Blog @ MoreWhat.com

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

Although a favorite target of liberals is former President George W. Bush liberals have their own presidential problems. Now Bill Clinton has reentered the political discussion and if memory serves was given some sort of BS envoy job by Obama. Not less BS than the job given to the former First Lady HRC. Both of the Clinton’s have meaningless posts in the Obama Administration but apparently feel the need to ‘back’ the Messiah anyhow. And there’s Jimmy Carter who did no favors for the current Admin.

Yet the libs continue their worn out GOP bashing amid all the clamor their impotent party and fringe supporters create. Fringe components like nutroots, MoveOn and the Soros gang bashed Cheney, Rumsfeld, Patraeus and US troops with their antiwar sentiment leading up to the 2008 election. Obama began with campaign rhetoric convincing supporters the US would immediately withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan and punish everyone in the Bush Administration.

The fringe and not so fringe left want government everything from bailouts to stimulus to free healthcare as well as shamnesty for illegals, same sex marriage, abortion paid by tax dollars and more expense to the American public through AGW, cap and tax and a crushing debt exacerbated by President Obama and tax cheat Tim Geithner.

Congress is still muddled in Obamacare and cannot turn this sow’s ear into a silk purse. Okay, there’s not enough lipstick on the planet to accommodate this pig. Dems don’t appear to have the strength to finish Iraq or Afghanistan as required, fail to handle problems like Iran and North Korea properly and hand the Russians a gift by abandoning allies in Europe with an another appeasement missile defense plan.

As indicated by all the tax cheat nominations and withdrawals, plus the ACORN connection and shady resumes of most of the Messiah’s chosen few Michelle Malkin is not the least off the mark emphasizing the Culture of Corruption and placing it squarely on the liberal majority in Washington. The GOP had their fall from grace and lost the majority in the last two elections. It is now the Dems turn and they have wasted no time promoting a ‘throw the bums out’ option for voters in 2010.

Elections have consequences. Democrats wanted to be the majority and got their chance. Their ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory is once again being confirmed. It is way past time to point fingers and blame those who were previously the majority.

To the Democratic Party:

You wanted the job, you got it. Now govern properly and abandon your insane agenda or pay the price next year.

Complete the jobs in Iraq and Afghanistan. Abandon your present course on healthcare. Reduce spending and increase tax cuts. Stop the bailouts and porkulus madness. Forget cap and tax. Give up shamnesty and improve national security and defense. Follow the rule of law and the founding documents. Correct the other items mentioned above.

Once you get that completed come back here for the next task list.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Democrats in the White House and Congress have characterized healthcare reform as an issue that must be solved before the US economy can be restored to pre-recession strength. They have also renamed ‘healthcare reform’ to ‘health insurance reform’. It is again noted here that Rahm Emanuel is credited for stating you should never waste a crisis. Apparently that applies to any liberal agenda item that Democrats want to redefine as a crisis. The urgency they describe and the need to pass their legislative proposals by a self-imposed deadline without benefit of reading thousands of pages of HR 3200 is exactly what Rahm Emanuel meant by not wasting a crisis. Invent the crisis. Insert an agenda item as the solution for the invented crisis. Hope to grab political power if you can pull off the scam.

FDR introduced Social Security. It became the third rail of politics. Touch it and you die, politically speaking. Most people understand Social Security cannot continue indefinitely. The number of those paying into the system to support benefit payments for those who are retired continues to shrink. The system cannot sustain itself any longer.

LBJ introduced Medicare and Medicaid. Just as Social Security cannot be sustained indefinitely the same holds true for these two programs. As if these government-run legacies are not proof enough that healthcare ‘reform’ is doomed to fail recent experiences in state government attempts to run healthcare are ignored by the liberals as well.

They like to bash former Governor Mitt Romney for failing to install successful state-run healthcare in Massachusetts but are careful not to mention the others with their hands in that fiasco. And they omit the part indicating this Republican Governor in an extremely ‘blue’ state was trying to accommodate the ‘other side of the aisle’ in those efforts. Here’s a snippet of what happened.

