No GOP Health Care Proposals? I Don't Think So...

Y'know, I kept hearing about how the Republicans weren't giving any alternatives to the Democratic proposal for health care...let's delve into that a little, shall we?  I found this very helpful list of House GOP proposals in the 111th Congress specifically regarding health care from a mutual friend on FB...

• H.R. 77 - Health Care Incentive Act
• H.R. 109 - America's Affordable Health Care Act
• H.R. 198 - Health Care Tax Deduction Act of 2009
• H.R. 270 - TRICARE Continuity of Coverage for National Guard and Reserve Families Act of 2009
• H.R. 321 - SCHIP Plus Act of 2009
• H.R. 464 - More Children, More Choices Act of 2009
• H.R. 502 - Health Care Freedom of Choice Act
• H.R. 504 - Medicare Hearing Enhancement and Auditory Rehabilitation (HEAR) Act of 2009
• H.R. 544 - Flexible Health Savings Act of 2009
• H.R. 643 - Care for Life Act of 2009
• H.R. 917 - To increase the health benefits of dependents of members of the Armed Forces who die because of a combat-related injury
• H.R. 1075 - RECOVER Act (Restoring Essential Care for Our Veterans for Effective Recovery)
• H.R. 1086 - Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2009
• H.R. 1118 - Health Care Choices for Seniors Act
• H.R. 1441 - Ryan Dant Health Care Opportunity Act of 2009
• H.R. 1458 - Comprehensive Immunosuppressive Drug Coverage for Kidney Transplant Patients Act of 2009
• H.R. 1468 - Medical Justice Act of 2009
• H.R. 1658 - Veterans Healthcare Commitment Act of 2009
• H.R. 1891 - Sunset of Life Protection Act of 2009
• H.R. 2051 - To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize extended benefits for certain autistic dependents of certain retirees
• H.R. 2373 - Home Oxygen Patient Protection Act of 2009
• H.R. 2520 - Patients' Choice Act
• H.R. 2607 - To amend title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to improve access and choice for entrepreneurs with small businesses with respect to medical care for their employees
• H.R. 2692 - CAH Designation Waiver Authority Act of 2009
• H.R. 2784 - Partnership to Improve Seniors Access to Medicare Act
• H.R. 2785 - Health Care Paperwork Reduction and Fraud Prevention Act of 2009
• H.R. 2786 - Patient Fairness and Indigent Care Promotion Act of 2009
• H.R. 2787 - Medical Liability Procedural Reform Act of 2009
• H.R. 3141 - Strengthening the Health Care Safety Net Act of 2009
• H.R. 3217 - Health Care Choice Act
• H.R. 3218 - Improving Health Care for All Americans Act
• H.R. 3356 - Medicare Beneficiary Freedom to Choose Act of 2009
• H.R. 3372 - Health Care OverUse Reform Today Act (HealthCOURT Act)
• H.R. 3400 - Empowering Patients First Act
• H.R. 3438 - Access to Insurance for all Americans Act
• H.R. 3454 - Medicare Hospice Reform and Savings Act of 2009
• H.R. 3478 - Patient-Controlled Healthcare Protection Act of 2009

Um, perhaps my friends on the other side of the aisle would like to retract their claims?!?  Maybe?  Possibly?  NAAAAAH...who am I kiddin'?

Some of these proposals have actually made it to the floor, while others have not...here's a list of those that never made it to the floor...

• Rep. Shaddeg proposed HR 3217 which would allow for for competition across state lines...it has been locked up in the Energy & Commerce Committee from July 2009.
• Obama told us that "I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need." Rep. Gingrey proposed an amendment (consistent with Obama's statement) that would prohibit federal officials from making those decisions—KILLED IN ENERGY & COMMERCE by Rep. Waxman, et al.
• Rep. Herger proposed that the federal government be prohibited from conducting comparative effectiveness research on health care treatments (a precursor to health care rationing)—KILLED IN WAYS & MEANS by Rep. Rangel.
• Rep. McClintock propsed a no-deficit qualification for health care legislation that would block it from going into effect unless it were deficit neutral—KILLED IN COMMITTEE.
• Obama made a campaign pledge of not raising taxes for individuals making less than $200K per year. In that spirit, Rep. Ryan proposed an exemption from all proposed tax increases in the health care bill for that group of individuals—KILLED IN WAYS & MEANS. A similar proposal by Rep. McMorris-Rodgers—KILLED EDUCATION & LABOR by Rep. Miller.
• Rep. Brown-Waite propsed an amendment that would take out all language that cut funding for Medicare Advantage—DEFEATED IN COMMITTEE by Rep. Rangel, et al.
• Reps. Hoekstra and Herger proposed that the employer mandate would be suspended if unemployment reached 10%—KILLED IN COMMITTEE.
• Reps. Reichert and Hunter proposed that an exemption from the employer mandate for companies if they could prove to the Secretary of the Treasury (not just anybody) that the mandate has forced them into financial hardship that has caused them to lay off or cut salaries for current employees or has prevented them from hiring new employees—KILLED IN COMMITTEE.
• Rep. McKeon proposed that small businesses be allowed to band together in small groups to purchase business-specific health plans at lower cost—KILLED IN WAYS & MEANS.
• Reps. Johnson, Cantor, and Souder each offered amendments to remove federal funding for abortions from the health bill that were consistent with PBO’s claim that “under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions”—KILLED IN COMMITTEE.

