GraniteGrok

Once again we see a small class of people have persuaded politicians that their situation is so grave that their misery should be paid for by other people.  Illinois is once again proving that economic literacy is rather rare with politicians, ignoring the fact that by distorting the healthcare marketplace (and adding to the 1,600 mandates that raise insurance premiums ) will make that same insurance more expensive for its citizens:

Illinois autism bill would mandate insurance coverage of $36,000 a year

Insurance companies would be required to cover autism diagnosis and treatment up to $36,000 a year under legislation sent to the governor Thursday.

The action marks a victory for advocates who say early intervention and therapy is key to helping children with autism gain communication and social skills.

Under the proposal, which Gov. Rod Blagojevich's office said he plans to sign, insurance companies would be required to cover treatment until a patient turns 21. About 4,500 families across the state will qualify for coverage.

Lawmakers said it's needed for families struggling with the emotional and financial tolls of autism.

"Some of these families [are] mortgaging their homes, they're living with relatives, they're accumulating a lot of debt," said Senate sponsor James DeLeo (D-Chicago). "People have filed for bankruptcy in order to finance the medical services for children with autism."

Before I get labeled as cold hearted, I can feel for these parents.  The problem that I have is that now others that may need assistance just as much may now see that solution placed out of reach financially.  Instead of mandating coverage, why not make it possible to purchase a la carte?

And I have to say it - one cannot mandate or legislate all risk of being alive.  One cannot be protected against all outcomes, be they good or bad.  One always has to remember TANSTAAFL - if there is a cost to something that is not paid by the actual consumer, then someone else has to pay.

And that is one of the consequences of big government - it raises the cost of living to all of us via taxes and higher cost of goods and services.  In doing so, it constrains individual freedom by limiting our options and our choice to choose.

For those of you who feel that this is a "got mine" rant, let me suggest this - what is wrong with doing something privately?  Start a fund, do fund raising without the force of government?  There's nothing to say that you cannot - why is it that government seemingly the answer to all the ills?  Are YOU not able to do something?

Posted by Skip at 1:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

From Australia:

THE Rudd Government is under pressure from all fronts, even Labor colleagues, to overturn a decision denying German doctor Bernhard Moeller permanent residency in Australia because his son Lukas has Down syndrome.

The Immigration Department this week rejected Dr Moeller's application for permanent residency, saying the potential cost to the taxpayer of 13-year-old Lukas's condition was too great.

And New Zealand prevented a wife in following her husband as she was judged to be too obese and would cost that government run system too much as well.

And add this first hand account of living in yet another socialized healthcare system - in Sweden:

Welcome, comrades, to the "new" USSR — the United States Socialist Republic. That's the direction leftist President-elect "Robin Hood" Obama will nudge us in over the next four years.

Consider all his socialist campaign rhetoric about redistributing income and raising taxes. Will his threshold fornew taxes be$250,000, $200,000, $150,000 or even $120,000? We'll see.When, pray tell, did higher taxes ever create more jobs and lure the unemployed back to work?

I've lived and worked for 35 years in socialist Sweden, long the highest-taxed nation in the West. So, I have a fair idea what socialism can and can't do for you and me.

Sweden provides universal government-backed health care — it isn't even an option; it's compulsory. That sounds comforting — until the day you might need access to that "free" care. The current waiting time for hip replacement surgery in Stockholm, the Swedish capital, is 16 months. It's "only" 13 months to see an urologist.

How about 18 months for transplant surgery? A little less is the norm for heart-bypasses. That was no consolation to one of my former bosses. Despite a long history of heart trouble, he was sent home from the hospital to wait his turn for bypass surgery. He died waiting.

Another patient, in her late 70s, was the victim of Swedish selective surgery. She was simply told by her doctor she was too old for surgery. She was juggling blood-thinners, instead, when she died. Government-employed doctors were playing God.

[snip]

Bedside manner...

Continue reading "So, are you still in favor of socialized medicine?" »

Posted by Skip at 9:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

My kids jokingly tell me that I'm older than dirt....while those that are just look askance at that phrase when I tell them that.  Either way, me and the "older than dirt" folks will like this info

A daily dose of an investigational medication has been found to restore muscle mass in the arms and legs of older adults and improve some of their biochemistry to levels found in healthy young adults, suggesting an anti-frailty drug has been found.

The drug, called MK-677, was evaluated for its safety and effectiveness in a study that showed the drug restored 20 percent of muscle mass loss associated with normal aging. In fact, levels of growth hormone (GH) and of insulin-like growth factor I (IGF- I) in healthy seniors who took the drug increased to the levels found in healthy young adults, said Michael O. Thorner, a professor of internal medicine and neurosurgery at the University of Virginia Health System.

