Following is a short summary of recent polls after passage of the Main Street USA Health Care Rights Bill (taken from reports published by the Christian Science Monitor) and, of course, some commentary.
Washington Post poll: Some 55 percent of Americans expect their own costs for healthcare to be higher because of the reforms, and 60 percent say the nation's overall health tab will rise.
Rasmussen Reports: 49 percent said they think the quality of care will be adversely affected.
Washington Post Poll: Nearly half of Americans say the law "creates too much government involvement in the nation's health care system."
USA Today/Gallup Poll: 65 percent said the law "will expand government's role in health care too much."
Rasmussen Reports: Americans favor repeal of the Health Care reform by a 54-to-42 margin.
So, on the whole, this action by Congress and the White House is not what is needed and wanted by Main Street USA.
However, it is interesting to note that Main Street USA seems to feel that erosion of our rights by the government is okay with them.
In a Newsweek Poll a strong 59 percent surveyed felt that they were "open to a mandate on individuals to buy coverage" (with government subsidies available) if they are currently uninsured. In a similar poll by CNN/Opinion Research, 45 percent favored this action.
A Mandate to Buy Coverage?
Certainly no one I know falls into the above category. Allowing our elected representatives on Capitol Hill the power to fine someone for not exercising a supposed right to have something, while they have everything they need served to them on a silver platter (courtesy of the taxpayer), is frightening. (Please read previous post, March 23, 2010, The Concept of Rights.)
Main Street One warned that allowing our government the authority to fine taxpayers via the IRS for not exercising what is being defined as our Health Care Right will surely open the door to fines being levied for not exercising other rights, perhaps even those guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.
This is dangerous territory, America!
Attesting to how rhetoric can skew polls (for either side), a USA Today/Gallup showed 51 percent of Americans saying the law doesn't go far enough in regulating health insurers.
This may be true.
Unfortunately, the legislation is so cumbersome that it may take some time to see how far anything and everything reaches in this bill.
Needless to say, Democrats made the insurance company out to be the bad guy and succeeeded to a remarkable degree.
Many folks, however, feel that ambulance chasing attorneys (and their cousins in the field) earning millions upon millions upon millions by being allowed to extract outrageous amounts in punitive damages and, thus, increasing all forms of insurance, as some of the truly basic culprits.
Yet, those voting in the majority on this colossal package turn a deaf ear when Tort Reform is mentioned, brushing it aside as if it were merely a petty annoyance.
And those same members decided, as part of Health Care Reform, that the government should take over student loans and not allow banks and financial institutions to partake in this activity.
Excuse me. What on Earth do student loans have to do with Health Care?
Wake up Main Street USA.
The amount of pork and the number of earmarks on this one piece of legislation is probably unfathomable.
Why is it that people that WE elect think that they know what is best for all of us despite the fact that the majority of us did not want, do not want, our Health Care Right in the manner and in the form in which it was signed.
We do want and need reform.
We do not want and do not need THIS reform.
Especially at this cost, both in dollars and the further erosion of our civil liberties.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Showing posts with label tort reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tort reform. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
How Polls Can Be Skewed
A recent poll released just prior to the House of Representatives' vote on Main Street USA's Health Care Right bill shows what can be accomplished when enough rhetoric is thrown at a topic.
According to HealthDay News, "Nearly half of Americans are 'extremely' or 'very worried' about rising costs for health care and health insurance, and a majority place the blame on drug and insurance company profits, a new Harris Interactive/HealthDay poll finds."
Unfortunately, many on Capitol Hill assailed the insurance companies, in particular, and their profits for rising costs, making them the "bad guy."
The article in HealthDay News continued by saying, "Some health economists say insurance and pharmaceutical company profits amount to only about 2 percent of total health care spending.
"Instead, fees charged by doctors and hospitals, as well as expanding use of increasingly sophisticated and expensive health-care technologies, are the primary cause of escalating health-care costs, these experts contend."
The article, interestingly enough, does not elaborate on the fact that 44% of those surveyed felt that higher costs were due to "more tests, treatments and procedures ordered by doctors due to malpractice worries."
Aside from the possibility of more tests, there is clear and present evidence that escalating malpractice insurance premiums are caused by astronomical punitive damages awarded.
Tort Reform should definitely play a major role in health care reform.
Nowhere in the poll does it mention fraud within the medical industry as contributing to higher costs.
Another form of inflated costs borders on fraudulent practices. More than likely many Americans know that medical offices have two sets of charges. A lower price if someone is paying their own way and a higher price if the care is billed to an insurance company.
The reasons given often have to do with payments not being made in a timely manner or even that payments for those services do not ever arrive.
Regardless of the reason for the disparity, that is another in the many causes for higher costs of medical care.
In this fairly balanced article, there is the point made by Humphrey Taylor, chairman of The Harris Poll, a service of Harris Interactive. He said, "These findings show how little most people understand the economics of health care. Increased profits of insurers and drug companies (if they have increased at all) cannot possibly account for the increases in premiums. Many health-care economists attribute the increased cost of care to increased demand and utilization, increased prices and the increased use of expensive tests and treatments. Most people, as shown here, do not think of these as the main drivers of increased health-care spending."
The poll results do show that if enough high-profile people speak out against something often enough that polls can, indeed, be skewed by incorrect information disseminated.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
According to HealthDay News, "Nearly half of Americans are 'extremely' or 'very worried' about rising costs for health care and health insurance, and a majority place the blame on drug and insurance company profits, a new Harris Interactive/HealthDay poll finds."
Unfortunately, many on Capitol Hill assailed the insurance companies, in particular, and their profits for rising costs, making them the "bad guy."
