Combs Spouts Off

"It's my opinion and it's very true."

  • Calendar

    December 2025
    S M T W T F S
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    28293031  
  • Recent Posts

  • Tag Cloud

  • Archives

Posts Tagged ‘health care’

Blue dogs face tough choice

Posted by Richard on August 14, 2009

With a filibuster-proof 60 votes in the Senate and a 78-seat majority in the House, the Democratic leadership can theoretically pass anything it wants without a single Republican vote. So those of us who oppose government-controlled health care have been looking to the Blue Dog Democrats in the House, along with some other Democrats in vulnerable districts, to stop or slow the Obamacare juggernaut.

The Blue Dogs are supposedly fiscally responsible Democrats, many of whom were first elected in 2006 or 2008 by positioning themselves as center-right candidates. The health care issue would seem to be the perfect place for them to demonstrate their commitment to their campaign promises. But will they?

The Blue Dogs and other vulnerable Democrats are caught between a rock and a hard place. If they go against their party leadership, their lives will be made extremely miserable. But if they toe the party line on an increasingly unpopular measure that has ignited extreme passions, they're likely to be looking for work in a little over a year. 

Pelosi faces no such difficult choice, according to Robert Romano. She just needs to command the loyalty of the troops she's prepared to sacrifice: 

Nancy Pelosi does not care if the passage of ObamaCare costs her seats in the House come 2010. She has already done a head count. And she knows exactly how many Blue Dogs and other vulnerable Democrats in that chamber she can spare in 2010 to fully enact her and Barack Obama’s radical agenda to quickly implement a government takeover the health care system.

Call them the Blue Dog “Forlorn Hope Brigade.” The real Forlorn Hope Brigade was nicknamed after the French army pawns that would always be the first to charge into battle, with little to no hope of survival. They were in essence cannon fodder. But they were told to think of the glory. To know that their sacrifices were for a good cause.

And that’s the position Pelosi and Obama have put the Blue Dogs into. They are now the sacrificial lambs by which to enact an agenda that is almost alien to the American people. They gave the radicals in the Democrat Party the numbers they needed to achieve a majority in 2006.

And if 30 or so of them must now be sacrificed to achieve that end, then that’s just what Pelosi is going to do. They’re expendable.

So the question is: will the Democrats' Forlorn Hope Brigade obediently sacrifice themselves for a cause that by all rights they should oppose? The future of health care in America — maybe even the future of liberty — may depend on the answer. 

And the answer may depend on you, and me, and all our friends and neighbors. The emails, cards, and letters we write, the phone calls we make, the petitions we sign, the rallies and meetings we attend, and the responses we give to pollsters all help shape the mood of the country and affect the decisions of those Blue Dogs.

Let's do everything we can to help them make the right decision.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Health care rally in Grand Junction

Posted by Richard on August 14, 2009

On Saturday, Aug. 15, President Obama will appear in Grand Junction, CO, in front of a carefully selected audience of admirers and planted questioners. A short distance away, Americans for Prosperity and the Western Slope Conservative Alliance will be holding a rally:

Please join us for this important opportunity to have your voice heard and to send the President a message:

Hands Off My Health Care Rally

Saturday August 15th

10am

Lincoln Park

(corner of 12th and North Avenue)

Grand Junction, Colorado

Bring the whole family out and enjoy music and a great line up of speakers.

Bring your lawn chair and water.  Enjoy the time in the park with your family. This event is sponsored by Americans for Prosperity and the Western Slope Conservative Alliance.

State Sen. Ted Harvey is chartering some buses to take people there from the Denver metro area. Here's the info from the Colorado Union of Taxpayers email: 

The cost will be $35 per person.

The buses will pick us up at 9:30 at the Highlands Ranch Park and Ride at Dad Clark Dr. and Univeristy…Just South of C470.

Plan to spend the day. The trip on the coach takes about five hours. We will spend about 3 hours in Grand Junction for the protest before returning home.

Upon arrival we will join thousands of other protesters from around the state to line the streets from the airport to Central High School to show the President what Colorado thinks of his socialist agenda.

We want to have as many folks as possible joining us but time is short.

Please reply to this e-mail immediatley and let me know if you will plan to join us. The first 100 people to reply to this e-mail will be assured a seat.

Bring your $30 in cash or bring a check made out to me personally and I will pay the Charter Company.