...Funded by the National Institutes of Health, the two-year, double-blind, placebo-controlled study involved 65 men and women ranging in age from 60 to 81. The results are detailed in the Nov. 4, 2008, issue of the journal Annals of Internal Medicine.

The drug mimics the action of ghrelin, a peptide that stimulates a growth hormone called secretagogue receptor (GHSR). Drug developers are focusing on GHSR because it plays an important role in the regulation of growth hormone and appetite. They think it may prove to be an excellent treatment target for metabolic disorders such as those related to body weight and body composition. 

And will love it if it actually pans out! As Glenn says "More faster please!"

Actually, this would be great for people as they grow old - muscle mass loss is indeed a large part of aging.  Keep that loss to a minimum would go a long way to a more productive life as we age.  

After all, we'll all need more strength acting as baggers at the local grocery store when (and if) we get to retire....

(H/T: Instapundit)

Posted by Skip at 6:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Everywhere is has been tried, it has either failed or is failing.  We see people from Canada coming to the US for treatment as their system fails them.  We see the NHS in Britain rationing medications and treatments to the elderly or those of "unhealthy" lifestyles.  Wait times become longer and longer.  TennCare here in the US, one attempt at this type of delivery system got its plug pulled for high costs.  California was going to start it but reneged when the cost outgrew the politics.  RomneyCare in Massachusetts has seen its costs double in the short time it has been in force.

And now, another universal healthcare attempt has suffered an untimely death:

Hawaii ending universal child health care

HONOLULU – Hawaii is dropping the only state universal child health care program in the country just seven months after it launched.

Gov. Linda Lingle's administration cited budget shortfalls and other available health care options for eliminating funding for the program. A state official said families were dropping private coverage so their children would be eligible for the subsidized plan.

"People who were already able to afford health care began to stop paying for it so they could get it for free," said Dr. Kenny Fink, the administrator for Med-QUEST at the Department of Human Services. "I don't believe that was the intent of the program."...

...State health officials argued that most of the children enrolled in the universal child care program previously had private health insurance, indicating that it was helping those who didn't need it.

Gee, and I thought "universal" meant "everyone"; or are we speaking governmentalesse again?

And this is a surprise....why?  Is it that hard of a question to believe that people act in their own self interest?  Oh please - no one in government thought that anyone would try to "game the system"?  Of COURSE they will - why spend their own money on a "necessity" when someone else will pay for it?  Yes, there is that thing called "pride"; people such as the Amish believe to their core that self-reliance is a virtue.  Sadly, we see that less and less.

We have become the 'gimme' society.

Government also seems to miss another important point -

Continue reading "So, where DOES it work (hint - it starts with "no-")?" »

Posted by Skip at 10:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The free market is under attack, especially from those that do not believe that all of us, the market, do not nor cannot make rational decisions that are in our best interests. 

A ggod example of this is the current fiscal fiasco where the Dems are all crying "greed!" as the fundamental breakpoint.  The problem, as in all post mortums, is that one has to examine all possible (at least, a good subset thereof) causes as to the influences across a timeline.

In short, context. 

And in the current meltdown, I will agree - pure greed (as opposed to the reasonable self-interest in improving the conditions for oneself and one's family) has played a role.  The problem for the Democrats is that more and more, Government itself has proven to be complicit in this whole mess (as I and others have been finding and blogging about).

A couple of days ago, I put up a reason as to why one cannot denigrate the present healthcare system as a free market failure - as it simply is not a free market.  While there are those, both in and outside of government, that decry the high cost of healthcare, they point to profit making entities, high cost of procedures and medications, and of salaries.  Yet, they almost never talk about the role of Government in keeping that cost high by mandating more and more costs to be covered by that private sector over time.

In short, they lack a context.

I talked about this here in NH (and the Feds) as legislators have increased the cost of healthcare AND taxes. Well, as Doug and I often say on the radio, the politics that happen here are often mirrored in your location as well (e.g., the names may change but the stupidity remains the same).  Thus, I give you this little gem that is happening in GA to add to the pile (H/T: QandO)

Why are your health care costs so high? 

Well, here's a hint:

Georgia’s top health agency plans to charge health insurers millions of dollars in extra fees to help pay for the state’s Medicaid and PeachCare for Kids programs.

Healthcare has to be restricted and rationed.  The underlying cause is that it is NOT free to provide it and the costs are rising.  And rising more and more as legislators, seemingly devoid of common sense when it comes to expenses, decide it is a great idea to give more and more of "stuff" to more and more people.

So, here we go again where Government has decided that their use of money is more important than people's use of money.  It has once again decided that it has to be better for it to deliver services than the private marketplace and this will drive people out of that marketplace...

...right into the arms of government.  What right does Government have to just say "fork it over, private insurers, as we have mismanaged things so you have to pay for it?