ANY QUESTIONS? I didn't think so...

Knock, knock puddin’ head…it's a TAX!

This Sunday, PBO set out on the TV talk show marathon…but one stop in particular is of interest. In his interview with George Stephanopoulos, PBO claimed that the penalty for not carrying insurance is not a tax. PBO even made this statement: “George, the fact that you looked up Merriam's Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you're stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn't have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition.” Oh, so now the dictionary is a place where we go to “stretch” the truth? WOW! Maybe I missed that day in class…

But let’s take a look at the health care bills to see what they actually say. Huh…it seems that page 29, line 1 of Baucus’ bill disagrees with PBO. “Excise Tax. The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax”…seems pretty clear to me. Perhaps PBO was talking about the original HR 3200…let’s take a look. Oh…whoops! I guess not…here on page 110, lines 1-6, there’s a section entitled: “TAXES ON INDIVIDUALS NOT OBTAINING ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE. The amounts received in the Treasury under section 59B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to requirement of health insurance coverage for individuals).” Wait a minute, that amends the tax code…I’d pretty much call that a tax—not to mention that the bill refers to it as a “tax.” And then on page 167, there is an entire section dedicated to just this subject: “SEC. 401. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.” Perhaps PBO hasn’t read this bill either…as well as a few hundred other members of congress.

Mr. President, what is being proposed is, indeed, a “TAX” on the American people…that’s an indisputable fact. Is that really the wisest course under our current economic conditions? Raise taxes while the economy is down? Seriously? Perhaps you should consider what the majority of the country (the 90% of us who are not in the $180K and up bracket) would be facing with a tax increase. And then there’s that pesky little statement you made in New Hampshire in 2008: “I can make a firm pledge, under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.” What about those who make less than $250K a year and choose (of their own volition) NOT to have health insurance, but to pay for medical costs out of their own pocket—thereby NOT being a drag on the insurance system? There are many people who opt out for one reason or another (somewhere between 9.1 million and 20.8 million if you combine the figures for 18-34 year olds and those who make over $75K per year as reported by FactCheck.org—http://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/the-real-uninsured/) and you propose to sentence them to a tax increase if they don’t get health insurance that the almighty government (I think Orwell called it “Big Brother”) doesn’t like? Sorry, but that flies directly in the face of your pledge!

If you wish to be consistent with your promise on 9/12/2008, you cannot possibly be in favor of any measure that will obligate anyone to enroll in “acceptable” health insurance or face a tax increase. Creating a safety net is for "last resort" NOT as the standard "everyone must measure up to"…there is NO NEED for a health plan that covers everybody…cover those who need it and them ONLY! That is where my bone of contention lies with all of this...I'm not against helping those who need the help; rather, I am against "helping" those who have no need of it and have not asked for it! Forcing those of us who do not "toe the line" with Big Brother into an extra tax IS penalizing our rights as citizens...attempting to control behavior is not what this country is about. It is about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...not penalties, proscription, and the limitation of freedoms!

I'm still waiting...

I’m still waiting to understand why we need Obama Care for EVERY SINGLE US citizen when only a small part of the population is affected…anyone? ANYONE? ANYONE AT ALL?!? Why is it that we have a problem that affects 15-20% of the population (and I’m using PBO’s numbers here—I happen to think that it’s much less than 15-20%—but I’ll use PBO’s numbers for the sake of argument) and the solution that’s being proposed covers 100% of the population? There’s a word that's used for that concept…OVERKILL!

