Newsweek, which I was surprised to learn today is still in business selling lefty rags, unleashed a poll where they found almost everyone loves democrat health care reform. They accomplished this amazing feat by breaking out the core components and asking for each, "Do you favor or oppose this proposal?"
Here's an example:
(Are you in favor of) Requiring that all Americans have health insurance, with the government providing financial help to those who can’t afford it.
Most people are going to read this as saying, "I'd like everyone to have health insurance." They miss the first word "Requiring", and sure, the government should provide financial help.
Well what does any of that mean? Absolutely nothing. First of all, the "government" doesn't help anyone do anything. You do. That's your tax dollars at work for someone else and you have no control over it.
So how about this for a question:
(Are you in favor of) The government imposing an additional tax or fee on you to pay for someone else to have health insurance they may not need or ever use?
That's a much more honest question given the actual legislation, and clearly only severe bleeding hearts would be in favor of such obvious socialism.
Finally, Newsweek, like all lefty rags, over samples liberals by a wide margin. While most credible polls put Bama's Approve/Disapprove at even, Newsweek manages to find 11% swing in his favor, so their results can be read as skewed by the same percentage.
I hope that's the last time I ever cite Newsweek for any reason. Goodnight!
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Getting To The Meat Of It
At the health care debacle today the Campaigner-In-Chief used the analogy of meat inspectors to show how government is not only an absolute good but a necessity in regulating private industry. Sure, without meat inspectors, meat would be cheaper, but at what cost to consumer health? None, and if you're surprised by that you need a lesson in free markets.
This is the perfect analogy to show why democrats are dead wrong about capitalism. All you need to do is take a look at what has happened to Toyota to see the truth. What happened when their cars showed faulty gas and brake pedals? People stopped buying Toyota. There is no greater incentive to improve than when the market turns against you. Toyota did not intentionally put faulty pedals in their cars, and since it took almost a year for the problem to be exposed no government inspector would have discovered the problem either. Toyota knows what they need to do and they don't need anyone to tell them what to do, least of all the US government.
So back to Bama's meat inspector analogy. Does anyone believe for one second that if people started getting food poisoning from Oscar Mayer bologna that Oscar Mayer wouldn't do absolutely everything it could and then some to crack down on quality control? But it goes even deeper than that, because Oscar Mayer never wants that to happen in the first place, their quality control has to be impeccable. Meat inspectors are just a bunch of union schlubs who spend all day watching the clock, not the meat. The industry self-regulates, and inspectors only get in the way.
So yeah, get rid of all the government inspectors, and free markets will self regulate to the highest standards, and Americans' food dollars will go a lot farther as a result!
So Bama is once again proven wrong on a basic tenet of our capitalist society. We can't trust anything he does, because he just doesn't understand how this country actually works.
This is the perfect analogy to show why democrats are dead wrong about capitalism. All you need to do is take a look at what has happened to Toyota to see the truth. What happened when their cars showed faulty gas and brake pedals? People stopped buying Toyota. There is no greater incentive to improve than when the market turns against you. Toyota did not intentionally put faulty pedals in their cars, and since it took almost a year for the problem to be exposed no government inspector would have discovered the problem either. Toyota knows what they need to do and they don't need anyone to tell them what to do, least of all the US government.
So back to Bama's meat inspector analogy. Does anyone believe for one second that if people started getting food poisoning from Oscar Mayer bologna that Oscar Mayer wouldn't do absolutely everything it could and then some to crack down on quality control? But it goes even deeper than that, because Oscar Mayer never wants that to happen in the first place, their quality control has to be impeccable. Meat inspectors are just a bunch of union schlubs who spend all day watching the clock, not the meat. The industry self-regulates, and inspectors only get in the way.
So yeah, get rid of all the government inspectors, and free markets will self regulate to the highest standards, and Americans' food dollars will go a lot farther as a result!
So Bama is once again proven wrong on a basic tenet of our capitalist society. We can't trust anything he does, because he just doesn't understand how this country actually works.
Live At The Dog And Pony Show!
I have to lead with a soundbite from Bara Bama, who responded to John McCain's concern that health care reform treat all Americans equally by saying, "We're not campaigning anymore. The election's over." To which McCain replied, "I'm reminded of that every day." The obvious problem with this is that John McCain is running for re-election this year and Bama will never stop campaigning. We learned last week that Axelrod is already putting together the 2012 campaign team and deciding whether to base the campaign HQ in Chicago or D.C. If you ask me, they're both clowns.
