It has been a long and busy three weeks, and I have not been able to even gather thoughts in order to blog. Sorry.
There was some time to keep up with email, and to read some articles. Given what is happening in our world, there is a lot to blog about. I will try to do so with a bit more regularity than lately.
Looking about, one sees the United States, once respected, if disliked, has changed to being disrespected and still disliked.
All of that in a period of eight months.
This is because of the deliberate policies of our current government. It has sucked up to our enemies and offended and abandoned our friends. Intentionally.
Iran has just been given another pass, in spite of its threat. North Korea is ignored, to do whatever nuke development they wish.
Castro and Chavez to our south are being helped, rather than isolated, while Honduras and Colombia, our allies, are treated quite poorly.
The situation in Afghanistan is eroding, and the government is holding "meetings." There seems to be no sense of urgency, even though the President accorded Afghanistan important status when running for office.
Domestically, the economy is in the tank while the "stimulus" is spent to shore up supporters and arms of the Democratic Party. The big banking and financial institutions have been bailed out with nearly three trillion dollars of taxpayers' money, but the government entities refuse to account to the people for the money.
The majority party is trying to cram health "reform" down the throat of the 85% of the people who are satisfied with their health insurance, in order to make coverage available to an additional 11% of the people (and, of course, 12 million illegal aliens).
They are also trying to pass a "cap and trade" regime, which will enrich a few, but will constitute a huge energy tax on everyone else, even the poor. This is being done in a time of deep recession and increasing unemployment.
In the media, I notice that the New York Times has as the lead article a story about Senator John Ensign (R-Nev) and his affair, but there is not a mention anywhere of Charles Rangel (D-NY) and his series of felonies, nor of the bastard child of John Edwards, the Democratic presidential candidate, even though there is some here on Politico.
Enough.
A couple of weeks ago, as I sat out on my patio enjoying the evening with my puppy dog and an adult beverage, I had something of a premonition. Nothing specific at all, just a thought that something bad might happen. A friend that I told about it said he was having somewhat similar thoughts.
I think that when one considers the above, along with everything else, there is good reason to worry.
Perhaps that can be covered a bit in succeeding posts.
Showing posts with label health care reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health care reform. Show all posts
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Monday, August 17, 2009
Obamacare and the Constitution
Someone is finally raising a very valid point about the attempt at a Federal takeover of health care.
Is is Constitutional?
That is a complex question, because the Supreme Court has over the years seriously broadened the powers of the government beyond those contemplated by the Framers, and expressly stated in the Constitution itself.
So, although I do not believe that the Constitution permits it, there is the potential that the Supreme Court might find otherwise.
Rob Natelson, over at Electric City Weblog, writes a bit about the question today, stating:
"Enumerated powers. The Constitution grants the federal government about thirty-five specific powers – eighteen in Article I, Section 8, and the rest scattered throughout the document. (The exact number depends on how you count.) None of those powers seems to authorize control of the health care system outside the District of Columbia and the federal territories."
The catch, however is:
"To be sure, since the late 1930s, the Supreme Court has been tolerant of the federal welfare state, usually justifying federal ad hoc programs under specious interpretations of the congressional Commerce Power. "
Thanfully, there is a "but":
"But, except in wartime, the Court has never authorized an expansion of the federal scope quite as large as what is being proposed now. And in recent years, both the Court and individual justices – even “liberal” justices – have said repeatedly that there are boundaries beyond which Congress may not go."
My view is that if it is not a power ennumerated in the Constitution, then it is governed by the Tenth Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Sounds pretty clear, doesn't it.
Questions like these are what Supreme Court selection is all about. The left wants appointees who will ignore the Constitution and approve every harebrained idea they have, while the right wants appointees who will preserve the Constitution.
Roosevelt, when he was President, forced the Supreme Court to back off the concept of due process with regard to the taking of property, by threatening to "pack" the Court by expanding the number of justices above the traditional nine.
That caused a lot of very questionable legislation to be passed and approved by the Court
Will Obama and the Democrats do that again? Or will the present Court just let them have what they want? What will Justice Kennedy do?