But those insurance companies are fighting back, saying the fees will drive up rates for people with private insurance and possibly price some people out of their coverage plans.

Simple economic truths - as costs rise, that price change is a signal to all that a scarce resource is about to become more scarce.  It is a signal that once again, priorities must be evaluated to see if one's priorities should be adjust because of that change in price (as many of us did when gas rose over $4/gallon - miles driven by Americans bucked years long trends and went down as a "scarce" resource became more expensive).

At stake is $112 million the state says it needs because of statewide budget cuts. State health officials also say federal regulations call for the new fees.

Dr. Rhonda Medows, commissioner of the state Department of Community Health, said that without additional money, the agency may have to drop people from Medicaid and PeachCare rolls.

“We’re talking about cutting benefits to people already receiving them,” she said.

And that seems to be the mantra of Big Government. 

Continue reading "Want another reason where healthcare is distorted by Government?" »

Posted by Skip at 8:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I keep saying the same thing over and over again, and Liberals just seem to look at me as if I had two heads sticking up above my shoulders (with nary a brain between them).  Problem is, they keep ignoring empirical evidence that, and much more often than they are willing to admit, it IS Government that is responsible for higher and higher healthcare costs.

Here in NH, a law was passed called Michelle's Law as a result of a young woman who was diagnosed with advanced cancer while in college full time.  The problem is that the policy was only in force while she was full time; a condition that turned out to be impossible to keep as her disease and treatment became quite debilitating. NH mandated that this could not happen in the future. The problem in setting policy due to single or rare incidents is that often, that policy decision is not optimal and is often at cross purposes to other rantings.

Like that of "healthcare costs too much".  Well, just in my home town, the result of this law is that it raised the insurance premiums of the municipal employees by $30,000 (and with 85 employees, that comes out to be around an additional $350 / employee. 

Thus, it could end up raising our property taxes as well as raising our own premiums - a double whack.

But will politicians take their own actions into account when it is time to rant, once again, that healthcare is too expensive?

Naw, because they keep doing that which raises the cost.  From OverLawyered:

Mental health “parity” insurance mandate
» by Walter Olson

This was the week that Congress passed and the President signed a new law requiring that most health insurers (if they cover mental health treatment at all) pay for lots and lots of talk therapy and addiction rehab the same way they pay for lots of angioplasties or appendectomies, in the name of “parity” and “nondiscrimination”. Very optimistically — it won’t be Congress writing the checks — the ten-year cost is projected at only $3.4 billion. (Judith Graham, “Triage”/Chicago Tribune, Oct. 3). Next week lawmakers will go back to complaining that health insurance has become prohibitively expensive and that much of the population is priced out of buying it altogether. Mickey Kaus remembers where we’ve seen this sort of feel-good short-circuiting of underwriting standards before (Oct. 2).

I can promise you, the cost will not be just $3.4 billion.

Shades of what we just went through with this mortgage fiasco - politicians trying to be "feel good, saviors of the millions", who seemingly have NO idea of the economic consequences of their actions, will be making things WORSE - not better.

And for those of you that will now want to heap burning coals on my head for being mean and heartless, how about the sufferers who have just been priced out of the market?  Trust me, our politicians have no compassion on them...

Posted by Skip at 9:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Just When He Needed a Life Preserver, A Sinking McCain Throws Himself an Anvil

Hmm, from where I sit, it seems that the polls (which NOW should start to have some semblance of reality as we get closer to the election) are showing a neck and neck race.  And heck, Obama is still flummoxed over Gov. Palin's tap to be McCain's running mate.  Biden, on the other hand, seems more like the lump of iron for the Obama campaign that Chaz writes about above.

“Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation”

As well it should, as well it should (see my posts linked below).

Source: John McCain in the current issue of Contingencies, the magazine of the American Academy of Actuaries.

Obviously written before the crash.

Perfect

Oh Chaz?  My I remind you that it was the agitation of community organizers that banks were redlining the people for whom they were advocating for?  Poor people, that the banks decided did not have the  financial resources to afford mortgages?  So the call went out to call them rascists - and in 1986 had Democrat Congress controlled (along with Jimmah) pass the Community Reinvestment Act - "you WILL loan money to them".  And then created Freddie and Fannie, those monstrous "government companies" that incorporated the worst of the free market and government bumbling with Dems at the helm.  ANd then by their size, required the private banks to lower standards for lending - "borrow 100 - 120% of what you need?  No credit, poor credit - no problem!", and "income statement? - in order to compete and be able to sell their mortgages to Fannie and Freddie according to their rules.  And remember:

For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted.

Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.

Too much money for too little house overpriced in their markets sold to people who either thought too highly of their ability to flip the house or had little resources to support their debt.