Leading up to this event, New York Congressman Anthony Weiner claimed he'd, "Never met a Republican who wasn't a wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry." So, just so I get this straight, every Republican he's ever met is a wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry. Yeah, that's what he said, and he repeated it too, on the floor of the House chamber yesterday. There are 2 possibilities with this guy. Either he has never actually met a Republican, which may be possible in some districts of New York, or he's a worthless liar. Oh wait, he works in Washington - he's met all kinds of actual Republicans. Well, that's that then. This is the kind of useful dialog Democrats get a pass on but Republicans don't dare use because they get labeled as obstructionists. Riiiight.
What representative Weiner (pronounced whiner) was so upset about was the effort to tear down protections insurance companies get with regard to competition. The basic idea is that in order to sell insurance you have to be capable of paying out claims; you can't just start selling insurance out of the back of a truck. So why do Democrats think that's a problem? Because the only entity that Democrats want competing with the insurance companies is the Federal Government. If the public option gets passed before this exemption is removed the Supreme Court could throw it out. It's not that Republicans favor monopolies, its that they understand Democrats don't want competition, they want single-payer. Who are the hypocrites here? Isn't it obvious?
If Weiner and Democrats actually favored competition they would tear down all such regulations, allow companies and individuals to purchase insurance from an insurance company in the country. That's competition. That's free market capitalism. And that's what Democrats fear most.
Piling onto the hypocrisy, what do you think Democrats will do if they get government single payer and corporations no longer have to pay health insurance? Do you think they'll be satisfied knowing that expense is now profit? Hell no! They'll tax the shit out of every company in the world that employs even one U.S. worker. That's government money, dammit!
Ridiculous. If you want to kill America, this is the fastest way to do it.
Leading up to this event, New York Congressman Anthony Weiner claimed he'd, "Never met a Republican who wasn't a wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry." So, just so I get this straight, every Republican he's ever met is a wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry. Yeah, that's what he said, and he repeated it too, on the floor of the House chamber yesterday. There are 2 possibilities with this guy. Either he has never actually met a Republican, which may be possible in some districts of New York, or he's a worthless liar. Oh wait, he works in Washington - he's met all kinds of actual Republicans. Well, that's that then. This is the kind of useful dialog Democrats get a pass on but Republicans don't dare use because they get labeled as obstructionists. Riiiight.
What representative Weiner (pronounced whiner) was so upset about was the effort to tear down protections insurance companies get with regard to competition. The basic idea is that in order to sell insurance you have to be capable of paying out claims; you can't just start selling insurance out of the back of a truck. So why do Democrats think that's a problem? Because the only entity that Democrats want competing with the insurance companies is the Federal Government. If the public option gets passed before this exemption is removed the Supreme Court could throw it out. It's not that Republicans favor monopolies, its that they understand Democrats don't want competition, they want single-payer. Who are the hypocrites here? Isn't it obvious?
If Weiner and Democrats actually favored competition they would tear down all such regulations, allow companies and individuals to purchase insurance from an insurance company in the country. That's competition. That's free market capitalism. And that's what Democrats fear most.
Piling onto the hypocrisy, what do you think Democrats will do if they get government single payer and corporations no longer have to pay health insurance? Do you think they'll be satisfied knowing that expense is now profit? Hell no! They'll tax the shit out of every company in the world that employs even one U.S. worker. That's government money, dammit!
Ridiculous. If you want to kill America, this is the fastest way to do it.
Monday, February 22, 2010
What Do You Think? Nevermind, It Doesn't Matter.
On Thursday Campaigner-In-Chief Bara Bama will meet with Republicans to get their input on health care, see where they can compromise, and try to get some Republican support.
Sounds good right? Except Bama put his health care proposal out today, and it will be voted on by the Senate Friday. WTF? Republicans had zero input into the new Bama version - they weren't invited to the table. And there's no chance the bill will get overhauled in the wee hours Thursday night to include Republican proposals and axe awful democrat ideas.
Obviously he's not interested in Republican input or compromise. This is just an effort to make Republicans look like they're playing politics with health care when the opposite is true.
Don't fall for this dog and pony show, America.
