Specific Issues with Proposed Senate Health Bill

Joe C. sent me this video (below) as a means of quickly running through issues in the Senate version of the health care bill that was initially offered last July.  This is an earlier version than the one that passed the vote on Christmas Eve (a mere month ago), but you can check the claims of the video below with that of the actual text of the bill here (PDF file).  The page numbers and lines mentioned in the video correspond with that PDF file.


The updated (current) version of the Senate bill is HR 3590 and can be found in text format here.  The problem with connecting the video to this current version is that we don't have the same page and line numbers in this new bill as those mentioned in the video.  But if you search the obsolete PDF version, you can find section heading numbers, then use your browser to search to those numbers (press CTRL-F to get on-page search ability, for the non-geeks) and compare the current with obsolete versions (geeky enough?).  Plenty of work, but I noticed some of this garbage indeed remains within the current version of the bill.

Do some research, come to your own conclusions, and share what you find with others.  After all, according to President Obama's recent state of the union address, American citizens are opposed to this bill because he failed to properly inform us of the bill's true contents:

Still, this is a complex issue. And the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people. And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, this process left most Americans wondering, "What's in it for me?"

...

As temperatures cool, I want everyone to take another look at the plan we've proposed. There's a reason why many doctors, nurses, and health care experts who know our system best consider this approach a vast improvement over the status quo.

But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know.

Hey, Mr. President--I think I've found some better approaches.  In fact, I wrote about them here months ago.

Why the Call to Bipartisanship?

I don't understand our President's recent call for bipartisanship--in either the state of the union address or today as directed to members of Congress (per this Reuters article).  He doesn't need bipartisanship, since the Democrats have a majority in both the House and Senate--they can do whatever they want to do.

Or perhaps this is about the recent lost seat in Massachusetts?  Could be.  Perhaps calls for bipartisanship is really a lamenting the loss of a sealed super-majority in Congress?  It's starting to sound like it.  Whining about a possible filibuster attempt over ram-through legislation?  Too bad--that's politics.

Let's take a look at where this problem really lies--within the divided Democratic side of the aisle.  With the exception of votes requiring a super-majority (few exist), the Democrats have free reign over whatever comes to the floor.  They can pass or deny anything!  Why the whining about such a position?  They need absolutely no bipartisanship whatsoever to accomplish their every whim.

And what does it really mean to have "bipartisanship" in the way the President is requesting now?  I don't recall bipartisanship being so sought only a month ago when the Senate rammed through their astoundingly-irresponsible Health Care proposal on Christmas Eve (without even reading it, I might add).  No bipartisanship desired or needed.

I can only interpret these calls for bipartisanship as completely disingenuous.  It's like the Broncos blaming the Raiders for their loss last December!  Like football, if the President wants to get his way in this contest, he'd better get his own team in order.  Maybe that's too obvious?

State of the Union Speech

Did you see the President's state of the union speech last night?  If not, you can read it here, courtesy of ABC News.

I'm deeply disturbed that what appears to be so popular in this great nation is the forcible taking from some to give to others.  Is that ethical?  So much of the President's speech last night involved discussion of these sorts of things.

To be frank, if you believe programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are anything other than socialism, how would you classify them?  The fact is I can count on putting much more into Social Security than I can ever hope to recover later, and the Social Security administration admits as much in this PDF document.

We're getting ever closer to the terms required within the Communist Manifesto, as seen in the Wikipedia article on this subject.  How many of these things have we already established within our society, even if through well-meaning programs and taxation?  Consider the ten conditions required in moving from capitalism to communism below (quoted from the Wikipedia article:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

Redistribute wealth.  More programs, more spending, more debt.  "Jobs" provided through something done by the state, ultimately funded by the citizens.  Is this the America you want?  Is this how you'd spend your own money?

The Senate just proposed (and passed) lifting the national debt ceiling to $14.3 trillion, per this Reuters article.  That's nearly 100% of our national GDP!  If I had a full year's worth of my income in unsecured debt, I'd consider myself in great financial peril, and perhaps bankrupt.  How does adding to this figure help me recover?  How is my personal situation different than our national situation?

Am I just being negative?  Am I missing some reason for optimism?  Feel free to let me know--you can comment on blog posts, or drop me an email (email addresses found on our Contact page).

Corporate Sponsors and Proposed Transparency

I like this comic from Mother Goose and Grim.  Maybe we can get the legislature to agree to transparency of the other folks who pay their salaries and sway their votes?

"Democrats Slam Brakes on Health Care Overhaul"

What?  Seriously?  Did they get the memo in Washington that they'll be out of a job next term unless they stop these criminal back-room deals and listen to the people?  Frankly, I'm surprised anyone there appears to be taking heed to the clearly-expressed will of the people anymore after such a glut of non-representation.

