The NAACP was once a proud organization with a noble cause, to advance the lot of people of color.  Today it has abandoned those principles to become just another attack arm of the Democratic Party.  This week they released a resolution condemning racism within the Tea Party movement.

I have been to a number of Tea Party events with hundreds of thousands of peaceful orderly participants and racism was not evident, surprisingly so.  I say surprisingly because with any gathering of that magnitude to have a few fringe elements at either end of the spectrum would almost be expected.  So is it possible there are racist elements at any given event? Sure.  It is routine in the Tea Party?  It is so rare, you have to aggressively search to find it and when you do, what proof is there that they are really Tea Party members or supporters or just some wacko who walked into the crowd with a sign?

Let’s look at the Strategy

The left has tried vainly to paint the Tea Party as racist because that is the most toxic label that they have.  The racist label brings out the black electorate, polarizes  the progressives, mortifies the moderates, and makes conservatives cringe.  If they can make it stick it is very effective.  It is also overused and as such, it is losing its sting.  So how do you make it stick? 

One way is to follow what the NAACP is doing.  Pass a resolution condemning racism and demand the Tea Party repudiate racism in their ranks, which by the way is virtually non-existent.  If you can cow the Tea Party members to take the pledge, then the liberal/progressives  can plant racists at each rally with nasty signs, videotape them and then blame the Tea Party for failing to honor their pledge and thus “proving” racism is in the ranks of the Tea Party and it cannot be eradicated.  This is straight out of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.

Let’s Look at the Facts

This is from the NAACP web site:

“Today, NAACP delegates passed a resolution to condemn extremist elements within the Tea Party, calling on Tea Party leaders to repudiate those in their ranks who use racist language in their signs and speeches.”

I was a marshal at the Tea Party rally in New York on April 15^th this year.  We were concerned about reports on the street that infiltrators with racist signs might show up to garner media attention, which to that point had been rather thin.  What were we to do?  We couldn’t take their signs away, we couldn’t touch them as they had as much of a right to be there as we did.  We came up with the idea that we would carry signs repudiating the person that our signs pointed to.  We would approach the person, politely, tell them that their sign did not comport with the values of the Tea Party and ask them to put the sign away or leave.  If they did not comply, we would surround them with our signs that said those views of that individual were not consistent with the Tea Party so that any media picking up their sign would see ours as well.  If things got aggressive we would call in the police that were on hand.  To my knowledge we never had to use our tactic as there were no racially offensive signs at the rally.  We did not need a resolution by the NAACP to develop our counter strategy.  It was part of our core beliefs, which puts the big lie to the NAACP’s resolution.

More from the NAACP web site:

“The resolution came after a year of high-profile media coverage of attendees of Tea Party marches using vial, antagonistic racial slurs & images. In March, respected members of the Congressional Black Caucus reported that racial epithets were hurled at them as they passed by a Washington, DC health care protest. Civil rights legend John Lewis was called the “n-word” in the incident while others in the crowd used ugly anti-gay slurs to describe Congressman Barney Frank, a long-time NAACP supporter and the nation’s first openly gay member of Congress.”

The first part of this passage was almost laughable.  High profile media coverage?  The lame stream media has been trying to bury the Tea Party by not covering them.  What main stream media coverage was there in Washington in September of 2009 where several hundred thousand Tea Partiers rallied?  It was dismissed as a couple of thousand.

Nancy Pelosi’s stunt to march through a crowd of Tea Party members to pass the Obamacare bill, did draw a lot of media attention and controversy.  Show us the money!  Andrew Breitbart put up $100,000 to anyone who could produce any video evidence that the things claimed in the above quote from the NAACP actually happened.  There were media cameras and microphones all over the place, hundreds if not thousands of people with cell phone cameras and miraculously not one of them captured what the NAACP claims happened as fact.  John Lewis was invited on several news programs to give his side of the story and he declined.  Mr. Breitbart is still waiting to write that check.  As Groucho Marx famously said, “Who are you going to believe, me or your own two eyes?”