Sounds good right? Except Bama put his health care proposal out today, and it will be voted on by the Senate Friday. WTF? Republicans had zero input into the new Bama version - they weren't invited to the table. And there's no chance the bill will get overhauled in the wee hours Thursday night to include Republican proposals and axe awful democrat ideas.
Obviously he's not interested in Republican input or compromise. This is just an effort to make Republicans look like they're playing politics with health care when the opposite is true.
Don't fall for this dog and pony show, America.
Passing The Bucks
Bama and the democrats are working on Credit Card Reform now, which is an effort to appeal to people who are irresponsible with their finances and get into trouble and then can't afford to donate to Democrat politicians.
Already the pundits are pointing out all the loopholes, but its not really a loophole if all you're doing is passing the buck. By capping interest rates on high-balance and high risk consumers, the Government forces credit card companies to find other ways to generate revenue. Companies do this by creating new fees on consumers who don't otherwise generate revenue for them - those who make payments on time, payoff the entire balance each month, or who maintain a low balance and typically pay for purchases in cash. In other words, people who live within their means.
Instead of telling people to take responsibility for their finances, the government wants to shift the burden to those who are responsible. This is the way it is with democrats. It's just another welfare scam. Why on earth should I pay for some idiots leather coat who works part-time at K-Mart? This is the kind of reform Bama wants. Hope and change and all that bullshit.
The biggest problem with democrat's entire ideology when it comes to the economy is that they believe so strongly in punishing success and bailing out failure. When you punish people for working hard you create a disincentive to continue to work hard. In the case of credit card reform, a lot of people will cancel their cards to avoid fees and reduce discretionary spending as a result. If you believe that consumer spending drives the economy and not government, this is obviously a bad thing. Even today democrats blame the Bush tax cuts for the financial crisis, which is total crap. The tax cuts led to unprecedented growth in the economy during the middle of the Bush years, and the economy only tanked when the corruption at the top of the mortgage lending industry led by government-affiliated financial institutions whose board members were heavily leveraged to democrat senators Chris Dodd and Barney Frank imploded.
Obviously there's a lot more to it than that, but the tax cuts are one of the very few positive things this country's economy had going for it, and Bama is about to raise taxes on everyone to pay for his garbage health care nonsense.
When are they gonna get it that all these entitlements have to sop or this country will self-destruct?
Probably about 2 years after it actually does.
Already the pundits are pointing out all the loopholes, but its not really a loophole if all you're doing is passing the buck. By capping interest rates on high-balance and high risk consumers, the Government forces credit card companies to find other ways to generate revenue. Companies do this by creating new fees on consumers who don't otherwise generate revenue for them - those who make payments on time, payoff the entire balance each month, or who maintain a low balance and typically pay for purchases in cash. In other words, people who live within their means.
Instead of telling people to take responsibility for their finances, the government wants to shift the burden to those who are responsible. This is the way it is with democrats. It's just another welfare scam. Why on earth should I pay for some idiots leather coat who works part-time at K-Mart? This is the kind of reform Bama wants. Hope and change and all that bullshit.
The biggest problem with democrat's entire ideology when it comes to the economy is that they believe so strongly in punishing success and bailing out failure. When you punish people for working hard you create a disincentive to continue to work hard. In the case of credit card reform, a lot of people will cancel their cards to avoid fees and reduce discretionary spending as a result. If you believe that consumer spending drives the economy and not government, this is obviously a bad thing. Even today democrats blame the Bush tax cuts for the financial crisis, which is total crap. The tax cuts led to unprecedented growth in the economy during the middle of the Bush years, and the economy only tanked when the corruption at the top of the mortgage lending industry led by government-affiliated financial institutions whose board members were heavily leveraged to democrat senators Chris Dodd and Barney Frank imploded.
Obviously there's a lot more to it than that, but the tax cuts are one of the very few positive things this country's economy had going for it, and Bama is about to raise taxes on everyone to pay for his garbage health care nonsense.
When are they gonna get it that all these entitlements have to sop or this country will self-destruct?
Probably about 2 years after it actually does.
Friday, February 19, 2010
How Much For Just Your Vote?
Campaigner-In-Chief Bara Bama is visiting Nevada on his "Save the Democrats" tour. This time he's trying to help out that old curmudgeon, Harry Reid. Harry is pretty much dead to rights, and Bama has shown none of the prowess of his predecessor at boosting his party's chances leading into his first midterm.
