I mentioned in the previous post that Sen Warner's office did respond to my email regarding his positions on the medical goods and services industries.
His office sent a canned response with a letter attached. The letter was from Sen Warner and eight other senators to Sen Baucus.
Let's look at the email first:
"I share your concerns about the need for comprehensive health care reform, especially during this challenging economic time. "
Somehow I doubt that my concerns with federally designed 'comprehensive health care reform' are quite the same as his. My concern is that they get away with it. The market for medical goods and services, particularly the health insurance market could use some reform, but the stuff the Democrats are trying to impose will not fix what's broke but will inevitably make what works even more broke. It seems like they want to pour cement into an engine block to fix a leaking tailpipe.
Heritage and Cato, among others, have made actual common-sense proposals that will improve the delivery of medical goods and services and does have a reasonable chance of controlling costs while maintaining consumer freedom.
"Although I do not support a government-run single-payer health care system, I believe we need comprehensive reform to achieve a competitive, cost-effective, and efficient system. This effort should be primarily focused on ensuring that all Americans can get adequate health coverage, and the coverage must be cost-effective and based upon data-driven medical standards. We must ensure that competition remains among health care providers because it is precisely that competition that drives innovation and cost reduction in the industry. Any final reform should also include measures to promote prevention and wellness, senior navigation through the health system, health information technology ("health IT") and telemedicine."
Let's see, Since the federal government is moving out on the 'comprehensive reform;' someone, presumably the federal government will establish the 'data-driven medical standards;' and enforce 'measures to promote prevention and wellness etc.;' Sen Warner is OK with the 'government-run' part. He appears to be open on the means by which the federal government forces 300M Americans to pay for all of the new bureaucrats who will be needed to suck the remaining life out of our medical industry.
"As evidence that there is room to compromise, several alternatives are being discussed ranging from non-profit regional co-operatives to a delayed public option."
Ah, there is room to compromise between the blatantly Socialist and the merely Statist positions: should the central government run the medical industry out-right or should it merely direct how it is run by its corporate donors? Where are the Republican alternatives? Never left the committee rooms. Sorta reminds me of the alternatives given to the Melians by the Athenians: surrender and die as slaves or just die now. When Obama and Pelosi gloated, "We won" back in January, they echoed the Athenian 'negotiators,' "The strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they must accept."
"I also believe that a central focus of this effort should be cost containment. I recently led an effort by freshman Senators in which we expressed our concerns to Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus about the importance of ensuring that we find ways to pay for health care reforms. I am attaching a copy of that letter in this mailing. "
And Chairman Baucus listened. His final submission trims almost 10% from the House version. So, instead of underestimating the costs with a nearly $1,000B bill, his proposal underestimates a nearly $900B bill. I'm thinking if we are already over $1,700B in debt, we can't afford $900B any more than we can $1,000B. If that's his idea of 'cost containment,' he needs to find himself another job as soon as possible, I don't want him applying that theory of 'cost containment' to the federal budget and the US economy. Let him apply it to his own private business in Virginia and see how long it lasts.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Sen Warner's unanswered questions
I took the opportunity to attend Sen Warner's town hall in Fredericksburg the other night. We were not picked to ask questions, so I emailed the questions I would have liked to ask to his office.
I received a canned email response a little over a week later. Here are the questions left unanswered by his reply:
1. Your web site and Pres Obama promise that the Democrat plans to nationalize medical services will
- insure more people
- provide better service
- reduce costs
I know of only one Person Who ever distributed more than He had collected and ended up with a surplus - when Christ fed 5000 with 5 loaves and 2 fishes.
Neither you nor Barack Obama are Him. So, how do you really intend to finance this? Either you are being disengenous about the cost, in which case higher taxes AND higher deficits are likely; or about the services, in which case shortages, degraded care and government decisions regarding who gets what care are inevitable.
I anticipate all of the above.
2. The federal government is already involved in providing somewhere around 60% of medical services in this country via MediCare, Medicaid, Military and Veterans health care and government employees health insurance. Your statistics indicate that the current system is unsustainable. So, if the current, mostly government, system is unsustainable, why don't you think that MORE government will result in LESS sustainability? Why won't the Democrats even consider consumer-based solutions?
3. You said, "We need to control compensation." Given that you are a US Senator, I assume that by "we" you mean the US Government. Control of a producer's compensation is effectively control of his production. Do you really favor government control of the production of medical goods and services?
4. You rightly point out that our current medical insurance system is unsustainable.
Our automobile insurance system is fine.
Our Life insurance system is fine.
Our property insurance system is fine.
Our federally managed flood insurance system is broken.
Why do you prefer to reinforce proven failure by favoring federally [sic] management rather than emulating the successes of those insurance markets that do work?