Here's the article from the New York Times expressing what's suddenly not the priority in Washington.  I could hardly believe my eyes when reading it.  I mean, don't you remember how urgent it was that this be pushed through before Christmas break?  Urgent, urgent, urgent!  No time to read the bills, we've got to make sure this passes the House and Senate!  What happened to that urgency?  Here's an excerpt from the New York Times piece:

The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, deflected questions about health care. “We’re not on health care now,” he said. “We’ve talked a lot about it in the past.” He added, “There is no rush,” and noted that Congress still had most of this year to work on the health bills passed in 2009 by the Senate and the House.

Mr. Reid said that he and the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi of California, were working to map out a way to complete a health care overhaul in coming months. “There are a number of options being discussed,” Mr. Reid said, emphasizing “procedural aspects” of the issue.

At the same time, two centrist Democratic senators who are up for re-election this year, Blanche L. Lincoln of Arkansas and Evan Bayh of Indiana, said that they would resist efforts to muscle through a health care bill using a parliamentary tactic called budget reconciliation, which seemed to be the simplest way to advance the measure.

The White House has said in recent days that it would support that approach.

Uh, really?  I guess the silver lining to these guys playing this game for their own benefit is that the threat of being thrown out of office has a bit of clout with them.  What good is it to be an unemployed career politician, sharing in the misery of so many unemployed fellow Americans, after all?

If you've called or sent letters to your representatives (as I have), I commend you.  Great work!  It appears these folks understand the feeling of the door hitting them in the rear as they're ushered safely out of office, and are now willing to abandon the principles they supposedly upheld with health care reform to keep that from happening.

We the people!

Hey, Buddy, Could You Spare $350,000 for a Guy?

Wow, with "change" like that, you could buy a nice house!  What's the significance of that number?  Well, it's the amount that you, your spouse, kids, and grand-kids owe to clear our national debt and cover our projected costs in running various aspects of the government.  Sound crazy?  I agree.  Maybe you'd prefer a lower estimate?  According to lower estimates, you'll still be hit with funding these things to the tune of $184,000.

I put together this little spreadsheet (PDF format) to determine some of the recent costs foisted upon American citizens by their public servants in Washington, since my calculator doesn't handle as many digits as we're discussing here (potentially hundreds of trillions of dollars!).

The budget deficit is the shortfall between what was budgeted for spending and what was actually spent.  So to cover last year's deficit alone, each man, woman, and child living in the US needs to shell out $4,650!  And that's just the deficit--never mind paying tax for what was actually budgeted last year.  (Talk about an increase in taxes!)

When we include large-ticket items such as Social Security and Medicare to the national debt, we've got the number making up our "unfunded liabilities".  As best I can tell, this is our total debt obligation as a nation--what is committed already to be paid in the present and the future.  This is how we arrive at the number estimated between $184,000 and $350,000 for every soul living in this great nation.

This isn't something that's gotten a great deal of news focus, so spread the word.  Let your representatives know you're not happy with them spending whatever they like, budget be damned.  (Isn't the purpose of a budget to establish a plan for money management?)  How is this accountability or transparency we were promised?

What else can you do?  Consider voting out the incumbents who seem so happy to continue this level of performance on your behalf.  Maybe that will be the "change" we're all eager to see.

Washington Typically Out-of-Step with Americans

I'm sure this is no surprise to any of our readers, but the priorities in Washington simply have no correlation with those of American citizens.  Joe C. send me an email with a graph representing the top priorities of Americans, and you can read the complete article by the Pew Research Center here.

The graph:

Notice the leading gap between the top three topics and the rest?  The economy, jobs (quite similar) and terrorism are the top three.  Notice health care, health insurance, and global warming don't even place within the top five concerns of Americans, but domestic concerns dominate this list.

Perhaps it's time for a change in priority in Washington?  Or better, how about a change of public servants?  (You know what they say about diapers and politicians, right?)

There are some splinters of hope.  According to this article from The Guardian, it seems some in Washington are beginning to recognize how poorly they've represented their constituents.  Perhaps the recent spate of incumbents losing or giving up on office races have convinced them they're on the wrong road?  Even politicos only in this game for themselves can understand why that's a problem--they quickly find themselves unemployed!

I'm eager to read the transcript of the upcoming state of the union address.

No C-SPAN for Health Care Wrangling?

With all the talk during candidate Obama's presidential run regarding transparency and accountability, perhaps it's right he catches some flack with the recent denial of open, transparent debate with the health "reform" bills in the House and Senate?

Perhaps you've heard the story going around lately?  Here's the take at C-SPAN.  What's the view from White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs?  The Washington Examiner records an interesting exchange on this topic.  How's that for transparency and accountability?  I even found that elusive letter that remains unseen by Robert Gibbs, and you can see it, too.  Something tells me Robert Gibbs might be avoiding seeing this letter (cue stunned music).

True, the president is part of the executive branch, while congress is part of the legislative branch of government.  But if I remember right, the promise of "no new taxes" made by president Bush--though this was an issue for the legislative branch--was something that brought quite a lot of pain to the president at the time when not delivered.

Broken promises: