No Runny Eggs

Back in the day, I played a real cut-throat Monopoly. However, I wasn’t nearly as cut-throat as the federal government. I’ll let MadisonConservative explain:

Now, let’s say I’m playing with four other people. The four other people are normal monopoly players, playing by the normal rules. They represent private insurance companies. Now, I’m going to join the game. However, I get a different set of rules because I say so. I represent the public option.

First, in normal Monopoly rules, everyone collects $200 from the bank when they pass GO. Let’s refer to this as the capital that insurance companies get in order to run their business. They get it from revenues earned by competing in the health insurance market. However, for me, the rule is different. When I pass go, instead of getting $200 from the bank(customers), I instead collect $50 from each of the other players. Why? Well, the government gets its revenues by collecting taxes, not by providing competitive services. So, while the other players are collecting their money from passing GO from customers, I’m collecting my money from them. Their wealth is going down, directly leading to mine going up. Already, I have an advantage, because I’m the government. Guess what, though? Not only do I collect $50 from each of the other players every time I pass go, but I get $100 from the bank! See, the government doesn’t only collect taxes from businesses, but they also collect it from their customers! Once again, I have an advantage, because I’m the government.

Of course, there is more over at the HotAir Greenroom, so enjoy it. Do also read the comments.

Maggie Thurber explains why the PermaCampaign that Obama is trying on health care is doomed to failure:

But that point aside, trying to convince people with the same ideology that you’re the best one of several to represent that ideology is much different from convincing an entire nation, the majority of whom claim no party or are Republicans, to join your cause.

Obama isn’t going to the opposing side and presenting his viewpoint on the issue, he’s handpicking audiences and ‘preaching to the choir’ and trying to re-energize his base. But that will only go so far as the vast majority of Americans are not in that group to begin with.

He’s still in campaign mode, trying to sell an idea, when the public would rather have the facts and the details – all the things they were too busy to bother with during the actual campaign. Now that Obama is in the White House, the public expects him to manage the operations, though he’s had absolutely no experience whatsoever in doing something even remotely similar. And now it shows, especially in how he blames everyone else for his failure in this regard.

As always, I highly recommend reading the entire thing.

As the health care debate heats up, President Obama and other Democrats have identified a new villian; insurance companies.

At a press conference on July 22nd, President Obama said:

“You know, there had been reports just over the last couple of days of insurance companies making record profits. Right now, at the time when everybody’s getting hammered, they’re making record profits and premiums are going up.”

At the end of July, Nancy Pelosi identifiedthe new villains with:

“They are the villains. They have been part of the problem in a major way. They are doing everything in their power to stop a public option from happening.”

These comments coupled with a House plan that looks a lot like an expansion of Medicaid and Medicare to all, would cause one to think that we should have some empirical evidence that shows that a government run option is more cost effective.  One would think that with nearly 40 years of history, the fine government employees that provide oversight to Medicare and Medicaid, and would be dramatically expanded to support Obamacare, would have been able to squeeze every last penny of savings from the existing programs.  If so, wouldn’t we expect to see particularly Medicaid’s cost or rate of growth, to be lower than private insurance?

Yes we would but, no we don’t.

A study done by the Pacific Research Institute shows that rather than becoming more efficient than private insurance, Medicaid spending per person has outpaced private medical spending by 35% since 1970.  If that isn’t enough to question government efficiency, understand that this study understated total Medicaid costs and overstated private costs for the following reasons:

First, my analysis doesn’t adjust for cost-shifting from Medicaid to the Medicare prescription drug program. Medicaid used to cover many of the costs of drugs that have now been shifted to Medicare. As of 2005, just prior to the Medicare drug benefit’s full implementation, Medicaid’s per-patient costs had risen 53 percent (rather than 35 percent) more than per-patient NHE apart from Medicare and Medicaid.

Second, my analysis counts the Medicare prescription drug program’s expenditures as part of privately purchased care, rather than as a part of Medicare.9 Because my analysis compares Medicaid’s costs to NHE apart from Medicaid and Medicare, this benefits Medicaid.

