Today’s Washington Post has an article by Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal on how to reform healthcare and actually make it work.  He lists ten points:

1.  Voluntary purchasing pools–make it easy for small business and individuals to form groups to purchase healthcare at cheaper prices.

2.  Portability–when you change jobs, your health insurance can go with you.

3.  Lawsuit reform.

4.  Coverage of preexisting conditions.

5.  Transparency and payment reform–let consumers know exactly what they are paying for and be able to determine the quality of the company they choose.

6.  Electronic medical records.

7.  Tax-free Health Savings Accounts.

8.  Reward healthy lifestyle choices.

9.  Cover young adults–this evens out the risk pool and lowers premiums for everyone.

10. Refundable tax credits–this would allow lower income people to purchase health insurance.

As the debate on healthcare plays out, we need to be aware of the options that are not included in the current proposal.  Some of the options listed above would result in immediate savings for consumers without creating a government-controlled healthcare system.

Please read the entire article–there are some good ideas there.

According to yesterday’s Wall Street Journal there is a case currently making its way through the courts that will decide whether you can refuse Medicare coverage (opting for private coverage instead) without losing your Social Security benefits.

According to the article:

“Last week, Washington D.C. District Judge Rosemary Collyer handed a victory to three plaintiffs seeking that right. President Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services had sought to dismiss the suit challenging so-called POMS rules that say seniors who withdraw from Medicare Part A must also surrender their Social Security benefits. (Part A covers hospital and outpatient services.) The judge ruled the plaintiffs have standing to contest their claim on the merits.”

This is amazing.  The Obama Administration had tried to get the case dismissed because it claimed that the people involved had not followed the proper procedures for challenging the rules within the POMS (the manual used by SSA employees to administer Social Security and Supplemental Security Income).

The thing to remember here is that all the people involved want to do is keep their own private medical insurance rather than switch to Medicare.  You would think that, considering the financial troubles Medicare is having, this would be a welcome choice–less people to cover. 

If the government is trying to control the choice of healthcare plans of people before national healthcare is passed, what will happen after the government can legally control your healthcare?  This is an important case and should be watched carefully. 

According to a Rasmussen Reports article posted today, 63 percent of voters nationwide say that guaranteeing that no one is forced to change their health insurance coverage is a higher priority than giving consumers the choice of a “public option” health insurance company.   The latest Rasmussen telephone survey finds that 29 percent of Americans say it’s more important for the government to provide non-profit health insurance.  Fifty-three percent of voters who currently have health insurance say that it is likely that they would have to change their insurance if the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats becomes law. 

The article also points out:

“Most voters under 30 believe the government option would save taxpayers money while their elders disagree. Sixty-two percent (62%) of senior citizens believe it would cost taxpayers money, the highest total of any age group.

“Forty-eight percent (48%) of all voters believe private health insurance companies would provide better service and more choice than a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option. Thirty-seven percent (37%) believe the government-sponsored option would offer better service and more choice.”

Needless to say, as a senior citizen, I am hoping that the current healthcare reform proposal does not pass.  I have yet to see the government handle anything more efficiently and less expensively than private businesses.  Private businesses are there to make a profit–not by overcharging, but by offering services in ways that save money and supply needs.  The government does not care about profit and therefore is not really searching for efficiency.  If they are the only game in town, customer service will not be a priority.  Until Congress agrees to be covered by the healthcare legislation it passes, I am opposed to any more government programs involved in healthcare.

Power Line today posted an article linking to a Clark Hoyt, Public Editor of the New York Times, column that ran today regarding the fact that the New York Times missed the events surrounding the group ACORN in the past two weeks.  In the column Mr. Hoyt cites some of the emails he received on the subject.

One email states:

“I often don’t hear about the latest conflict until I read a Facebook rant from an old high school friend or talk on the phone with my mother (both in conservative Orange County, Calif.). It’s embarrassing not to be able to respond with facts when I hadn’t even heard about the issue.” Michele Cusack of Novato, Calif., said that when someone asked if she had heard the latest about Acorn, “I had to answer ‘no’ because I get all my news from The New York Times.” 

That is one of the many reasons I started this blog.  If you depend on the New York Times to tell you the whole story, you will probably not get the facts you need to be an informed citizen.  Considering the history of the New York Times and its longtime role as ‘the newspaper of record,’ that is a shame.

