones.

‘‘(e) STANDARD HOSPITAL CHARGES.—Each hospital operating within the United States shall for each year establish (and update) and make public (in accordance with guidelines developed by the Secretary) a list of the hospital’s standard charges for items and services provided
by the hospital, including for diagnosisrelated groups established under section 886(d)(4) of the Social Security Act.’’.

And that is after less than an hour reviewing Harry Reid’s manager’s amendment. Which brings to mind the often stated criticism that few if any in Congress have read the bill or anything related to it. Yet they are content to pass it with sixty liberal Senate votes. You have to ask yourself why?

It’s all about money and power and has nothing to do with reform of anything.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Much has been made of Senator Ben Nelson ‘holding up’ the Dems on passing scam health reform. Could it be that Senator Nelson simply wants stuff for his vote? Is this any different than Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid buying Senator Mary Landrieu’s vote or Obama buying Cao’s vote? That includes the bogus Stupak Amendment in the House. So what does Senator Ben Nelson say in his own press release on the topic?

NELSON COMMENTS ON ABORTION COMPROMISE

December 17, 2009 – Today, Nebraska’s Senator Ben Nelson praised provisions in an abortion compromise adding new teen pregnancy initiatives and tax credits for adoption, while saying that the language working to ban public funding of abortion is not sufficient at this point.

Senator Nelson said today a proposed compromise he’s studied does not yet ensure that a longstanding federal standard barring public funding of abortion would be maintained in the Senate health care bill the Senate has been debating this month.

Nelson said without further improvements the compromise is not sufficient.

“The compromise adds important new initiatives addressing teen pregnancy and tax credits to help with adoptions,” Senator Nelson said. “These are valuable improvements that will make a positive difference and promote life. But as it is, without modifications, the language concerning abortion is not sufficient.”

Senator Nelson reiterated that he will not be able to support a cloture motion needing 60 votes to end debate on the underlying Senate bill if certain language in the bill remains. The existing language allows public funds to pay for abortion, thus relaxing the longstanding Hyde amendment.

He said today that he is open to looking at additional attempts to maintain the federal restriction on public funding of abortion.

###

If Ben Nelson is so concerned about abortion, where is his concern, outrage or even mention of the following:

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE

THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

SUBJECT: Mexico City Policy and Assistance for Voluntary Population Planning

The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151b(f)(1)), prohibits nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that receive Federal funds from using those funds “to pay for the performance of abortions as a method of family planning, or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions.” The August 1984 announcement by President Reagan of what has become known as the “Mexico City Policy” directed the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to expand this limitation and withhold USAID funds from NGOs that use non-USAID funds to engage in a wide range of activities, including providing advice, counseling, or information regarding abortion, or lobbying a foreign government to legalize or make abortion available. The Mexico City Policy was in effect from 1985 until 1993, when it was rescinded by President Clinton. President George W. Bush reinstated the policy in 2001, implementing it through conditions in USAID grant awards, and subsequently extended the policy to “voluntary population planning” assistance provided by the Department of State.

These excessively broad conditions on grants and assistance awards are unwarranted. Moreover, they have undermined efforts to promote safe and effective voluntary family planning programs in foreign nations. Accordingly, I hereby revoke the Presidential memorandum of January 22, 2001, for the Administrator of USAID (Restoration of the Mexico City Policy), the Presidential memorandum of March 28, 2001, for the Administrator of USAID (Restoration of the Mexico City Policy), and the Presidential memorandum of August 29, 2003, for the Secretary of State (Assistance for Voluntary Population Planning). In addition, I direct the Secretary of State and the Administrator of USAID to take the following actions with respect to conditions in voluntary population planning assistance and USAID grants that were imposed pursuant to either the 2001 or 2003 memoranda and that are not required by the Foreign Assistance Act or any other law: (1) immediately waive such conditions in any current grants, and (2) notify current grantees, as soon as possible, that these conditions have been waived. I further direct that the Department of State and USAID immediately cease imposing these conditions in any future grants.

This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
The Secretary of State is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE, January 23, 2009.

That’s right! With each successive change in presidential administration in the US the abortion tennis match continues. When a Republican occupies the White House the Mexico City Policy is reinstated. When a Democrat occupies the White House it is rescinded. So where’s your concern about that Mr Nelson?

Another item related to the never ending abortion debate is the Hyde Amendment. It captures the conservative compromise on the topic. Agreeing to certain limited uses of abortion for circumstances that do not demonstrate abortion’s usage as contraception for dummies.

reference to The Hyde Amendment…..

