The Road to Greece?

We are almost at the point where the rubber meets the road. One of the rules of life that everyone should memorize is: Actions have Consequences. President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Reid pushed and fought and arm twisted to pass Obamacare. As our economy has continued to suffer, and as jobs have disappeared, the Democrats in Washington have continued to spend money as if the Washington Monument was loaded with cash.

Whether you agree with these policies or not, the policies of the Democrat controlled congress has come with a price tag. The Tea Parties have argued that President Obama and Congress are taxing our children and our grandchildren. We have word now that the reality may be worse: our children and grandchildren may not have the jobs to get taxed. Dick Morris writing yesterday says:

Meanwhile, the nation watches nervously as the same policies Obama has brought to our nation are failing badly and publicly in Europe. When Moody’s announces that it is considering downgrading bonds issued by the government of the United States of America, we find ourselves, suddenly, in deep trouble. We have had deficits before. But never have they so freaked investors that a ratings agency considered lowering its opinion of our solvency. Not since Alexander Hamilton assumed the states’ Revolutionary War debt has America’s willingness and ability to meet its financial obligations been as seriously questioned.

And the truth begins to dawn on all of us: Obama has no more idea how to work his way out of the economic mess into which his policies have plunged us than he does about how to clean up the oil spill that is destroying our southern coastline.

If our bonds are being downgraded, then we can see the road to Greece from here. A combination of lowered credit, mounting debt in the form of Social Security and Medicare, with a good, strong helping of national health care puts us on a path towards Greece. As we rush to implement national health care, Canada is looking for a way out of it. Canada has discovered what the Tea Parties have said for months now: Free health care is very expensive. We have two choices. We can continue down this road. We may even have some good times, but at some point, we will have to pay the bill for this. When that happens, we will be in the same place Greece is today.

Or we can get off this road. We can realize that a national health care system will cost money. We can stop trying to cut our own throats and start using all the energy at our fingertips: oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal. You name it, we use it. At some point we have to make a decision: Will we continue to be the world's Superpower, or will we follow Greece?

Breaking News: Obamacare will cost Americans $Billions

If you have followed the health care debate, you aren't surprised by the title to this post. The Health and Human Services (HHS) Department released a report today detailing their economic analysis of Obamacare. The President claimed for a year that he could cover millions more Americans, and he could do it for less money than the country currently spends on health care. No one who took a serious look at the facts could possibly believe the President's claim. The HHS announced that Obamacare would increase the costs of health care over the next ten years, not decrease it. According to the report, Obamacare will cost the United States an additional $311 Billion. As the AP reports:

"The overhaul will increase national health care spending by $311 billion from 2010-2019, or nine-tenths of 1 percent. To put that in perspective, total health care spending during the decade is estimated to surpass $35 trillion."

Of course, in order to only spend an additional $311 Billion, we will have to spend almost $1 Trillion to implement Obamacare. There were also a few warnings in the report. The $311 Billion increase in spending is assuming that Medicare reductions called for under Obamacare actually happen. Most people believe there is very little chance that either Democrats or Republicans will vote for reductions in Medicare. If they should, the bill will still cost more, and, "…Medicare cuts could drive about 15 percent of hospitals and other institutional providers into the red, 'possibly jeopardizing access' to care for seniors."

The Democrats in Congress and President Obama spent a little over a year creating a bill that Americans weren't behind, and still don't want. At every turn we find the bill includes things no one was aware of, or will costs more than the President claimed. A partial list of the new surprises includes:

1. No coverage for preexisting conditions for kids until 2014.
   
   

2. Insurance premiums will still increase under Obamacare.
   
   

3. Obamacare will cost companies more than $14 Billion.
   
   

4. Obamacare will forbid new doctor owned hospitals from being opened, and has halted construction on some already in the works.
   
   

5. Members of Congress and their staff can be moved from their current health care and placed under Obamacare against their will (this is one of the few surprises that makes me smile).

Nancy Pelosi famously said that the bill had to become law so that Americans could see what was in it. So far, many of us don't like the surprises included in Obamacare. If these surprises and additional costs keep piling up, the Democrats may not like what's in the bill come November either.

A Call to Action

I consider myself an amateur historian. Amateur because I don't study history for profit, I study it because I find it an incredible story. I would argue that the story of America is one of the richest, most beautiful stories ever told, and stands against any work of fiction ever written. I love the National Archives in Washington. Seeing the actual Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution is a very moving experience. On the west side of the Archives, the following inscription is written in big bold letters:

The glory and romance of our history are here preserved in the chronicles of those who conceived and builded the structure of our nation.

I never fail to be moved when I read that inscription. As an amateur historian, I will tell you that I find it hard to believe the tyranny that has been forced on our nation by the U.S. Congress, by the U.S. Senate, and by the current President of the United States. I do not use the word "tyranny" lightly. Tyranny is defined as "oppressive power". Today, Tuesday, March 23, 2010, President Barack Obama signed into law the most massive redefining of our economy to take place since The Great Depression. Under the guise of "health care reform", this law gives the government the power to decide what kind of health care you and your family receive.

