Just Say No
Background: The following letter which appeared in the Freep is the reason for my letter:
The Republicans in Congress opposed Social Security. The Democrats passed it. Republicans opposed Medicare. The Democratic Party championed it and passed it in Congress. Health care reform is the law of the land and was passed without one single Republican vote. Many Republicans now say they want to repeal health care reform. The Republican Party is the party of "no." Just say "no" to the Republicans.
A recent letter calls Republicans the party of “no” because of their original opposition to Social Security, Medicare, and Obamacare. Social Security and Medicare have an unfunded liability of $107 trillion – in other words, Congress has promised $107 trillion more in benefits than expected tax collections. “No” ought to be a rallying cry for all responsible Americans. Then again, it was our cry during the Obamacare debate - we were just ignored.
[Letter to the Editor - Detroit Free Press. Submitted 04/04/2010.]
Showing posts with label Healthcare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Healthcare. Show all posts
Sunday, April 04, 2010
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Maybe they prefer tar and feathers
Ad hominem attacks and name-calling detract from the legitimate complaints of citizens opposed to the Democrats' hijacking of our personal health care. However, our rulers who ignored the will of the people should be thankful for the times we live in. Back in colonial days, they would have been tarred and feathered for their defiance.
[Letter to the Editor - The Detroit News. Published 04/09/2010.]
Ad hominem attacks and name-calling detract from the legitimate complaints of citizens opposed to the Democrats' hijacking of our personal health care. However, our rulers who ignored the will of the people should be thankful for the times we live in. Back in colonial days, they would have been tarred and feathered for their defiance.
[Letter to the Editor - The Detroit News. Published 04/09/2010.]
Monday, March 22, 2010
Peters to cut Medicare benefits
According to Representative Gary Peters and his progressive cronies in Washington, the health care bill that President Obama is attempting to ram through Congress will not increase the deficit and promotes fiscal responsibility.
Let’s ignore the fact that in 1967 the government estimated Medicare would “only” cost $12 billion in 1990 but actually cost $110 billion and now exceeds $400 billion. Also, let’s ignore that every addition to Medicare has cost between 2 and 17 times the original estimates.
Further, let’s believe Obama's claim that the cost of the new entitlement program will be covered by reductions in Medicare coverage even though Congress has never been able to reduce that coverage in the past when faced by angry constituents.
So assuming what Obama claims is true. I have one question for Rep. Peters that I hope he’ll answer before the November elections:
In keeping with your support for Obamacare, when can we expect you to vote for those proposed cuts in Medicare benefits?
[Letter to the Editor - Farmington Observer. Published 03/25/2010.]
According to Representative Gary Peters and his progressive cronies in Washington, the health care bill that President Obama is attempting to ram through Congress will not increase the deficit and promotes fiscal responsibility.
Let’s ignore the fact that in 1967 the government estimated Medicare would “only” cost $12 billion in 1990 but actually cost $110 billion and now exceeds $400 billion. Also, let’s ignore that every addition to Medicare has cost between 2 and 17 times the original estimates.
Further, let’s believe Obama's claim that the cost of the new entitlement program will be covered by reductions in Medicare coverage even though Congress has never been able to reduce that coverage in the past when faced by angry constituents.
So assuming what Obama claims is true. I have one question for Rep. Peters that I hope he’ll answer before the November elections:
In keeping with your support for Obamacare, when can we expect you to vote for those proposed cuts in Medicare benefits?
[Letter to the Editor - Farmington Observer. Published 03/25/2010.]
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Haggling
Background: The recent health care boondoggle was passed through the Senate after a few senators sold their votes. Strange, Monica Conyers was recently convicted for doing such a thing. Apparently you need to be an esteemed senator to get away with it. I don't expect this one will get published.
Update: Wow. The News published it. My last letter for 2009. I basically call a couple US Senators whores and a family newspaper publishes it. Looking forward to 2010!
Hearing that Sens. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., Mary Landrieu, D-La., and others sold their vote on the bill to hijack our health insurance, I was reminded of a story sometimes attributed to Winston Churchill. Churchill asks a wealthy socialite if she would sleep with him for five million pounds and she responds "Yes". Churchill then asks if she would sleep with him for five pounds. Indignant, she responds "What kind of woman do you think I am?" Churchill replies, "Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling over the price."
[Letter to the Editor - The Detroit News. Published 12/31/2009.]