H.AMDT.185 (A008)
Amends: H.R.2518
Sponsor: Rep Hyde, Henry J. [IL-6] (offered 6/30/1993)AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
An amendment to prohibit the use of any funds appropriated in the bill for any abortion except, when it is necessary to save the life of the mother or when the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.

POPULAR TITLE(S):
Hyde Amendment (identified by CRS)

STATUS:

6/30/1993 3:00pm:

Amendment (A008) offered by Mr. Hyde.

6/30/1993 3:26pm:

On agreeing to the Hyde amendment (A008) Agreed to by recorded vote: 255 - 178 (Roll no. 307).

6/30/1993 3:28pm:

Mr. Armey demanded a separate vote on the Hyde amendment (A008).

6/30/1993 4:00pm:

On agreeing to the Hyde amendment (A008) Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 256 - 171 (Roll no. 309).

And even though one could make a reasonable argument in support of the Hyde Amendment there are othe equally reasonable arguments to the contrary. Meaning those who face the above challenges still have other choices albeit problematic ones.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Another sneaky Saturday in the Senate — and Teddy K’s ghost rises again (Michelle Malkin) 

If you are not motivated to pour over thousands of pages of legislation to determine for yourself how healthcare reform will affect you here’s an alternative. On October 29, 2009 Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi unveiled the latest bill aimed at passage in the House of Representatives in order to pursue President Obama’s political agenda. Her announcement reflected in a press release available on her website provides insight into an impossible dream.

According to Pelosi……

“This is why this legislation is important: affordability for our middle-class that lower costs for every patient, reins in premiums, co-pays, and deductibles, limits out of pocket costs, and lifts the cap on what insurance companies cover each year.

Translation::

Every item in the quote above suggests the cost to the patient for healthcare will be reduced or limited from whatever it is now. If the patient is not going to pay the increasing costs for their own healthcare, who will? You might want the answer to that question. And even if you believe the insurance companies are the villains as the liberals suggest, you cannot be so naive as to think there are no legitimate costs to providing healthcare insurance. And those costs are rising.

If you do nothing to lower the actual cost of providing healthcare how do you lower the cost to the patient? You get someone else to pay it for them. And that may include the patient themselves in terms of new taxes on their income, etc. In addition, if you expect the insurance company to absorb the increasing costs of healthcare with no mechanism for actually lowering the costs, they will go out of business.

Another claim by Pelosi…..

“That said, the bill is fiscally sound. It will not add one dime to the deficit as it expands coverage, implements key insurance reforms, and promotes prevention and wellness across the health system. The bill will expand coverage, including a public option to boost choice and competition in the health insurance reform.

Translation:

The key here is Pelosi claims it will ‘expand coverage’ and yet magically ‘not add one dime to the deficit’. So the Speaker claims costs will be reduced for patients and coverage will be expanded yet there will be no increase in the deficit. You have to ask yourself how that is possible? She says reform will ‘rein in premiums, co-pays and deductibles’. Out of pocket expenses will be lowered and insurance coverage will be expanded. How does she do that without someone else to pay for it? The math does not work. And don’t think for a minute that the wealthy in this country can cover the entire tab for what the liberals propose.

And yet another claim by Pelosi…..

“Good morning. It is with great pride and with great humility that we come before you to follow in the footsteps of those who gave our country Social Security and then Medicare, and now universal, quality, affordable health care for all Americans.

This may be the only true statement in the Speaker’s press release. Remember how Congress dealt with Social Security and Medicare in terms of the budget. Sometimes it was on the budget. And sometimes it was off budget. The reason was its drag on government accounting. As the baby boom grew the population and the ratio of those paying for benefits versus those receiving benefits headed toward insolvency. Deficits were hidden by taking the costs off budget.

What? You thought Nancy could make the costs go away by waving her magic wand?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

source: http://speaker.house.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=1424

As the healthcare debate drags on more questions are raised than answered. Perhaps good news for drug companies and bad news for the insurance industry. The partisan bill and vote in the Senate Finance Committee last week may lead to a rewrite this week. The last estimate on the cost of the bill was over $800 billion. And about the only sure thing is that it will cost taxpayers more money. Covering uninsured with tax credits and expanding Medicaid will raise tax bills for the rest of us.

If mandates from Congress force insurers to payout more claims with lower premiums anyone’s math should arrive at the obvious conclusion. Politicians will dictate who wins and who loses yet they have the audacity syndrome to label insurance companies as the villains. Simply because they oppose the idea of losses created by Congress.