5. A school teacher asked you to cite the article and section of the US Constitution that empowers you to do this. You admitted, "there is no place in the Constitution that specifically says health care.” While I admire your honesty, I do question how you can so brazenly proceed to act beyond your constitutional authority.
I received a canned email response a little over a week later. Here are the questions left unanswered by his reply:
1. Your web site and Pres Obama promise that the Democrat plans to nationalize medical services will
- insure more people
- provide better service
- reduce costs
I know of only one Person Who ever distributed more than He had collected and ended up with a surplus - when Christ fed 5000 with 5 loaves and 2 fishes.
Neither you nor Barack Obama are Him. So, how do you really intend to finance this? Either you are being disengenous about the cost, in which case higher taxes AND higher deficits are likely; or about the services, in which case shortages, degraded care and government decisions regarding who gets what care are inevitable.
I anticipate all of the above.
2. The federal government is already involved in providing somewhere around 60% of medical services in this country via MediCare, Medicaid, Military and Veterans health care and government employees health insurance. Your statistics indicate that the current system is unsustainable. So, if the current, mostly government, system is unsustainable, why don't you think that MORE government will result in LESS sustainability? Why won't the Democrats even consider consumer-based solutions?
3. You said, "We need to control compensation." Given that you are a US Senator, I assume that by "we" you mean the US Government. Control of a producer's compensation is effectively control of his production. Do you really favor government control of the production of medical goods and services?
4. You rightly point out that our current medical insurance system is unsustainable.
Our automobile insurance system is fine.
Our Life insurance system is fine.
Our property insurance system is fine.
Our federally managed flood insurance system is broken.
Why do you prefer to reinforce proven failure by favoring federally [sic] management rather than emulating the successes of those insurance markets that do work?
5. A school teacher asked you to cite the article and section of the US Constitution that empowers you to do this. You admitted, "there is no place in the Constitution that specifically says health care.” While I admire your honesty, I do question how you can so brazenly proceed to act beyond your constitutional authority.
Does the federal government really care about my health?
Like the Left has done for decades in the Abortion debate, they are attempting to seize the rhetorical key terrain in the medical marketplace debate by choosing the terms of the argument and thereby imposing their premises on their opponents.
The front page of the 14 Sep Wapo tabloid, The Express featured a prominent article on Pres Obama's appearance on 60 Minutes to push his scheme to impose greater bureaucracy on the American medical industry. He is well on his way to succeeding in one respect. The article notes Obama's accusation that Republicans are 'trying to block an overhaul of the national health care system.' The phrase 'national health care system' is the common phrase used by both proponents and opponents of the Democrats' scheme to nationalize the medical industry.
But it is only a rhetorical trick. There is no 'national health care system' in the United States. There are national, regional and local markets for medical goods and services. There are regional and local medical systems - some public, some private, none comprehensive to anywhere near the extent envisioned by the Left and being pushed by Obama and the Democrat Party.
There are some national medical systems: The VA and Military Medical systems come to mind.
The proponents of nationalizing the medical goods and services marketplace will have already won the rhetorical battle if they are allowed to control the terms of the argument.
The front page of the 14 Sep Wapo tabloid, The Express featured a prominent article on Pres Obama's appearance on 60 Minutes to push his scheme to impose greater bureaucracy on the American medical industry. He is well on his way to succeeding in one respect. The article notes Obama's accusation that Republicans are 'trying to block an overhaul of the national health care system.' The phrase 'national health care system' is the common phrase used by both proponents and opponents of the Democrats' scheme to nationalize the medical industry.
But it is only a rhetorical trick. There is no 'national health care system' in the United States. There are national, regional and local markets for medical goods and services. There are regional and local medical systems - some public, some private, none comprehensive to anywhere near the extent envisioned by the Left and being pushed by Obama and the Democrat Party.
There are some national medical systems: The VA and Military Medical systems come to mind.
The proponents of nationalizing the medical goods and services marketplace will have already won the rhetorical battle if they are allowed to control the terms of the argument.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) held a town hall in Fredericksburg, VA this past week. If I had the opportunity to ask questions, these are what I would have asked Sen Warner:
1. Your web site and Pres Obama promise that the Democrat plans to nationalize medical services will
- insure more people
- provide better service
- reduce costs
I know of only one Person Who ever distributed more than He had collected and ended up with a surplus - when Christ fed 5000 with 5 loaves and 2 fishes.
Neither you nor Barack Obama are Him. So, how do you really intend to finance this? Either you are being disengenous about the cost, in which case higher taxes AND higher deficits are likely; or about the services, in which case shortages, degraded care and government decisions regarding who gets what care are inevitable.
I anticipate all of the above.
