Interview with Bob Turner (R-CAND/NY-9)

The campaign of Bob Turner- who is running against Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) this year- was kind enough to schedule an interview with Mr. Turner. The interview was originally published at www.rightosphere.com, and is seen below.

Dustin Siggins: So I was reading National Review, the review you got, and I found it very interesting- especially because, on a personal level, I tried to interview Rep. Weiner some weeks ago

Bob Turner: *Chuckles*

DS: On his Politico piece about Social Security. I was going to do a bit of investigative journalism, getting his perspective; getting the perspective of someone else who disagrees with him; and his press secretary answered my phone calls, never responded to my e-mails, and blew me off. So it was very interesting how that worked, especially considering how much he’s on Fox, and how much he’s out there, that he wouldn’t want to talk to someone. I found that very interesting. So I will admit I have a bit of a personal vendetta in going to talk to you.

BT: *Chuckles* Okay.

DS: I have no shame in admitting that. Speaking of Politico, I’m sure you have an opinion on Social Security. Do you agree with the Congressman that Social Security is sound, and if not, how do you fix it?

BT: Weiner suggests that Social Security is sound. In reality, it is no more secure than any other U.S. debt obligations. Some people think the Social Security fund is like a secured savings account, but Social Security money has been spent. What’s left is an IOU, so this is no more secure than every one of our other debts, and all our debts are reliant on the state of the economy.

DS: Okay. How would you- what do you think are good policies to implement, to prevent this IOU from getting worse, which it’s only going to, at this rate?

BT: Well, to fix and to secure Social Security, we need to address the overall health of the economy. Obama’s economic policies- which Weiner supports- are a failure. The way to fix the economy is not through social stimulus spending, but we have to promote business growth. That is the tried-and-true way; it’s still tax cuts and tax credits for research and development; lower capital gains tax; incentives for venture capitalists; new business credits. These are the kind of programs and stimuli that create jobs and expand the economy.

We also have to keep an eye on prudent spending- spending cuts, reduction in government expansion, elimination of waste- you know, all of the tried-and-true methods to get this train back on track.

DS: Okay. I’ll take a little segue into social issues for just a moment.

BT: Okay.

DS: I didn’t see anything on your website regarding abortion. I was wondering what your opinion on it was.

BT: I’m an unabashed pro-lifer. I’m opposed to abortion on moral, religious, social grounds. Partial-birth abortion is particularly heinous, and Weiner has supported that. That would put me on the extreme other end of that position. This is not so much a legislative issue as judicial, except for federal fundings, which if- no, when I’m elected, I would certainly oppose all federal funding of abortion.

DS: You mentioned judicial issues. Can you explain that, just a little bit?

BT: Well, in Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court has said the states cannot legislate abortions as a personal right, so it would probably take a Constitutional amendment, and a major social issue I just don’t think is on the agenda for the next two or four years. The only practical opposition here will be funding- or defunding- of any abortion programs on the federal level.

DS: Fair enough. This has [inaudible] issue since Mitch Daniels- governor of Indiana- said we should have a truce, but obviously with President Obama in office we’re never gonna be able to get a pro-life-

BT: Well, exactly.

DS: – person on the Supreme Court. I guess my third question- I don’t know how much you’ve followed this- Rep. Weiner has targeted Goldline-

BT: Oh, yeah, I got a lot to say about this one.

DS: I was wondering two different questions (related). One, whether or not Goldline has done good or bad things, is this what a Congressman should be involved in? Should a Congressman be involved in targeting a company like this? And second of all- and related to that- if not, why do you think not? If so, why do you think so?

BT: There’s far more to this than meets the eye, and I’d like to give you a bit of my personal experience on this. I believe Representative Weiner is carrying the water for the Obama administration in his fight against Glenn Beck. In reality, it’s a diversion and a sideshow from many of the real issues that Beck is speaking about. You know, we have serious issues, and this ordinarily wouldn’t be worth too much attention, but what they- they: Weiner, Pelosi, Obama, and Company- are really doing is targeting this advertiser to chase the advertiser off the air. By so doing, they harm Beck. Get enough advertisers to do that, and he’s off the air.

Now, some years ago, I did a program, the TV program, with Rush Limbaugh. It lasted three or four years on the air. It was a half-hour television show. I don’t know if you remember it. It was in the mid-90s.

DS: Um, I was 10 at that time, so probably not.

BT: [Laughs} Oh, okay- so you don’t. You were not the target audience.

DS: No, I was not. [Laughs]

BT: At that time, it was a syndicated program, that means the company I was running produced, financed it, distributed it to the stations, and then sold the advertising time to recoup its investment. We found ourselves scrounging for advertisers because a lot of mainline advertisers had received letters. It didn’t take many, and through a little investigation we were reasonably sure those letters were generated by surrogates of the DNC. Most of the letters were from GLAAD, or NOW, accusing Rush of being homophobic, misogynistic, etc. What it did was make the advertisers hesitant. What ultimately happened is the rates we were charging were about half of what we would ordinarily get- which hindered the program. The program was still profitable, but instead of the ratings- which were a little under a 3, which might have generated $25 million a year- we were doing $15, $14 million per year, not making it that attractive for Rush to continue, or his executive producer- brilliant young guy names Roger Ailes.

DS: Roger Ailes? I’ve never heard that term applied to him, but maybe it’s all relative.

BT: That was in the mid-90s. [Laughs]

DS: [Laughs] I’m 24 years old, so I may be a little-

BT: So after that number of years we said, “This is not-“ It was profitable, but it was not profitable enough to be worth the effort, particularly when Rush was doing 10 times better or more in radio. So that effort against the advertisers turned out to be decisive. I see the same thing here, and I can tell you that from personal experience this is not about attacking Goldline- this is about attacking Beck’s advertisers to hinder or cripple the program.

DS: I think it’s a sign of success when he has-

BT: Oh, indeed. He has them scared.

DS: He’s got them scared. You know, they keep talking about all these advertisers that have dropped him, but the evidence just isn’t there that- I just read the most recent numbers; he got something like 2.54 million viewers on his Fox show. [DS: The actual ratings, according to Huffington Post(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/30/cable-news-ratings-top-30_n_630984.html#s108334) have Beck at 2.057 million viewers per day- third in cable behind O’Reilly and Hannity, respectively.] It’s something along those lines. I mean, he’s smoking everybody, except for Hannity and O’Reilly. So it’s really not working.

So I guess- one of my last questions- I looked at Real Clear Politics to see what they judge the race as, and they don’t even judge the race as competitive. According to the National Review piece, you got in because there was no one to write a check to.

BT: That is true.

DS: So how do you- I don’t know how long Rep. Weiner’s been in office for, but it’s been quite some time-

BT: He’s going for his seventh term.

DS: He’s articulate- I’ve seen him on TV- he’s articulate-

BT: Slick.

DS: Slick, okay. He has a lot of alleged facts at his control- how do you overcome this? I guess it’s an anti-incumbent year, but-

BT: True. I’m not sure how others may judge the competitiveness of this race, but I know something about the people of the 9th District and what they’re concerned about. This is a district of working middle-class homeowners, small business operators- these people work, they pay taxes, these are (dare I say) typical Americans in a very ethnically-diverse area. But these are the things they have in common, and they are worried. They are worried about jobs, about the economy, and they are extremely dissatisfied with the current administration and, I believe, they tie in the Democrats Pelosi and Weiner with as being architects of this problem. Now, the fact that Anthony Weiner has not run against anyone in the last few elections, to me, does not mean he is unbeatable. In the grassroots support, I just feel it. We have just begun, and my political career is three months old. We had our first meeting with volunteers, and we had about 70 people show up.

DS: Wow.