One self-proclaimed winner from so-called healthcare reform is from David Snow of Medco Health Solutions, Inc. You may find it interesting to follow the Merck spinoff history of this company. There are those who would say the history of Merck and Medco Health Solutions produced a dark cloud in the trustworthy department. That may raise more issues about the winners and losers in reform.

The ten year eighty billion dollar plan between the White House and Big Pharma is as suspect as the Obama Administration’s claim that the insurance industry opposition to reform is ’smoke and mirrors’. The White House should use those mirrors to check their own claims in the debate.

Read the WSJ piece referenced below to arm yourself with more information for the battle in the weeks ahead. And if you think it is alright for insurers to get beat down by politicians with healthcare reform stop to think who else stands to lose. That might be another job for one of those mirrors mentioned earlier.

CEOs Tally Health-Bill Score
Drug Makers and Hospitals Figure to Benefit, While Insurers Brace for a Big Hit

The drug industry stands to gain in a health-care overhaul by getting tens of millions of newly insured customers, while insurance companies — especially those that cater to the individual market — look like they are in for a tougher time.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Here comes a rare but necessary crticism for the GOP from this blog. It starts with a review of a recent news story about tort reform. Congressional budget analysts said Friday that lawmakers could save as much as $54 billion over the next decade by imposing an array of new limits on medical malpractice lawsuits — 10 times more than previously estimated. A paltry $54 billion over ten years when the smallest estimates of reform will be near a trillion dollars? And this is a tenfold increase in previous estimates on the tort reform savings?

The idea that a Senate version of BaucusCare would save 80 some billion dollars over ten years was laughable. And this is less. So that would make it more laughable.

New report boosts backers of lawsuit reform
Fri Oct 9, 2009
By Donna Smith

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Limiting medical malpractice lawsuits could save the U.S. government $54 billion over a decade, congressional budget analysts said on Friday in a report that could boost a Republican push to include lawsuit reform in President Barack Obama’s healthcare overhaul.

How does this news boost ‘backers of lawsuit reform’? Sure, you could make the case that a five percent savings here and a five percent savings there could add up to serious money. The nagging problem is the estimates provided by the CBO are understandably based on the information they are given at the time. So every time the proposals change so does the estimate. And as we all know, or should know, any legislation involving money coming out of Congress is subject to change. And that change typically includes the buyer’s remorse year’s later. Why, the costs always exceed the forecasts or estimates. It is not unusual for those cost overruns to exceed 8 to 10 times of the original proposals.

Another dumb report comes from the LA Times…..

Medical malpractice reform savings would be small, report says

Medical malpractice reform is unlikely to cut healthcare spending significantly, the Congressional Budget Office reported Friday.

Enacting a cap on pain-and-suffering and punitive damages, changing liability laws and tightening the statute of limitations on malpractice claims would lower total healthcare spending by about one-half of 1% each year — $11 billion at the current level — according to an estimate by the nonpartisan agency.

The highest ten year cost estimates typically associated with healthcare reform are around a trillion dollars and some have reached as high as $2 trillion. BaucusCare came in recently at around $800 billion. To make it easier, assume a ten year cost of one trillion dollars.or 100 billion per year. The 54 billion dollar ten year tort reform savings would be 5.4 billion per year. That is about five percent per year not one-half of one percent.

The point is, if you have a five or ten percent savings overall with one or two aspects of healthcare reform it does little to reduce costs. Find eight or ten of these five percent savings and you’re talking serious improvements. The problem is finding them and keeping them effective over the life of the legislation. The amount by which tax increases and lmited options for consumers would change as reality hits reform over time would surely cancel any current estimates of benefit.

Sorry folks, both GOP and Dems will not be able to make this thing work. The best they can do is keep their hands off healthcare.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Time to ratchet up contact to your elected reps. As the healthcare reform saga continues in the nation’s capital those in the majority confirm the loyal opposition is not the party of ‘no’ but the only ones trying to eliminate insane portions of current proposals in Congress.

Senate Republicans on Wednesday failed in their bids to strengthen provisions to prevent both taxpayer funding of abortions and illegal immigrants from obtaining access to government tax credits in the health care reform bill.

There you go. Taxpayer funding of abortions and opening the door wider for illegals to obtain more healthcare services meaning billions of public funds will extend benefits to those who are citizens of a country other than the United States. This improves healthcare for Americans how?