Background: The recent health care boondoggle was passed through the Senate after a few senators sold their votes. Strange, Monica Conyers was recently convicted for doing such a thing. Apparently you need to be an esteemed senator to get away with it. I don't expect this one will get published.
Update: Wow. The News published it. My last letter for 2009. I basically call a couple US Senators whores and a family newspaper publishes it. Looking forward to 2010!
Hearing that Sens. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., Mary Landrieu, D-La., and others sold their vote on the bill to hijack our health insurance, I was reminded of a story sometimes attributed to Winston Churchill. Churchill asks a wealthy socialite if she would sleep with him for five million pounds and she responds "Yes". Churchill then asks if she would sleep with him for five pounds. Indignant, she responds "What kind of woman do you think I am?" Churchill replies, "Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling over the price."
[Letter to the Editor - The Detroit News. Published 12/31/2009.]
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
You can't ignore these facts
Background: A letter in the Farmington Observer slams opposition to Obamacare. Just trying to make sure people know the facts about our government's ability to accurate forecast and manage costs.
Contrary to what supporters of Obamacare would have us believe, the real debate is not between reform and the status quo. Most reasonable people recognize the need for changes in the health care and insurance industries. Unfortunately, the debate in Washington is over how much more control government should have – a lot more or a whole lot more. Too many people are lining up with their favorite partisans, casting insults and parroting half-truths, and reducing the debate to a playground spat like two children yelling “You’re a liar.” “No, you are.”
Some claim insurance companies are trying to hijack the debate, while others accuse labor unions. For those clueless about how the incentives in Congress work, you can be certain both special interests will get what they want and taxpayers will be left holding the bag.
For those who choose to believe that President Obama and an army of bureaucrats will lower health care costs and save money, here’s a reminder on how well our government manages the bills. Social security has an unfunded liability of $17.5 trillion while Medicare is at $38 trillion. The federal debt is $11.8 trillion and this year’s deficit is estimated at $1.7 trillion.
In July 2009, the Senate Joint Economic Committee released a study comparing the original estimated costs of various Medicare programs with the actual cost. The findings should give pause to even the most ardent supporter of government-run health care.
In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that the Medicare program would cost $12 billion in 1990. Actual spending in 1990 was $110 billion, nearly 10 times higher than the original estimate. In fact, every single addition to the base Medicare program has cost between 2 and 17 times the original estimates.
Those are the facts. Ignore them and you’re just lying to yourself.
[Letter to the Editor - Farmington Observer. Published 10/18/2009.]
Background: A letter in the Farmington Observer slams opposition to Obamacare. Just trying to make sure people know the facts about our government's ability to accurate forecast and manage costs.
Contrary to what supporters of Obamacare would have us believe, the real debate is not between reform and the status quo. Most reasonable people recognize the need for changes in the health care and insurance industries. Unfortunately, the debate in Washington is over how much more control government should have – a lot more or a whole lot more. Too many people are lining up with their favorite partisans, casting insults and parroting half-truths, and reducing the debate to a playground spat like two children yelling “You’re a liar.” “No, you are.”
Some claim insurance companies are trying to hijack the debate, while others accuse labor unions. For those clueless about how the incentives in Congress work, you can be certain both special interests will get what they want and taxpayers will be left holding the bag.
For those who choose to believe that President Obama and an army of bureaucrats will lower health care costs and save money, here’s a reminder on how well our government manages the bills. Social security has an unfunded liability of $17.5 trillion while Medicare is at $38 trillion. The federal debt is $11.8 trillion and this year’s deficit is estimated at $1.7 trillion.
In July 2009, the Senate Joint Economic Committee released a study comparing the original estimated costs of various Medicare programs with the actual cost. The findings should give pause to even the most ardent supporter of government-run health care.
In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that the Medicare program would cost $12 billion in 1990. Actual spending in 1990 was $110 billion, nearly 10 times higher than the original estimate. In fact, every single addition to the base Medicare program has cost between 2 and 17 times the original estimates.
Those are the facts. Ignore them and you’re just lying to yourself.
[Letter to the Editor - Farmington Observer. Published 10/18/2009.]
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Lying to themselves
Background: Jack Lessenberry is a columnist for the Metro Times. According to Jack, there is no social ill or problem that cannot be solved by applying more government. What I find ironic is that he rails on Granholm and the Michigan Legislature (and Bush for 8 years) for being morons but he believes government can still solve everything. The problem, as defined by Milton Friedman (paraphrased), is not that we need good people in government to do the right thing but rather we need to change the incentives so that bad people do the right thing.
