Dear Friends,
Here are a couple items I thought you would want to follow.
Blessings,
Barrett
--------------------------------------------
EPA Moves to Regulate CO2
The EPA has announced it is moving forward with plans to regulate CO2 emissions. This threat has been held over our heads to put pressure on Congress to pass a CO2 control bill. Now that it looks like that isn’t going to happen any time soon, the EPA is starting to move forward with its Supreme Court-granted authority to regulate so-called greenhouse gases (GHG) through the Clean Air Act.
They announced their first move last week. They are requiring the auto industry to implement changes that will reduce GHG emissions in future cars and light trucks. They state:
“The standards proposed would apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles, covering model years 2012 through 2016. They require these vehicles to meet an estimated combined average emissions level of 250 grams of carbon dioxide (CO2) per mile in model year 2016, equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon (mpg) if the automotive industry were to meet this CO2 level all through fuel economy improvements.”
And yes, this is going to cost everyone some money. The EPA claims that their rules will add about $1,100 to the cost of a 2016 year vehicle. They say this is negligible compared to their estimate that a consumer will save $3,000 a year in fuel costs over the lifetime of the vehicle. Somewhere in one of their files one could probably find how they arrived at their calculation, but you can be sure they based it in part on their expectation that gasoline is going to be more expensive and that using less of it will result in savings for the driver. If we just drilled for our own oil, this would never be the case, but of course such thinking is not even part of the process in these circles.
Furthermore, this average cost/benefit calculation is an average. Those who drive less will not experience the same benefit, but their cars are still going to cost $1,100 more. So, who gets hit the worst? The poor, who will have to pay more for their cars, but who will drive less, and senior citizens, who no longer must commute to work and tend to use their cars less. In other words, the very people with the least disposable income will bear more of the cost and experience less of the benefit.
Also, you can be sure that the EPA didn’t calculate other costs that will result. For example, we already know that municipalities are feeling the effects of lower gasoline prices and less gas consumption. Their tax revenue on gas sales is down so badly that they are looking for alternative ways to raise money off of car drivers. One of the more popular ideas is to start taxing people for the miles they drive. Such a proposal will hit people who use their cars the most, which will reduce the benefit they are supposed to be getting through the EPA’s calculation, but they will still be paying $1,100 more for their cars. It will also add costs to the poor and senior citizens. While they are likely to drive fewer miles, they will still have to pay for the miles they will drive, adding more costs against the supposed savings.
Afghanistan Becomes Political
This week, President Obama decided to hold off on any decision to send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan. Why? Liberal members on the Hill are questioning the wisdom of sending more troops.
Our commanders aren’t questioning it. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen has called for more troops. General Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, is reportedly asking for 30,000 to 40,000 more troops.
Of course, there are a lot of factors to consider. Afghanistan has a history of bringing nations to their knees, but the crowd now fighting the call to send more troops to Afghanistan also fought the surge in Iraq. They can hardly be considered objective counselors in this issue.
Meanwhile, the insurgency is growing every day, and American and NATO troops are dying at higher rates. General David Petraeus recently called for patience in dealing with Afghanistan, which included a call for increased security, which I interpret, in part, to mean, more troops. He said,
“In Afghanistan, security is the principal concern, although there are numerous other challenges as well, with governmental legitimacy prominent among them. Clearly, the security trend in Afghanistan has been a downward spiral, with levels of violence at record highs in recent weeks.”
General Petraeus has proven he knows what he is doing. As far as I am concerned, his voice outweighs all the negative attitudes on Capitol Hill. We will soon find out if Afghanistan is going to be a political issue, or if President Obama will follow President Bush’s strategy of letting the experts fight our wars, and win them.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Friday, September 11, 2009
Where Is the President’s Health Care Reform Bill?
In his speech Wednesday night President Obama delivered a broad outline of key components he says are in his health care reform package. The President declared, “The plan I’m announcing tonight would meet three basic goals.” He went on to give some “details that every American needs to know about this plan.” He called it “my plan” and “my health care proposal.” He said “the plan that I’m proposing will cost around $900 billion over ten years.” Evidently, President Obama has a health care reform plan.