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, hoping to cull support for his reform proposal, told Democrats he’s open to reworking some of the new taxes in the bill, including the tax on high-valued insurance plans

Harry Reid and company have the task of reconciling two Senate committee bills before they reach the Senate floor next week. How is that going to happen based on the markup process that has been the longest in fifteen years? Rather than proposing legislation that would benefit Americans across the board there is a mix of takeaways and givebacks to accommodate the political agendas of various politicians. There is no way this so-called reform will improve healthcare in the United States. But it will raise taxes.

The only certain outcome of liberal healthcare reform is more taxes and less control for individuals over their healthcare decisions. Each version proposed in Congress has come with a slightly lower estimate on costs over the life of the legislation. Based on previous experience with government forecasts for government programs with the possible exception of the CBO indicate the actual costs will exceed any current estimates. The CBO can only predict based on information available at the time and since the various versions change on an almost daily basis that task is made nearly impossible. You can be sure it will cost more than anyone will tell you now.

More taxes, spending, deficits and national debt totals that will only benefit those not paying the bills as well as forcing taxpayers to cover the cost of many items that they oppose. There is simply no benefit to current healthcare reform proposals except for those making them. It’s a political power grab and a dangerous game to play given mounting debt and financial uncertainty. The money to pay for it does not come out of the sky but the pockets of Americans who simply cannot afford more expense during a recession. Nor can they afford to pass this debt on to their children and grandchildren. Especially when those future generations will likely gain nothing from the massive expense.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Democrat Sen. Tom Carper: Read the bill? Are you kidding me! (Michelle Malkin)

Upbeat Conservative News, Dems Don’t Understand Health Bill

Below are three reactions on Paul Kirk replacing the late Ted Kennedy in the US Senate until a January special election takes place. Following the three expected sentiments from the President, Senate Majority Leader and House Speaker is a more enlightening analysis of one, Paul Kirk.

Statement by The President on The Appointment of Paul Kirk as US Senator From Massachusetts

“I am pleased that Massachusetts will have its full representation in the United States Senate in the coming months, as important issues such as health care, financial reform and energy will be debated. Paul Kirk is a distinguished leader, whose long collaboration with Senator Kennedy makes him an excellent, interim choice to carry on his work until the voters make their choice in January.”

Reid Reaction To Interim Appointment Of Paul Kirk To Vacant Massachusetts Senate Seat

Washington, DC—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid released the following statement upon the news that Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts has designated Paul Kirk as the interim successor to the late Senator Ted Kennedy:

“Ted Kennedy’s impact will endure for the life of this body and his values will continue to serve as a guiding principle for those of us who served with him. But as Senator Kennedy would say, ‘the work goes on,’ and today’s news of Paul Kirk’s appointment ensures that the commonwealth of Massachusetts will have an effective advocate as they await the results of the special election in January.

“As a former staffer and associate of Sen. Kennedy and member of the board of directors for the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation, Paul Kirk embodies the values of Sen. Kennedy. He also has a long-standing appreciation of the issues that matter to the great people of Massachusetts. I look forward to welcoming Mr. Kirk as he works with Sen. Kerry to represent Massachusetts in the Senate.

“Governor Patrick made a wise, thoughtful choice by naming Paul Kirk as an interim successor to Sen. Kennedy. I also appreciate the diligent work of the Massachusetts Senate and House leadership for understanding the importance of securing full representation for Massachusetts in the United States Senate.”

Pelosi Statement on Appointment of Paul Kirk to Vacant Massachusetts Senate Seat

Washington, D.C. — Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement after Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts announced that he has appointed Paul Kirk as the interim successor to the late Senator Ted Kennedy:

“Paul Kirk will be a voice of reason and passion in the United States Senate. His belief in public service and commitment to the causes of social justice, equality, and opportunity for every American make him an outstanding choice to carry on the torch of Senator Ted Kennedy.

“Paul Kirk will be an effective advocate for the people of Massachusetts, and I look forward to welcoming him to Congress and working with him to advance the cause of health care for all, energy independence, and economic growth in the coming months.”

And now for the enlightening analysis…..

Barack Obama has a narrative he likes for his health-care fight: Obama, on behalf of sick people and the whole economy, battles the well-funded special interests who profit from the status quo while his opponents spread lies.

But there’s another narrative being told by the facts most of the media ignore, and Paul Kirk could provide the awkward punctuation:

Obama is fighting to subsidize health insurers and drug companies, is cutting deals with drug lobbyists, and now his ally Deval Patrick has brought in a revolving-door drug-industry lobbyist to hit the game-winning RBI.