All as a result of government intervention and rule settings.  The market would have been more stable if the "20% down, 30 years to pay" stayed as the Golden Rule to owning a house.

Instead, that became "old fashioned" and created the bubble.

I still believe that my responses to his posts still hold true - here, here, here, here, here, and here.

We blog, you read, you decide (and blog it yourself!)

Posted by Skip at 7:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Nice to see an update to what I wrote over at Powerline:

According to data recently released by the U.S. Census Bureau, the number of Americans officially classified as uninsured in 2007 was 45.7 million. This figure is being used, naturally, to promote the case for radical "reform" that in practice would amount to a government takeover of the health care industry.

Again, 15% - this means that we panic and redo our whole healthcare system?

So, when between 25% and 50% (or higher in the inner city) of students fail to graduate from High School, why am I not seeing the same wailing and ranting from the same people?

Oh yeah, that's right - that would be a move away from government run "stuff" instead of towards it as with the healthcare "initiative".

However, Sally Pipes, in her Sunday Examiner column, shows that the 45.7 million uninsured figure is misleading as a barometer of the state of health insurance coverage in the U.S. She identifies four groups within that figure: (1) people who will quickly transfer from one insurance plan to another, (2) illegal immigrants, (3) individuals who make more than $50,000 a year but who elect not to purchase health insurance (usually because they are young and healthy), and (4) individuals who are eligible for government assistance with their health care through programs like Medicaid and SCHIP, but who do not avail themselves of that assistance.

Same breakdown of groups....

According to Pipes, if one subtracts these people from the 45.7 million figure, the number drops to approximately 8 million. If one adds back in those who make between $50,000 and $75,000 a year, the figure is roughly 16 million.

These numbers provide a much more realistic sense of whether and to what extent we face a crisis in health care coverage. They should also point the way to the most reasonable solutions to what indisputably is at least a problem. Those solutions do not include socialized medicine.

OK, the 45 million has gone to 45.7 million; with a population of over 300 million, that is a rounding error of less than 1%. I really wish that people would "tell the truth and nothing but the truth" and provide context when presenting their arguments....

Naw, that isn't going to happen....

And I wrote a little bit about moving healthcare more to the private marketplace as well.

Posted by Skip at 5:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

From John DiStaso's Thursday's column in the Union Leader:

The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is targeting Sununu and six other elections nationwide "to elect a health care majority in Congress." The union promises an "aggressive voter contact plan, including mail, phone calls and earned and paid media."

Once again, the Purple People rear their heads and fail to be honest with the general public.  The dog isn't barking here - what is telling is the word that is not present -

"universal".

The SEIU's intention and aim is NOT to "elect a health care majority in Congress".  No indeedy do.  What they want is to:

"elect those that will vote in universal health care voters"

that will bring the same ruin to the US health care system as they have in Britain and Canada.

Look, I'm for health care.  I need health care!  But letting government run the remainging part that it does not yet do is not the health care I want.

Or need.

*****

From NRO:

An email from the Hill:

Today Sen. McConnell (R) offered several Unanimous Consent requests to lift the ban on deep-sea exploration. Democrats objected.

But it got worse!

He asked if Democrats would allow increased deep-sea exploration if the price of gas reached a national average of $4.50. Democrats objected.

He asked if Democrats would allow increased deep-sea exploration if the price of gas reached a national average of $5.00. Democrats objected.

He asked if Democrats would allow increased deep-sea exploration if the price of gas reached a national average of $7.50. Democrats objected.

He asked if Democrats would allow increased deep-sea exploration if the price of gas reached a national average of $10.00. Democrats objected.

The designated objector was Sen. Salazar of Colorado (D), for those who are interested.

Combine that with this post from NRO too:

A reader writes:

first sentence of his website:

As part of my promise to fight for Colorado's land, water and people, I have established this website to serve you better.

you'll note that people come third

And that is part of my problem with environmentalists.  No, not the ones that quietly go about their day DOING what they say.  Not the ones that politely stop and answer questions and offer opinions and then shake your hand. 

No, it IS the ones the BELIEVE that they are right and believe that their belief trumps your right to live your life the way you want.  In this case, Salazar wishes to impose his beliefs on your wallet as it is his right to force you to live the way he wants you to (and restricting oil / energy will force you, against your will, to change your life to his idea of what he believes is in your best interest (whether you like it or not)).

Posted by Skip at 5:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Warning: Some of the supportive material in the following post is somewhat graphic, and definitely not for small children. Let this be a note of caution as to what medical conditions we'll be enabling subsidizing paying for should we adopt universal healthcare as a nation... (although we probably already pay for much of it, now that I think about it )

“A Logical Medical Choice”

by Donna Garner

Should our country be moving as fast as we can to encourage homosexual behavior?  Why or why not? Some states seem to want same-sex marriage and are passing all kinds of laws that will encourage even more people to participate in homosexual activities. The debate rages on.