In addition to this travesty, it will increase our deficit according to Democrats own internal memo's. The law costs $1 Trillion. That's $1 Trillion we don't have to spend. The law attempts to pay for itself through taxing the very services, devices, and people, it claims to help. A few days ago a comment on this blog went, "Oddly, when I woke up this morning and looked outside, I didn't see any communist nationalistic troops with tanks rolling down my street." True. However, is your health care better today? Do you get better appointments at the Doctor's office? Is your Doctor even still in business? Do you suddenly have medicine you couldn't get on Saturday? Is the "change" in your insurance worth the estimated $500 Million in new taxes we will see on January 1, 2011? The honest answer to most of these questions is "no".

This health care law by itself hasn't destroyed our nation. However, with its passage into law today, I can see the end of our nation from here. Our country can't afford the price tag of this bill in this economy, coupled with the price tags of Social Security and Medicare. Both of these programs are running out of money. Some estimates state they will be out of money in the next ten years, just as we're paying increased taxes for the law signed today. The Democrats in Washington have decided a one and a half year crusade to centralize healthcare decision making power is more important than getting people back to work, and more important than improving our economy.

The "Greatest Generation" fought to protect our country, and the west in World War II. However they failed to pass on the values of their generation to their children. The Baby Boomers are starting to retire, and failed to fix Social Security or Medicare, and failed to protect our nation from the encroachment of soft tyranny. This "beneficial tyranny" believes in protecting everyday people from themselves at the price of their freedoms. President Obama says, "I will protect your health, just give up your right to make your own health care choices."

It's now up to our generation to stop this soft tyranny, and to begin to repeal it. It's up to the Baby Boomers who are still willing to fight, the Generation X-ers who must fight, and Generation Y that is coming into its own politically. Lines have been drawn around freedom, and around uncontrolled, nation destroying spending. If you're reading this blog, YOU must make a choice. You must decide if you will continue to fight for this country or if you will sit back and let Democrats in Washington decide how to run your life. Will you take care of yourself and your family, or will you trade your freedoms for the shackles of government handouts.

In 1964, Ronald Reagan told an audience that they had a rendezvous with destiny. Today, we face that same rendezvous. Will we fight for our freedoms? For our nation? In the coming months, each of us must ask, as Reagan did, "Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves." Another famous Reagan quote also applies to today:

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.

Now is a time when we must decide: Will we protect our nation and leave freedom and this great country to our children and grandchildren, or will we let planners in Washington make our decisions for us and voluntarily put the shackles on our children's children?

The Real Health Care Summary

If health care passes tonight, get ready. My wife saw this on Facebook yesterday, and it's a good summary of the Senate health care bill the Democrats want to pass. Enjoy.

Stop Obamacare Now.

It's easy to feel that Washington ignores your voice. With every major poll showing the majority of Americans oppose Obamacare, the Democrats are pushing on and trying to force the American public into Government planned health care. This week, they are trying to pass a shell bill that they can send to President Obama to sign. They payoffs and kickbacks will be included in another bill.

There is still time to stop this bill. Remember, President Obama and the Democrats in Congress wanted this passed last year. However, the American public has fought this tooth and nail. It isn't too late. Want to voice your opinion to your local representative and to those Democrats who are having second thoughts? Try Free Our Healthcare Now. You have to provide your contact information so they can verify no one is spamming the system. You input your name and address, and Free Our Healthcare Now will provide you with a form letter you can send members of Congress to express your concern. You can edit the form letter for your specific concerns.

The American people have stopped other bills under other President's. We can stop this one too, but YOU have to act!

Will Government Healthcare Cover Everything?

When I started college, my step-father left work with a disability. He applied to his insurance provider and was rejected. He had lost his job, and this disability would mean a source of income for him. In the end, the insurance company caved when my step-father got a lawyer. Who was this evil insurance company? United Healthcare? Cigna? Kaiser? Nope, it was the U.S. government. My step-father was fighting to get Social Security disability.


Pop-quiz: Who denies more insurance claims than any other insurance provider? The U. S. government. A 2008 study by the American Medical Association found that Medicare denied more claims both in number and percentage than any private insurance company. The study found that Medicare actually denies almost double the percentage of claims as most other insurance companies including such giants as Cigna, United Healthcare and Humana.


Sarah Palin made headlines by claiming there would be "death panels" in the Democrat health care bill. These panels would decide who receives treatment and who doesn't. Truthfully, these panels are already in place at Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. These groups already decide whose claim they will reject and whose they will pay for. I challenge my readers to ask any Medicare / Medicaid customer they know this question: Does Medicare or Medicaid pay for every doctor's visit, every treatment, and every prescription you want it to? I will bet the vast majority of them will give you a resounding "No!".


I bring this up only to illustrate a point that is lost in the current health care debate: under a government run plan, you will not be able to get every service, treatment, and prescription you want. Ask the current government insurance customers if you think I'm lying.

