Recess Rally

http://recessrally.com/

Today you can make your voice heard in the fight against socialized medicine. Click on the above link to find the location of the rally in your congressional district.

CASH FOR CODGERS

Democrats, realizing the success of the President's "Cash For Clunkers" rebate program, have revamped a major portion of their National Health Care Plan.
President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Sen. Reed are expected to make this major announcement at a joint news conference later this week. I have obtained an advanced copy of the proposal which is named....

"CASH FOR CODGERS" And It Works Like This...

Couples wishing to access health care funds in order to pay for the delivery of a child will be required to turn in one old person. The amount the government grants them will be fixed according to a sliding scale. Older and more prescription dependent 'codgers' will garner the highest amounts.

Special "Bonuses" will be paid for those submitting codgers in targeted groups, such as smokers, alcohol drinkers, persons 10 pounds over their government prescribed weight, and any member of the Republican Party.

Smaller bonuses will be given for 'codgers' who consume beef, soda, fried foods, potato chips, lattes, whole milk, dairy products, bacon, Brussels sprouts, or Girl Scout Cookies.

All 'codgers' will be rendered totally useless via toxic injection. This will insure that they are not secretly resold or their body parts harvested to keep other 'codgers' in repair.

Rose D. Friedman

The cause of liberty and personal freedom has lost one of its most ardent supporters. Rose D. Friedman passed away today at the age of 98. Please take a moment to read these 2 statements about her:

http://www.friedmanfoundation.org/friedmans/statement_rose.jsp

http://www.friedmanfoundation.org/friedmans/statement_rose2.jsp

Rose was a leading voice in the advocacy of monetary restraint, deregulation, the volunteer army, school choice and the flat tax. Her vision will live on through all who continue to struggle against the overbearing burden of government expansion.

What's in a name?

There is much debate in today’s reporting that the Obama Administration is backing away from its support of the “Public Option” for health insurance.

Do not believe this public relations stunt. Listen to what has been said:

• 
  There is no reform without a public health insurance plan. Handing the private insurance companies 50 million more lives to cover and giving them a monopoly over health insurance coverage for working people is not reform.
  Healthcare for America Now! (HCAN)
  
• The only health care reform worth doing is the public option. If you give away the public option you have no health care reform.
  Howard Dean
  
• We do not see real, systemic change in the health-care system if there is not a robust public option…The public option is going to happen.
  Nancy Pelosi
  
• Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans – including a public option…
  Barack Obama

The Obama Administration is committed to moving the USA to a single payer health care system. The first step on this path is to institute a “Public Option”. Faced with vocal opposition to the “Public Option” plan the administration will find a new route to get to the single payer system. The first step on this new route is now called an insurance co-op.

Do not be fooled by this rebranding. The insurance co-op will be a government controlled health insurance system. The co-ops will be able to price private insurance out of the market. Eventually only the government will pay for health care.

What's in a name? That which we call a “Public Option” by any other name would smell as foul.

The Great 'Prevention' Myth

The following article by Charles Krauthammer debunks the latest health care policy claims:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/13/AR2009081302898.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

The following paragraphs summarize this article:

• The central contradiction of Obamacare was fatally exposed: From his first address to Congress, Obama insisted on the dire need for restructuring the health-care system because out-of-control costs were bankrupting the Treasury and wrecking the U.S. economy -- yet the Democrats' plans would make the problem worse.
  
• Desperation time. What do you do? Sprinkle fairy dust on every health-care plan, and present your deus ex machina: prevention.
  
• Obama followed suit in his Tuesday New Hampshire town hall, touting prevention as amazingly dual-purpose: "It saves lives. It also saves money."
  
• Reform proponents repeat this like a mantra. Because it seems so intuitive, it has become conventional wisdom. But like most conventional wisdom, it is wrong. Overall, preventive care increases medical costs.
  
• This inconvenient truth comes, once again, from the CBO. In an Aug. 7 letter to Rep. Nathan Deal, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf writes: "Researchers who have examined the effects of preventive care generally find that the added costs of widespread use of preventive services tend to exceed the savings from averted illness."

In the case of health care, as always, the proponents of big government programs are basing their arguments on false assumptions.

“Never insult me with that question”

Mayor Daley is giving us an insight into the thought process of a successful politician. He has never liked answering questions but he recently explained why:

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2009/08/daley-declines-to-answer-questions-about-insiders-olympics-deal.html

It turns out that Mayor Daley feels personally insulted when asked an uncomfortable question. Here is his quote:

• Daley, however, said he would only be taking questions on the city's construction plans.
  
  "I'm sorry I can't answer questions every day. Every day, I do it enough," Daley said.
  
  Asked by a Tribune reporter when he would be available to talk about Scott's project, Daley said the question insulted him.
  