In the 8/3/2009 CNN poll, 83% of respondents said they’re “generally satisfied with the health care they receive”, 74% said they’re “generally satisfied with their health care coverage”, and approximately 59% said they’re satisfied with the cost of their health care coverage. I happen to agree that health care costs a bit too much—but that’s a discussion for a later blog…i.e. taking down state mandated health insurance barriers which allows a person living in MN (for instance) to choose between only 7 or 8 different insurance companies when there are more than 1300 insurance companies in the US (it’s called “competition”)…so I tend to agree that the cost is a bit too much. But back to PBO…

When the Pentagon proposes to spend more money than they NEED, it’s called unnecessary and something that “needs to be corrected” (no argument here)…but when PBO proposes to spend more money than he NEEDS to spend on healthcare, it’s called “critical funding.” WHAT?!? Did someone take just a few too many hits of the happy juice? It’s a “20%” problem people (see my earlier caveat)! Let’s look at a 20% solution for it! Anything else is just plain STUPID!

I have 4 daughters…when we go shopping for shoes, I buy enough shoes for my 4 daughters…I don’t buy 16 extra pairs just for the heck of it! Hello McFly!

I just don't get it...maybe someone can explain it to me...I dunno, maybe PBO’s using the new math…

Canada's impending implosion

According to Dr. Anne Doig, the incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian health care system is "imploding"...not "having difficulties", or "needing some adjustment", or even "in need of an overhaul"...but "imploding." Implosion is pretty serious...in fact, that's the same process that, in astronomical terms, describes the birth of a black hole--in other words: a MAJOR occurrence. She also mentions that they're "all running flat out" and "just trying to stay ahead of the day-to-day demands."

Now, if we take a look at what she's says, she's describing a health care system that is slightly smaller (33.6 million) than the "hole" in the health care system that AfterDowningStreet mentioned in their blog even IF we get Obama Care passed in the US (36 million). So, with even a smaller system than those who would be without if we passed this legislation, it is still unsustainable. The other angle to look at is that the proposed health care system would, theoretically, be available to the entire US population (notice I didn't say "imposed upon"...so let's not go there) of roughly 305 million people (or just over 9 times the size of Canada's population).

In essence, even those who are currently "without adequate health care"--that 45 million figure that we keep hearing about (a figure which is still highly debatable)--are almost 1 1/2 times the size of the current Canadian system. So, even if we decide to pursue a public option for those citizens, the current situation in Canada should give us pause!

Here's the article:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jbjzPEY0Y3bvRD335rGu_Z3KXoQw

I am still not in support of universal health care because of its all-encompassing nature, but if we need to establish a public option for those who are in need of one (and ONLY for them), we must take Canada's current situation to heart and realize just how tenuous this proposal can be. We must be careful not to simply throw out the suggestion without realizing the gravity of the proposal. It can very easily debilitate our economy. If you are on a ship that is sinking and make it to a lifeboat, what happens when you overload the lifeboat? It sinks and everyone aboard is back to square one. Similarly, we must let our zeal outdistance our abilities...to do so will result in certain failure!

Facts ARE stubborn things...

Wow! I never thought I'd use something Hillary said in my blog...but in light of the current healthcare debate...

I can do it myself...

A friend of mine recently wrote in a post on FB: “The health care debate is a great example. So many fighting against health care being provided for the masses.”

I, for one, will not allow someone to dictate my own position to me…my position is that we should provide for THOSE WHO NEED IT and not for those who have no need. To do so is nothing short of wasteful and irresponsible. Yes, establish insurance for those who need it…and even establish emergency funds for those who may not know they need it until they come to a situation that threatens their life savings or home…but DON’T foist it on EVERYONE. NOT EVERYONE NEEDS IT! So let’s be done with this inane accusation that I am against healthcare for the masses when I have said that it SHOULD be provided for those who need it! I simply will not acknowledge this absurd attempt to dictate to me what my own argument is.

I do not support universal health care because it is being proposed for everyone…not just those who need it. Offer it for THOSE WHO NEED IT…is that so confusing?!?

Imagine a small town in which there are only 10 cars between all of the residents. 2 of these cars are in dire need of brakes…they’ll fail very soon…and the other 8 cars do not need brakes…in fact, the brakes on these other 8 cars range from brand new to good condition. Why in the world would this small town issue an edict that ALL 10 cars need to have new brakes put on within the next week if only 2 of the cars actually need it. And then imagine that someone raised that very question at the city council meeting—and then someone else stood up and said that they are against putting new brakes on *all* the cars…WRONG! This first person stood up to say that they are absolutely in agreement with putting new brakes on the 2 cars in need of brakes, but that they are against forcing new brakes on the cars that do not need the new brakes. To claim that the first person is against all new brakes is laughable at best, and a bald-faced lie at worst, plain and simple.