In fall 2005 as the House and Senate each passed health care reform bills.

The legislature made a number of changes to Governor Romney’s original proposal, including expanding MassHealth (Medicaid and SCHIP) coverage to low-income children and restoring funding for public health programs. The most controversial change was the addition of a provision which requires firms with 11 or more workers that do not provide “fair and reasonable” health coverage to their workers to pay an annual penalty. This contribution, initially $295 annually per worker, is intended to equalize the free care pool charges imposed on employers who do and do not cover their workers. The legislature also rejected Governor Romney’s proposal to permit even higher-deductible, lower benefit health plans.

On April 12, 2006 Governor Mitt Romney signed the health legislation. He vetoed 8 sections of the health care legislation, including the controversial employer assessment. Romney also vetoed provisions providing dental benefits to poor residents on the Medicaid program, and providing health coverage to senior and disabled legal immigrants not eligible for federal Medicaid. The legislature promptly overrode six of the eight gubernatorial section vetoes, on May 4, 2006, and by mid-June 2006 had overridden the remaining two.

Romney’s proposal may have been flawed but the liberal legislature wasted no time altering his plan. The bottom line demonstrates government-run healthcare does not work. TennCare in the state of Tennessee is another failed example from recent history.

Obama could learn some reality from Tennessee’s experience with TennCare. Former Democratic Gov. Ned McWherter introduced TennCare in early 1994 with an initial budget of $2.6 billion. The Wall Street Journal reported this week that TennCare proved so popular that the rolls swelled from 500,000 to 1.4 million by 2002.

The Journal quoted from a letter Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., wrote to House members: “Many of the concerns we have expressed about the proposal before us today are the stark realities of a system that went terribly wrong in Tennessee.”

Blackburn also co-authored an essay for RealClearPolitics with a physician, Rep. Phil Roe, R-Johnson City. Roe and Blackburn wrote that 55 percent of people enrolled in TennCare had migrated from employer-provided plans. Though TennCare’s current director disputes those numbers, there is no denying TennCare’s effect on the state budget. Within 10 years, TennCare spending had mushroomed to more than $8 billion, consuming about one-third of the state’s budget.

Here’s more from Blackburn and Roe.

Lessons For Health Care Reform

By Reps. Marsha Blackburn and Phil Roe

Tennessee was home to a failed attempt at universal single payer care, and has lessons to teach a President who has promised that in pursuing his goal of universal health care, he will learn from the policy failures of the past. In 1994 Tennessee implemented managed care in its Medicaid program, creating a system known as TennCare. The objective was to use the anticipated savings from Medicaid to fund and expand coverage for children and the uninsured. The result was a program that nearly bankrupted the state, reduced the quality of care, and collapsed under its own weight.

Another analysis from the Wall Street Journal…..

Tennessee Experiment’s High Cost Fuels Health-Care Debate

By AVERY JOHNSON

In 1994, Tennessee launched an ambitious public insurance program to cover its uninsured. The plan, TennCare, fulfilled that mission but nearly bankrupted the state in the process.

As originally envisioned, the Tennessee plan expanded Medicaid, the government health-care program for the poor, to cover people who couldn’t afford insurance or who had been denied coverage by an insurance company.

With an initial budget of $2.6 billion, TennCare quickly extended coverage to an additional 500,000 people by making access to its plans easy and affordable. But the program became so expensive that Tennessee was forced to scale it back in 2005.

If TennCare was estimated to cost $2.6 billion yet became an $8 billion program dominating a third of the state’s budget in ten years how do you suspect it will work on a national level? Rahm Emanuel’s advice to never waste a crisis may be backfiring. Between the town hall meetings of the August recess and the Sept 12th rally in Washington DC and across the country, voters are gearing up for a 2010 backlash on the liberal agenda.

