No Runny Eggs

If you didn’t pick up on it during his candidacy, there are two things we now know about President Obama.  First, he is a committed leftist; no government involvement or control is too much in his view.  Second, his ego is second in size only to the deficit that his leftist policies are creating.

Within hours of his death, Democrat leadership began attempting to breath new life to the health care bill by attaching Ted Kennedy’s name to it.

“In his honor and as a tribute to his commitment to his ideals, let us stop the shouting and name calling and have a civilized debate on health care reform which I hope, when legislation has been signed into law, will bear his name for his commitment to insuring the health of every American,”

was the lament from Senator Robert Byrd.  And:

“Ted Kennedy’s dream of quality health care for all Americans will be made real this year because of his leadership and his inspiration,”

From Speaker Pelosi.

Even with the new, paid for supportive astroturf that the Democrats have been able to get into their townhalls, the public remains fully against the implementation of a government run health care program.  Rasmussen reports that while “support for the health plan has quit falling,” it is still opposed by a majority of voters.  Additionally, by greater than a 2:1 margin, “voters believe the proposed reforms would make the quality of care worse rather than better.”  It seems like a long uphill slog for passage of the bill, at least in its current form.

Ted Kennedy’s public funeral will be held Saturday morning.  We’ve learned that President Obama will deliver the eulogy.  I have one question.

With Cap and Trade likely dead for the year and his other major push health care, on the ropes, will President Obama be able to control his personal ego long enough to deliver an eulogy that actually has Ted Kennedy as the focus or will he succumb and use the event of the funeral to fan his own ego and push the health care reform bill?

Remember, never let a crisis or a highly personal and emotional event, go to waste!

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.

After getting an earful of challenges on everything from health care to whether he was actually abiding by his oath to uphold the Constitution, Senator Arlen Specter had this insight:

“They (objectors at the town hall) may not be representative of America, but they are significant, and their views have to be taken into account.”

Respectfully Senator Specter, you need to get out of the echo chamber of Washington!

The latest Rasmussen poll shows that 53% of Americans are against the plan being offered by the Democrats while only 42% support the plan.  In addition, Rasmussen shows that 57% are opposed to a single payer plan with only 32% supporting one.

Senator Specter, not only are the concerns you are hearing “representative” of America, they represent the majority opinion of America.  In fact, according to Rasmussen and other polling agencies, the harder the Democrats push and the longer the public is told that they aren’t smart enough to know what’s best for them, the lower the support for any health care reform legislation goes.

In fact Senator Specter, it is you who is not representative of your constituents or Americans in general.  That said, there is something you have in common with the health care legislation.  The more voters hear about you or health care reform, the more they think you are a rock, as in “sinking like a……“

As more people read and analyze the health care reform act, more and more potential issues are being raised.  Funding for abortions, procedures approved based on the patient’s economic value and elimination of private health insurance are just a few of the issues raised.  Any one of these by themselves should be enough to cause people to say “whoa!”  In total they should be enough to have thinking folks recognize that this bill’s approach to health care reform should be thrown out completely.  As important as any of these, and many others that I haven’t listed are, there is one issue that has received very little attention but if understood completely, should bring this house of cards called reform, crashing down.

Three years ago Massachusetts implemented its version of health care reform.  The program in Massachusetts is the closest real life experiment of what is being proposed as the national version of health care reform.  The plan requires nearly everyone to have health insurance.  There are subsidies for those who can’t afford the insurance, penalties for companies that don’t provide insurance and the plan provides insurance to illegal aliens, all similar to the proposed national plan.

Massachusetts is a blessed state when it comes to health care professionals.  In a recent survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation, Massachusetts has the highest rate of non federal physicians per thousand of population.  In fact, at 5.3 physicians per 1,000 population, Massachusetts’ rate is 60% higher than the national average of 3.3 physicians per 1,000 population. 

One would think that with such a high physician to population rate, access to health care would be easy in Massachusetts.  One would think that with a rate significantly higher than the rest of the nation you should be able to pick up the phone and get a medical appointment with little if any delay.  You might think that but if you do, you would be wrong.

A recent survey by Merritt, Hawkins & Associates looked at the average length of time it takes to get an appointment with various physicians.  The study looked at waiting times for several specialties as well as family practice.  It looked at 15 major cities including Boston.  The study found that of the cities survey, Boston had the longest wait times for getting appointments with physicians.  Not only that, but Boston’s average wait time of 49.6 days was more than twice as long as the national average of 20.5 days.  If that doesn’t concern you, the average wait time for a family practice appointment for a routine physical was found to be 63 days in Boston.  If you’re still not concerned, the study found that with the exception of cardiology, the waiting times for all specialties that were surveyed in both 2004 and 2009 had increased, in some cases substantially.

What’s the point?  Massachusetts has always had a high ratio of physicians to patients.  Relative to national statistics, Massachusetts traditionally had a small number of uninsured individuals.  Prior to the implementation of their health care plan, Massachusetts was estimated to have 10% or fewer of its population uninsured compared to 15% – 16% nationally.  If Massachusetts with relatively fewer new insureds and significantly high physician to patient ratios can’t manage to manage access times after the implementation of unrestricted health care, what does that portend for health care consumers if a national plan is implemented?

