Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Breaking News...
Even liberals are starting to realize that Democrats basically intend to break all promises regarding deficit neutrality: more lies
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
The Healthcare Morass
With the public option seemingly off the table, Harry Reid and Senate Democrats had to look for another idea to sway votes for the healthcare bill. Their latest offering? Expand Medicare to allow a buy in for those between the ages of 55 and 64. This Medicare option now appears to be off the table, but what’s next?
While Democrats touted the Medicare expansion as an alternative to public option, in reality it accomplished the same thing as the public option: it paved the road to single-payer healthcare. By expanding Medicare to cover more Americans, raising the income qualifications for Medicaid and continuing to expand SCHIP (State Childrens’ Health Insurance Program) you have a ever growing number of Americans dependent on these entitlement programs.
Fortunately, Medicare expansion didn’t have the votes. This weak attempt at an alternative to the public option didn’t provide the 60 votes Harry Reid needs to pass this bill. Over the weekend Senator Lieberman confirmed that he would not support the Medicare expansion as an alternative to the public option.
At this point, one wonders what the point is of continuing with the current bill. Even if the Senate bill passes without a public option and without Medicare expansion, you still have to reconcile the House and Senate bills. You likely loose the vote of those Democrats that hoped for the public option. You also lose the Democrats that are truly opposed to abortion funding as the Senate bill does include federal funding for abortion services. Do you pick up any Republicans? Not if they are reading the latest polling numbers showing ever growing opposition to the bill.
As Democrats cling to the hope of eventual single-payer healthcare and try to save their bill, their desperation is showing. It’s time to scrap the current bill in its entirely and go back to the drawing board.
While Democrats touted the Medicare expansion as an alternative to public option, in reality it accomplished the same thing as the public option: it paved the road to single-payer healthcare. By expanding Medicare to cover more Americans, raising the income qualifications for Medicaid and continuing to expand SCHIP (State Childrens’ Health Insurance Program) you have a ever growing number of Americans dependent on these entitlement programs.
Fortunately, Medicare expansion didn’t have the votes. This weak attempt at an alternative to the public option didn’t provide the 60 votes Harry Reid needs to pass this bill. Over the weekend Senator Lieberman confirmed that he would not support the Medicare expansion as an alternative to the public option.
At this point, one wonders what the point is of continuing with the current bill. Even if the Senate bill passes without a public option and without Medicare expansion, you still have to reconcile the House and Senate bills. You likely loose the vote of those Democrats that hoped for the public option. You also lose the Democrats that are truly opposed to abortion funding as the Senate bill does include federal funding for abortion services. Do you pick up any Republicans? Not if they are reading the latest polling numbers showing ever growing opposition to the bill.
As Democrats cling to the hope of eventual single-payer healthcare and try to save their bill, their desperation is showing. It’s time to scrap the current bill in its entirely and go back to the drawing board.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Rationing: Ladies First
Last week the Department of Health and Human Services’s Preventative Services Task Force issued new mammogram guidelines for women. If the recommendations are followed, gone are yearly mammograms for women between 40 and 50 years old and women over 75. The Task Force claims that cost was not a consideration, but rather the concern for unnecessary biopsies and the emotional stress of a potential cancer scare. Despite the denials of a cost-benefit motive, this recommendation could not have come at a better time to highlight the future of preventative medicine under Obamacare.
Anyone who watched the “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos on November 22, got a preview of women’s healthcare under the proposed bills. Despite denials by Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, both Representative Marsha Blackburn and Stephanopoulos pointed out that in the bill the Preventative Services Task Force would be responsible for rating preventative services with A, B, C or D. Mammograms for women between 40 and 50 would be rated C by the Task Force. Only A and B are covered services under the proposed bills. Wasserman Schultz claims that more women would get access to free mammograms. More? Do we sacrifice one group of women for another?
Following quickly on the heels of the mammogram recommendations, came the Task Force’s recommendations that doctors no longer test yearly for cervical cancer. Why women’s preventative healthcare measures that save so many lives seem to be the first on the chopping block is uncertain, but a clearer red flag of the rationing to come could not have been waved. When it comes to rationing, Obamacare proves that chivalry is not dead.