Bring a sack lunch and we will provide the drinks.

Bring your own handmade signs to wave on the streets of Grand Junction! 

To sign on, email: marty5539@gmail.com 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »

Rasmussen: voters favor GOP on health care

Posted by Richard on August 13, 2009

Judging from Rasmussen's latest poll of likely voters, the Democrats are practically engaging in assisted suicide (assisted by the mainstream media) by pushing government-controlled health care:

For the first time in over two years of polling, voters trust Republicans slightly more than Democrats on the handling of the issue of health care. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that voters favor the GOP on the issue 44% to 41%.

Democrats held a four-point lead on the issue last month and a 10-point lead in June. For most of the past two years, more than 50% of voters said they trusted Democrats on health care. The latest results mark the lowest level of support measured for the party on the now-contentious issue.

Public support for the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats has fallen to a new low with just 42% of U.S. voters now in favor of it. That’s down five points from two weeks ago and down eight points from six weeks ago.

Overall, Republicans lead Democrats in terms of voter trust on eight out of 10 key issues for the second consecutive month, and the two are tied on one issue.

Republican candidates continue to hold a modest lead over Democrats for the seventh straight week in the Generic Congressional Ballot.

Only on the issue of government ethics do voters trust the Democrats more than the Republicans. But the lead is narrow, 34% – 31%, and the combined total of a mere 65% suggests that many, many people don't trust either party very much. 

In Rasmussen's daily tracking poll , the Presidential Approval Index is at -8. The index is calculated by subtracting the percentage who strongly disapprove, 37%, from the percentage who strongly approve, 29%. Obama's total approval score (strongly plus somewhat) is now at 47%, the lowest level Rasmussen has yet recorded, while 52% disapprove. It should be especially worrisome to Democrats that 65% of unaffiliated voters now disapprove. 

Sen. Arlen Specter's switch to the Democrats and support for government-controlled health care have thrown a one-two punch at his re-election hopes. In the span of two months, Specter has gone from a double-digit lead over Republican Pat Toomey (of the Club for Growth) to a double-digit deficit (36% – 48%), and his lead in the Democratic primary race is starting to slip. 

It warms the cockles of my heart that apparently there are still plenty of Americans who have no use for arrogant, condescending busybodies who think they know what's best for us and are thus entitled to run our lives.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

“The heartlessness … is chilling”

Posted by Richard on August 13, 2009

Last week, the White House asked people to report anyone who said something "fishy" about their health care plan (meaning something that contradicts the official White House talking points). I turned in Barney Frank. Now, I'm turning in another dyed-in-the-wool liberal.

Lee Siegel wants "universal health care," paid for by higher taxes on "the rich." He speaks contemptuously of Betsy McCaughey (whose excellent related column about two Obama health care advisers, Drs. Ezekiel Emanuel and David Blumenthal, is a must read). But Siegel is appalled by the prospect of government bean counters denying care to the old and "nudging" them to consider getting the hell out of the way (emphasis added):

For those of us who believe that the absence of universal health care is America’s burning shame, the spectacle of opposition to Obama’s health-care plan is Alice-in-Wonderland bewildering and also enraging—but on one point the plan’s critics are absolutely correct. One of the key ideas under consideration—which can be read as expressing sympathy for limitations on end-of-life care—is morally revolting. And it’s helping to kill the plan itself.

Make no mistake about it. Determining which treatments are “cost effective” at the end of a person’s life and which are not is one of Obama’s priorities. It’s one of the principal ways he counts on saving money and making universal healthcare affordable.

Obama told Diane Sawyer in June that government should “study and figure out what works and what doesn’t. And let’s encourage doctors and patients to get what works. Let’s discourage what doesn’t.”

Sawyer then asked him: “Will it just be encouragement? Or will there be a board making Solomonic decisions?”

Obama replied, “What I’ve suggested is—is that we have a—a commission that helps—made up of doctors, made up of experts, that helps set best—best practices.”

When Sawyer pressed him to say whether those practices would be enforced by law, he evaded the question.

This reeks of the Big Brother nightmare of oppressive government that the shrewd propagandists on the right are always blathering on about. Except that this time, they could not be more right.