Like most of the crass voices in the health care debate, Jack Lessenberry joins in the fray as if it’s an argument on the playground - you’re a liar, no you’re a liar. In reality, the truth in the debate is not going to be found by the extremists on both sides screaming at each other.
None of the alleged lies is clear and bald-faced. When Obama claims you can keep your insurance with his plan, he’s basing this on the fact that the proposal doesn’t prohibit it. But just because the bill doesn’t outlaw private insurance, doesn’t mean the incentives won’t affect whether you keep your plan.
On the other side of the aisle, we hear about death panels and free care for illegal aliens. Both issues are based in a kernel of truth but have been exaggerated to stir up opposition.
So what is the truth? When it comes to politicians and bureaucrats successfully reforming health insurance, people should keep in mind their track record.
The Madoff scheme known as social security has an unfunded liability of $17.5 trillion. Medicare is at $38 trillion. The federal debt is $11.8 trillion and this year’s deficit is estimated at $1.7 trillion.
In spite of this, some people trust that Obama and an army of bureaucrats will lower health care costs and save money. These people are lying to themselves.
[Letter to the Editor - Metro Times. Submitted 09/28/2009.]
Background: Jack Lessenberry is a columnist for the Metro Times. According to Jack, there is no social ill or problem that cannot be solved by applying more government. What I find ironic is that he rails on Granholm and the Michigan Legislature (and Bush for 8 years) for being morons but he believes government can still solve everything. The problem, as defined by Milton Friedman (paraphrased), is not that we need good people in government to do the right thing but rather we need to change the incentives so that bad people do the right thing.
Like most of the crass voices in the health care debate, Jack Lessenberry joins in the fray as if it’s an argument on the playground - you’re a liar, no you’re a liar. In reality, the truth in the debate is not going to be found by the extremists on both sides screaming at each other.
None of the alleged lies is clear and bald-faced. When Obama claims you can keep your insurance with his plan, he’s basing this on the fact that the proposal doesn’t prohibit it. But just because the bill doesn’t outlaw private insurance, doesn’t mean the incentives won’t affect whether you keep your plan.
On the other side of the aisle, we hear about death panels and free care for illegal aliens. Both issues are based in a kernel of truth but have been exaggerated to stir up opposition.
So what is the truth? When it comes to politicians and bureaucrats successfully reforming health insurance, people should keep in mind their track record.
The Madoff scheme known as social security has an unfunded liability of $17.5 trillion. Medicare is at $38 trillion. The federal debt is $11.8 trillion and this year’s deficit is estimated at $1.7 trillion.
In spite of this, some people trust that Obama and an army of bureaucrats will lower health care costs and save money. These people are lying to themselves.
[Letter to the Editor - Metro Times. Submitted 09/28/2009.]
Friday, September 11, 2009
One man's bickering is another man's debate
According to President Obama, disagreement with the government plan to take over the health insurance industry is nothing but "bickering". This characterization offends Americans who reject the notion that government is supposed to be our caretaker. Health industry reforms are necessary, but those reforms must embrace free market principles and put consumers in control. Government intervention is the cause of escalating costs, not a solution. Until Obama recognizes this fact, he can expect the debate to continue.
[Letter to the Editor - Detroit Free Press. Published 09/13/2009.]
According to President Obama, disagreement with the government plan to take over the health insurance industry is nothing but "bickering". This characterization offends Americans who reject the notion that government is supposed to be our caretaker. Health industry reforms are necessary, but those reforms must embrace free market principles and put consumers in control. Government intervention is the cause of escalating costs, not a solution. Until Obama recognizes this fact, he can expect the debate to continue.
[Letter to the Editor - Detroit Free Press. Published 09/13/2009.]
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Sounds pretty fishy
Background: Second letter on Obamacare.
Supporters of President Obama’s scheme to expand the government’s control over our health care claim it must be adopted to battle rising costs. Stop and think about that for a moment. Obamacare proponents say the government is going to transform health care by slashing waste and improving efficiency.
This would be the same government responsible for our $11.7 trillion debt which includes $1.2 trillion from this year alone. This same government has allowed Social Security and Medicare to balloon with an unfunded liability over $100 trillion.
Perhaps dealing with trillions of dollars is too much for Obamacare supporters too grasp. So let’s look at smaller examples of wasted dollars and blown budgets.