NAACP President Ben Jealous had this comment.  “I give a 42-page speech. Half a page is focused on the tea party,” Jealous said. “We need the media to pay attention to the issues that are most important to this country” such as jobs, education, and crime.  Uh, what did you expect sir?  If you wanted the media to pay attention to the other 41 ½ pages of your speech, perhaps you should have dropped to bogus charge against the Tea Party.

I scoured the NAACP web site for any mention of the New Black Panther party and the case against them that was dropped by the Obama Justice Department.  The site lacks a search feature so it made it more of a challenge but I looked through the site’s blog and found nothing.  Now here is a case that is plainly caught on video tape and other video tape is found of King Samir Shabazz, spewing racial epithets and advocating murder of whites or “crackers” and their babies, but we hear nothing about this from the NAACP.

So, we have the NAACP issuing a resolution about alleged racism in the Tea Party for which they have no proof (there are some still pictures on their websites of people holding signs, but no reference to where the pictures were taken or who the sign holders were.  They could have just as easily been a plant to smear the Tea Party).  They ask the Tea Party to pledge to oppose racism, which I have demonstrated that opposing racist messages is standard operating procedure among the Tea Party, but they make no mention of the overt racism among their followers, where that racism is clearly on full display in living color with sound and includes not only racist sentiments but a call to actually murder whites.  This apparently is considered worthy discourse to the NAACP leadership.

I call upon all members of the NAACP who really believe there is no place for racism in America to cancel your membership in the NAACP and join the Tea Party.  We do not tolerate racist messages among our members.  We have many African Americans in prominent positions in the Tea Party and we would have more if you join us.  Our positions to end wasteful government spending and free up our economy will probably do more to advance you and your fellow NAACP members than fighting for the next government program.  The NAACP has run aground on the shoals of petty squabbles to help the Democratic Party.  It’s time to abandon ship and swim for shore.

The above opinions are my own.  I do not speak in an official capacity for the Tea Party.

The other day we read reports of Democratic Senators scrambling to create an oversight panel to prevent health care providers from dramatically increasing premiums over the next four years because, shockingly, costs are supposed to go down not up.

Yesterday, the Department of Health and Human Services released a report analyzing the effects of ObamaCare:

The sobering assessment by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services concludes what Republicans had warned about during heated debate — that the double-counting of Medicare spending — as both savings and as a means to shore up the debt-ridden government fund for seniors’ health care — means the cost is unrealistic.

The analysis also found that the law falls short of the president’s twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years, or $311 billion, up from the $222 billion previous estimated.

Excuse me, captain, but was that an iceberg we just hit?  We all know the Titanic sank on her maiden voyage, and it looks like ObamaCare is taking on water only weeks after being launched.  As Congressman John Boehner said:

“According to his own administration’s analysis, the health care law the president signed one month ago today would violate his pledge to ‘bend the cost curve’ and force millions of seniors off their current Medicare coverage. This is in addition to what we already know about how this new law is squeezing employers with job-killing tax hikes and leaving middle-class families to brace for higher premiums,” he said. 

When talk turns to repealing this law is Obama still smugly saying, “Bring it on”?

Comedian Lewis Black visited the Wall Street Journal and talked about the Tea Party and how he doesn’t understand them.  I couldn’t have made a stronger argument for the Tea Parties by pointing out how little the leftists and the statists don’t understand.

You Have To Pay For Stuff

I happen to enjoy watching Lewis Black entertain.  His hook is that of a very angry man sputtering about what is dumb and frustrating in the world and for me it really hits a chord.  It’s a pity he doesn’t see what is so dumb about his view of the Tea Parties.  In the WSJ interview he mentioned that he was poor at one time and the government actively pursued him for his last quarter.  That’s your first hint, Lewis.  He says now he is rich and when the government takes some of his money, guess what, he’s still rich.  Okay, good for you.  The Tea Party believes you are entitled to that and that is the American way.  But then he steps on his argument and says, you’ve got to pay for: policemen, firemen, educate our children and provide water.  I can’t argue with that, but what has that got to do with an out of control federal government?  That’s the problem.  Most members of the Tea Party aren’t protesting paying for police, firemen, education and water.  We don’t get those from Washington, we get them and pay for them locally.  We don’t believe there is a phenomenal brain trust in Washington that knows all and sees all and can tell us how to live our lives better than we can.