In the House bill, it's not just encouragement. At least regarding Medicare/Medicaid (and, I think, the "public option") HHS is directed to reduce payments for "excess" hospitalizations and "misvalued" treatments and is given wide latitude to implement additional cost saving regulations. Undoubtedly, the commission's recommendations will end up determining what gets paid for and what doesn't. But don't take my word for it, read the bill (PDF, 1018 pages). Start at p. 223 and continue for about 150 pages (if you can stand it), and then jump to p. 501. Or take a look at John David Lewis's excerpts and analyses regarding nine important questions, including the issue of health care rationing.

Siegel thinks Obama got such ideas at the University of Chicago Law School: 

By far, the most influential figure in that world is Judge Richard Posner, who teaches law at Chicago and publishes streams of pompous, robotically written books that are much praised and little read.

Judge Posner is both an enthusiastic advocate of euthanasia and an energetic eugenicist. He once wrote of Oliver Wendell Holmes’ ideas about eugenics—Holmes believed that a just society “prevents continuance of the unfit”—that “we may yet find [Holmes’] enthusiasms prescient rather than depraved.”

Cass Sunstein, who is Obama’s nominee for regulatory czar, is a disciple of Posner and believes in what Time magazine describes as “the statistical practice of taking into account years of life expectancy when evaluating a regulation.” In other words, Sunstein believes that the lives of younger people have a greater value than those of the elderly. This, obviously, would have a radical bearing on end-of-life considerations.

Read the whole thing. Then, by all means, read Betsy McCaughey's column about two more very disturbing people who have helped shape Obama's vision of how our health care system should be run.

They say you can judge a man by the company he keeps. The kind of people Barack Obama has chosen as friends, mentors, and advisers speaks volumes.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 2 Comments »

More union thuggery

Posted by Richard on August 11, 2009

If it's the opponents of socialized medicine who are an angry mob, how come they're the ones who keep getting beaten? Via Gateway Pundit comes news of another assault by a union thug, this time in New Hampshire:

This is how Chicago-style politics are played out:

Obama: "They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun"
Obama to His Followers: "Get in Their Faces!"
Obama on ACORN Mobs: "I don't want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I'm angry!"
Obama To His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice As Hard”

A tea party protester was accosted by one of Obama's union thugs today.
He was just following orders.
GraniteGrok reported, Via Free Republic:

One of the Free Staters was accosted by either an SEIU or AFSCME union thug. The story, corroborated by several sources, is that the Free Stater said something that the Union thug did not like and hauled off and spit into his video camera and then kicked him in the groin.

The camera was running so hopefully it will surface soon. I have asked that if anyone knows the Free Stater to see if he would come over and talk with us.

At Confederate Yankee, a report about a union-sponsored health care town hall in North Carolina suggests that maybe the rank and file members aren't as sold on government-run health care as their leaders would like.

But inside the President's town hall meeting, everything was friendly and wonderful. Especially that adorable little girl asking Obama why the people outside had such mean things on their signs — the little girl that was a plant!

UPDATE: Speaking of plants, it looks like the guy with the "Obama as Hitler" poster was a plant, too. Before Rep. John Dingell's town hall meeting, he paraded the poster around for the media, providing "evidence" to back up Pelosi's absurd assertion. After the meeting, he was handing out Dingell flyers.

What are the odds that the swastika at the Georgia congressman's office was planted, too, a la the noose at Columbia University and numerous similarly faked incidents? I'd say they're pretty good.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Hundreds rallied for Gladney at St. Louis SEIU office

Posted by Richard on August 10, 2009

The St. Louis Tea Party held a rally at the local Service Employees International Union office Saturday protesting the beating and hospitalization of Kenneth Gladney by SEIU goons on Thursday. The Tea Party's Bill Hennessey reported (emphasis added):

Over 300 people gathered in front of SEIU Headquarters on Pershing Saturday to thank Ken Gladney for taking punishment for our freedom.  On Thursday, thugs in SEIU uniforms beat and kicked Gladney.  The thugs hate black men who wander off the liberal plantation to speak their minds.  That hatred put Gladney into a wheelchair.  Unable to speak due to pain, medication, and heat, Gladney’s attorney, David Brown, read from a hand-written statement Gladney had prepared the night before. 

According to witnesses, an African-American man wearing an SEIU uniform approached Gladney Thursday about 8:30 p.m. as Gladney showed his buttons and flags to the wife of a minister.  The SEIU thug said, “Why is a n***** handing out ‘Don’t tread on me’ flags,” before punching Gladney to the ground.  According to video taken at the scene by numerous witnesses, other SEIU thugs joined in to kick and beat Gladney.  “Don’t tread on me,” has become a rallying cry for the Tea Party Movement.