Perhaps the bill can be defeated and then we won't have to worry.
Is is Constitutional?
That is a complex question, because the Supreme Court has over the years seriously broadened the powers of the government beyond those contemplated by the Framers, and expressly stated in the Constitution itself.
So, although I do not believe that the Constitution permits it, there is the potential that the Supreme Court might find otherwise.
Rob Natelson, over at Electric City Weblog, writes a bit about the question today, stating:
"Enumerated powers. The Constitution grants the federal government about thirty-five specific powers – eighteen in Article I, Section 8, and the rest scattered throughout the document. (The exact number depends on how you count.) None of those powers seems to authorize control of the health care system outside the District of Columbia and the federal territories."
The catch, however is:
"To be sure, since the late 1930s, the Supreme Court has been tolerant of the federal welfare state, usually justifying federal ad hoc programs under specious interpretations of the congressional Commerce Power. "
Thanfully, there is a "but":
"But, except in wartime, the Court has never authorized an expansion of the federal scope quite as large as what is being proposed now. And in recent years, both the Court and individual justices – even “liberal” justices – have said repeatedly that there are boundaries beyond which Congress may not go."
My view is that if it is not a power ennumerated in the Constitution, then it is governed by the Tenth Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Sounds pretty clear, doesn't it.
Questions like these are what Supreme Court selection is all about. The left wants appointees who will ignore the Constitution and approve every harebrained idea they have, while the right wants appointees who will preserve the Constitution.
Roosevelt, when he was President, forced the Supreme Court to back off the concept of due process with regard to the taking of property, by threatening to "pack" the Court by expanding the number of justices above the traditional nine.
That caused a lot of very questionable legislation to be passed and approved by the Court
Will Obama and the Democrats do that again? Or will the present Court just let them have what they want? What will Justice Kennedy do?
Perhaps the bill can be defeated and then we won't have to worry.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Public Option Off the Table?
The New York Times is quoting Kathleen Sibelius, the HHS Secretary, that a government insurer "is not an essential element" to the health insurance reform bill.
If that is the case, and they will let that part go, then one of the worst parts of the bill will have been taken out.
Hooray for the good guys!
Now, if we could only find out what is in the rest of the bill.
Some reform does need to be done, but it has to be done in a way that keeps the government out of our business.
Liberals want the government in our business, so we must be vigilant. Pelosi and Reid can be very sneaky, as we have seen with the stimulus bill and the cap and trade bill.
If that is the case, and they will let that part go, then one of the worst parts of the bill will have been taken out.
Hooray for the good guys!
Now, if we could only find out what is in the rest of the bill.
Some reform does need to be done, but it has to be done in a way that keeps the government out of our business.
Liberals want the government in our business, so we must be vigilant. Pelosi and Reid can be very sneaky, as we have seen with the stimulus bill and the cap and trade bill.
Its Not Just About Health Care
A lot of liberals are making the mistake in thinking that all of the protesting out there by the citizenry is just about the health care bills.
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Some of it is....it is the issue du jour. But there is a lot more. A lot.
Victor Davis Hanson, is great essay, says it this way:
"There is a growing sense of a “we’ve been had”, bait-and-switch. Millions of moderate Republicans, independents, and conservative Democrats — apparently angry at Bush for Iraq and big deficits, unimpressed by the McCain campaign, intrigued by the revolutionary idea of electing an African-American president — voted for Obama on the assumption that he was sincere about ending red state/blue state animosity. They took him at his word that he was going to end out-of-control federal spending. They trusted that he had real plans to get us out of the economic doldrums, and that he was not a radical tax-and-spend liberal of the old sort."
Read the whole thing here.
Professor Hanson goes on the give reasons for why "we have been had" but there are others he misses.
And he misses one important thing: these protests are also against the Republican policies of the last few years.
The people are tired of the government messing everything up. They are tired of the corruption, the power of the big lobbyists, the huge and growing deficits, the move to have the government control every aspect of our lives, the terrible, huge bailouts of the financial institutions, the nationalization of Chrysler and General Motors with the concurrent gift of 40% of the stock in GM to the United Auto Workers, an adjunct of the Democratic Party, and a whole list of other things.
