If it's a medical emergency, Erie County 911 will respond, but there is one address many of its dispatchers know by heart.
They find Scott Graham usually waiting at that Buffalo address for his ambulance several times a week.
"Sometimes two times a day," Graham told 2 On Your Side. He suffers from Sickle Cell Anemia, a blood disorder. If left untreated, it can block blood flow to limbs and organs.
"It feels like somebody shooting me with battery acid, and I'm stepping on razor blades, and I'm having a heart attack at once," he said talking about the pain the disorder causes.
Graham doesn't have a job, insurance or car. So, when he feels bad, he doesn't call a cab. He calls 911 to have an ambulance drive him to the hospital.
A 2 On Your Side investigation found that from January 2006 to May of this year, Rural Metro Ambulance picked him up 603 times.
Medicaid picked up the tab for each ride, costing taxpayers at least $118,158.
Graham estimates he's requested even more rides. "I'd say about a thousand times."
Rural Metro and Erie County chose not to respond on camera about Graham's case. The county follows the same rules most emergency systems follow across the country. If you call, they must haul you to the hospital, no matter what your call is about.
Graham says he requests an ambulance because he can't see his doctor as much as he needs. He also says he gets help quicker by arriving in an ambulance rather than by cab.
2 On Your Side contacted Medicaid to have them look into the number of times Graham used an ambulance. Medicaid appeared more interested in how we got the information, rather than how much it cost taxpayers to pick him up.
Medicaid fraud and abuse costs $60 billion each year nationwide.
2 On Your Side contacted our lawmakers to discuss how to lower that number.
"As we look at health care reform," Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) said, "we should also look at oversight and accountability for those programs to make sure that people aren't abusing the system."
Gillibrand says cracking down on abuse should be part of the major health care reform going through Congress to force more oversight.
Take Mr. Graham's case. His trips cost Medicaid $118,000, but the government reimbursements are low. In fact, most ambulance companies lose money, up to 30% or more, when they transport Medicaid patients, because the government simply does not pay the full cost. Therefore, Mr. Graham's actual cost to the ambulance company and to the health care system in general, is much more, as high as $360,000.
Erie County Executive Chris Collins, a Republican, says government is not the answer to limiting that type of alleged abuse and waste.
"Fundamentally, inherently I think the private sector is better able to do anything and everything compared to government," Collins said.
Instead, Collins said the solution is insurance that is private and not public.
"Would the type of reform that you're suggesting here be able to crack down more on this type of fraud?" asked 2 On Your Side's Michael Wooten.
"I'm actually talking about the basic design of the program in New York," Collins said. "where fraud is something we have to look at everyday. But the actual larger cost is the actual design of the program and the fact that we took the entire menu and said we'll provide it all."
Gillibrand disagrees.
"Bottom line then, expanded government-run health care can be efficient you believe?" 2 On Your Side's Michael Wooten asked Gillibrand. "Absolutely," she responded. "Talk to your mother. Talk to your father. Talk to someone who has Medicare. They're pretty happy."
Currently, New York has a dubious distinction of having the highest Medicaid costs in the entire country, about $2,300 per person. Collins said if we had a system similar the one in California, which does not provide as much care, we would save enough money to completely eliminate the county property tax.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
State Health Reform: The Significance of Utah Health Insurance Reforms
Here is an inovative interesting health reform system being implimented in Utah that works to help with the problems. This one is not set up to take control of every part of our lives like the federal programs.
by Edmund F. Haislmaier
WebMemo #2569
Utah is currently implementing consumer-centered health insurance reforms enacted in March of this year.[1] The reforms are designed to increase choice, portability, and availability of private health insurance coverage. They are the product of a continuing, multi-year health reform process in that state.
This first set of Utah health reforms includes three key elements:
Insurance market reforms to create a new "defined contribution" coverage option for businesses and their workers;
A board to design and manage a companion risk adjustment mechanism; and
A "virtual" health insurance exchange to coordinate the various administrative functions of a consumer-choice market.
Creating a "Defined Contribution" Option
The centerpiece of Utah's reforms is a new option for employment-based health insurance that will enable employers to offer health benefits to their workers on a "defined contribution" basis.
An employer electing this option will no longer need to manage a traditional "one-size-fits-all" group plan for its workers. Rather, each worker, during the annual open season, will be able to pick from a menu of health insurance plans, all of which will conform to federal standards (such as guaranteed issue to employees and limits on pre-existing condition exclusions) so as to qualify for favorable federal tax treatment as employer-sponsored health benefits.
Utah will make this defined contribution option available to small businesses (those with two to 50 employees) effective January 1, 2010. The legislation also specifies that starting in January of 2012, businesses of any size will be allowed to elect this option.
Employers will still have the option of offering health benefits on a traditional group policy basis--either purchased from a commercial insurer or self-insured by the employer. However, the new defined contribution option will be less costly and less burdensome for employers to offer, and will give workers more choice and control over their coverage.
Employers who elect the defined contribution option must agree to establish a qualified "cafeteria plan" or "health reimbursement arrangement" in accordance with federal tax law, allowing their workers to pay any employee share of the premiums on a pre-tax basis regardless of what the employer contributes or which plan the employee picks.
Starting with Risk Adjustment
A second important element of the reforms is the creation of a "Utah Defined Contribution Risk Adjuster" with a board consisting of representatives of health insurers and private employers as well as the state's insurance department, the public employee health plan, and the Governor's Office of Consumer Health Services.
This board was created to determine the insurance rating (pricing) rules for the defined contribution market and to design a mechanism for adjusting (or pooling) risk across all insurers in the market. The objective is to enable consumers to easily compare the benefits and prices for various competing plans on the "front end" while on the "back end" adjusting payments to insurers so that the costs of expensive cases is spread among all insurers and all plans have incentives to compete in offering the best value to both healthier and sicker enrollees.[2]
The board is now finalizing its initial design for both elements. In general, the agreed design will work as follows:
Plan offerings will be partially risk-adjusted through pricing based on family status and age. There will be four family status categories: single adult, one adult plus one child, couple with no children, and family--which could be either a single adult with more than one dependent or a couple with one or more dependents. Age rating will be in five-year bands for adults between 20 and 64, with insurers permitted to vary premiums by no more than 4 to 1 between the lowest and highest priced age bands. The age of the employee will determine the applicable age band.
Thus, by simply entering his or her age and choosing one of the four family status categories, an employee will be able to compare competing plan benefits and applicable premiums. There will be no geographic adjustment to premiums as regional differences in health care costs were determined to not be a significant factor in Utah.
A common underwriting questionnaire will be completed by all employees signing up for coverage as part of a participating employer group in order to construct an insurance profile for the group. This is the same process as is currently used in rating traditional group coverage, and Utah law allows insurers to vary premiums by up to +/- 30 percent on a group basis. Thus, when an employee logs on and enters his or her employer's ID number, the software will automatically adjust the entire schedule of age and family premiums for the competing plans to reflect the rating factor assigned to the worker's employer group.
After the employees all pick their coverage, the employer will transmit a monthly total amount for all of the chosen coverage. A portion of that total will be what the employer contributes directly to coverage--determined according to the rules established by each employer for its plan--with the balance coming from pre-tax payroll withholding by the employees. The system has been designed to also accept payments from other sources, such as government subsidies for lower-income individuals.
The amounts transmitted to the insurers will be adjusted further based on which individuals chose which plan. For example, if two individuals have the same employer, are the same age, elect the same coverage status, and choose the same plan, then both will pay the same premium. However, if one is diabetic and the other is not, the insurer will receive a somewhat larger payment for the diabetic employee. Where this will really help is if the two employees opt for different plans. In that case, the differences in the premiums they pay will only reflect the differences in the design of the competing benefit packages--not differences between the employees in health status. Yet the plan chosen by the diabetic will get a somewhat larger slice of the total paid collectively by the employer and all of its workers for coverage.
Finally, an end-of-year adjustment among all participating insurers will compensate for any insurer ending up with a share of high-costs enrollees or claims significantly greater than the normal variation. Those adjustments will be done by the participating insurers--who will debit and credit each other in accordance with the rules they collectively established through the board--and will have no effect on the premiums paid by either the enrollees or their employers.
Everyone involved recognizes that this initial risk adjustment design will likely need further refinement and revisions as the insurers gain experience from operating in the new consumer-choice market. For example, the board will likely need to eventually phase-out the employer-group rating factor. That way, when a worker changes jobs but keeps the same coverage, his or her premium will not increase or decrease simply because the new employer has a different group-rating factor than the old employer.
Health Insurance Exchange
The law also established the Office of Consumer Health Services (within the Governor's Office of Economic Development) and gave it the job of designing and administering an Internet-based health insurance "portal" to function as Utah's health insurance exchange.[3] Any insurer will be able to offer coverage through the exchange if it is licensed in Utah and the plan it offers meets state and federal standards.
The exchange will be an online administrative system for employers to offer the new defined contribution coverage option to their employees; for workers and insurance brokers to use in comparing and choosing coverage; for employers, insurers, individuals, and intermediaries such as banks to use to collect and transmit premium payments from multiple sources; and for the state government to use to administer any premium assistance payments for private coverage on behalf of low-income individuals.
Utah's particular innovation is that rather than creating a single entity to perform all of the different administrative functions, the state is using a contracting process to simply network the different pieces and vendors, both existing and new, into a "virtual" health insurance exchange.
Current plans are for the exchange to begin signing up employers who want to participate the week of August 17, with the rest of the system in place for employees to choose coverage during the first open season in November, and for the coverage to take effect January 1, 2010.
The legislation also contains a number of other provisions that augment the key reform elements, including:
Consumer transparency requirements for insurance agent compensation and insurance plan benefits and practices;
Authorization of new "mandate-lite" health insurance policies; and
Authorization of a new lower-cost "conversion" policy for individuals eligible under federal or state law to elect conversion coverage following employment termination.
Benefits of Utah's Approach
Utah is looking to derive a number of benefits from this insurance reform approach.