Gladney was at the rally in a wheelchair.  The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has an excellent 3-minute video (top left of page) that includes an interview with Gladney, followed by another black Tea Party member giving a great verbal smackdown to a leftist. 

Rush Limbaugh asked the question today, "Why isn't Kenny Gladney … the new Rodney King?" The answer, of course, is that the mainstream media and the civil rights leadership don't give a rat's ass what happens to a conservative or libertarian black man. 

The contempt and loathing of the left for this man is very much on display at the YouTube video of Saturday's rally, with comments like this: 

TOO FUNNY… This idiot started a fight, got banged up, and guess what… HE HAS NO HEALTH INSURANCE!!!

Right folks- the moron is working to destroy a program that would have given him medical treatment — now he has to take up a collection to pay his medical bills. He's as dumb as the rest of his ignorant friends.

The SEIU guys should've put him out of his misery. 

And this: 

wait until the teamsters get ahold of his ass lmao 

Of course, there are bad people on both sides. According to Jeralyn Merritt (TalkLeft), a "progressive" leader's car was vandalized at the Rep. Perlmutter event Saturday. But while union thugs beating and kicking a man is apparently a source of humor for many on the left, some lout breaking car mirrors evokes outrage.

Merritt wanted to know "What rock did these people crawl out from under?" — implying that such behavior is characteristic of "these people" rather than a rare exception. And at least one of her commenters, cpinva, went stark raving bonkers (and drew no criticism or censure; this comment is rated "topical") (emphasis in original): 

what we have here is a junior version(s) of the infamous bier hall putsch, to be followed by a new kristalnacht against the "others". i suppose at some point, we can expect a right-wing night of the long knives as well.

I mentioned Godwin's Law the other day regarding Pelosi's "They're carrying swastikas" remark. If Godwin's Law were actually enforceable, that comment would have ended all further discussion of the subject at TalkLeft for a very long time.

UPDATE: According to Bill Hennessey, one of the people who was arrested for beating Gladney is an SEIU director, Baptist minister, and (gasp!) community organizer: 

Tea Party researchers have discovered some interesting news on one of the people arrested for beating Ken Gladney.

Elston K. McCowan is a former organizer – now the Public Service Director of SEIU Local 2000 – and board member of the Walbridge Community Education Center, and is a Baptist minister, has been a community organizer for more than 23 years, and now, he is running for Mayor of the City of St. Louis under the Green Party.

McCowan accused the Mayor of setting fire to his van . . . because that’s what big city mayors do in their spare time, I guess.  He also called Slay a racist.  And, on election night, McCowan thanked the family who voted for him.  It was quite touching, actually.

McCowan is not a rank-and-file, card-carrying union guy.  He is a director with SEIU. He IS the union.  He ISSUES the cards.  Andy Stern himself might as well have kicked Gladney.

I guess that means McCowan has Obama's favorite book, Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, in his library. 

HT: Sweetness & Light

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Only Obama supporters invited to “public” meeting

Posted by Richard on August 8, 2009

Via email, I learned that a constituent of Democratic Rep. Ed Perlmutter (CO-7) called his office yesterday asking about public meetings regarding health care and was told there were none. But on the very same day, the following email was sent to the "Organizing for America" (Obama supporters) list (excess white space removed):

I wanted to send you an urgent invitation to an important public meeting with Rep. Ed Perlmutter tomorrow (Saturday, August 8th). He'll be talking to constituents and gathering feedback — this is an ideal opportunity to make sure your support for health insurance reform is seen and heard at exactly the right time.

Our congressional representatives are back home this month, and they're facing more and more pressure from special interests on health insurance reform. It's critical that we get out there and show them where we stand.

I hope you can join us.

What: Health Care Public Event with
Rep. Ed Perlmutter

Where: King Soopers
500 E. Bromley Lane
Brighton, CO 80601

When: Saturday, August 8th
1:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m.

Our representatives are under attack by Washington insiders, insurance companies, and well-financed special interests who don't go a day without spreading lies and stirring up fear. We need to show that we're sick and tired of it, and that we're ready for real change, this year.

Please come to the public meeting, and make sure that the most powerful voices in this debate are those calling for real reform, not angrily clamoring for the status quo.