I believe this is all about Bama in 2012. Nevada is a swing state, and Bama has alienated the gaming industry in Las Vegas, so he's decided to do what Democrats are best at and throw money at the "problem."
By the way, Bama's jabs at Vegas are laughable coming from him. How dare he tell anyone how to spend their money. If people want to entertain themselves by gambling or seeing shows or enjoying the weather, who the hell is he to tell them that's a waste? The ass-clown that occupies the White House has wasted more taxpayer money taking his wife out to eat in just one year than Bush did during his entire first term. The same is true for the number of guests entertained at the White House. Apparently Bama just doesn't have enough work to do. Hypocrite.
This time it's $1.5 BILLION to help with the housing crisis in Las Vegas, where 1 out of 82 homes is in foreclosure. Now, if you take one more step and discover that the foreclosure rate nationally is between 3-5% in the last 2 years, you might actually come to the conclusion that Vegas isn't doing so bad, and may be doing better than the national average. But these are generally big new houses going backup for bid, and people with the means to support presidential candidates financially cannot be allowed to lose their second homes over a silly thing like a mortgage payment.
Of course I'm generalizing. Like everywhere else, people have lost value in their homes in Nevada, but you have to wonder why that state is getting a handout while California, where the governor has been screaming for some of the Bama money for a year, gets very little. If you look to politics for the answer you'll find it. Democrats always take their bread and butter votes for granted - blacks and states with large minority populations always go their way in ridiculous numbers, so they don't have to grease those wheels with cash.
Most infuriating is that $1.5 Billion is coming from paybacks of TARP money. When President Bush signed off on Tarp, creating $750 Billion in new debt for the purpose of saving Americas largest financial institutions, the idea was that the banks would be obligated to pay the money back with interest. The American people would be making out on the deal. I guess we were led to believe that once the money was paid back the balance of the loan issued to create the money would get paid off. You know, the United States borrows money from China and lends it to banks, and then when the banks pay that money back the United States pays back China. That makes sense, right?
Well then Bama took office and now he's looking at all that money coming in and he just can't help himself. He's a democrat, after all. He just has to go out and spend that cash, and the best way to do that is to use it to buy as many votes as possible to stabilize his re-election prospects. So that $750 Billion will get spent again by Bama on pet projects and to grease votes but he will continue to call the debt of the previous administration. What a joke. This guy's catastrophic.
I believe this is all about Bama in 2012. Nevada is a swing state, and Bama has alienated the gaming industry in Las Vegas, so he's decided to do what Democrats are best at and throw money at the "problem."
By the way, Bama's jabs at Vegas are laughable coming from him. How dare he tell anyone how to spend their money. If people want to entertain themselves by gambling or seeing shows or enjoying the weather, who the hell is he to tell them that's a waste? The ass-clown that occupies the White House has wasted more taxpayer money taking his wife out to eat in just one year than Bush did during his entire first term. The same is true for the number of guests entertained at the White House. Apparently Bama just doesn't have enough work to do. Hypocrite.
This time it's $1.5 BILLION to help with the housing crisis in Las Vegas, where 1 out of 82 homes is in foreclosure. Now, if you take one more step and discover that the foreclosure rate nationally is between 3-5% in the last 2 years, you might actually come to the conclusion that Vegas isn't doing so bad, and may be doing better than the national average. But these are generally big new houses going backup for bid, and people with the means to support presidential candidates financially cannot be allowed to lose their second homes over a silly thing like a mortgage payment.
Of course I'm generalizing. Like everywhere else, people have lost value in their homes in Nevada, but you have to wonder why that state is getting a handout while California, where the governor has been screaming for some of the Bama money for a year, gets very little. If you look to politics for the answer you'll find it. Democrats always take their bread and butter votes for granted - blacks and states with large minority populations always go their way in ridiculous numbers, so they don't have to grease those wheels with cash.
Most infuriating is that $1.5 Billion is coming from paybacks of TARP money. When President Bush signed off on Tarp, creating $750 Billion in new debt for the purpose of saving Americas largest financial institutions, the idea was that the banks would be obligated to pay the money back with interest. The American people would be making out on the deal. I guess we were led to believe that once the money was paid back the balance of the loan issued to create the money would get paid off. You know, the United States borrows money from China and lends it to banks, and then when the banks pay that money back the United States pays back China. That makes sense, right?