You really should read the rest of this piece. Click on the highlighted text above to go to the full story.

It is still a time where we need to voice public opposition to the corruption in our nation’s capital. More events like 912dc and the tea parties across the country are the order of the day. Paul Kirk is one more special interest lobbyist that the Messiah in Chief claimed would be a thing of the past. It is another vindication for Joe Wilson’s phrase ‘you lie’. Lies are all that appear to be coming out of Washington DC.

How can so-called healthcare reform legislation be anything but corrupt when corruption is all that is producing it?

At the very least, contact your elected reps and express your disatisfaction including advance notice of your vote against them in 2010.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

A former aide to Senator Max Baucus and current acting-Director at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Jonathan Blum, has complied with a request by his former boss to investigate insurance companies. President Obama appointed Jonathan Blum and it appears he is faithfully silencing opposition to the Baucus efforts to produce a Senate version of the failing House healthcare reform package.

The investigation resulted in a letter being sent to Humana and, say sources on Capitol Hill, other health insurers who have a fiduciary relationship with CMS that imposes an industry-wide “gag order” ordering a halt to any additional mailings and effectively prevents companies from communicating with their customers about the impact of any pending healthcare reform legislation.

Efforts to quash transparency and accountability are not lost on Democrats in Congress.

Obama and the Democrats have not, however, governed as they campaigned. Openness and transparency exist in theory and talking points, not in practice.

We saw another example Wednesday afternoon, as Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee almost unanimously voted to defeat an amendment offered by retiring G.O.P. Kentucky Republican Sen. Jim Bunning to require that the exact language of any health care legislation—and the bill’s cost estimate—be placed on the committee’s website seventy-two hours before a final vote in committee.

What’s the big deal you ask? The House version of healthcare reform is a disaster. Congress had thought they could go to the August recess to gain support for government-run healthcare in their home districts.

What they found was something quite different. Unlike many in Congress, the folks who turned out for the these events had actually read the bill—in this case H.R. 3200, the healthcare reform package pushed forward by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., and her leadership team. And, having read the bill, the critics of Obamacare were able to slice through the arguments in favor of it like a chain saw slicing through a barrel of fish.

Democrats in the United States Senate, however, are apparently not as naïve as their colleagues on the other side of the Capitol. They are pushing ahead with reform legislation fully intent on keeping it away from the prying eyes of the American people, if that’s what it takes.

If you haven’t read the version of America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009 currently available and the Chairman’s mark, etc., a subsequent post on this blog will address that topic. And if you believe that health ‘insurance’ reform in Congress will be a good thing you qualify as ’sheeple’. There is nothing about this episode in government-run reform that will be any better than the failures in the past…. those rejected or those that became law.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The Democrats and other liberals, not the least of which is President Obama, want government-run healthcare. The rhetoric from liberals will describe it differently but that is politics. Not much different from the shell game players can never win. Tell the public nirvana is under one of the shells and take their money. When the public complains they have been taken, offer them another chance to pick the winning shell.

The House bill HR 3200 was the first chance at picking the winning shell. An outrageous shell game that met with public anger. Enter the Senate. If the public was not happy with that shell game outcome offer them another one. Republicans opposed the House bill. As evidenced by the August recess town halls and tea parties plus the 912 march on Washington there was much public outrage over this and other government meddling. American business was not pleased by this turn of events either. Then comes this report.

SEPTEMBER 25, 2009

Overhaul Divides Business and Its Traditional GOP Allies
By NEIL KING JR.

WASHINGTON — Business is parting from its traditional allies in the Republican Party on health care as companies and big corporate lobbyists lend tentative support to a congressional overhaul that conservative lawmakers staunchly oppose.

How can this be you say? Let’s not forget that business is populated by, go figure, humans. That may come as a surprise to some but it is true. And business people can pander just like every one else. You’ve heard of special interest? Everyone is a special interest. They have their own special interest at heart. That is the problem. That is why we have a debate on healthcare.

Everyone has their own way of doing things and wants to continue that trend. The problem is if we keep doing things the same way we cannot expect a different outcome. Some credit that sentiment to Albert Einstein and some to Barack Obama. But it is a reasonable statement. The problem with those who favor more government intervention especially in healthcare refuse to change their ways.

“We are now at a crisis point,” said Joe Olivo, who has struggled to keep up with rising health costs as the president of Perfect Printing Inc., a 40-employee printing company in Moorestown, N.J.

