I don't get much time to do basic research.  Like you, I have a job.  The people who oppose us, this is their job. Fortunately, there are people who do have access to the resources I don't (or don't have time to hunt down) and who've had time to reason some of these issues out to their logical conclusions.  Remember, liberalism fears logic, since it easily exposes their game.

I heard a number of things on the radio tonight, specifically on Hugh Hewitt's show, that finally gave me the arguments I needed to make for some of the things Congressman Gonzalez has been saying in his "newsletters."

Argument 1: The United States is a wealthy nation.  If Canada, England, France and so on can afford to run centrally managed health care systems, why can't we?

Answer 1a: As I've been known to say, do the math.  The population of the US is estimated to be somewhat above 307 million humans.  According to a caller to Hugh's show, if we total all the humans in those three nations mentioned above, they reach just over 278 million.  Doesn't sound like much difference, does it?  Until you consider that no single nation in that list even approaches our  population load, and we're not talking about the difference between 278 and 300.  Million.  So, I looked them up.  Canada, call it 34 million. England, 49 million.  OK, call it 50 million. For France, call it 63 million.  Throw in the Netherlands...17 million.  She came in low. I get 164 million, even with rounding upward fairly generously.  Maybe she had newer numbers than I found on the internet, or I missed a nation or two. In the case of Canada, we are about to dump the equivalent of Canada's population on a Medicare system that's already very shaky.

Answer 1b: Let's face it. America's military is absolutely unbeatable on the field of battle.  We are the go-to guys and gals when you want something blown up right now.  We still struggle with asymmetric warfare, but right now that's because...well, that's not the point.  The point is, that kind of battlefield prowess didn't come cheap, and keeping it that way isn't getting any cheaper.  Ask Europe, when hundreds of Russian T-90S main battle tanks show up on their borders, who are they gonna call? Ghost-busters?

Argument 2: The stories of medical rationing in those nations are scare-ups invented by the Republicans to politicize health care.

Answer 2a: I have a dear, dear friend who lives in Canada.  Recently, she was ill with a respiratory issue of some sort.  Another friend took her to the hospital and she was being treated in minutes.  They sent her home with a supply of meds, all free of charge.  Except for the crushing tax rate. Don't misunderstand me.  I love my friend and I'd be devastated if anything happened to her.  But, what she experienced, in the scheme of things,, didn't cost  much.  No MRI's. No CT scans. No expensive, cutting edge medicines.  And she happens to live in a fairly sparsely populated area of the country.  Remember? 34/307, eleven percent of our total population.

Answer 2b: How many times do aged people need to be denied health care for it to be tragic?  Congress claims they will get their $500 million (one half trillion, folks) out of Medicare.  Who gets Medicare coverage? Mom, dad and the grandparents.  One of President Barack Obama's "czar's" is on record advocating that health care be triaged based on the patient's value to society. Under eighteen and over sixty and the rest of society has no real use for you.  But I'll bet the kids will want some say in that.

Argument 3: President Barack Obama only wants to cure the ills in the health care system; the high cost, the lack of portability, the exclusion of pre-existing illnesses and a few other hand-wringers tossed in for good measure.

Answer 3: Me too.  But I'd like to die in reasonable comfort when the Lord calls, not when society determines I am no longer sufficiently valued to keep alive. I also have to ask why the conservatives have been almost completely locked out of this process, with the exception of a very few who are in no position of have real impact, and whose input has been ignored? 

Why do we have the bouncing-demonization of the week? Doctors who perform unnecessary operations.  Oops...how about those evil corporate executives... Or the Republicans, who have no plan, even if we weren't ignoring it? Or George Bush (pick one)? Or the Astro-turf, swastika bearing screamers with blue hair at the Town Hall meetings? Or those dastardly, profit-grubbing insurance companies... Or Fox News?