BT: The goal is to get a thousand to cover every one of the 512 EDs in this district, but it’s growing exponentially. I asked, with a show of hands, “How many of you have [n]ever been involved in a political campaign before?” [DS: The audio did not catch the “n” in “never”- which Mr. Turner did say.] And my hand was the first one up. But after that, about 90% of the people in that room have never been involved, and they cut across multiple ages and areas of this district. I found that a very encouraging sign.

If you talk to Karl Rove or Dick Morris, they’ll tell you you need a photogenic candidate. You need Slick slogans and political tricks, and you need a ton of campaign money. Well, how are we doing? Well, I’ve got a face for radio-

DS: [Laughs] I’m in the same boat you are.

BT: And as far as slick political slogans and all, we’re gonna run on principles. That should be unique.

DS: [Laughs]

BT: And for a ton of money, we got volunteers, and we have a lot of them. I can feel the ground moving, and the grass is swaying in our direction. I think this will be under the radar until September. We’re getting a reasonable response to the contribution effort, but a lot of this won’t be seen until later in the campaign, but I think people will kind of wake up around the beginning of September, and they’ll realize this will be a very competitive race.

There are a lot of things going on- a lot of changes in this district that are not apparent on the face of it, but I think this is going to be a very competitive race.

DS: Well, then, I guess I have one more question for you, before I let you go. You mentioned earlier the Obama social spending, and you just said you are going to run on principle. For me personally, I believe the biggest issue facing this nation is our debt- the debt crisis coming down the pike. According to the CBO it’s 2020, according to the IMF it’s 2015, that we hit 100% of debt-to-GDP ratio.

BT: Yes.

DS: So I was wondering two things: How do you think Americans (I don’t know if you will be able to answer this), how do you think Americans can trust Republicans, considering it was Bush who really started this spending, and Obama, who’s just made it worse. How can Americans trust Republicans, and secondly, as a Member of Congress, would you be willing to cut defense spending- which has at least doubled in the last decade- as a part of reigning in that spending?

BT: I’d be looking to cut spending. I’d be less inclined to cut defense spending when we’re in the midst of the long war, and in a very uncertain world. I believe America’s strength is in its strong military, and secondly, in its strong defense of the right and principles and human freedom, and not some wishy-washy diplomatic tactician’s-

DS: But it’s worked out so well.

BT: [Chuckles] Yeah. The money that can be cut- and there’s only so much real cutting that can be done- is in the redundancies and the wasteful government spending and a cap on spending. And digging into the administrative programs to cut out billions- hundreds of billions- in waste and unneeded programs. But the real way to manage the deficit is to increase the productivity of the nation as a whole. It may even have to be- and it will be- tax decreases in particular areas, particularly against business, that will help grow the economy, and bring that ratio of GDP to deficit down to what we can have manageable levels. It will take a long time before we can really attack this, and I think what we need is appropriations reform in the House- how bills are put together- how earmarks and riders can be attached to bills. We can change all that within the House rules, and a majority of Republicans can do that. Whether they have the political will, I think, in January, we’re gonna find out. We’ll be the majority, and we have [to] them to the test. I am more committed to the principles than to the party, and I hope there are enough others like that, but that remains to be seen. But you’ll get a fight from me, I can tell you that.

DS: Well, you got in because, as you said earlier, there was nobody to write a check to, so I doubt you’re going to be in for a 25-year career in the House.

BT: [Laughs] That would be most unlikely. I think an actuary would put my life expectancy at a little under that anyway, but-

DS: Well, I don’t know how old you are- 66?

BT: 69.

DS: Wow. Geez.

BT: [Laughs] Yeah, we don’t have to dwell on that-

DS: [Laughs] No, no, no- you have the experience, you have the…all the things Rep. Weiner does not, that’s your advantage, right?

BT: Well, yeah, that’s true to a degree. I’ve actually started businesses, and run them, and had real jobs, yes. Mr. Weiner, Mr. Obama, have never had a real job, have never in a business environment, never been at risk.

DS: Well, we definitely agree on this last point.

July 8, 2010 | Filed Under Featured Content, Politics and Policy | 1 Comment

Democratic Leadership & Liberal Groups Missing The Long View

The Hill had this article yesterday, showing some substantial financial rewards reaped by vulnerable Democrats after voting for health care reform:

Vulnerable House Democrats who supported the healthcare bill last month reaped big financial rewards.

Federal Election Commission (FEC) reports show the crucial yes votes cashed in between March 21 and the end of the first quarter on March 31. They received big money from Democratic-leaning political action committees (PACs) and fellow Democratic members of Congress.

Several of these members were last-minute yes votes, which helped push the legislation to passage.

Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.) raised more than $140,000 from PACs and fellow members in the final 10 days of the quarter — which was more than one-third of the $400,000 total he raised for the entire quarter.

Rep. Scott Murphy (D-N.Y.) raised more than $100,000 from political committees after deciding to vote yes on the bill, and he raised about $475,000 overall.

Reps. Debbie Halvorson (D-Ill.) and Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) weren’t far behind, each raising more than $90,000 from PACs and fellow members of

Congress in the final week-plus of the quarter. Halvorson raised $410,000 total, while Giffords raised nearly $500,000.

Frequent givers included labor unions and left-leaning groups like the Human Rights Campaign PAC. Several liberal members of Congress who championed the bill, including Reps. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) and Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), also rewarded those who voted yes with contributions.

While members flooded each other’s coffers in the final days of the first-quarter fundraising period, House leaders gave little to those who voted no on healthcare reform. In the final week-plus of the quarter, neither Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) nor Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) gave money to any member who voted no.

This, of course, is standard politics- reward those who help you, ditch those who don’t. Heck, it’s standard in life. Still, it’s clear that leading Democrats and liberal groups are a) as big on ideological purity as the Republican Party is accused of, and b) unwilling to look at the longer picture, namely that it’s the Democrats who voted against the law that are the ones Democrats NEED if they want to win consecutive elections, and have a long run at ruining America’s financial future.

Of course, these so-called “conservadems” and “DINOs” will be replaced by relatively moderate Republicans and conservatives in many districts, as the political pendulum swings, and in a year I’ll probably be criticizing RINOs and moderate conservatives as they vote for bad bills. However, given the lack of support from their leadership, and the strength of the conservative movement heading into the midterms…maybe we’ll actually have a conservative House, not just a Republican majority House. At that point, we can start putting good legislation on the table, not just opposing bad legislation.

April 22, 2010 | Filed Under Banner, Featured Content, Politics and Policy | 3 Comments

Is Senator Coburn Throwing the Base Under the Bus?

Update: I took my original title from a comment someone made about Coburn’s comments on Facebook- a friend pointed out that I had used the term “enemy” which, given the circumstances I commented on below and the fact that most of the readers of this post will not have read the comment I took the original title from, is inappropriate. I have changed the title, and apologize for not catching this before.

Yesterday, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) defended Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) as a decent person:

“Come on now. She is nice – how many of you all have met her? She’s a nice person,” Coburn said as he went on to lecture the crowd about civility.

“Just because somebody disagrees with you dodn’t (sic) mean they’re not a good person,” Coburn said. “I’ve been in the senate for five years and I’ve taken a lot of that, because I’ve been on the small side –- both in the Republican Party and the Democrat Party.”

Coburn then went on to say that conservatives should not listen solely to Fox News, and refuted a talking point on Fox regarding the insurance mandate in the new health care law.

During the town hall, Coburn was hissed and booed at. Personally, I agree with him about Fox- conservatives need to use other resources to get their news. Fox is but one of the many available, and one that is certainly skewed both ideologically and, sometimes, factually.