The article in HealthDay News continued by saying, "Some health economists say insurance and pharmaceutical company profits amount to only about 2 percent of total health care spending.
"Instead, fees charged by doctors and hospitals, as well as expanding use of increasingly sophisticated and expensive health-care technologies, are the primary cause of escalating health-care costs, these experts contend."
The article, interestingly enough, does not elaborate on the fact that 44% of those surveyed felt that higher costs were due to "more tests, treatments and procedures ordered by doctors due to malpractice worries."
Aside from the possibility of more tests, there is clear and present evidence that escalating malpractice insurance premiums are caused by astronomical punitive damages awarded.
Tort Reform should definitely play a major role in health care reform.
Nowhere in the poll does it mention fraud within the medical industry as contributing to higher costs.
Another form of inflated costs borders on fraudulent practices. More than likely many Americans know that medical offices have two sets of charges. A lower price if someone is paying their own way and a higher price if the care is billed to an insurance company.
The reasons given often have to do with payments not being made in a timely manner or even that payments for those services do not ever arrive.
Regardless of the reason for the disparity, that is another in the many causes for higher costs of medical care.
In this fairly balanced article, there is the point made by Humphrey Taylor, chairman of The Harris Poll, a service of Harris Interactive. He said, "These findings show how little most people understand the economics of health care. Increased profits of insurers and drug companies (if they have increased at all) cannot possibly account for the increases in premiums. Many health-care economists attribute the increased cost of care to increased demand and utilization, increased prices and the increased use of expensive tests and treatments. Most people, as shown here, do not think of these as the main drivers of increased health-care spending."
The poll results do show that if enough high-profile people speak out against something often enough that polls can, indeed, be skewed by incorrect information disseminated.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Monday, March 1, 2010
House Speaker Speaks Up, Defies Polls
Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, on ABC television's "This Week," stated, without any doubt, that if President Obama decides to use the reconciliation method of political maneuvering she will deliver the votes without the support of any Republicans.
Make no mistake, polls also show reform is needed and wanted.
However, poll after poll bring into the open that the majority of Americans do not approve of either of the bills that passed the House of Representatives and the Senate.
The strong-arm tactic that will apparently be used on these earmarked pieces of legislation that will affect 17% of the U.S. economy is not representative of what Americans need or want.
Why won't our elected representatives listen?
It has been voiced by some Democrats that objections regarding the healthcare reform bills are due to mis-information delivered by Republicans.
There probably does exist some of that.
However, Democrats are guilty of the same activity.
Consider that the bills are supposedly going to provide coverage for some 30 million Americans who do not currently have any form of healthcare insurance.
Yet, one third of that total, ten million people, have elected not to carry insurance, despite the fact that they can afford it. These people are exercising their own free will and making their own decisions about what they need and want.
Not if this legislation passes.
They will be forced into obtaining and paying for insurance, or be fined.
This type of political activity, economic ramifications aside, erodes our Bill of Rights.
This type of political activity drastically increases the role of government in the lives of all Americans.
It used to be that when the People speak those who have been elected to follow the will of the People respond to that will.
Evidently, no longer.
As Pelosi stated on ABC TV, "We're here to do the job for the American people -- to get them results that gives them not only health security, but economic security, because the health issue is an economic issue for America's families."
If she truly believed those words, then the Speaker would respond to, and support, the People, Main Street USA. She would champion their cause and scrap the thousands of pages of pork-filled legislation that currently exist and start anew with something meaningful and truly helpful.
Instead of ducking their responsibility on Tort Reform by passing it off to the individual states (which, as previously discussed, would become a national matter in the U.S. Supreme Court), the House and Senate should pass legislation immediately in this area.
Taxpayers do not need to pay for frivolous lawsuits that clog the Court system and, in the end, raise insurance rates each and every time they succeed. That is a double-whammy to the pocketbook of Main Street USA.
One last note.
Most of the articles that appear regarding passage of healthcare reform state that "Obama has the votes to pass reform" the way it is currently written.
Since when did the White House become more important than the collective voice, opinion and will of Main Street USA?
Yes, President Obama, we do need healthcare reform.
But not in the current state as presented.
Eliminate Medicare and Medicaid fraud-NOW.
Stop frivolous lawsuits with Tort Reform-AT ONCE.
Then, and only then, should we move forward with legislation that is significant and does not trample on the Rights of Americans to choose what they need and want.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Make no mistake, polls also show reform is needed and wanted.
However, poll after poll bring into the open that the majority of Americans do not approve of either of the bills that passed the House of Representatives and the Senate.
The strong-arm tactic that will apparently be used on these earmarked pieces of legislation that will affect 17% of the U.S. economy is not representative of what Americans need or want.
Why won't our elected representatives listen?
It has been voiced by some Democrats that objections regarding the healthcare reform bills are due to mis-information delivered by Republicans.
There probably does exist some of that.
However, Democrats are guilty of the same activity.
Consider that the bills are supposedly going to provide coverage for some 30 million Americans who do not currently have any form of healthcare insurance.
Yet, one third of that total, ten million people, have elected not to carry insurance, despite the fact that they can afford it. These people are exercising their own free will and making their own decisions about what they need and want.
Not if this legislation passes.
They will be forced into obtaining and paying for insurance, or be fined.
This type of political activity, economic ramifications aside, erodes our Bill of Rights.
This type of political activity drastically increases the role of government in the lives of all Americans.
It used to be that when the People speak those who have been elected to follow the will of the People respond to that will.
Evidently, no longer.
As Pelosi stated on ABC TV, "We're here to do the job for the American people -- to get them results that gives them not only health security, but economic security, because the health issue is an economic issue for America's families."