  "Oh, I do it everyday, you've been with me every day. Never insult me with that question," Daley said. "You're insulting me because every day I'm here, you're never here. And don't print that, so I know you'll print it."
  
  Daley's press staff then ended the news conference.

Keep Mayor Daley’s perspective on answering questions in mind when you scrutinize the responses given by President Obama and his administrators during the debate over health care.

The health-care wedge

The following Wall Street Journal article summarizes the folly of the Obama Administration’s efforts to control the health care system:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574324361508092006.html

Here are the reasons why the Administration’s proposals must be defeated:

• 
  The health-care wedge is an economic term that reflects the difference between what health-care costs the specific provider and what the patient actually pays. When health care is subsidized, no one should be surprised that people demand more of it and that the costs to produce it increase. Mr. Obama’s health-care plan does nothing to address the gap between the price paid and the price received. Instead, it’s like a negative tax: Costs rise and people demand more than they need.
  
• The bottom line is that when the government spends money on health care, the patient does not. The patient is then separated from the transaction in the sense that costs are no longer his concern. And when the patient doesn’t care about costs, only those who want higher costs—like doctors and drug companies—care.
  
• Thus, health-care reform should be based on policies that diminish the health-care wedge rather than increase it. Mr. Obama’s reform principles—a public health-insurance option, mandated minimum coverage, mandated coverage of pre-existing conditions, and required purchase of health insurance—only increase the size of the wedge and thus health-care costs.
  
• According to research I performed for the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a $1 trillion increase in federal government health subsidies will accelerate health-care inflation, lead to continued growth in health-care expenditures, and diminish our economic growth even further. Despite these costs, some 30 million people will remain uninsured.
  
• Implementing Mr. Obama’s reforms would literally be worse than doing nothing.

The next three paragraphs brilliantly outline the correct plan to improve our health care system:

• 
  Rather than expanding the role of government in the health-care market, Congress should implement a patient-centered approach to health-care reform. A patient-centered approach focuses on the patient-doctor relationship and empowers the patient and the doctor to make effective and economical choices.
  
  A patient-centered health-care reform begins with individual ownership of insurance policies and leverages Health Savings Accounts, a low-premium, high-deductible alternative to traditional insurance that includes a tax-advantaged savings account. It allows people to purchase insurance policies across state lines and reduces the number of mandated benefits insurers are required to cover. It reallocates the majority of Medicaid spending into a simple voucher for low-income individuals to purchase their own insurance. And it reduces the cost of medical procedures by reforming tort liability laws.
  
  By empowering patients and doctors to manage health-care decisions, a patient-centered health-care reform will control costs, improve health outcomes, and improve the overall efficiency of the health-care system.

A fishy request from the White House

Macon Phillips, the Director of New Media for the White House recently posted this message on the White House blog:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/

This blog post contains the following paragraph:

• There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

What does the White House intend to do with the list of email addresses and websites that it will collect from this call to action?

The keyboard is mightier than the sword

If you wish to make an impact on the health care debate you should email your US Congressional Representative and both of your US Senators. In addition you could contact the White House . Also send the White House an email to their new “fishy” email address: flag@whitehouse.gov.

If you are lost for words to describe your position on health care you can copy and paste the following link to the Wall Street Journal by Arthur B. Laffer:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574324361508092006.html

I also suggest a reference to the following website:

http://healthcare.cato.org/

The following is the text of my message to my US Congressmen and my US Senators:

If you are interested in studying the facts of the health care debate I suggest that you read the following Wall Street Journal by Arthur B. Laffer:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574324361508092006.html

I agree with Mr. Laffer's conclusions.

You will also find that the following website is a comprehensive source for facts on the health care debate:

http://healthcare.cato.org/

I agree with the following Cato Institute health care reform recommendations:

A government takeover of the health care system, as proposed by the president and some in Congress, would be a step in the wrong direction. Instead, we should pursue a uniquely American solution, one that builds on free markets, competition and choice.

1. Let individuals control their health care dollars, and free them to choose from a wide variety of health plans and providers.
2. Move away from a health care system dominated by employer-provided health insurance. Health insurance should be personal and portable, controlled by individuals themselves rather than government or an employer. Employment-based insurance hides much of the true cost of health care to consumers, thereby encouraging over-consumption. It also limits consumer choice, since employers get final say over what type of insurance a worker will receive. It means people who don’t receive insurance through work are put at a significant and costly disadvantage. And, of course, it means that if you lose your job, you are likely to end up uninsured as well.
3. Changing from employer to individual insurance requires changing the tax treatment of health insurance. The current system excludes the value of employer-provided insurance from a worker’s taxable income. However, a worker purchasing health insurance on their own must do so with after-tax dollars. This provides a significant tilt towards employer-provided insurance, which should be reversed. Workers should receive a standard deduction, a tax credit, or, better still, large Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) for the purchase of health insurance, regardless of whether they receive it through their job or purchase it on their own.
4. We need to increase competition among both insurers and health providers. People should be allowed to purchase health insurance across state lines. One study estimated that that adjustment alone could cover 17 million uninsured Americans without costing taxpayers a dime.
5. We also need to rethink medical licensing laws to encourage greater competition among providers. Nurse practitioners, physician assistants, midwives, and other non-physician practitioners should have far greater ability to treat patients. Doctors and other health professionals should be able to take their licenses from state to state. We should also be encouraging innovations in delivery such as medical clinics in retail outlets.
6. Congress should give Medicare enrollees a voucher, let them choose any health plan on the market, and let them keep the savings if they choose an economical plan. Medicare could even give larger vouchers to the poor and sick to ensure they could afford coverage.
7. The expansion of “health status insurance” would protect many of those with preexisting conditions. States may also wish to experiment with high risk pools to ensure coverage for those with high cost medical conditions.