Later in the interview Black actually says, “I can agree with the Tea Parties in the way it [money] is used some times.”  What does the Tea Parties really believe in?  Limited federal government.  Limited to the powers granted to it by the Constitution.  Everything else, such as police, firemen, education, and water, should be provided by the state and local government.  Lewis, it sounds like you actually agree more with the Tea Partiers than against them if you only took the time to understand what we stand for.  You might actually find some new material for your act, such as:

“The Department of Education… THE Department of EDUCATION!!..those morons need an education.  Ever since that nitwit Carter created the damn thing they spent a TRILLION F*%!&#G DOLLARS, and now no one graduates HIGH SCHOOL!!!  BRILLIANT!!!”

If Lewis Black watched any of the town hall meetings over the summer they looked like his act.  The only difference being there were 150 Lewis Blacks (the citizenry) and one member of the audience (Congressperson), except the Congressperson wasn’t visibly laughing.

So, Lewis, should I look for you at the next Tea Party?

After receiving one too many e-mails, post cards and other marketing pitches to extoll the virtues of ObamaCare, I felt compelled to send the following letter to Congressman Tim Bishop.

Dear Congressman Bishop,

 Judging by the e-mails and mail pieces the marketing program now begins.  To tell the 50%-60% of Americans who adamantly opposed ObamaCare, now that it has been signed into law, what good medicine it really is.  Before I point out the areas on which we disagree, I would first like to call for a sense of honesty in the debate on healthcare.  I applaud you for such honesty where you say on your glossy postcard that it was prepared, published and mailed at taxpayer expense. I challenge you, however, on your opening sentence.

You begin your piece by stating, “On March 21^st, we stood up to big insurance companies and passed health care reform.”  Really?  How is using the full coercive power of the federal government to unconstitutionally force millions of Americans to buy the products of these big insurance companies, whether they want to or not, standing up to them?  I’ll bet Wal-Mart wishes you would get tough with them and require all Americans to shop there on Thursdays.  Are you next going to get tough with GM and Chrysler by passing legislation forcing us to buy a Malibu or a Ram pickup truck?  Of course you will probably smack them around and make them comply with tougher CAFE standards, but hey, that’s what big government is for, no?

I am still waiting to find out how spending $1-$2 trillion dollars results in reducing the deficit by $143 billion in the first decade.  This may be presumptuous but I have a suggestion on how to lower the deficit by $1-$2 trillion.  Repeal ObamaCare and start over.

Nothing in this legislation actually goes to the root cause of reducing the cost of delivering health care.  It’s all giant shell game about hiding whose pocket the money is coming from to really pay for the same old broken system.  Here are some of the “benefits” you point out in your mail piece:

•  Free Preventive Care Under Medicare – this eliminates co-pays and deductibles under Medicare. This doesn’t reduce what it costs medical professionals to deliver preventive medicine, it just lowers the price to consumers.  Economics 101 says when you decreases the price the demand goes up.  By eliminating co-pays and deductibles, someone has to make up this modest difference.  It is either the medical professional who has to eat the cost, driving up rather than reducing the cost of preventive care, or it will be subsidized by the rest of us through taxes.  You are betting that if every senior gets preventive care, more expensive treatments will be avoided later.  The real question is: how many seniors are not getting preventive care because they don’t have a $20 co-pay and of that group, how many turn out to have a serious disease that could have been prevented?  This is a much smaller group than all seniors.  You cannot make seniors go to the doctor for preventive care if they don’t want to, whether it is free or not. 
• Free Preventive Care Under New Private Plans– When I had my own small business, I provided our employees with healthcare.  I chose a plan that provided free preventive health care.  When I left that business and went out on my own, I tried to buy the same plan privately.  It had a high deductible, HSA account, and free preventive care.  Such plans are available, but not in New York unless you have poverty level income.  The marketplace has these plans available.  Government regulations prevent me from buying them.  Why do we need to spend $1-$2 trillion to give me a plan that the marketplace already provides if government will just get out of the way?
• Ensuring Value for Premium Payments – This is where you require plans to spend a certain percentage of premium dollars on medical services.  How does this control costs?  If the underlying costs increase 100%, does it make us feel warm inside that the 100% increase in premiums that will follow will go 80% toward medical expenses?  It’s still an increase in premiums of 100%.