It is the attacks by the Obama administration on the ordinary mechanisms of American politics that lead me to be distrustful of him and his.  He's made repeated attacks on the first amendment, from excluding reporters who weren't slobbering at the sight of him during the campaign to declaring Fox News to be the "opposition" today.

He's brought on upwards of thirty political managers, the "czars," who didn't endure the "advise and consent" of the Congress, about whom we know little, including much about what they are doing. The federal government now owns roughly one half of the automobile industry, with no sign that it intends to divest itself of that burden any time soon. 
Trust me, after the economic collapse, when Obama hollers "Jump!" the nation's financial institutions are yelling back, "How high?"

If, while blindfolded, I am presented with a soft flower, a sweet scent and sharp thorns, I don't have to be told the odds that it is a rose.

Keep those emails going, folks.  This one isn't over yet.  If they have to force it down our throats without any conservative support at all, then they own it. That frightens them.  Which brings up another question. 

If this is such a great idea, and they are so certain of that...why are we still arguing about it? Surely our benevolent rulers would have acted in our best interests, despite ourselves, by now.

Susie thinks Mrs. Obama looked angry and speculated they'd had a fight.
Biden-Pelosi jumping jacks? Again.
 
Not a Republican stood. Eventually, President Barack Obama managed to say a few things they were willing to applaud.

President Barack Obama stated that we were the world's only wealthy democracy that didn't provide universal health care. 

My answer? We're also the only surviving democracy that is still producing innovative advances in medicine. Once the healthcare system is wrecked and the free market no longer exists for medical care, then all that research and innovation will cease.  In a very few years, we will no longer have the capacity to restart that research without considerable lead-time.  When students aren't motivated to enter medicine, we get no new doctors or researchers.

He claims that healthcare is THE deficit problem? The mind boggles. He forces through the largest spending bill in the world's history, let alone ours, and he thinks healthcare is causing his deficit?  He's completely disconnected from our Universe.

So, what is his plan?

Asks everyone to take part, to take responsibility.  I assume that means to shoulder the costs.

There's the same old "nothing in this plan" nonsense.  His words, taken literally, are true.  The bill does not force you off whatever plan you have.  It just makes it impossibly expensive for your employer to remain with your current carrier.  I can just imagine how quickly the state of Texas will be on the "public option."
 
What is going on here is instance after instance of set-ups that permit these things we fear by not forbidding them.  Nothing says they'll pay for abortions.  Nothing says they won't either.  Nothing says this committee will determine what and how much.  But the "Secretary" will act on those NON-MANDATORY recommendations and make them mandatory. I want to know which alternate reality permits the government to dictate which procedures will be provided and then claim that they won't be interfering with our relationship with our doctors?

We make police officers show cause when they make a traffic stop. Because we've given them the power and authority to make those stops—we want to be certain that power isn't abused.  This bill is one massive flight of unrestrained power.

These are the things he wants: pre-existing conditions must be covered, they can't drop you when sick, no caps on payouts (blink!) and caps on out-of-pocket charges.
Let's get real here.  No one likes these things.  They should not be capricious.  But, face it, insurance companies are in business to (gasp!) make money.  That's what a free market is all about.  Covering pre-existing conditions means they must accept people they know are going to cost more than they are paying in premiums. Forbidding the company from dropping patients once they are sick means that they are left open for massive fraud from patients with un-provable illnesses that are expensive but have no real basis in medicine.

(The single most common employee comp fraud is back pain.  That's because it's easy to fake and impossible to disprove.)

No caps on payouts? Same argument.  Caps on oop charges? Still the same argument.  In addition, ordinary people are then ill-motivated to reconsider an emergency room visit for the common cold. 

No extra charge for testing? Where did that come from?  I've my share of health issues and I've never seen any sign of being charged "extra" for testing.

I don't have the answers for these problems.  I really don't.  I'm caught in the pre-existing condition trap.  It's not fun.  Real people come down with real illnesses that can cost millions of dollars to treat.  Every one is a tragedy.  Dropping a person who entered into the contract in good faith and then became ill is morally wrong, contractually wrong and damned well should be illegal. My argument would be the same for caps on total payouts.  My guess is that it's fairly rare, but I can easily imagine a person with chronic health problems running up a multi-million dollar bill.  That's the whole point in spreading the risk and allowing the insurance companies to compete nationally would seem likely to fix that. 

Capping oop? Well, with some protection against fraud, I'd be willing to force that one down their throats.  My point being, if you force the insurance industry into these conditions without some protection built in for their profit, they will soon be out of business...which I maintain is what the liberal left wants in the first place.

What the devil is this insurance exchange? I've read most of the bill and I have no idea what he means.  It looks to me like he's expecting a consortium of insurance companies to band together to provide a risk pool pro bono, i.e. at no charge.

For the really poor, the ones who can't afford the basic coverage, he wants tax credits "according to your need."  Shudder.  To each according to their needs... Where have we heard that before?

He wants to immediately offer low cost coverage? Really? Who will do that? My guess is we will. 

If you choose not to buy coverage, he wants to fine you. Everyone will be required to carry basic coverage. Excuse me.  If the government wants a check and they won't take no for an answer, that is a tax. So, you have a choice.  Buy the government supplied, inexpensive insurance, or buy the publicly offered, higher cost insurance.  Hmmm... let me think about that a minute. The carrot or the semi-auto pistol in the U.S. Marshall's fist? I think Barack Obama's got this financial incentive thing down pat.  Too bad he won't apply the idea to taxes.

Then the demonization began. His evil opponents, spreading lies and using scare tactics.  My God, they even read the bill!  How dare they!  About here he made some comment about it being a lie that the bill would cover illegal aliens. South Carolina Republican Rep. Joe Wilson shouted "You lie!"  Nancy Pelosi was apoplectic! That glare was worth the entire forty-eight minutes of rerun!  I understand he later apologized.  Frankly, I would have apologized for interrupting, but not for the accusation.

He pushes competition. There's the public option. He claims it would have to be self-supporting by premiums. Only 5% of the population would sign up. He didn't tell us that works out to fifteen million people.  Only 15,000,000 people.  Doesn't sound so hot, does it? Oh, and everyone else stays with their current, now more expensive, insurance.

There comes a flurry of claims and comments.  I had some trouble keeping up.  It would apply only to targeted areas or co-ops...of some kind. He wants Americans to have a choice. No bureaucrat will get between you and your doctor. He will not sign it if it adds to deficit. He will pay for it with savings from inside the current system, I presume he means Medicare and Medicaid.  That would be the $650 billion in cuts to Medicare? Sorry, Mom, Dad. Cut back on those pain meds to save money. Sorry you can't breathe. Don't worry. It'll be over soon.

At that point, I'm thinking, "You're going to have to re-write HR3200."

He goes on. None of Medicare trust to be spent. Commission to find waste and fraud. Prescription drug coverage. What are these changes? Why are we supposed to believe the government can effectively cure itself? He can't even start thhis speech on time. Wasn't AlGore supposed to root out waste and fraud during the Clinton Administration?  He did, didn't he? I mean between inventing the Internet and stuff.

Barack Obama wants to charge a surtax for Cadillac coverage. Suddenly, he skips over the problems of medical malpractice and, although he doesn't use the word, tort reform. Oh, we might let you experiment with it, but nothing serious.  No need to anger all those nice trial lawyers.

He claims the CBO comes in with $900 billion over 10 years. Much of it will be paid for by the wealthiest Americans. I had no idea I'd become wealthy.

Then he flips back and forth a couple of times, from good cop to bad cop and back again.  He wants to seek common ground. Strange...he won't meet with the Republican leadership.  Perhaps the ground is only common if he owns it? Then, he promises that if you indulge in more lying and fear-mongering, he'll call us out.  Say what?  Like, "C'mon, let's take this outside?"  A common bar brawl?  Or maybe IRS audits?  Visits from the ATF? More "fishy" data collection efforts?  What, precisely, is he going to do to me for telling the truth about his bill?