However, I disagree with Coburn that Pelosi is a nice person. I’ve seen too much of her on TV, and read too much about her, to think otherwise. As such, I think Coburn is caught up in the Beltway attitude that caused former Senator Kennedy (D-MA) and Senator Hatch (R-UT) to be good friends- namely, that one Member should gloss over the bad things a Member has done.

This is not to say that political disagreements should get in the way of friendship- quite the opposite, in fact. I have many friends who are Democrats and liberals, and I expect most Senators and Representatives have friends on the opposite side of the aisle (I ran into Reps. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, for example, walking and chatting together). However, when Kennedy kills a young woman and gets away with it, or Pelosi lies on national TV about the Catholic Church’s position on abortion, friendship and camaraderie should be hard to come by. Coburn is a great senator, and I believe his intent was to hearken back to the days of Tip O’Neill and Ronald Reagan, when they used to drink together after work…but to call Pelosi a good or nice person is really a stretch. There are many other examples of people Coburn could have used, including honorable and respectable Democratic Members such as Russ Feingold or Ron Wyden- Members who stick to their guns and don’t have the records of lying and manipulation Kennedy and Pelosi do.

April 7, 2010 | Filed Under Shorts | Comments Off

Why This Bill Needs To Crash & Burn

With the House health care vote tomorrow likely to go in favor of Democrats, Republicans and conservatives are doubling down on their pressure on Democrats. We cannot let up until the final vote is cast. The vote is expected to happen tomorrow afternoon, so please call offices and spread around as much as you can just why we should oppose this latest boondoggle. I have gathered information from a variety of sources, and hopefully they can be of assistance.

Regarding the Congressional Budget Office score and other budget concerns:

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) pointed was on Fox yesterday morning, and he pointed out some flaws in the CBO’s score of the House bill. They include accusations that the bill double-counts Medicare cuts, double-counts taxes, and doesn’t include the Doc Fix which, according to CBO in a report released after the bill’s score, would raise the deficit:

You asked about the total budgetary impact of enacting the reconciliation proposal (the amendment to H.R. 4872), the Senate-passed health bill (H.R. 3590), and the Medicare Physicians Payment Reform Act of 2009 (H.R. 3961). CBO estimates that enacting all three pieces of legislation would add $59 billion to budget deficits over the 2010–2019 period.

Under current law, Medicare’s payment rates for physicians’ services will be reduced by about 21 percent in April 2010 and by an average of about 2 percent per year for the rest of the decade. H.R. 3961 would increase those payment rates by 1.2 percent in 2010 and would restructure the sustainable growth rate mechanism beginning in 2011. Those changes would result in significantly higher payment rates for physicians than those that would result under current law. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3961, by itself, would cost about $208 billion over the 2010–2019 period. (That estimate reflects the enactment of two short-term extension acts, which lowered the cost in 2010 by about $2 billion compared with CBO’s estimate of November 4, 2009.)…

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3961 together with those two bills would add $59 billion to budget deficits over the 2010–2019 period. That amount is about $10 billion less than the figure that would result from summing the effects of enacting the bills separately. The $10 billion difference occurs primarily because H.R. 3590 and the reconciliation proposal would modify how the government’s payments to Medicare Advantage plans are set.

Secondly, the CBO score assumes the following:

CBO has not extrapolated estimates further into the future because the uncertainties surrounding them are magnified even more. However, in view of the projected net savings during the decade following the 10-year budget window, CBO anticipates that the reconciliation proposal would probably continue to reduce budget deficits relative to those under current law in subsequent decades, assuming that all of its provisions would continue to be fully implemented.

What are some of these provisions? They include hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicare cuts that Democrats will immediately move into covering the “Donut Hole.” So, as Ryan noted, the numbers are both double-counted and, furthermore, should we really believe Democrats are going to cut Medicare?

Secondly, the CBO never says the bill will save $1.3 trillion in the second decade, despite what Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) and President Obama are claiming. If you read the letter sent to Pelosi, the CBO says the savings might, if things go really, really well, end up being equal to, or less than, a one-half of one percent of GDP in savings. Unless Democrats are expecting a $130 trillion GDP for America, their numbers are wrong.

Last, but certainly not least, according to The Washington Examiner’s Byrok York, the bill includes the CLASS Act, which is a long-term care program that the CBO accounts for in its analysis. The problem? The CLASS Act is unaffordable in the long run, but the CBO only counts the intake of money, not the expenditures. Furthermore, it includes the Democrats’ student loan modifications, which is where much of the savings for the bill will come from. (Both of these points are explained in some detail here.) So, to summarize, the bill takes in a lot of money, but does not spend much of it for years. These and other budgetary concerns are analyzed quite well here, and by the Senate Budget Committee’s minority staff here.

I need to clarify, by the way, that I am not criticizing the CBO. They analyze what they are given by politicians, and so their numbers are sometimes necessarily incorrect. Blame the politicians- on both sides, yes, but in this case, the Democrats- for gaming the system so dishonestly. Furthermore, the CBO letter is a preliminary letter, which means its analysis is necessarily vague and has many suppositions. As Daniel Foster notes at The Corner, the final one is supposed to be out this weekend.

More bureaucracy and cost for Americans:

According to The Washington Examiner, the bill to be voted on would increase the number of IRS employees by over 16,000. So let me get this straight- we need more IRS employees? Well, I suppose they were doing such a good job with Geithner, Rangel, Daschle and the rest…

It gets worse, however. According to Americans for Tax Reform, the following occur in the bill:

The number of new tax increases in the healthcare bill: 19
The number of tax increases that unquestionably violate President Obama’s “firm pledge” not to raise “any form” of taxes on families making less than $250,000: 7
The tax increase over the first decade if the healthcare bill becomes law: $497 billion
The top federal tax rate on wages and self-employment earnings under this bill: 43.4%
The annual tax hike for every man, woman, and child in America: $165
The top federal tax rate on early distributions from HSAs under this bill: 59.6%

Next, according to Republican Representative Kevin Brady (R-TX) (H/T to the Examiner):

In addition to more complicated tax returns, families and small businesses will be forced to reveal further tax information to the IRS, provide proof of ‘government approved’ health care and submit detailed sales information to comply with new excise taxes.

Thirdly, there are a number of tax increases in the bill. Hundreds of billions of dollars worth, in fact, and they would hit those making less than $250,000 in some cases. Once again, the president is violating his pledge to not hit lower-income Americans. For some reason, Democrats continue to want to reduce the budget by increasing taxes. Or, to put it another way, they believe that hurting the economic growth of America is the way to go.

Fun Fact: Caterpillar will have its costs increased by $100 million in the first year of ObamaCare.

Special Deals- Remember, President Obama doesn’t care about the process

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) made a Profile In Courage statement Thursday that should send chills down the backs of every Democrat who changes from a “No” vote to a “Yes” vote in the House tomorrow. He threatened to- brace yourselves- hold them accountable, as well as those Democrats who accept deals for their “Yes” votes. Check out the video of Coburn’s statement here.

Unfortunately, some Democrats haven’t paid attention, it seems. Fox News reports a number of states getting special deals, including North Dakota, where last year’s “Yes” vote Earl Pomeroy is from. However, Pomeroy has a tough race this year, and is rumored to be concerned about the abortion elements of the House vote. Is he being bribed with the North Dakota assistance? Considering his is the only state with a loophole regarding the nationalization of the student loan industry (the bank in North Dakota is the only state-run bank in the nation), and he was named Chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee after the Rangel dust-up…I’d say it’s possible. (Full disclosure: my uncle is Pomeroy’s Chief of Staff, which is why I am saying it’s possible, not definite. My uncle wouldn’t work for a bought-and-paid-for Congressman, as my uncle is an honest guy.) The exemption may be pulled, however, as Democratic North Dakota Senator Kent Conrad is asking for it to be eliminated to avoid controversy.