While the Democrats may be the worst offenders, Republicans started us down the path to the bailouts and the nationalizations, and certainly were running up huge deficits. They also really enjoyed slopping at the trough when they were in power.
Much of this anger is directed at the entire political process. Some did, as Hanson points out, foolishly think that Obama might really change things, and hope that government could be made to work better.
Obama's only interest is to make it work better for his political allies. Anyone who thinks differently is still being foolish.
My view is that Americans do want their government to work better than it has, but they also want it to be limited to those things government can do best.
They want the government to stay out of things that the government is incapable of doing, like making medical choices for over 300 million Americans. Some regulation, yes. Deciding when to put granny down, or whether grandpa can have a knee replaced, or a neonate should be saved or not, no.
Hell no.
Running Chrysler and General Motors, no.
Taxing energy and destroying our economy (even more), no.
Running up trillions more in national debt, no.
Expanding government at the expense of the private sector, no.
One could go on and on. Obama is trying to cram the very opposite down our throats. The Republicans so far have not really put forward credible and effective alternatives, at least none that have been well publicized.
Message to Republicans: don't try to regain power by saying "we will do better." Nobody will believe you.
Show us.
Message to Democrats: Get off the socialism now.
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Some of it is....it is the issue du jour. But there is a lot more. A lot.
Victor Davis Hanson, is great essay, says it this way:
"There is a growing sense of a “we’ve been had”, bait-and-switch. Millions of moderate Republicans, independents, and conservative Democrats — apparently angry at Bush for Iraq and big deficits, unimpressed by the McCain campaign, intrigued by the revolutionary idea of electing an African-American president — voted for Obama on the assumption that he was sincere about ending red state/blue state animosity. They took him at his word that he was going to end out-of-control federal spending. They trusted that he had real plans to get us out of the economic doldrums, and that he was not a radical tax-and-spend liberal of the old sort."
Read the whole thing here.
Professor Hanson goes on the give reasons for why "we have been had" but there are others he misses.
And he misses one important thing: these protests are also against the Republican policies of the last few years.
The people are tired of the government messing everything up. They are tired of the corruption, the power of the big lobbyists, the huge and growing deficits, the move to have the government control every aspect of our lives, the terrible, huge bailouts of the financial institutions, the nationalization of Chrysler and General Motors with the concurrent gift of 40% of the stock in GM to the United Auto Workers, an adjunct of the Democratic Party, and a whole list of other things.
While the Democrats may be the worst offenders, Republicans started us down the path to the bailouts and the nationalizations, and certainly were running up huge deficits. They also really enjoyed slopping at the trough when they were in power.
Much of this anger is directed at the entire political process. Some did, as Hanson points out, foolishly think that Obama might really change things, and hope that government could be made to work better.
Obama's only interest is to make it work better for his political allies. Anyone who thinks differently is still being foolish.
My view is that Americans do want their government to work better than it has, but they also want it to be limited to those things government can do best.
They want the government to stay out of things that the government is incapable of doing, like making medical choices for over 300 million Americans. Some regulation, yes. Deciding when to put granny down, or whether grandpa can have a knee replaced, or a neonate should be saved or not, no.
Hell no.
Running Chrysler and General Motors, no.
Taxing energy and destroying our economy (even more), no.
Running up trillions more in national debt, no.
Expanding government at the expense of the private sector, no.
One could go on and on. Obama is trying to cram the very opposite down our throats. The Republicans so far have not really put forward credible and effective alternatives, at least none that have been well publicized.
Message to Republicans: don't try to regain power by saying "we will do better." Nobody will believe you.
Show us.
Message to Democrats: Get off the socialism now.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
The Real Problem With the Health Care Debate
The real problem with health care is that they have done it in a way that nobody can really be informed. Clearly the Congress is not, and clearly the folks on both sides are not.
This is the crux of the matter: the whole issue has been presented in such a poor way that nobody really knows or appreciates what is actually in the various bills, and the attempt to rush it through with no debate, like the stimulus and the cap and trade bill, leaves the public to assume that the health care bill is as bad as the others.