Mr. Olivo is apprehensive about many proposed Democratic fixes, above all the push to create a government-run insurance program. But he said he was also “disappointed that the Republicans don’t seem to be at the table at all.”

Apparently Mr Olivo doesn’t pay attention to politics. Mr Olivo, the GOP is not allowed at the table. When you have a Democratic party majority in Congress and a Democrat in the White House bipartisanship is code for acquiesce. The Dems will only allow consent from the GOP. Any opposition to the liberal healthcare plan will be squashed. Even some Dems are opposed to the plans. There are reports indicating Dems leadership has demanded other Dems who oppose the plan to comply or else and ‘reconciliation’ is the budget tactic that will be used to enforce compliance or ignore opposition.

If the business community is caving to the liberal takeover of healthcare they are just as guilty as anyone else who is pandering for a handout in healthcare. And all handouts are paid courtesy of the American taxpayer. In all likelihood if the business community caves on government-run healthcare they will do nothing to effect lowering costs and will suffer higher taxes. Not a smart business move.

The business world this summer largely recoiled from legislation put forward in the House, which would mandate that employers provide employee coverage and would create a public insurance option.

But companies have been far more receptive to the plan released last week by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus. The Baucus bill, which the committee is now busy amending, wouldn’t include an employer mandate. It proposes a national exchange where individuals and small businesses could purchase insurance.

Apparently some in the ‘business world’ have found a shell they are willing to bet on. Of course they forget odds are with the house in these matters. Biz will lose over the long term. It never fails when one gambles.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which represents about three million businesses of all sizes, has run television ads opposing the Democratic-led health-care push. And the chamber, like many other big business groups in Washington, has many concerns about the Baucus bill, particularly the taxes it proposes to help pay for its $774 billion Congressional Budget Office price tag over 10 years.

At least some businesses are still thinking and not quite pandering.

And if you think the Big Pharma deal the White House applauded earlier this year was some sort of endorsement by big business think again. Just like the K Strett money flowing to both parties it is hedging one’s bets. Big Pharma’s deal was no deal at all. $8 billion over ten years was a payment to continue sitting at the table not unlike campaign contributions. Compare the size.

Big Pharma’s 625 Washington Lobbyists In addition to an army of lobbyists Big Pharma spends an amount equal or greater than that proposed in their Obama deal. Ten years ago they spent over $500 million for related causes during one year alone. So $8 billion over ten years is not a departure from the norm.

Everyone talks of shared sacrifice. It is in the report referenced for this post. It is in Obama speeches. It is in just about everyone’s talking points. The problem is it is not in their actions. Until that happens no government-run healthcare meddling will solve anything but the liberal wet dream. If we keep doing as we have with our use of healthcare and how we provide it, nothing will change. Not even with the proposals hiding under those little shells.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

On the Nomination (Confirmation of Cass R. Sunstein, of MA, to be Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget )

The announcement above is from the US Senate and relates to, among other things, the popular discussion of President Obama and his appointment of ‘czars’ and other staff to his administration. No doubt as much dismissal of the process is uttered by liberal sources as concern about the process is voiced by the loyal opposition. So it all becomes a little silly. Or is it? Below is what appears to be an example of trying to dismiss the concern on the czar/appointee thing.

Get This Rat a Lawyer!

Glenn Beck says Cass Sunstein wants to give animals the right to sue humans. Really?
By Christopher Beam
Posted Monday, Sept. 14, 2009, at 8:49 PM ET

But, if you believe Fox News host Glenn Beck, it could happen here too.

Glenn Beck may be regarded as flamboyant by some critics or worse by left-leaning analysis. But he wasn’t wrong on the ACORN story was he? And he is correct on many things which means this blog is only leaving the door open in case he has been wrong on something. But when it comes to Cass Sunstein, the czar epidemic and the liberal response there is at least one evaluation of Mr Sunstein which is disturbing.

If Slate wants to downplay criticism of the Sunstein appointment it might be best to leave the whole thing alone. Even in their article referenced above they essentially agree that Sunstein believes animals have legal rights. And that leaves the door open for some really bizarre legal battles based on human history. Things could get out of hand considering humans EAT animals. Is there a need to say anymore on that topic?

What is of more concern regarding Cass Sunstein is the longer list of his publishing resume’. Of note is a book entitled, ‘ The Bill of Rights and the Modern State’, co-editor with Geoffey R. Stone and Richard A. Epstein, (University of Chicago Press 1992). One of Sunstein’s contributions to the book quotes Alexander Meiklejohn.