More Employers Offering Health Coverage. Nationally, only 43 percent of employers with 50 or fewer workers currently offer employer-sponsored health insurance, and Utah's rate (32 percent) is even lower.[4] A major reason is that traditional one-size-fits-all group coverage puts most of the risk on the employer. In essence, the decision by a small business to start offering health insurance to its employees is a decision to jump onto the health cost escalator. Before deciding to offer group coverage, the employer has to be confident that it can handle future cost increases and also be willing to endure the annual hassle of finding or negotiating coverage that 75-80 percent of its employees will take, and then dealing with their complaints.
Utah's "defined contribution" option will allow employers to offer their workers quality health benefits while avoiding most of the associated risks and hassles. Under a defined contribution arrangement each employee gets to decide which plan best suits his or her needs and situation. Furthermore, employees can reevaluate their decisions each year at open season. When faced with a premium increase for the plan he or she picked last year, it is the worker who will decide whether the benefits are worth the extra cost or if another plan offers a better cost-benefit proposition.
A new insurance option that takes most of the risk off of the employer, combined with shared administrative functions through an exchange that also relieves the employer of most of the hassle factor, could eventually result in almost every employer in the state offering at least that coverage option to its workers.
A New Risk Management Tool for Workers. While it is true that defined contribution shifts risk to the employee, it also gives the employee a new tool to manage that risk: annual choice of coverage from a menu of plans with different benefit designs and premiums offered by different insurers. From the employees' perspective, that is a far better option than the current situation in which their employer picks a plan that is probably not their first choice and, as the premiums go up year after year, shifts more of the cost onto them by requiring them to pay higher co-pays or larger shares of the premium.
Better Value. As seen from the experience of the Federal Employee's Health Benefit Program--the country's largest and longest operating defined contribution health insurance system--a consumer choice market puts simultaneous downward pressure on prices and upward pressure on benefits/quality, the only effective way to attain better value in a health system.[5]
Protecting and Assisting Consumers. Under Utah's defined contribution approach, all the insurance sold through the exchange will be state regulated and meet federal standards for employer-sponsored coverage. Participating employers and their workers can be certain that all the policies offered will be quality coverage from responsible insurers. In addition, insurance agents will be compensated not just for helping the employer offer coverage to its workers but also for helping the workers compare plans and select the ones that best meet their individual needs. Thus, employers can be confident that their workers will have access to licensed and trained professionals for help with picking their coverage.
Increased Portability. Over time, as more employers opt to offer health benefits on a defined contribution basis, more and more workers will be able to take their coverage with them from job to job.
Reducing the Number of Uninsured. Utah lawmakers view the creation of a defined contribution option for employer-based coverage as a first step in covering more of the uninsured. Making it both easier for employers to offer coverage and easier for workers to find and keep the coverage they prefer should result in fewer individuals experiencing gaps in coverage and thus being uninsured.
An Innovative Approach
Other states are pursuing their own variations of consumer-centered health reform. What Utah will soon offer is a working model of how states can design and implement a consumer-centered health insurance market that leverages existing resources with minimal regulation or disruption to existing arrangements.
Of particular interest to other states should be Utah's technological solutions for creating a "virtual" health insurance exchange and the lessons and insight that will come from its experience in designing a robust risk adjustment mechanism to support a consumer-choice market.
Utah's approach is, in effect, a marriage of advanced health care reform with advanced information technology.
Edmund F. Haislmaier is Senior Research Fellow in the Center for Health Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1]State of Utah, "H.B. 188 Health System Reform--Insurance Market," 2009 General Session, at http://le.utah.gov/~2009/bills/hbillenr/hb0188.pdf (July 29, 2009).
[2]For a further discussion of risk adjustment in health insurance, see Edmund, F. Haislmaier, "State Health Care Reform: A Brief Guide to Risk Adjustment in Consumer-Driven Health Insurance Markets," Heritage Foundation BackgrounderNo. 2166, August 1, 2008, at http://www.heritage.org
/Research/HealthCare/bg2166.cfm.
[3]Additional information can be found at the Utah Office of Consumer Health Services Website at http://goed.utah.gov/programs/consumer-health
-services/ (July 29, 2009).
[4]Kaiser Family Foundation, "Percent of Private Sector Establishments That Offer Health Insurance to Employees, by Firm Size, 2006," at http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=176&cat=3 (July 29, 2009).
[5]For a more detailed discussion of FEHBP's performance, see Walton Francis, "The FEHBP as a Model for Medicare Reform: Separating Fact from Fiction," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1674, August 7, 2003, at
by Edmund F. Haislmaier
WebMemo #2569
Utah is currently implementing consumer-centered health insurance reforms enacted in March of this year.[1] The reforms are designed to increase choice, portability, and availability of private health insurance coverage. They are the product of a continuing, multi-year health reform process in that state.
This first set of Utah health reforms includes three key elements:
Insurance market reforms to create a new "defined contribution" coverage option for businesses and their workers;
A board to design and manage a companion risk adjustment mechanism; and
A "virtual" health insurance exchange to coordinate the various administrative functions of a consumer-choice market.
Creating a "Defined Contribution" Option
The centerpiece of Utah's reforms is a new option for employment-based health insurance that will enable employers to offer health benefits to their workers on a "defined contribution" basis.
An employer electing this option will no longer need to manage a traditional "one-size-fits-all" group plan for its workers. Rather, each worker, during the annual open season, will be able to pick from a menu of health insurance plans, all of which will conform to federal standards (such as guaranteed issue to employees and limits on pre-existing condition exclusions) so as to qualify for favorable federal tax treatment as employer-sponsored health benefits.
Utah will make this defined contribution option available to small businesses (those with two to 50 employees) effective January 1, 2010. The legislation also specifies that starting in January of 2012, businesses of any size will be allowed to elect this option.
Employers will still have the option of offering health benefits on a traditional group policy basis--either purchased from a commercial insurer or self-insured by the employer. However, the new defined contribution option will be less costly and less burdensome for employers to offer, and will give workers more choice and control over their coverage.
Employers who elect the defined contribution option must agree to establish a qualified "cafeteria plan" or "health reimbursement arrangement" in accordance with federal tax law, allowing their workers to pay any employee share of the premiums on a pre-tax basis regardless of what the employer contributes or which plan the employee picks.
Starting with Risk Adjustment
A second important element of the reforms is the creation of a "Utah Defined Contribution Risk Adjuster" with a board consisting of representatives of health insurers and private employers as well as the state's insurance department, the public employee health plan, and the Governor's Office of Consumer Health Services.
This board was created to determine the insurance rating (pricing) rules for the defined contribution market and to design a mechanism for adjusting (or pooling) risk across all insurers in the market. The objective is to enable consumers to easily compare the benefits and prices for various competing plans on the "front end" while on the "back end" adjusting payments to insurers so that the costs of expensive cases is spread among all insurers and all plans have incentives to compete in offering the best value to both healthier and sicker enrollees.[2]
The board is now finalizing its initial design for both elements. In general, the agreed design will work as follows:
Plan offerings will be partially risk-adjusted through pricing based on family status and age. There will be four family status categories: single adult, one adult plus one child, couple with no children, and family--which could be either a single adult with more than one dependent or a couple with one or more dependents. Age rating will be in five-year bands for adults between 20 and 64, with insurers permitted to vary premiums by no more than 4 to 1 between the lowest and highest priced age bands. The age of the employee will determine the applicable age band.
Thus, by simply entering his or her age and choosing one of the four family status categories, an employee will be able to compare competing plan benefits and applicable premiums. There will be no geographic adjustment to premiums as regional differences in health care costs were determined to not be a significant factor in Utah.
A common underwriting questionnaire will be completed by all employees signing up for coverage as part of a participating employer group in order to construct an insurance profile for the group. This is the same process as is currently used in rating traditional group coverage, and Utah law allows insurers to vary premiums by up to +/- 30 percent on a group basis. Thus, when an employee logs on and enters his or her employer's ID number, the software will automatically adjust the entire schedule of age and family premiums for the competing plans to reflect the rating factor assigned to the worker's employer group.
After the employees all pick their coverage, the employer will transmit a monthly total amount for all of the chosen coverage. A portion of that total will be what the employer contributes directly to coverage--determined according to the rules established by each employer for its plan--with the balance coming from pre-tax payroll withholding by the employees. The system has been designed to also accept payments from other sources, such as government subsidies for lower-income individuals.
The amounts transmitted to the insurers will be adjusted further based on which individuals chose which plan. For example, if two individuals have the same employer, are the same age, elect the same coverage status, and choose the same plan, then both will pay the same premium. However, if one is diabetic and the other is not, the insurer will receive a somewhat larger payment for the diabetic employee. Where this will really help is if the two employees opt for different plans. In that case, the differences in the premiums they pay will only reflect the differences in the design of the competing benefit packages--not differences between the employees in health status. Yet the plan chosen by the diabetic will get a somewhat larger slice of the total paid collectively by the employer and all of its workers for coverage.
Finally, an end-of-year adjustment among all participating insurers will compensate for any insurer ending up with a share of high-costs enrollees or claims significantly greater than the normal variation. Those adjustments will be done by the participating insurers--who will debit and credit each other in accordance with the rules they collectively established through the board--and will have no effect on the premiums paid by either the enrollees or their employers.
Everyone involved recognizes that this initial risk adjustment design will likely need further refinement and revisions as the insurers gain experience from operating in the new consumer-choice market. For example, the board will likely need to eventually phase-out the employer-group rating factor. That way, when a worker changes jobs but keeps the same coverage, his or her premium will not increase or decrease simply because the new employer has a different group-rating factor than the old employer.
Health Insurance Exchange
The law also established the Office of Consumer Health Services (within the Governor's Office of Economic Development) and gave it the job of designing and administering an Internet-based health insurance "portal" to function as Utah's health insurance exchange.[3] Any insurer will be able to offer coverage through the exchange if it is licensed in Utah and the plan it offers meets state and federal standards.
The exchange will be an online administrative system for employers to offer the new defined contribution coverage option to their employees; for workers and insurance brokers to use in comparing and choosing coverage; for employers, insurers, individuals, and intermediaries such as banks to use to collect and transmit premium payments from multiple sources; and for the state government to use to administer any premium assistance payments for private coverage on behalf of low-income individuals.