However, there is one way to settle the whole issue by answering a single question.

What are the medical consequences of homosexual behavior? 

Our society uses that same standard to make decisions about whether it is healthy to smoke, use drugs, take steroids, eat high-cholesterol foods, or saturate meals with sugars and fats. Why not use that same medical standard as a tool by which to decide whether our nation should encourage or discourage homosexual behavior?   

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) just released its latest data last week:  HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, Volume 18: Cases of HIV Infection and AIDS in the United States and Dependent Areas, 2006.

Only one logical conclusion could possibly be drawn from CDC’s report: 

HIV/AIDS is still largely transmitted through the CHOSEN behaviors of male-to-male sex and/or drug use.  These diseases are not caught from casual contact but are primarily spread by people who are making very bad choices that are sure to produce negative consequences not only for them but for  society as a whole.

Hey, don't shoot the messenger! Here are the facts:

Continue reading "Guest Post: Only one question need be asked of homosexual behavior..." »

Posted by Doug at 4:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

Updated and bumped:

This bill will reduce the cost of health insurance because it focuses on prevention of catastrophic diseases." 

I'm not picking on Bob Clegg here.  What I do wish is that when any politician says the above and it is made into law, that there is always a clause that says the law must demonstrate this assertion to be true.  And if not, the law is retired.

How often are laws passed, touted as it will save us money, and in reality, turn itself into a compost heap?  At least this isn't the Big Dig.....

(H/T: NH Insider)

_______________________________________

Yeah, the Teflon Gov wimps out again!

And don't forget - this will raise taxes, as the healthcare premiums of our government workers are going to go up too.  Thanks Gov!  A double whammy.

And he just keeps on smiling....

So much for our elected leaders and politicians protecting our wallets.  Once again, we see politicians making decisions (or NOT) that affect our families just because they know better than us and can tell us what we need to be paying for.

What should have been done, if it was that so dang important, is to have gotten a bunch of private donors to create a private, charitable fund that could have reached out to those that needed this surgery.  The donors would have gotten their "feel good" jolt, the recipients would have received something, and the taxpayers would have been thankfully left alone.

Why is it when somebody yells "We're all in this together!!", I see dollars involuntarily slipping out of my wallet....

From the Union Leader:

GOV. JOHN LYNCH knows he should have vetoed Sen. Bob Clegg's bariatric surgery bill. He understands that health insurance mandates raise the cost of health insurance. That's why he has said he opposes them. And yet he let Clegg's mandate bill become law anyway.

Granite Staters should not be surprised that Lynch ducked yet another tough issue. That's how he has maintained such high approval ratings. It's pretty easy to be popular when you never make a decision that could offend others.

However, Granite Staters should be offended by this one. Clegg's bill requires that any health insurer doing business in New Hampshire cover weight-loss surgery, which can cost $10,000 or more. Clegg claims that the surgery saves insurers money in the long run. Maybe that's so, but insurers pay people big bucks to figure those things out, and they have concluded otherwise.

And besides, that isn't the issue. The issue is whether the state should pass laws forcing insurers to offer whatever services legislators -- for political reasons -- would prefer they offer. Lynch knows that the answer is no. He has acknowledged that mandates mean insurers cannot offer people low-cost plans that fit their individual needs. Mandates compel everyone to buy insurance that covers, say, weight loss surgery, even if they know they will never need that service.

He knew he should have vetoed this bill. But he didn't. He let it become law without his signature. That was a copout. The people should be upset that the governor knowingly let a bad bill that will raise their health insurance rates become law. They should be doubly upset that he did it the cowardly way, hoping to dodge responsibility for it.

Posted by Skip at 9:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

You just KNOW they aren't going to like this one little bit.  Liberals HATE to be challenged on anything as they believe that they, and only they, possess the superior knowledge for us all (our opinions / needs / wants / desires don't count - after all, they are our betters, right?). So, when I saw this at PolitckerNH, I just couldn't let it go (just wish I had had the time to fisk it earlier).

Sure thing, Ms. Hawkins.  Let's see what's up, shall we?

For Immediate Release:                                              Contact: Zandra Rice Hawkins July 10, 2008                                                              Phone: 603-892-2150

STATEMENT ABOUT SENATOR SUNUNU CO-SPONSORING "MAKING HEALTH CARE MORE AFFORDABLE ACT"

"It's interesting that Senator Sununu decided to publicly announce co-sponsoring the "Making Health Care More Affordable Act" the same week he is under fire for his votes on health care issues.