In a similar manner, I simply will not accept those on the other side of the healthcare issue who choose to paint me as someone who opposes healthcare for the masses…I do not! I do, however, oppose healthcare proscribed for those who don’t need it, but by all means, find a way to provide for those who do need it!

If you remember, this same tactic was employed in the stem cell research debate as well. I as well as many others do not support embryonic stem cell research but we DO support the other 3 types of stem cell research…and yet, we’ve been accused of not supporting stem cell research full stop. Since when is someone who supports a medical initiative 75% of the time considered to be against that medical initiative? In a word—ridiculous!

I’m tired of being told what I believe…ESPECIALLY when it doesn’t square with what I actually do believe. So, for those of you who want to TRY to paint me into a corner philosophically in a way that does not agree with my stated views, I reject you out of hand! Let’s have a debate on the issues rather than simply devolve into name calling, unsupported sweeping generalizations, and character assassination. I welcome any and all intelligent debate, but let’s leave the name calling and unsubstantiated accusations back in the 3rd grade where they belong…

Universal Health Care...just like Canada...?!?

I live in a suburb of Minneapolis...and this winter, during one of our 20 below weather patterns (yes, we had more than one--and yes, it was actual temperature BEFORE windchill) I was thinking to myself, y'know, there's an entire country north of us! What the heck are they thinkin'?!? It's cold enough here in the winter, and it's even colder in International Falls, MN (the icebox of the USA--officially), but I don't even want to think about the country that's to our north! Then I started poking around, doing some research on Canada...and I found some interesting information. One of the most interesting facts about Canada is that the entire population of the country of Canada is about 33.6 million...right now, the population of the Los Angeles Area is about 18 million...so, the entire *country* of Canada has a population that is less than twice the population of one of our most populous cities! Wow...that puts it in perspective. I guess there aren't as many crazy people in the Great White North as I thought...phew! Case closed...out of sight; out of mind.

Until this summer...

The healthcare debate has heated up this summer, which got me to thinking about the much vaunted Canadian Health Care system. I can't count the number of times that Canada's health care system has been praised. But wait a minute...this entire country is not even twice the size of Los Angeles...and they can't even handle it! What makes us think we could do it with a population that is, right now, around 305 million?

I was sent this video from a guy who was raised in Canada and now lives in the US, but his friends still live in Canada. So they decided to give the good ol' CHS a try.
BTW...Note to Michael Moore: if you want to get the actual truth about something, it's usually best to go in with *hidden cameras* (a la Dateline NBC, 60 Minutes, ABC Primetime, et al) and not let them know you're there rather than going in with a large crew and announcing your presence. But that's just me...and Dateline NBC and 60 Minutes and ABC Primetime and...you get the point.
But back to my original thought...in this video, we see a health care system that is overloaded, inefficient, and clumsy...and it only has 33.6 million enrolled! When compared to the US, it's kinda apples & oranges...take a look at the video...



Right now, in the US, there is a proposal for Universal Health Care, but according to the story on AfterDowningStreet.org (http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/43668), the CBO says that 36 million will still remain uninsured even with the most aggressive plan out there. 36 million? That's more than the entire population of Canada! WHA?!?!?

Now, I do not, nor have I ever made the claim that the health system in the US is flawless, but if 15% of the US population is without adequate coverage (and that figure is debatable), that still leaves 85% that DO have adequate coverage. Universal Health Care is not the answer...not in Canada...and not here...and especially if our best plan STILL leaves more people without insurance (in the US) than live in the entire country of Canada!

We must focus on those who are without adequate coverage and propose a solution for THEM...not everyone. If we propose a solution for the 45 million without insurance (and for the sake of argument, I'll even stipulate to that 45 million figure...even though it's definitely on the high side), then we can do better than leaving 36 million out in the cold. It's like a blanket on a cold Minnesota (or Canadian) winter night: 85% of your body is covered, but instead of finding a smaller blanket to warm the 15% of your body that is not covered, you opt for an entirely new blanket that will only cover 90% of your body...10% is still not covered...that solution stinks!

Trying to cover the entire US population (305 million) while leaving 36 million uncovered (even with the most aggressive plan out there right now) is foolhardy. We need to focus on those without coverage and leave those with adequate coverage alone! Questions about large-scale government run health care? Ask a veteran! They *LOVE* the VA (tongue firmly planted in cheek)!

Oh yeah...and if this health coverage proposal is SOOOOOOO good, then I want to see a 10 year trial run involving the president and Congress before the American people are saddled with it!