Utah's particular innovation is that rather than creating a single entity to perform all of the different administrative functions, the state is using a contracting process to simply network the different pieces and vendors, both existing and new, into a "virtual" health insurance exchange.
Current plans are for the exchange to begin signing up employers who want to participate the week of August 17, with the rest of the system in place for employees to choose coverage during the first open season in November, and for the coverage to take effect January 1, 2010.
The legislation also contains a number of other provisions that augment the key reform elements, including:
Consumer transparency requirements for insurance agent compensation and insurance plan benefits and practices;
Authorization of new "mandate-lite" health insurance policies; and
Authorization of a new lower-cost "conversion" policy for individuals eligible under federal or state law to elect conversion coverage following employment termination.
Benefits of Utah's Approach
Utah is looking to derive a number of benefits from this insurance reform approach.
More Employers Offering Health Coverage. Nationally, only 43 percent of employers with 50 or fewer workers currently offer employer-sponsored health insurance, and Utah's rate (32 percent) is even lower.[4] A major reason is that traditional one-size-fits-all group coverage puts most of the risk on the employer. In essence, the decision by a small business to start offering health insurance to its employees is a decision to jump onto the health cost escalator. Before deciding to offer group coverage, the employer has to be confident that it can handle future cost increases and also be willing to endure the annual hassle of finding or negotiating coverage that 75-80 percent of its employees will take, and then dealing with their complaints.
Utah's "defined contribution" option will allow employers to offer their workers quality health benefits while avoiding most of the associated risks and hassles. Under a defined contribution arrangement each employee gets to decide which plan best suits his or her needs and situation. Furthermore, employees can reevaluate their decisions each year at open season. When faced with a premium increase for the plan he or she picked last year, it is the worker who will decide whether the benefits are worth the extra cost or if another plan offers a better cost-benefit proposition.
A new insurance option that takes most of the risk off of the employer, combined with shared administrative functions through an exchange that also relieves the employer of most of the hassle factor, could eventually result in almost every employer in the state offering at least that coverage option to its workers.
A New Risk Management Tool for Workers. While it is true that defined contribution shifts risk to the employee, it also gives the employee a new tool to manage that risk: annual choice of coverage from a menu of plans with different benefit designs and premiums offered by different insurers. From the employees' perspective, that is a far better option than the current situation in which their employer picks a plan that is probably not their first choice and, as the premiums go up year after year, shifts more of the cost onto them by requiring them to pay higher co-pays or larger shares of the premium.
Better Value. As seen from the experience of the Federal Employee's Health Benefit Program--the country's largest and longest operating defined contribution health insurance system--a consumer choice market puts simultaneous downward pressure on prices and upward pressure on benefits/quality, the only effective way to attain better value in a health system.[5]
Protecting and Assisting Consumers. Under Utah's defined contribution approach, all the insurance sold through the exchange will be state regulated and meet federal standards for employer-sponsored coverage. Participating employers and their workers can be certain that all the policies offered will be quality coverage from responsible insurers. In addition, insurance agents will be compensated not just for helping the employer offer coverage to its workers but also for helping the workers compare plans and select the ones that best meet their individual needs. Thus, employers can be confident that their workers will have access to licensed and trained professionals for help with picking their coverage.
Increased Portability. Over time, as more employers opt to offer health benefits on a defined contribution basis, more and more workers will be able to take their coverage with them from job to job.
Reducing the Number of Uninsured. Utah lawmakers view the creation of a defined contribution option for employer-based coverage as a first step in covering more of the uninsured. Making it both easier for employers to offer coverage and easier for workers to find and keep the coverage they prefer should result in fewer individuals experiencing gaps in coverage and thus being uninsured.
An Innovative Approach
Other states are pursuing their own variations of consumer-centered health reform. What Utah will soon offer is a working model of how states can design and implement a consumer-centered health insurance market that leverages existing resources with minimal regulation or disruption to existing arrangements.
Of particular interest to other states should be Utah's technological solutions for creating a "virtual" health insurance exchange and the lessons and insight that will come from its experience in designing a robust risk adjustment mechanism to support a consumer-choice market.
Utah's approach is, in effect, a marriage of advanced health care reform with advanced information technology.
Edmund F. Haislmaier is Senior Research Fellow in the Center for Health Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1]State of Utah, "H.B. 188 Health System Reform--Insurance Market," 2009 General Session, at http://le.utah.gov/~2009/bills/hbillenr/hb0188.pdf (July 29, 2009).
[2]For a further discussion of risk adjustment in health insurance, see Edmund, F. Haislmaier, "State Health Care Reform: A Brief Guide to Risk Adjustment in Consumer-Driven Health Insurance Markets," Heritage Foundation BackgrounderNo. 2166, August 1, 2008, at http://www.heritage.org
/Research/HealthCare/bg2166.cfm.
[3]Additional information can be found at the Utah Office of Consumer Health Services Website at http://goed.utah.gov/programs/consumer-health
-services/ (July 29, 2009).
[4]Kaiser Family Foundation, "Percent of Private Sector Establishments That Offer Health Insurance to Employees, by Firm Size, 2006," at http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=176&cat=3 (July 29, 2009).
[5]For a more detailed discussion of FEHBP's performance, see Walton Francis, "The FEHBP as a Model for Medicare Reform: Separating Fact from Fiction," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1674, August 7, 2003, at
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
As Racists Go, We are Rank Amateurs
By C. Edmund Wright
Mr. President, history and reality teach us that as racists go, we are, frankly, rank amateurs. And I am sick and tired of Ivy League elites like you and Professor Gates pretending otherwise.
What? You think I'm crazy?
Look at it this way. If we were worth a damn as racist whites, would we fall all over ourselves everyday to voluntarily watch, cheer for, emulate, take advice from and enrich folks named Tiger and Oprah?
Those are, after all, the two people that white racist America has anointed as the top cultural icons in our society. Ever heard about "the Oprah effect" or the ad campaign "I am Tiger Woods?" Let me translate for you: white Americans absolutely love these two black folks above any other athlete, actor, singer or even American Idol contestant on the planet -- and big business in search of evil profits -- knows it.
And by love, I mean whitey will pay to go see, pay to watch, pay to read and pay to do pretty much anything these two non-white folks do, eat, watch, read or wear. To be blunt about it, this is a bigger white to black money transfer than any of your big government schemes. This is spreading the wealth around that the Joe the Plumbers of the world can love.
This is hope and change that we can believe in -- because it is real and does not require a doggone thing from you, Jeremiah Wright or the nutty Professor Gates. (By the way, I lump Wright and Gates together because much of Gate's African American studies is simply a secular version of Wright's "black separatism.")
To reiterate Mr. President - the white love of Tiger and Oprah indicates that as racists go, we are rank amateurs.
And for the record, this is not new. Sometime before your first memoir, back when black cultural icons needed two names, whites felt the same way and poured millions and millions of dollars into the hands of Michael Jordan and Bill Cosby. Ever hear of "I want to be like Mike?" It was an ad campaign aimed at white kids. You must have heard -- being the athletic politician from Chicago and all. Or were you still suffering in Hawaii at the time?
The point is, not only are we rank amateurs as racists now, we have been that way for a few decades. The Cosby's were welcomed into more white living rooms than Sidney Poitier ever dreamt. We even now have a black guy starring as the "Wild Wild West." And I think he's pretty good at it. That is progress, though you won't hear about it in Al Sharpton's fund raising letters.
Sure, there are racists among us. I say some are among your staff, those in the pulpit at Trinity United Church and the Harvard faculty for instance. That's not the point. As a nation, we are decidedly NOT racist when compared to other nations. And if you're talking about a nation, that's the sole intellectually honest measure.
Consider: Would a Kurd ever reach icon status in Saddam Hussein's Iraq? Has there ever been a Mayan who captured the hearts and minds of Mexico? Would Ukrainians ever buy millions of books simply because a Chechen said to do so?
Heck no -- and these are folks who look much more alike than black Americans and white Americans. We can't even tell these folks apart "without a program" so to speak. Note the term is "balkanization" and not "Americanization."
And speaking of folks who kind of look alike but cannot stand each other, have you noticed that even the "friends" of the Palestinians do not want them living anywhere near them? So-called "supporters" of the Palestinians want to live with them about as much as Fred Sanford wanted to live next to Julio the Puerto Rican -- for the same "there goes the neighborhood" reasoning.
Of course Sanford wasn't racist -- because blacks can't be.
Meanwhile, tribal wars still rage across Rwanda, Sudan, Uganda, The Congo, Darfur and much of Africa where pre-teen boys are conscripted as soldiers and pre-teen girls are taken as their "child mothers." Tribal wars is just a nice way of saying race wars between races that look essentially the same.
Nothing like this has ever happened in our country and certainly is not happening today. Yet, Gates is all worried about racist cops and being burdened with being a "black man in America."
He should spend an afternoon as the white guy paired with Tiger, the Cablinasian-American.
The point is -- the United States -- all 57 of them -- have done more to correct our own racial wrongs than any nation in world history. We are way ahead of many nations much older than our little experiment in freedom and self-governance. Painful steps like the Civil War and the Republican led Civil Rights Act were forced corrections that simply moved the country more in line with our Constitutional principles of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
And the result is a country where whites and blacks are free to choose their own heroes and heroines. It works. Currently the best way for a white author to sell books to a white audience is to get added to a black woman's book club.
And nothing government did -- nothing that Jeremiah Wright preached -- or Professor Gates taught -- is relevant here at all. Or if it is relevant, it is only so as a negative force.
These are whites and blacks pursuing their own life, liberty and happiness through mutual associations. And while I think the country is making a really good choice in Tiger and a bad one with Oprah, the fact is I celebrate the fact that this is freedom in action. Free enterprise. Free markets. Free association. Even a little evil profit motive thrown in.
So how can you and Mr. Gates and Pastor Wright be so wrong about our country?
How is it that you are so stunned by the reaction to your stupid cop comment?
Hmmm.