Well then Bama took office and now he's looking at all that money coming in and he just can't help himself. He's a democrat, after all. He just has to go out and spend that cash, and the best way to do that is to use it to buy as many votes as possible to stabilize his re-election prospects. So that $750 Billion will get spent again by Bama on pet projects and to grease votes but he will continue to call the debt of the previous administration. What a joke. This guy's catastrophic.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
When Government Creates Jobs
In announcing his intention not to run for re-election, Senator Evan Bayh cited the current partisan dynamic in Washington as the reason "Congress has created no jobs" in the last half-year. He said he plans to go into the business world and created jobs the old fashioned way.
Good for him - he definitely has the connections to be a successful business owner and create good jobs through private enterprise. Unfortunately, his reason for leaving is further evidence of the corruption of thought among liberal Democrats. Congress should not be in the business of creating jobs, but rather encouraging private business to expand operations and thereby increase the workforce. They can do this by creating business-friendly environments, and that means streamlining regulation, reducing taxes, and making it easier for firms that employ US workers to do business at home and abroad.
There's a term for a form of government that takes on the responsibility of managing the nation's workforce: Stalinism. That's what Bara Bama and democrats want for us.
Good for him - he definitely has the connections to be a successful business owner and create good jobs through private enterprise. Unfortunately, his reason for leaving is further evidence of the corruption of thought among liberal Democrats. Congress should not be in the business of creating jobs, but rather encouraging private business to expand operations and thereby increase the workforce. They can do this by creating business-friendly environments, and that means streamlining regulation, reducing taxes, and making it easier for firms that employ US workers to do business at home and abroad.
There's a term for a form of government that takes on the responsibility of managing the nation's workforce: Stalinism. That's what Bara Bama and democrats want for us.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
I Write On My Hand, Too
I have to admit Gibbsy's play on Sarah's handwriting today was really funny. Too bad it wasn't meant in good spirit, and that's the problem with these pompous asses who represent and speak for the ultimate pompous ass, our Campaigner-In-Chief Bara Bama. Even more unfortunate was Andrea Mitchell's rant on CNN yesterday. Is there anyone left in America who doesn't think she's a bitch?
It's amazing that they can be so tone-deaf to how people think. This reaction will only serve to boost Palin's support and popularity, and diminish their own.
It's amazing that they can be so tone-deaf to how people think. This reaction will only serve to boost Palin's support and popularity, and diminish their own.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Quick Hit: Jobs And Your Money
During the State of the Union address last week, Bama claimed his stimulus package saved or created "Nearly 2 million jobs." He exaggerates even his own numbers, estimated at 48,000 in October, revised to 600,000 in November, and revised again to 1.6 million in December. I'd call that fuzzy math.
But let's once again say for the sake of argument that the Campaigner-In-Chief's 2 million jobs number is accurate. The purpose of stimulus was to put Americans back to work, and it cost $800 Billion. That's $400,000 per job! And nobody is taking him to task for that. How long is it going to take for all those menial construction jobs to make up for what it cost to save or create them?
And we know he's just making shit up. There's no way to quantify "saved" jobs. And it's been well documented all the fraud in the reporting of these jobs. Yet we're supposed to believe him because he's the chosen one. Just ask him.
So where did all that money really go? The "Free Press" was keen to make big stories over the spending oversights in Iraq during the Bush years, especially when they got to print Haliburton. But they are totally silent, except for the last bastion of true journalism, Fox News, which today highlighted several abuses of stimulus funds where the money apparently disappeared in the bureaucratic process. Billions of dollars just gone without a trace.
Why would anyone trust the Federal government, especially when controlled by Democrats, to manage anything successfully and keep costs down. Hello? Seriously. These people can't get dressed in the morning without generating spending waste, and they want to run health care?
But let's once again say for the sake of argument that the Campaigner-In-Chief's 2 million jobs number is accurate. The purpose of stimulus was to put Americans back to work, and it cost $800 Billion. That's $400,000 per job! And nobody is taking him to task for that. How long is it going to take for all those menial construction jobs to make up for what it cost to save or create them?
And we know he's just making shit up. There's no way to quantify "saved" jobs. And it's been well documented all the fraud in the reporting of these jobs. Yet we're supposed to believe him because he's the chosen one. Just ask him.
So where did all that money really go? The "Free Press" was keen to make big stories over the spending oversights in Iraq during the Bush years, especially when they got to print Haliburton. But they are totally silent, except for the last bastion of true journalism, Fox News, which today highlighted several abuses of stimulus funds where the money apparently disappeared in the bureaucratic process. Billions of dollars just gone without a trace.