Meiklejohn is known as an advocate of first-amendment freedoms and was a member of the National Committee of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)

Meiklejohn was selected by John F. Kennedy to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom, which was presented by Lyndon B. Johnson shortly after Kennedy’s death.

Sunstein’s quote of Meiklejohn is presented below.

The radio as it now operates among us is not free. Nor is it entitled to the protection of the First Amendment. It is not engaged in the task of enlarging and enriching human communication. It is engaged in making money. And the First Amendment does not intend to guarantee men freedom to say what some private interest pays them to say for its own advantage.

The radio, as we now have it, is not cultivating those qualities of taste, of reasoned judgment, of integrity, of loyalty, of mutual understanding upon which the enterprise of self-government depends. It corrupts both our morals and our intelligence.

Sunstein proposes ‘a New Deal with respect to speech’, freedom of speech, that is. You know, the First Amendment. For those of you concerned about the Fairness Doctrine and the liberal agenda to shutdown talk radio. You’re not crazy. Here’s what Sunstein says.

It applies much of the reasoning of the New Deal attack on the common law to current questions of First Amendment law. Such an approach would produce significant changed in existing understandings of the nature of the free speech guarantee. It would call for a large scale revision in our view of when a law ‘abridges’ the freedom of speech. At a minimum, it would insist that many imaginable democratic interferences with the autonomy of broadcasters or newspapers are not ‘abridgments’ at all.

And more of what the left may care to ignore on any discussion of Cass Sunstein is the remainder of his publishing resume’ which includes the following selections:

The Second Bill of Rights: Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More Than Ever, (Basic Books 2006)

The Partial Constitution, (Harvard University Press 1993)

Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech, (The Free Press 1993)

Free Markets and Social Justice, (2002)

The Cost-Benefit State, (American Bar Association 2002)

Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts Are Wrong for America (Basic Books 2005)

After the Rights Revolution: Preconceiving the Regulatory State, (Harvard University Press 1990)

(end of list)

And the left would also like to dismiss that vast right wing conspiracy focused on the free speech threat of the Fairness Doctrine. Conservatives are more than a little concerned the current liberal majority has some sinister plans in mind that include destroying free speech and the remainder of the founding documents. Maybe all that talk of socialism is not so far fetched after all. Of course this blog never thought it was in the first place. The information above certainly supports that notion. But those of us who do not support the liberal agenda are labeled racists or Nazis or some other pejorative. Thanks libs.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

A relevant discussion of the 2008 US Prresidential election can draw comparisons from a recently published book. As with any opinions on history there is plenty of room to debate. But a few excerpts from the book suggest 1959 also had much in common with 2008 in terms of politics. The following certainly disagrees with popular notions that the ‘hippie’ generation is responsible for the turbulent sixties.

(from the report below)
But it wasn’t the Baby Boomers, born after World War Two, who lit the fuse, Kaplan says. “It was a people who grew up through the Depression and World War Two, and who were dissatisfied with the state of things.” They had expected things would change after the war, he notes, and they didn’t.

And then the JFK election success can be compared to that of BHO.

For Kaplan, the “New Frontier” Kennedy meant was the 1960s. “It was the future; it was tomorrow. So there was this sense of ’something is new over the horizon’ and there was this appetite for it.”

Learning from history or not the thought of being doomed to repeat it comes to mind. It might be fair to characterize the author of the book as left-leaning or liberal based on his resume’. But at least in this case he provides an interesting analysis solely based on the report presented here.

In thinking about a comparison between JFK and BHO that was initiated by the fawning liberal crowd during the 2008 election the following piece may be of interest. Particular attention should be paid to the ‘letter’ portion. Media Malpractice: Tom Brokaw’s World Implodes

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Most Americans associate seismic cultural upheavals - like women’s liberation and rock ‘n roll - with the 1960s. But a new book asserts that those changes were actually rooted in the supposedly drab 1950s, and by end of that decade, they had come to a head.

Even half a century after its release, Miles Davis’ 1959 album, Kind of Blue, retains a whiff of the avant-garde. By ignoring the classic scales of jazz, the renowned trumpeter expressed the daring experimentalism that suffused many areas of life that year in areas as diverse as art, politics, social relationships, and science.

Beginning of space age

“You look at 1959, there was an enchantment with the new,” says Fred Kaplan. The Pulitzer Prize winning author of 1959: The Year Everything Changed points to aviation as one area that embodied the high flying spirit of the year. 1959 saw the first transatlantic passenger jet flight. It was also the year America’s Mercury astronauts were chosen.