The main problem with what I heard Wednesday night is that I don’t know what plan the President is talking about. Many of the features the President described do not exist in any of the bills Congress is working on. They aren’t in the liberal Democrats’ bills. They aren’t in any bill from the Blue Dog Democrats. They haven’t written one. They aren’t in the Republicans’ bills, and they have at least five they are trying to get people to notice.
For example, I found myself wondering what insurance exchange the President was talking about. Is it like Henry Waxman’s bill, H.R. 3200, which mandates what coverages must be in every policy in the exchange? And does it follow H.R. 3200 in preventing insurance companies from selling new policies that don’t offer the government-mandated coverages? Does he have something entirely different in mind? I’d like to know.
I also wonder about the President’s not-for-profit option. None of the bills under consideration include this. But since it’s in the President’s plan, I wonder how this option will “keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable.” He says the public option will be able to eliminate some overhead that “gets eaten up at private companies by profits, excessive administrative costs and executive salaries.” Are we looking at something like Fannie Mae or the Post Office? If so, I am skeptical. Neither of these government-supported programs has managed to operate efficiently or responsibly. And we certainly can’t look to them as models of restraint when it comes to executive salaries and benefits. The Postmaster General of the Post Office received $800,000 in salary and benefits in 2008. The former CEO of Fannie Mae received over $90 million in pay and bonuses during his six years at Fannie Mae. Lower level employees have also been paid very well in these organizations.
The President also said “under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.” I haven’t seen this in any of the bills the Democrats are working on. In fact, most of them have resisted every effort to put language in their bills guaranteeing that no federal funds would be spent on abortion. I was more surprised by the President’s affirmation that conscience laws will remain in place since he has already ordered the HHS to start weakening conscience protections for health care practitioners. I would really like to see this language in the President’s plan.
And then there is material that the President is still thinking about whether or not to add to his plan, like tort reform. He can’t possibly be talking about any of the bills currently under consideration. None of the Democrat bills even come close to addressing the problems caused by predatory lawsuits and the defensive medicine doctors must practice to protect themselves from lawsuits. Yet, the President admitted that “defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs.” He said he was ordering the HHS to develop demonstration projects to help develop some data on it. If the president will not back tort reform until he has some numbers to look at, then health care reform should be delayed until we know what conclusion he reaches and whether or not that will be included in his health care reform bill.
The President’s target date for implementing his exchange interested me as well. He plans to wait four years, which he says will “give us time to do it right.” Surely, if the plan will not even help a single person for the next four years, Congress can take more than the next couple of weeks or months to arrive at a compromise bill that the American people will support. In fact, if the President actually has his own plan, we should give him the time to write it, including those pesky “significant details” that need “to be ironed out,” and send it over to Congress so they don’t have to keep trying to guess at what the President wants.
Obviously, the President has a health care reform plan, but where is it? Much of what he said Wednesday night doesn't square with anything I've seen in Congress so far. Senator Tom Coburn made the same observation. He remarked, “It was a good speech, the problem is that what he wants and what they've written are two totally different things.” I agree. So, I am looking for a bill to come from the White House that we can read. And here’s hoping that it doesn’t arrive DOA, just like all the current Democrat proposals.
The main problem with what I heard Wednesday night is that I don’t know what plan the President is talking about. Many of the features the President described do not exist in any of the bills Congress is working on. They aren’t in the liberal Democrats’ bills. They aren’t in any bill from the Blue Dog Democrats. They haven’t written one. They aren’t in the Republicans’ bills, and they have at least five they are trying to get people to notice.
For example, I found myself wondering what insurance exchange the President was talking about. Is it like Henry Waxman’s bill, H.R. 3200, which mandates what coverages must be in every policy in the exchange? And does it follow H.R. 3200 in preventing insurance companies from selling new policies that don’t offer the government-mandated coverages? Does he have something entirely different in mind? I’d like to know.