Back to good cop.  He tries to call this a moral issue. Doing this is a part of the character of America.  He sniffles a bit as he drags Ted Kennedy's poor wife back over the grief-coals.  The poor woman is actually crying.  What kind of man would put a grieving widow on national TV so soon after her husband dies?  He may have been a creep, but she obviously loved him.  Is that the character of America? Cruelty to widows?

They can't claim moral high ground on this. It is insane to accuse our side of wishing hardship on our fellow citizens.  We want these problems fixed too. In fact, we actually, really do want these things fixed, as opposed to an attempt to grab control of another eighteen percent of the economy and clear up this baby-boomer problem by encouraging them to die!

Barack Obama tells us that hard work should be rewarded.  That must be why they're going to tax the wealthiest Americans and charge them extra for having really good health insurance.  I wonder—is he going to pay that surcharge too? They want to have it both ways.

Back to bad cop.  He begins whining about the angry words.  He must mean the American citizens with the brazen nerve to disagree with him.  You know, the 1.3+ million citizens who signed that petition. Why, things have gotten so bad they can't even talk!  I guess that's why they won't even talk to the Republicans, or admit that our side has offered real suggestions that don't involve destroying an entire industry.

He just wants to proceed without acrimony.  "Stop fighting with me. Give up and let me do it to you!"

Afterward, I had to listen to Bill O'Reilly discuss the speech.  A couple of things occurred to me, or were mentioned during the discussion.  One thing comes to mind, and one of the Congressmen mentioned it as well.  Which section of the Constitution permits the Federal government to require its citizens to carry some basic minimum of insurance?  The states get to do this.  Their constitutions (or equivalent) permit this for things like auto insurance. 

And...it finally dawned on me why the "end of life" stuff is in the bill, and why it's added to the Social Security Act.  When last I wrote about that, it seemed benign.  Now, it's possibly the most insidious part of the entire thousand page monstrosity.  They want to pay doctors to do this counseling.  They want to encourage doctors to encourage us to die without putting up too much of a fuss!

When O'Reilly challenged Axelrod to allow interstate competition, he tried to blame Bush for not doing it and when that didn't work, he tried to claim the rules preventing it are a state issue. So, Bush is evil for not doing what Axelrod thinks the federal government can't do? I wonder what Rod Serling from the "Twilight Zone" would have thought of that logic? The government can force every insurance company to cover pre-existing conditions but can't insist on states allowing inter-region competition?

Nothing has changed, folks.  President Barack Obama just spent forty-eight minutes telling us that the fight isn't over.

Of all the things a politician could do, when it happened, I was perhaps more offended by Teddy Kennedy's murder of Mary Jo Kopechne by abandoning her to drown in the cold, dark waters of Chappaquiddick.  I do believe I would have been far more forgiving if he'd simply shot her and called it a day.

However, I also believe the Universe is a just place and my guess is that Mary Jo was permitted to meet Teddy again the other night.  Sadly, the real tragedy is the thousands of liquor dealers now destitute with Teddy's removal from the market.

I realize I'm being small minded and perhaps even un-Christian.  But I also believe that murder, even if the truth really was simply blind, stupid, arrogant, staggering drunkenness, is unforgivable and that the citizens of Massachusetts repeatedly reelected him to that seat was a crime forced upon the rest of us.  Furthermore, we all get to channel-surf this weekend, looking for some program that isn't blubbering about this man's demise.  Plant him, offer up his soul to God's justice and let's move on.  My condolences to his family, especially the ones who had to live with him all those years.  Look out, Arnold.  I sense a Constitutional Amendment coming on.  No one is safe.  Not even Jon Jon.
Do you suppose it would be rude to erupt in laughter the next time some nitwit Democrat insists we should pass ObamaCare because Teddy died?