Third, it removes everyone on Medicaid or Medicare from the pool of patients receiving privately purchased care, even though a significant share of Medicaid patients’ care is covered not by Medicaid but privately — and even though, as of 2000, 32 percent of Medicare patients’ overall care (including
their Medicare copayments and Medigap insurance) was paid for privately.10 My methodology counts health care purchased privately by Medicaid and Medicare beneficiaries among the costs of private care, without counting its recipients among the people receiving private care. If privately purchased health
care costs are divided by the whole U.S. population, rather than by the population not enrolled in Medicaid or Medicare, then Medicaid’s per-patient costs have increased 54 percent
more than per-patient NHE apart from Medicare and Medicaid.

Fourth, it doesn’t adjust for any cost-shifting from Medicaid to the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). When SCHIP began in 1998, many Medicaid beneficiaries were shifted into that program. Over time, this has saved Medicaid billions without representing any actual improvement in cost containment. From 1970 to 1997, immediately prior to the start of SCHIP, Medicaid’s costs rose 81 percent more than NHE apart from Medicare and Medicaid.

President Obama and the Democrats claim that by implementing the government option they will be able to drive savings and reduce the overall cost of health care.  The fact is that if Medicaid and Medicare had been held to a rate of growth equal that of private insurance, last year alone these programs would have cost $201 billion less, nearly a 25% reduction of what was actually spent.

Before government takes over private insurance, under the argument of cost savings and efficiency, we would be wise to suggest the old adage:

Physician, heal thyself!

Early last year as the endorsement battle was fully engaged, videos and quotes of Obama’s long time pastor, Jeremiah Wright, came to light.  These videos and quotes showed the man that Obama referred to as his “mentor,” was a racist and anti-Semite.  Although he had spent the bulk of his adult life in Wright’s congregation, Obama denied that he knew of Wright’s heinous perspectives.  When challenged about Wright, Obama responded:

He does not speak for me.

In other words, Obama and the compliant media which echoed his defense, were telling us that this was a problem entirely with Wright, or as Obama might say “This isn’t about me!”  Those of us who had our own ability to think knew that the opposite was true, it was entirely about Obama and his acceptance of Wright’s ideology.

After the Saddleback Forum last August in which he denounced late term abortions, an audio tape surfaced of Obama arguing against an Illinois statue that would require medical support for babies that survived botched abortions.  In his attempt to reconcile his recently stated position with the past recordings, Obama tried multiple explanations.  All of the explanations were focused on issues that other people had created.  None of the explanations had anything to do with Obama changing his position, misunderstanding the issue or lying.  In other words, Obama could have said, “This isn’t about me!”  Again, a reasonably inquisitive mind was able to see that the excuses Obama rasied were red herrings and that in fact, the issue was all about Obama.

If you do a Google search of “Obama “not about me”” you’ll find numerous instances in stump speeches, his world reunification speech in Germany and even his endorsement acceptance speech where Obama told people that his candidacy was “not about me.”

During his last prime time media love fest, President Obama refuted that health care reform was a personal issue for him saying:

This isn’t about me!

In fact, you might say that Obama’s entire national political career has been spent with him telling people “this isn’t about me!

Since that last statement, President Obama has inserted himself directly and personally into the debate over health care reform.  At town hall meetings in New Hampshire, Montana and now Colorado, President Obama has personally defended health care reform.  At each stop he couriously debates and defends what is or isn’t in “the plan.”  Curious because President Obama doesn’t have a plan of his own and repeatedly responds to the few challenging questions by avoiding an answer or by making erroneous assertions about what the House plan contains.  Even the USAToday, a paper that is not considered unfriendly to Obama, identified numerous Obama falsehoods following the New Hampshire townhall.  Many of these falsehoods were repeated in Montana. 