Why would anyone trust the Federal government, especially when controlled by Democrats, to manage anything successfully and keep costs down. Hello? Seriously. These people can't get dressed in the morning without generating spending waste, and they want to run health care?
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
The Most Important Essay Ever Written About Obama and Health Care
Bama clearly is not backing away from health care. In New Hampshire today he was emphatic that health care reform is the only solution to solving this nation's long-term economic woes.
He went so far as to say that almost all of the forecasted deficit is a result of the increasing cost of Medicare and Medicaid. This is sort of silly, as it implies our tax dollars are earmarked for everything but these two costly programs, which is untrue. To a different audience, Bama would be just as likely to claim Defense spending is the cause of the deficit, and I would be equally justified in claiming Social Security is the villain.
For the sake of argument let me take the Campaigner-In-Chief at his word. The first question that needs to be asked is, What are Medicare and Medicaid? The answer: Federal Health Insurance programs. In theory, Bama and his Democrats already own these programs, so if they are the problem, then he is justified in implementing his solutions. No other facet of health care needs to be touched. So what's the hold up? To use one of Bama's own arguments, why give someone a heart transplant if all they really need is a bypass?
Bama doesn't want to reform Medicare or Medicaid. He wants to expand them to include all Americans. He sells it using words like "free", and phrases like, "at no cost to you." He must have said each of these half a dozen times during a 5 minute response to a question after his speech. Bama is clever. He knows that these are terms his constituents want to hear, regardless of context. In fact, the context is only relevant as far as he can go back to it when arguing against critics, but, knowing people will hear only what they want to hear, he willfully and insidiously uses these tactics to make it seem to the public that he's giving everything to everyone, and at no cost!
It is critical to examine his substantive proposals in this light. How does he actually plan to reduce costs? His entire basis of cost savings relies on the idea that a "panel of experts" is necessary to review the basis for and plan for care for every patient. The rationale being that right now most patients in the health care system undergo tests they don't need ordered by specialists they didn't need to see in the first place. Under Bama's plan, patients will first be seen by a primary care physician who will then forward initial findings to a panel of experts for review and issuance of a plan for treatment. Only then might the patient be sent to a specialist.
Bama's "waste", which he estimates will be a Trillion dollars by 2020, is derived almost completely from these "needless" visits with specialists and costly tests, which today, he implies, are simply ways for hospitals to extort more money from its patients.
There are so many problems with his theory its hard to pick a starting point.
Let me start first with his "panel of experts" requirement. I hope it's obvious that introducing a bureaucratic layer between the primary care provider and the specialist that you accomplish two things with absolute certainty: 1)You increase the time it takes to provide care for a patient. 2)You create another layer of cost - someone has to pay for the expense of expertise and time for each member of the panel. You may be able to justify the 2nd absolute if the panel determines a specialist or expensive tests are not necessary, but only if you can prove unequivocally that they would have been ordered otherwise. The 1st absolute, however, can never be reclaimed. If someone dies because they had to wait for approval from a panel of experts, that person cannot be brought back from the dead.
Next, every American needs to be aware that this country is already facing a health care crisis more dire than escalating costs. It is a fact that there are simply not enough primary care physicians to see everyone who wants health care. In many areas of the country, clinics have one MD or even none, so all patients are served by PAs, and may receive a lesser quality of care as a result. It is common sense that if you increase the burden on primary care physicians, quality of care must suffer as a direct result. Either people will be forced to wait longer to see someone from the existing pool of physicians, or the bureaucracy will have to find a way to make more primary care personnel. How do you do that? By encouraging more young people to enter medicine, and since it's unlikely that one of those measures of encouragement is more pay, the only other options are fewer education and training requirements at lower cost. The inevitable result is less experienced, less qualified, and less competent primary care personnel. How can that be good for anyone? I believe this will shift the burden back toward specialists, so I don't see how this requirement saves any cost at all.
We must then consider human nature. If cars were free, wouldn't everyone want the most luxurious car possible? And you wouldn't bother getting it repaired if anything ever broke. You'd just trade it in for a brand new one, and you might do it every year anyway just to have it. After all, it's free! If we were to go with Bama's ultimate preference of a single-payer system, anyone with a sniffle would be in to see their primary care physician. Why suffer when you can get someone to check you out and give you drugs? And who's going to tell Americans they can't go to the doctor when they think they're not feeling well? Again we're presented with two realities. Either people will be willing to congest the system by waiting to get health care for every little thing they think is wrong with them, or the government will have to stop people at the door. Good luck with that.