 Let me stop analyzing your mail piece here.  Doctors are threatening to leave the medical practice because of this legislation which will lead to rationing. This plan does not address the underlying problem.

There is a simple way to reform health care by controlling the underlying cost of delivering medical care, rather than mandating more and more coverage and expense paid for by someone else.  We all pay in the end.  Here is a simpler way that does not cost $1-$2 trillion dollars but may take some of that courage you boasted about in your opening sentence. 

1. Eliminate 3^rdparty payer.  If you invite me to dinner and you tell me that you’re picking up the tab and I am handed a menu with no prices on it, look out!  It’s gonna hurt.  Americans are smart consumers.  They will spend hours researching a car or flat screen TV before buying, because it’s coming directly out of their pocket.  They play a role in how much they pay.  That’s how markets work.  We do not have a free market in health care.  The way to do this is with high deductable insurance plans and Health Savings Accounts (HSA).  If you take the lower cost of the premium for the insurance piece and add the amount to fund the HSA, the costs are about the same as the premium alone on a traditional plan.  I went from a $10,000 annual premium for a traditional plan to a $5,000 premium cost for a high deductible with a $5,000 contribution to the HSA account.  If you want to help people with deal with the high deductable, help them fund the HSA accounts, but keep the buying decision in their hands.  Trust me, they will ask questions, they will shop around, because it’s their money and the less they spend, the more they keep.  Many HSA accounts have a provision to roll money over into an IRA if the account grows large.  This will take guts to implement because the public will have to be educated that they will come out ahead when they have the liberty to make their own choices.  You seem tough enough to ignore the will of the people to implement what you feel is good for them, why not implement something that will actually work?
2. Implement tort reform.  Not an experiment here or there.  If you want to show how tough you really are, stand up to the trial lawyers who fill Democratic coffers.  Implement the system they have in Britain.  No contingency fees and loser pays.  Maybe I’ll stop seeing commercials on my TV that promote a new drug, followed by a come on from a law firm to call them if you actually took the drug because, “you may be entitled to compensation.”  I have no problem with a person getting compensated when they have been harmed through the fault or negligence of a company.  Human life is not perfection.  We are all different.  Some of us can eat three eggs a day and never have a heart problem, others may look at a pat of butter and feel pains in their chest.  Lawyers shouldn’t get rich because humans are not perfect and companies can be bluffed into paying these extortionists rather than defending the case on the merits.  Lawyers  should get paid for the time they put into a case.  OB/GYN doctors are leaving the practice in droves because they cannot afford the malpractice insurance premiums.  Doctors are practicing defensive medicine ordering every possible test for fear they will be asked later, if a patient gets worse, why they didn’t order that other test.  When you add the cost of malpractice insurance on top of the cost of additional tests and procedures, it doesn’t get cheaper to deliver health care and you are not necessarily delivering better health care.  Let the doctors practice medicine, tell the lawyers to stop running a lottery.
3. Buy insurance across state lines.  As indicated previously, the plan I want to buy is available, but not in New York.  The market sees a need for such a product, I want to buy such a product, the government says no.  You want me to believe that now if we spend $1-$2 trillion the government will solve my problems.  Get the government out of my way, thank you very much.
4. Have more tailored insurance policies.  Why, as I approach the golden years, do I have to buy a health insurance policy that covers pre-natal care? In vitro fertilization? Sex change operations?  When I buy automobile insurance, I have about a dozen choices in every category about the kind of coverage I want.  How much deductible?  Do I want rental car reimbursement?  Roadside assistance?  Yet when choosing a health care policy, if I have a choice at all, it is a total package, take it or leave it.  Who decides what has to be included?  Is it me or the government regulators?  If I want to have free preventive care, fine let me choose that and adjust the premium accordingly.  If I want to pay the co-pay for free preventive care, give me that choice.  If we had more choices, as in a free market, costs will go down.  If the government says, everyone must take this, there is no competition and costs climb.
5. Control illegal immigration – If emergency room costs are driving up health care costs for all, and illegal immigrants use the emergency room as their primary care provider then it would follow if you controlled illegal immigration you would drive down health care costs.  Milton Friedman, the great economist, believed in open borders.  However, he also said you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.  It doesn’t work.
6. We need to have Medicare reform.  When Medicare passed the government projected that hospital coverage would grow to $9 billion by the early 1990s.  It actually grew to $66 billion a 700% error in their projection.  We hear again that we are going to crack down on Medicare and Medicaid fraud and this time we really, really mean it.  Estimated at nearly $100 billion per year in waste and fraud, why can’t this be done without spending $1-$2 trillion?