Considering it is folks like you doing the firing, why am I not surprised that you then turn it around like this?  Nice turn of phrase, but semantically null.  While I wish that the Senator might have made this move a bit ago, I applaud movement in this area.

The "we-can-only-succeed-if-we-defer-our-individual-right-and-responsibility-to-a-socialist-group" mentality wants us to believe that ONLY Big Government can save us from ourselves.  They truly believe that all risk from living can and should be removed from, well, living.  And as we can see in the microcosm of the modern playground (no tag, no running around, no climbing on jungle gyms, swings are dangerous, and the suffocating blanket of Political Correctness gone mad), these Nanny-DoGooders want to take the right and responsibility of you controlling your healthcare away from you.  After all, they're smarter than you!

Senator Sununu's health care legislation is a façade when it comes to ensuring every American has access to quality, affordable health care.

"Every American has access to Quality, affordable health care" - what a crock code phrase this turned out to be.  Her previous campaign with the "I'm a Healthcare Voter" turned out to be nothing more than a front for the SEIU.  I have to hand it to this stealth email harvester - by phrasing the statement this way without revealing her true backers and the reasons for doing so (nothing but governmental controlled Universal Healthcare for us!) - she and her group bamboozled a lot of people.  

Who in their right mind would NOT be against affordable healthcare - I'm certainly for it!  However, it is clear that Andy Stern (head of the SEIU and with plenty of Communist and Socialist philosophy in his background) wants us, the general public, to pay for his members healthcare. Here's a great example (and yes, Ms. Hawkins and I went round and round on that picture).

She wants more government intervention.  In fact, she wants ALL healthcare controlled by Big Government and labels that "progress".  The only "progress" will be in reducing YOUR choices in how you live YOUR life.  Her group's idea is LESS individual choice and freedom.

Continue reading "Sununu getting attacked by stealth Universal Healthcare advocates" »

Posted by Skip at 8:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I caught this little ditty over at Powerline on a large change in healthcare in Canada:

Claude Castonguay is the father of socialized medicine in Canada. In the 1960s, he chaired a Quebec commission whose recommendation of a government-run health care system for that province was adopted, and quickly spread to the rest of the country. Now, after forty years of experience with socialized medicine, Castonguay has changed his mind:

Four decades later, as the chairman of a government committee reviewing Quebec health care this year, Castonguay concluded that the system is in "crisis."

"We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it," says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: "We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice."

A novel idea! When the first countries adopted socialized medicine, it was a mistake. For the U.S. to do it now, in the face of disastrous experience wherever it has been tried, would be a crime.

It never ceases to amaze me that the Dems want to go full speed ahead on the wish that "we know better" when people all over the globe, smarter than them (and me) haven't been able to make it work.  So ask yourself - what new wrinkle are they proposing that would make it work this time?

Freedom of choice - that is what Obama and the Dems want to take away from you for your own good. It will NEVER the be case that they can come up with an angle that will make it work for as when people have free healthcare, there will be no governor on its usage (except for what was admitted above - rationing).

I followed the link from Powerline over to Moonbattery:

Castonguay has been forced to reverse his views because authoritarianism has made such a mess of healthcare in Canada, people enter lotteries to win a doctor's appointment. Fortunately Canadians are still able to cross the border to a free country, where all you have to do to get medical attention is be willing to pay for it. But if Democrats have their way, that won't be the case for much longer.

Freedom works. Socialism doesn't work. Yet socialism means more power for the authorities, so we will have to keep fighting it off, no matter how many times it has been exposed as fundamentally dysfunctional.

Well said - now THAT is speaking truth to power (er, I still hate that phrase....)!

Posted by Skip at 8:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Although this is in its infant stages, this bill will accomplish where HillaryCare failed.  And here in NH, I get to thank my own Senator Judd Gregg for this monstrosity that will up the federal budget by 1/3 and massively reduce the ability of NH citizens to choose for themselves.  Thanks Judd, for helping to lose more of our individual freedoms. 

As I get older, the more I appreciate the power and the freedom that the marketplace gives us.  Every time (Yes, Dems and Socialists) your misguided, feel good, policies are tried, they generally fail.  All one has to do is to look at socialized medicine under Britain and Canada with open eyes to see how it can fail those it is supposed to serve. 

I generally take snippets from posts that are of interest.  Not this time.  After the jump I have posted the entire article from The American Spectator by Peter Ferrara.  If you are a freedom loving person,  YOU NEED TO READ IT AND GET MAD!  They are not waiting for the Presidential election.

Words fail me as I see one of MY Senators in on this attempt to take government to new highs and personal freedoms (and available cash) and choice to new lows.  Bolding is my emphasis.  A short summary after the jump, followed by the entire American Spectator article 

What:

S. 334, the Healthy Americans Act

Summary:   

THE BILL INVOLVES a complete government takeover of health insurance, with all putatively private health plans effectively run by the Feds. It is even more radical than the new health plan Hillary proposed in her campaign this year, which left a greater scope for privately run health insurance. 