I also wonder about the President’s not-for-profit option. None of the bills under consideration include this. But since it’s in the President’s plan, I wonder how this option will “keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable.” He says the public option will be able to eliminate some overhead that “gets eaten up at private companies by profits, excessive administrative costs and executive salaries.” Are we looking at something like Fannie Mae or the Post Office? If so, I am skeptical. Neither of these government-supported programs has managed to operate efficiently or responsibly. And we certainly can’t look to them as models of restraint when it comes to executive salaries and benefits. The Postmaster General of the Post Office received $800,000 in salary and benefits in 2008. The former CEO of Fannie Mae received over $90 million in pay and bonuses during his six years at Fannie Mae. Lower level employees have also been paid very well in these organizations.
The President also said “under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.” I haven’t seen this in any of the bills the Democrats are working on. In fact, most of them have resisted every effort to put language in their bills guaranteeing that no federal funds would be spent on abortion. I was more surprised by the President’s affirmation that conscience laws will remain in place since he has already ordered the HHS to start weakening conscience protections for health care practitioners. I would really like to see this language in the President’s plan.
And then there is material that the President is still thinking about whether or not to add to his plan, like tort reform. He can’t possibly be talking about any of the bills currently under consideration. None of the Democrat bills even come close to addressing the problems caused by predatory lawsuits and the defensive medicine doctors must practice to protect themselves from lawsuits. Yet, the President admitted that “defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs.” He said he was ordering the HHS to develop demonstration projects to help develop some data on it. If the president will not back tort reform until he has some numbers to look at, then health care reform should be delayed until we know what conclusion he reaches and whether or not that will be included in his health care reform bill.
The President’s target date for implementing his exchange interested me as well. He plans to wait four years, which he says will “give us time to do it right.” Surely, if the plan will not even help a single person for the next four years, Congress can take more than the next couple of weeks or months to arrive at a compromise bill that the American people will support. In fact, if the President actually has his own plan, we should give him the time to write it, including those pesky “significant details” that need “to be ironed out,” and send it over to Congress so they don’t have to keep trying to guess at what the President wants.
Obviously, the President has a health care reform plan, but where is it? Much of what he said Wednesday night doesn't square with anything I've seen in Congress so far. Senator Tom Coburn made the same observation. He remarked, “It was a good speech, the problem is that what he wants and what they've written are two totally different things.” I agree. So, I am looking for a bill to come from the White House that we can read. And here’s hoping that it doesn’t arrive DOA, just like all the current Democrat proposals.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Health Care Reform's Bloated Bureaucracy, China-Cuba-Honduras, Obama Loses Popular Support
Dear Friends:
Here are some items I thought would interest you.
Blessings,
Barrett
-------------------------------------------------
Health Care Reform’s Bloated Bureaucracy
The more we learn about Congress’ vision of health care reform, the more we should become alarmed. Henry Waxman’s bill, HR 3200, proposes no less than 53 distinct oversight bodies, programs, and positions to empower his committee’s health care monstrosity. Here is a list being circulated. It includes page numbers so you can verify it for yourself.