Now think about the fact that by 2020, when Bama figures he'll have saved America through better, less costly health care, there will be 400 million perspective patients! Where on earth are we going to find doctors for 400 million people? How will the government possibly enlist qualified medical personnel to fill its "panels of experts" to review 400 million cases? We're staring down the gun barrel of the biggest bureaucracy in this country's history! Today, local hospitals review case studies and determine the course of care. In Bama's proposed system, all this would be fed into a nationalized system, which must continually be reviewed for consistency and uniformity of care. That might be ok if every case and every person was the same, but the reality is every patient must be evaluated individually with respect to their history and condition. Its obvious the federal government is in no way capable of conducting any such agency in a way that both reduces cost and improves quality of care. That is an impossibility of the first order.
Finally, health care is a self-perpetuating industry. You partake of health care so that you can live longer, which ultimately leads to you needing more health care the older you get. People should not be required to live to 100 just because technology may be able to keep them alive that long. This is where Sarah Palin was exactly right in labeling Bama's policy as "Death Panels." Because of the reasons enumerated above, the government will decide who can receive care and who can't, and to what extent. As a society we will have little choice in the matter. What is it called when the government decides who among its citizens lives or dies? I would call it a political oligarchy.
Since Bama has been so keen to blame Bush and Republicans for all of his woes, he should chew on this - it was Democrats that created Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, three of the four biggest burdens on the Federal budget. Now propose real solutions, not just those that consolidate Federal power and create more Federal bureaucracy. Democrat proposals, if passed and unchecked, can only lead to a greater burden on the American taxpayer and an escalation of government spending and control. Believe me, Communism is not so absurd a future reality.
So what is the solution? How do we save America? It seems clear that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid need to be abandoned. I propose a cutoff age, say 50 years old and older for those who can expect to get a check and receive care. Everyone else is on their own. I'm dead serious.
How can I say this? Because I believe in something Bama and Democrats do not - the ability of a free market economy to adapt to the consumer. If there is a demand for health care, truly free markets will generate industry to fulfill that demand. It is inevitable and absolute. The alternative - the path we're on now - is certain disaster for this country, and nothing they propose will do anything to stop it.
He went so far as to say that almost all of the forecasted deficit is a result of the increasing cost of Medicare and Medicaid. This is sort of silly, as it implies our tax dollars are earmarked for everything but these two costly programs, which is untrue. To a different audience, Bama would be just as likely to claim Defense spending is the cause of the deficit, and I would be equally justified in claiming Social Security is the villain.
For the sake of argument let me take the Campaigner-In-Chief at his word. The first question that needs to be asked is, What are Medicare and Medicaid? The answer: Federal Health Insurance programs. In theory, Bama and his Democrats already own these programs, so if they are the problem, then he is justified in implementing his solutions. No other facet of health care needs to be touched. So what's the hold up? To use one of Bama's own arguments, why give someone a heart transplant if all they really need is a bypass?
Bama doesn't want to reform Medicare or Medicaid. He wants to expand them to include all Americans. He sells it using words like "free", and phrases like, "at no cost to you." He must have said each of these half a dozen times during a 5 minute response to a question after his speech. Bama is clever. He knows that these are terms his constituents want to hear, regardless of context. In fact, the context is only relevant as far as he can go back to it when arguing against critics, but, knowing people will hear only what they want to hear, he willfully and insidiously uses these tactics to make it seem to the public that he's giving everything to everyone, and at no cost!
It is critical to examine his substantive proposals in this light. How does he actually plan to reduce costs? His entire basis of cost savings relies on the idea that a "panel of experts" is necessary to review the basis for and plan for care for every patient. The rationale being that right now most patients in the health care system undergo tests they don't need ordered by specialists they didn't need to see in the first place. Under Bama's plan, patients will first be seen by a primary care physician who will then forward initial findings to a panel of experts for review and issuance of a plan for treatment. Only then might the patient be sent to a specialist.
Bama's "waste", which he estimates will be a Trillion dollars by 2020, is derived almost completely from these "needless" visits with specialists and costly tests, which today, he implies, are simply ways for hospitals to extort more money from its patients.