Today’s New York Post has an article about the upcoming vote on the healthcare reform proposal.  In the article, it states:

“”I don’t expect to actually read the legislative language because . . . the legislative language is among the more confusing things I’ve ever read in my life,” Sen. Thomas Carper (D-Del.) told an online news service.”

Maybe I’m missing something here, but isn’t it the job of Congress to read the bills they pass? 

According to the article, these are the comments of John Cornyn:

“”The conceptual language is not good enough,” committee member Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) told CNSnews.com.

“”We’ve seen that there are side deals that have been cut,” Cornyn said.

“”So we need to know not only the conceptual language, we need to know the detailed legislative language, and we need to know what kind of secret deals have been cut on the side which would have an impact on how much this bill is going to cost and how it will affect health care in America.””

I have no idea of how we got to the place where Congress votes on an idea and writes the bill later, but it is not a good place to be.  What happened to the idea of posting the bill online for 72 hours so that people could take a look at it?  Even if we don’t understand all the legal jargon, we can get an idea of what is involved.  I don’t trust Congress when it refuses to let America see what it is doing.  It is definitely time for some transparency. 

There are two sources for this article (they are essentially the same thing, but I need to credit both), YouTube and Hot Air.  Please follow one of the links and watch the video.  The person speaking on the video is Tracy Walsh, a young mother who was diagnosed with breast cancer.  She is speaking about her experience in dealing with the cancer while insured by a private insurance agency.   Her story reminds us that America currently has a very good system of healthcare.  It is illegal to deny care to anyone who shows up at an emergency room with a medical problem.  No one in this country is currently being denied healthcare.

There are some things we could fix in the healthcare system without creating more problems than we solve.  Think automobile insurance–portability of health insurance across state lines, a risk pool for those with pre-existing conditions, and tort reform (common sense in legal cases involving medical issues).  None of these changes would drastically increase the role of government in health insurance–that may be why they are not getting the attention they should be getting.  My recommendation in regard to the current healthcare legislation is to scrap the whole thing and start again.  There are charges that people will die if we do not pass the current healthcare legislation; I can guarantee that people will die if we do. 

According to yesterday’s New York Times, the Education Department of New York City issued a three-page memo in June which banned most bake sales as fund raising tools.  Parent groups and Parent-Teacher Groups will be allowed to sell baked items once a month as long as it is after lunch.  They are also allowed to sell sweets after 6 pm on weekdays.

According to the article:

“The new policy also requires that vending machines, which generate millions of dollars for school sports, be supplied with snacks such as reduced-fat Baked Doritos and low-sugar granola bars. A new vending machine contract is expected to be approved on Wednesday by the Panel for Educational Policy, the school oversight board. Student stores will be able to sell only approved snacks bought from the new vendor, rather than obtain the food themselves, as they once did.”

There is nothing wrong with taking measures to improve the health of students, but this is intrusive.  I also have a hard time believing that the biggest problem facing the New York City school system is vending machines and bake sales.  This is government overreach and needs to be stopped. 

Yesterday Power Line had a short article on the International Olympic Committee’s choice of Rio as the location for the 2016 Olympics.  After quoting an athlete who attributes the decision to the possibility that maybe there is some hangover from politics, from the last eight years, the article ends with this conclusion:

“I suppose that will be the explanation when Obama can’t persuade the mullahs to abandon their nukes, either.”

You don’t suppose the loss of the Olympics by Chicago might have been impacted by all the negative things President Obama has said about America in his speeches around the world or by the fact that we are mistreating our allies on a regular basis while embracing dictators who silence their opponents on a regular basis?  At some point in the future, President Obama and his supporters will have to credit the President with the consequences of his actions–not blame the consequences on other people.

Byron York in today’s Washington Examiner reminds us that some parts of the Patriot Act are due to expire in December.  This expiration occurs just as we have uncovered terrorist plots being planned within America.

There are three provisions of the Patriot Act that have to be renewed every four years.  The last time they came up for renewal, the Republicans controlled Congress and they were renewed.  Renewal this time will be more complicated–some of the Democrats have said that they do not want to renew all of the Patriot Act.

