Health Care Reform Framed by Politics - Without Consideration of the General Public

Although the Health Care Reform bill currently before the Senate will be modified several times prior to a final vote; the current version does not deliver adequate coverage and or cost savings for consumers according to an AP report released today. The rush to push the bill through the Senate lately, has less to do with the populace, rather it is being eyes as a political tool, by both major parties. Some Democrats are pushing the bill through for “Obama”, making sure the President is not seen as being unable to control members of his own party, while the DNC is casting Republican’s as the “Party of No”.

On the flip side, Republican’s are framing the debate as a government takeover of the health care system, adding the “liberal” tag to frame the debate:(From the Los Angeles Times):

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele also foreshadowed next year's election season in his response to Saturday's Senate vote, in which all the Republicans but the absent Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio voted against taking the healthcare bill to debate -- just as all the House's Republicans, except for Rep. Joseph Cao of New Orleans, voted against the House health bill.

"Make no mistake: this was not a free vote," Steele said. "A vote in favor of this procedural motion paves the way for the bill's final adoption, which would impose a government-run healthcare experiment on America that increases premiums, increases taxes, cuts Medicare and allows for taxpayer-funded abortions.

"President Obama, [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid and their liberal Senate allies will surely gloat and pat themselves on the back for winning tonight's vote in the dark of night during a rare Saturday session, while Americans were home with their families," Steele said. "But as they do, those moderate Democrats who voted for Harry Reid's bill will have to answer to their constituents."

Support for health care reform by the public based on Rasmussen Polls, remains under 50%, and the topic has generally been portrayed in all media as a Republican versus Democrat issue, as relates to the ability to win or lose in 2010, pushing the debate away from actual solutions to problems that currently exist, towards slogans for election or re-election.

Rushing a major change to American’s health care system through legislation in order not to embarrass the President is ridiculous. If concern for the American people were at such a feverous pitch, Democrats would take the time to actually work with the Republican’s in both Houses, taking time to debate, and craft legislation that would address the needs of the people, rather than the needs of the President and or either political party. Regardless of where the blame lays for the current state of health care in the United States, one certain fact remains; health care is big business, regardless of which side of an aisle on sits upon.

Using Massachusetts as a model, the current form of “coverage for everyone” has resulted in huge deficits for the Commonwealth, and high increases in private pay insurance (11% in most cases). A 10 to 11% increase in debt owed, (as is the case of premium costs projected in current national legislation and realized is Massachusetts) at a time when American’s are struggling to pay for essentials, is ludicrous. The co-pays and high deductibles still exist, leaving those currently holding coverage, in additional debt.

The American people deserve better – improvements to the current system that will work, without adding additional debt to either the government or to the general public – requires cooperation on all levels, from both political parties. Unfortunately, attaching labels for political purposes appears to be more important than taking the time to craft legislation that would include concessions from both sides of the aisle.

What is missing: the Republican’s have crafted a plan, calling for competition across state lines (which would drive down costs to those currently holding private insurance), the Democrats are seeking to cover those who have pre-existing conditions with any carrier (currently the bill has a six (6) month gap in coverage). Would that the two actually talk to one another, the ability to purchase health insurance, across state lines, driving down the costs, would compensate for the additional risk of covering those with pre-existing conditions as the pool would be spread nationally, instead of confining it to less than a half dozen carriers allowed to provide coverage in some states. Tort reform is also necessary, as the rising costs of mal-practice insurance (which extends beyond doctors, to almost anyone in a health care provider setting), is being tacked onto the consumers bill, and finally raising premiums across the board.

What will happen in 2010 remains to be seen, but the party that is seen as being in a rush to push through anything in partisan fashion, will merely provide ammunition to the other side. It is in debates of such grave nature as this, that the founders were right to abhor the notion of major political parties, rather than the citizen legislature they so proudly envisioned – party loyalty, trumping the needs of constituents and the greater good of the nation as a whole, is driving today’s health care debate. It is detestable that a "party" would take credit for providing "healthcare for everyone" (see AP Article opening paragraph) without regards to honest debate, regardless of length of time to pass well-crafted, bi-partisan legislation, in order to gain a "win" of some sorts, for the party, not the public. It goes without saying, that should the otter party consider "defeat" of such a bill, a win for the "party" not the public, it would be more of the same.

Sphere: Related Content

HR 4130 - Share The Sacrifice Act of 2010 – Barney Frank (D-MA) Signs on to Murtha (D-PA) Tax Hike for those earning $22,600 per year.

Barney Frank (D-MA)4th District - Points the Way to More Taxes -image: stand up for America

HR 4130, entitled “Share the Sacrifice Act of 2010”, allows for an increase in Federal Income Tax to those earning as little as $22,600 per year in 2011. The Act is intended to offset the costs for the escalation in the Afghan War - the apparent surtax would be “necessary” in order to allow the current revenue levels to pay for the trillion dollar Health Care Reform Act, now before the Senate. In a Congressional document entitled:
“SHARE THE SACRIFICE ACT ENDS BORROWING TO PAY FOR AFGHAN WAR”>, the authors speak specifically about the costs of the War and its proposed drain on Health Care Reform. The Bill, was introduced by the following legislators: Congressman Dave Obey (D-WI), Congressman John Murtha (D-PA), Congressman John Larson (D-CT), Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA), Congresswoman Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Congressman Sam Farr (D-CA), Congressman Raul Grijalva (DAZ),Congresswoman Betty McCollum (D-MN), Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA), and Congressman Jim McGovern (D-MA).

