Thursday, September 24, 2009

Medicare and Gag Orders

A short, interesting bit in the Wall Street Journal this morning, one you likely didn't hear about if you only pay attention to what was once the "Mainstream Media." Here it is, in its entirety, for your edification. It is sad enough that our elected legislators do not read the bills they vote on; it is truly unfortunate that those who write the laws for our country don't think that we have the right to find out the truth from other sources. Do yourself a favor; read the first and last paragraphs a couple of times. The article is sub-titled "Humana gets whacked for telling the truth; AARP gets a pass for spreading falsehoods."
Maybe Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus should put a gag order on Douglas Elmendorf too. On Tuesday, the Congressional Budget Office director told Mr. Baucus's committee that its plan to cut $123 billion from Medicare Advantage - the program that gives almost one-fourth of seniors private health-insurance options - will result in lower benefits and some 2.7 million people losing this coverage.
Imagine that. Last week Mr. Baucus ordered Medicare regulators to investigate and likely punish Humana Inc. for trying to educate enrollees in its Advantage plans about precisely this fact. Jonathan Blum, acting director of a regulatory office in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), said that a mailer Humana sent its customers was "misleading and confusing to beneficiaries, who may believe that it represents official communication about the Medicare Advantage program."
Mr. Blum has also banned all Advantage contractors from telling their customers what Mr. Elmendorf has just told Congress. Mr. Blum happens to be a former senior aide to Mr. Baucus and a health adviser on the Obama transition team.
Meanwhile, we have the case of the Association for the Advancement of Retired Persons (AARP), and its fanciful Medicare claims. The self-styled seniors lobby is using all its money and influence to cheer on ObamaCare, even though polls show that most retired persons oppose it. AARP has spent millions of dollars on its TV ad campaign and bulletins and newsletters to its members, including eight million direct-mail letters over Labor Day. The AARP Web site claims that it is a "myth" that "health care reform will hurt Medicare," while it is a "fact" that "none of the health care reform proposals being considered by Congress will cut Medicare benefits or increase your out-of-pocket costs."
So why hasn't AARP also come under CMS scrutiny? Could that be because AARP, which markets its own branded Advantage plans with United HealthCare that have 1.7 million enrollees, is a reliable liberal ally? Certainly its claims are "misleading and confusing" - given that in this instance it is empirically untrue, unlike Humana's attempt at edification. Seniors might even think AARP's falsehoods represent official communication about the Medicare Advantage program. But don't expect Mr. Baucus or CMS to impose its gag rule on the AARP's pro-ObamaCare advocacy.
We don't think AARP should be muzzled in a political debate, but neither should the insurance industry - especially by an influential Senator getting favors from his crony in a supposedly impartial regulatory agency that has enormous power to harm or destroy private companies. Seniors have a right to know how they may be affected by Washington's health-care planning.
So, for the record, CBO's Mr. Elmendorf says that cuts to Medicare Advantage "could lead many plans to limit the benefits they offer, raise their premiums, or withdraw from the program."

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Economic Vandalism

Probably not a lot of folks on this side of the pond read The Economist, one of Britain's premier news and business magazines. That's a shame. The current issue (September 19th-25th 2009) has an article entitled Economic Vandalism, investigating the potential cause and effects of the President's recently enacted 35% tariff on tires imported from China. The Economist calls this "A protectionist move that is bad politics, bad economics, bad diplomacy and hurts America." How about a few teasers before you click the link to read the entire article?
You can be fairly sure that when a government slips an announcement out at nine o’clock on a Friday night, it is not proud of what it is doing.

In every other way the president’s decision to slap a 35% tariff on imported Chinese tyres looks like a colossal blunder, confirming his critics’ worst fears about the president’s inability to stand up to his party’s special interests and stick to the centre ground he promised to occupy in office.

..no one can seriously imagine that any American tyre-making job will be saved; firms will simply import cheap tyres from other low-cost places like India and Brazil.
The tyre decision needs to be set into the context of a string of ominously protectionist policies which started within weeks of the inauguration with a nasty set of "Buy America" provisions for public-works contracts.