Sponsor:   

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR)

Co-Sponsors:   

Bipartisan loss of freedom as 8 Republican Senators joining the Democrats as co-sponsors.

"I am so embarrassed for the Republicans on this bill that I am not even going to name them all. The ring leader has been Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah, who also has been consistently bad on Social Security reform. Another one to be named is Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), who wails a lot about the runaway costs of current Federal entitlement programs, suggesting the need for sharp tax increases. Then, in this bill, he has co-sponsored a new entitlement program that would be the largest of all." 

Note:  From GovTrack, here are the co-sponsors:

Sen. Thomas Carper [D-DE]
Sen. Daniel Inouye [D-HI]
Sen. Mary Landrieu [D-LA]
Sen. Bill Nelson [D-FL]
Sen. Debbie Ann Stabenow [D-MI]

Sen. Joseph Lieberman [I-CT]

Sen. Lamar Alexander [R-TN]
Sen. Robert Bennett [R-UT]
Sen. Norm Coleman [R-MN]
Sen. Bob Corker [R-TN]
Sen. Michael Crapo [R-ID]
Sen. Charles Grassley [R-IA]
Sen. Trent Lott [R-MS]

Sen. Judd Gregg [R-NH]

Cost and penalties:

"The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Tax Committee scored the proposed bill as increasing government revenues and spending by close to $1 trillion per year! A Price Waterhouse study similarly found that the bill would raise Federal taxes and spending by a bone crunching $10 trillion over the first ten years. The entire Federal budget is currently about $3 trillion per year, so you can see what a truly massive, astounding increase in Big Government this is. Indeed, this is the biggest increase ever proposed in any single bill in U.S. history, indeed, probably in world history."

"The bill includes a new tax on individuals to fund health insurance premiums totaling $650 billion to $800 billion per year. For comparison, the Social Security payroll tax currently raises about $660 billion per year, with the entire Federal income tax raising about $1.2 trillion annually. On top of this is a new employer tax raising close to $400 billion per year. In the current fiscal year, the entire corporate income tax is projected to raise $345 billion."

"The bill would mandate that all individuals buy health insurance through a new Federal Healthy Americans Private Health Insurance system (HAPI, though actually we won't be truly happy until the co-sponsors of this bill are all retired). The premiums for that insurance will be collected through your Federal income tax return. Those who manage to let their insurance lapse for any period will suffer a penalty equal to the monthly premiums due plus 15%."

Choice: Really, None.  After all, the Feds know what's best for us:

"The Federal government will also tell you what health insurance coverage you must have. In fact, you can only choose among the health plans in the new Orwellian named HAPI system. Those health plans are all required to cover abortion, among other mandated health benefits. This new system would also replace employer provided plans, so if you are HAPI with your current employer coverage, you can just forget about it."

Judd Gregg.  WHAT THE BLUE BLAZES ARE YOU THINKING? You want to tax us to death?  This will do it. 

I wonder what your fellow Granite Staters are going to think about you fleecing their wallets.  I really wonder how this could be spun as "traditional NH Values" by having government take away OUR choices. 

Continue reading "Universal Healthcare - S. 334 - Guess who is a co-signer?" »

Posted by Skip at 9:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Such irony - the woman that wants the country to ante up so that she wouldn't have to pay for her healthcare is reneging on paying her bill:

Clinton didn't pay health insurance bills

Among the debts reported this month by Hillary Rodham Clinton’s struggling presidential campaign, the $292,000 in unpaid health insurance premiums for her campaign staff stands out.

Ok, but people can get behind, right?

“Sometimes invoices are not paid immediately because we need additional information for our records, or to verify expenses,” Carson said in a statement e-mailed to Politico. “Sometimes invoices arrive at the very end of the month at the cutoff of the reporting period, which means that we are required to report them as a debt on the current FEC report, even where they are paid in regular course during the next month.”

Right!  Businesses run into "cross ups" all the time.  So, what's the big deal?

But the unpaid bills to Aetna were at least two months old, according to FEC filings.

They show the campaign ended last year owing Aetna more than $213,000 for “employee benefits.”

During the first two months of the year, the campaign did not pay down any of that debt. In fact, it accrued another $16,000 in unpaid bills last month, and it finished the month owing Aetna $229,000.

Oops!  Look, this has got to be a function of campaigns, right?

But Arizona Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, did not report any unpaid bills to insurance providers at the end of February. And the only insurance-related debt reported by Obama, an Illinois senator, was $908 to AIG American International Group for “insurance.”