If she truly believed those words, then the Speaker would respond to, and support, the People, Main Street USA. She would champion their cause and scrap the thousands of pages of pork-filled legislation that currently exist and start anew with something meaningful and truly helpful.
Instead of ducking their responsibility on Tort Reform by passing it off to the individual states (which, as previously discussed, would become a national matter in the U.S. Supreme Court), the House and Senate should pass legislation immediately in this area.
Taxpayers do not need to pay for frivolous lawsuits that clog the Court system and, in the end, raise insurance rates each and every time they succeed. That is a double-whammy to the pocketbook of Main Street USA.
One last note.
Most of the articles that appear regarding passage of healthcare reform state that "Obama has the votes to pass reform" the way it is currently written.
Since when did the White House become more important than the collective voice, opinion and will of Main Street USA?
Yes, President Obama, we do need healthcare reform.
But not in the current state as presented.
Eliminate Medicare and Medicaid fraud-NOW.
Stop frivolous lawsuits with Tort Reform-AT ONCE.
Then, and only then, should we move forward with legislation that is significant and does not trample on the Rights of Americans to choose what they need and want.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Friday, February 26, 2010
Frivolous Lawsuits (ie Tort Reform)
The more I ponder President Obama's words at yesterday's Health Care Summit regarding frivolous lawsuit legislation being handed over to the states, the more it makes less sense to me.
Truth be told, zero sense.
Especially if one of the driving forces behind effective national healthcare reform is to lower costs to Main Street USA.
The insurance business is one of the riskiest businesses around.
Think about it. A company takes what is, in reality, a small amount of money from each of many people and ends up paying out money to cover whatever is insured.
In the health field, that particular cost is incredibly compounded by frivolous lawsuits and tort awards that are way out of line.
In order to protect themselves, and stay in business, insurance companies charge higher premiums.
There are major flaws with trying to pawn this area off to the states.
In the first place, consider the fact that not every state may enact any legislation at all. And, because it is being left up to the states, the laws themselves will vary (probably greatly) and provide different levels of protection.
Unless, of course, it is mandated that all states enact legislation. And, if that ends up being the case, why not do it at the national level?
Possibly the biggest factor, however, is that if a plaintiff does not like the award received in their judgment, even if it was at the uppermost limit a state allowed, it would be appealed. First to the state Supreme Court and, ultimately, to the US Supreme Court, where a decision would be made.
And that decision would affect all states.
Thus, all that would be accomplished by pushing this particular area of responsibility and legislation to the states is clogging the courts with appeals that eventually end up in our highest court in the land for a decision.
As a note, that would, of course, be after each state spent countless hours, days, weeks - i.e., taxpayer dollars - in order to craft and pass legislation. Yet, another cost for Main Street USA to carry.
Therefore, all of this means, in the end, that there would be more burdensome costs for the good ole middle class. (And this is a hidden cost, not covered in either the House or Senate healthcare reform legislation.)
Another item to consider is that many elected (and appointed) representatives on Capitol Hill totally vilify the insurance companies as greedy, making too much money off of the middle class, etc., etc.
Think about this for a minute...how much money does an attorney make who wins a frivolous lawsuit or a suit that awards monetary damages in the hundreds of millions to someone?
A bundle, to be sure.
As an example, perhaps the attorney is working on a 30 or 40 percent retainer and the award comes in at $100 million. The plaintiff gets $60 or $70 million and the attorney walks away with a cool $30 or $40 million.
The lawyer will defend this and speak of all the time and costs involved that he/she must pay out of their portion of the settlement. But how many of those attorneys have to worry about health insurance, making their mortgage payment, putting food on the table? How many of them live in million-dollar-plus homes and drive cars that the vast majority of Main Street USA can only dream about?
It is still this Main Streeter's opinion that this issue is being relegated to the states because attorneys and law firms are some of the biggest contributors to campaigns and spend millions of dollars lobbying.
Thus, by not tackling Tort Reform at the Federal level our elected public servants are irresponsible in this area.
America does not need bigger, expanding government. America needs fair and equitable government representing the best interests of the People.
For Healthcare Reform, that starts with Tort Reform and putting an end to frivolous lawsuits and outlandish settlements at the Federal, not State, level. And not attempting to rid the country of insurance companies so that we end up with socialized medicine.
If that happens, what is next? Uncle Sam's Gas Stations?
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Truth be told, zero sense.
Especially if one of the driving forces behind effective national healthcare reform is to lower costs to Main Street USA.
The insurance business is one of the riskiest businesses around.
Think about it. A company takes what is, in reality, a small amount of money from each of many people and ends up paying out money to cover whatever is insured.
In the health field, that particular cost is incredibly compounded by frivolous lawsuits and tort awards that are way out of line.
In order to protect themselves, and stay in business, insurance companies charge higher premiums.
There are major flaws with trying to pawn this area off to the states.
In the first place, consider the fact that not every state may enact any legislation at all. And, because it is being left up to the states, the laws themselves will vary (probably greatly) and provide different levels of protection.
Unless, of course, it is mandated that all states enact legislation. And, if that ends up being the case, why not do it at the national level?
Possibly the biggest factor, however, is that if a plaintiff does not like the award received in their judgment, even if it was at the uppermost limit a state allowed, it would be appealed. First to the state Supreme Court and, ultimately, to the US Supreme Court, where a decision would be made.
And that decision would affect all states.
Thus, all that would be accomplished by pushing this particular area of responsibility and legislation to the states is clogging the courts with appeals that eventually end up in our highest court in the land for a decision.
As a note, that would, of course, be after each state spent countless hours, days, weeks - i.e., taxpayer dollars - in order to craft and pass legislation. Yet, another cost for Main Street USA to carry.
