Repeal Obamacare

Healthcare reform is a great idea. Unfortunately, what we got from the liberals in Congress and President Obama is not. The evidence is mounting that the monstrosity from Capitol Hill will result in higher costs, poorer service, and rationed care. For an excellent summary of some of the most recently discovered problems I recommend this opinion piece from the Washington Examiner. The writer notes that Obamacare will have severe negative impacts on business, especially small businesses, healthcare providers, especially doctors, and the patients themselves. He also points to an alternative to Obamacare that is worth considering. Actually, there are many very good alternatives out there--the ERLC offers fifteen principles for successful healthcare reform--but we can't get to any of them until this current fiasco is put out of our misery. Practically every demographic group opposes Obamacare. Repeal of Obamacare starts this fall!

Health Care Reform Goes Political

Happy New Year! I pray the Lord will bless you in amazing ways in 2010. While the calendar has changed, the battles have not. Health care reform is still first on the agenda in DC. For the next several weeks, Democrats in the House and Senate will be working behind the scenes to create a bill they believe can pass both chambers and accomplish their goals. These will be closed-door, invitation-only meetings, far from the press or anyone who might object to their plans.

To get an excellent picture of the political situation the bill creates for the Democrat leadership, I encourage you to read this article by James Capretta and Yuval Levin at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. You can be sure the Democrat leadership is well-aware of these issues and is looking for a way to salvage their mess.

I encourage you to be in continual communication with your congressman and senators. They need to be reminded constantly how their constituents feel about the current state of the health care bills. They also need to hear what you object to that is not currently in play. For example, someone may still try to insert a trigger in the final bill that will trigger a public option if insurance costs do not come down. One thing you can be sure of--they are certainly not going to decline under the current House or Senate versions of health care reform, which means the public option would be triggered. They also need to hear from those who object to the use of federal funds to pay for elective abortions, either directly, through some third party, or through government subsidies. I'm sure you have other concerns as well.

Blessings on you and yours,

Barrett

The Senate Health Care Reform Bill: Some Persistent Problems

By Andy Lewis and Doug Carlson

Edited by Barrett Duke, Ph.D.

The Senate’s proposed health care reform bill is certain to undergo numerous changes as Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) tries to attract enough votes to secure its passage. Some things will not change, though. After performing thorough analyses of current proposals and probable amendments, the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission concludes that a number of unacceptable problems will persist. Of greatest concern are funding for abortions, high costs, and government-run health care.

Abortion. Recent Senate actions indicate that reform will include government funding of elective abortions. Consider the following:

• The Senate voted 54-45 on Dec. 8 to kill an amendment that would have prohibited federal funding of most abortions under health care reform.
• Federal funds will be used to pay directly for elective abortions in the government’s public option.
• Federal funds will be used to pay indirectly for elective abortions in private health care plans through government-provided premium subsidies for people in low income brackets.

High Cost. The Senate health care reform bill will impose significantly higher costs on everyone.

• Free preventive care, while desirable, will drive up insurance premiums. If it were cheaper to provide this than to only cover illness, the insurance companies would already be doing it.
• Every proposal to date results in higher premiums, higher taxes, mandate penalties, and cuts to Medicare. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the current Senate bill will cost approximately $2.5 trillion once fully implemented in 2014 and will require a nearly $500 billion tax increase.
• The CBO also estimates that, based on the current Senate bill, an average family will pay $2,000 more in health insurance premiums.

Government-run Health Care. The Senate is determined to expand the role of government in health care. Whether the Senate creates a public option or expands Medicaid and Medicare, the following is certain.

• As health care costs increase, the government will resort to rationing.
• Private insurers will be gradually squeezed out as their ability to compete is destroyed.
• Some people will lose their current health care plans.
• Medical services will be less available and quality of care will be diminished as fewer men and women go into the medical profession.

Current Senate proposals signal severe problems for the future of health care in our nation. While we need health care reform, the options currently being presented in Congress are unacceptable solutions.

Opt-outs and Triggers: Government-run Health Care by Stealth

Liberals have nearly achieved their decades-long goal of taking over health care in the United States. The House passed its plan by a vote of 220-215. The vote was close, but close was all the liberals needed.