1. Health Benefits Advisory Committee (Section 123, p. 30)
2. Health Choices Administration (Section 141, p. 41)
3. Qualified Health Benefits Plan Ombudsman (Section 144, p. 47)
4. Program of administrative simplification (Section 163, p. 57)
5. Retiree Reserve Trust Fund (Section 164(d), p. 70)
6. Health Insurance Exchange (Section 201, p. 72)
7. Mechanism for insurance risk pooling to be established by Health Choices Administration Commissioner (Section 206(b), p. 106)
8. Special Inspector General for the Health Insurance Exchange (Section 206(c), p. 107)
9. Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund (Section 207, p. 109)
10. State-based Health Insurance Exchanges (Section 208, p. 111)
11. “Public Health Insurance Option” (Section 221, p. 116)
12. Ombudsman for “Public Health Insurance Option” (Section 221(d), p. 117)
13. Account for receipts and disbursements for “Public Health Insurance Option” (Section 222(b), p. 119)
14. Telehealth Advisory Committee (Section 1191, p. 380)
15. Demonstration program providing reimbursement for “culturally and linguistically appropriate services” (Section 1222, p. 405)
16. Demonstration program for shared decision making using patient decision aids (Section 1236, p. 438)
17. Accountable Care Organization pilot program (Section 1301, p. 443)
18. Independent patient-centered medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302, p. 462)
19. Community-based medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302(d), p. 468)
20. Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research (Section 1401(a), p. 502)
21. Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission (Section 1401(a), p. 505)
22. Patient ombudsman for comparative effectiveness research (Section 1401(a), p. 519)
23. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1412(b)(1), p. 546)
24. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for nursing facilities (Section 1412 (b)(2), p. 548)
25. Special focus facility program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1413(a)(3), p. 559)
26. Special focus facility program for nursing facilities (Section 1413(b)(3), p. 565)
27. National independent monitor pilot program for skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities (Section 1422, p. 607)
28. Demonstration program for approved teaching health centers with respect to Medicare GME (Section 1502(d), p. 674)
29. Pilot program to develop anti-fraud compliance systems for Medicare providers (Section 1635, p. 716)
30. Medical home pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1722, p. 780)
31. Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund (Section 1802, p. 824)
32. “Identifiable office or program” within CMS to “provide for improved coordination between Medicare and Medicaid in the case of dual eligibles” (Section 1905, p. 852)
33. Public Health Investment Fund (Section 2002, p. 859)
34. Scholarships for service in health professional needs areas (Section 2211, p. 870)
35. Loan repayment program for service in health professional needs areas (Section 2211, p. 873)
36. Program for training medical residents in community-based settings (Section 2214, p. 882)
37. Grant program for training in dentistry programs (Section 2215, p. 887)
38. Public Health Workforce Corps (Section 2231, p. 898)
39. Public health workforce scholarship program (Section 2231, p. 900)
40. Public health workforce loan forgiveness program (Section 2231, p. 904)
41. Grant program for innovations in interdisciplinary care (Section 2252, p. 917)
42. Advisory Committee on Health Workforce Evaluation and Assessment (Section 2261, p. 920)
43. Prevention and Wellness Trust (Section 2301, p. 932)
44. Clinical Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 941)
45. Community Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 947)
46. Grant program for community prevention and wellness research (Section 2301, p. 950)
47. Grant program for community prevention and wellness services (Section 2301, p. 951)
48. Grant program for public health infrastructure (Section 2301, p. 955)
49. Center for Quality Improvement (Section 2401, p. 965)
50. Assistant Secretary for Health Information (Section 2402, p. 972)
51. Grant program to support the operation of school-based health clinics (Section 2511, p. 993)
52. National Medical Device Registry (Section 2521, p. 1001)
53. Grants for labor-management programs for nursing training (Section 2531, p. 1008)
We shouldn’t be surprised by HR 3200’s $1.5 trillion price tag when we see this kind of bureaucracy set up to empower it. Even if the liberals actually drop the public option, no one should think that this health care take-over will actually work. It’s just another liberal, bureaucratic, utopian vision that ignores reality. Surely, we can do better than this.
Strengthening Communism and Weakening Democracy
It is being reported, http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5302; http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-07/13/content_8422505.htm, that the White House has granted the request of a Chinese group to have the national flag of China flown on the White House South Lawn on September 20 in honor of the communist nation’s 60th anniversary. No one remembers a time when a nation’s flag has been flown at the White House for such an event. It is normal to fly the flag of another country when its dignitaries are visiting, but not otherwise. There are no dignitaries visiting during this celebration. The sponsors of the event expect about 1,000 people to turn out for the celebration, but no official delegation from China. So, on September 20, our nation will help celebrate the rise of communism over the world’s most populous nation, and its ongoing subjugation of its people. This is no way to promote democracy!
This isn’t the Obama administration’s only recent bow to communism. This week the Obama administration announced major changes in the U.S. stance toward Cuba. Cuban Americans will now be able to enjoy unlimited travel to family members in Cuba. They will be able to send unlimited money and certain other items to them as well. And communication companies are going to be given the right to set up more communication channels between Cuba and the United States.