Therefore, all of this means, in the end, that there would be more burdensome costs for the good ole middle class. (And this is a hidden cost, not covered in either the House or Senate healthcare reform legislation.)
Another item to consider is that many elected (and appointed) representatives on Capitol Hill totally vilify the insurance companies as greedy, making too much money off of the middle class, etc., etc.
Think about this for a minute...how much money does an attorney make who wins a frivolous lawsuit or a suit that awards monetary damages in the hundreds of millions to someone?
A bundle, to be sure.
As an example, perhaps the attorney is working on a 30 or 40 percent retainer and the award comes in at $100 million. The plaintiff gets $60 or $70 million and the attorney walks away with a cool $30 or $40 million.
The lawyer will defend this and speak of all the time and costs involved that he/she must pay out of their portion of the settlement. But how many of those attorneys have to worry about health insurance, making their mortgage payment, putting food on the table? How many of them live in million-dollar-plus homes and drive cars that the vast majority of Main Street USA can only dream about?
It is still this Main Streeter's opinion that this issue is being relegated to the states because attorneys and law firms are some of the biggest contributors to campaigns and spend millions of dollars lobbying.
Thus, by not tackling Tort Reform at the Federal level our elected public servants are irresponsible in this area.
America does not need bigger, expanding government. America needs fair and equitable government representing the best interests of the People.
For Healthcare Reform, that starts with Tort Reform and putting an end to frivolous lawsuits and outlandish settlements at the Federal, not State, level. And not attempting to rid the country of insurance companies so that we end up with socialized medicine.
If that happens, what is next? Uncle Sam's Gas Stations?
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Early Health Care Summit Notes
Writing this as the Summit is taking place.
Senator Lamar Alexander brought up the basic Republican platform. Most sounded pretty good. Once again, Tort Reform was on the list.
He quoted many past and current political figures as he presented his case, many of which were very relevant.
Speaker Pelosi pleading her case was interesting.
Yes, Main Street USA wants much of what she mentioned, but not at the cost being proposed.
Yes, Senator Reid, Americans do want healthcare reform, but not the reform that has been passed in the House and the Senate.
Why cannot the Democrats allow Tort Reform in the healthcare package?
In terms of facts that Senator Reid brings up, anyone can bring up a "fact" that supports their cause.
There is a fact that 10 million people who are not covered have decided, themselves, not to purchase it, even though they can.
Why do people sitting on Capitol Hill think they can force people to do something?
And, why is it that they feel that they can then force these people to obtain insurance or be fined?
Reid seemed to start on a bit of an attack mode, and kept it up.
As President Obama brings up issues where Democrats and Republicans agree and disagree it seems as if he would like to work together, but it is ironic that, in a national stage such as this, Democrats do not answer or respond to Tort Reform.
Cost control is definitely a concern as the president brought up in remarks, yet his only response to Tort Reform (ie frivolous lawsuits, etc.) is to have Secretary Sebelius is working on something that allows the states to do that. Why, on Earth, would that be a state matter, when many of the earmarks (to be funded by all of Main Street USA) should be, in this taxpayer's opinion, handled by their own means?
Dr./Senator Coburn was brilliant in his presentation on how to lower healthcare costs 15% on a right now, immediate basis; fraud in medicare and medicaid, extortion on medical malpractice, no new government programs, etc.
This forum seems as if it will, at some point, heat up quite a bit.
Initital thoughts and ideas as to how this is developing.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Senator Lamar Alexander brought up the basic Republican platform. Most sounded pretty good. Once again, Tort Reform was on the list.
He quoted many past and current political figures as he presented his case, many of which were very relevant.
Speaker Pelosi pleading her case was interesting.
Yes, Main Street USA wants much of what she mentioned, but not at the cost being proposed.
Yes, Senator Reid, Americans do want healthcare reform, but not the reform that has been passed in the House and the Senate.
Why cannot the Democrats allow Tort Reform in the healthcare package?
In terms of facts that Senator Reid brings up, anyone can bring up a "fact" that supports their cause.
There is a fact that 10 million people who are not covered have decided, themselves, not to purchase it, even though they can.
Why do people sitting on Capitol Hill think they can force people to do something?
And, why is it that they feel that they can then force these people to obtain insurance or be fined?
Reid seemed to start on a bit of an attack mode, and kept it up.
As President Obama brings up issues where Democrats and Republicans agree and disagree it seems as if he would like to work together, but it is ironic that, in a national stage such as this, Democrats do not answer or respond to Tort Reform.
Cost control is definitely a concern as the president brought up in remarks, yet his only response to Tort Reform (ie frivolous lawsuits, etc.) is to have Secretary Sebelius is working on something that allows the states to do that. Why, on Earth, would that be a state matter, when many of the earmarks (to be funded by all of Main Street USA) should be, in this taxpayer's opinion, handled by their own means?
Dr./Senator Coburn was brilliant in his presentation on how to lower healthcare costs 15% on a right now, immediate basis; fraud in medicare and medicaid, extortion on medical malpractice, no new government programs, etc.
This forum seems as if it will, at some point, heat up quite a bit.
Initital thoughts and ideas as to how this is developing.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Pre-Health Care Summit Arrogance by Dodd
In an Associated Press release regarding today's Health Care Summit being held by President Obama there is a quote from Senate Democrat Chris Dodd (CT) which I found quite offensive.
Not that it was vulgar in the four-letter word way.
Vulgar in Dodd's arrogance.
Dodd said, "We'll have that meeting. But far more important, after that meeting, you can either join us or get out of the way."
Excuse me, did he say, "Join us or get out of the way?"
Interesting terminology from an elected representative of the People.
The People being Main Street USA, of course.