In case you didn’t do the math from above here’s the extrapolation. If healthcare reform, health insurance reform, socialized medicine or whatever they’re calling it right now in Washington becomes law and experiences the outcome with TennCare what will it cost? In ten years it will be more than three times the original estimate. Even using the new Senate version’s $856 Billion estimate would result in a ten year price tag of more than 2 1/2 trillion dollars!!!! If it also becomes a third of the national budget the idea that it will save money, cover everyone and cost less is more ridiculous than when first suggested.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

related videos:

9 part series from Rep Todd Akin (R-MO)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkj2YWq-OP8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zniLYVe12cI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nKmACqR0Ug
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p36nN1fIE7Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW-TJpobQvk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NupQS6lq6l8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TO5OY4qqRVc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMo8hfKnJgg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25P0gAkPaaU

http://blackburn.house.gov/Multimedia/?MediaID=1500

Congressman Phil Roe Multimedia

http://johnshadegg.house.gov/Multimedia/?MediaID=1479

http://broun.house.gov/

http://gingrey.house.gov/Multimedia/

With no time to produce another post on healthcare for this day it will have to be postponed.  But a good alternative for this blog is to point to another source for a column that gets the job done.  So for this ‘mini’ or ‘micro’ post is a compelling excerpt from ‘another source’.

So why has the White House already missed its self-imposed deadline for reform? Why do more Americans disapprove than approve of the president’s approach to health care? Why did Obama’s approval rating drop steadily–among independents, precipitously–throughout the summer? The answer, he said, is “all the misinformation that’s been spread over the past few months.” There is no legitimate basis for opposition. There are only lies.

Read the rest of Technocracy in America by Matthew Continetti

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

This is a brief post with the sole purpose to highlight two points on the healthcare debate on this Monday September 14, 2009.  Most people, if being honest, would expect the MSM is not altogether unbiased.  These same people would likely hold that sources like ABC News and WaPo if anything, lean left.  Based on the resume’ it would be reasonable to also suspect that George Stephanopoulos leans in the same direction.  With that in mind you might expect that if a poll produced by ABC News and WaPo may have surveyed more left leaning participants than right.  Yet the numbers do not bode well for Obamacare.

If that is even remotely close to reality the following information found at NRO Online from Mr Stephanopoulos’ blog demonstrates the second point of this brief post.  If there is roughly a statistical split on most items in the healthcare debate why would anyone support it with those expecting it to ‘make the deficit worse’ coming in at 2 to 1?  Or at least those supporting it should be about one-third.

Split on Obama’s handling of health care: 48-48 (46-50 August 17)
Support Obama’s health care reforms: 46-48 (45-50 August 17)
President Obama’s job approval is at 54 (57 August 17)
Deficit: 65% think health care reform will make it worse
Medicare: 56% of seniors think it will weaken Medicare

Again, if this information is even close to reality, there must be plenty of people who simply don’t care about the cost.  The guess here is that if 2/3 of people surveyed  expect healthcare reform to make the deficit worse those supporting Obamacare come in two flavors.  Those who do not expect to pay for it.  And those who expect to gain enough from the plan to offset any tax increases, etc.

The first group described would be those who do not pay taxes and are expecting more free healthcare courtesy of those who do pay taxes.  The second group would be, by example, those who make their living in the health sector and don’t care where the money comes from as long as it keeps coming.  That group would support the notion that with or without healthcare reform costs will continue to rise.

Political considerations are making government healthcare reform an issue.  That will never create useful solutions to problems in healthcare.  Simply reviewing the history of Medicare, Medicaid and similar government programs will demonstrate that.  These programs cannot continue indefinitely.  Creating more programs like them will not solve the problems.  Until honest discussions begin within the public and private sector including the general public and how we live and use healthcare services nothing will be solved.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

H/T to Pirate’s Cove for the following information…….

White House Quietly Admits Joe Wilson Was Correct. Wait, What?

