About those Tea Party "racists"...

Ever since the Tea Party thing launched about a year ago, Democrats and their loyal media have attempted to paint the entire movement as a pack of racists. The theme has become so pervasive that casual observers have come to believe it, upholding Vladimir Lenin's theory that "a lie told often enough becomes truth".

Last Sunday during the health care debate on Capitol Hill and the attendant Tea Party demonstration there, a number of black Congressional leaders claimed to have been jeered with racial slurs, and one even claimed to having been spit upon. Not to be left out, Rep. Barney Frank claimed to have been targeted with homophobic epithets. Naturally, the media took every unsubstantiated claim, packaged them up nicely, and reported them as undisputed fact.

Now supposedly, these acts occurred repeatedly as the accusers were walking to the Capitol building from a nearby Congressional office building on the Capitol grounds. Since the underground tunnels connecting the buildings is the preferred route, their presence on the grounds was unusual enough that there were dozens of members of the media and their cameras covering their walk. And yet not one video tape of any of these alleged incidents has surfaced. Not one.

Someone given to conspiracy theories might even think that their very choice of an outdoor route among the Tea Partiers was premeditated just so that they could make such accusations.

But not me.

Pelosi: Do it for the Bohemians

If you ever thought that the health care reform debate was simply about health care, this little bit from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in an interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow should put that to rest:

So, you can‘t—everybody has so much to gain from this, small businesses, as I said, seniors, young people, women, our economy. Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance or that people could start a business and be entrepreneurial and take risk, but not job loss because of a child with asthma or someone in the family is bipolar—you name it, any condition—is job locking.

That's right, folks. Your Democratic betters in Congress think ObamaCare simply must pass so that artists can quit their day jobs. Left unsaid, of course, is who shoulders their fair share of the cost burden.

Pelosi's little slip of the tongue reveals that this is more about creating permanent wards of the state.

The wrong way to eat an elephant

There's an old expression that goes something like this: "What's the best way to eat an elephant? One bite at a time." That, of course, would be as opposed to trying to swallow the whole thing at once, which is effectively what Obama and congressional Democrats are trying to do in their comprehensive health care reform efforts.

The problems with health care (and there are problems) are a collection of separate issues, each of which can be fixed independently of the others. So why not eat this elephant one bite at a time by crafting focused, targeted, separate pieces of legislation to address each one?

Over the course of a couple of years we'd see noticeable, incremental improvements for millions of Americans. Instead, Democrats want to make history by passing sweeping, pork-laden legislation and as a result, either nothing at all will get done, or all the wrong things will get done.

This is stupidity, narcissism and hubris on display on a grand scale.

Government not waiting for health care bill to pass to start messin' with you

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a government panel that makes influential recommendations on medical care practices, is now recommending that women not get mammogram breast cancer screening until age 50, and then only every two years. The current practice is to start at age 40 and then test annually thereafter.

"We're not saying women shouldn't get screened. Screening does saves lives," said Diana B. Petitti, vice chairman of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which released the recommendations Monday in a paper being published in Tuesday's Annals of Internal Medicine. "But we are recommending against routine screening. There are important and serious negatives or harms that need to be considered carefully."

Several patient advocacy groups and many breast cancer experts welcomed the new guidelines, saying they represent a growing recognition that more testing, exams and treatment are not always beneficial and, in fact, can harm patients. Mammograms produce false-positive results in about 10 percent of cases, causing anxiety and often prompting women to undergo unnecessary follow-up tests, sometimes-disfiguring biopsies and unneeded treatment, including surgery, radiation and chemotherapy.

Not everybody is so excited about the new guidelines. Such as people who actually know what the fuck they're talking about:

But the American Cancer Society, the American College of Radiology and other experts condemned the change, saying the benefits of routine mammography have been clearly demonstrated and play a key role in reducing the number of mastectomies and the death toll from one of the most common cancers.

"Tens of thousands of lives are being saved by mammography screening, and these idiots want to do away with it," said Daniel B. Kopans, a radiology professor at Harvard Medical School. "It's crazy -- unethical, really."

And just in case you don't think that this is the Democrats' idea of the future of health care:

The new recommendations took on added significance because under health-care reform legislation pending in Congress, the conclusions of the 16-member task force would set standards for what preventive services insurance plans would be required to cover at little or no cost.