Other deals noted by Fox include:

Retains $300 million in extra Medicaid aid for Louisiana, which had helped win support for the Senate health bill from Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La. The state is still struggling to recover from Hurricane Katrina.
Keeps $100 million included in the Senate bill that is expected to go for a public hospital in Connecticut sought by Dodd, who is retiring.
Preserves language won by Baucus permitting many of the 2,900 residents of Libby, Mont., to qualify for Medicare benefits. Some of them have asbestos-related diseases from a now-shuttered mine.
Provides an additional $8.5 billion over the next decade for 11 states and the District of Columbia to help them pay for the more generous Medicaid assistance they have been providing low-income residents. These states are Arizona, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.
Maintains a Senate-approved provision giving extra money for hospitals and doctors in North and South Dakota, Montana and Wyoming.

Another possible deal is noted by the House Republican Conference on their website, where water regulation changes are being accused of acting as a quid-pro-quo. Is it true? We cannot be certain, but the water legislation comes dangerously close to two California Democrats’ support for the bill.

I guess I don’t understand- Americans are against the bill, against the process…and still Democrats can’t get the message?

In Short:

When it comes down to it, this bill is including the deals typically denigrated by Americans as normal in Congress; it raises the deficit significantly, at an estimated cost of over two trillion dollars; raises taxes on Americans; and continues the over-regulation of American health care. These and other reasons are why we need to keep pushing this over the next 22 hours, convincing our fellow Americans to tell their Democratic representatives to vote against the bill. Here is a partial list of people to call, and here is a lengthier one.

With the House health care vote tomorrow likely to go in favor of Democrats, Republicans and conservatives are doubling down their pressure on Democrats. (http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/19/nrcc-upping-pressure-on-altmire/) However, we who live around the country cannot let up, either. The vote is expected to happen tomorrow afternoon, so please call offices and spread around as much as you can just why we should oppose this latest boondoggle. I have gathered information from a variety of sources, and hopefully they can be of assistance.

Regarding the Congressional Budget Office Score and other budget concerns:

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) pointed was on Fox yesterday morning, and he pointed out some flaws in the CBO’s score (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11355/hr4872.pdf). They include accusations that the bill double-counts Medicare cuts, double-counts taxes, and doesn’t include the Doc Fix which, according to CBO (http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/19/cbo-confirms-obamacare-with-doctor-fix-will-actually-add-billions-to-the-deficit/) in a report (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11376/RyanLtrhr4872.pdf) released after the bill’s score, would raise the deficit:

Secondly, the CBO score assumes the following:

What are some of these provisions? They include hundreds of billions of dollars (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/19/hiding-the-true-cost-of-obamacare/) in Medicare cuts that Democrats will immediately move into covering the “Donut Hole.” So, as Ryan noted, the numbers are both double-counted and, furthermore, should we really believe Democrats are going to cut Medicare?

Secondly, there are a number of tax increases (http://www.gop.gov/blog/10/03/20/important-health-care-takeover-by) in the bill. Hundreds of billions of dollars worth, in fact, and they would hit those making $250,000 in some cases. Once again, the president is violating his pledge to not hit lower-income Americans. In short, Democrats want to reduce the budget by increasing taxes. Or, to put it another way, they believe that hurting the economic growth of America is the way to go.

Thirdly, the CBO never says the bill will save $1.3 trillion in the second decade, despite what Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) and President Obama are claiming. If you read the letter sent to Pelosi, the CBO says the savings might, if things go really, really well, end up being equal to, or less than, a one-half of one percent of GDP in savings. Unless Democrats are expecting a $130 trillion GDP for America, their numbers are wrong.

Last, but certainly not least, according to The Washington Examiner’s Byrok York, the bill includes the CLASS Act, which is a long-term care program that the CBO accounts for in its analysis. The problem? The CLASS Act is unaffordable in the long run, but the CBO only counts the intake of money, not the expenditures. Furthermore, it includes the Democrats’ student loan modifications, which is where much of the savings for the bill will come from. (Both of these points are explained in some detail here (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/19/checking-the-math-on-health-care/?src=me.) So, to summarize, the bill takes in a lot of money, but does not spend much of it for years. This is analyzed quite well here (http://www.qando.net/?p=7542), and by the Senate Budget Committee’s minority staff here. (http://budget.senate.gov/republican/pressarchive/2010-03-18BudgetPerspective.pdf)

I need to clarify, by the way, that I am not criticizing the CBO. They analyze what they are given by politicians, and so their numbers are sometimes necessarily incorrect. Blame the politicians- on both sides, yes, but in this case, the Democrats- for gaming the system so dishonestly. Furthermore, the CBO letter is a preliminary letter, which means its analysis is necessarily vague and has many suppositions. As Daniel Foster notes (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjYzMTJjMmYyYjM1ZGUyMWUxMDQwMjNiMDJmZWEzOTg=) at The Corner, the final one is supposed to be out this weekend.

More bureaucracy and cost for Americans:

According to The Washington Examiner, the bill to be voted on would increase the number of IRS employees by over 16,000 (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/16500-more-IRS-agents-needed-to-enforce-Obamacare-88458137.html). So let me get this straight- we need more IRS employees? Well, I suppose they were doing such a good job with Geithner, Rangel, Daschle and the rest…

According to Americans for Tax Reform (http://www.atr.org/obamacare-numbers-a4664), the following occur in the bill:

The number of new tax increases in the healthcare bill: 19

The number of tax increases that unquestionably violate President Obama’s “firm pledge” not to raise “any form” of taxes on families making less than $250,000: 7

The tax increase over the first decade if the healthcare bill becomes law: $497 billion

The top federal tax rate on wages and self-employment earnings under this bill: 43.4%

The annual tax hike for every man, woman, and child in America: $165

The top federal tax rate on early distributions from HSAs under this bill: 59.6%

Next, according to Republican Representative Kevin Brady (R-TX) (H/T to the Examiner):

Fun Fact: Caterpillar will have its costs increased by $100 million in the first year of ObamaCare. (http://www.chicagobreakingbusiness.com/2010/03/caterpillar-health-care-bill-would-cost-it-100m.html)

Special Deals- Remember, President Obama doesn’t care about the process (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_R_-dxRw-g)

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) made a Profile In Courage statement (http://online.worldmag.com/2010/03/19/tom-coburn-a-profile-in-courage/) Thursday that should send chills down the backs of every Democrat who changes from a “No” vote to a “Yes” vote in the House tomorrow. He threatened to- brace yourselves- hold them accountable, as well as those Democrats who accept deals for their “Yes” votes. Check out the video of Coburn’s statement here. (http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/18/coburn-threatens-house-dems-if-you-think-youll-get-away-with-selling-your-vote-think-again/)

Unfortunately, some Democrats haven’t paid attention, it seems. Fox News reports a number of states getting special deals (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/18/cornhusker-kickback-gets-boot-health/), including North Dakota, where last year’s “Yes” vote Earl Pomeroy is from. However, Pomeroy has a tough race this year, and is rumored to be concerned (http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2010/March/Abortion-Funding-Still-a-HC-Bill-Concern/) about the abortion elements of the House vote. Is he being bribed with the North Dakota assistance? Considering his is the only state with a loophole regarding the nationalization of the student loan industry (the bank in North Dakota is the only state-run bank in the nation), and he was named (http://www.pomeroy.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=175610) Chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee after the Rangel dust-up…I’d say it’s possible. (Full disclosure: my uncle is Pomeroy’s Chief of Staff, which is why I am saying it’s possible, not definite. My uncle wouldn’t work for a bought-and-paid-for Congressman, as my uncle is an honest guy.) The exemption may be pulled, however, as Democratic North Dakota Senator Kent Conrad is asking for it to be eliminated to avoid controversy. (http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/03/nebraska_conrad_helath_student.html)

Other deals noted by Fox include:

_Retains $300 million in extra Medicaid aid for Louisiana, which had helped win support for the Senate health bill from Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La. The state is still struggling to recover from Hurricane Katrina.