The Senate vote on government-run health care will also be close. In fact, it is likely that liberals will need some kind of stealth plan in order to gain the 60 votes they need. They are working on so-called compromises right now that will essentially give us a government-run health care system without it looking like it. Two plans are being floated that could very possibly garner the last couple of votes Senate liberals need to pass their own version of a massive government takeover of health care.

The Opt-out Plan

The first plan is known as an Opt-out plan. Under this proposal, each state would get to decide whether or not it wanted to allow a government-run plan to be offered within their borders. While it sounds like a nice nod to states rights principles, the truth of the matter is that it is highly unlikely that any states would opt-out of the plan. For one thing, it is simply a political non-starter. There are several reasons. First, the government-run plan will promise lower health insurance premiums. Citizens will not tolerate the prospect of paying higher premiums for the same coverage available in other states that offer the government-run plan. Second, health insurance subsidies for low income people will likely be tied to the government-run plan rate. So, the subsidies may not cover as much of the gap between the cost of health insurance and what people can afford in opt-out states. This will not be received well by the citizens of those states. It is even possible that subsidies will not even be available to states that opt-out. Third, uninsured/underinsured citizens and businesses in opt-out states will be forced to pay taxes and penalties that will be used to help pay for the government-run plan for people in other states, with no benefit for themselves. They will certainly resent this inequity.

The other problem is purely economic. The states are looking at serious financial shortfalls as soon as the stimulus funds run out. They call this event ominously “the funding cliff.” If the states think they can close their impending gaping budget holes by moving their employees into what they are told is a cheaper government-run plan, they will likely feel compelled to grab any rope thrown their way, and then, so much for states opting out. Of course, all of the currently proposed government-run plans will lead to increased rates for everyone, but this will not be evident until the government-run plan is introduced in the states. Then the states’ health insurance dilemmas will be even more perilous. But it will be too late.

The Trigger Plan

The second plan is called a Trigger option. In this scenario, the government-run health plan would be included in the bill, but would only be activated if insurance companies fail to achieve certain benchmarks set by the health care reform legislation. If this option passes, one thing seems quite certain—the trigger will be pulled. It is easy enough to imagine that liberals, who are determined to create a government-run plan, could simply create a set of goals that are nearly impossible to meet. For example, they could require that health insurance premiums decline by a certain percentage—which is certainly a reasonable gauge—but fail to do anything to help drive down costs.

The stage for higher health care premiums has already been set. Consider these facts. The bills liberals have put forward do not allow for interstate competition among private health insurers, without which it will be hard to drive down costs. The bills require free preventive care, which people will appreciate, but which will make health care costs go up. Everyone knows this. The reform proposals prevent insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. Again, this is an important reform measure, but it will not make insurance premiums decline. It will cause them to go up. There is no tort reform in any of these bills, which means that doctors will be forced to continue to engage in defensive medicine to protect themselves from lawsuits, once again, driving up the cost of health care and consequently driving up premiums. So, when the lower premium benchmark is not reached, the government-run plan will be triggered.

Government-run Health Care Must Be Stopped

Whether one includes a state opt-out or a trigger in the Senate’s health care reform bill, the same result is assured—government-run health care, which will certainly lead to higher costs, rationed care, and poorer service. The only way to prevent this is to insist that the Senate not pass any bill with a government-run plan in it, regardless of when or how that plan might be implemented. The time to insist on this is now. Every person who cares about their and their children’s health care must contact their senators immediately and often and insist that they vote against any health care reform plan that includes a government-run health care option.

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.

Preventive Care Savings Myth, Nuclear-Armed Iran, Global Warming Round Two, Mounting Financial Fear

Friends,

Here are some items I came across this week that I thought you would want to know about.