RSVP here:

http://co.barackobama.com/BrightonTH

Thanks,

Gabe

Gabe Lifton-Zoline
Colorado State Director
Organizing for America

P.S. — Before the event, please print off a flyer to display and make sure that your support is visible.

Notice that Lifton-Zoline has adopted Obama's favorite tactic, the straw man argument. I don't know of anyone who's "angrily clamoring for the status quo." I suppose the text is just lifted verbatim from some "talking points" document sent out to all the local Obamabots.

I just checked Perlmutter's website, and the event is listed on his schedule (I don't know how long it's been there). But there's no indication that it's concerned with health care. It's entitled "Government in the Grocery." Maybe I'm getting paranoid, but that actually sounds slightly ominous to me. Like the name of the Democrats' next big paternalistic program, designed to control what we eat.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 3 Comments »

I’m reporting “fishy” health care information

Posted by Richard on August 6, 2009

I've decided to help the Obama administration identify the sources of "disinformation" about its plans for America's health care system. At the request of Linda Douglass (one of at least a dozen "objective" journalists who've quit shilling for the Democrats in their mainstream media jobs in order to take positions in the Obama administration doing the same thing for pay), I'm reporting Rep. Barney Frank for contradicting the President's assertion on June 15: 

What are not legitimate concerns are those being put forward claiming a public option is somehow a Trojan horse for a single-payer system. … So, when you hear the naysayers claim that I’m trying to bring about government-run health care, know this – they are not telling the truth.

Here's what Barney Frank told the Single Payer Action organization on July 27, when asked why not to push for a government-run single-payer system right now (emphasis added): 

Because we don’t have the votes for it. I wish we did. I think that if we get a good public option it could lead to single payer and that is the best way to reach single payer. Saying you’ll do nothing till you get single payer is a sure way never to get it. … I think the best way we’re going to get single payer, the only way, is to have a public option and demonstrate the strength of its power.

Here's the video (I'm sending a link to flag@whitehouse.gov, as Linda Douglass requested, so they can add Frank to their database of "disinformation" disseminators): 

[YouTube link]

Who knew that Barney Frank was acting on behest of "high-level Republican political operatives" and/or insurance companies?

Note: Mary Katherine Ham uncovered the complete story of the "high-level Republican political operatives" cited by the DNC ad as orchestrating all the town hall meeting protests. It turns out to be a single libertarian, Bob MacGuffie (who insists he's never voted for a Republican), and four friends who set up a website and a PAC, Right Principles, with current assets of about four grand.

Ham also reports the parts of MacGuffie's memo on what to do at a town hall meeting that the DNC ad omitted, and she has a YouTube video of MacGuffie applying his own advice when questioning his own representative, Jim Hines. You be the judge of whether this is an "orchestrated, hateful action" by a member of a mob or a perfectly reasonable thing for a citizen to do in a representative democracy.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Patients First health care rallies

Posted by Richard on July 26, 2009

The Independence Institute and Americans for Prosperity are co-sponsoring health care rallies in Denver and Colorado Springs next week. Here's the info:

Rally for Real Health Care Reform

Do you want bureaucrats and politicians making your health care decisions?

Make sure your voice is heard against a Washington takeover of your family’s health care, and support real health care choices for every American.

**Bring your family and friends out to the Patients First Tour in Denver and Colorado Springs. We’ll have free food and free t-shirts for the family and top-notch speakers including patients, physicians, Jeff Crank, AFP Colorado State Director and Jon Caldara, President of the Independence Institute.

What: Patients First Tour – DENVER
Where: Colorado State Capitol, West front, 200 E. Colfax Avenue, Denver, CO
When: Tuesday, July 28, 2009, 11:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
Click Here to Register.

What: Patients First Tour – COLORADO SPRINGS
Where: Acacia Park, 115 E. Platte Avenue, Colorado Springs, CO
When: Wednesday, July 29, 2009, 11:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
Click Here to Register.

For many in D.C., cutting costs means cutting care – your care. Join Patients First and let Washington know that one-size-fits-all government plan doesn’t fit all because patients have different needs.

I'll be at the Denver rally. If you're in the area, please join me. There are many other Patients First bus tour stops and related events around the country. Check the AFP bus tour map and event calendar for an event near you. While you're at the Patients First site, don't forget to sign the petition.