President Ahab

According to the New York Times, President Obama, "...will put forward comprehensive health care legislation intended to bridge differences between Senate and House Democrats ahead of a summit meeting with Republicans next week...". According to Presidential aides, President Obama intends to get his bill attached to a budget bill so that it can pass the Senate under reconciliation. Reconciliation will allow it to pass the Senate with 51 votes instead of the filibuster proof 60 votes. The President plans on placing his bill on the White House website Monday morning. This will be four days before his meeting with Republicans to discuss health care reform, or the President's own personal whale.

The only other details that have been released about the President's bill is that it would attempt to cover 30 Million Americans by 2019 (thus still not providing health care insurance for everyone), would cost about $900 Billion, would require Americans to buy health insurance or be fined, would make it illegal for insurance companies to exclude pre-existing conditions, and provide tax subsidies to "moderate-income" people to buy insurance. The New York Times quotes "Officials" as saying the President's bill will also tax "high-cost, employer-sponsored insurance policies," and would also, "reflect a deal reached with labor union leaders to limit the impact tax on workers". Abortion has not been mentioned one way or another on in the details that have been leaked.

I think it is interesting that the President is working on a bill that is a compromise between House and the Senate Democrats ahead of his meeting with Republicans. The meeting with Republicans is supposed to be so that the President can listen to their ideas. How can anyone believe he is going to do this if he has already written his own bill that he is trying to get support for? Additionally, some Democrats are nervous about the bill because they haven't been consulted about it, and are a little uneasy about using the reconciliation process to pass such a huge, far reaching bill.

I think the President has shown his hand. The meeting next week is a show meeting to attempt to trick voters into believing he has listened to anything the Republicans have to say. I also think passing this bill under reconciliation is the very epitome of Washington Politics that Candidate Obama ran claiming to oppose. The President may also be surprised at how hard it is to use the reconciliation option after the recent Massachusetts elections with many Democrats nervous about their chances in November.

The President has taken his eye off the ball when it comes to the economy. He has become obsessed with passing a health care bill, any health care bill. Democrats would be wise to give up this white whale and try to deal with the problems that are really affecting our nation.

"What Will Democrats Do Now?"

That seemed to be the question I heard the most yesterday. With the election of a Republican to the blue state of Massachusetts, what will the Democrats do? Here are my thoughts on what Tuesday's election means.

No Obamacare This Year

The Senate Republicans seem to be doing a very good job of standing in the breach. With a 41st vote, the Republicans can stall any legislation as long as they want. The only way to pass Obamacare is through reconciliation or by the House adopting the Senate bill. Speaker Pelosi doesn't have the votes in the House, and reconciliation will strip the bill to the point that Reid may not even recognize it. There may still be health care reform this year. However, I think it will be very different from what we have seen so far.

"Moderate" Democrats Will look for the door.

There are two types of Democrats in the party today: Progressives and Democrats. Progressives are the true liberals of the party like Reid, Clinton, and Pelosi. "Moderate Democrats" or Democrats are the more main stream or even "blue dog" element of the party. The progressives have been telling the moderates for months now that they must pass health care reform or they won't get reelected in November. President Obama has told Democrats he will personally campaign from coast to coast for them after they pass health care. Today, moderate Democrats are looking at Massachusetts and thinking that Obama campaigned for Coakley and she lost. She lost in Massachusetts and she lost the independent voter by 3:1. They remember New Jersey and Virginia where Obama campaigned and the Democrat lost in both cases. In both cases independents voted for Republicans by a 2:1 margin. Career politicians see as job #1 getting reelected. President Obama doesn't have the shirt tails to give them the cover they need in November. Already Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY) says health care reform has as much chance of passing as pigs flying out has butt. Democrats weren't talking like this before Tuesday. I think some Democrats will simply announce they aren't seeking reelection, others will start distancing themselves from Reid and Pelosi and may start voting against things like health care reform or cap and trade.

The Politicans will Begin to Listen

During the last twelve months, a number of Republicans and Democrats have participated in Tea Parties across the country. They have gone to their representatives office to complain. They have sent emails, letters, and phone calls telling the congressman or senator how to vote and what the voters thought. These people have been ignored. Many Democrats in Congress and the Senate simply believed the voters couldn't, or wouldn't, really do anything. Now Nelson has been run out of a restaurant for the first time in his political career by angry voters. A solidly blue state has elected a semi-conservative Republican who campaigned on fighting a Democratic President on his signature issue. I promise you a number of politicians are looking for ways to seem more responsive to voters. That's always a good thing.

Massachusetts (Open Post) -- UPATED III

By now it's hard not to know what is going on in Massachusetts. Today is the special election to replace the late Senator Ted Kennedy. I think in any other year, no one would be following this election. However, Scott Brown stands a good chance to shock the nation today and upset the system to become a Republican elected in bluest of blue Massachusetts. Scott Brown has campaigned as a down to earth politician. One of his tactics has been to drive a pickup truck to his different campaign events. His biggest issue has been health-care reform. Brown has said that if elected he will be the 41st vote against the current health care legislation.