While campaigning in May 2007, President Obama said, “It's time for more than tough talk that never yields results. It's time for a new strategy. There are no better ambassadors for freedom than Cuban Americans. That's why I will immediately allow unlimited family travel and remittances to the island. It's time to let Cuban Americans see their mothers and fathers, their sisters and brothers. It's time to let Cuban American money make their families less dependent upon the Castro regime.”
He is now following through with that pledge. I’m glad that separated Cuban families will be able to spend more time together and that some of Cuba’s suffering masses will have a little extra money. I’m sure they need it. Unfortunately, the decision is likely going to have a much more negative impact on the country by strengthening the Castro brothers’ hands. You can be sure that much of the money sent will end up in the Castros’ coffers.
The Cuban people are not poor because they are cut off from the world. All the rest of the world trades freely with Cuba, and numerous U.S. companies trade regularly with Cuba to supply the country with “humanitarian” agricultural products. If sending more money into the country would make the people less dependent on the Castro regime, they would already be free. More money for Cuba simply means more money and power for the Castros. In fact, Cuba has been in the midst of a major restructuring of its economy due to the worldwide financial decline. Raul Castro has already started to dismantle some of the nation’s massive bureaucracy as he recognizes that the communist system cannot be sustained. More money poured into the country at this time will weaken the incentive to continue to loosen government control over the nation’s business sector.
These sympathetic actions toward two communist nations are even more disturbing when contrasted with the way our country is treating Honduras simply because it is trying to prevent a despot from turning their nation into another Venezuela. It was reported on Thursday that the State Department, under Hillary Clinton’s leadership, has decided to cut off non-humanitarian aid to Honduras in response to that nation’s refusal to restore the deposed former president Zelaya to power. Zelaya was in the midst of illegal efforts to consolidate his power base in that nation when the Honduran legislative branch and its Supreme Court ordered the military to remove him from power for seeking to subvert Honduras’ democratic principles.
It is shocking that the Obama administration has chosen to honor a nation that drove tanks over students who insisted that their nation should be more responsive to the will of the people and to punish a nation for removing from office a man who sought to subvert the will of the people. The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/09/04/us/politics/AP-US-US-Honduras.html, includes this paragraph in their story about the State Department’s disgraceful treatment of a friend of democracy: "Honduras' interim government sent a letter to Clinton vowing it would withstand any price to defend democracy in the Central American country. 'Whether you wish us well or not, we will pay any price, we will bear any burden, we will take on any difficulty, we will support any friend and oppose any enemy to ensure the survival and the success of liberty and democracy in our country,' interim Interior Minister Oscar Raul Matute said in the letter, echoing President John F. Kennedy's 1961 inaugural address."
I wish them well in their efforts to withstand the pressure of communist dictators and our own misguided leaders in this country.
President Obama Loses Popular Support
The latest polling shows that less than half the country supports President Obama’s policies. Two recent pieces are worth reading for a good take on why things have gone so badly for him. Steve Chapman, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/30/what_voters_meant.html, makes a good case for the primary cause. He opens, “Barack Obama came into office championing change, and he apparently assumed that if Americans voted for him, it was because they wanted the future to be different from what went before. Actually, what they wanted was a future much like the not-so-distant past -- before the financial crisis, before the recession, before the Iraq war, before the most unpopular president since the invention of polling.” (Remember, Chapman is an Obama supporter.) Chapman argues that the nation is turning on President Obama because it is rejecting his plans to increase government encroachment in their lives.
No doubt, the vast majority of Americans have rejected Obama’s policies. However, it isn’t clear that Obama came into office with the belief that he had a mandate from the American people to make radical changes. What is clear is that the person many millions of people thought they were electing isn’t really who they thought he was. Obama the candidate moved to the center on practically every major issue as the campaign progressed. In other words, he knew what most of the country wanted, and he told them what he needed to tell them to get elected.
The reason most people didn’t pay attention to the transformation of his message is because the major media outlets didn’t point it out, and much of the public seemed perfectly willing to be oblivious. In the end, many people thought Obama was a centrist. In the same article, Chapman quotes Mike Duncan, then Chairman of the Republican National Committee, “Barack Obama just ran the most successful moderate Republican presidential campaign since Dwight Eisenhower.” Now that he won, he is showing his true colors, and most of the nation is repulsed.