In the wee hours of Friday night, at the end of a long Friday, the rememberence of September 11th, and going into a weekend of protests – from which Obama did his best Holy Grail impersonation – the White House made a very quiet hush hush admission

The bullet points sent tonight by the White House:

* Undocumented immigrants would not be able to buy private insurance on the exchange. Those who are lawfully present in this country would be able to participate.

* Undocumented immigrants would be able to buy insurance in the non-exchange private market, just as they do today. That market will shrink as the exchange takes hold, but it will still exist and will be subject to reforms such as the bans on pre-existing conditions and caps.

* Verification will be required when purchasing health insurance on the exchange. One option is the SAVE program (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) which states currently use to make sure that undocumented immigrants don’t participate in safety-net programs for which they are ineligible.

* There would be no change in the law that requires emergency rooms to treat people who need emergency care, including undocumented immigrants. There is already a federal grant program that compensates states for emergency room costs associated with treatment of undocumented immigrants, a provision sponsored by a Republican lawmaker.

source:
WH ON HEALTH CARE, ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS

The healthcare issue should be the last chance for politicians. No matter what happens from this point forward honest reform cannot be achieved with the current Administration and the 111th Congress. If this legislative nightmare is not abandoned everyone who votes in favor of it should be voted out of office at the next opportunity. Until public affairs in Washington, DC can be dealt with in an honest and effective manner based on founding principles the culture of corruption will continue and no good will come of it. As voters, no matter how painful, the only option available is to throw the bums out.and continue to do so until integrity is reintroduced to the process.

Honest government will not exist until those seeking public office are convinced dishonest behavior will end their careers. And the only way to do that is by examples in bulk. Democrat, Republican, Independent, it doesn’t matter. If they vote for healthcare reform in the current session throw the bums out.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Bipartisan Barry, NOT, changed nothing with his speech to a joint session of Congress.

Obama Vows to Pass Healthcare Bill With or Without GOP

President Barack Obama boldly declared that he will push massive healthcare legislation through Congress with or without the help of the Republican Party Wednesday night. While he urged lawmakers to set aside partisan differences, he said that “I am not the first president to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last.”

When Rep Joe Wilson (R-SC) interrupted Obama’s speech last night saying, ‘ you lie’, few are focusing on the fact that Wilson is correct.

from the AP via Newsmax

Obama Uses Bad Math on Healthcare Costs

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama used only-in-Washington accounting Wednesday when he promised to overhaul the nation’s health care system without adding “one dime” to the deficit. By conventional arithmetic, Democratic plans would drive up the deficit by billions of dollars.

The president’s speech to Congress contained a variety of oversimplifications and omissions in laying out what he wants to do about health insurance.

And there still is the political math in Congress. Force reform with reconciliation rules and 51 votes in the Senate? Ted Kennedy’s seat is vacant, some Dems are not a lock for a yes vote and procedures will also require 60 votes There is no slam dunk just yet. And many are not sure what will happen or how they will vote as indicated in the story below.

Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska told The Hill newspaper: “I’m not going to commit anything at this point in time on procedural votes, neither pro nor con, because it will depend on the circumstances.

“I can’t make those decisions in advance because it depends on what the bill is and what the circumstances are at the time. Otherwise you’re just giving away your vote no matter what the underlying circumstance is, and I’m just not prepared to do that.”

So, three cheers for Joe Wilson and let’s make sure false reform does not become law.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Some have suggested President Obama does not understand Americans. Some have said he is overwhelmed by the job an election victory gave him. Some say he is in over his head. And others say being President is beyond Obama’s brief resume’ in the US Senate, state office or community organizing. They may say such things given what we know, what we’ve seen and the way things are developing in the nation’s capital. As expected, George F Will has a column describing the current White House resident as well as a look at the President’s strategy for an agenda.

Barack Obama in August became a Huey [Long] for today, a rabble rouser with a better tailor, an unrumpled and modulated tribune of downtrodden Americans, telling them that opponents of his reform plan—which actually does not yet exist—are fearmongers employing scare tactics

Not unlike the President’s retreat to Martha’s Vineyard this August to avoid reaction to his agenda, his efforts to provide life support for a dying healthcare reform proposal resembles a chapter from the community organizer playbook. Not something that most Americans would embrace nor would most Presidents try to force feed the public.