If you still believe the Democrats' health care plan is about choice, and that you'll be able to keep your current insurance, watch this:

[YouTube link]

And check out this amusing and informative little video from the Independence Institute:

[YouTube link]

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

Obamacare, the House version

Posted by Richard on July 16, 2009

Remember that incredible chart back in 1993 showing how Hillary Clinton's health care plan would work? House Republicans have created a similarly striking graphic explaining the House Democrats' version of Obamacare:

House Democrats' health plan

Here's the full-sized chart (PDF).

Excuse me, I have to go lie down. Just looking at their health care plan makes me feel sick.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Why swine flu worries me

Posted by Richard on April 29, 2009

There are several reasons to be concerned about swine flu. But here's what worries me most:

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
   — Rahm Emanuel, White House Chief of Staff

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The next step in health care rationing

Posted by Richard on August 4, 2008

I'm pro-choice on everything, including abortion and suicide. I think most of the "slippery slope" arguments of the pro-life people are specious. That said, I found this story disturbing. Oregon's state health care system does indeed seem to be on a slippery slope, and it looks like a double black diamond:

Opponents of physician-assisted suicide are fired up this summer, and rightfully so, over an ethically questionable provision of the Oregon Health Plan.

The conflict came to light in a recent report in The Register-Guard of Eugene. The newspaper described the sad plight of Barbara Wagner, a 64-year-old Springfield woman with lung cancer.

After her oncologist prescribed a cancer drug that would cost $4,000 a month, the newspaper reported, "Wagner was notified that the Oregon Health Plan wouldn't cover the treatment, but that it would cover palliative, or comfort, care, including, if she chose, doctor-assisted suicide."

Wow. How long will it be before the state health care system starts making these decisions for its "clients," especially those it deems incapable of deciding rationally for themselves? Will the State of Oregon, with its health care budget increasingly stressed, eventually behave like pet owners who decide that the cost of curing Fido just isn't worth it, and it's time to put him down?

He who pays the piper calls the tune.

Remember that the next time you think you're lucky that your employer pays most of your health insurance costs. When the purchaser of a service and the consumer of that service are different people, which one do you think the service provider is most motivated to listen to? 

(HT: Billll's Idle Mind

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Protecting freedom of choice

Posted by Richard on March 8, 2008

Today's Wall Street Journal featured a fine opinion column defending freedom of choice and challenging paternalistic efforts to address three current issues. The author addressed three things in the news lately: subprime mortgages, health insurance, and payday loans. In each case, he argued, efforts to protect people from themselves with more regulation are wrong-headed and counter-productive.

Regarding the "mortgage crisis," the author argued that liberal credit, subprime loans, and adjustable-rate mortgages made home-ownership possible for countless people who otherwise couldn't have achieved it. And for most of them, this was and still is a very good thing: 

According to the national delinquency survey released yesterday, the vast majority of subprime, adjustable-rate mortgages are in good condition,their holders neither delinquent nor in default.

There's no question, however, that delinquency and default rates are far too high. But some of this is due to bad investment decisions by real-estate speculators. These losses are not unlike the risks taken every day in the stock market.

The real question for policy makers is how to protect those worthy borrowers who are struggling, without throwing out a system that works fine for the majority of its users (all of whom have freely chosen to use it). If the tub is more baby than bathwater, we should think twice about dumping everything out.

Regarding health care, the author argued that paternalism has denied people access to affordable options and restricted them to "gold-plated health plans" that they don't want and can't afford:

Buying health insurance on the Internet and across state lines, where less expensive plans may be available, is prohibited by many state insurance commissions. Despite being able to buy car or home insurance with a mouse click, some state governments require their approved plans for purchase or none at all. It's as if states dictated that you had to buy a Mercedes or no car at all.

Regarding payday loans, the author noted that these services, although expensive, allow people of modest means to cope with emergency needs at a far lower cost than the alternatives of bouncing checks or missing payments. The effort to restrict, regulate, or outlaw these services could cause great harm to their supposed victims:

Anguished at the fact that payday lending isn't perfect, some people would outlaw the service entirely, or cap fees at such low levels that no lender will provide the service. Anyone who's familiar with the law of unintended consequences should be able to guess what happens next.

Researchers from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York went one step further and laid the data out: Payday lending bans simply push low-income borrowers into less pleasant options, including increased rates of bankruptcy. Net result: After a lending ban, the consumer has the same amount of debt but fewer ways to manage it.