According to Kaiser Family Foundation there are 46 million people without insurance.  You can see the breakdown by state here.  Let’s assume that we now insure every person in the country with a national plan.  Let’s assume that to maintain existing wait times we will need to maintain the average ratio of physicians to population.  As a proxy, let’s assume that for each 1,000 additional insured we will need to increase physicians by the current rate per 1,000 (this is actually a bit low if you work through the math because the divider should actually be the insured people versus total population but we’ll allow for a bit of breakage.)  If we extrapolate that number, how many additional physicians will we need?  The following chart shows by state, how many additional physicians we will need to maintain access times:

To maintain the same level of physicians to insured, the country would need to have nearly 144K additional physicians on the day that the health reform act became operational. 144K is an increase of 15% in total physicians. According to the Department of Health and human services, at the projected level of medical school graduations the country won’t increase the number of physicians by 144K until well after 2020. Even if we increase medical school graduation rates by 20% we won’t achieve the 144K increase until after 2020.

More frightening than the total increase in physicians required is the instantaneous shortfall that several states will have if the national health plan is implemented. Take note of Texas which will need a 24% increase in physicians to stay even, New Mexico will need 22%, Mississippi and Florida will need 20% and Arizona will need a 19% increase.

In free market economics the result of dramatically increasing the demand of a product needs to be met with an equivalent increase in production or an increase in prices that will remove some demand for the product. In the case of national health care, demand will increase, prices will not be allowed to increase so how will this work? If production can’t be increased or prices adjusted, the only other way to balance the equation is to regulate the demand, this is called rationing.

Folks, the math on the number of physicians doesn’t work. There is no way to dramatically increase the number of insured into the system, restrict or reduce pricing and not have rationing. Well, there may be one way to do it. Grab your magic wand, waive it and say “Poof, you’re a physician!”

During the Bush leadership of the Iraq war there was a constant debate about whether someone could disagree with the war but still support the troops.  Invariably, those who thought they were able to separate these issues, when challenged, would fall back on some version of wrapping themselves in the flag and claiming that they were being called Un-American for protesting. 

Of course we all remember how the Democrat’s responded to any notion that the Iraq protesters were Un-American.  Perhaps the most publicized response was from Hillary Clinton herself, who told us that in fact is was patriotic to protest and American President.

In today’s USAToday oped, Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer call those who are protesting the health reform bill “Un-American!”

In their oped, the two Democrat herders (they aren’t leaders by any sense of the definition) go on to say:

However, it is now evident that an ugly campaign is underway not merely to misrepresent the health insurance reform legislation, but to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue.

Interesting, it looks more to me like members of Congress who are not knowledgeable or are knowingly lying about the bill and members of Congress who are not willing to hear a dissenting voice from their constituents.

Next, Pelosi and Hoyer pick up the new meme of the left:

These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades.

They then attempt to set the record straight on the “facts:”

The first fact is that health insurance reform will mean more patient choice. It will allow every American who likes his or her current plan to keep it. And it will free doctors and patients to make the health decisions that make the most sense, not the most profits for insurance companies.

Well, no it won’t.  As has been documented by numerous sources, your ability to “keep your plan” will end at the time that you change your job, lose your job or if any change occurs to your existing plan. 

Reform will mean stability and peace of mind for the middle class. Never again will medical bills drive Americans into bankruptcy; (it will just drive the entire country into bankruptcy) never again will Americans be in danger of losing coverage if they lose their jobs or if they become sick (at least until you get to a point where your future value to society isn’t greater than the cost of your treatment); never again will insurance companies be allowed to deny patients coverage because of pre-existing conditions (Yes, the all knowing government will now take that role.  Just try to appeal one of their decisions.).

Italics mine

Further:

Our plan’s cost-lowering measures include a public health insurance option to bring competitive pressure to bear on rapidly consolidating private insurers.

Um, nope.  The CBO says it won’t lower costs.  The state plan in Massachusetts, which is the most comparable existing government run plan to the one being proposed, has in fact increased costs at a rate higher than the national average.

Aside from their “let them eat cake” attitude, it’s hard to understand how Pelosi and Stoyer think their oped helps their cause.  With Obama’s poll numbers continuing to slide, Congress’ numbers hitting new lows, Pelosi polled as having the highest unfavorable rating of any Congressional leader and Rasmussen showing that a plurality of Americans support the protester’s efforts, the trend is clearly not their friend. 

Calling common, everyday people “Un-American” seems to be a hail Mary pass in an attempt to stop the public relations slide.  Given the credibility, or rather the lack of credibility that Pelosi and Hoyer have, I doubt it will help.  In fact, I suspect it may have the opposite effect as common sense Americans will view it in the words of the Bard:

The lady doth protest too much!

Oh, one more thing, you may want to consider reporting the oped piece to flag@whitehouse.gov as fishy, misinformation about the health reform act.  We want to make sure and keep the President informed!