This is just real poor politics by Obama and the Congressional leaders. Camille Paglia had it right.
People fear the unknown. The bill's provisions are unknown....deliberately. The Democrats are losing the fight for that reason, and should.
What needs to be done is that Obama needs to lay out the bill he wants, and then the various committees in Congress should hold public hearings and hear everyone's views.
After hearings and a fair markup debate, what comes out should be freely debated on the House floor (or the Senate, as the case may be) and voted up or down after any amendments. In other words, they should follow their own procedures.
Instead, the Democrat leadership in the House tried to rush something through without debate and without really informing the public what was in it.
This is not how a Democratic Republic like ours is supposed to work. It is a violation of all the tenets of fairness.
For that reason all of the bills should be voted down, and a new start made.
We were promised bi-partisanship by Obama. Instead, we have gotten worse partisanship than even Tom DeLay caused.
Shame on them all.
This is the crux of the matter: the whole issue has been presented in such a poor way that nobody really knows or appreciates what is actually in the various bills, and the attempt to rush it through with no debate, like the stimulus and the cap and trade bill, leaves the public to assume that the health care bill is as bad as the others.
This is just real poor politics by Obama and the Congressional leaders. Camille Paglia had it right.
People fear the unknown. The bill's provisions are unknown....deliberately. The Democrats are losing the fight for that reason, and should.
What needs to be done is that Obama needs to lay out the bill he wants, and then the various committees in Congress should hold public hearings and hear everyone's views.
After hearings and a fair markup debate, what comes out should be freely debated on the House floor (or the Senate, as the case may be) and voted up or down after any amendments. In other words, they should follow their own procedures.
Instead, the Democrat leadership in the House tried to rush something through without debate and without really informing the public what was in it.
This is not how a Democratic Republic like ours is supposed to work. It is a violation of all the tenets of fairness.
For that reason all of the bills should be voted down, and a new start made.
We were promised bi-partisanship by Obama. Instead, we have gotten worse partisanship than even Tom DeLay caused.
Shame on them all.
Health Care Reform
The last day or so I have managed to post some comments on this issue on a friend's blog.
Go here to check out the comments.
Go here to check out the comments.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Utopia Versus Freedom
Thomas Sowell has a very thoughtful article on this subject over at Real Clear Politics. He is absolutely right about what he says.
We are in the midst of a great debate between liberals who want to impose, through the government, a utopia on all of us, and those who would rather preserve their freedom. His thought:
"... If everything that is wrong with the world becomes a reason to turn more power over to some political savior, then freedom is going to erode away, while we are mindlessly repeating the catchwords of the hour, whether "change," "universal health care" or "social justice.""
And that is it in a nutshell. Turning your life over to the government erodes your freedom. Its really as simple as that.
He goes on to say:
"Ultimately, our choice is to give up Utopian quests or give up our freedom. This has been recognized for centuries by some, but many others have not yet faced that reality, even today. If you think government should "do something" about anything that ticks you off, or anything you want and don't have, then you have made your choice between Utopia and freedom."
Our health care system is not perfect, but 80% of Americans are satisfied with their coverage. Everytime we ask the government to do something about that, or anything else, it usually leads to more imperfections. The track record of the government is not good. See the Veteran's Administration for the operation of hospitals, and see Medicare and Medicaid for its operation of insurance. Nothing the government has ever done in this area has been done without far exceeding its projected costs. The example of the VA is horrendous. Medicare and Medicaid are merely broke
Anytime you get politicians involved in anything, it is all about distributing largesse, not about doing it right.
The message I have to all the people who want the Democrats to lead us to a socialist utopia is to understand that people who love their freedom will not stand for it.
A hat tip to William Katz at Urgent Agenda.
We are in the midst of a great debate between liberals who want to impose, through the government, a utopia on all of us, and those who would rather preserve their freedom. His thought:
"... If everything that is wrong with the world becomes a reason to turn more power over to some political savior, then freedom is going to erode away, while we are mindlessly repeating the catchwords of the hour, whether "change," "universal health care" or "social justice.""