The "less pleasant options" also include loan sharks with mob connections who break legs when payments are late.

The author concluded with words that made me cheer:

Since leaving office I've written about public policy from a new perspective: outside looking in. I've come to realize that protecting freedom of choice in our everyday lives is essential to maintaining a healthy civil society.

Why do we think we are helping adult consumers by taking away their options? We don't take away cars because we don't like some people speeding. We allow state lotteries despite knowing some people are betting their grocery money. Everyone is exposed to economic risks of some kind. But we don't operate mindlessly in trying to smooth out every theoretical wrinkle in life.

The nature of freedom of choice is that some people will misuse their responsibility and hurt themselves in the process. We should do our best to educate them, but without diminishing choice for everyone else.

If you're reading this on your computer, you're probably already seated. Good. If not, sit down. The author of this wonderful column? George McGovern. Yes, the George McGovern.

Now, listen up, all you doom-and-gloom libertarians and libertarian-conservatives. You whine about how we're losing more and more of our freedoms, about the inexorable growth of Leviathan. You think we're losing the battle for liberty. You speak with contempt about the "sheeple" among whom you live, who are all too eager to "trade their birthright for a mess of pottage." You're wrong. In terms of the intellectual climate, the culture, the prevailing values and beliefs, we've made tremendous progress in the last 40 years.

No, we're not yet on the verge of a libertarian nirvana or a shining city on the hill. But we're not descending into darkness, either. Things have changed, and they've mostly changed for the better.

Except for in a few primitive backwaters and on college campuses, the superiority of "free minds and free markets" is almost universally acknowledged (even if grudgingly, by some). 

And the most radical leftist in my lifetime to be a major-party presidential candidate, the man who in 1972 advocated essentially democratic socialism and a cradle-to-grave welfare state, is today arguing for economic liberty and freedom of choice in a column entitled "Freedom Means Responsibility."

I think that's just way, way cool. Thanks, George! And cheer up, my friends — we're winning the war of ideas, and the future is bright!

(This message brought to you by Denver's most Pollyanna-ish curmudgeon — or curmudgeonly Pollyanna. Something like that. A tip of the hat to Rick Sincere, who had some good comments of his own.) 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 3 Comments »

SCHIP override fails, BDS worsens

Posted by Richard on October 18, 2007

The House this morning failed to override the President's veto of a Democratic bill mandating a massive 140% expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) — which, despite the name, is a federally-funded program that covers many adults (adults are the majority in some states), and despite the tear-jerking tales of poverty and need, has replaced private insurance for many families with incomes of $60,000, $70,000, or more.

But before the vote, Rep. Pete Stark exhibited yet more serious symptoms of Bush Derangement Syndrome (Michelle Malkin has a video clip), which is becoming increasingly virulent and appears to be completely resistant to treatment (emphasis added):

A longtime war critic, Stark said the president couldn't find $35 billion to expand SCHIP but at the same time had requested an extra $200 billion to pay for military operations in Iraq.

"Where are you going to get that money? Are you going to tell us lies like you're telling us today? Is that how you're going to fund the war? You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old, enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement," Stark said.

"President Bush's statements about children's health shouldn't be taken any more seriously than his lies about the war in Iraq. The truth is that Bush just likes to blow things up in Iraq, in the United States, and in Congress. I urge my colleagues to vote to override his veto," he continued.

The President, meanwhile, despite six years of evidence to the contrary, still clung to his childlike faith that if he just showed enough compassion by throwing money at Democratic causes, people like Pete Stark would grow to like him. Bush originally proposed "only" a 20% expansion of the SCHIP program, which led to accusations of child murder. Now, he says he's ready to negotiate a "compromise" bill with the Democrats. I suppose that means expanding the program somewhere between 20% and 140%. 

Given today's muddled moral and intellectual climate, I suppose it's fruitless to insist that a State Children's Health Insurance Program, if it must exist, ought to exist — and be funded — at the state level.

But the President just won the initial fight over SCHIP, despite a huge, multi-million-dollar advertising and PR campaign by Democrats and their supporters. If he had any cojones or commitment to the principles of fiscal responsibility and limited government that his party supposedly represents, he'd counter-offer with a bill cutting funding by 20% and limiting coverage to children only, and to households in the bottom two quintiles of household income (lower and lower middle classes). Or at least the bottom half of household income — jeez, that's not exactly harsh!