A major case of buyer’s remorse is now setting in across the country as millions who voted for President Obama see what he is doing. David Brooks, who has moved further left since becoming a regular contributor at the New York Times, makes much the same argument as Chapman. At one point in his article, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/opinion/01brooks.html?emc=eta1, he says, “The public has soured on Obama’s policy proposals. Voters often have only a fuzzy sense of what each individual proposal actually does, but more and more have a growing conviction that if the president is proposing it, it must involve big spending, big government and a fundamental departure from the traditional American approach.”
Yes, President Obama is a liberal ideologue and the nation is not interested in living under his vision of America. That’s what has the country in an uproar now. But that is only the beginning of President Obama’s troubles. The President looks less and less in control with each passing week. He is now responding to criticism and setbacks rather than leading. His political appointees are now making decisions on their own that are outside of the mainstream of American convictions. Ultra-liberals in congress are running the legislative process. Soon, it is likely that the vast center of the populace will begin feeling like no one in Washington is looking out for their interests and that the ultra-liberal wing of the Democrat party is running things. Once that feeling sets in, things are going to get even more tense.
Here are some items I thought would interest you.
Blessings,
Barrett
-------------------------------------------------
Health Care Reform’s Bloated Bureaucracy
The more we learn about Congress’ vision of health care reform, the more we should become alarmed. Henry Waxman’s bill, HR 3200, proposes no less than 53 distinct oversight bodies, programs, and positions to empower his committee’s health care monstrosity. Here is a list being circulated. It includes page numbers so you can verify it for yourself.
1. Health Benefits Advisory Committee (Section 123, p. 30)
2. Health Choices Administration (Section 141, p. 41)
3. Qualified Health Benefits Plan Ombudsman (Section 144, p. 47)
4. Program of administrative simplification (Section 163, p. 57)
5. Retiree Reserve Trust Fund (Section 164(d), p. 70)
6. Health Insurance Exchange (Section 201, p. 72)
7. Mechanism for insurance risk pooling to be established by Health Choices Administration Commissioner (Section 206(b), p. 106)
8. Special Inspector General for the Health Insurance Exchange (Section 206(c), p. 107)
9. Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund (Section 207, p. 109)
10. State-based Health Insurance Exchanges (Section 208, p. 111)
11. “Public Health Insurance Option” (Section 221, p. 116)
12. Ombudsman for “Public Health Insurance Option” (Section 221(d), p. 117)
13. Account for receipts and disbursements for “Public Health Insurance Option” (Section 222(b), p. 119)
14. Telehealth Advisory Committee (Section 1191, p. 380)
15. Demonstration program providing reimbursement for “culturally and linguistically appropriate services” (Section 1222, p. 405)
16. Demonstration program for shared decision making using patient decision aids (Section 1236, p. 438)
17. Accountable Care Organization pilot program (Section 1301, p. 443)
18. Independent patient-centered medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302, p. 462)
19. Community-based medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302(d), p. 468)
20. Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research (Section 1401(a), p. 502)
21. Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission (Section 1401(a), p. 505)
22. Patient ombudsman for comparative effectiveness research (Section 1401(a), p. 519)
23. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1412(b)(1), p. 546)
24. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for nursing facilities (Section 1412 (b)(2), p. 548)
25. Special focus facility program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1413(a)(3), p. 559)
26. Special focus facility program for nursing facilities (Section 1413(b)(3), p. 565)
27. National independent monitor pilot program for skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities (Section 1422, p. 607)
28. Demonstration program for approved teaching health centers with respect to Medicare GME (Section 1502(d), p. 674)
29. Pilot program to develop anti-fraud compliance systems for Medicare providers (Section 1635, p. 716)
30. Medical home pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1722, p. 780)
31. Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund (Section 1802, p. 824)
32. “Identifiable office or program” within CMS to “provide for improved coordination between Medicare and Medicaid in the case of dual eligibles” (Section 1905, p. 852)
33. Public Health Investment Fund (Section 2002, p. 859)
34. Scholarships for service in health professional needs areas (Section 2211, p. 870)