_Keeps $100 million included in the Senate bill that is expected to go for a public hospital in Connecticut sought by Dodd, who is retiring.

_Preserves language won by Baucus permitting many of the 2,900 residents of Libby, Mont., to qualify for Medicare benefits. Some of them have asbestos-related diseases from a now-shuttered mine.

_Provides an additional $8.5 billion over the next decade for 11 states and the District of Columbia to help them pay for the more generous Medicaid assistance they have been providing low-income residents. These states are Arizona, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.

_Maintains a Senate-approved provision giving extra money for hospitals and doctors in North and South Dakota, Montana and Wyoming.

The House Republican Conference has a possible deal noted on their website (http://www.gop.gov/policy-news/10/03/19/water-torture–another), where water regulation changes are being accused of acting as a quid-pro-quo. Is it true? We cannot be certain, but the water legislation comes dangerously close to two California Democrats’ support for the bill.

When it comes down to it, this bill is including the deals typically denigrated by Americans as normal in Congress; it raises the deficit significantly, at an estimated cost of over two trillion dollars; and continues the over-regulation of American health care. We need to keep pushing this over the next 22 hours, convincing our fellow Americans to tell their Democratic representatives to vote against the bill. Here is a partial list of people to call (http://lauraingraham.com/b/The-final-ObamaCare-call-list/-929452880079376119.html), and here is a lengthier one (http://www.nrcc.org/CodeRed/targets/).

March 20, 2010 | Filed Under Featured Content, Politics and Policy | 1 Comment

The Staff Did It

Or so says Ways & Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel:

Rangel said last night at a news conference that “common sense dictates that members of Congress should not be held responsible for what could be the wrongdoing or mistakes or errors of staff unless there’s reason to believe that member knew or should have known, and there is nothing in the record to indicate the latter.”

Later:

While Rangel said he relied on information from the House Ethics Committee in deciding to attend the Carribean trips, the ethics committee says that Rangel’s aides tried at least three times to show him his trips had corporate sponsors, the Associated Press reports.

Rangel reportedly denies seeing any of these written communications, which included two staff memos sent to him in 2008 and a letter addressed to him in 2007. The committee’s report says investigators could not determine whether or not Rangel actually saw them.

What a joke Rangel is. The main focus of the article is that Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) is backing Rangel, and that’s even more of a joke. The Speaker has the gall to say that she is running the “most ethical and honest Congress in history.” This is despite, according to USA TODAY in January, the fact that no Member of Congress has been punished for wrongdoing, though many accusations of various wrongdoings have been lodged. Let’s keep draining the swamp, America.

March 1, 2010 | Filed Under Shorts | Comments Off

My Semi-Random Open Thread on the Health Care Summit

We all know this “summit” is a crock, but it’s technically newsworthy, so I am going to be commenting on it throughout the day. I do have other things going on, so it won’t be an every-minute-update thing, but I’ll do what I can. You can watch the crock of a summit at C-SPAN here.

A few minutes ago, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) spoke very well about how reconciliation should be off the table, and quoted Senators Reid, Obama and Byrd going after reconciliation. Byrd did it last year, and Reid and Obama did it during the Bush administration. He also noted that cost should be the primary concern, as lowering cost would bring higher coverage.

One thing that really ticked me off- President Obama called Alexander, Reid, Obama House Speaker Pelosi and Senator John McCain by their first names. What is it with this guy and demeaning those around him? We all know he’s arrogant- certainly not the only one in summit; as my father put it, the people in Congress are “certifiably narcissistic”- but this is just too much. Show a little respect.

10:54- Obama says one of the goals is to see where “we agree” and disagree, and where we can bridge these differences. See my earlier post today quoting Major Garrett about how the White House does NOT want to reconcile Republican and Democratic issues.

10:55- Obama says they should not worry about the process, but just worry about the substance. So…we shouldn’t worry about reconciliation? Give me a break.

10:57- Obama quotes the CBO as saying premiums will be lowered by exchanges. What he ignores…Alexander interrupts him! Obama calls Alexander a liar- should be an interesting exchange. (This is almost as exciting as…curling?)

10:59- Obama is quoting the CBO at length. Obama calls Alexander Lamar again, as Alexander tries to defend his points.

11:00- Obama is still rambling. Will he ever let the bipartisan part of the summit happen? Yadda, yadda, yadda, we have used every cost containment out there, yadda, yadda, yadda. Calls Republicans stupid. He won’t let Alexander get his point across. He wants Alexander to compliment his bill, because he was too critical before. *Aw…*

11:02- Alexander, RESPECTFULLY disagrees with Obama on the CBO- but instead of taking advantage of the opening, says other people should talk first. Oy. Come on, Senator- OOH! McConnell wants Coburn to take the lead on cost containment. *Chuckles evilly* (For the record, exaggerated responses are that way on purpose. I’m not really THAT excited about this stuff.)

11:03- Coburn takes off with a cautionary note. Goes right into a medical analogy- treating the symptom not the disease. 1/3 of dollars don’t help people get better or prevent sickness in America. 60% of American health care is government-directed. Why does it cost so much? COST is the biggest issue.

11:05- All people will get treated, and will get labeled with a pre-existing condition. Preventing acute asthma (example) is not well done in America. How do we lower the cost? 10% of the cost is fraud. Someone else Coburn quotes says 15%. That’s $150 billion dollars. We could cut costs by 7.5% tomorrow. A large portion of ordered tests are because of the lack of tort reform.

11:07- Thompson-Reuters says $625 to over $800 billion of health care costs annually are wasted. That fits with Dartmouth Atlas numbers of about 1/3. Coburn talks about philosophical differences. Says we can cut costs by 15% tomorrow. What would happen to access to health coverage? It would go up.

11:08- We don’t incentivize prevention. Management of disease is not encouraged. We encourage bad lawsuits.

11:09- Pay people who do a good job of prevention. Change the food stamp programs to incentivize, and lunch programs to incentivize, less diabetes and better health. We create diabetes through school lunch and food stamp programs. Let’s look at medical malpractice, incentivizing through states, elimination of fraud- private rate of fraud is 1%- we haven’t gone where the money is.

11:10- Let’s go after the 1 in 3 dollars. Let’s create rewarding incentives. Compliments Obama’s bill where it’s good.

11:19- I took a break to talk to my friend RJ, before I fell asleep watching this. House Majority Leader Hoyer is speaking about how incentivizing care needs to be done. Talks about the public option and how it would open up access and competition. He mentions the Donut Hole in Medicare Part D. He says the House bill covers the Donut Hole. He also says Americans are watching the summit, which is a laugh.

11:21- Obama calls Senator Baucus and Senator Coburn “Max” and “Tom.” Demeaning again. He compliments Coburn on cutting fraud and abuse, and compliments the First Lady on trying to lower obesity.

11:22- Obama tries to sound normal- “hearin’”- before talking about the public option, and asks to hear the Republican opposition to it. He says it provides a larger group that will have more “purchasin’ power” for insurance. He says some Republicans have supported public options in the past.

11:23- A Republican from Maryland- I didn’t catch his name- talks about incremental reform and small business. He says half of the uninsured work for small businesses or depend on someone who does. He supports small businesses banding together to get the advantages of larger businesses, which helps by lowering administrative costs, among other advantages. He says small businesses have been asking for this for years, and he says this is better than the exchanges.

11:25- Obama is controlling this event very well. Kudos to him, no kudos to Republicans.