Besides these sins of commission sit the sins of omission: the president has done nothing at all to advance the three free-trade packages that are pending in Congress, with Colombia, Panama and South Korea, three solid American allies who deserve much better.
In a section headed "Dumb and Dumber" are these comments:
Evidence of a weak president being pushed leftward might cause investors to worry whether he will prove similarly feeble when it comes to reining in the vast deficits he is now racking up; and that might spook the buyers of bonds that finance all those deficits. Looming large among these, of course, are the Chinese.
Under the relevant trade laws, Mr Obama had the absolute discretion not to impose the recommended tyre tariffs on the grounds of overall economic interest or national security. Given everything that is at stake, his decision not to exercise it amounts to an act of vandalism.
If you think, "well, that's just one tariff. What harm could that do?" Here's another article, this one in the Wall Street Journal today, that talks about a similar tariff enacted in the early 1960's that still causes problems and significant waste as businesses find ways to get around the onerous tax that are still in place long after the situation that brought it about has been made moot.

Monday, September 21, 2009

Medicare for All?

The Top Ten reasons Medicare should not be a model for Health Care reform:
  1. Medicare is going bankrupt.
  2. Private payers are bailing out Medicare.
  3. Expansion of entitlement programs threatens our economic security.
  4. Low administrative costs are a mirage.
  5. Medicare is rife with fraud.
  6. Medicare short-changes seniors.
  7. Medicare's model is obsolete.
  8. Payments are too low.
  9. Medical decisions are made in Washington.
  10. No one is running the show.
Read the article, which includes an explanation of these reasons, in the September 11, 2009 issue of the Wall Street Journal.
When Obama made his statement about number five in his speech to congress, I immediately asked, "If you know there's fraud, why aren't you doing something about it now? Why must you wait for this obscenely abusive "reform bill" before acting?" Estimates of fraud range from three to ten percent of all health care spending.

Friday, September 18, 2009

The President's Promises

Obama made a lot of bold promises during his speech to Congress last week. He will likely make more on Sunday, when he hits every morning talk show except the one place where he might be asked some probing questions. The question we need answered is, was Joe Wilson right? Is this guy telling us the truth or not? Perhaps you're not one of those "true believers" who accept every word from his mouth. Perhaps you prefer to look at the evidence and make up your own mind. This Editorial at Investor's Business Daily a week ago examines those promises and points out some significant discrepancies. I find it interesting that while Obama spoke all evening about "My Plan," he hasn't revealed any of the details of it. The only bills we can examine are HR 3200 from the House of Representatives, and the proposal by Max Baucus (D-Montana) from the Senate. This one has no Republican endorsement; neither have any endearing features to this reader.

So take a look at the IBD examination of Obama's speech. Make up your own mind. Don't let anyone; politician, personality, reporter, whoever; tell you what you should think about this important issue. If the provisions of HR 3200 and Baucus's bill are passed by congress, get signed into law, and you should happen to live long enough to have to deal with the consequences, you want to at least be able to say "I knew what was coming. I told you so!"

Are we indeed Ignorant?

Nobel laureate Friedrich A. Hayek in The Constitution of Liberty:
"All political theories assume, of course, that most individuals are very ignorant. Those who plead for liberty differ from the rest in that they include among the ignorant themselves as well as the wisest. Compared with the totality of knowledge which is continually utilized in the evolution of a dynamic civilization, the difference between the knowledge that the wisest and that the most ignorant individual can deliberately employ is comparatively insignificant."

This should give us all hope, eh?

Whose Decision?

"Some lives may indeed be impossible to save. But what we have here is a government bureaucracy that has the power to determine—as a matter of policy—not to save lives thatcould be saved. In essence, determining whose life is worth the expense.

The proper, biblical role of government is to protect the well-being of its citizens—to provide security and promote justice, not to usher them into the next world by denying them medical care.

Do we need health care reform? Of course we do; I've said so before. But as Christians, we must not assent to giving unaccountable bureaucrats the power to determine the value of a human life—or to withhold medical care from those whose survival is somehow deemed outside the national interest."

From Charles Colson's Breakpoint column, Sept 18, 2009.

http://www.informz.net/pfm/archives/archive_849993.html to read the entire column.

"What Were You Thinking?"

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Lloyd Marcus, American

Read the experiences of a black conservative here; then watch the video.


Wednesday, September 2, 2009

Cancer Treatment or Assisted Suicide?

Who is more sympathetic to the plight of the patient, Big Government or Big Business? Watch this video to the end before you decide.



This is "health-care" in the state of Oregon, a pattern many in the Federal Government think ought to be extended to the rest of the country. Government makes the decisions about treatment, not the doctor, certainly not the patient. I don't think I care to participate, thank you very much. Is this the sort of "health-care" that our president says we are owed as a right? The Declaration of Independence says we have a right "to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Notice that Life comes first; without Life, the others don't mean much.