What are the results?  In the month since he claimed it wasn’t about him, Obama’s dream of a government take over of health care has been met with stiff resistance.  Since Obama’s personal involvement, Rasumussen Reports polling shows that support for health reform has fallen 5% and those who disapprove of health care reform now represent a majority.  In a new poll by Rasmussen, 54% of voters now believe that doing nothing would be better than implementing the plan that is coming through the House.  This is especially important as independents favor doing nothing by almost a 3 to 1 margin.

Contrary to his protests, the health care debate is all about President Obama. 

Obama came into office on the sweet spot of a wave.  Iraq, a sagging economy and a Republican party that operated largely indistinguishably from the Democrats, gave Obama a populace that wanted change so badly they were willing to give an inexperienced, opportunistic, job hopper a chance to play president.  In fact, change was desired so badly that neither the media or those who supported Obama, stopped to ask much about the details as to what Obama wanted to change.  If they had, they would have found that from the start Obama was focused on the takeover of the health care industry via a single payer system and the takeover of energy via cap and trade.  These two items were/are cornerstone to the transformation of America that he envisions and promised.

After moving through the House with relative ease, Cap and Trade is sitting in the Senate.  60 votes are required to move the Cap and Trade bill through the Senate.  With Kennedy and Byrd rarely in the Senate due to their illnesses, the Democrats would need to get 2 Republicans to side with them if they can get the other 58 Democrats to support the bill.  That is a big IF, and moving towards “not likely,” as the economy continues to struggle, the economic reality of the bill continues to sink in and global warming “science” is finding less and less support amongst voters.  In fact, Cap and Trade has lost so much momentum that even Democrat Senators are now saying that it won’t receive a hearing until next year….if at all.

Having Cap and Trade in limbo is good and bad.  It’s good because passage of the legislation would be disastrous for the US economy.  It’s bad because as one of Obama’s two major pieces of legislation, having it in danger of dying puts more pressure on the issue of health care reform.  As the only other major legislation, if health care reform fails it will relegate the man once held in messianic admiration to that of purveyor of just another mystic religion that serves no purpose other than to provide emotional highs with no ability to resolve anything.  It is this fear that has Obama personally engaged in the health care debate.

President Obama’s personal insertion to the middle of the health care debate is much like Kevin Bacon’s appearance towards the end of Animal House.  Standing in the middle of the melee and shouting “All is well.  All is well,” didn’t calm the public for Kevin nor will it for Obama.  In both instances the acts were those of desperation.  As it didn’t work for Bacon, neither will it for Obama.

With President Obama fighting to find new scapegoats to blame and allies for support, the path and outcome of the health care reform debate is far from certain.  That said, one thing is certain.  The next time you hear Obama, discussing any topic, say “This isn’t about me,” you will know without a doubt that after sifting through all of the obfuscation and half truths, the one thing in fact it is about is Obama!

Yes, I missed the morning flight through piss-poor planning and preparation, which always results in piss-poor performance. However, that means I get to read Ed Morrissey’s latest column for American Issues Project, a historical look at why health care is not a “right”:

Rights cannot be confiscatory in a society that respects the individual right to property. That’s why none of the enumerated rights in the Constitution involve confiscation. Americans have the right to free speech, but they do not have the right to demand publication in a newspaper, nor do they have the right to demand that other people listen when they speak. The right to free expression of religion does not involve occupying someone else’s church and using it to your own ends. You have the right to keep and bear arms, but you do not have the right to demand free or publicly financed weaponry. All of those examples involve confiscating someone else’s property or services, whether done through the government or by force individually.

That brings us to the notion of the “right” to health care. As human beings, we want to see people succeed to the point where they can feed, clothe, and care for themselves independently, as that establishes true personal freedom. However, none of us have the right to confiscate the services of a doctor or nurse without their consent, and without their ability to set a price for their time and expertise. We don’t have the right to walk into a grocery story to demand apples when we’re hungry, either, although we should have access to the market without bias when we can properly compensate its owner for the goods.

I can’t put it any better.