In 1985, the federal government estimated the Boston “Big Dig” highway project would cost $2.6 billion. The final cost was $14.6 billion. In 1989, the feds estimated Denver International Airport would cost $1.7 billion. Final cost was $4.8 billion. Even Obama offered up the U.S. Postal Service as an example of how poorly the government runs things.
To think the government will slash waste and improve efficiency seems pretty fishy to me.
[Letter to the Editor - Farmington Observer. Published 08/20/2009.]
Background: Second letter on Obamacare.
Supporters of President Obama’s scheme to expand the government’s control over our health care claim it must be adopted to battle rising costs. Stop and think about that for a moment. Obamacare proponents say the government is going to transform health care by slashing waste and improving efficiency.
This would be the same government responsible for our $11.7 trillion debt which includes $1.2 trillion from this year alone. This same government has allowed Social Security and Medicare to balloon with an unfunded liability over $100 trillion.
Perhaps dealing with trillions of dollars is too much for Obamacare supporters too grasp. So let’s look at smaller examples of wasted dollars and blown budgets.
In 1985, the federal government estimated the Boston “Big Dig” highway project would cost $2.6 billion. The final cost was $14.6 billion. In 1989, the feds estimated Denver International Airport would cost $1.7 billion. Final cost was $4.8 billion. Even Obama offered up the U.S. Postal Service as an example of how poorly the government runs things.
To think the government will slash waste and improve efficiency seems pretty fishy to me.
[Letter to the Editor - Farmington Observer. Published 08/20/2009.]
Thursday, August 06, 2009
Obamacare Busters
Background: I anticipate writing a few letters on Obamacare and revealing the myths, lies, and propaganda.
In the debate on the massive government healthcare rationing plan, some obnoxious and ludicrous statements are getting parroted.
One of the most misleading claims a crisis exists because 50 million Americans lack insurance coverage. The truth behind this number reveals no crisis.
According to the Census Bureau, an average of 46 million Americans lack insurance coverage on any given day during the year. Of those 46 million, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates 20 to 30 million go without coverage for an entire year.
Of this number, the CBO says that 15 percent are eligible for coverage under existing government programs bringing the number down further. According to an economic study from Stanford University, one-quarter to three-quarters of those people can afford insurance but chose to spend their money on other products and services. This means 4 to 19 million Americans do not have insurance and cannot easily get it.
So 94 to 99 percent of us have or can get health insurance. Contrast this with President Obama’s proposed plan which he says would cover about 97 percent of Americans.
Leave it to our elected representatives to falsely cry “crisis” and then propose to spend a trillion dollars (for starters) to get us to where we are right now.
[Letter to the Editor - Farmington Observer. Published 08/13/2009.]
Background: I anticipate writing a few letters on Obamacare and revealing the myths, lies, and propaganda.
In the debate on the massive government healthcare rationing plan, some obnoxious and ludicrous statements are getting parroted.
One of the most misleading claims a crisis exists because 50 million Americans lack insurance coverage. The truth behind this number reveals no crisis.
According to the Census Bureau, an average of 46 million Americans lack insurance coverage on any given day during the year. Of those 46 million, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates 20 to 30 million go without coverage for an entire year.
Of this number, the CBO says that 15 percent are eligible for coverage under existing government programs bringing the number down further. According to an economic study from Stanford University, one-quarter to three-quarters of those people can afford insurance but chose to spend their money on other products and services. This means 4 to 19 million Americans do not have insurance and cannot easily get it.
So 94 to 99 percent of us have or can get health insurance. Contrast this with President Obama’s proposed plan which he says would cover about 97 percent of Americans.
Leave it to our elected representatives to falsely cry “crisis” and then propose to spend a trillion dollars (for starters) to get us to where we are right now.
[Letter to the Editor - Farmington Observer. Published 08/13/2009.]
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Long Live the Queen
Background: Michigan has something called a Certificate of Need Commission whose job is to evaluate expansion and investment decisions by Michigan hospitals to determine if they are beneficial to the public. Beaumont Hospital wants to bring a proton beam cancer treatment center to the state. The Commission decided it would be best if a consortium of hospitals were involved and rejected Beaumont's request. Governor Granholm overruled the decision and said yes to Beaumont. Several letters have been written giving kudos to Granholm for this decision. I have a different opinion.