A favorite cry of the Left in the abortion debate is "Hands off my body!", but I guess that doesn't apply here.

Like thieves in the night

Late on a Saturday night, while most of America slept or was out for a night on the town, the most ethical Congress ever, under the most transparent administration ever, passed a health care reform bill that was devised in secret closed-door meetings and was opposed by a majority of their constituents. If it's any consolation, the final vote was 220-215, which doesn't bode well for passage by the Senate in its current form.

For me the most disturbing thing about this bill from a civil liberties point of view is the individual mandates provision, which mandates that all citizens carry medical insurance. Failure to do so results in heavy fines or imprisonment for up to five years (if I understand the current version correctly). I'm hoping there are libertarian legal groups with court filings already drafted ready to challenge this provision if and when it becomes law. It'll be fun to see the Supreme Court take up the question of limits to Congressional power over individual rights, especially in an election year with many House and Senate seats up for grabs.

The death of statesmanship

Un-fucking-believable. Barney Frank demonstrates his class and statesmanship in the health care debate by mocking and insulting the intelligence of Americans protesting the health care bill.

Frank, a Massachusetts liberal, told an audience: "Some of the people (at the rally) that wanted to engage me in conversation appeared to have been the losers in the 'Are you smarter than Michele Bachmann contest?'."

Rep. Bachmann, R-Minn., had organized Thursday's rally attended by thousands of conservatives critical of the Democrats' health care plan. Her spokeswoman did not respond to requests for comment. Frank, who recently compared arguing with an angry voter to conversing with a dining room table, said this week's protest was like being trapped inside a furniture warehouse.

One thing I've learned about liberals is that they invariably believe themselves the intellectual superior of everybody else. That's fine if you're a coffee house poet or even a lefty columnist, but for a senior member of Congress to be smearing the intelligence of the 50% or so of Americans who disagree with him politically is outrageous. C'mon, Massachusetts...it's time to vote this cretin out of office.

Yes, Madam Speaker, the question of individual mandates IS a serious one

First, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) asserted that nobody questions the consitutional authority of Congress to impose individual mandates on citizens to purchase medical insurance. About a day later, it was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) turn to say that asking whether Congress has such constitutional authority was not a "serious question".

Set aside for a moment the supreme arrogance exhibited by our congressional Democratic leadership with these statements and consider the constitutional question: Can Congress compel citizens to purchase something they may neither want nor even need? All the Democratic health care reform proposals before Congress include individual mandates requiring citizens to carry health care insurance. Failure to do so is punishable by a hefty fine. It's not clear to me what the penalty might be if one refuses to pay the fine, but that's not important. What IS important is that this legislation would require you to purchase something you may not otherwise have purchased.

The easy argument is that it's in everyone's best interest, so it falls under the general welfare clause of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. If that's the case, then where does it end? It would clearly further the interests of the "general welfare" if every adult volunteered 20 hours of community service each month. Does that give Congress the Constitutional authority to compel every citizen 18 and over to spend four or five hours every week working in a homeless shelter or picking up trash on the side of the road?

Now, extend this exceptionally far-reaching Congressional authority to an America with a national health care system in which the bad habits of broad segments of the population increase the health care costs for all. Promoting the "general welfare" might then mean outright bans on tobacco and alcohol, mandatory exercise regimens...who knows what else.

Yes, Mr. Leahy and Ms. Pelosi, many people question the authority of Congress to impose individual mandates, and yes, it is a serious question.

Fixing health care

The health care "crisis" which Democrats insist must be immediately addressed by completely scrapping the current system and starting over really boils down to a handful of problems:

1. Some 30 million without health insurance
2. Denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions/canceling coverage after illness
   
3. Increasing costs of health care and medical insurance
   

For this we need to completely scrap a system that works for 80-90% of Americans? I don't think so. Let's look at the first two problems together, because they go hand-in-hand.

Many (maybe most?) of those 30 million elect not to carry health insurance because they feel they don't need it. They're typically single 20-somethings who generally enroll once they get a little older (and wiser) or when they decide to marry. In any event, 30 million represents just 10% of the US population...hardly the stuff of crises. Nevertheless, there are millions without insurance due to their employment situation. They might be unemployed or working for a company with no employee health insurance.