Blessings,

Barrett

The Preventive Care Savings Myth

President Obama has been talking lately about the need to force health insurance companies to provide free preventive health services. He claims that this strategy will save lives and money. Everyone is agreed that it will save lives, and that is certainly a worthwhile goal, but it will not save money. If preventive care saved money, every insurance company would be offering it. One thing you can be sure of, the insurance companies are in business to make money. They have crunched the numbers and they know that it is cheaper to treat the small percentage of people who develop diseases than to try to protect their entire customer base from potentially contracting them. I have no sympathy for insurance companies. They will always make their money. But for that very same reason, I know I can count on them to do whatever they can to control their costs. If preventive care saved them money, they would make it available. Since they don’t, it can only mean one thing—forcing insurance companies to offer preventive care FREE OF CHARGE will increase the costs of health insurance. Charles Krauthammer makes that very point, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/14/the_preventive_care_myth_97889.html. Here’s a paragraph from his article:

“A study in the journal Circulation found that
for cardiovascular diseases and diabetes, "if
all the recommended prevention activities were
applied with 100 percent success," the prevention
would cost almost 10 times as much as the savings,
increasing the country's total medical bill by 162
percent. Elmendorf additionally cites a definitive
assessment in the New England Journal of Medicine
that reviewed hundreds of studies on preventive
care and found that more than 80 percent of
preventive measures added to medical costs.”

Get Ready for a Nuclear-Armed Iran

Despite the tough talk, the Administration has already accepted the fact of a nuclear-armed Iran and developed its response—a nuclear umbrella for Israel. In other words, if Iran nukes Israel, the U.S. supposedly would nuke Iran. Hillary Clinton promoted this option in April 2008 while she was a presidential candidate. This article in the Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/13/iran-nuclear-arms-israel-obama, sums up things very well. Here is the author’s concluding statement:

“No one should want a nuclear-armed Iran and
new sanctions should certainly be tried. But
if we calculate correctly that the prospect of
an Iranian bomb ultimately comes down to a
question of Iranian willpower, then a mature
debate needs to be had about how we manage that
risk. Instead of threatening military action
that will only increase Iran's desire for nuclear
weapons while undermining opportunities for
democratic change, western powers should focus on
developing a robust deterrence framework that
provides security guarantees to vulnerable countries
and reminds Iran's leaders of what they stand to lose
by abusing their nuclear potential. Proliferation is
always a risk, but we can live with a nuclear Iran if
we have to.”

This is precisely where our Administration is on this issue. The international community will be revisiting the Iran problem in September when the G20 group of industrialized and developing countries meets in Pittsburgh. Don’t expect any more from that meeting except some more meaningless saber-rattling. Iran already knows Obama’s bottom line, and it will hold out until he gets there.

The Next Round of Global Warming Legislation

Now that the UN has declared the world has only 4 months to avert a worldwide climate disaster, the pressure will mount to resume the legislative push for U.S. restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions. This isn’t a dead deal. Remember that the EPA has been given the authority by the Supreme Court to regulate CO2 as a pollutant and a mandate from the White House to do it if Congress fails to act.

If you want a glance at the future that lies ahead if our country turns down this road, I recommend a new book entitled Green Hell by Steve Milloy. He describes in excruciating detail the intrusive nature of a government that believes it has a mandate to reduce the amount of CO2 every person and company emits. For me, the picture comes into sharp focus with the simple little incandescent light bulb. In their inquisitorial environmental fervor the liberals in Congress have mandated an efficiency standard for them by 2012 that likely cannot be met. They want everyone to use compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFL) instead. Milloy has a section in his book about these little wonders. If you break one in your home, look out. They contain mercury vapor. This stuff is so dangerous that these bulbs cannot even be manufactured in the U.S.

Milloy includes the cleanup instructions provided by Maine’s Department of Environmental Protection if someone is unfortunate enough to break one of these things. It has fourteen steps! If you don’t believe him—I was curious myself—here’s the link to the U.S. government’s Energy Star web page that describes what you need to do if you break a CFL in your house, http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf:
How should I clean up a broken fluorescent bulb?

Because CFLs contain a small amount of mercury, EPA recommends the following clean-up and disposal guidelines:

1. Before Clean-up: Air Out the Room

Have people and pets leave the room, and don't let anyone walk through the breakage area on their way out.

Open a window and leave the room for 15 minutes or more.

Shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system, if you have one.