That the People have spoken in opinion poll after opinion poll that they do not need or want a Trillion dollar healthcare overhaul, where some of the provisions do not even kick in for eight long years (after President Obama no longer occupies the WH), where Billions in earmarks were added to achieve votes from within their own party (earmarks that were promised would not be in any legislation), where buying healthcare coverage may be forced on 10 million Americans who may not want it at this point in their lives (or risk being "fined"), and where it does appear that non-citizens may be afforded coverage (ambiguous wording, at best), to name but a few points of contention.
Thus, for senator Chris Dodd to state, "Join us or get out of the way" is arrogance at its best (or worst, actually).
An elected representative of the People speaking in this manner does not deserve to be in public office, does not deserve the perks and benefits he is given (or takes), does not deserve his fabulous healthcare plan nor his retirement benefits.
More to the point, though, as was mentioned earlier, Americans do not want what has been proposed by the House or the Senate.
Yes, we do want and need healthcare reform.
But not at the price that is forecast (and, we all know, our government does not always make its budget projections).
And, not without Tort Reform, first.
In this American's opinion, Dodd simply deserves to be shown the door and asked to leave (without retirement benefits). That kind of arrogance has no place in statesmanship, from a "representative" of the People.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Not that it was vulgar in the four-letter word way.
Vulgar in Dodd's arrogance.
Dodd said, "We'll have that meeting. But far more important, after that meeting, you can either join us or get out of the way."
Excuse me, did he say, "Join us or get out of the way?"
Interesting terminology from an elected representative of the People.
The People being Main Street USA, of course.
That the People have spoken in opinion poll after opinion poll that they do not need or want a Trillion dollar healthcare overhaul, where some of the provisions do not even kick in for eight long years (after President Obama no longer occupies the WH), where Billions in earmarks were added to achieve votes from within their own party (earmarks that were promised would not be in any legislation), where buying healthcare coverage may be forced on 10 million Americans who may not want it at this point in their lives (or risk being "fined"), and where it does appear that non-citizens may be afforded coverage (ambiguous wording, at best), to name but a few points of contention.
Thus, for senator Chris Dodd to state, "Join us or get out of the way" is arrogance at its best (or worst, actually).
An elected representative of the People speaking in this manner does not deserve to be in public office, does not deserve the perks and benefits he is given (or takes), does not deserve his fabulous healthcare plan nor his retirement benefits.
More to the point, though, as was mentioned earlier, Americans do not want what has been proposed by the House or the Senate.
Yes, we do want and need healthcare reform.
But not at the price that is forecast (and, we all know, our government does not always make its budget projections).
And, not without Tort Reform, first.
In this American's opinion, Dodd simply deserves to be shown the door and asked to leave (without retirement benefits). That kind of arrogance has no place in statesmanship, from a "representative" of the People.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
State of the Union 2010
President Obama delivered his State of the Union 2010 address tonight.
There were several items he spoke about with which I agree.
What remains to be seen is how they will get implemented, how they will ultimately affect the national debt, especially in light of the fact that starting next year he is proposing a three-year freeze on government spending, and "the pay as you go" plan.
However, I will not take up time speaking about those things that would be nice to achieve for Main Street USA.
Well, except for education.
I agree that there needs to be reform, but with the power that the teacher's unions and others wield I am unsure how that will be achieved.
While there are those who do not feel that the No Child Left Behind Act, passed and implemented under President Bush but co-authored by the late Senator Edward Kennedy, is working, it is interesting to note that one of the reasons is that there were those within the education community at the local level who, basically, did what they could to thwart "outsiders" coming in to assist their most needy students.
Case in point, when Paul Vallas was Superintendent of the School District of Philadelphia (one of the largest in the country) he implemented something new every year that not only discouraged but made it nearly impossible for companies, community centers and churches to provide Supplemental Educational Services to their students. And today, Philadelphia is feeling the pain of those actions.
And there are many other cases like that of Vallas.
Thus, unless and until the internal obstacles are dealt with agressively, education reform, of any sort, will fail. I truly hope that President Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan can accomplish this task they seek.
On to the few points where what is proposed is not good for Main Street USA.
First and foremost are the infamous earmarks.
Even though the President stated, while campaigning, that he would not pass legislation that contains earmarks, it continues. What is now being requested by him is that there be a website listing all earmarks so the people can see where their money is going.
And while the President states he does not like or approve of earmarks, had certain pieces of pork not been added to the senate version of healthcare reform, behind closed doors with Senator Harry Reid, it would not have achieved the super-majority vote of 60 US Senators in favor of the bill.
It is still this taxpayer's opinion that earmarks are nothing more than a Congressional Special Interest Group.
And, while the President feels that the US Supreme Court decision allowing companies to fund political advertising was wrong and would open up all kinds of problems for the country, the amount of money corporations would spend would still, more than likely, be a pitance to the massive sums of earmarks offered to politicans (for their states) to secure their vote for a particular bill.
Yes, Main Street USA those are your tax dollars at work-in another state.
There is also too much evidence to show that the healthcare reform that has been proposed will not achieve what is being promised.
One major point that would definitely reduce healthcare and insurance costs overall is Tort Reform.
Again, no one, not President Obama, not any Senator nor member of the House, is proposing such an action.
What exactly do they fear?
Will they lose previous campaign contributions?
Tough if they do. These elected representatives, every single one of them, are supposed to be serving Main Street USA.
So, yes, President Obama is right, we need healthcare reform.
No, we do not need what has been proposed.
Republicans and Democrats need to come together and draft legislation that provides most of the basics the President wants, but does not force people into buying health insurance, by fining or taxing them, if they do not wish to do so. (As a note, between 25% and 30% of the total number of people being counted as uninsured fall into this category.)