The Democrat in the race, Martha Coakley has made a number of blunders, with many of them coming in the last couple of weeks. Among the blunders, she has stated there are no terrorists left in Afghanistan, has misspelled "Massachusetts" in campaign adds, and said she had no knowledge of a reporter who was pushed down by one of her security people (photo's of the event show otherwise). Perhaps worse for her chances with Boston voters, she said on a radio interview that former Boston Red Sox pitcher Curt Shilling was a Yankee's fan.

This race will end in one of three ways:

1. An outright win by Coakley. This will make for interesting news for about 24 hours, will give Sen. Reid the 60 votes he needs to hold onto in the Senate, and is the traditional wisdom in this election.
2. An outright win by Brown. Will be a political earthquake felt throughout the United States. It could change the very nature of the political debate for the next 9 months until November.
3. A close win by Brown. The ugliest of all options. This will bring out challenge and recount after recount. We will also probably see a legal challenge to determine if Ted Kennedy's temporary replacement in the Senate can remain seated until the election is decided.
   

I am leaving this post open throughout the day. As I hear news I think is important I will update this post. Feel free to comment and check back often.

**Update One**

I just saw this at Fox News:

Congressional Democrats are meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday, but the acrimony is starting to reveal itself as Democrats speak more and more in terms of who mismanaged the debate.

It may mean nothing, but if Democrats are already looking for someone to blame if Brown wins, that means they are very nervous about their own internal polling numbers.

**Update Two**

On Michael Medved's show this afternoon he interviewed one of the author's of the new book Game Change. Mark Halperin stated that in his private conversations with staff in the White House, they don't like their chances in today's race. Again, this doesn't affect the actual race, but it does point to poor internal poll numbers at the White House for Coakley.


**Update Three**

I just saw this posted by the Associated Press. They have already called the election for Scott Brown. Here is the first paragraph:

BOSTON – In an epic upset in liberal Massachusetts, Republican Scott Brown rode a wave of voter anger to defeat Democrat Martha Coakley in a U.S. Senate election Tuesday that left President Barack Obama's health care overhaul in doubt and marred the end of his first year in office.

Did Obama Lie, or is he Cowardly?(UPDATED)

Breitbart.tv has a video posted on it's website today. The video shows candidate Barack Obama promising to show congressional health care debates on C-SPAN so that the voters can see exactly what deals are made and who is trying to protect the voters. The clip has him promising this eight times.

The Democrats have now passed a "health care" bill in both the House and the Senate. Traditionally, these bills would go to a conference committee made up of Republicans and Democrats from both the House and the Senate. This committee would iron out the differences in the bill, and present a revised bill to the House and Senate to vote on and send to President Obama.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are considering skipping this step, and conferencing behind closed doors with the White House on a "final bill". This would lock out Republicans and many Democrats. C-SPAN remembered President Obama's campaign promise, and wants to hold him to it. They have asked to broadcast the negotiations to the voters. So far the Democrats are claiming that they don't need to broadcast the negotiations because, "There has never been a more open process for any legislation in anyone who’s served here’s experience," (so says Pelosi).

During the Bush Administration, we were told daily that President Bush lied about any number of things. Where are those on the left who were constantly attacking Bush? President Obama appears to have lied now. Where are the calls from the left for an open and honest negotiation? Where are the snappy "Obama lied" chants? How do we know the politicians in Washington are looking out for the voters?

I have some liberal and left leaning readers. I also have readers who consider themselves moderate. How does this make you feel? Are you okay with the President making one promise on the campaign and ignoring that promise now that he is President? Where is the promised new day of transparency?


***Update***

CBS News is running a news story saying that both Nancy Pelosi and President Obama support negotiations on this bill occurring behind closed doors. CBS ran this story as, "Obama reneges on health care transparancy". CBS also cited this as the President, "...breaking an explicit campaign promise."

Senate Gives us a Lump of Coal

The Senate has passed what they are calling Health Care Reform. The Democrats in the Senate passed this in spite of breaking Senate rules twice this week, in spite of outcry on both the left and right. Why was it rushed through today? Because Reid was afraid of what would happen if the Democrats went home and heard from their constituents, and Reid was afraid the voters would get a chance to read the bill that was introduced less than a week ago.

Merry Christmas, here's your coal.

Harry Reid Forgets History

Once more I have to delay my Global Warming post. This time it's due to the inane comments of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Democrat-NV). In my experience, when liberals start crying racism, it's because they have run out of any legitimate arguments. Today, Harry Reid attempted to call Republicans racist because they oppose Reid's 2,000+ page (and multi-Trillion dollar) health care bill. Reid said:

Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, 'slow down, stop everything, let's start over.' If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right... When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today.

This comment appears to be a reference to history. Harry Reid either believes no-one will look it up, or no one remembers what he's talking about. Here are the two possible cases Reid may be speaking about.