According to the article:

“Congress put time limits on three of its most far-reaching provisions: “Roving wiretaps,” which allow investigators to keep up with suspects who use dozens of cell phones to avoid being traced; “business records” authority, which lets investigators ask a special national-security court for access to records of a suspect’s dealings with private businesses; and the “lone wolf” provision, which allows investigators to track individual terror suspects even if they are not a member of a terrorist group, like al Qaeda. Congress renewed those provisions in 2005 and now must give them another four-year renewal, or they will disappear.”

Some Democrats want to change some part of each of these three provisions.  Please see the article for the specifics and the overall impact of any changes.  We have no excuse for not being aware that there are attacks being planned against us and no excuse for not doing everything we can to prevent being attacked.  I hope the Democrats in Congress realize that.

The Washington Times has a story on the fact that the 2016 Olympics has been awarded to Rio De Janeiro.  There are a lot of thoughts and opinions on the fact that the Olympics did not go to Chicago.  I would like to add mine.

• One of the rules of negotiation for the leader of a country is to let the other people do the negotiating and then show up for the ‘talks’ after everything has been settled.  It avoids ‘loss of face’ and other complications.  It’s similar to the idea that a lawyer in a trial never asks a question unless he already knows the answer.  There are two possible reasons President Obama chose not to follow this rule–one, political naivete, or two, arrogance.  I have a hard time believing a politician that came up through the Chicago system is naive.  I also believe that in Chicago what I consider arrogance would not have been arrogance–it would have been an understanding of the power President Obama held.  The world is not as impressed with President Obama as Chicago is.
• Hosting the Olympics is not as impressive as it sounds.  It greatly inconveniences the people who live in the host city.  They have to deal with seven years of construction and road work.  It is very expensive and not a lot of fun.  I have heard that the only recent Olympics that made money for the host city was the Salt Lake City Olympics run by Mitt Romney.
• If President Obama had been willing to work with Mitt Romney (who has some experience not only in running the Olympics but in bringing the Olympics to America) rather than Oprah Winfrey, he might have found a way to bring the Olympics to Chicago.

So what is the lesson in all this?  Politically it is a defeat on the world stage.  In Chicago it means that some real estate speculators are no longer looking at amazing profits in the very near future.  In America I am not sure what it means other than the fact that some of the bloom is off the rose.  I believe it will impact the effectiveness of President Obama’s legislative agenda, but I am not sure how severely.

I believe that one of the things that has made America great is neighbors helping neighbors.  Back in the age of dinosaurs when my children were little, I watched a little girl for an hour in the morning before school because her mother worked.  When my youngest child was in the hospital for a time, two of my neighbors watched my older children for me.  This is the kind of thing that is part of our culture.  Well, there have been some changes since then.

According to an Associated Press story at Yahoo.com, Lisa Snyder, a Michigan woman who watches a neighbors child before school, has received a letter from the Michigan Department of Human Services telling her that if she continued to watch the child, she would be violating the law.  The law is aimed at unlicensed daycare centers.  I watch two of my grandchildren three days a week.  Is that illegal now? (No, because they are related.)

According to the article:

“Snyder’s predicament has led to a debate in Michigan about whether a law that says no one may care for unrelated children in their home for more than four weeks each calendar year unless they are licensed day-care providers needs to be changed. It also has irked parents who say they depend on such friendly offers to help them balance work and family.

“On Tuesday, agency Director Ismael Ahmed said good neighbors should be allowed to help each other ensure their children are safe. Gov. Jennifer Granholm instructed Ahmed to work with the state Legislature to change the law, he said.”

I understand the state’s desire to protect children, but what about the right of parents to choose what they consider the best child care? 

Let’s talk about why child care has become an industry.  In 1960 the average household paid less than 10% of its income in taxes.  Now that number is closer to 44%.  As our government has grown, so has the indebtedness of our citizens.  Working wives to a large extent are paying the extra taxes and supporting the daycare industry.  Less government would give us lower taxes and allow wives who choose to stay home the luxury of doing that.

Michigan is working to change this law, but I believe the law was overreaching in the first place.  I understand the government’s desire to protect children, but I think parents should be free to make arrangements with neighbors where it is convenient.

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal posted an article by John Fund detailing why he believes President Obama is having such a difficult time getting healthcare reform legislation passed.  Mr. Fund points out that in order to get elected to the Presidency, President Obama put together a coalition of young voters and wealthy voters. 