Perhaps in your Ivy League-Beltway- Media elite universe you are so surrounded by racists of all colors you are blind to the fact that the rest of us are working it out pretty well without your help. (Ok, we'll call them "race focused.")
After all, we know the Democratic Party was glad to finally have a "clean articulate black guy" like you on the ticket. We heard it from a brilliant government employee of some 40 years. I think he picked it up in that diner that had been closed for 29 years.
We've seen scared Republicans like Lindsay Graham pretend your Supreme Court Nominee -- that wise Latina woman -- is not "race-focused." We've seen erudite and enlightened luminaries like Colin Powell, Christopher Buckley and Peggy Noonan fall under your spell as well - preferring you to a white hick governor from Alaska.
Come to think of it, maybe there IS a racist America after all. I think it can be found among the media elites, the civil rights activists, the magnificent centrist pundits, Ivy League faculties, scared CEO's, liberals in congress and moderate Republicans in the areas of Washington and New York.
Allow me to apologize for our country.
Mr. President, history and reality teach us that as racists go, we are, frankly, rank amateurs. And I am sick and tired of Ivy League elites like you and Professor Gates pretending otherwise.
What? You think I'm crazy?
Look at it this way. If we were worth a damn as racist whites, would we fall all over ourselves everyday to voluntarily watch, cheer for, emulate, take advice from and enrich folks named Tiger and Oprah?
Those are, after all, the two people that white racist America has anointed as the top cultural icons in our society. Ever heard about "the Oprah effect" or the ad campaign "I am Tiger Woods?" Let me translate for you: white Americans absolutely love these two black folks above any other athlete, actor, singer or even American Idol contestant on the planet -- and big business in search of evil profits -- knows it.
And by love, I mean whitey will pay to go see, pay to watch, pay to read and pay to do pretty much anything these two non-white folks do, eat, watch, read or wear. To be blunt about it, this is a bigger white to black money transfer than any of your big government schemes. This is spreading the wealth around that the Joe the Plumbers of the world can love.
This is hope and change that we can believe in -- because it is real and does not require a doggone thing from you, Jeremiah Wright or the nutty Professor Gates. (By the way, I lump Wright and Gates together because much of Gate's African American studies is simply a secular version of Wright's "black separatism.")
To reiterate Mr. President - the white love of Tiger and Oprah indicates that as racists go, we are rank amateurs.
And for the record, this is not new. Sometime before your first memoir, back when black cultural icons needed two names, whites felt the same way and poured millions and millions of dollars into the hands of Michael Jordan and Bill Cosby. Ever hear of "I want to be like Mike?" It was an ad campaign aimed at white kids. You must have heard -- being the athletic politician from Chicago and all. Or were you still suffering in Hawaii at the time?
The point is, not only are we rank amateurs as racists now, we have been that way for a few decades. The Cosby's were welcomed into more white living rooms than Sidney Poitier ever dreamt. We even now have a black guy starring as the "Wild Wild West." And I think he's pretty good at it. That is progress, though you won't hear about it in Al Sharpton's fund raising letters.
Sure, there are racists among us. I say some are among your staff, those in the pulpit at Trinity United Church and the Harvard faculty for instance. That's not the point. As a nation, we are decidedly NOT racist when compared to other nations. And if you're talking about a nation, that's the sole intellectually honest measure.
Consider: Would a Kurd ever reach icon status in Saddam Hussein's Iraq? Has there ever been a Mayan who captured the hearts and minds of Mexico? Would Ukrainians ever buy millions of books simply because a Chechen said to do so?
Heck no -- and these are folks who look much more alike than black Americans and white Americans. We can't even tell these folks apart "without a program" so to speak. Note the term is "balkanization" and not "Americanization."
And speaking of folks who kind of look alike but cannot stand each other, have you noticed that even the "friends" of the Palestinians do not want them living anywhere near them? So-called "supporters" of the Palestinians want to live with them about as much as Fred Sanford wanted to live next to Julio the Puerto Rican -- for the same "there goes the neighborhood" reasoning.
Of course Sanford wasn't racist -- because blacks can't be.
Meanwhile, tribal wars still rage across Rwanda, Sudan, Uganda, The Congo, Darfur and much of Africa where pre-teen boys are conscripted as soldiers and pre-teen girls are taken as their "child mothers." Tribal wars is just a nice way of saying race wars between races that look essentially the same.
Nothing like this has ever happened in our country and certainly is not happening today. Yet, Gates is all worried about racist cops and being burdened with being a "black man in America."
He should spend an afternoon as the white guy paired with Tiger, the Cablinasian-American.
The point is -- the United States -- all 57 of them -- have done more to correct our own racial wrongs than any nation in world history. We are way ahead of many nations much older than our little experiment in freedom and self-governance. Painful steps like the Civil War and the Republican led Civil Rights Act were forced corrections that simply moved the country more in line with our Constitutional principles of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
And the result is a country where whites and blacks are free to choose their own heroes and heroines. It works. Currently the best way for a white author to sell books to a white audience is to get added to a black woman's book club.
And nothing government did -- nothing that Jeremiah Wright preached -- or Professor Gates taught -- is relevant here at all. Or if it is relevant, it is only so as a negative force.
These are whites and blacks pursuing their own life, liberty and happiness through mutual associations. And while I think the country is making a really good choice in Tiger and a bad one with Oprah, the fact is I celebrate the fact that this is freedom in action. Free enterprise. Free markets. Free association. Even a little evil profit motive thrown in.
So how can you and Mr. Gates and Pastor Wright be so wrong about our country?
How is it that you are so stunned by the reaction to your stupid cop comment?
Hmmm.
Perhaps in your Ivy League-Beltway- Media elite universe you are so surrounded by racists of all colors you are blind to the fact that the rest of us are working it out pretty well without your help. (Ok, we'll call them "race focused.")
After all, we know the Democratic Party was glad to finally have a "clean articulate black guy" like you on the ticket. We heard it from a brilliant government employee of some 40 years. I think he picked it up in that diner that had been closed for 29 years.
We've seen scared Republicans like Lindsay Graham pretend your Supreme Court Nominee -- that wise Latina woman -- is not "race-focused." We've seen erudite and enlightened luminaries like Colin Powell, Christopher Buckley and Peggy Noonan fall under your spell as well - preferring you to a white hick governor from Alaska.
Come to think of it, maybe there IS a racist America after all. I think it can be found among the media elites, the civil rights activists, the magnificent centrist pundits, Ivy League faculties, scared CEO's, liberals in congress and moderate Republicans in the areas of Washington and New York.
Allow me to apologize for our country.
The universal health care dogs that aren't barking
Thomas Lifson
Oddly enough, as the nation considers ObamaCare, the press is completely uninterested in the experience of Massachusetts and Hawaii, both of which have ambitious, and failed, experiments in trying to provide universal health care. Mitt Romney, the architect of the Bay State's health care plan, which is costing far more than expected, is largely absent from the airwaves, despite his legitimate claim to be an expert. The Boston Globe calls the plan a "failure" and notes "The state's plan flunks on all counts."
Spending for the Commonwealth Care subsidized program has doubled, from $630 million in 2007 to an estimated $1.3 billion for 2009, which is not sustainable.
As for Hawaii, the President's home state, Steve Gilbert of Sweetness & Light highlights the great hopes for Hawaii as a "model" (according to the New York Times) for the nation. He cites several articles over the years, which make illuminating background for considering ObamaCare. As usual, he highlights the relevant texts. View all of them here.
In Hawaii, as in Mass, once again, universal care has not been achieved, but costs have ballooned. Steve cites (and highlights) the following from the Honolulu Advertiser less than a month ago:
A law enacted in Hawai'i in 1974 that requires employers to provide health insurance for employees working at least 20 hours a week is being cited by researchers who are skeptical of similar mandates being suggested in the argument for universal health care.
The result of Hawai'i's Prepaid Health Care Act has been that businesses have relied more on employees who work fewer than 20 hours a week and thus aren't covered under the requirement, wrote San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank research adviser Rob Valletta and co-authors Tom Buchmueller and John DiNardo, both University of Michigan professors.
The results of the research into health insurance coverage in Hawai'i "imply that an employer mandate is not an effective means for achieving universal coverage," they wrote.
"Although overall insurance coverage rates are unusually high in Hawai'i, a substantial number of people remain uninsured, suggesting a need for alternative approaches if universal coverage is the ultimate goal," they said...
Isn't it time that everyone agrees that ill-considered plans turn out to be disasters when it comes to achieving universal health care? Federalism really is the laboratory of democracy, and the lab results are in. The president and his lapdog media need to be honest about what we have already learned.
Oddly enough, as the nation considers ObamaCare, the press is completely uninterested in the experience of Massachusetts and Hawaii, both of which have ambitious, and failed, experiments in trying to provide universal health care. Mitt Romney, the architect of the Bay State's health care plan, which is costing far more than expected, is largely absent from the airwaves, despite his legitimate claim to be an expert. The Boston Globe calls the plan a "failure" and notes "The state's plan flunks on all counts."
Spending for the Commonwealth Care subsidized program has doubled, from $630 million in 2007 to an estimated $1.3 billion for 2009, which is not sustainable.
As for Hawaii, the President's home state, Steve Gilbert of Sweetness & Light highlights the great hopes for Hawaii as a "model" (according to the New York Times) for the nation. He cites several articles over the years, which make illuminating background for considering ObamaCare. As usual, he highlights the relevant texts. View all of them here.
In Hawaii, as in Mass, once again, universal care has not been achieved, but costs have ballooned. Steve cites (and highlights) the following from the Honolulu Advertiser less than a month ago:
A law enacted in Hawai'i in 1974 that requires employers to provide health insurance for employees working at least 20 hours a week is being cited by researchers who are skeptical of similar mandates being suggested in the argument for universal health care.
The result of Hawai'i's Prepaid Health Care Act has been that businesses have relied more on employees who work fewer than 20 hours a week and thus aren't covered under the requirement, wrote San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank research adviser Rob Valletta and co-authors Tom Buchmueller and John DiNardo, both University of Michigan professors.
The results of the research into health insurance coverage in Hawai'i "imply that an employer mandate is not an effective means for achieving universal coverage," they wrote.