 What you and this Congress passed is a disaster.  If the projections on this monstrosity “miss” by 700% like they did on Medicare, where do we go for a bail out?  Who is going to bankroll that one?  Your children?  Your grandchildren?  The six items I laid out cost next to nothing, why not try them first?  You can always go back later and say we need to do more.  But with ObamaCare, it could be a runaway train that no one can stop.  It is a giant shell game.  It doesn’t address the underlying cost of providing medical care, it only hides whose pocket is getting picked to pay the bill.

Sincerely yours,

The marketing juggernaut is just getting warmed up, but instead of standing fascinated while your Congressman plays 3-card Monty, ask him or her the tough questions.  Ask them calmly, respectfully, and don’t let them dance.  If they dodge your question, ask it again.  If they don’t… fire them in November.

Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak stood next to Greta Van Susteren on her program last night with several small stacks of paper.  Each one of those stacks represented an existing federal law that banned using public money for abortion.  He said anyone of them, pick one, is acceptable to him to get him to vote for the Senate version of the health care bill.  He said President Obama signed a law, just ten weeks ago that had similar language.  He was baffled as to why he could not get an answer from the President or his committee chairman, Henry Waxman, why they would not just continue existing federal law.  Let me put forth my hypothesis.

The Real Healthcare Objective

President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the rest of the statists have as their goal one, national health care provider, and that is the federal government.  I know that the “public option” has been in and out of the bill, and that the stated plan is for private insurers to continue to provide heath care insurance, but here is what I see as the real game plan:

1. Do whatever it takes to cajole health insurance companies to sign on or at least shut up.
2. Make sure that individuals do not take control over their health care purchasing decisions through high deductable plans and Health Savings Accounts.  Keep the 3rd party payer as the primary choice, which will allow health care costs to continue to rise.
3. Put in a federal oversight panel to make sure health insurance providers do not make “excessive” profits.  In other words, price controls.
4. With steps 2 and 3 in place health insurance providers will eventually leave the business or go bankrupt.  The federal government will have no choice but to step in so that all Americans continue to be covered.
5. Eventually, the federal government is the last man standing and the de facto public option, or should I say, public mandate is in place. Voila.

The Stupak Problem

If the scenario unfolds as I have described, then the only way to pay for an abortion is through your federal health care insurance provider.  If the language Mr. Stupak wants is in the bill, abortions will be near impossible and Roe v. Wade will be dead.  Do you think President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, NOW, or other pro-abortion groups are going to stand for that?  Not a chance.

So the Democrats have to find a way to either hoodwink Stupak into voting for the bill without the language he wants or find a way to peel off the 29 or so other Democrats who agree with Stupak.  Watch closely what happens.

There’s a commercial that has been running recently that shows someone considering the purchase of a consumer item and they ask question after question about the product.  In the next scene they are in the doctor’s office and when the doctor asks if they have any questions they hesitate and then say, “No.”  The message is that you should ask as many questions of your doctor as you would of the salesman selling you a flat screen TV.

What if the flat screen TV were free?  Or what if it was limited to a $20 co-pay?  Would the consumer ask as many questions?  The consumer is probably asking the questions because he or she is about to lay out $1,000 of their own money.  If the TV costs you only $20 do you bother with the questions?  If the TV doesn’t work, you can go buy another for $20, no?