There are so many problems with his theory its hard to pick a starting point.
Let me start first with his "panel of experts" requirement. I hope it's obvious that introducing a bureaucratic layer between the primary care provider and the specialist that you accomplish two things with absolute certainty: 1)You increase the time it takes to provide care for a patient. 2)You create another layer of cost - someone has to pay for the expense of expertise and time for each member of the panel. You may be able to justify the 2nd absolute if the panel determines a specialist or expensive tests are not necessary, but only if you can prove unequivocally that they would have been ordered otherwise. The 1st absolute, however, can never be reclaimed. If someone dies because they had to wait for approval from a panel of experts, that person cannot be brought back from the dead.
Next, every American needs to be aware that this country is already facing a health care crisis more dire than escalating costs. It is a fact that there are simply not enough primary care physicians to see everyone who wants health care. In many areas of the country, clinics have one MD or even none, so all patients are served by PAs, and may receive a lesser quality of care as a result. It is common sense that if you increase the burden on primary care physicians, quality of care must suffer as a direct result. Either people will be forced to wait longer to see someone from the existing pool of physicians, or the bureaucracy will have to find a way to make more primary care personnel. How do you do that? By encouraging more young people to enter medicine, and since it's unlikely that one of those measures of encouragement is more pay, the only other options are fewer education and training requirements at lower cost. The inevitable result is less experienced, less qualified, and less competent primary care personnel. How can that be good for anyone? I believe this will shift the burden back toward specialists, so I don't see how this requirement saves any cost at all.
We must then consider human nature. If cars were free, wouldn't everyone want the most luxurious car possible? And you wouldn't bother getting it repaired if anything ever broke. You'd just trade it in for a brand new one, and you might do it every year anyway just to have it. After all, it's free! If we were to go with Bama's ultimate preference of a single-payer system, anyone with a sniffle would be in to see their primary care physician. Why suffer when you can get someone to check you out and give you drugs? And who's going to tell Americans they can't go to the doctor when they think they're not feeling well? Again we're presented with two realities. Either people will be willing to congest the system by waiting to get health care for every little thing they think is wrong with them, or the government will have to stop people at the door. Good luck with that.
Now think about the fact that by 2020, when Bama figures he'll have saved America through better, less costly health care, there will be 400 million perspective patients! Where on earth are we going to find doctors for 400 million people? How will the government possibly enlist qualified medical personnel to fill its "panels of experts" to review 400 million cases? We're staring down the gun barrel of the biggest bureaucracy in this country's history! Today, local hospitals review case studies and determine the course of care. In Bama's proposed system, all this would be fed into a nationalized system, which must continually be reviewed for consistency and uniformity of care. That might be ok if every case and every person was the same, but the reality is every patient must be evaluated individually with respect to their history and condition. Its obvious the federal government is in no way capable of conducting any such agency in a way that both reduces cost and improves quality of care. That is an impossibility of the first order.
Finally, health care is a self-perpetuating industry. You partake of health care so that you can live longer, which ultimately leads to you needing more health care the older you get. People should not be required to live to 100 just because technology may be able to keep them alive that long. This is where Sarah Palin was exactly right in labeling Bama's policy as "Death Panels." Because of the reasons enumerated above, the government will decide who can receive care and who can't, and to what extent. As a society we will have little choice in the matter. What is it called when the government decides who among its citizens lives or dies? I would call it a political oligarchy.
Since Bama has been so keen to blame Bush and Republicans for all of his woes, he should chew on this - it was Democrats that created Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, three of the four biggest burdens on the Federal budget. Now propose real solutions, not just those that consolidate Federal power and create more Federal bureaucracy. Democrat proposals, if passed and unchecked, can only lead to a greater burden on the American taxpayer and an escalation of government spending and control. Believe me, Communism is not so absurd a future reality.
So what is the solution? How do we save America? It seems clear that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid need to be abandoned. I propose a cutoff age, say 50 years old and older for those who can expect to get a check and receive care. Everyone else is on their own. I'm dead serious.
How can I say this? Because I believe in something Bama and Democrats do not - the ability of a free market economy to adapt to the consumer. If there is a demand for health care, truly free markets will generate industry to fulfill that demand. It is inevitable and absolute. The alternative - the path we're on now - is certain disaster for this country, and nothing they propose will do anything to stop it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)