"Although overall insurance coverage rates are unusually high in Hawai'i, a substantial number of people remain uninsured, suggesting a need for alternative approaches if universal coverage is the ultimate goal," they said...
Isn't it time that everyone agrees that ill-considered plans turn out to be disasters when it comes to achieving universal health care? Federalism really is the laboratory of democracy, and the lab results are in. The president and his lapdog media need to be honest about what we have already learned.
10 Questions for Supporters of 'ObamaCare'
By Dennis Prager
1. President Barack Obama repeatedly tells us that one reason national health care is needed is that we can no longer afford to pay for Medicare and Medicaid. But if Medicare and Medicaid are fiscally insolvent and gradually bankrupting our society, why is a government takeover of medical care for the rest of society a good idea? What large-scale government program has not eventually spiraled out of control, let alone stayed within its projected budget? Why should anyone believe that nationalizing health care would create the first major government program to "pay for itself," let alone get smaller rather than larger over time? Why not simply see how the Democrats can reform Medicare and Medicaid before nationalizing much of the rest of health care?
2. President Obama reiterated this past week that "no insurance company will be allowed to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing medical condition." This is an oft-repeated goal of the president's and the Democrats' health care plan. But if any individual can buy health insurance at any time, why would anyone buy health insurance while healthy? Why would I not simply wait until I got sick or injured to buy the insurance? If auto insurance were purchasable once one got into an accident, why would anyone purchase auto insurance before an accident? Will the Democrats next demand that life insurance companies sell life insurance to the terminally ill? The whole point of insurance is that the healthy buy it and thereby provide the funds to pay for the sick. Demanding that insurance companies provide insurance to everyone at any time spells the end of the concept of insurance. And if the answer is that the government will now make it illegal not to buy insurance, how will that be enforced? How will the government check on 300 million people?
3. Why do supporters of nationalized medicine so often substitute the word "care" for the word "insurance?" it is patently untrue that millions of Americans do not receive health care. Millions of Americans do not have health insurance but virtually every American (and non-American on American soil) receives health care.
4. No one denies that in order to come close to staying within its budget health care will be rationed. But what is the moral justification of having the state decide what medical care to ration?
5. According to Dr. David Gratzer, health care specialist at the Manhattan Institute, "While 20 years ago pharmaceuticals were largely developed in Europe, European price controls made drug development an American enterprise. Fifteen of the 20 top-selling drugs worldwide this year were birthed in the United States." Given how many lives -- in America and throughout the world - American pharmaceutical companies save, and given how expensive it is to develop any new drug, will the price controls on drugs envisaged in the Democrats' bill improve or impair Americans' health?
6. Do you really believe that private insurance could survive a "public option"? Or is this really a cover for the ideal of single-payer medical care? How could a private insurance company survive a "public option" given that private companies have to show a profit and government agencies do not have to - and given that a private enterprise must raise its own money to be solvent and a government option has access to others'
money -- i.e., taxes?
7. Why will hospitals, doctors, and pharmaceutical companies do nearly as superb a job as they now do if their reimbursement from the government will be severely cut? Haven't the laws of human behavior and common sense been repealed here in arguing that while doctors, hospitals and drug companies will make significantly less money they will continue to provide the same level of uniquely excellent care?
8. Given how many needless procedures are ordered to avoid medical lawsuits and how much money doctors spend on medical malpractice insurance, shouldn't any meaningful "reform" of health care provide some remedy for frivolous malpractice lawsuits?
9. Given how weak the U.S. economy is, given how weak the U.S. dollar is, and given how much in debt the U.S. is in, why would anyone seek to have the U.S. spend another trillion dollars? Even if all the other questions here had legitimate answers, wouldn't the state of the U.S. economy alone argue against national health care at this time?
10. Contrary to the assertion of President Obama -- "we spend much more on health care than any other nation but aren't any healthier for it" -- we are healthier. We wait far less time for procedures and surgeries.
Our life expectancy with virtually any major disease is longer. And if you do not count deaths from violent crime and automobile accidents, we also have the longest life expectancy. Do you think a government takeover of American medicine will enable this medical excellence to continue?
1. President Barack Obama repeatedly tells us that one reason national health care is needed is that we can no longer afford to pay for Medicare and Medicaid. But if Medicare and Medicaid are fiscally insolvent and gradually bankrupting our society, why is a government takeover of medical care for the rest of society a good idea? What large-scale government program has not eventually spiraled out of control, let alone stayed within its projected budget? Why should anyone believe that nationalizing health care would create the first major government program to "pay for itself," let alone get smaller rather than larger over time? Why not simply see how the Democrats can reform Medicare and Medicaid before nationalizing much of the rest of health care?
2. President Obama reiterated this past week that "no insurance company will be allowed to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing medical condition." This is an oft-repeated goal of the president's and the Democrats' health care plan. But if any individual can buy health insurance at any time, why would anyone buy health insurance while healthy? Why would I not simply wait until I got sick or injured to buy the insurance? If auto insurance were purchasable once one got into an accident, why would anyone purchase auto insurance before an accident? Will the Democrats next demand that life insurance companies sell life insurance to the terminally ill? The whole point of insurance is that the healthy buy it and thereby provide the funds to pay for the sick. Demanding that insurance companies provide insurance to everyone at any time spells the end of the concept of insurance. And if the answer is that the government will now make it illegal not to buy insurance, how will that be enforced? How will the government check on 300 million people?
3. Why do supporters of nationalized medicine so often substitute the word "care" for the word "insurance?" it is patently untrue that millions of Americans do not receive health care. Millions of Americans do not have health insurance but virtually every American (and non-American on American soil) receives health care.
4. No one denies that in order to come close to staying within its budget health care will be rationed. But what is the moral justification of having the state decide what medical care to ration?
5. According to Dr. David Gratzer, health care specialist at the Manhattan Institute, "While 20 years ago pharmaceuticals were largely developed in Europe, European price controls made drug development an American enterprise. Fifteen of the 20 top-selling drugs worldwide this year were birthed in the United States." Given how many lives -- in America and throughout the world - American pharmaceutical companies save, and given how expensive it is to develop any new drug, will the price controls on drugs envisaged in the Democrats' bill improve or impair Americans' health?
6. Do you really believe that private insurance could survive a "public option"? Or is this really a cover for the ideal of single-payer medical care? How could a private insurance company survive a "public option" given that private companies have to show a profit and government agencies do not have to - and given that a private enterprise must raise its own money to be solvent and a government option has access to others'
money -- i.e., taxes?
7. Why will hospitals, doctors, and pharmaceutical companies do nearly as superb a job as they now do if their reimbursement from the government will be severely cut? Haven't the laws of human behavior and common sense been repealed here in arguing that while doctors, hospitals and drug companies will make significantly less money they will continue to provide the same level of uniquely excellent care?
8. Given how many needless procedures are ordered to avoid medical lawsuits and how much money doctors spend on medical malpractice insurance, shouldn't any meaningful "reform" of health care provide some remedy for frivolous malpractice lawsuits?
9. Given how weak the U.S. economy is, given how weak the U.S. dollar is, and given how much in debt the U.S. is in, why would anyone seek to have the U.S. spend another trillion dollars? Even if all the other questions here had legitimate answers, wouldn't the state of the U.S. economy alone argue against national health care at this time?
10. Contrary to the assertion of President Obama -- "we spend much more on health care than any other nation but aren't any healthier for it" -- we are healthier. We wait far less time for procedures and surgeries.
Our life expectancy with virtually any major disease is longer. And if you do not count deaths from violent crime and automobile accidents, we also have the longest life expectancy. Do you think a government takeover of American medicine will enable this medical excellence to continue?
Obamacare’s Effect on Seniors
Posted July 28th, 2009 at 9.24am in Health Care.
Today at 1:30 PM, President Barack Obama will participate in a health care “tele-town hall” at AARP headquarters in Washington, DC. The President is scheduled to answer questions about his health care plan from AARP members via phone, email, and even a live audience of about 40 AARP members and volunteers. We hope the event’s moderators will allow for a lively and honest debate, because our nation’s seniors stand to be huge losers under Obamacare:
Losing Your Doctor: Under the current system, more and more seniors are discovering that it is becoming harder and harder to find and keep doctors who will accept Medicare patients. A 2008 survey found that 29% of the Medicare beneficiaries it surveyed who were looking for a primary care doctor had a problem finding one to treat them, up from 24% the year before. This problem is compounded by the fact that our nation is facing a growing shortage of doctors. Obamacare promises to only make these problems worse. First, Obama plans to pay for up to a third of his plan by cutting $313 billion in Medicare reimbursements to health care providers over the next 10 years. This will only force more doctors to stop seeing Medicare patients. Second, Obama’s public “option” could decrease the annual net income of hospitals by $36 billion, while the annual net income of physicians could drop by $33.1 billion.
Facing a sharp reduction in their pay, more doctors will retire early and more bright students will elect to pursue other careers, thereby reducing access and ensuring lower quality health care for future generations as well.
Losing Your Coverage: 22% of all Medicare patients, which translates to 10.5 million seniors, are currently enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. These health plans cover all of the traditional Medicare benefits and much more, including coor dinated care and care-management programs for enrollees with chronic conditions as well as additional hospitalization and skilled nursing facility stays. President Obama has proposed killing this program entirely. A new study for the Florida Association of Health Plans found that, because Medicare Advantage plans have richer benefits and lower deductibles and co-payments than traditional Medicare, seniors in that state would face dramatically higher payments if forced to give up their Medicare Advantage plans. Cost increases would range from $2,214 a year in Jacksonville to $3,714 a year in Miami.
Rationing Your Care: Another centerpiece to Obamacare is the creation of a federal health board that will ration your health care. Obama supporter and infanticide advocate Peter Singer made the case for rationing health care recently in the New York Times, writing: “The task of health care bureaucrats is then to get the best value for the resources they have been allocated.” Conservatives in Congress have given Obamacare supporters every opportunity to disavow government-rationed health care, but Obamacare supporters have voted down every anti-rationing amendment proposed. Make no mistake, Obama plans to pay for expanded coverage for the young and healthy by denying treatments to the old and sick. Americans can do better.