11:26- Senator Baucus say “we are very close” on this. He thinks the gaps are not that great. *CoughBS* Oh, pardon me.

11:27- Baucus says Democratic bill allows insurance across state lines and says Secretary of HHS Sebelius is working with states on lawsuit abuse. Says HSA expansion is not bad, but they don’t help the poor as much.

I’m done for now- I have stuff to do that’s way more important than watching this.

Update: Turns out I was an hour behind on all of my original posts- they are updated to the accurate times.

12:36- HHS Secretary Sebelius is talking about pre-existing conditions, and says having insurance companies segregating the healthy and unhealthy is- darn, I forget the exact quote- the worst part of our health care system. Something like that. I think she’s forgetting about abortion…

12:38- Rep. Cantor is talking. He is boring, and is doing the party-line thing about how both sides care, yadda, yadda, yadda. Okay, here he goes- Republicans and the people don’t care for the Democratic bill. But he has to get off the talking points. Fast.

12:39- If Washington gets to define benefits, that’s bad. But let’s assume Washington COULD decide what is most essential well…first- GREAT job, Cantor, hitting Obama on the lack of a CBO score- there are big taxes. It will hurt small businesses.

12:41- Cantor quotes the CBO saying the construct of the Senate bill would cause people to lose insurance. Risky, Cantor- they said those people would go to the public option, I believe, NOT lose their insurance.

12:42- Cantor says to start over. The structure we can’t agree on, but there are areas of agreement.

12:43- Obama mocks Cantor’s change of coverage numbers and compares them to the huge number of people in the country. Can we do that when he talks about individual stories that “prove” his point. Now he’s mocking Cantor more about page numbers. *Yawn*

12:44- He is now comparing meat inspectors and food cost to health insurance. Drug prices, same thing. We already have way too many regulations, Mr. President, on health care. (Barack?)

12:45- Obama says Republicans don’t believe in getting rid of regulations- darn, he’s back to the individual stories- now he says Republicans agree with him on having regulations. He keeps talking about insurance reform, NOT health CARE reform. Big difference.

12:47- He called Sebelius Kathleen…oy. He talks about the page numbers so much, my goodness.

Done again. I can’t stand this anymore. My afternoon meeting was canceled last-minute, so I’m watching “Gladiator.” I’ve never seen it before. (Republicans are letting Obama dominate this too much, anyway. They need to hammer him on abortion, the CBO non-scoring, etc. COME ON, people.)

12:50- Ooh, Cantor is talking about how we can’t afford this, it’s not a perfect world and we should go step-by-step. Good for him. He says to set aside the mandate, and go back to things we can agree on.

12:51- VP Biden is making a stupid argument- he says either have government or don’t. NO MIDDLE GROUND. What a moron.

12:51- Cantor vs. Obama is good, actually- he has Obama stuttering and pausing and avoiding questions.

Back to the movie…

Update: Gladiator is overrated. Back to the health care “summit.”

2:33- Rep. Marsha Blackburn is talking about Anthem raising costs- and talking about interstate insurance buying. She must have read what I posted yesterday on Daily Caller.

2:34- “Care delayed” and…options?…delayed are care and options delayed. Something like that. Really good. State legislatures and governors should be given more control.

2:35- He called her Marsha. AUGH! Now he is agreeing with interstate insurance purchasing.

2:36- Obama is saying the unemployed are leaving insurance because of costs. He’s right. This, as he is explaining, causes those who need insurance to keep it at more cost. The answer, he says, is to broaden the pool. How about getting people JOBS?

2:37- Bridge the gap- national exchange with minimum standards.

2:38- He used to be against the mandate- now he’s for it. (He said “sayin’”- really pushing that average person thing, huh?) Independent economists support something he is talking about…unnamed, of course. Shall we take his word for it?

2:40- STOP CALLING PEOPLE BY FIRST NAME!

2:40- Blackburn is responding- she says Obama wants to let (he just interrupted her) companies in, she wants to let people out. He is so rude.

2:41- Stop talking and let her talk. You rude man. He just said “I want to finish this, guys” when BLACKBURN, a woman, tried to finish. Come on, great communicator. Get the gender right, at least.

2:41- He didn’t let her finish. He moved on. What a tool.

2:42- He called Biden “Joe.” Now Biden is talking about the impact on the deficit. He admits to not knowing what Americans want- he’s been in DC too long. How about polls, town halls and voting?

2:43- Comparing this debate to Social Security mandates. Both are immoral. Plain and simple. (My take, not Biden’s.) Biden almost swore. *Chuckle*

2:44- “We all agree” that costs have doubled in a decade, costs have huge waste, and America has the best doctors. Biden needs to be quiet now- he’s yakking randomly. He is all over the place. He sounds like Olbermann.

2:45- CBO has scored the various plans regarding bending the cost curve, says Biden. He says the Senate bill cuts costs, but it does not. He is forgetting that the CBO looked at ten years to 2019, but expenditures only go out from 2013, so the calculations are wrong. Not CBO’s fault- it’s the fault of the people in DC. What a bunch of narcissistic buffoons, almost all of them.

2:47- He hasn’t breathed in three minutes. Be quiet, Biden.

2:48- He is still talking- but he is talking about not overpaying insurance companies in Medicare Advantage and getting rid of waste. WHAT ABOUT PAYMENT REFORM? That’s the biggest issue. Biden is still talking. Oy. His voice is almost as annoying as Obama’s…

2:49- He said he wants to make another point…but he hasn’t made one yet. He says he wants to bend the cost curve- no, really? WOW! Does he say anything of substance?

2:50- Rep. Ryan is starting off strong. Go Ryan! He is now quoting Obama as saying he won’t sign a single dollar to the deficit, and says no CBO score for the Obama bill, but compares it to the Senate bill. He says it will not lower the deficit, and is now going through it. GO RYAN!

2:52- Gimmicks and smoke and mirrors- GO RYAN! He says the bill costs $2.3 trillion, not the less than $1 trillion Obama claims. Now he is going through, line-by-line, and is citing that part of the bill is a Ponzi scheme.

2:53- He says the bill cuts Medicare to make new program, not help Medicare. Says the chief actuary of Medicare says businesses will go under, and it will hurt people. According to Ryan, cutting out the gimmicks, it’s a huge deficit, and the most cynical gimmick is leaving the Doc Fix out. YAY! GO RYAN! WOO-HOO!

2:54- “Hiding spending does not reduce spending.” Where is the cost curve going? It’s going up, says the Medicare actuary.

2:55- “We agree the status quo is unsustainable.” This is not the answer, and the analysis we get proves that. Ryan says “we represent” the people, and if Biden does not know what they think, he’s not listening to what the people are saying.

2:56- Obama is stu-stutt-stuttering…again. )

2:57- “Your side,” Obama? What about post-partisanship?

2:58- Obama is talking about Medicare Advantage. No comment, as I don’t know enough about it to say anything.

2:59- Ryan looks very composed, and unlike Obama kind of confident and relaxed.

3:00- Senator McCain is saying why should Florida be a special case about Medicare dollars? HAHAHAHAHA! Go McCain.

3:01- Coburn is saying do we want to leave more debt for our kids? Seniors don’t want that. (Oh, no- now he is talking about Oklahoma. Don’t do that. Stay on the nation…) Say we are broke, Medicare is broke, let’s not add new benefits, and let’s make sure current benefits are spread more fairly.

3:02- Obama seems to be confident about Medicare Advantage, or rather, his take on it being bad for 80% of seniors. DON’T CALL COBURN TOM! Call him “Dr.” or “Senator” or something respectful.

3:03- Obama said “previous Congress on Medicare Advantage,” but it happened under the previous administration, NOT the Congress. He apologizes for breaking decorum…but he keeps doing it. Over and over.