Much of this can be solved by a nationwide plan administered jointly by the nation's health insurers and funded in part by taxpayers and the insurance industry. The catch is that participation in the plan would be limited to those who can prove they have no other option. Funded at $4000 for each of the 30 million uninsured, the price tag comes to $120 billion a year. The participating insurance companies would cover the administrative overhead.

This brings us to the problem of pre-existing conditions, which is much less of a problem than most think. Under employers' "open enrollment" periods, employees can enroll in a plan without proof of insurability. Only when an insurer can prove that a condition existed and was previously diagnosed and the individual wasn't previously enrolled in a plan do insurers ever attempt to deny coverage. These cases are actually pretty rare and could be handled on a case-by-case basis. For the self-employed, require the insurers to establish a nationwide plan for them and administer it as if it were an employer plan. The risk pool would be more than large enough to offset the risks of insuring those with pre-existing conditions. As for insurers who cancel someone's coverage after they're diagnosed with a serious illness, that's simple: make the practice illegal.

Finally, if health care costs are spiraling, it might help to actually examine the reasons why and address some of them. Legal exposure is one reason costs keep going up, and tort reform would certainly help mitigate the problem. A recent Congressional Budget Office report estimates that tort reform would save $54 billion over the next decade. While that doesn't address the entirety of the problem, it's not exactly a drop in the bucket. I'm not opposed to wealth distribution if it means taking $5.4 billion a year from trial attorneys and putting it back into people's pockets. And, for crying out loud, allow people to shop across state lines for insurance. Let insurance companies compete with each other on a broader scale.

Am I over-simplifying? Maybe. Well, almost certainly. But you get the picture. We have shortcomings in our health care system that actually have nothing to do with the delivery system itself but with how people pay for it. What we don't have is a health care crisis. Congress should address those issues with sensible legislation and not a behemoth of a bill that will make all Americans indentured servants to a government-run health care complex.

White House doing really stupid shit now

"Lab coats! Getcher lab coats here!"

OK, so you're a president whose signature initiative - health care reform - is in serious trouble because two thirds of Americans absolutely hate the idea, at least in its current form. You've talked until you were blue in the face, and even more people hate it. What do you do? Invite 150 practicing physicians to the White House Rose Garden for a photo-op on health care reform.

But what kind of photo-op would this be if you couldn't tell they were doctors? Won't 150 doctors look pretty much like 150 accountants or lawyers? Hey! Let's have a dress code for the event...the doctors must all wear their lab coats! So, that's exactly what they did. There was just one problem:

The physicians, all invited guests, were told to bring their white lab coats to make sure that TV cameras captured the image.

But some docs apparently forgot, failing to meet the White House dress code by showing up in business suits or dresses.

So the White House rustled up white coats for them and handed them to the suited physicians who had taken seats in the sun-splashed lawn area.

Well, maybe there was one more problem:

Dr. Eric Novack of Phoenix, AZ, was one of the 50 doctors invited to the White House photo op today. But he turned down the invitation, because he has lead the fight to pass state legislation and constitutional amendments to prohibit individual insurance mandates.

“They had 16 hours to Google me, but I guess no one bothered,” Dr. Novack told Kathryn Serkes, Director of Policy and Public Affairs for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) in a video interview available at www.TakeBackMedicine.com.

Dr. Novack says that it was very tempting to accept the “once-in-a-lifetime” invitation, but in the end, he had to say no. But it also makes him question whether the doctors who will be there today actually support the President, or even understand all of the details of the bills.

“Are these doctors just star-struck, or do they have real knowledge about what they are supporting?” asked Serkes. “It’s looking like another dog-and-pony-show, and doctors should not be used in this shameful manner. First the President vilifies them, now he wants their help.”

Who knows how many more of those 150 physicians weren't actual supporters of the President's health care plan?

Anyway, this whole episode is just further evidence of just how low an opinion this administration has of Americans that they think we're going to be dazzled by a bunch of white lab coats.

The health care "debate"

Earlier this week, a letter to the editor ran in our local paper (the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star) bemoaning the "hysteria" over health care reform and repeating the usual Obama talking points on the topic. Since I hadn't written a letter to the editors in a while, I thought it deserved a proper Fisking.

Laura Newman’s letter to the editor of September 28th citing the “hysteria” over health care reform requires a response. The only reason there’s any “hysteria” is because those favoring the current health care reform bill keep reciting the same faulted talking points in response to supposed “misinformation” about the bill. Let’s examine Ms. Newman’s points:

Claim: It will not include coverage of illegal immigrants, abortions, or death panels.