There is no question that America’s $2.4 trillion health care system needs to be reformed. But it should not be done on the backs of America’s seniors. Conservatives have a better vision for health care reform that cuts health care costs by reforming the tax system, enabling true health care competition, and giving families control of their health care dollars.
Today at 1:30 PM, President Barack Obama will participate in a health care “tele-town hall” at AARP headquarters in Washington, DC. The President is scheduled to answer questions about his health care plan from AARP members via phone, email, and even a live audience of about 40 AARP members and volunteers. We hope the event’s moderators will allow for a lively and honest debate, because our nation’s seniors stand to be huge losers under Obamacare:
Losing Your Doctor: Under the current system, more and more seniors are discovering that it is becoming harder and harder to find and keep doctors who will accept Medicare patients. A 2008 survey found that 29% of the Medicare beneficiaries it surveyed who were looking for a primary care doctor had a problem finding one to treat them, up from 24% the year before. This problem is compounded by the fact that our nation is facing a growing shortage of doctors. Obamacare promises to only make these problems worse. First, Obama plans to pay for up to a third of his plan by cutting $313 billion in Medicare reimbursements to health care providers over the next 10 years. This will only force more doctors to stop seeing Medicare patients. Second, Obama’s public “option” could decrease the annual net income of hospitals by $36 billion, while the annual net income of physicians could drop by $33.1 billion.
Facing a sharp reduction in their pay, more doctors will retire early and more bright students will elect to pursue other careers, thereby reducing access and ensuring lower quality health care for future generations as well.
Losing Your Coverage: 22% of all Medicare patients, which translates to 10.5 million seniors, are currently enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. These health plans cover all of the traditional Medicare benefits and much more, including coor dinated care and care-management programs for enrollees with chronic conditions as well as additional hospitalization and skilled nursing facility stays. President Obama has proposed killing this program entirely. A new study for the Florida Association of Health Plans found that, because Medicare Advantage plans have richer benefits and lower deductibles and co-payments than traditional Medicare, seniors in that state would face dramatically higher payments if forced to give up their Medicare Advantage plans. Cost increases would range from $2,214 a year in Jacksonville to $3,714 a year in Miami.
Rationing Your Care: Another centerpiece to Obamacare is the creation of a federal health board that will ration your health care. Obama supporter and infanticide advocate Peter Singer made the case for rationing health care recently in the New York Times, writing: “The task of health care bureaucrats is then to get the best value for the resources they have been allocated.” Conservatives in Congress have given Obamacare supporters every opportunity to disavow government-rationed health care, but Obamacare supporters have voted down every anti-rationing amendment proposed. Make no mistake, Obama plans to pay for expanded coverage for the young and healthy by denying treatments to the old and sick. Americans can do better.
There is no question that America’s $2.4 trillion health care system needs to be reformed. But it should not be done on the backs of America’s seniors. Conservatives have a better vision for health care reform that cuts health care costs by reforming the tax system, enabling true health care competition, and giving families control of their health care dollars.
Monday, July 27, 2009
How a Bill Becomes Law: Chicago Style
Posted July 27th, 2009 at 6.18pm in Ongoing Priorities.
You might think that passing a bill through Congress is a really difficult and honorable task that involves late night debates, hours spent analyzing proposals and reading legislation, policy wonks splitting hairs over detailed issues and a healthy dose of respectful opposition and transparency. Oh boy, would you be wrong. In this Congress, it’s rahm rahm rahm, Chicago-style.
According to recent reports, Congressional leaders are censoring congressional mailings to avoid the appearance of two sides to the health care debate. And what is being censored? Democrats should be called “the majority,” and the “public option” cannot under any circumstances be called “government-run.” Not being able to say the “public option” is government-run is like being told you cannot call the Earth a planet. It’s simply incompatible with common sense, and the facts.
So for education purposes, here is an updated lesson on how a bill becomes a law in Washington.
Introduce a Bill, But Not the One You Really Plan on Passing: On Friday, June 26, 2009 the House of Representatives voted on final passage of the Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade Bill, a major piece of global warming legislation this year that will have a huge effect on the economy and the price Americans pay for energy. Both sides of this debate spent months arguing over the details. And then, at 3:09 am on June 26, the morning of the vote, the majority added over 300 pages to the bill. As of the final vote, not one member had a clear idea what was contained in that amendment.
Do Not Under Any Circumstances, Read the Bill: Reading the bill will only confuse the process and according to Congressman John Conyers (D-MI), it will also take upwards of two days and two staffers so it is not worth it. At the National Press Club this week, Congressman Conyers said: “I love these members that get up and say, ‘read the bill.’ What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages, and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”
Further, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said “If every member pledged to not vote for [the health care bill] if they hadn’t read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes.” Hoyer continued: “I’m laughing because a) I don’t know how long this bill is going to be, but it’s going to be a very long bill.”
Make the Bill Very Long and Very Complicated: The best way to achieve the previous objective of not reading the bill is to take the length of War & Peace, double it, and then use that as a starting point. The current House version of health care legislation is over 1,000 pages long. The stimulus bill was over 1,500 pages long. The Cap and Trade bill was over 1,000 pages long, and remember, had 300 pages added at the last minute. No sneaky spending hidden in there, you can trust ‘em.
Bypass Your Committee: If the moderate voices of Congress wish to debate a bill in committee and propose alternative ideas, bypass the committee entirely. House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) knows this rule well, and has suggested there is “no alternative” to bypassing the committee if Blue Dog Democrats don’t accept the terms of the deal he sets on health care reform this week. Yes, there is clearly no alternative.
Keep the American People in the Dark: When President Barack Obama took office, he promised on his transition website he would “not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House Web site for five days.” He failed to live to this promise on his very first piece of legislation. In fact, the website the White House unveiled to detail “transparent” stimulus spending was so bad, and lacked so little detail, that a cottage industry of private websites popped up to fill the void.
Censor the Opposition: If nobody reads the opposition, did it really exist? Of course not. In an attempt to keep the American people in the dark, you must not let them hear opposing views, especially during a week where the President sets aside one hour of primetime network television time to address his side. Congressman Kevin Brady (R-TX) tried recently to send a chart detailing the expansion of government under the current plan, and the House Franking Commission told him no, even though it did not challenge the chart’s accuracy or purpose. Congressman John Carter (R-TX) tried to call the public plan “government-run” and was promptly told to cease saying such obvious things. It’s much easier to pass a bill when you can write the talking points for both sides.
When the CBO Says Bad Things, Bring the Director in for a “Chat”: Last week, Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Douglas Elmendorf was summoned to the White House after his office released an analysis showing that the President’s health care plan would increase the deficit and not produce the savings it promised. This move was absolutely unprecedented, as Congressman Tom Pryce (R-GA) points out: “[This] reeks of the type of Chicago-style politics that American’s were warned about. The CBO was created to be independent and nonpartisan. To spoil that with political dealings in the West Wing only adds to American cynicism about the President’s misguided health care plan.”
Finally, Pass the Bill on a Friday: When passing really expensive bills that hurt the economy and fail to meet their objective, it is imperative this be done as late on Friday as possible, so by Monday people will have mostly forgotten, like the Waxman-Markey bill. The only thing better than a Friday is a Saturday in August when Americans are on vacation. Saturday, August 1 would be ideal for the health care bill, if there were to be one voted on before the recess. Luckily, that is the current plan.
So there you have the 2009 guide to passing a bill through Congress. There will certainly be changes to these rules, but we can’t promise you’ll be told of them.
You might think that passing a bill through Congress is a really difficult and honorable task that involves late night debates, hours spent analyzing proposals and reading legislation, policy wonks splitting hairs over detailed issues and a healthy dose of respectful opposition and transparency. Oh boy, would you be wrong. In this Congress, it’s rahm rahm rahm, Chicago-style.
According to recent reports, Congressional leaders are censoring congressional mailings to avoid the appearance of two sides to the health care debate. And what is being censored? Democrats should be called “the majority,” and the “public option” cannot under any circumstances be called “government-run.” Not being able to say the “public option” is government-run is like being told you cannot call the Earth a planet. It’s simply incompatible with common sense, and the facts.
So for education purposes, here is an updated lesson on how a bill becomes a law in Washington.
Introduce a Bill, But Not the One You Really Plan on Passing: On Friday, June 26, 2009 the House of Representatives voted on final passage of the Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade Bill, a major piece of global warming legislation this year that will have a huge effect on the economy and the price Americans pay for energy. Both sides of this debate spent months arguing over the details. And then, at 3:09 am on June 26, the morning of the vote, the majority added over 300 pages to the bill. As of the final vote, not one member had a clear idea what was contained in that amendment.
Do Not Under Any Circumstances, Read the Bill: Reading the bill will only confuse the process and according to Congressman John Conyers (D-MI), it will also take upwards of two days and two staffers so it is not worth it. At the National Press Club this week, Congressman Conyers said: “I love these members that get up and say, ‘read the bill.’ What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages, and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”
Further, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said “If every member pledged to not vote for [the health care bill] if they hadn’t read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes.” Hoyer continued: “I’m laughing because a) I don’t know how long this bill is going to be, but it’s going to be a very long bill.”
Make the Bill Very Long and Very Complicated: The best way to achieve the previous objective of not reading the bill is to take the length of War & Peace, double it, and then use that as a starting point. The current House version of health care legislation is over 1,000 pages long. The stimulus bill was over 1,500 pages long. The Cap and Trade bill was over 1,000 pages long, and remember, had 300 pages added at the last minute. No sneaky spending hidden in there, you can trust ‘em.
Bypass Your Committee: If the moderate voices of Congress wish to debate a bill in committee and propose alternative ideas, bypass the committee entirely. House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) knows this rule well, and has suggested there is “no alternative” to bypassing the committee if Blue Dog Democrats don’t accept the terms of the deal he sets on health care reform this week. Yes, there is clearly no alternative.
Keep the American People in the Dark: When President Barack Obama took office, he promised on his transition website he would “not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House Web site for five days.” He failed to live to this promise on his very first piece of legislation. In fact, the website the White House unveiled to detail “transparent” stimulus spending was so bad, and lacked so little detail, that a cottage industry of private websites popped up to fill the void.