Food for thought.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
There were several items he spoke about with which I agree.
What remains to be seen is how they will get implemented, how they will ultimately affect the national debt, especially in light of the fact that starting next year he is proposing a three-year freeze on government spending, and "the pay as you go" plan.
However, I will not take up time speaking about those things that would be nice to achieve for Main Street USA.
Well, except for education.
I agree that there needs to be reform, but with the power that the teacher's unions and others wield I am unsure how that will be achieved.
While there are those who do not feel that the No Child Left Behind Act, passed and implemented under President Bush but co-authored by the late Senator Edward Kennedy, is working, it is interesting to note that one of the reasons is that there were those within the education community at the local level who, basically, did what they could to thwart "outsiders" coming in to assist their most needy students.
Case in point, when Paul Vallas was Superintendent of the School District of Philadelphia (one of the largest in the country) he implemented something new every year that not only discouraged but made it nearly impossible for companies, community centers and churches to provide Supplemental Educational Services to their students. And today, Philadelphia is feeling the pain of those actions.
And there are many other cases like that of Vallas.
Thus, unless and until the internal obstacles are dealt with agressively, education reform, of any sort, will fail. I truly hope that President Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan can accomplish this task they seek.
On to the few points where what is proposed is not good for Main Street USA.
First and foremost are the infamous earmarks.
Even though the President stated, while campaigning, that he would not pass legislation that contains earmarks, it continues. What is now being requested by him is that there be a website listing all earmarks so the people can see where their money is going.
And while the President states he does not like or approve of earmarks, had certain pieces of pork not been added to the senate version of healthcare reform, behind closed doors with Senator Harry Reid, it would not have achieved the super-majority vote of 60 US Senators in favor of the bill.
It is still this taxpayer's opinion that earmarks are nothing more than a Congressional Special Interest Group.
And, while the President feels that the US Supreme Court decision allowing companies to fund political advertising was wrong and would open up all kinds of problems for the country, the amount of money corporations would spend would still, more than likely, be a pitance to the massive sums of earmarks offered to politicans (for their states) to secure their vote for a particular bill.
Yes, Main Street USA those are your tax dollars at work-in another state.
There is also too much evidence to show that the healthcare reform that has been proposed will not achieve what is being promised.
One major point that would definitely reduce healthcare and insurance costs overall is Tort Reform.
Again, no one, not President Obama, not any Senator nor member of the House, is proposing such an action.
What exactly do they fear?
Will they lose previous campaign contributions?
Tough if they do. These elected representatives, every single one of them, are supposed to be serving Main Street USA.
So, yes, President Obama is right, we need healthcare reform.
No, we do not need what has been proposed.
Republicans and Democrats need to come together and draft legislation that provides most of the basics the President wants, but does not force people into buying health insurance, by fining or taxing them, if they do not wish to do so. (As a note, between 25% and 30% of the total number of people being counted as uninsured fall into this category.)
Food for thought.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Saturday, January 16, 2010
House Healthcare Bill & Your Rights
More from Retired Constitutional Attorney Michael Connelly (who has read, in its entirety, proposed House Bill 3200), regarding the Rights and Privacy of all of Main Street USA:
"I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law, or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.
"The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people, and the businesses they own.
"The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with! I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.
"This legislation also provides for access, by the appointees of the Obama administration, of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital, a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. All of this is a protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.
"If you decide not to have healthcare insurance, or if you have private insurance that is not deemed acceptable to the Health Choices Administrator appointed by Obama, there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a tax instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the due process of law."
Time to raise your collective voice, Main Street USA!
Your Rights, as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, are in serious jeopardy under House Bill 3200.
Yes, we do need health reform.
But we do not need this Bill or anything resembling this Bill.
Why cannot our elected officials start with Tort Reform? (Probably because attorneys and law firms are huge contributors to campaigns and spend massive amounts of money lobbying Capitol Hill.)
Remember what Patrick Henry says, "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
Over For Now.
Main Street One
"I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law, or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.
"The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people, and the businesses they own.
"The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with! I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.
"This legislation also provides for access, by the appointees of the Obama administration, of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital, a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. All of this is a protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.
"If you decide not to have healthcare insurance, or if you have private insurance that is not deemed acceptable to the Health Choices Administrator appointed by Obama, there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a tax instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the due process of law."
Time to raise your collective voice, Main Street USA!
Your Rights, as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, are in serious jeopardy under House Bill 3200.
Yes, we do need health reform.
But we do not need this Bill or anything resembling this Bill.
Why cannot our elected officials start with Tort Reform? (Probably because attorneys and law firms are huge contributors to campaigns and spend massive amounts of money lobbying Capitol Hill.)
Remember what Patrick Henry says, "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
Over For Now.
Main Street One
House Healthcare Bill and Truth
Retired Constitutional Attorney Michael Connelly has read, in its entirety, proposed House Bill 3200.
I doubt any of our elected officials can boast of doing the same.
Here is one interesting point that Mr. Connelly discovered when comparing the Bill with what is being said and the Truth:
"To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.
"The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business, and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats, and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled by the government."
Mr. Connelly says more, however, let Main Street USA dwell on the above.
House Bill 3200 is nothing as presented by those trying to push this healthcare reform through.
Again, why cannot our elected officials, who are supposed to be doing everything in our best interest, do something about Tort Reform?
That alone would lower health and insurance costs.
Think about it.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
I doubt any of our elected officials can boast of doing the same.
Here is one interesting point that Mr. Connelly discovered when comparing the Bill with what is being said and the Truth:
"To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.
"The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business, and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats, and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled by the government."