First, he could have been speaking of Strom Thurmond's unsuccessful filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Thurmond, who was a Democrat at the time, was defeated by Republicans. Perhaps Reid isn't much of a history student and instead was discussing the debate of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This would be particularly troublesome because the opposition to this bill was again led by Democrats. Even more embarrassing is that one of the most adamant opponents of the Civil Rights Act was Ku Klux Klansman, future Democrat Majority Leader, and current Democratic Senator from West Virginia, Robert Byrd. Byrd serves alongside Reid today. Jonathan Leaf, writing on the filibuster of 1964 says:

In total, the filibuster led by the "yellow dog" Democrats ran for ten million words over 534 hours, filling up 63,000 pages of the Congressional Record. Ultimately, 62 percent of Democratic congressmen and 60 percent of Democratic senators voted for the bill, compared to 80 percent of Republican congressman and 82 percent of Republican senators. {emphasis mine}

Reid should pay more attention to history, and not throw about labels that could be more accurately directed at his own party. The American public, and the voters of Nevada, don't want this health care bill. Reid can try to dance around the issue by smearing Republicans as racist while plugging his ears and ignoring the wishes of his own constituents. At the end of the day, this bill will hurt our economy far more than it will help it. On some level, Reid knows the dangers of this bill, and he knows it is unpopular. That's why he has resorted to calling Republicans racists when his arguments could easily be directed at his own party.

Instead of insulting Republicans, maybe Reid should try to listen to them.

Book Review: Why Obama's Government Takeover of Health Care Will Be a Disaster

A few weeks ago, I mentioned a new series of political pamphlets that were about to be published. I received the first one, and have been fairly impressed. Encounter Books is releasing a series of the pamphlets (at around $6 each). They are short and designed to be read in one sitting. The first one in the series is Why Obama's Government Takeover of Health Care Will Be a Disaster (Encounter Broadsides) written by David Gratzer.


First the book. The format is very interesting. I have ordered the next two in this series and I am interested to see how they look. This one is 44 pages, and is about the height and width of a Reader's Digest. However, the paper is pretty high quality. I have a habit of highlighting and writing in my non-fiction books and the paper works very good for this.


Mr. Gratzer is a physician and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. He has written previous books on medicine and health care and has appeared in The Weekly Standard, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal. He also draws from personal experience in this book.


The book is really good. The first 31 pages list the problems with Obamacare, citing specific evidence from other nations that have some form of socialized medicine. The last 13 pages list ten points that could be used to reform health care in the United States.



Mr. Gratzer points out that government run health care has its own problems:

In Alberta, Canada's wealthiest province, 50 percent of outpatients waited more than 41 days for an MRI scan in 2008. In Saskatchewan, 10 percent of patients awaiting knee-replacement surgery waited 616 days or longer for care. In Nova Scotia, 50 percent of hip-replacement patients waited 201 days or longer for surgery. Wait times for these and other procedures don't factor in any wait to get a referral from a family doctor -- and more than 4 million Canadians can't find a family doctor because of a national doctor shortage created by government cutbacks to medical schools in the 1990's. The situation is so dire that some townships hold lotteries, with winners gaining access to a family doc. {emphasis in the original}

The book contains other examples of problems with government run health care from European nations as well. The solutions provided in the afterward include ideas such as ending defensive medicine, revamping the FDA and the estimated $1 Billion to get a single drug to reach the market, and making health insurance more like other kinds of insurance. Finally, the book ends with a case study in a successful attempt to revamp health care at the business level: Safeway. They were able to get a "net zero percent (0%) gain in per-employee health insurance costs. " Other businesses had an almost 40% increase over the same time period.


In spite of it's long title, Why Obama's Government Takeover of Health Care Will be a Disaster is a very good read. It can be read in one sitting and is full of useful information in the health care debate. It should be considered a primer in the health care debate.

A Small Taste of the "Public Option"

On yesterday's Rush Limbaugh Show, Rush featured a letter to the editor that was sent to the Southeast Missourian. If you wish to read it for yourself, go to the original here. In the letter, a reader describes their experience with trying to get the H1N1 vaccine. This is very instructive because this is an example of what a government run health care plan, or "public option" might look like. From the letter:

The new era of government control over our lives and freedoms has begun. This week, it got personal, and I felt helpless.

The doctor overseeing my health care advised me to get an H1N1 flu shot. I've been under a six-year treatment program for a chronic infection, plus I have heart and lung problems. Therefore, I am considered a high risk. Fortunately, my doctor had three shots available, but I would have to get approval from my county health department. Much to my surprise, the woman at the health department apologized and told me that even though I was a senior citizen at high risk, the health department had been instructed to approve shots only for children and pregnant mothers. I asked when a shot for my situation might be available. "We really don't know. Check back with us sometime in December."

What? The terrorist detainees in Gitmo are getting shots this month. Why not a high-risk senior citizen?

Mr. Obama, this is what we call health care rationing, which you claim won't happen under a government-run health care program.

Here is a case where a high risk senior citizen was denied a H1N1 vaccine because the county health board employee hadn't been instructed to make them available to high risk individuals yet. In a government bureaucracy, employees follow their instructions and don't typically question the wisdom of these instructions. If you are upset with the layers of bureaucracy in your current plan, just imagine when you add to that plan the government' s bureaucracy.