If you own a $300,000 home, commercial property, a Volvo SUV, a Suburban, and an F250 pickup, you should have been buying your own damn insurance. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 3 Comments »

The real goal of SCHIP

Posted by Richard on October 5, 2007

About six years late, President Bush finally vetoed a bloated spending bill — the massive 140% expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) passed by the Democrats (Bush had proposed "only" a 20% expansion). As you might expect, there were plenty of Republican senators who voted with the Dems — enough to override the veto. But on the House side, it fell a couple of dozen votes short of a veto-proof majority, so Dems are mounting a major effort to swing more squishy Republicans, with my congresscritter, Dianne DeGette, leading the way

It's a particularly egregious fraud of a program, promoted as helping poor sick children (who doesn't want to help poor sick children?). But the "children" are up to 25 years old and not very poor — and the majority were already insured (emphasis added):

Under SCHIP, the taxpayers fund health coverage for children in families of four earning as much as $72,000 per year, though not all eligible families enroll. Democrats in Congress want to open the program to families of four earning $83,000 per year or more. President Bush is OK with expanding SCHIP to cover well-off families – but only if the states enroll 95 percent of those lower-income children first.

Yet SCHIP is senseless. Like its much larger sibling, Medicaid, the program forces taxpayers to send their money to Washington so that Congress can send it back to state governments with strings attached. Both programs force taxpayers to subsidize people who don't need help, discourage low-income families from climbing the economic ladder – and make private insurance more expensive for everyone else.

SCHIP casts a much wider net than suggested by its stated purpose – namely, providing coverage to children in families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid (which ostensibly serves only the poor) but still can't afford private insurance. According to a study in the journal Inquiry, 60 percent of children eligible for SCHIP already had private coverage when the program was created.

Inevitably, many families simply substitute SCHIP for private coverage. Economists Jonathan Gruber of MIT and Kosali Simon of Cornell University find that, in effect, when government expands eligibility for SCHIP and Medicaid, six out of every 10 people added to the rolls already have private coverage. Only four in 10 were previously uninsured.

The financing of this massive 140% expansion is also egregious. First, the proponents are, in the time-honored tradition of all entitlement expansions, grossly underestimating the long-term costs. Second, they claim that they're "paying for it" with a 156% increase in the cigarette tax, but:

… according to the free-market Cato Institute, even that won't be enough. Americans have been slowly kicking the cigarette habit in recent decades. But to fund SCHIP at its expected expenditure levels in 2020 would require some 22 million new smokers.

Of course, there won't be 22 million new smokers. That means a rise in general taxes — not on smokers, but on you.

This is what the Democrats have mastered: creating a phony need, then proposing a tax on someone unpopular to fix it. When taxes don't come in as expected, they raise taxes on everyone.

It should be noted that SCHIP was initially enacted in 1997 with lots of Republican support (there are always plenty of Republicans eager to demonstrate how compassionate they are in the vain hope that liberals will like them more). And you have to marvel at the folks in Washington of both parties, who see no problem with enacting a State Children's Health Insurance Program at the federal level. 

But the SCHIP program was a Democratic idea, and according to a recent Politico article, specifically a Clinton staff idea with a hidden long-term goal (emphasis added):

Back in 1993, according to an internal White House staff memo, then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton's staff saw federal coverage of children as a "precursor" to universal coverage.

In a section of the memo titled "Kids First," Clinton's staff laid out backup plans in the event the universal coverage idea failed.

And one of the key options was creating a state-run health plan for children who didn't qualify for Medicaid but were uninsured.

That idea sounds a lot like the current State Children's Health Insurance Program, which was eventually created by the Republican Congress in 1997.

"Under this approach, health care reform is phased in by population, beginning with children," the memo says. "Kids First is really a precursor to the new system. It is intended to be freestanding and administratively simple, with states given broad flexibility in its design so that it can be easily folded into existing/future program structures."

The Clintonistas, already salivating at the prospect of returning to the White House in January 2009, are no doubt also already planning those "future program structures" for health care. A big expansion of SCHIP now would be helpful when it's time for the next phase. Plus, it would further weaken the Republican Party's tattered remnants of a principled opposition to complete government control of health care.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 3 Comments »