Fred Kaplan is a journalist and contributor to Slate magazine. He is a native of Hutchinson, Kansas, and graduated from Oberlin College and has a Ph.D. in political science from MIT. In the late 1970s, he was the foreign and defense policy adviser to Congressman Les Aspin.

Indeed, Time magazine seemed to express the public’s “gee whiz” enthusiasm most ebulliently in a publisher’s note following the Soviet Union’s launch of Luna 1 rocket on January 2, 1959. It was the first human artifact to escape Earth’s gravity.

“It hailed the achievement as ‘a turning point in the multi-billion year history of the solar system,’” Kaplan says, “in that ‘a creature of the sun had evolved to a point where he could break free of his planet’s gravity.’”

That event seemed to epitomize what was going on at the time, the author says. “It’s all kinds of people in different walks of life breaking free of the gravity that had been holding their predecessors down.” That, he says, “created the world that we came to know over the next half century.”

Breaking barriers in literature and entertainment

Kaplan says events of 1959 led to the blurring of lines between public and private, literature and pornography that we see today in the Internet Age.

In 1959, publisher Barney Rosset successfully sued the United States Post Office for confiscating copies of D.H. Lawrence’s sexually explicit novel Lady Chatterley’s Lover. It was also the year American writer Norman Mailer published Advertisements for Myself, which fused literature, personal confession and social commentary in new ways.

1959 also saw the first mainstream record release by iconoclastic comedian Lenny Bruce, and his first appearance on national television. “Lenny Bruce would talk about politics and the church and sex and race in ways that nobody had ever spoken before in public,” says Kaplan. “And anything you see now of this sort - HBO or Comedy Central or Showtime or George Carlin - all stems directly from Lenny Bruce.”

John F. Kennedy was preparing to run for the presidency in 1959, promising a “New Frontier”

Many Americans think of the 1960s as the 20th century’s most explosive era. But it wasn’t the Baby Boomers, born after World War Two, who lit the fuse, Kaplan says. “It was a people who grew up through the Depression and World War Two, and who were dissatisfied with the state of things.” They had expected things would change after the war, he notes, and they didn’t.

In 1959, John F. Kennedy was preparing to run for president. He was Catholic and young, and so, many thought him unelectable. Yet Kennedy attracted young idealists in great numbers. He promised a “New Frontier” where “the torch would be passed to a new generation of Americans.”

For Kaplan, the “New Frontier” Kennedy meant was the 1960s. “It was the future; it was tomorrow. So there was this sense of ’something is new over the horizon’ and there was this appetite for it.”

New inventions

1959 was also the year the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the Birth Control Pill. By freeing women from the fear of getting pregnant, the Pill ushered in the so-called Sexual Revolution of the 1960s. It also allowed women to enter the workforce without concern that their careers might be cut short by unplanned motherhood. That put women on the road toward social and economic equality. It’s a cultural change we’re still adjusting to today.

The invention of the microchip set the stage for the era of computerized technology

Fred Kaplan also emphasizes the importance of another invention of 1959 - the microchip. One microchip was crammed with enough electronic circuitry to replace tens or even hundreds of thousands of transistors, the state of the art technology at the time.

Microchips made high-speed computers possible, Kaplan says. “[Without microchips,] you couldn’t even have a handheld calculator, much less a high definition television or space communications.”

Of course, 1959 marked the height of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, and many of that year’s technological innovations enhanced our capacity for destruction, as well creation. As Fred Kaplan points out in his book 1959: the Year Everything Changed, we are still coping with, as well benefiting from, many of the changes set in motion a half century ago.

While this blog and its author have never agreed with Ted Kennedy’s politics, it is time to give respect to another human being who has succumbed to the inevitable.

Rest in peace Ted Kennedy. Everyone should respect the fact that Mr Kennedy was successful in pursuing those things he believed in. Not without controversy but that always seems to come with those who are famous and/or powerful in their chosen endeavors.

An excerpt below seems to characterize Ted Kennedy’s legacy with some accuracy.

In nearly five decades in the Senate, Mr. Kennedy fathered legislation that affected millions, tackling, among other things, education in the 1960s, poverty in the 1970s, disability in the 1980s and education in the 1990s. His longevity helped him build what many consider the most substantial record of achievement of anyone in his famous family, and made him a hero to many Democrats. A frequent nemesis of conservatives, he nonetheless forged friendships and legislative partnerships with many Republicans over the years.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com