35. Loan repayment program for service in health professional needs areas (Section 2211, p. 873)
36. Program for training medical residents in community-based settings (Section 2214, p. 882)
37. Grant program for training in dentistry programs (Section 2215, p. 887)
38. Public Health Workforce Corps (Section 2231, p. 898)
39. Public health workforce scholarship program (Section 2231, p. 900)
40. Public health workforce loan forgiveness program (Section 2231, p. 904)
41. Grant program for innovations in interdisciplinary care (Section 2252, p. 917)
42. Advisory Committee on Health Workforce Evaluation and Assessment (Section 2261, p. 920)
43. Prevention and Wellness Trust (Section 2301, p. 932)
44. Clinical Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 941)
45. Community Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 947)
46. Grant program for community prevention and wellness research (Section 2301, p. 950)
47. Grant program for community prevention and wellness services (Section 2301, p. 951)
48. Grant program for public health infrastructure (Section 2301, p. 955)
49. Center for Quality Improvement (Section 2401, p. 965)
50. Assistant Secretary for Health Information (Section 2402, p. 972)
51. Grant program to support the operation of school-based health clinics (Section 2511, p. 993)
52. National Medical Device Registry (Section 2521, p. 1001)
53. Grants for labor-management programs for nursing training (Section 2531, p. 1008)
We shouldn’t be surprised by HR 3200’s $1.5 trillion price tag when we see this kind of bureaucracy set up to empower it. Even if the liberals actually drop the public option, no one should think that this health care take-over will actually work. It’s just another liberal, bureaucratic, utopian vision that ignores reality. Surely, we can do better than this.
Strengthening Communism and Weakening Democracy
It is being reported, http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5302; http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-07/13/content_8422505.htm, that the White House has granted the request of a Chinese group to have the national flag of China flown on the White House South Lawn on September 20 in honor of the communist nation’s 60th anniversary. No one remembers a time when a nation’s flag has been flown at the White House for such an event. It is normal to fly the flag of another country when its dignitaries are visiting, but not otherwise. There are no dignitaries visiting during this celebration. The sponsors of the event expect about 1,000 people to turn out for the celebration, but no official delegation from China. So, on September 20, our nation will help celebrate the rise of communism over the world’s most populous nation, and its ongoing subjugation of its people. This is no way to promote democracy!
This isn’t the Obama administration’s only recent bow to communism. This week the Obama administration announced major changes in the U.S. stance toward Cuba. Cuban Americans will now be able to enjoy unlimited travel to family members in Cuba. They will be able to send unlimited money and certain other items to them as well. And communication companies are going to be given the right to set up more communication channels between Cuba and the United States.
While campaigning in May 2007, President Obama said, “It's time for more than tough talk that never yields results. It's time for a new strategy. There are no better ambassadors for freedom than Cuban Americans. That's why I will immediately allow unlimited family travel and remittances to the island. It's time to let Cuban Americans see their mothers and fathers, their sisters and brothers. It's time to let Cuban American money make their families less dependent upon the Castro regime.”
He is now following through with that pledge. I’m glad that separated Cuban families will be able to spend more time together and that some of Cuba’s suffering masses will have a little extra money. I’m sure they need it. Unfortunately, the decision is likely going to have a much more negative impact on the country by strengthening the Castro brothers’ hands. You can be sure that much of the money sent will end up in the Castros’ coffers.
The Cuban people are not poor because they are cut off from the world. All the rest of the world trades freely with Cuba, and numerous U.S. companies trade regularly with Cuba to supply the country with “humanitarian” agricultural products. If sending more money into the country would make the people less dependent on the Castro regime, they would already be free. More money for Cuba simply means more money and power for the Castros. In fact, Cuba has been in the midst of a major restructuring of its economy due to the worldwide financial decline. Raul Castro has already started to dismantle some of the nation’s massive bureaucracy as he recognizes that the communist system cannot be sustained. More money poured into the country at this time will weaken the incentive to continue to loosen government control over the nation’s business sector.