Reality: While the language of HR 3200 doesn’t specifically allow coverage of illegal immigrants, it provides no construct for preventing it. Further, Rep. Michael Honda (D-CA) just recently called for amendments to the bill to extend coverage to illegal immigrants. As for abortions, the public option is heavily subsidized by taxpayer money, and those covered under a public plan can obtain abortions under the plan. That’s taxpayer-funded abortion. “Death panel” may be an ill-considered choice of terms, but the fact remains that HR 3200 would insert the government into end of life treatment considerations.

Claim: It will not affect previously insured individuals or doctor- patient relationships.

Reality: One might parenthetically add “not right away” here. Private insurance companies cannot compete with government-funded insurance, and would gradually exit the market. Democratic members of congress Barney Frank, Keith Ellison and Jan Schakowsky have all asserted that the public option is the path to a single-payer system in which all choices are eliminated for the consumer.

Claim: It will be financed by the taxes of those making $250,000 or more a year.

Reality: This is simply laughable. 70% of all income tax revenue already comes from the 5% of earners making more than $154,000 per year. Given the cost of this program, there aren’t enough taxpayers making more than $250,000 per year to cover it. Taxes will have to be increased across the board.

A slightly edited (but not materially changed) version ran in today's edition under the editor-supplied title "'Hysteria' over health care well-founded'. It didn't take long for the comments to start rolling in:

Thousands die under the present system (posted by UsefulIdiot , Oct. 2, 2009 5:54 am)
because without health insurance, they lack timely access to health care. Is the writer defending the present system? Can he come up with any alternatives?

Give it up already (posted by UberMensch , Oct. 2, 2009 5:53 am)
HR 3200 was one of 4 - 5 DRAFT proposals, but was the only one available "on-line", thus quickly seized upon the right wing "hatchet men" (most likely Karl Rove), who in turn created "death panel" and fed it to that empty headed, pretty face Palin. Every line was grossly distorted into fear provoking for the ignorant but loyals (Fox News fans). Worse, the thug tactics at town hall meetings disrupting our Republic were inexcuable. This type of gutter politics hopefully has run its course.

Yes, Hysteria is Never a Bad Reaction (posted by Einstein , Oct. 2, 2009 1:12 am)
What situation isn't helped by hysteria? Yes sirree Hysteria is a productive reaction to just about any situation.

Note that not one commenter attempts to refute my points. I particularly liked the rant about Karl Rove and Fox News.

I started to respond to these first three comments at the site, but decided against it. People hiding behind the anonymity of the Internet generally don't want to debate, they want to debase.

"Hear our cry, Obama!"

Just when you thought it couldn't get any creepier, Naked Emperor News via breitbart.tv offers up this little gem - health care reform advocates actually praying to Barack Obama, with refrains of "Hear our cry, Obama!" and "Deliver us, Obama!".

Listen closely for the reference to "the prophet, Martin Luther King, Jr".

A tax by any other name...

Former Clinton flack George Stephanopoulos did a good job yesterday, drawing out Obama's patented stammer and making him squirm a bit on the question of whether the provision in ObamaCare's individual mandate that allows the IRS to forcibly collect money from those who fail to purchase medical insurance constitutes a "tax". My favorite part is when Obama accuses Stephanopoulos of "stretching" when he recites the definition of a tax from Merriam's dictionary. Obama insists it's merely a "fine". Hot Air has the video, so you can go over there to see it.

To me, the punitive nature of the individual mandate might be the least defensible part of ObamaCare. If it's a tax, then Obama lied about not raising taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year. If it's a fine, then that puts the government in the constitutionally awkward position of forcing citizens to buy a service they may neither need nor want.

Allahpundit provides the perfect explanation of just how this does, in fact, constitute an additional tax:

All of which avoids the basic point: Of course that “fine” is a tax. Imagine if you were allowed to “opt out” of police protection, with your annual tax bill reduced proportionately by the cost of police services that you wouldn’t be using. Inevitably, some who opted out would have a huge (i.e. hugely expensive) police emergency and would call the cops anyway and the rest of us would be on the hook for paying for it. Solution: End the opt out and force people to cover their share of the cost of police services whether they want to or not, which is exactly what cities do. You can call that an “individual police-fee mandate” if your heart desires but most of us recognize it instantly for what it really is — namely, a tax.