To continue this example of poor government health care, the Pentagon said earlier this month that H1N1 vaccines would be given to detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Press Secretary Bryan Gibbs quickly said there were no vaccines at the base, and there were none heading there. To further muddy the waters, the Pentagon confirmed this week that 300 doses of the vaccine had arrived at "Gitmo" (regardless of what Mr. Gibbs said). The current speculation is that 300 doses is too small of a quantity for any to go to detainees. I suspect in a month or so there may be an article quietly stating that more vaccines had arrived at Gitmo.


Whether you personally believe the detainees should get vaccinated or not, this is an example of the federal government making a health care decision based purely on politics. The Pentagon believed it,"...[had] an obligation to care for persons in its custody..." The White House didn't like the political fallout of taxpayer money providing flu vaccines to terrorists. The policy appears to have been changed. This took about a week and a half.


Now I ask you: if the Federal government was in charge of a much larger portion of the nations health care and they made a decision that got poor coverage in the press, do you think they might change that decision based purely on politics or polling data? Or do you really think they would stick to their guns and make the decision purely on medical reasoning?

Fun Facts on Pelosi's Healthcare.

If you are like me, most people, and certainly members of congress, you haven't had a chance to read the almost 2,000 page health care bill Congress passed Saturday night. We have seen a number of surprises in rushed through legislation over the past year and I am sure this one will include a number of surprises no one knows about right now. However, the Heritage Foundation has done a detailed analysis of the bill and found a few "fun facts" you may want to know about before your Senator votes on this bill. The information below is from the Heritage Foundations webmemo #2684 "A Closer Look at the House Democrats' Health Care Bill". Considering only one Republican voted for it, I think this is still a good title.

If you only remember one of the details I am going to discuss, remember this one: You will probably not be able to keep your current insurance. The President has said a number of times that you can keep your insurance. This is simply not true. The President either hasn't paid attention to the bill, or is speaking of a different bill that has yet to be introduced. First, the bill provides incentives for companies to not provide health care. From the Heritage Foundation research:

The bill also imposes a new 8 percent payroll tax on employers who do not cover specified percentages of their employee's health insurance...since the amount of this tax would be lower than the cost of providing health insurance (especially for low-income workers), many employers would opt to pay the tax and not offer health plans, disrupting their employees' existing coverage.

Secondly, the bill creates a new "Health Choices Commissioner". This Commissioner can decide what services insurance provides are forced to cover, and what services they are prohibited from covering. As such, the Health Choices Commissioner will be able to dictate the services your insurance provides. This may or may not be something you want, but I am sure there will be changes to your coverage from the Commissioner.

The "public option" is back in the bill. The bill structures what employees would be eligible to participate and when. The rates of the "public option" are to be "negotiated" with medical providers. However the CBO estimates that if the "public option" rates were truly negotiated, the "public option" would cost more than most private insurances. As such, I leave to you to guess what the term "negotiated" means in this bill.

The final fun fact tonight is the price tag. President Obama has set a goal of $900 Billion for any health care bill. The CBO has estimated this bill at between $1.05 and $1.3 Trillion, slightly higher than the President' s commitment. However, this doesn't reflect the actual price of the bill. Because the bill won't take effect until 2014, the Heritage Foundation points out:

...although the [CBO] score is technically a 10-year score, it is not a 10-year cost under full implementation. A full 10-year cost puts a total close to $2.4 trillion.

Over the coming weeks and months these three facts will be disputed and glossed over. Remember, there is a good chance your local Senator has never read the bill, nor has any plans too. I would encourage you to read the Heritage Foundations report. I only covered three of the biggest problems with the Health Care bill. You may find more you don't like.

Dem's to pass Health Care without Republicans

Yesterday, Human Events online posted a story of how the Democratically controlled Congress is planning to pass health care reform without any Republicans, and maybe without more moderate Democrats, and without listening to the American public. According to Human Events:

House Ways & Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) held a hearing [Thursday] morning to certify that H.R. 3200 -- the main House Obamacare bill which was the subject of all the town hall rage in August -- has met all requirements to pass as a “budget reconciliation” measure.

Under reconciliation, the bill can be passed by a simple majority vote in the Senate -- just 51 votes -- and will be given preferential treatment on the House floor as well. The Dems have apparently invoked the “nuclear option” to shut out Republicans and ensure the bill is passed before the end of the year.

During the certification, no amendments were allowed and no debate was allowed. Human Events goes on to point out that this bill is likely to be certified for reconciliation in the other committees it is currently being reviewed in. Human events says that Rangel told the ranking Republican on the committee that Rangel didn't want to invoke the nuclear option, but that the House leadership forced him to.

HR 3200 could be voted on in the House on the floor in the next two weeks. It would then be sent to the Senate where it would only require 51 votes to pass. Remember, HR 3200 is the bill many voters were outraged about before the recess. It would provide a public option, it would provide coverage for abortion, for illegal immigrants, and rationing of treatment. This bill would also include the "death panels", a board that would meet and decide whether or not to authorize treatment based on cost and life expectancy. You may not agree with the name, but the result would be the same. As President Obama told one town hall goer, towards the end of your life, "Maybe your not better off having the surgery, but taking painkillers." If that is your personal decision, so be it. You shouldn't have the government making that decision for you.