And that is it in a nutshell. Turning your life over to the government erodes your freedom. Its really as simple as that.
He goes on to say:
"Ultimately, our choice is to give up Utopian quests or give up our freedom. This has been recognized for centuries by some, but many others have not yet faced that reality, even today. If you think government should "do something" about anything that ticks you off, or anything you want and don't have, then you have made your choice between Utopia and freedom."
Our health care system is not perfect, but 80% of Americans are satisfied with their coverage. Everytime we ask the government to do something about that, or anything else, it usually leads to more imperfections. The track record of the government is not good. See the Veteran's Administration for the operation of hospitals, and see Medicare and Medicaid for its operation of insurance. Nothing the government has ever done in this area has been done without far exceeding its projected costs. The example of the VA is horrendous. Medicare and Medicaid are merely broke
Anytime you get politicians involved in anything, it is all about distributing largesse, not about doing it right.
The message I have to all the people who want the Democrats to lead us to a socialist utopia is to understand that people who love their freedom will not stand for it.
A hat tip to William Katz at Urgent Agenda.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Will ObamaCare Ration Health Care to Seniors?
Absolutely YES.
Senator Brownback, in a post on NRO lays it on the line:
"This became abundantly clear when Senator Mike Enzi (R., Wyo.) introduced an amendment designed to ensure that the new center could not put a value on life-saving treatment by using “quality of life” and “cost-effectiveness” measures “for the denial of Medicare benefits to patients against their wishes.” Because Democrats rejected the amendment in a party-line vote, the proposed new entity would be able to impose restrictions on access to treatment, as is common in European countries with socialized medicine. Elderly, disabled, and medically dependent patients would be at greatest risk of being denied necessary care."
Medicare certainly needs fixing, but there are many ways to do it that do not include denial of health care to the elderly and infirm.
The fact that we are being lied to about it, makes it even worse.
I am working and then out of town most of this week, but I do have some thoughts about how to help fix the Medicare problem that I will try to post at some point.
The conduct of the majority party in Washington is shameless.
Senator Brownback, in a post on NRO lays it on the line:
"This became abundantly clear when Senator Mike Enzi (R., Wyo.) introduced an amendment designed to ensure that the new center could not put a value on life-saving treatment by using “quality of life” and “cost-effectiveness” measures “for the denial of Medicare benefits to patients against their wishes.” Because Democrats rejected the amendment in a party-line vote, the proposed new entity would be able to impose restrictions on access to treatment, as is common in European countries with socialized medicine. Elderly, disabled, and medically dependent patients would be at greatest risk of being denied necessary care."
Medicare certainly needs fixing, but there are many ways to do it that do not include denial of health care to the elderly and infirm.
The fact that we are being lied to about it, makes it even worse.
I am working and then out of town most of this week, but I do have some thoughts about how to help fix the Medicare problem that I will try to post at some point.
The conduct of the majority party in Washington is shameless.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
The Pelosi Payroll Tax; UPDATE:Demo says even they don't understand the bill
The Wall Street Journal today points out that there is more than one tax in the proposed health care reform bill.
Its an up to 10% payroll tax on workers whose employers don't provide health insurance. Now it is in the bill as a tax on employers, but it is no secret that such taxes will result in lower pay and benefits for the workers.
"To put this in actual dollars, a worker earning, say, $70,000 a year could lose some $5,600 in take home pay to cover the costs of ObamaCare. And, by the way, this is in addition to the 2.5% tax that the individual worker would have to pay on gross income, if he doesn’t buy the high-priced health insurance that the government will mandate. In sum, that’s a near 10-percentage point tax on wages and salaries on top of the 15% that already hits workers to finance Medicare and Social Security."
This is just one of the things that would not be discussed if the bill had been hurried through like she tried to do.
The four Blue Dogs who caved in yesterday at least give us some time to carefully go through this bill, something we were not able to do with the cap and trade bill.
It will be interesting to discover what else is hidden in the legislation.
Isn't it nice to have such open and transparent processes in the Democrat Congress?