The following is the text of my message to the "fishy" email address:

attn: Mr. Macon Phillips, re: fishy motives

Dear Mr. Phillips,

Your recent blog post requesting citizens to report “fishy” internet activity as related to the health care debate was an ill-advised directive. Coercing citizens to spy on each other was the hallmark of the Stasi (the East German secret police). This appears to be an act of desperation by the Presidential Administration.

The title of your blog post is “Facts Are Stubborn Things”. If you are interested in studying the facts of the health care debate I suggest that you read the following article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574324361508092006.html

You will also find that the following website is a comprehensive source for facts on the health care debate:

http://healthcare.cato.org/

I agree with the following Cato Institute health care reform recommendations:

A government takeover of the health care system, as proposed by the president and some in Congress, would be a step in the wrong direction. Instead, we should pursue a uniquely American solution, one that builds on free markets, competition and choice.

1. Let individuals control their health care dollars, and free them to choose from a wide variety of health plans and providers.
2. Move away from a health care system dominated by employer-provided health insurance. Health insurance should be personal and portable, controlled by individuals themselves rather than government or an employer. Employment-based insurance hides much of the true cost of health care to consumers, thereby encouraging over-consumption. It also limits consumer choice, since employers get final say over what type of insurance a worker will receive. It means people who don’t receive insurance through work are put at a significant and costly disadvantage. And, of course, it means that if you lose your job, you are likely to end up uninsured as well.
3. Changing from employer to individual insurance requires changing the tax treatment of health insurance. The current system excludes the value of employer-provided insurance from a worker’s taxable income. However, a worker purchasing health insurance on their own must do so with after-tax dollars. This provides a significant tilt towards employer-provided insurance, which should be reversed. Workers should receive a standard deduction, a tax credit, or, better still, large Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) for the purchase of health insurance, regardless of whether they receive it through their job or purchase it on their own.
4. We need to increase competition among both insurers and health providers. People should be allowed to purchase health insurance across state lines. One study estimated that that adjustment alone could cover 17 million uninsured Americans without costing taxpayers a dime.
5. We also need to rethink medical licensing laws to encourage greater competition among providers. Nurse practitioners, physician assistants, midwives, and other non-physician practitioners should have far greater ability to treat patients. Doctors and other health professionals should be able to take their licenses from state to state. We should also be encouraging innovations in delivery such as medical clinics in retail outlets.
6. Congress should give Medicare enrollees a voucher, let them choose any health plan on the market, and let them keep the savings if they choose an economical plan. Medicare could even give larger vouchers to the poor and sick to ensure they could afford coverage.
7. The expansion of “health status insurance” would protect many of those with preexisting conditions. States may also wish to experiment with high risk pools to ensure coverage for those with high cost medical conditions.

Lessons from China

The following article discusses the government of China’s economic stimulus policy:

http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSTRE5740B620090805?feedType=RSS&feedName=businessNews

These paragraphs are significant:

• But Huang Yiping, a professor at Beijing University and former chief Asia economist at Citigroup, argued that the government needed to adjust its fiscal policies to prevent the economy from becoming too reliant on public investment.
• 
  "The government should be more cautious in approving new projects in the coming months, as the investment rush could sow the seeds of an increase in bad bank loans and could also crowd out private sector investment," Huang said at a forum.
• 
  Beijing wants to keep its budget deficit to within 3 percent of GDP this year, a target that economists say will be tough to hit given current spending and revenue trends. The deficit in 2008 was about 0.5 percent of GDP.

This article discusses the Congressional Budget Office forecast for the US deficit:

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE52J3SR20090320

• The Congressional Budget Office forecast a record $1.8 trillion deficit for the fiscal year that ends September 30 under Obama's budget proposal -- or 13.1 percent of gross domestic product.

Which country is presenting a brighter future for its children? Is it the USA with a budget deficit of 13.1% of GDP or communist China with a budget deficit of 3% of GDP?