If HR 3200 is passed I can't imagine the President won't sign it into law. The bill won't take effect until 2013. Democrats don't want to face questions about this bill in the next Presidential election.

In a previous post, a reader of this site said,"...the [D]emocrats cannot just vote something into law based on numbers alone." It looks like the comment should have been passed along to the Democratic leadership, because I don't think they realized that.

Quick Notes: Broken Promises and a Book Club

There are two important links I wanted to get to all of my members. Don't forget tomorrow is Blog Aciton Day. I will be posting my entry here with a link back to the official website. This year's topic is Climate Change, so I am sure you will want to check back.


Broken Promises. The Heritage Foundation has a short article up discussing the broken promises from the health care debate. Were you looking for transparency? It ain't there. Think you can keep your current health insurance if Reid and Pelosi can pass their health care reform? Think again. Check out the piece here, and look around the site. You might find some interesting stuff. This is epically important for those of you who don't agree with me. Much of the Heritage Foundations research is hard to refute.


Book Clubs. Ever wish you could be in a political book club? Want to find out the core of conservative belief's? Red State has started their own book club, and have handed out homework. You can get all the details here. The first assignment is A Message to Garcia by Elbert Hubbard. Don't own a copy? That's ok. It's only 9 pages long, and Red State has a pdf of it you can read for free. I posted my notes on the first homework here. If you decide to participate, let me know. I hope to get a few of my readers involved in the discussion. Like the last link, I am especially interested in getting those of you who disagree with me to check this link out. I am interested in hearing your opinions on some of the selections.


I like the book list Red State is going to cover, but I feel they may be missing a book or two. If you go look at their list, let me know if you can come up with any titles you would add.

Quick Notes: Comments, David Scott, and 9/11

It's been some time since I last wrote an issue of Quick Notes. However, I had a couple of topics I wanted to write about today, so I thought now as the perfect time for a new issue. Sit back and enjoy!


Comments. I've added a new widget on the right side of the blog (no pun intended). On the right side of your screen, about midway down, you should now see the most recent comments on Political Friends. Occasionally I get a comment about an older post that I would like everyone to see, so I thought this might be helpful. It is set to show the last five comments. Let me know what you think. Do you like it? Is it distracting? Would you like more or less comments? More or less details on those comments? Thanks ahead of time for any input you have.


David Scott's Courage. I am represented in the House by Congressman David Scott (D-GA). I have been trying to track down a town hall meeting I could attend to discuss health care with Mr. Scott. After his meltdown in front of a few constituents at the beginning of the month, he has been a little reluctant to appear at town halls. I have talked to Mr. Scott's office a number of times asking when he was having his health care town hall to hear from constituents. At first I was told it would be on August 28th and would be cosponsored by the AARP. However, as the clip above got more play, Mr. Scott backed down from this event. David Johnson of the Congressman's office said they were no longer having the event. He claimed that every venue they approached were worried about security issues. Apparently that wasn't the case.


State Representative Don Wix notes on his site that last week he attended, "...the townhall meeting in Austell sponsored by the AARP to hear from Congressman David Scott and to talk with local citizens about the pending healthcare legislation." I have to respectfully disagree with both Mr. Wix and Mr. Scott. When the event is an invitation only event sponsored by a friendly special interest group, it hardly qualifies as a "townhall" and I am not sure their goal was to hear from local citizens.

Special 9/11 Post. I volunteered Political Friends to join Project 2,996. This site is dedicated to remembering the victims of 9/11. I have been given a name I will write a special post about that day. If you have a blog or a site and want to participate, they still have plenty of names to assign, so go volunteer to help. I normally allow debate on here. I only moderate comments when they become insulting. For my 9/11 remembrance post, I will be very heavy on the moderate button. If you have anything political to say, don't do it on that post. I will include a reminder with the 9/11 post.

Health Care Benefits for Congress

Patrick requested a few weeks ago that I dig into the benefits of our elected officials in Congress and the Senate. I do my best to honor requests from readers for different topics. Here is what I have found:

The first thing to remember is that Representatives and Senators are technically federal employees. As such, they get all the benefits of a typical federal employee, plus a few for being in the Legislature. Federal employees receive their salary and benefits from tax payer dollars. The starting salary for a member of Congress or the Senate is $174,000.00 per year, with the leaders of these bodies making more. In 2008, tax payers paid $15 Million to provide benefits for 8.5 Million federal employees. Obviously, this includes employees who aren't elected as well as those who are elected. Representatives are also covered from day one. There is no exemption for a preexisting condition, and there is no waiting period for enrollment.

Our elected officials also get a number of plans to choose from. The federal benefits site is a little tricky to navigate. It appears that members can decide between 10 to 12 plans, or any insurance plan available in their home state. The benefits site has a map that members can click on to see a list of the plans available. As with any insurance, there are monthly premiums. However, again remember since their salary is paid by tax dollars, so are these premiums.