Now that I have that off my mind, I think Hugh Hewitt may be onto something. As I understand it, he tossed off a comment that people could donate $10 to Senator Reid's opponent in the coming 2010 race, and then forward the electronic receipt to Sen. Reid along with a straightforward explanation that the donation is a consequence of the Senator's support for the ObamaCare bill. Thousands upon thousands of checks later, he opines that Reid may have reason to be concerned.

Apparently, Hugh agrees with me (only a hell of a lot more efficiently!) that the way to a Democrat's heart is by causing them to worry about their job.  He has now added a House seat to the effort, that of Congresswoman Betsy Markey, also running a close race with a Republican opponent.  I think it's a great idea and I would urge you to spend $20 in a way that's likely to be the best, most focused pair of sawbucks you'll ever  find.  You can pick up the thread at http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/

You may recall my Uncle Alex's warning about ATF agents barging into innocent people's homes on the scent of multiple gun purchases.  His advice is to never, ever allow a Federal agent into your home, especially without a properly executed warrant the describes specifically the weapons in which they are interested and why they want to see them.  If you can, offer to meet them in your lawyer's office with the indicated weapons, rather than permit them access to your home.  My sense is that it is much like allowing an officer to search your car.  Once the permission is given, he may "see" what he needs to see.  Furthermore, if you believe you may be subject to one of these impromptu searches, instruct your family in what to do if they are confronted by these people.

Apparently, ATF is conducting these searches in response to the suggestion that evil Americans are smuggling weapons into Mexico to destabilize their peaceful drug smuggling operations.

Even if we can't beat people like Prince Charley in "secure" Democratic enclaves, we can make them nervous.  Miracles have happened in political races before.  A fella named Dewey comes to mind.  Keep showering them with emails and keep an open mind for ideas that will work better than this one has so far.

Never give up.  Never surrender.  It is our country and we will take it back.

Film at eleven... 

 

Ladies and Gentlemen of the CAN,

Sorry about the lull.  Those of you who are teachers know what the last few days of a school year are like.  Then, selfishly, I took a few days to rest.

I'm sure you've been watching the news and thinking about ongoing events.  Here are a couple of things that are on my mind.

The President's push to get his health care reform, although we don't yet know for certain what that reform is, are terribly worrisome, especially if you're sneaking past middle age.  We do have rumors and leaks.  That information forms a picture that eventually leads to the end of the private insurance company and a single-payer government-run package made mandatory for every American.  

I know I don't need to warn you of this, but listen carefully to the words the Democratic Socialists use to describe the plan.  There has been mention of fines to be levied for failing to enroll in the plan.  There's the words and there is the practical result.  A fine for failing to comply is just another way of telling you that the act is mandatory and the penalty for failing to comply with the law is a fine.  In this case, since they intend for this to apply to every American, it is also a tax.

A little like that "voluntary" income tax system we all pay into...and face fines for failing to pay up on a timely basis and in which, if we push hard enough, we get to greet an armed US Marshall at our door one fine … night.

If health care is taken fully out of the free market system, consider the result.  

No more research effort into new drugs.  The rigid "market" in a single-payer system wouldn't produce the return on investment needed to finance such research.  Consider this: we are the only place left of the planet with an economy that can support that research.  If it stops here, it stops every where.  If, like me, you are holding on for a cure for what ails you, well, never mind.

If you are a man, and getting' on in years, know that there is a much better than even chance that you will have prostate cancer, eventually.  In England and Canada, if you are more than 65 years of age and have prostate cancer, the state will not treat the disease.  You are no longer within their cost-benefit parameters.  Get into your 70's and heart disease and cancer in general fall off the chart as well.  One wonders if the Democratic Socialists aren't planning on fixing their Social Security woes by letting us die off as quickly as possible.