In order to justify pushing more families into poverty, the esteemed Democrat members of Congress offered this logic:

“For the last year, as we’ve struggled to pass healthcare reform, we’ve been told that we have to pay for the bill – and the cost over the next decade will be about a trillion dollars. Now the President is being asked to consider an enlarged counterinsurgency effort in Afghanistan, which proponents tell us will take
at least a decade and would also cost about a trillion dollars. But unlike the healthcare bill, that would not be paid for. We believe that’s wrong,” said Obey, Murtha and Larson. “Regardless of whether one favors the war or not, if it is to be fought, it ought to be paid for.”

The problem with this statement is that the Health Care Reform Act now before the Senate includes multiple taxes. According to the Tax Foundation in the Senate Plan there are five significant areas of taxation as of October 30, 2009. A rise in the corporate income tax, an excise tax on “Cadillac Insurance Plans”, Pay or Play provisions for employers, Penalties for those who do not carry insurance, and a Tax on Medical Devices, and Other Health Care Items.

Added to the burden on the middle class is the demise of the tax cuts enacted in 2003 under President Bush. in 2011, individuals in 39 of the 50 United States will be at a 50% tax rate. The end of a tax cut, is a tax increase

Welcome to Massachuetts - Federal and Commonwealth Taxes Unending - photo fliker

Frank, Chairman of the House Finance Committee, and McGovern (D-MA), should be familiar with the concept of “Taxation Gone Wild”; the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is constantly in the red due to the myriad entitlement programs, specifically Commonwealth Care, and the inability of the Massachusetts D.O.R. to collect enough taxes in order to meet budget demands. Apparently, Massachusetts lacks enough corporate and individual taxpayers in order to foot the bill; the Massachusetts Legislature in collusion with Governor Deval Patrick, implemented an additional round of taxes on the dwindling tax base last July, with the end result of a continued decline in D.O.R. income.

One gets the impression that those members of Congress and the Senate currently involved in areas of finance should take basic Accounting Courses, or refresher courses. It is glaringly apparent to those who are still fortunate enough to be employed, that adding additional taxes, takes away from the little discretionary income currently available. Whether one is lower, middle or upper income, the proposed new round of Federal Taxes, will take what is left of discretionary income away; this will significantly affect the retail, hotel and restaurant and travel industry, causing further unemployment. Should double digit inflation rear its ugly head in the not too distant future, (and economic indicators would have the U.S. on the brink) one can add food and housing to that list.

Although, the AFP (French Press) believes that the Act is “merely symbolic” and is “seen as having to chance of passage”, given the tax, and spend with abandon policy of the Obama Administration and his Congress, one cannot be overly confident that this particular Amendment, or a similar version, will not become law. Deval Patrick (Barack Obama’s Mini-Me) and his Massachusetts Legislators, have consistently defied the cries of the Commonwealth citizenry; those opposed to a specific tax, will find it return under another name, most likely accompanied by additional tax measure. Given Frank’s history of fiscal irresponsibility, and his stamp of approval on this particular Act, it is most likely a given and should he be re-elected in 2010, his brand of accounting will continue. To be fair, Frank did not author this Act, Murtha (D-PA) is responsible, but Frank’s position as Chairman of the House Finance Committee puts a “stamp of approval” on the “Share the Sacrifice Act”.

One can only hope that a new Congress and Senate in 2010 would author a “Give Back the Hard Earned Taxes to the People Act” – It is that the current administration and congress have created a similar atmosphere to that of 1773 : taxation without true representation has become the norm. Fortunately for Congressman Frank and Company the practice of Tar and Feathers has been lost to history, but the ability to vote has not.

Sphere: Related Content

Obama Administration Decision - Terrorist Trials In New York City – Playing Politics with the Hearts and Minds of New York’s Citizens

The decision by the Obama Administration to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, has come under fire from both Republicans and Democrats – giving the impression that politics trumps reason. From New York’s embattled Governor, Democrat David Patterson to Republican’s in the Senate, agree in strong opposition to trying enemy combatants who were not captured nor held on U.S. soil, for a war crime committed against the United States. Pundits are weighing in on the political cost of of the trial all without giving thought to the American citizens who were so egregiously affected by the bombings of the World Trade Center, as well the Pentagon and Flight 93.

The emotional burden on the families and the nation, as a whole, is the biggest reason that these trials should not be held in New York or, anywhere on U.S. soil for that matter. The costs of increased security, at a time when the nation can ill afford any additional expenditure, should be a secondary consideration – it is an insult to those who died and those who were left behind as a result of the greatest attack on U.S. soil in history.

The argument that there will be an increase in terrorists activity in New York and that an effective trial cannot take place, has been debunked by Ben West and Fred Burton of Statfor Global Intelligence. They contend that the City of New York has held trails of this nature in the past, with successful outcomes, most notably, the trial of Omar Abdel Rahman, in 1993, which resulted in a life sentence. They point to the effectiveness of the U.S. Attorneys office of the Southern District of New York against Islamic Radicals who have done harm on U.S. soil. That said, a fact sheet from the U.S. Justice Department, shows the variance in sentencing in recent trails involving foreign and domestic terrorists.

The “What If’s are the proverbial elephant in the room that is driving the emotions of New Yorkers caught in the never ending politicizing of every facet of American Life. Granted, there have been life sentences passed down in the Southern District, however, not without ongoing problems, specifically the trial of the Blind Sheik, Omar Rahma, where he continued to fuel his “jihad” against American once incarcerated in the U.S. using his lawyer as a willing conduit. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume that some fears regarding this particular trail are justified. The fact remains, however, that trying these particular individuals in the City they destroyed, under U.S. Civil Law is a bad idea, perhaps not logistically, nor a gain or loss of political “capital”, but most definitely as a slap I the face to those who live in the City of New York, the first Capitol of the United State of America and the symbol to those who suffer worldwide that a safe harbor does indeed exist.

Sphere: Related Content