Mr. Connelly says more, however, let Main Street USA dwell on the above.
House Bill 3200 is nothing as presented by those trying to push this healthcare reform through.
Again, why cannot our elected officials, who are supposed to be doing everything in our best interest, do something about Tort Reform?
That alone would lower health and insurance costs.
Think about it.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Sunday, December 20, 2009
What Happened to Promises of No Pork?
During his campaign, President Obama promised legislation in his administration would not contain pork, or earmarks.
However, in order to capture what the Senate feels are their 60 votes needed to pass national healthcare reform, there is definitely excess baggage contained in the bill.
Consider that Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson ended up with at least an additional $45 million for his state as part of the payoff for his vote.
One wonders what each Senate vote cost residents of Main Street USA.
And there is bad news for people who like to frequent tanning salons. A tax of 10% will be added to each visit with the reasoning that utilizing those machines increases the risk of cancer. (Thus, not a sin tax like booze, but a health tax.)
That leaves unanswered the question of how many other convenience or consumption or other taxes are in the bill.
Earlier there was discussion of taxing the purchase of sugary drinks. Did that stay in the bill?
And what other taxes, in the guise of other words, will befall each and every citizen in one way or another?
It would also be nice to see what segments of our society make up this 30 million people who will now be able to acquire health insurance.
As stated in an earlier post, the number of those who could not actually afford healthcare insurance was closer to the 10 million mark, with the balance made up of people who could but decided, for their own reasons, not to do so.
They will, evidently, now be forced to acquire it or face fines and penalties.
While there are many millions of people who are against this legislation, but not necessarily totally against healthcare reform, one still has to wonder how, with the thousands of pages written of the actual bill and the various proposed amendments (one of which was 767 pages long), that tort reform is still not in the equation.
Attorney and law firm lobbyists must carry some incredible weight within the walls of Washington.
And, what does the fine print say about the government's ability to add taxes that are not now in the bill if projected revenues fall short and estimated expenses are higher than anticipated?
Citizens of the USA, if this passes, get ready for increased government intervention into your lives, higher personal taxes, consumption taxes on who-knows-what and incredibly massive deficits.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
However, in order to capture what the Senate feels are their 60 votes needed to pass national healthcare reform, there is definitely excess baggage contained in the bill.
Consider that Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson ended up with at least an additional $45 million for his state as part of the payoff for his vote.
One wonders what each Senate vote cost residents of Main Street USA.
And there is bad news for people who like to frequent tanning salons. A tax of 10% will be added to each visit with the reasoning that utilizing those machines increases the risk of cancer. (Thus, not a sin tax like booze, but a health tax.)
That leaves unanswered the question of how many other convenience or consumption or other taxes are in the bill.
Earlier there was discussion of taxing the purchase of sugary drinks. Did that stay in the bill?
And what other taxes, in the guise of other words, will befall each and every citizen in one way or another?
It would also be nice to see what segments of our society make up this 30 million people who will now be able to acquire health insurance.
As stated in an earlier post, the number of those who could not actually afford healthcare insurance was closer to the 10 million mark, with the balance made up of people who could but decided, for their own reasons, not to do so.
They will, evidently, now be forced to acquire it or face fines and penalties.
While there are many millions of people who are against this legislation, but not necessarily totally against healthcare reform, one still has to wonder how, with the thousands of pages written of the actual bill and the various proposed amendments (one of which was 767 pages long), that tort reform is still not in the equation.
Attorney and law firm lobbyists must carry some incredible weight within the walls of Washington.
And, what does the fine print say about the government's ability to add taxes that are not now in the bill if projected revenues fall short and estimated expenses are higher than anticipated?
Citizens of the USA, if this passes, get ready for increased government intervention into your lives, higher personal taxes, consumption taxes on who-knows-what and incredibly massive deficits.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Monday, August 17, 2009
Choice and Competition and Government
As reported by the Associated Press, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said yesterday, "What I am saying is the bottom line for this for the president is, what we have to have is choice and competition in the insurance market."
I was not aware that there were no choices existing at present.
Nor was I aware that there was no competition.
As I search the web there are a vast number of insurance companies and when one looks through the healthcare plans offered it seems there are many from which to choose.
What I do understand is that the cost of insurance is becoming higher and higher.
And what I also understand is that there are no elected representatives willing to tackle Tort Reform in an attempt to curtail the rising cost of insurance.
Why is it that people, speaking particularly of politicians at this point, have to make things overly complex and employ smoke and mirrors.
An example of overly complex is that reforming the healthcare system requires that government must enter that field (which, perhaps, may not now be the case, unless, of course, that portion of reform is tacked back into the bill at actual voting time) to ensure people have a choice.
And the smoke and mirrors utilized in this endeavor are ample. One of the best is stating that healthcare reform is necessary for our economic recovery. That is such a blatant lie it is laughable, except that we are dealing with taxing, literally, the resources of every taxpaying citizen of Main Street USA.
It is also worthy of note that AP describes the Obama administration "embrace insurance cooperatives over a government-run plan" decision as "Bowing to Republican pressure and offering political cover to fiscally conservative Democrats."
Bowing to the other political party…offering cover to your own party?
What ever happened to what the people (those residents Main Street USA) want and do not want? Those who do not want more government, do not want to end up paying for every little thing some politician wants to get in his/her district (i.e., earmarks), do not want government to make decisions for us, etcetera?
What ever happened to the people in the "of the people, by the people, and for the people" equation?
While it is true that our Founding Fathers could not have envisioned life and all of its intricacies in the 21st Century, they did certainly have a handle on people and government and what people in government could attempt.
One example of this knowledge of humankind is from John Adams, "There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty."