Their campaigns also reported substantially less debt overall than Clinton’s, which owed $8.7 million at the end of February. Obama owed $625,000 and McCain $4.3 million, though most of his debt was from a bank loan, and only $1.3 million was in the form of unpaid bills to a dozen vendors.

Guess not!  Is this kinda like combat air landings and avoiding snipers, Mrs. Clinton? 

Posted by Skip at 8:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Regular readers know that we discuss health care related issues from time to time. Even though I believe that the winning the new world war is the first order of business for the president, I acknowledge that rising health-care costs are something almost as important for many people, including me. The dangers posed by a Democrat White House win in November are almost as stark in the health care "solutions" they present as they are in surrendering the war. Does anybody think a retreat from a socialistic health care system, once in place will be easy, or even doable at all? Once we nationalize some sizeable chunk of our economy, will other pieces be far behind?

This YouTube video shows Republican candidate John McCain discussing health care in America, how we should tackle the specific problem of chronic disease, options we should consider as we look to fund long-term problems, and market incentives to keep costs down. He even mentions walk-in care centers. Hopefully he means the type that we have long favored here at the 'Grok.

Once again, Senator McCain demostrates that when you consider the actual facts of what the candidates represent, and the specifics of their offerings, there is a huge difference between the candidates. McCain calls for "outcome-based treatment" controlled by families--NOT the government. I like that!

.

Posted by Doug at 10:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I was struck, once again, by the sage words of Professor Walter E. Williams over at Town Hall concerning Universal Healthcare (reminder, he was one of our first guests on Meet The New Press, ll bolded emphasis is mine.

Then read what yet another of our NH Legislators wants to do (after the jump).....sigh.... 

Liberty Versus Socialism

A fortnight ago, I wrote about Mississippi Legislature House Bill 282 that would have imposed fines or revoked licenses of food establishments that served obese people. Fortunately, the measure died in committee. State Rep. Ted Mayhall, one of the bill's sponsors, justified it by saying that he wanted to bring attention to the fact that "Obesity makes people more susceptible to diabetes, which puts a further strain on the state's financially-challenged Medicaid program."

His sentiments were expressed by quite a few readers who didn't necessarily support such a measure but opined that if a particular behavior or lifestyle imposed costs on others through tax-supported health care, the government had a right to intercede.

Similar justification was used for laws requiring helmets for motorcyclists and bicyclists. After all, if one exercises his liberty to ride without a helmet, and has an accident and becomes a vegetable, society has to bear the expense of taking care of him.

 I've said for years that if someone chooses to ride without a helmet, let them.  However, they had better have stickers all over the bike and helmet stating that they had insurance.  If not, the EMTs had the ability to just leave them by the side of the road. Dr. Williams is right - why should all of the citizenry, via their government, be forced to care for those participating in risky behavior? 

Note: my son rides....without a helmet.  I consider him an adult perfectly able to make his own, rational decisions.  And yes, I have informed him that if he dumps the bike and makes a vegetable of himself, expect no help from me....buy insurance! 

The fact that an obese person becomes ill, or a cyclist has an accident, and becomes a burden on taxpayers who must bear the expense of taking care of him, is not a problem of liberty. It's a problem of socialism where one person is forced to take care of another. There is no moral argument that justifies using the coercive powers of government to force one person to bear the expense of taking care of another. If that person is too resolute in his refusal to do so, what is the case for imposing fines, imprisonment or death?

[snip]

Forcing one person to bear the burden of health care costs for another is not only a moral question but a major threat to personal liberty. Think about all the behaviors and lifestyles that can lead to illness and increase the burden on taxpayers. A daily salt intake exceeding 6 grams can lead to hypertension. A high-fat diet and high alcohol intake can also lead to diabetes. A sedentary lifestyle can lead to several costly diseases such as hypertension, diabetes and heart failure.

He's right and all one has to do ...

Continue reading "Universal Healthcare - more reasons to get Government out of the loop" »

Posted by Skip at 8:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

..

House Bill No. 282, which was introduced this month, says: Any food establishment to which this section applies shall not be allowed to serve food to any person who is obese, based on criteria prescribed by the State Department of Health after consultation with the Mississippi Council on Obesity Prevention and Management established under Section 41-101-1 or its successor. The State Department of Health shall prepare written materials that describe and explain the criteria for determining whether a person is obese, and shall provide those materials to all food establishments to which this section applies. A food establishment shall be entitled to rely on the criteria for obesity in those written materials when determining whether or not it is allowed to serve food to any person.

The proposal would allow health inspectors to yank the permit from any restaurant that "repeatedly" feeds extremely overweight customers.

Continue reading ""Live Free or Die" state or the nanny state? Sometimes it's hard to tell." »

Posted by Doug at 8:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)