2. The federal government is already involved in providing somewhere around 60% of medical services in this country via MediCare, Medicaid, Military and Veterans health care and government employees health insurance. Your statistics indicate that the current system is unsustainable. So, if the current, mostly government, system is unsustainable, why don't you think that MORE government will result in LESS sustainability? Why won't the Democrats even consider consumer-based solutions?
3. You said, "We need to control compensation." Given that you are a US Senator, I assume that by "we" you mean the US Government. Control of a producer's compensation is effectively control of his production. Do you really favor government control of the production of medical goods and services?
4. You rightly point out that our current medical insurance system is unsustainable.
Our automobile insurance system is fine.
Our Life insurance system is fine.
Our property insurance system is fine.
Our federally managed flood insurance system is broken.
Why do you prefer to reinforce proven failure by favoring federally management rather than emulating the successes of those insurance markets that do work?
5. A school teacher asked you to cite the article and section of the US Constitution that empowers you to do this. You admitted, "there is no place in the Constitution that specifically says health care.” While I admire your honesty, I do question how you can so brazenly proceed to act beyond your constitutional authority.
1. Your web site and Pres Obama promise that the Democrat plans to nationalize medical services will
- insure more people
- provide better service
- reduce costs
I know of only one Person Who ever distributed more than He had collected and ended up with a surplus - when Christ fed 5000 with 5 loaves and 2 fishes.
Neither you nor Barack Obama are Him. So, how do you really intend to finance this? Either you are being disengenous about the cost, in which case higher taxes AND higher deficits are likely; or about the services, in which case shortages, degraded care and government decisions regarding who gets what care are inevitable.
I anticipate all of the above.
2. The federal government is already involved in providing somewhere around 60% of medical services in this country via MediCare, Medicaid, Military and Veterans health care and government employees health insurance. Your statistics indicate that the current system is unsustainable. So, if the current, mostly government, system is unsustainable, why don't you think that MORE government will result in LESS sustainability? Why won't the Democrats even consider consumer-based solutions?
3. You said, "We need to control compensation." Given that you are a US Senator, I assume that by "we" you mean the US Government. Control of a producer's compensation is effectively control of his production. Do you really favor government control of the production of medical goods and services?
4. You rightly point out that our current medical insurance system is unsustainable.
Our automobile insurance system is fine.
Our Life insurance system is fine.
Our property insurance system is fine.
Our federally managed flood insurance system is broken.
Why do you prefer to reinforce proven failure by favoring federally management rather than emulating the successes of those insurance markets that do work?
5. A school teacher asked you to cite the article and section of the US Constitution that empowers you to do this. You admitted, "there is no place in the Constitution that specifically says health care.” While I admire your honesty, I do question how you can so brazenly proceed to act beyond your constitutional authority.
Peggy Noonan
From Peggy Noonan's column in the WSJ as taken from:
http://www.patriotpost.us/opinion/peggy-noonan/2009/09/05/coruscating-on-thin-ice.htm:
"The president's biggest potential long-term problem in terms of the public part of the presidency became obvious to me only during the past week.
I watched with great interest much of Teddy Kennedy's wake and funeral, and saw in a clearer way than I had in the past a big cultural difference between the elites of the two parties, or rather the Democratic and Republican establishments. Pretty much the entire Democratic establishment was at the Kennedy services, and the level of shown affection among those in the pews and the audience was striking—laughing, hugging, telling stories, admitting weaknesses, weeping. It was Irish, and old-time. If it had been a gathering of the Republican political and journalistic establishment it would have been less emotive, with little shown affection. Polite laughter, cordial handshakes, a lot of staring ahead. A guy with his head down and you think he's mourning but he's BlackBerrying. They don't especially like each other, they compete against each other, and they don't feel the need to fake liking each other. They have the old dignity of the old grown-ups. And I suppose their style reflects some of their philosophy: Politics isn't about emotions but thoughts.
The difference between the party establishments struck me, but is not my point. This is: The president walked into the funeral and moved toward the front pews nodding, shaking hands. He hugged Mrs. Kennedy, nodded some more, shook more hands. He was dignified and contained, he was utterly appropriate, and he was cold.
He is cold, like someone who is contained not because he's disciplined and successfully restrains his emotions, but because there's not that much to restrain. This is the dark side of cool. One wonders if this will play well with the American people. Long-term it is hard to get people to trust your policies if they think you're coolly operating on some intellectual or ideological abstractions.
I don't think as a presidential style it will wear well with the center. And it may not wear well with the president's own party. They may come to see him, in time, as not really one of them. And that's when things will really get interesting."
Wow. One part of my mind recalls Robert Hugh Benson apocalyptic novels. The villain is described that way: cold, emotionless, coolly intellectual.