For most of our health care plans we have what is called 3^rd party payer.  We go see the doctor and except for a nominal co-pay, someone else picks up the tab. But what if the health care consumer was put front and center in the process? How would that look?

Insurance as Insurance

We call it health care insurance, but it doesn’t look like any other insurance we may own.  We buy insurance to protect ourselves from financial catastrophe, not to cover everyday expenses.  If our house needs a paint job, we don’t file a claim on our homeowner’s insurance.  If we need gas for our car, we don’t ring up the gecko at Geico.  When we need food we don’t submit the grocery receipt to our life insurance company.  So why is virtually every expenditure related to health submitted to our insurance company?

I was once covered by a health insurance plan, through my company, that cost around $10,000 per year.  I was healthy and didn’t often need a doctor, but that didn’t affect my insurance premium.  I found a plan that was a “high deductable” plan with a Health Spending Account.  It worked like this.  My insurance premium was cut from $10,000 to $5,000.  In addition I opened a Heath Spending Account (HSA) that I could fund with up to $5,000 per year, tax deductable.  So overall, if I fully funded HSA, the cost was still $10,000.  So why do this?

The plan came with a high deductable of $4,000 per year, in other words, the first $4,000 were paid by me, not the insurance company.  I could use the money in my HSA to cover that.  But the kicker is that the money in an HSA rolled over from year to year and if I never used it, I could roll it into an IRA later.  Do you think there is a strong incentive there for me to be involved in my medical care?  Do you think I would ask more questions, before going to the doctor and when I met with him?  You bet I would.

The Broken Health Care System

But how does our government screw this up?  Easy.  When I left that company and was out on my own and tried to buy the same type of policy I found that many plans were available until I told them where I lived.  “You live in New York?  Sorry, that plan is not available in New York for an individual.  It is only available through companies.”  I checked with my state insurance regulator and they said, “Sure, we have a plan like that for individuals.  Do you make over $27,000?  Oh, you do?  Then it’s not available.”

So a plan that involves the consumer in making informed health care choices, which is the only way market forces can truly come into play, was not available for me by government dictate.  But the federal government wants to take over health care and give it to everyone on the model of 3^rd party payer where the consumer doesn’t care a whit what it costs.

Informed Health Care in Action

Fortunately, my experience being involved in health care choices didn’t evaporate with my ability to get the insurance plan of my choice.  I was advised by my doctor that I was of the age to start screening for colon cancer.  The most effective way to do this is through a procedure known as a colonoscopy.  I will spare you the details of the procedure. 

As an informed consumer I looked up the risk factors for colon cancer:

1. A personal or family history of colorectal cancer or polyps.
2. A diet high in fat and low in fiber.
3. Inflammatory bowel disease (Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis).
4. Obesity.
5. Smoking

Okay, I have none of the above.  What is the chance of dying of colon cancer?  In the U.S. the chances are 0.017% and that is based on the whole population, regardless of whether or not you have any of the behaviors listed about, or about the same chance as being killed in a car crash.  I decide to have the procedure.

The procedure gives me a clean bill of health and the recommendation is to repeat the procedure every 5-10 years.  In processing my insurance claims, to be paid by a 3^rd party, I noticed that the procedure cost $3,000 about evenly divided between the doctor performing the procedure, the anesthesiologist, and the hospital.  So if I have the procedure as recommended, it would cost $10,000 – $20,000 to screen for an illness for which I had low risk, no history, none of the bad behaviors, a current clean bill of health.  No thanks.  If I had the plan that I wanted that could be $10,000 – $20,000 in my retirement plan.  How many other possible diseases should I screen for and pay similar sums?  As a consumer I am making a risk/reward judgment and in doing so, I have reduced health care expenses in the United States by $10,000 – $20,000. 

In the ObamaCare plan, that money will be spent because the typical consumer doesn’t care if the procedure is done every year because it has no financial impact on them.  Do you think that is why health care costs continue to rise?  What doctor is going to take a chance that he did not recommend that procedure and find out that you and your trial lawyer are asking him why he didn’t because you contracted colon cancer?