3:04- Rep. Becerra is saying there needs to be a referee on the field. Do we believe CBO or not? Good point. He’s hammering Ryan- gentlemanly- for supporting CBO over the years and is now saying they are wrong.

3:05- Ryan is interrupting. Good for him. He’s now clarifying- Becerra is finishing. He is doing well, but he is manipulating what Ryan said. Becerra is quoting CBO regarding deficit, and is saying they say the bills will lower deficit in the second decade.

3:06- Becerra is talking about overutilization. Good. He at least recognizes the issue exists.

3:07- My prediction…Obama won’t let Ryan respond to Becerra’s manipulation of what Ryan said. Watch. I’ll be right.

3:08- Follow-throughs on care. Becerra knows his stuff. Yup. Coordination of care will lower costs dramatically. He is right. Let Ryan speak, though. You can do it…

3:09- Darn…they didn’t let Ryan talk. McConnell didn’t let him talk. Darn. Senator Grassley is reading the statute for Medicare Advantage. He needs to stop talking now. Let Ryan talk. Please. I ask you, Senator…

3:10- Grassley is reading some letter. LET RYAN TALK! Grassley has an awful voice for this stuff. He also is not a dynamic thinker, and sounds like a partisan hack. (Obama called him “Chuck.”)

3:11- He sounds like Biden. Oy…

3:13- Grassley needs to stop talking. Now. Let Ryan talk. Now. Be quiet. Please…Ooh, never mind. He’s going after the mandate…never mind. He’s going on a rant now about grassroots.

3:14- Grassley needs to stop talking. He needs to retire. Stay on focus, man. Come on. Don’t talk about your state, you sound like a buffoon.

3:15- Good point- no cuts will happen, as hospitals will close. CBO grades what’s in front of them versus the reality of future Congresses. He’s right, but could have said it much more succinctly. Now he keeps being a buffoon, and says he learned about health care last year. He sounds like a buffoon.

3:16- Obama is talking about hard decisions- we’re in big trouble if nobody will make those decisions. He’s right. Which is why DC needs to be taken over by people who aren’t politicians, and are business people and not DC-ers.

3:17- But…but…SPEAK, Mr. President. You can do it. Ooh, hitting insurance companies for making a lot of money. True? I don’t know. Average is 3%. I don’t know about Medicare Advantage.

3:18- Grassley is taking 30 seconds to respond- he’s doing well thus far. He is saying the cuts won’t happen. He’s right.

3:19- Obama is saying MA (Medicare Advantage) is going to insurance companies. He called Senator Conrad “Kent.”

3:20- This should be interesting. Conrad is a smart, effective moderate Democrat. Medicare is going to go broke in eight years.

3:20- Do we want to endanger benefits for Medicare recipients? If so, do nothing. Period. So, together, we can work together. Coburn left? What? Darn.

3:21- Let’s look at those who are chronically ill. 5% of Medicare beneficiaries use 50% of the Medicare dollars. Chronically ill people. Multiple serious illnesses. He commends Coburn regarding care and coordination of care. He’s right. Right on, Senator Conrad.

3:22- A study of 20,000 chronically ill people- 16 kinds of pills on average, they cut out eight. Thousands of dollars were saved. Coburn’s back. YAY! I think Conrad is referencing Dartmouth Atlas.

3:23- A doctor told Conrad that uncoordinated care was being caused, for Conrad’s deceased father-in-law, by chaos. We have a system that is chaotic. It is characterized by chaos. He’s right.

3:24- He prays we come together to work on this stuff. Obama called Beohner John…Beohner agrees with Obama’s premise of why the meeting happened- so he agrees with Obama’s lie? Come on, Leader Beohner. Please…

3:25- Ooh, he mocked Obama. “Let me explain why” people want health care reform to start over.

3:26- We are talking about “A new entitlement program that will bankrupt our country.” A dangerous experiment? We may have problems, but we have the best health care system in the world. He is using talking points, not policy. LET RYAN TALK!

3:27- $500 billion in new taxes in the bill he brought with him, as well as major Medicare cuts. We need to find savings, and use those $ to keep Medicare going. That was already said, Beohner. Move on. Okay, individual and employer mandates are bad. Good, keep going. Wal-Mart likes the mandate, because it can afford it but competitors can’t. (This last part is me, not Beohner.)

3:29- GO BEOHNER! Abortion! All right! Punch him in the kidneys! GO GO GO! WOO-HOO! President’s bill allows federal funding of abortion. Let’s start over, Obama. Let’s do a step-by-step approach. Bring costs down, expand access. Beohner is saying why can’t we agree on tort reform, medical malpractice, insurance buying between states, etc.?

3:30- Obama is now avoiding responsibility. Again. Calls Beohner a liar. He won’t go after agreement because…huh? I don’t get it.

3:31- He wants to stay on certain points, and now wants Jim Cooper to speak.

3:32- Rep. Cooper is a Blue Dog. This should be interesting. He quoted Ryan, and is now supporting competition about cutting deficits, and is saying let’s vote how we talk, when the cameras are gone. He is supporting McCain, Ryan and Coburn. Talk tough, but not vote tough, this is not good enough because of the costs. This is not good enough.

3:33- Conrad-Gregg bill for commission was voted down. He is right to blame Republicans for switching sides, but the commission is not a good way to address the deficit. It lets Congress avoid its responsibility. (My take.)

3:34- Our fiscal problem stinks. Badly. Really badly.

3:35- Tough votes aren’t there. Goes after Republicans for Medicare Advantage costs, and he’s right. Nobody’s hands are clean on our debt. Go for more savings if you don’t like the current bills. The American people will be watching after the cameras are done.

3:36- McCain is speaking- says to start over on the bill. Special deals are bad, and they are more than offensive. Medical malpractice reform. McCain is talking about California and Texas with malpractice reform. (What about Mississippi? They have a good one.) Lawsuit filings are down, defensive medicine increases costs by 10%. Recruitment for physicians is up. Licenses are up. (McCain knows his numbers.) 35% premium slashes by largest malpractice insurance company. All we have to do is enact this into legislation. BAM! Go McCain!

3:39- He is going after Reid for reconciliation. McCain has traction here, as he helped stop the reconciliation modification a few years ago. He is defending the filibuster, and says if reconciliation is done on an issue of this magnitude, it would harm the country and the institution (the Senate, I assume).

3:40- Obama wants to use reconciliation. YES WE ARE INTERESTED, YOU MORON! We want a vote. Not the reconciliation vote. He doesn’t know America at all.

3:41- Obama fairly goes after Beohner for being wrong on claiming tort reform as the biggest deal in health care reform. He says he cares about it, but only put a (relatively) tiny amount of money, $20 million, last year after his September speech.

3:42- Obama compliments Coburn on incentivizing states on medical malpractice reform. He says there is a contradiction with Republicans on respecting states in some ways. (Abortion? Who knows?)

I’m done for the day, everyone. Have a good one. I hope I was able to help.

3:44- Okay, never mind. I’m staying- Senator Durbin is right. Tort reform is not as big as Republicans say it is.

Now I’m bored. Bye.

Originally posted at www.race42012.com.

February 25, 2010 | Filed Under Featured Content | Comments Off

Media Holding Democrats Accountable on Transparency

Over the last few weeks, there has been talk of not having the traditional “conference” to meld the Senate and House health care reform bills. I laughed off such thoughts, as transparency is something this administration and congressional leaders have been hammered for over the last several months. However, it appears I was wrong. Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) and House Majority Leader Pelosi (D-CA) are setting things up so they will not have to have the conference, and instead get the “conference” bill without a conference.