Another reason that reasonable people are wary of any government plan for a grandiose rearrangement of the health-care sector’s 17 percent of the economy is that, regarding grandiosity, the president, after less than eight months in office, is a recidivist.

The subtitle for Mr Will’s column linked to above is ‘Washington is seriously unserious’. For an entertaining and insightful read on the state of Obamanomics follow the links to read the rest.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

There is another feeble attempt at the White House ‘fact check’ site and linked to on the White House ‘blog’ claiming we cannot afford to abandon healthcare reform. It is presented by VPOTUS Joe Biden’s economic adviser. The so-called economist who works for Joe Biden tries to pass this off as valid.

Even though President Obama has no healthcare reform proposal his ‘economist’ issues these paraphrased statements which you can listen to in the video.

Obama’s healthcare reform plans pay for reform ‘fully’, are ‘deficit neutral’ as they will be ’squeezing inefficiencies out of the system’. An example given claims ‘$180 billion’ will be saved by denying ‘excess payments to private insurance from Medicare’. This ‘economist’ also claims that Medicare ‘can provide them more effectively and efficiently’. Sure, that is why Medicare has cost 10 or 15 times more than estimated over the life of the program. Why would this government program labeled ‘reform’ be any different?

Here’s the video.

If you have forgotten or never checked the CBO’s estimate on HR 3200 you can find it here…… Preliminary Analysis of the House Democrats’ Health Reform Proposal. While things change and this estimate is from July 2009 there is more evidence even from the White House that their agenda is too expensive to be considered.

WASHINGTON: A ballooning US government budget deficit that could reach US$9 trillion over a decade threatens to dent President Barack Obama’s reform plans and thwart long term economic growth.

Of course the typical blame is laid on the previous administration for economic woes as is the trend in American politics no matter who gets elected. Blame your problems on the one who was in office before you. That strategy only takes you so far. After a while, you own it all if you are POTUS.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the financial watchdog of Congress, meanwhile, offered a more optimistic projection – US$7.13 trillion – assuming all Bush administration-imposed tax cuts expired in two years.

That would confirm the only way government can find money for their agenda is by raising taxes. Eliminating tax cuts is effectively the same thing. How about the idea that Obamacare will not improve healthcare, cost us more and give the government another reason to raise taxes?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Reconciliation is the political tactic that has been in the news often since the beginning of the healthcare reform debate this year. The Democratic party currently has possession of the White House and a majority in both houses of Congress. There is a concern that the majority party can pass any legislation it wants and the minority party is powerless to stop them.

Reconciliation is an option that was created in the 1974 Congressional Budget Act to allow Congress a way out of intractable budget battles.

Wesleyan University government professor Elvin Lim said it was invented as a way to achieve a balanced budget–not to force through highly controversial legislation.

“It wasn’t passed to allow Congress to go ahead and do anything it wants, but as it turns out, that’s the way it’s been used, quite frankly, by both sides of the aisle,” Lim told CNSNews.com.

In fact, he said, President George W. Bush was the last to utilize the tactic–getting Congress to pass tax cuts three times in ‘01, ‘03 and ’05–because he wanted to bypass a Senate filibuster by Democrats.

Gary Bauer, a former politician, Presidential candidate and founder of a political group called American Values is another voice warning that liberals in Congress will employ reconciliation to force their healthcare agenda through Congress.

If liberal Democrats do force through the legislation over the significant objections of conservatives, the former Republican presidential candidate says the minority party should be prepared to shut down the Senate.

While Bauer suggests using parliamentary procedures to achieve a Senate shutdown no specifics were given. If the minority party can effectively shutdown the Senate in the event that the majority party invokes reconciliation on the healthcare issue it may be the only method to stop a government takeover of the way we manage our health decisions.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com