These sympathetic actions toward two communist nations are even more disturbing when contrasted with the way our country is treating Honduras simply because it is trying to prevent a despot from turning their nation into another Venezuela. It was reported on Thursday that the State Department, under Hillary Clinton’s leadership, has decided to cut off non-humanitarian aid to Honduras in response to that nation’s refusal to restore the deposed former president Zelaya to power. Zelaya was in the midst of illegal efforts to consolidate his power base in that nation when the Honduran legislative branch and its Supreme Court ordered the military to remove him from power for seeking to subvert Honduras’ democratic principles.
It is shocking that the Obama administration has chosen to honor a nation that drove tanks over students who insisted that their nation should be more responsive to the will of the people and to punish a nation for removing from office a man who sought to subvert the will of the people. The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/09/04/us/politics/AP-US-US-Honduras.html, includes this paragraph in their story about the State Department’s disgraceful treatment of a friend of democracy: "Honduras' interim government sent a letter to Clinton vowing it would withstand any price to defend democracy in the Central American country. 'Whether you wish us well or not, we will pay any price, we will bear any burden, we will take on any difficulty, we will support any friend and oppose any enemy to ensure the survival and the success of liberty and democracy in our country,' interim Interior Minister Oscar Raul Matute said in the letter, echoing President John F. Kennedy's 1961 inaugural address."
I wish them well in their efforts to withstand the pressure of communist dictators and our own misguided leaders in this country.
President Obama Loses Popular Support
The latest polling shows that less than half the country supports President Obama’s policies. Two recent pieces are worth reading for a good take on why things have gone so badly for him. Steve Chapman, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/30/what_voters_meant.html, makes a good case for the primary cause. He opens, “Barack Obama came into office championing change, and he apparently assumed that if Americans voted for him, it was because they wanted the future to be different from what went before. Actually, what they wanted was a future much like the not-so-distant past -- before the financial crisis, before the recession, before the Iraq war, before the most unpopular president since the invention of polling.” (Remember, Chapman is an Obama supporter.) Chapman argues that the nation is turning on President Obama because it is rejecting his plans to increase government encroachment in their lives.
No doubt, the vast majority of Americans have rejected Obama’s policies. However, it isn’t clear that Obama came into office with the belief that he had a mandate from the American people to make radical changes. What is clear is that the person many millions of people thought they were electing isn’t really who they thought he was. Obama the candidate moved to the center on practically every major issue as the campaign progressed. In other words, he knew what most of the country wanted, and he told them what he needed to tell them to get elected.
The reason most people didn’t pay attention to the transformation of his message is because the major media outlets didn’t point it out, and much of the public seemed perfectly willing to be oblivious. In the end, many people thought Obama was a centrist. In the same article, Chapman quotes Mike Duncan, then Chairman of the Republican National Committee, “Barack Obama just ran the most successful moderate Republican presidential campaign since Dwight Eisenhower.” Now that he won, he is showing his true colors, and most of the nation is repulsed.
A major case of buyer’s remorse is now setting in across the country as millions who voted for President Obama see what he is doing. David Brooks, who has moved further left since becoming a regular contributor at the New York Times, makes much the same argument as Chapman. At one point in his article, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/opinion/01brooks.html?emc=eta1, he says, “The public has soured on Obama’s policy proposals. Voters often have only a fuzzy sense of what each individual proposal actually does, but more and more have a growing conviction that if the president is proposing it, it must involve big spending, big government and a fundamental departure from the traditional American approach.”
Yes, President Obama is a liberal ideologue and the nation is not interested in living under his vision of America. That’s what has the country in an uproar now. But that is only the beginning of President Obama’s troubles. The President looks less and less in control with each passing week. He is now responding to criticism and setbacks rather than leading. His political appointees are now making decisions on their own that are outside of the mainstream of American convictions. Ultra-liberals in congress are running the legislative process. Soon, it is likely that the vast center of the populace will begin feeling like no one in Washington is looking out for their interests and that the ultra-liberal wing of the Democrat party is running things. Once that feeling sets in, things are going to get even more tense.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