2. Clean-Up Steps for Hard Surfaces

• Carefully scoop up glass fragments and powder using stiff paper or cardboard and place them in a glass jar with metal lid (such as a canning jar) or in a sealed plastic bag.

• Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass pieces and powder.

• Wipe the area clean with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes. Place towels in the glass jar or plastic bag.

• Do not use a vacuum or broom to clean up the broken bulb on hard surfaces.

3. Clean-up Steps for Carpeting or Rug:

• Carefully pick up glass fragments and place them in a glass jar with metal lid (such as a canning jar) or in a sealed plastic bag.

• Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass fragments and powder.

• If vacuuming is needed after all visible materials are removed, vacuum the area where the bulb was broken.

• Remove the vacuum bag (or empty and wipe the canister), and put the bag or vacuum debris in a sealed plastic bag.

4. Clean-up Steps for Clothing, Bedding, etc.:

• If clothing or bedding materials come in direct contact with broken glass or mercury-containing powder from inside the bulb that may stick to the fabric, the clothing or bedding should be thrown away. Do not wash such clothing or bedding because mercury fragments in the clothing may contaminate the machine and/or pollute sewage.

• You can, however, wash clothing or other materials that have been exposed to the mercury vapor from a broken CFL, such as the clothing you are wearing when you cleaned up the broken CFL, as long as that clothing has not come into direct contact with the materials from the broken bulb.

• If shoes come into direct contact with broken glass or mercury-containing powder from the bulb, wipe them off with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes. Place the towels or wipes in a glass jar or plastic bag for disposal.

5. Disposal of Clean-up Materials

• Immediately place all clean-up materials outdoors in a trash container or protected area for the next normal trash pickup.

• Wash your hands after disposing of the jars or plastic bags containing clean-up materials.

• Check with your local or state government about disposal requirements in your specific area. Some states do not allow such trash disposal. Instead, they require that broken and unbroken mercury-containing bulbs be taken to a local recycling center.

6. Future Cleaning of Carpeting or Rug: Air Out the Room During and After Vacuuming

• The next several times you vacuum, shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system and open a window before vacuuming.

If the simple little light bulb has been turned into such a problem, imagine what will happen when the radical environmentalists get their hands on the rest of our lives.

Fears Mount Over Our Financial Future

Stories are becoming more numerous about the coming financial meltdown being precipitated by our country’s uncontrolled spending. Here are two stories worth taking the time to read. Mort Zuckerman’s article, http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/08/09/2009-08-09_drowning_in_debt_obamas_spending_and_borrowing_leaves_us_gasping_for_air.html, “Drowning in Debt” includes these scary facts:

“The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reckons
that the deficit will run for a decade and will still
exceed $1.2 trillion in 2019. By that time, the United
States will have virtually doubled its national debt,
to over $17 trillion. Then, after 2019, we get another
turn of the screw as the peak waves of baby boomers
move into their retirement years and costs soar for
the major entitlements, Social Security and Medicare.
At 41% of GDP in 2008, the accumulated federal debt
will rise to 82% by 2019. One out of every six dollars
spent then by the feds will go to interest, compared
with 1 in 12 dollars last year. These out-year budgets
will require an increase in everyone's income taxes,
raising federal income taxes an average of $11,000
for families, a hike of 55% per household - a political
impossibility. The Government Accountability Office
estimates that by 2040, interest payments will absorb
30% of all revenues and entitlements will consume the
rest, leaving nothing for defense, education or veterans'
pensions.”

In his article “Public Spending’s Day of Reckoning” Desmond Lachman, http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/12/public-spending-finances-economy-debt-opinions-contributors-desmond-lachman.html?partner=email, writes,

“In principle, there are only three
possible end-games for an unsustainable
fiscal position. The first and optimal end-game
is for the government to adopt bold expenditure-
reducing and revenue-enhancing measures that
might return the public finances to a sustainable
path…The second end-game, to which the U.S.
effectively resorted in 1931 when it devalued the
dollar against gold, is for the government to
default directly on its debt obligations…This
leaves the third option for the government:
resorting to the monetary printing press to
inflate away its debt obligations.”

In the current political environment, which response do you think we are likely to adopt?