Criminal, at best.
UPDATE: According to Politico, even Democrats in Congress don't understand the health care reform:
"A Democratic lawmaker, Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota, agrees. “The members don’t even understand what’s in it,” he confessed of the legislation. As for his constituents? They are “not exactly sure what this is about, and they’re not really sure whether they like it or not.” "
What does that say about them and their haste to rush it through? Transparency? Hope and change? Tyranny of the majority?
Its an up to 10% payroll tax on workers whose employers don't provide health insurance. Now it is in the bill as a tax on employers, but it is no secret that such taxes will result in lower pay and benefits for the workers.
"To put this in actual dollars, a worker earning, say, $70,000 a year could lose some $5,600 in take home pay to cover the costs of ObamaCare. And, by the way, this is in addition to the 2.5% tax that the individual worker would have to pay on gross income, if he doesn’t buy the high-priced health insurance that the government will mandate. In sum, that’s a near 10-percentage point tax on wages and salaries on top of the 15% that already hits workers to finance Medicare and Social Security."
This is just one of the things that would not be discussed if the bill had been hurried through like she tried to do.
The four Blue Dogs who caved in yesterday at least give us some time to carefully go through this bill, something we were not able to do with the cap and trade bill.
It will be interesting to discover what else is hidden in the legislation.
Isn't it nice to have such open and transparent processes in the Democrat Congress?
Criminal, at best.
UPDATE: According to Politico, even Democrats in Congress don't understand the health care reform:
"A Democratic lawmaker, Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota, agrees. “The members don’t even understand what’s in it,” he confessed of the legislation. As for his constituents? They are “not exactly sure what this is about, and they’re not really sure whether they like it or not.” "
What does that say about them and their haste to rush it through? Transparency? Hope and change? Tyranny of the majority?
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Blue Dogs Cave on Health Care Reform; Updated: No vote until late September or later: Obama
There are reports out this afternoon that the Blue Dog Democrats have compromised with the "yellow dog" Democrats, and have agreed on an outline of a bill that would radically change health care in the United States.
Given that the Congressional Budget Office has cited the huge costs of the bill...over one trillion dollars..... the Blue Dogs could be said to have caved in by agreeing to reduce the costs by only an estimated one hundred billion dollars. That is a lot of money, but only a drop in the bucket.
So, what else did they get? Well, they didn't get the national insurance out of the provisions, but they did require that government insurance company negotiate fees with doctors rather than unilaterally set them like it does with Medicare. But that still gets the government's nose under the tent, and we all know where that will go.
They did get a increase in the ceiling for mandatory insurance, doubling it to payrolls of $500,000 or less. That is still too low by far.
There is no mention of Medicare.
It seems a lot of the savings will come from two places, as reported by the New York Times:
"¶ Medicaid would be expanded, as under the original bill, but states would have to pay a small share of the additional costs, perhaps 7 percent. The federal government would have paid the entire cost under the original bill.
"¶ Workers would have to pay slightly more of their income on premiums for employer-sponsored insurance — 12 percent, rather than 11 percent — before they could qualify for federal subsidies."
So savings would come from charging workers more money, and putting additional costs on the states. Isn't that nice? Guess who still pays?
What do we have at the end of the day? The best part of it is that they delayed the bill from coming up for a vote until after Labor Day.
That will at least mean that someone will have a chance to read the bill after it is marked up in committee, and before it is presented to the House for a vote.
That is a change. Celebrate the small things.
They won't be able to change that sow's ear into a silk purse during the recess. But they will try to sell it as one.
And the so-called "conservative" Democrats, the Blue Dogs, showed their true colors once again.
The term "conservative" Democrat is an oxymoron, by the way. If they were conservative, they would not be Democrats. It has been thirty years since there was a real live conservative in the Democratic Party. We all left back then.
UPDATE: Obama is quoted this evening as saying there will not be a vote on the Health Care Reform Bill until late September or mid-October.
This is a major defeat for Obama and Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership.