Recent letters have applauded Governor Granholm’s decision to override the Certificate of Need Commission and allow Beaumont Hospital to build a proton beam cancer treatment center. What a pathetic shame that this situation existed to prompt the letters. What has become of this country when we must beg our rulers and thank them for allowing life-saving medical technology to be installed at a local private hospital?
A more appropriate letter might have read, "we are eternally grateful to you, dear honorable and gracious leader for allowing this life-saving technology to cross the border into our fair state. We grovel at your feet and pray that God will grant you favor and long life for your wisdom and benevolence."
Please excuse me while I throw up.
[Online rant. Posted 07/02/2008.]
Background: Michigan has something called a Certificate of Need Commission whose job is to evaluate expansion and investment decisions by Michigan hospitals to determine if they are beneficial to the public. Beaumont Hospital wants to bring a proton beam cancer treatment center to the state. The Commission decided it would be best if a consortium of hospitals were involved and rejected Beaumont's request. Governor Granholm overruled the decision and said yes to Beaumont. Several letters have been written giving kudos to Granholm for this decision. I have a different opinion.
Recent letters have applauded Governor Granholm’s decision to override the Certificate of Need Commission and allow Beaumont Hospital to build a proton beam cancer treatment center. What a pathetic shame that this situation existed to prompt the letters. What has become of this country when we must beg our rulers and thank them for allowing life-saving medical technology to be installed at a local private hospital?
A more appropriate letter might have read, "we are eternally grateful to you, dear honorable and gracious leader for allowing this life-saving technology to cross the border into our fair state. We grovel at your feet and pray that God will grant you favor and long life for your wisdom and benevolence."
Please excuse me while I throw up.
[Online rant. Posted 07/02/2008.]
Friday, April 25, 2008
Well then don't do that
Background: Democrats in the state legislator want to mandate that insurance plans that cover prescriptions must cover contraception. The State News thinks it's a good idea.
Contrary to The State News' assertion, the Democratic state lawmakers’ plan to expand sex education is not smart. State representatives want to mandate that insurance plans include coverage for contraception. Meanwhile, these same representatives express concern about the high cost of health insurance and claim something must be done.
I have a suggestion - quit mandating coverage that causes those costs to go up.
[Letter to the Editor - The State News. Submitted 04/25/2008.]
Background: Democrats in the state legislator want to mandate that insurance plans that cover prescriptions must cover contraception. The State News thinks it's a good idea.
Contrary to The State News' assertion, the Democratic state lawmakers’ plan to expand sex education is not smart. State representatives want to mandate that insurance plans include coverage for contraception. Meanwhile, these same representatives express concern about the high cost of health insurance and claim something must be done.
I have a suggestion - quit mandating coverage that causes those costs to go up.
[Letter to the Editor - The State News. Submitted 04/25/2008.]
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Market solutions are better than government mandates
Employer incentives are a much better approach than John Edward's heavy handed method.
Employer incentives are a much better approach than John Edward's heavy handed method.
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Talk about getting screwed
Background: On September 2, Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards said that his universal health care proposal would require that Americans go to the doctor for preventive care.
John Edwards recently announced that his universal health care proposal requires us to seek preventative care. Given I am over 40, I assume I would be required to get yearly prostate exams. This would add literal meaning to being screwed by the government.
[Letter to the Editor - The Metro Times. Submitted 09/05/2007.]
Background: On September 2, Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards said that his universal health care proposal would require that Americans go to the doctor for preventive care.
John Edwards recently announced that his universal health care proposal requires us to seek preventative care. Given I am over 40, I assume I would be required to get yearly prostate exams. This would add literal meaning to being screwed by the government.
[Letter to the Editor - The Metro Times. Submitted 09/05/2007.]
Friday, April 06, 2007
Numbers just don't add up
Number of Democratic presidential candidates at a recent health-care forum promoting a nationalized health-care system: 7.
Number of times “health-care” is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution: 0.
Number of Americans who stand to lose when the federal government takes over an industry that accounts for 15 percent of our economy: 300 million.
[Letter to the Editor - Time Magazine. Submitted 04/06/2007.]
Number of Democratic presidential candidates at a recent health-care forum promoting a nationalized health-care system: 7.
Number of times “health-care” is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution: 0.
Number of Americans who stand to lose when the federal government takes over an industry that accounts for 15 percent of our economy: 300 million.
[Letter to the Editor - Time Magazine. Submitted 04/06/2007.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)