The article points out:

“Mr. Edsall (Thomas Edsall, a correspondent for the New Republic) calls the Obama coalition “a successful alliance of the upscale and the downscale — wealthy and needy marching hand in hand, sharing animosity to George W. Bush and the war in Iraq” But he also calls the Obama coalition a fragile one when it comes to economic issues. The Gallup Poll reports that voters earning under $30,000 a year wanted health care reform by a 13-point margin. But those earning over $75,000 a year opposed reform by 16 points.”

Because President Obama did not have the support of a majority of the middle class, it has been difficult for him to get legislation passed.  The two groups that are supporting him have very different ideas on healthcare reform and cap and trade legislation.

I guess the bottom line is that until President Obama comes up with legislation that the American people support, he is going to have a problem getting things passed.  There is talk of passing healthcare reform by using a procedure that attaches it to another bill and slipping it through unnoticed, but I believe this will have major negative consequences for the Democrats in future elections.

Today’s Washington Times has an update on the progress of the case against the Black Panthers for voter intimidation in Philadelphia.  Yesterday, the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, which is inquiring into why the Justice Department dropped the case against the Black Panthers, sent a letter to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. demanding that the Justice Department cooperate with their investigation.   On September 9th the Justice Department sent the U.S. Civil Rights Commission a letter saying that the commission should postpone their investigation until Justice’s own internal investigation of the matter is complete.

The article points out:

“Consider again the nature of the charges. The Black Panthers in question were videotaped standing in front of a polling place, nightstick in hand, in paramilitary garb, and were quoted multiple times using racial epithets and threatening language. The Panthers are deadly serious. At electionjournal.org, there is a National Geographic video clip of these same Black Panthers saying, “You want freedom, you’re gonna have to kill some crackers. You’re gonna have to kill some of they [sic] babies.”

“One of these menaces is a local Democratic official and was a registered Democratic poll watcher on the day in question. Three days after the case was dropped against him, he again served as an official poll watcher for Democratic municipal elections in Philadelphia.”

The question at the bottom of this investigation is whether all Americans are protected by Civil Rights Laws or whether only citizens of color are protected.  Somehow I always thought Civil Rights meant that everyone received equal treatment under the law.  Unless the Justice Department begins to cooperate with this investigation, it is sending a message that Civil Rights Laws only apply to people of color. 

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article yesterday about some of the votes that have been taken in the Senate Finance Committee as the Committeee marks up the Baucus bill on healthcare reform.    It’s interesting to look at the amendments that have been voted down in relation to what we are being told about what is in the healthcare bill.

According to the article:

“Senate Finance Committee Democrats rejected a proposed a requirement that immigrants prove their identity with photo identification when signing up for health insurance or tax credits under healthcare reform.

“Finance Committee ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said that current law and the healthcare bill under consideration are too lax and leave the door open to illegal immigrants defrauding the government using false or stolen identities to obtain benefits.

“Grassley’s amendment was beaten back 10-13 on a party-line vote.”

The Democrats are claiming that illegal immigrants will not be covered under the healthcare reform bill, yet they are unwilling to put an identity requirement in the bill. 

The article goes on:

“The Senate Finance Committee rejected an amendment to its healthcare bill Wednesday that would have required women to purchase a separate, supplemental insurance plan to cover abortion services.

“Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) proposed the amendment with the goal of making existing laws against federal money being used to pay for abortions, and the language in the healthcare bill, ironclad.

“All I’m asking — my gosh — is for specific language in the bill that prohibits federal dollars from being used to fund abortions,” Hatch said. …

“Democrats on the committee, along with pro-abortion-rights Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine) rejected Hatch’s argument, saying it would be unfair to require women to purchase separate insurance coverage for abortion services. Such a requirement, Snowe said, would raise privacy issues by asking women to anticipate their need for abortion coverage.”

Why are pro-abortion people objecting to language that excludes abortions being paid for by government healthcare plans–because they know abortion will be covered in the plan.

What we are being told about the current healthcare bill is not true.  It will cover illegal immigrants and it will cover abortion.  Please keep in mind that anyone who goes to an emergency room for medical care will be treated under current healthcare laws.  Healthcare is available to anyone who is in the country now–whether they are here legally or illegally.  The discussion now is whether to provide illegals with health insurance paid for by American taxpayers. 

The bill that is being debated now is not a move forward, it is the creation of a giant government bureaucracy that all of us will regret in the very near future.