Anyone who watched the “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos on November 22, got a preview of women’s healthcare under the proposed bills. Despite denials by Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, both Representative Marsha Blackburn and Stephanopoulos pointed out that in the bill the Preventative Services Task Force would be responsible for rating preventative services with A, B, C or D. Mammograms for women between 40 and 50 would be rated C by the Task Force. Only A and B are covered services under the proposed bills. Wasserman Schultz claims that more women would get access to free mammograms. More? Do we sacrifice one group of women for another?
Following quickly on the heels of the mammogram recommendations, came the Task Force’s recommendations that doctors no longer test yearly for cervical cancer. Why women’s preventative healthcare measures that save so many lives seem to be the first on the chopping block is uncertain, but a clearer red flag of the rationing to come could not have been waved. When it comes to rationing, Obamacare proves that chivalry is not dead.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Dodd's Fed Folly
TThe current economic crisis has many causes. Among these are the actions of the Federal Reserve chairman in keeping interest rates artificially low and the resulting housing bubble. Proposed legislation to attempt to tinker with the Fed’s authority was inevitable. Ron Paul first called for an audit of the Fed. Now Chris Dodd has stepped to the plate and proffered his plan to fix the system.
Dodd’s proposal has several key factors. First, gone are the Office of Comptroller of the Currency (regulates and supervises national banks) and the Office of Thrift Supervision (which supervises lending institutions). Second, Dodd proposes to strip the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation of autonomy in overseeing the banking industry. Control would instead be given to a new agency, the Agency for Financial Stability. The FDIC would still insure bank deposits but have no responsibility to maintain stability in the system. Additionally, Congress would have much more control over the Federal Reserve’s regional banks with a say in their choice of directors and Senate approval of their chairmen. The Fed would still control monetary policy but lack supervisory authority over banks.
The problem with Dodd’s proposals is again the problem of more government, not better. While the Fed has made errors that contributed to the crisis, adding more government oversight isn’t the answer. The more influence politicians have over monetary policy and stabilization of banks and lending, the more power and influence they can wield at the expense of taxpayers and investors. Additionally, the proposed Agency for Financial Stability does not appear to propose new or different ideas for managing the economy. This all feels a bit like a shell game- shifting responsibility but changing nothing. Remarkably, even the Obama White House thinks Dodd’s plan goes too far.
In the wake of the economic crisis, it was inevitable that the Congress would step forward and attempt to tinker with the powers of the Federal Reserve system. Although the Fed is flawed, Dodd’s proposals would inject politics into market supervision in a way that can only slow the Fed’s response to any future crisis while failing to address any of the real causes of the current recession.
Dodd’s proposal has several key factors. First, gone are the Office of Comptroller of the Currency (regulates and supervises national banks) and the Office of Thrift Supervision (which supervises lending institutions). Second, Dodd proposes to strip the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation of autonomy in overseeing the banking industry. Control would instead be given to a new agency, the Agency for Financial Stability. The FDIC would still insure bank deposits but have no responsibility to maintain stability in the system. Additionally, Congress would have much more control over the Federal Reserve’s regional banks with a say in their choice of directors and Senate approval of their chairmen. The Fed would still control monetary policy but lack supervisory authority over banks.
The problem with Dodd’s proposals is again the problem of more government, not better. While the Fed has made errors that contributed to the crisis, adding more government oversight isn’t the answer. The more influence politicians have over monetary policy and stabilization of banks and lending, the more power and influence they can wield at the expense of taxpayers and investors. Additionally, the proposed Agency for Financial Stability does not appear to propose new or different ideas for managing the economy. This all feels a bit like a shell game- shifting responsibility but changing nothing. Remarkably, even the Obama White House thinks Dodd’s plan goes too far.
In the wake of the economic crisis, it was inevitable that the Congress would step forward and attempt to tinker with the powers of the Federal Reserve system. Although the Fed is flawed, Dodd’s proposals would inject politics into market supervision in a way that can only slow the Fed’s response to any future crisis while failing to address any of the real causes of the current recession.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