Another memory is jogged by the phrase, "operating on ... ideological abstractions." That would also aptly describe the perpetrators of the French and Russian revolutions and the anarchist bomb-throwers of any given decade of the last century.
Our quixotic young president occasionally reveals other glimpses of the character beneath. I have not seen anything to engender my confidence in him yet.
http://www.patriotpost.us/opinion/peggy-noonan/2009/09/05/coruscating-on-thin-ice.htm:
"The president's biggest potential long-term problem in terms of the public part of the presidency became obvious to me only during the past week.
I watched with great interest much of Teddy Kennedy's wake and funeral, and saw in a clearer way than I had in the past a big cultural difference between the elites of the two parties, or rather the Democratic and Republican establishments. Pretty much the entire Democratic establishment was at the Kennedy services, and the level of shown affection among those in the pews and the audience was striking—laughing, hugging, telling stories, admitting weaknesses, weeping. It was Irish, and old-time. If it had been a gathering of the Republican political and journalistic establishment it would have been less emotive, with little shown affection. Polite laughter, cordial handshakes, a lot of staring ahead. A guy with his head down and you think he's mourning but he's BlackBerrying. They don't especially like each other, they compete against each other, and they don't feel the need to fake liking each other. They have the old dignity of the old grown-ups. And I suppose their style reflects some of their philosophy: Politics isn't about emotions but thoughts.
The difference between the party establishments struck me, but is not my point. This is: The president walked into the funeral and moved toward the front pews nodding, shaking hands. He hugged Mrs. Kennedy, nodded some more, shook more hands. He was dignified and contained, he was utterly appropriate, and he was cold.
He is cold, like someone who is contained not because he's disciplined and successfully restrains his emotions, but because there's not that much to restrain. This is the dark side of cool. One wonders if this will play well with the American people. Long-term it is hard to get people to trust your policies if they think you're coolly operating on some intellectual or ideological abstractions.
I don't think as a presidential style it will wear well with the center. And it may not wear well with the president's own party. They may come to see him, in time, as not really one of them. And that's when things will really get interesting."
Wow. One part of my mind recalls Robert Hugh Benson apocalyptic novels. The villain is described that way: cold, emotionless, coolly intellectual.
Another memory is jogged by the phrase, "operating on ... ideological abstractions." That would also aptly describe the perpetrators of the French and Russian revolutions and the anarchist bomb-throwers of any given decade of the last century.
Our quixotic young president occasionally reveals other glimpses of the character beneath. I have not seen anything to engender my confidence in him yet.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
A big story about - Nothing
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/2009/08/twelve-carry-guns----including-assault-rifle----outside-obama-event.php
No, the question is why did TPM and the MSM try to make a big deal out of it?
this would be hilarious if it wasn’t kinda scary. TPM, a lefty blog, tries to make law-abiding citizens lawfully exercising their 1st and 2nd amendment rights sound scary. But the article is (unusually) factual – which means that the attempt at sensation is deflated by periodic admissions that – nothing really happened.
Twelve Carry Guns -- Including Assault Rifle -- Outside Obama Event
“No one was arrested outside the VFW National Convention in Phoenix” “There are no reports that the 12 were part of an organized group.” “The man spotted carrying the assault rifle and a pistol, who gave his name only as "Chris", was asked why he was armed. "Because I can do it," he said.” (BTW, despite some hysterical reports of racial overtones, Chris is clearly African American) “And that's not all. A man brought a gun to a town hall with Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) last week, without incident.” “Another man in Portsmouth was spotted carrying a gun in a leg holster outside the school. The unconcealed weapon was legal under New Hampshire law and he was not arrested. Later, when asked why he brought the gun, he replied, "That's not even a relevant question.”
No, the question is why did TPM and the MSM try to make a big deal out of it?
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Don't listen to me, listen to the Left-wing Netroots
Insurers Winning Healthcare Battle - Hands Down / No Contest
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/thepeoplechoose/2009/08/insurers-winning-healthcare-ba.php?ref=recmuckAccording to this article in the LA Times insurers will do exceptionally well under the proposed healthcare reform package. This assessment is widely agreed to be the outcome for insurers. The reform package reduces the amount insurers pay out per premium dollar they take in. There is no good news here at all. As far as I can tell, the national healthcare bill, ie actual overall healthcare expenditures, cannot possibly decrease under this legislation.
I advise reading the entire article to get a feel for how badly citizens are going to lose this battle. I am in no way able to read the legislation and make sense of it so I don't know. If this assessment is accurate this piece of legislation may as well have been written by insurers. Jobs are never coming back to this country without reducing healthcare costs as a percentage of GDP. I don't think this legislation addresses that issue at all.
My personal assessment: This is over the top corruption. Period.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)