One of the benefits Representatives and Senators have that other federal employees don't have is access to their own doctors and pharmacy. From a February 2008 issue of the St. Petersburg Times:

Members of Congress have their own pharmacy, right in the Capitol. They also have a team of doctors, technicians and nurses standing by in case something busts in a filibuster. They can get a physical exam, and X-ray or an electrocardiogram, without leaving work...These are optional perks that cost about $300 a month for House members and about $600 a month for Senators. Taxpayers kick in another $2-million.

And once again, the $300 to $600 a month is a payroll deduction, meaning its paid for with taxpayer dollars. As a final perk, the Stimulus package from President Obama adds an additional perk in for federal employees. I am not sure how this stimulates the economy, but quoting from the federal benefits site:

The American Reovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, enacted February 17, 2009, provides a new health insurance opportunity for former employees who were or are involuntarily terminated between Septemeber 1, 2008, and December 31, 2009. Under this new law, former Federal employees may request premium assistance for thier temporary continuation of coverage (TCC) under the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program. Premium assistance means your former agency will make a Government contribution of 65 percent of the TCC premiums for your FEHB plan enrollment.

One Representative in Congress has refused health care coverage. In the recent bills that have been introduced, there have been a few mentions of forcing members of Congress and the Senate to switch to any public option they include in a final bill. So far, that has failed in House versions, and squeaked by in a Senate version. I would imagine it would be stripped if these bills made it to conference. Congressman John Fleming (Republican, Louisiana) has started a petition to get members of Congress enrolled in any health care insurance plan passed and signed into law. You can view his site and sign the petition here. Our Founders believed that members of the Legislature would be bound by any laws they passed, thereby giving them a stake in the effects of those laws. This was a good idea at the time, and an excellent one today. I will be convinced that our elected officials think the public option they include in a bill is a good thing when they are willing to force themselves into the bill.

Am I an “Anti-Reform Mobster”?

By now you have either read or heard the Democratic Parties attack on constituents appearing at town hall meetings to criticize their Representatives. Criticism is one thing Representatives don't like. On the official blog of the Democratic Party (titled "Kicking Ass") the DNC accused people who are critical of the government of the following:

1. They are being funded and organized by out-of-district special interest groups and insurance companies.

2. People are scared because they are being fed frightening lies

3. Their actions are getting more extreme

4. Their goal is to disrupt and shut down legitimate conversation

5. Republican leadership is irresponsibly cheering on thuggish crowds.

My local representative is a Democrat and is holding a town hall meeting at the end of the month I want to attend. Am I an anti-reform mobster? Or am I a concerned citizen trying to voice my opinion and get my elected officials to listen to me? Let's look at each of the DNC points above.

They are being funded and organized by out-of-district special interest groups and insurance companies. This isn't true in the case of myself, anyone else I personally know attending these town hall meetings, or of Political Friends. However, at Political Friends, we are capitalists. Therefore, if any readers of this post have any connections to some sort of group that would be willing to fund this site let me know. You must be out of town (or an insurance company) and it must be enough money for me to do this full time. Otherwise, I am not sure it meets point 1 shown above. Oil companies may also apply as I write about Global Warming from time to time.

People are scared because they are being fed frightening lies. If people are afraid because of what they read in HR 3200, I don't consider that a lie; I consider it wisdom. Page 16 of HR 3200 would make it illegal for you as an individual to buy insurance from a private company after the first year HR 3200 goes into effect. You can go through the government as a middle man, but no more buying straight from the insurance company. I am not sure how this improves health care or health insurance, or makes it cheaper. But it is there in black and white. Here is the official bill, read it for yourself.

Their actions are getting more extreme. There is a chance that I am guilty of this. The first tea party I attended, I simply brought tea bags. The second one, I brought a camera. When I go to this town hall meeting, I think I am going to bring a voice recorder. If that is extreme, they have me. I haven't been anywhere near as extreme as some of the Democratic groups such as Code Pink.

Their goal is to disrupt and shut down legitimate conversation. On the contrary. I have posted about this debate a number of times such as here, here, or here, just to point out three posts. Republicans have introduced their own health care reform. It 's listed as HR 2520, the Patients Choice Act, and weighs in at 248 pages as opposed to the 1100 pages on the DNC side. The Heritage Foundation has also listed a number of reforms it has been working towards. Far from shutting down legitimate debate, we are actively promoting it. I suspect the DNC is upset that this debate is occurring and that people are actually reading the bill it introduced.

Republican leadership is irresponsibly cheering on thuggish crowds. This maybe. Truthfully, the Republicans have been guilty of not listening to their constituents as well. It's time they started paying more attention. Also, consider the fact that the Republican Party doesn't have the ability to arrange these type of protests. They should be taking notes.

There are a number of health care and health insurance reforms I would support. One I won't support is a single payer health care system provided by the government. That is why I am going to my Representatives town hall meeting. The DNC may think I am an Anti-Reform Mobster. I like to think of myself as holding my elected officals accountable. At the end of the day, maybe that is what the Democrats (and Republicans) are really afraid of.