Censor the Opposition: If nobody reads the opposition, did it really exist? Of course not. In an attempt to keep the American people in the dark, you must not let them hear opposing views, especially during a week where the President sets aside one hour of primetime network television time to address his side. Congressman Kevin Brady (R-TX) tried recently to send a chart detailing the expansion of government under the current plan, and the House Franking Commission told him no, even though it did not challenge the chart’s accuracy or purpose. Congressman John Carter (R-TX) tried to call the public plan “government-run” and was promptly told to cease saying such obvious things. It’s much easier to pass a bill when you can write the talking points for both sides.
When the CBO Says Bad Things, Bring the Director in for a “Chat”: Last week, Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Douglas Elmendorf was summoned to the White House after his office released an analysis showing that the President’s health care plan would increase the deficit and not produce the savings it promised. This move was absolutely unprecedented, as Congressman Tom Pryce (R-GA) points out: “[This] reeks of the type of Chicago-style politics that American’s were warned about. The CBO was created to be independent and nonpartisan. To spoil that with political dealings in the West Wing only adds to American cynicism about the President’s misguided health care plan.”
Finally, Pass the Bill on a Friday: When passing really expensive bills that hurt the economy and fail to meet their objective, it is imperative this be done as late on Friday as possible, so by Monday people will have mostly forgotten, like the Waxman-Markey bill. The only thing better than a Friday is a Saturday in August when Americans are on vacation. Saturday, August 1 would be ideal for the health care bill, if there were to be one voted on before the recess. Luckily, that is the current plan.
So there you have the 2009 guide to passing a bill through Congress. There will certainly be changes to these rules, but we can’t promise you’ll be told of them.
Joe Biden vs Joe Biden on the Stimulus
Posted July 27th, 2009 at 2.55pm in Enterprise and Free Markets.
The care with which we are carrying out the provisions of the Recovery Act has led some people to ask whether we are moving too slowly. But the act was intended to provide steady support for our economy over an extended period — not a jolt that would last only a few months.
- Vice President Joe Biden New York Times, July 26, 2009.
The Recovery Act, as we call it, provides a necessary jolt to our economy to implement what we refer as “shovel-ready” projects, meaning projects that were on the books that were needed in the municipalities and the states that would improve the quality of life for our constituents, the competitiveness of our businesses, but were unable to be funded.
- Vice President Joe Biden, Remarks at The Progressive Governance Conference, March 28, 2009.
Jolt or not jolt, President Barack Obama’s $787 billion stimulus plan is proving to be a colossal failure. President Obama promised the American people that if his stimulus passed, unemployment would not rise above 8% and that the U.S. economy would have 138.6 million jobs by 2010. In reality, the Obama stimulus has already witnessed 9.5% unemployment and is 6.4 million jobs short of what was promised by 2010. Heritage fellow J.D. Foster explains where Obama and Biden went wrong:
The Keynesian stimulus theory fails for the simple reason that it is only half a theory. It correctly describes how deficit spending can raise the level of demand in part of the economy, and ignores how government borrowing to finance deficit spending automatically reduces demand elsewhere. Exculpatory allusions to idle saving simply do not wash in a modern economy supported by a modern financial system. Deficit spending does not create real purchasing power and so it cannot increase total demand in the economy. Deficit spending can only shift the pattern of demand toward government-centric preferences.
The care with which we are carrying out the provisions of the Recovery Act has led some people to ask whether we are moving too slowly. But the act was intended to provide steady support for our economy over an extended period — not a jolt that would last only a few months.
- Vice President Joe Biden New York Times, July 26, 2009.
The Recovery Act, as we call it, provides a necessary jolt to our economy to implement what we refer as “shovel-ready” projects, meaning projects that were on the books that were needed in the municipalities and the states that would improve the quality of life for our constituents, the competitiveness of our businesses, but were unable to be funded.
- Vice President Joe Biden, Remarks at The Progressive Governance Conference, March 28, 2009.
Jolt or not jolt, President Barack Obama’s $787 billion stimulus plan is proving to be a colossal failure. President Obama promised the American people that if his stimulus passed, unemployment would not rise above 8% and that the U.S. economy would have 138.6 million jobs by 2010. In reality, the Obama stimulus has already witnessed 9.5% unemployment and is 6.4 million jobs short of what was promised by 2010. Heritage fellow J.D. Foster explains where Obama and Biden went wrong:
The Keynesian stimulus theory fails for the simple reason that it is only half a theory. It correctly describes how deficit spending can raise the level of demand in part of the economy, and ignores how government borrowing to finance deficit spending automatically reduces demand elsewhere. Exculpatory allusions to idle saving simply do not wash in a modern economy supported by a modern financial system. Deficit spending does not create real purchasing power and so it cannot increase total demand in the economy. Deficit spending can only shift the pattern of demand toward government-centric preferences.
Six Straightforward Steps to Better Healthcare
To create a system that delivers more choices of higher quality health care at lower cost we need to take the following six straightforward steps:
Stop Paying the Crooks. First, we must dramatically reduce healthcare fraud within our current healthcare system. Outright fraud -- criminal activity -- accounts for as much as 10 percent of all healthcare spending. That is more than $200 billion every year. Medicare alone could account for as much as $40 billion a year. (Read about our latest CHT Press book, Stop Paying the Crooks, edited by Jim Frogue.)
Move from a Paper-based to an Electronic Health System. As it stands now, it is simply impossible to keep up with fraud in a paper-based system. An electronic system would free tens of billions of dollars to be spent on investing on the kind of modern system that will transform healthcare. In addition, it would dramatically increase our ability to eliminate costly medical errors and to accelerate the adoption of new solutions and breakthroughs.
Tax Reform. The savings realized through very deliberately and very systematically eliminating fraud could be used to provide tax incentives and vouchers that would help cover those Americans who currently can’t afford coverage. In addition, we need to expand tax incentives for insurance provided by small employers and the self-employed. Finally, elimination of capital gains taxes for investments in health-solution companies can greatly impact the creation advancement of new solutions that
create better health at lower cost.
Create a Health-Based Health System. In essence, we must create a system that focuses on improving individual health. The best way to accomplish this is to find out what solutions are actually working today that save lives and save money and then design public policy to encourage their widespread adoption. For example, according to the Dartmouth Health Atlas, if the 6,000 hospitals in the country provided the same standard of care of the Intermountain or Mayo health clinics, Medicare alone would save 30 percent of total spending every year. We need to make best practices the minimum practice. We need the federal government and other healthcare stakeholders to consistently migrate to best practices that ensure quality, safety and better outcomes.
Reform Our Health Justice System. Currently, the U.S. civil justice system is the most expensive in the world -- about double the average cost in virtually every other industrialized nation. But for all of the money spent, our civil justice system neither effectively compensates persons injured from medical negligence nor encourages the elimination of medical errors. Because physicians fear malpractice suits, defensive medicine (redundant, wasteful treatment designed to avoid lawsuits, not treat the patient) has become pervasive. CHT is developing a number of bold health-justice reforms including a “safe harbor” for physicians who followed clinical best practices in the treatment of a patient. Visit CHT's Health Justice project page to learn more.
Invest in Scientific Research and Breakthroughs. We must accelerate and focus national efforts, re-engineer care delivery, and ultimately prevent diseases such as Alzheimer's Disease and diabetes which are financially crippling our healthcare system.
Stop Paying the Crooks. First, we must dramatically reduce healthcare fraud within our current healthcare system. Outright fraud -- criminal activity -- accounts for as much as 10 percent of all healthcare spending. That is more than $200 billion every year. Medicare alone could account for as much as $40 billion a year. (Read about our latest CHT Press book, Stop Paying the Crooks, edited by Jim Frogue.)
Move from a Paper-based to an Electronic Health System. As it stands now, it is simply impossible to keep up with fraud in a paper-based system. An electronic system would free tens of billions of dollars to be spent on investing on the kind of modern system that will transform healthcare. In addition, it would dramatically increase our ability to eliminate costly medical errors and to accelerate the adoption of new solutions and breakthroughs.
Tax Reform. The savings realized through very deliberately and very systematically eliminating fraud could be used to provide tax incentives and vouchers that would help cover those Americans who currently can’t afford coverage. In addition, we need to expand tax incentives for insurance provided by small employers and the self-employed. Finally, elimination of capital gains taxes for investments in health-solution companies can greatly impact the creation advancement of new solutions that
create better health at lower cost.
Create a Health-Based Health System. In essence, we must create a system that focuses on improving individual health. The best way to accomplish this is to find out what solutions are actually working today that save lives and save money and then design public policy to encourage their widespread adoption. For example, according to the Dartmouth Health Atlas, if the 6,000 hospitals in the country provided the same standard of care of the Intermountain or Mayo health clinics, Medicare alone would save 30 percent of total spending every year. We need to make best practices the minimum practice. We need the federal government and other healthcare stakeholders to consistently migrate to best practices that ensure quality, safety and better outcomes.
Reform Our Health Justice System. Currently, the U.S. civil justice system is the most expensive in the world -- about double the average cost in virtually every other industrialized nation. But for all of the money spent, our civil justice system neither effectively compensates persons injured from medical negligence nor encourages the elimination of medical errors. Because physicians fear malpractice suits, defensive medicine (redundant, wasteful treatment designed to avoid lawsuits, not treat the patient) has become pervasive. CHT is developing a number of bold health-justice reforms including a “safe harbor” for physicians who followed clinical best practices in the treatment of a patient. Visit CHT's Health Justice project page to learn more.
Invest in Scientific Research and Breakthroughs. We must accelerate and focus national efforts, re-engineer care delivery, and ultimately prevent diseases such as Alzheimer's Disease and diabetes which are financially crippling our healthcare system.
Senator Jim DeMint’s “Health Care Freedom Plan.”
You see, Senator DeMint has done a great job in laying out the issue.