On the same cost-benefit issue, consider the cost of devices like CT scanners and other, more sophisticated machines coming along.  These things are expensive.  If the single-payer system can't support new drug research, why are we to believe it will support new hardware or even technique research?  Or, suppose the Democratic Socialists fix that by offering big grants to the university system. (That's where much of this research takes place now, but the building and implementation of these machines is pure free market capitalism.)  The research might get done, but the money to build, buy and install  these devices will not be present.  Unless, of course, the government takes on the task of financing that as well.  Say bye-bye to yet another chunk of the free economy.

Certainly our letters and emails to our Representatives can help, but the real voting block whose ox is about to be gored are your doctors.  Please, on your next visit to one of your doctors, talk to them about this.  Tell them of your concerns.  (OK, terrors.) Ask them to pressure the AMA to take a direct and firm stance in  opposition to this health care catastrophe.  And urge them to write letters of their own.

You might even urge them to contact us.

For more information, check out Docs4patientcare.org

A number of years ago, I worked for a major health care insurer, one that owned businesses vertically from the insurance to the delivery, i.e. they offered the insurance and ran the hospitals and clinics that delivered the services.

While working for these people (I was a programmer.) my wife was injured in an automobile accident.  As a young married couple, this was our first experience with a major medical issue as adults.  In very short order I discovered three horrible truths—truths that will doom any effort by the government to alter the health care delivery system in any significant way, given the economics and political will, that would be to our benefit.

Truth one: Insurance companies are not in the business of paying claims.  The function of an insurance company is to collect their payments, invest that cash in the market, or commodities, or whatever they think is making the most money at the moment, and delay paying out any claims as long as possible to increase their "float" on your payments.  They are making money with your money and hoping you stay healthy long enough for them to maximize the return on their protection money.

Truth two: Insurance companies not only have no internal loyalty, they actually engage in actively cheating their various internal divisions.   The hospital run by the same company that runs the insurance division will over-charge and fraudulently bill the insurance division, knowing that the difference in cash will eventually be made up by the increase in premiums or in rejected claims. (We sorry, but that isn't covered...) They are perfectly safe in doing this.  It's rather like having your wife sign your paycheck with your name.  It's not like you're going to complain.

Truth three: Insurance companies have no shred of loyalty to their own employees.  I eventually left the company because I was being asked to write code that I felt was at best morally wrong if not actually illegal.

Apart from Truth Three, the first two are the principle reason why the liberal administration wants into the insurance business.  The profit potential is enormous.  If ever an organization was better prepared to tie actions up in red tape and senseless delays, it is the Federal government.  If ever an organization was better prepared to pointedly ignore the right hand's actions while wringing the left, it is the Federal government.

Even supposing an honest effort to pay claims, an insurance scheme is predicated on the basic idea that the consumer is betting they will become ill and need the insurance before they pay the equivalent amount in premiums.  The insurance company is depending upon having a customer population that is, by percentage, healthy enough that most of the customer base loses that bet.  The healthy ones pay for the sick ones.

That may have been a good bet at one time, on both sides, in the beginning.  However, today, one trip to the ER can cost tens of thousands of dollars.  Even a short hospital stay will do the same.  In only one encounter with illness a customer will obligate the insurance company to many times what that company will ever collect in payments from that customer.  Almost every family will have at least one birth in their lifetimes.  As we "boomers" age, so rises the certainty that we will win that bet—big time.  Most of us are far beyond the Maker's original design parameters and the cost of maintaining our lives is growing rapidly.

Without the cheating; baring enormous expansions in "risk base," i.e. membership numbers, thus making more healthy customers available to pay for the sick ones; without the government willing to step in and assume those costs, the insurance industry is doomed.  Think about it. 

Ask yourself...why does the government want to extend insurance coverage (and thus premiums) to ever broader classes of citizens?  Did you happen to notice the huge increase in the tax on tobacco?  That was justified as a means of paying for extended health care coverage for children.  If the government begins paying for the health care costs, they will do what any business does when the cost of doing business rises—they will pass the cost along to the consumer.  In this case, who is the consumer? 

April 15th ring a bell?