Another, from James Madison: "Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people, by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations."
Perhaps each and every one of our elected officials (and their appointed and hired staff) should be required to do a refresher course in Government 101, as taught by our Founding Fathers, prior to accepting their post, their post of public trust.
Over For Now,
Main Street One
I was not aware that there were no choices existing at present.
Nor was I aware that there was no competition.
As I search the web there are a vast number of insurance companies and when one looks through the healthcare plans offered it seems there are many from which to choose.
What I do understand is that the cost of insurance is becoming higher and higher.
And what I also understand is that there are no elected representatives willing to tackle Tort Reform in an attempt to curtail the rising cost of insurance.
Why is it that people, speaking particularly of politicians at this point, have to make things overly complex and employ smoke and mirrors.
An example of overly complex is that reforming the healthcare system requires that government must enter that field (which, perhaps, may not now be the case, unless, of course, that portion of reform is tacked back into the bill at actual voting time) to ensure people have a choice.
And the smoke and mirrors utilized in this endeavor are ample. One of the best is stating that healthcare reform is necessary for our economic recovery. That is such a blatant lie it is laughable, except that we are dealing with taxing, literally, the resources of every taxpaying citizen of Main Street USA.
It is also worthy of note that AP describes the Obama administration "embrace insurance cooperatives over a government-run plan" decision as "Bowing to Republican pressure and offering political cover to fiscally conservative Democrats."
Bowing to the other political party…offering cover to your own party?
What ever happened to what the people (those residents Main Street USA) want and do not want? Those who do not want more government, do not want to end up paying for every little thing some politician wants to get in his/her district (i.e., earmarks), do not want government to make decisions for us, etcetera?
What ever happened to the people in the "of the people, by the people, and for the people" equation?
While it is true that our Founding Fathers could not have envisioned life and all of its intricacies in the 21st Century, they did certainly have a handle on people and government and what people in government could attempt.
One example of this knowledge of humankind is from John Adams, "There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty."
Another, from James Madison: "Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people, by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations."
Perhaps each and every one of our elected officials (and their appointed and hired staff) should be required to do a refresher course in Government 101, as taught by our Founding Fathers, prior to accepting their post, their post of public trust.
Over For Now,
Main Street One
Friday, July 17, 2009
Too Much Push, Too Much Government
A day after the chief budgeter of the USA, Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf, stated, “costs over the long run would keep rising at an unsustainable pace,” President Obama presses Congress even more than before.
He is urging deeper cuts.
The problem with that is just because Congress, in an attempt to please and appease President Obama, “cuts” some additional costs does NOT mean that the costs will come in at those lower figures.
History has surely taught us that.
As AP reports it, "What we want to do is force the Congress to make sure that they are acting" on recommendations to hold down Medicare and Medicaid spending, the president said, rather than allowing reports to sit unused on a shelf.
Force the Congress? The Prez is playing hardball.
I, for one, do not appreciate any president using that language. A much better choice of words would be, “What we want to do is convince Congress…” Much more statesman-like. As Thomas Jefferson said, “A politician looks forward only to the next election. A statesman looks forward to the next generation.”
President Obama further states that without health reform that Main Street USA will see “premiums going up at astronomical rates.”
Perhaps. I am not sure what exact information he has to in order to predict "astronomical" increases. Maybe that’s just a scare tactic to ensure passage.
The Executive and Legislative Branches might also try Tort Reform as many have been calling for in an attempt to help curb costs.
Maybe we do need health care reform. But, why, Mr. President, can’t it be done in a more rational manner with projections that are as accurate as possible, as opposed to slamming something through just to say you got it done?
The US Government does not need to be and should not be in business. The Government, by way of the US taxpayers, are owners of banks, insurance companies, automobile manufacturers. Is there any end in sight?
How much bigger can we make our government?
Another quote by Thomas Jefferson, which I believe to be quite true, is, “Most bad government has grown out of too much government.”
Be on guard, Main Street USA…bigger, when it comes to government, is not better.
Thus, I will close with one more Jefferson quote, “Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.”
Over For Now,
Main Street One
He is urging deeper cuts.
The problem with that is just because Congress, in an attempt to please and appease President Obama, “cuts” some additional costs does NOT mean that the costs will come in at those lower figures.
History has surely taught us that.
As AP reports it, "What we want to do is force the Congress to make sure that they are acting" on recommendations to hold down Medicare and Medicaid spending, the president said, rather than allowing reports to sit unused on a shelf.
Force the Congress? The Prez is playing hardball.
I, for one, do not appreciate any president using that language. A much better choice of words would be, “What we want to do is convince Congress…” Much more statesman-like. As Thomas Jefferson said, “A politician looks forward only to the next election. A statesman looks forward to the next generation.”
President Obama further states that without health reform that Main Street USA will see “premiums going up at astronomical rates.”
Perhaps. I am not sure what exact information he has to in order to predict "astronomical" increases. Maybe that’s just a scare tactic to ensure passage.
The Executive and Legislative Branches might also try Tort Reform as many have been calling for in an attempt to help curb costs.
Maybe we do need health care reform. But, why, Mr. President, can’t it be done in a more rational manner with projections that are as accurate as possible, as opposed to slamming something through just to say you got it done?
The US Government does not need to be and should not be in business. The Government, by way of the US taxpayers, are owners of banks, insurance companies, automobile manufacturers. Is there any end in sight?
How much bigger can we make our government?
Another quote by Thomas Jefferson, which I believe to be quite true, is, “Most bad government has grown out of too much government.”
Be on guard, Main Street USA…bigger, when it comes to government, is not better.
Thus, I will close with one more Jefferson quote, “Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.”
Over For Now,
Main Street One
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)