The counter argument will be, “Well what if you get colon cancer and you could have prevented it if you had screened for it?  What is that going to cost and who is going to pay for it?”  Well, with my liberty still intact, I can make some further decisions.  I still have that money, and more of it, in my HSA that I can use.  If the cost of treatment exceeds $4,000 then my insurance company can use that premium money that I have been paying them for years without them having laid out one dime over that period due to my good health and good choices, to help with my treatment.  Or I can make the personal decision, if I am say 80 years old, that I had a pretty good run and I would rather leave my wealth to my family, if the government isn’t salivating to grab that, than to spend it all to eke out another few years.  I can choose to go quietly into that good night.

Liberty and Tyranny

I want to have the liberty to make those choices.  Everyone having the liberty to make those choices will bend the cost curve down.  The medical community, which is a business, will have the incentive to find a way to drive down the cost of a $3,000 procedure to say $300.  If they did so, I just might show up every 5 – 10 years at that price.  That’s how markets work.  If your flat screen TV set, or your medical procedure is too expense the demand drops.  If you find a way to keep lowering (get that?  lowering) the cost the demand will rise.  But if you don’t pay the bill, if you don’t see the bill, you don’t care about the bill.  If you don’t care about the bill and no one else does, then the government gets involved and the problem doesn’t get solved.  Your liberty gets taken away along with your money and the government tells all their stupid citizens what to do, because, after all, government knows best.  Right?

If you look at President Obama’s record on what he says one day and one he says later when reality sets in, are we really ready to believe him when he says,

“Whatever plan we design upholds three basic principles,” he said. “First, the rising cost of health care must be brought down; second, Americans must have the freedom to keep whatever doctor and health care plan they have, or to choose a new doctor or health care plan if they want it; and third, all Americans must have quality, affordable health care.”

He told us we absolutely had to pass his $787 Billion stimulus package or the unemployment rate would hit 9%, but if the package passed, the unemployment rate would be held to 8%.  It didn’t work.  Unemployment is at 9.1% and climbing.  He said bankruptcy for the auto companies would be disastrous for the economy.  After pouring billions into the auto companies, where are they?  In bankruptcy.  It is estimated that his health care “solution” would cost between $1 and $1.6 trillion. Why should we believe it?  What has he told us he would do that has actually come to pass?  North Korea?  Iran?

What confidence do we have that the government can do anything, other than national defense, better than private industry?  The postal service?  Amtrak? Farm subsidies? Earmarks? Speaking of healthcare what about Medicare and Medicaid?  In a report from March 2008:

“We need to act quickly and effectively to address Medicare’s fiscal health, including enacting the steps proposed in the President’s budget, which would postpone the insolvency date of the Part A trust fund for ten years,” said Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt.

A Modest Proposal

Before attempting to overhaul one-sixth of the U.S. Economy, why doesn’t the Obama Administration fix Medicare and Medicaid?  Show us your stuff Mr. President. Not your charm, not your winning smile. The campaign is over.   Prove that you can make these government programs work before you take on any more massive health care undertakings.

Two Doctors Operating. A Lawyer, A Bureaucrat, and An Insurance Agent Oversee the Procedure

In the category, be careful what you wish for, Ted Kennedy should be careful about pushing through Universal Health Care reform.  It has been reported that this effort has taken on a sense of urgency because of Mr. Kennedy’s brain cancer.  But what if we already had national health care?

Would Kennedy Receive Treatment?

Ted Kennedy will be 77 on Sunday.  I wish him well.  However in an opinion piece by Betsy McCaughey, she quotes Tom Daschle, who nearly became the architect of health care reform before his tax problems derailed his nomination.

Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.

In other words, sorry Ted, since any treatment is not likely to significantly prolong your life such that the expense would be justified, no treatment will be paid for.  You will just have to pay it yourself or die.  I guess the good news is that Senator Kennedy, like Senator Dascle, and most of the ruling class who pass these commandments down from Mount Capital Hill, are rich enough to pay for private treatment, if it is allowed by law.  If not, they are rich enough to take a “vacation” to, say, India and while on vacation wander into a facility their for treatment by American trained Indian doctors.

But what about you and me?  Oh dear, you better get your affairs in order.