This is bothersome. However, a number of media sources are doing their job and calling for the Obama administration to open the melding process to the public. (H/T to The Heritage Foundation’s “The Foundry.”) Let’s make our voices heard in support of C-Span’s efforts and make certain Democrats know they should have full transparency in this debate or face the wrath of the voters come November.

January 5, 2010 | Filed Under Shorts | Comments Off

An Actual Solution To Health Care Reform

As a third year medical student keeping a close eye on the progress of the health care reform proposals moving through the Democrat-controlled Congress,? thoughtful analysis leads to one conclusion ? a government takeover of the health care system is not the solution to the catastrophic problems we face.

I am concerned by the justification given by Democrat leaders and liberal newspaper editorial boards for supporting the ?public option.?? The Miami Herald recently opined ?private insurers don’t make a profit by insuring people likely to need coverage? ? which could be distilled to ?sick people cost more.?? The significance here is that insurance companies then charge them more making coverage increasingly unaffordable.? To complete the argument, the ?public option? would solve this problem.? The CBO says otherwise.? The non-partisan referee of this domestic policy heavyweight bout says the public plan would be more costly than the average private plan because it would ?engage in less management of utilization by its enrollees and attract a less healthy pool of enrollees?. In other words, sick people are more expensive independent of who is paying the bill.

To some, the answer to this problem is ?guaranteed issue? ? colloquially known as making it illegal to discriminate against those with pre-existing conditions.? This is known to drive up insurance premiums, in one study by 227%, making coverage for the young and healthy cost-prohibitive.? These are the coveted participants referred to obliquely above that allow the spread of social risk.? In the House bill, the penalty associated with foregoing insurance is 2.5% of adjusted gross income.? For a young person making $40,000, this amounts to $1000 ? small fare if purchasing insurance will cost between $6000 and $8000 ? especially if you don?t think you are going to get sick.? What to do now? As is the case with many government interventions into the private sector, we quickly become mired in how to fix the fixes.

The solution is much less complicated.? What Speaker Pelosi failed to do Friday in 1,990 pages of definitions, distinctions, and dictums, I will do in 418 words.

First, go after Medicare and Medicaid fraud.? A CBS 60 minutes investigation estimated the cost of that enterprise to the taxpayers at $60 billion a year.? A GAO study showed that in 2007, $32.7 billion of Medicaid payments were improper – this cost the state of NY alone over $5 billion. How can we justify expanding the role of government in health care before fixing the current iteration?

Second, sever the union of employers and insurance by taxing employer health plans as income and returning it to employees in the form of a tax credit to purchase insurance.? This would empower patients to choose plans that meet their needs while simultaneously making their plan of choice completely portable.

Third, allow the purchase of insurance across state lines to create a robust market of choices with coverage mandates to be decided by a panel of physicians ? not bureaucrats.? This will facilitate creation of plans for the young and healthy based mostly on routine checkups and catastrophic protection alongside ones for the chronically ill centered on meeting evidence-based guidelines to monitor their conditions.? This prescription gives insurance companies something they want in exchange for something we need.

Fourth, institute meaningful tort reform.? The Pacific Research Institute estimates we spend $200 billion annually on defensive medicine.? Compensating those who are truly harmed and punishing the neglectful does not require trial lawyers.? Physicians traditionally spend 4 years in undergraduate school, 4 years in medical school, and between 3-7 years in residency with a fellowship to follow should they decide to further specialize.? Loss of a license equals loss of a career and loss of 10+ years of one?s life spent intensely training.?? In this medical student?s opinion, there exists no harsher punishment.

Finally, reform the Medicare physician payment formula.? The SGR is an archaic method to determine reimbursement that underpays doctors and forces them to take on less Medicare patients and more of the privately insured in order to cover costs.? The current legislation under consideration in both houses of Congress imposes a 25% across-the-board pay cut to Medicare?s physicians ? Svengali accounting at best and because it will never happen, also blatantly dishonest.? 13 Democrats joined all 40 Republicans voting down the ?doctor fix? bill in the Senate two weeks ago largely because it was seen an attempt to hide the true cost of health care reform.? The adjustment will cost $250 billion over a decade but is a necessary addition to comprehensive legislation to ensure that our senior citizens continue receiving high-quality care.

This five-point plan at Ms. Pelosi?s price of $2.2 million per word only costs only $1 billion.? Please make the check payable to Nicholas Rohrhoff.

From hearing the gentleman repairing my family’s refrigerator the summer before medical school mention how many more he has to repair in order to afford his coronary bypass surgery to sitting in a classroom of 150 extraordinary colleagues called to serve their fellow citizens in the noblest of professions;? From seeing my father?s corporate job disappear in the financial meltdown along with my family?s insurance policy to having a colleague at the University of Florida ask me if we, as future physicians, are going to need second careers in order to secure our financial futures ? I?ve drawn an undeniable conclusion: people are policy.

Health care reform is the domestic issue that will define my generation.? How we decide to take care of each other will be our legacy. ?Unleashing the remarkable ability of the American patient as consumer to bring down costs and increase quality (with appropriate consumer protections and subsidies for those in need) and incentivizing physicians to provide high-quality care and push the envelope of medical innovation is the answer.? As Candidate Obama said, ?We are the ones we?ve been waiting for.?? We are the real public option.

-nicholas rohrhoff is a third year medical student at the University of Miami?s Miller School of Medicine

November 4, 2009 | Filed Under Banner, Featured Content, Politics and Policy | 1 Comment

Support These Democrats

I posted about President Obama’s abortion sleight-of-hand yesterday, and one commenter wanted to know who the Democrats were that challenged the president and Speaker Pelosi in a letter about abortion funding in any health care reform bills. The list can be found here, along with the letter to Speaker Pelosi.

Please take the time to contact the offices of these Representatives and offer your support for their admirable efforts. Representative Bart Stupak (D-MI) has led the charge and has done a great job thus far, even acknowledging his willingness to lose his seat by opposing government-supported abortion.

October 28, 2009 | Filed Under Shorts | 1 Comment

Obama Pulling Job Loss Heart Strings

In the last year we’ve blown $2 Trillion.? Most of us have nothing to show for it.? Job loss in September was higher than expected.? The Obama administration wants to spend more of our money.? And now they have turned to pulling on the heart strings of the double-digit figure portion of America that is without a steady income.

Saturday, Obama called the unemployment figures “sobering”.? He then took a chance to add that if we fix health care somehow this problem will be fixed.

Don’t forget that at this point, 4 Billion Americans are out of work, according to Pelosi math.

Obama proclaimed that health care reform is a,

critical step in rebuilding our economy so that our entrepreneurs can pursue the American Dream again, and our small businesses can grow and expand and create new jobs again.

I have doubts about this.? Consider the additional tax burden that will come with health care reform that will be placed on small business.? One has to consider the argument that health care reform may increase the unemployment rate drastically.

Why?? Small business in America is considered to be any business that has less than 50 employees.? On the high side of small business, for companies that must maintain health care for their employees to remain competitive and claim talent, the additional tax burden may actually be smaller than the amount spent on purchasing health care for the employees.

But very small businesses of 10 employees or less most likely do not purchase health care for their employees.? Especially those businesses, like independent pharmacies for example, where the majority of employees are part time.? For these businesses, the tax burden will be high.? And the result will be that the employer will be forced to let some employees go in order to handle the additional tax burden.? Because the majority of our countries citizens are primarily employed by small business, the bottom line to health care reform could be an increase in unemployment rather than what Obama would like us to believe.

It’s interesting that all of Obama’s tax heavy plans that strip money from our pockets will turn the job market around.? At some point, you have to start realizing that someone is crying wolf.

-nick

October 5, 2009 | Filed Under Banner, Featured Content, Politics and Policy | Comments Off