Given that the Congressional Budget Office has cited the huge costs of the bill...over one trillion dollars..... the Blue Dogs could be said to have caved in by agreeing to reduce the costs by only an estimated one hundred billion dollars. That is a lot of money, but only a drop in the bucket.
So, what else did they get? Well, they didn't get the national insurance out of the provisions, but they did require that government insurance company negotiate fees with doctors rather than unilaterally set them like it does with Medicare. But that still gets the government's nose under the tent, and we all know where that will go.
They did get a increase in the ceiling for mandatory insurance, doubling it to payrolls of $500,000 or less. That is still too low by far.
There is no mention of Medicare.
It seems a lot of the savings will come from two places, as reported by the New York Times:
"¶ Medicaid would be expanded, as under the original bill, but states would have to pay a small share of the additional costs, perhaps 7 percent. The federal government would have paid the entire cost under the original bill.
"¶ Workers would have to pay slightly more of their income on premiums for employer-sponsored insurance — 12 percent, rather than 11 percent — before they could qualify for federal subsidies."
So savings would come from charging workers more money, and putting additional costs on the states. Isn't that nice? Guess who still pays?
What do we have at the end of the day? The best part of it is that they delayed the bill from coming up for a vote until after Labor Day.
That will at least mean that someone will have a chance to read the bill after it is marked up in committee, and before it is presented to the House for a vote.
That is a change. Celebrate the small things.
They won't be able to change that sow's ear into a silk purse during the recess. But they will try to sell it as one.
And the so-called "conservative" Democrats, the Blue Dogs, showed their true colors once again.
The term "conservative" Democrat is an oxymoron, by the way. If they were conservative, they would not be Democrats. It has been thirty years since there was a real live conservative in the Democratic Party. We all left back then.
UPDATE: Obama is quoted this evening as saying there will not be a vote on the Health Care Reform Bill until late September or mid-October.
This is a major defeat for Obama and Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
"End of Life" Counselling
There was too much work yesterday to post, but here goes one for today.
At the beginning, please understand that I am opposed to the health care reform being proposed in Congress. There are many, many aspects of it that I find deeply troubling.
There is one that is being used by opponents to scare senior citizens in the same way the Democrats have always done on Social Security reform. That strategy has been very effective for the Democrats, of course, but that doesn't make it right.
There is a provision in the bill that amends the Social Security Act (the part that applies to Medicare reimbursements) to provide for payment for end of life counselling for seniors every five years, and more frequently if the senior has a terminal illness.
I have read the two bills, and there is no requirement that anyone have the counselling as the fearmongers say. It just permits them to have it, and be covered by Medicare.
My view is that every senior should have the counselling provided for in the bill whether or not the bill is passed with that in it. The last couple of times I have gone to the hospital, I have been asked if I had a directive to physicians and a medical power of attorney. I have, and so should everyone if you want your wishes to be honored.
There is, in fact, another provision that provides for such counselling already in the Medicare Act.
There are a lot of reasons to oppose the bills before Congress, but this is not one of them.
You may find the provision at issue here.
The part of the Social Security Act being amended is here.
At the beginning, please understand that I am opposed to the health care reform being proposed in Congress. There are many, many aspects of it that I find deeply troubling.
There is one that is being used by opponents to scare senior citizens in the same way the Democrats have always done on Social Security reform. That strategy has been very effective for the Democrats, of course, but that doesn't make it right.
There is a provision in the bill that amends the Social Security Act (the part that applies to Medicare reimbursements) to provide for payment for end of life counselling for seniors every five years, and more frequently if the senior has a terminal illness.
I have read the two bills, and there is no requirement that anyone have the counselling as the fearmongers say. It just permits them to have it, and be covered by Medicare.
My view is that every senior should have the counselling provided for in the bill whether or not the bill is passed with that in it. The last couple of times I have gone to the hospital, I have been asked if I had a directive to physicians and a medical power of attorney. I have, and so should everyone if you want your wishes to be honored.
There is, in fact, another provision that provides for such counselling already in the Medicare Act.
There are a lot of reasons to oppose the bills before Congress, but this is not one of them.
You may find the provision at issue here.
The part of the Social Security Act being amended is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)