Health Care Reform You Can Believe In

As long as the treatment received by a patient is paid for by someone other than the patient, the patient really doesn’t care what it costs.  The liberal solution is to have the government take it over, and a bunch of bureaucrats will “act on your/our behalf” and make those decisions.  The outcome of which is that you better stay healthy.  Because if you don’t, you may not get treatment until you wait a very long time for your turn, or you may not get treated at all, if the bureaucrats rule the resultant quality of life is just not worth it.

Here’s what we should really look at doing:

• Get the consumer of health care actively involved. How?  It’s being done today with high deductible health care plans coupled with a Health Savings Accounts.  The insurance company negotiates lower treatment costs and pays them only after a hefty deductible has been paid that year.  The patient is then in a position of shopping for the best health care and deciding on what treatments and tests, in conjunction with their doctor they will or will not have.  The Health Savings Account is where the patient can put funds, pre-tax, and then use those funds to pay the expenses not covered by the insurance.
• Tort Reforms.  Get the Lawyers out of the Examining Room. Too many doctors, in my opinion, are practicing defensive medicine.  They think of every possible test so that if something does not go perfectly with the treatment they won’t get sued for the test they didn’t perform.  Let’s follow the British System — fixed fees for the attorneys instead of a percentage of the settlement, and loser pays.  There are too many cases of people getting a $12 million settlement or judgment for something stupid (think of the woman at McDonalds who spilled coffee in her crotch and sued McDonalds because the coffee was too hot).  In these cases the lawyers typically ask for no money unless they get a settlement and when they do they get 1/3 ($4 million in this example).  It’s like buying a lottery ticket.  Who wouldn’t take a free lottery ticket on a jackpot of millions?  But who really pays for all these law suits and settlements?  That’s right you and me in insurance premiums we cannot afford now.
• Increased Insurance Competition. Right now most insurance is regulated by the states and in many cases policies available in one state are not available in others.  Let’s open up the competition.  If we have more insurance companies competing for our business, we are likely to get better and more creative policy choices.
• More Tailored Insurance Policies If my wife and I are beyond the point of having children, then let me buy a policy that does not cover childbearing, birth control, well baby care.  If I am young and starting out and I want those things, there are other coverages that pertain to older people that I may not want at this stage in my life.  Let’s allowed tailored policies that reflect my actual insurance needs.
• Immigration Control.  The same people who are pushing socialized medicine are, for the most part, the same people who favor open borders.  However, where do all the illegals go for the health care needs including having babies (new citizens)?  They go to the only health care provider they know, the local emergency room.  This is also probably the most expensive form of health care delivery and since they are illegal, they’re not paying for it, the rest of us are.  I think immigrants built this great country and almost each and everyone of us can point to our forebears who came here as immigrants.  I am in favor of immigration now and in the future.  I believe these are hard working and basically good people.  BUT, they have to come here legally and follow the process.  If they are not here legally, they should be deported.
• Medicare Reform.  You probably want to sit down for this one, but shocking as it may seem this massive government programs loses billions upon billions of dollars every year to fraud.  Who pays?  Right!  You and me.  In higher payroll taxes, and in higher health care costs as doctors and hospitals have to make up the shortfall somewhere else to stay in business.

More Liberty Under Fire

The government in proposing universal health care wants to mandate that everyone must have health care coverage.  You will not have the liberty to choose.  The government demands that you comply:

“comprehensive health care legislation should include a requirement that every American carry insurance.”

That’s the requirement, now comes the heavy hand of government:

“The ideas discussed include a proposal to penalize people who fail to comply with the “individual obligation” to have insurance.”

You must obey!  The government has spoken!

Here’s a novel idea.  How about implementing the above points first and fix the broken system that we have before we throw it out and install another new, massive, government program.  After all we can always go to the government solution in the end, confident in the knowledge that these programs work extremely well and efficiently. (e.g., Fannie Mae {bankrupt}, Freddie Mac{bankrupt} , Social Security {bankrupt}, Medicare {bankrupt}, US Postal Service {$6 billion deficit, while CEO get $850,00 salary}).

What Would the Founding Fathers Say?

A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored.  Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. – John Adams