Of course, you wouldn’t know it based on the response from the Democrats. Did you know that in his primetime press conference, President Obama referenced folks like DeMint, blaming them for opposing Obama’s plan, trying to paint conservatives with no ideas of our own? Did you know that the day after that, the Democrats came out with a video against Jim DeMint, again saying his answer on health care was “No,” and that he didn’t have a plan of his own?
We at American Future Fund Political Action deplore their tactics and we feel you should have the record set straight.
Jim DeMint’s plan offers the following:
My plan puts individuals back in control of their health care decisions by offering every American a health care voucher — worth $2,000 for individuals and $5,000 for families — to purchase a plan that best works for them. It doesn’t force anyone who likes their employer-sponsored health care to leave it. If you like your current plan, you can keep it. If you don’t have insurance, or if you do have insurance but might want to shop around, you can claim the voucher. My plan finally allows comparable tax benefits for those without employer-sponsored care, like small business workers and the self-employed.
The plan also breaks down barriers and creates a nationwide insurance market that doesn’t restrict individuals from purchasing insurance plans in other states. It also allows greater flexibility to use Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) to pay for insurance premiums.
To bring down overall health care costs, my bill reduces predatory malpractice lawsuits against physicians and hospitals and brings more transparency to the industry by requiring that true costs of health care are disclosed before patients receive treatment. My plan also ensures that Americans with pre-existing health conditions would be provided access to affordable coverage through federal block grant funding of state high-risk projects.
This is the leading, conservative plan in the Senate, yet Democrats paint its author as one who has no plan.
Unbelievable, isn’t it?
Unfortunately, Democrats continue to ignore conservative plans because they frighten them. You see, Democrats know that conservatives, with their common sense solutions to health care reform, have them beat already. And they don’t want YOU to know it.
Of course, you wouldn’t know it based on the response from the Democrats. Did you know that in his primetime press conference, President Obama referenced folks like DeMint, blaming them for opposing Obama’s plan, trying to paint conservatives with no ideas of our own? Did you know that the day after that, the Democrats came out with a video against Jim DeMint, again saying his answer on health care was “No,” and that he didn’t have a plan of his own?
We at American Future Fund Political Action deplore their tactics and we feel you should have the record set straight.
Jim DeMint’s plan offers the following:
My plan puts individuals back in control of their health care decisions by offering every American a health care voucher — worth $2,000 for individuals and $5,000 for families — to purchase a plan that best works for them. It doesn’t force anyone who likes their employer-sponsored health care to leave it. If you like your current plan, you can keep it. If you don’t have insurance, or if you do have insurance but might want to shop around, you can claim the voucher. My plan finally allows comparable tax benefits for those without employer-sponsored care, like small business workers and the self-employed.
The plan also breaks down barriers and creates a nationwide insurance market that doesn’t restrict individuals from purchasing insurance plans in other states. It also allows greater flexibility to use Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) to pay for insurance premiums.
To bring down overall health care costs, my bill reduces predatory malpractice lawsuits against physicians and hospitals and brings more transparency to the industry by requiring that true costs of health care are disclosed before patients receive treatment. My plan also ensures that Americans with pre-existing health conditions would be provided access to affordable coverage through federal block grant funding of state high-risk projects.
This is the leading, conservative plan in the Senate, yet Democrats paint its author as one who has no plan.
Unbelievable, isn’t it?
Unfortunately, Democrats continue to ignore conservative plans because they frighten them. You see, Democrats know that conservatives, with their common sense solutions to health care reform, have them beat already. And they don’t want YOU to know it.
Why the Census Needs to Let ACORN Go
I wanted to share with you a column that I wrote with my colleague, Congressman Lynn Westmoreland (GA), regarding our concerns about ACORN’s involvement in the 2010 Census. It was published last week in The Hill, a Capitol Hill newspaper.
Don’t let ACORN taint the 2010 census
The Constitution doesn’t specify many duties that the federal government absolutely must carry out. For as long as our republic lasts, Americans will debate the meaning and intentions of the Constitution, but on requiring a decennial census, the Framers wrote with such clarity that no analysis is needed.
Today our nation has 100 times as many people as it did at our founding. Though much has changed, the headcount of Americans remains an essential function of our federal government. It’s how we apportion representatives in Congress and direct spending.
For such an endeavor to succeed, the process must have the trust of the American people. Unfortunately, the blatant politicization of the 2010 survey has undermined many Americans’ faith in the system.
From the get-go, the Obama administration sought to use the census for partisan gain. First, Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel — a former leader of the House Democrats’ campaign committee — tried to usurp the census authority of the Commerce Department. A public outcry killed that West Wing power grab, but the partisan undertones continued when the administration announced ACORN as a national partner in the census soon thereafter.
ACORN’s involvement casts a cloud of suspicion over what should be a nonpartisan process. ACORN has been under investigation — and at times indictment and consent decree — for various counts of voter registration fraud related chiefly to the 2006 and 2008 elections. In more than a dozen states, prosecutors and investigators have pursued ACORN for violating the public trust in one of the most critical of public functions: the electoral process. Yet, this is the organization that the Census Bureau wants to tout as a “national partner” in the collection of some rather personal information.
Just last week, Senior District Judge Richard H. Zoller, in hearing a case against an ACORN employee for voter registration fraud in Allegheny County, Pa., urged prosecutors to zealously pursue the “real culprit” in these criminal cases. “Somebody has to go after ACORN,” the judge said. A few months ago, Nevada’s Democrat attorney general, Catherine Cortez Masto, said ACORN’s own training manuals “clearly detail, condone and … require illegal acts.”
The Census Bureau says that ACORN is just one of thousands of organizations that help to promote the census. Fair enough. But no organization other than ACORN has raised as many red flags or engendered such a high level of distrust among the American people.
The Census Bureau says that ACORN won’t actually go door to door and that the bureau will thoroughly screen all the enumerators. Nevertheless, ACORN will recruit enumerators and provide space where people can fill out their surveys. In fact, on the form that ACORN officials filled out to become a partner, they also indicated that they will “appoint a liaison to work with the Census Bureau, encourage employees and constituents to complete and mail their questionnaire, identify job candidates and/or distribute and display recruiting materials, provide space for Be Counted sites and/or Questionnaire Assistance Centers, engage regional and local chapters of [its] organization” and a host of other activities.
Any organization so intimately involved wih helping Americans fill out census forms should have credibility beyond question. ACORN, a group credibly accused of filling out fraudulent voter registrations with the names of the Dallas Cowboys, utterly fails that test.
The Census Bureau alone determines who qualifies as a national partner. Unlike most rules written by government agencies, there’s no congressional involvement, no opportunity for public input and no public notice. The Census Bureau says that it will partner with any group that can encourage participation in the census. Only law enforcement organizations, tax assessors and hate groups are specifically excluded. Given the fears and concerns that many Americans have toward ACORN, its involvement may actually discourage participation.
If the Census Bureau wants to allay mistrust and encourage full participation in the 2010 census, it can take a giant step in that direction by dropping ACORN from its national partnership program.
Don’t let ACORN taint the 2010 census
The Constitution doesn’t specify many duties that the federal government absolutely must carry out. For as long as our republic lasts, Americans will debate the meaning and intentions of the Constitution, but on requiring a decennial census, the Framers wrote with such clarity that no analysis is needed.
Today our nation has 100 times as many people as it did at our founding. Though much has changed, the headcount of Americans remains an essential function of our federal government. It’s how we apportion representatives in Congress and direct spending.
For such an endeavor to succeed, the process must have the trust of the American people. Unfortunately, the blatant politicization of the 2010 survey has undermined many Americans’ faith in the system.
From the get-go, the Obama administration sought to use the census for partisan gain. First, Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel — a former leader of the House Democrats’ campaign committee — tried to usurp the census authority of the Commerce Department. A public outcry killed that West Wing power grab, but the partisan undertones continued when the administration announced ACORN as a national partner in the census soon thereafter.
ACORN’s involvement casts a cloud of suspicion over what should be a nonpartisan process. ACORN has been under investigation — and at times indictment and consent decree — for various counts of voter registration fraud related chiefly to the 2006 and 2008 elections. In more than a dozen states, prosecutors and investigators have pursued ACORN for violating the public trust in one of the most critical of public functions: the electoral process. Yet, this is the organization that the Census Bureau wants to tout as a “national partner” in the collection of some rather personal information.
Just last week, Senior District Judge Richard H. Zoller, in hearing a case against an ACORN employee for voter registration fraud in Allegheny County, Pa., urged prosecutors to zealously pursue the “real culprit” in these criminal cases. “Somebody has to go after ACORN,” the judge said. A few months ago, Nevada’s Democrat attorney general, Catherine Cortez Masto, said ACORN’s own training manuals “clearly detail, condone and … require illegal acts.”
The Census Bureau says that ACORN is just one of thousands of organizations that help to promote the census. Fair enough. But no organization other than ACORN has raised as many red flags or engendered such a high level of distrust among the American people.
The Census Bureau says that ACORN won’t actually go door to door and that the bureau will thoroughly screen all the enumerators. Nevertheless, ACORN will recruit enumerators and provide space where people can fill out their surveys. In fact, on the form that ACORN officials filled out to become a partner, they also indicated that they will “appoint a liaison to work with the Census Bureau, encourage employees and constituents to complete and mail their questionnaire, identify job candidates and/or distribute and display recruiting materials, provide space for Be Counted sites and/or Questionnaire Assistance Centers, engage regional and local chapters of [its] organization” and a host of other activities.
Any organization so intimately involved wih helping Americans fill out census forms should have credibility beyond question. ACORN, a group credibly accused of filling out fraudulent voter registrations with the names of the Dallas Cowboys, utterly fails that test.
The Census Bureau alone determines who qualifies as a national partner. Unlike most rules written by government agencies, there’s no congressional involvement, no opportunity for public input and no public notice. The Census Bureau says that it will partner with any group that can encourage participation in the census. Only law enforcement organizations, tax assessors and hate groups are specifically excluded. Given the fears and concerns that many Americans have toward ACORN, its involvement may actually discourage participation.
If the Census Bureau wants to allay mistrust and encourage full participation in the 2010 census, it can take a giant step in that direction by dropping ACORN from its national partnership program.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)