Another way to look at this is that health insurance premiums become taxes paid to a third party, while those without health insurance pay the tax directly to the government. How is that not a government takeover of health care?

Corrected: Obama accused George S. of "stretching", not "reaching". If one fails to remember correctly, is that dismembering?

Notes on Fredericksburg, VA health care town hall

Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) held a health care town hall at the Fredericksburg Expo Center last night, which was heavily attended. Mrs. Pool Bar and I went, and I had a few questions I was prepared to ask, but alas, never got the chance. Numbers were handed out on request on the way in, and then randomly drawn during the event. Unfortunately, my luck was about as good as it is with any other kind of raffle, but I thought it was about as fair a way of selecting questions as could be asked for.

Some observations...

I would guess the anti-Obamacare crowd at about 65-70% of attendees. Not too surprising in this part of the state, even factoring in the oh-so-blue city of Fredericksburg.

My wife and I were seated next to a gentleman who was decidedly pro-healthcare reform. After we cheered an anti-Obamacare sign, he joked "I feel like I'm at the Alamo." He was a good-natured guy, and we chatted with him throughout much of the event, and I think that atmosphere was also reflected throughout much of the rest of the event. I saw no bickering among individuals from opposing sides, which may be attributable to the fact that...

The MoveOn.org and SEIU contingents were notably absent from this event. There was some pro-healthcare reform group or another handing out pro-reform signs to any takers on the way in, but I'm not sure what group they were with. In any event, this gives lie to the left's claim that anti-Obamacare protesters are "astroturfers" in the employ of the GOP, the health insurance lobby, etc.

Only at one point did someone stand up and start ranting without his number being called, but he was eventually silenced. He was a bit too far away to see if he was escorted out or just persuaded to sit down and shut up, and it was all handled by event staff with no need for the cops to get involved.

A transplant from Britain was lucky enough to get called on, and he proceeded to deliver a litany of reasons why our government should stay the hell out of the health care business. He received a standing ovation from a large majority of the crowd.

Sen. Warner himself was clearly in favor of some kind of health care reform, but was careful not to take a position on this health care reform bill. He did acknowledge after someone brought up the issue of tort reform that tort reform is needed, but he was clearly reluctant to link it to health care reform.

A couple of my favorite signs:

"This wise Latina says NO to Obamacare"

And:

Health care town hall tonight in Fredericksburg

Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) is hosting a health care town hall at the Fredericksburg Expo Center in Fredericksburg, VA. Mrs. Pool Bar and I will be there, and if given the opportunity, here's a partial list of questions I plan on asking:

Back in July, the Obama administration and Democratic leaders in Congress were frantically trying to rush a vote on an eleven hundred-page health care reform bill which was not yet finished, and none of them had read. Why?

The stated purpose of health care reform is to drive down costs associated with health care and make it more affordable. One of the biggest contributors to health care costs are legal costs and malpractice insurance expenses incurred by health care professionals, and yet Democrats in Congress consistently resist any efforts at tort reform. Why?

HR 3200 includes individual mandates, requiring citizens – under threat of tax penalties - to carry medical coverage for themselves and any dependents. From which article does Congress derive the Constitutional authority to compel private citizens to purchase something they may neither need nor want?

Still compiling more questions as I research more.

Who's astroturfing whom?

While the Democrats smear anti-health care reform protesters as GOP and corporate "astroturfers", it's pretty evident who's doing the real astroturfing. The Obama administration is inviting union goons to health care reform conference calls with HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

Rorschach test

When the stock market rose sharply yesterday, conservatives on Twitter were attributing the rise to the beating the health care reform bill was taking.

While reading through some random tweets today, I read one from a liberal who credited yesterday's rise to Obama's health care reform press conference the night before.

Just sayin'...

(PS: Yes, I think the first group has it right)

ObamaCare illustrated

Click for larger view

House Republicans produced this depiction of the incomprehensible bureaucracy that would be created under the health care bill. Of course, House Democrats say it's inaccurate, and are blocking House GOP members from mailing it to their constituents.

Transparency!

Transparency? Eh...never mind

The Obama administration is continuing yet another Bush era policy of keeping secret the names of visitors to the White House, even when those visitors are meeting on matters of public policy such as health care reform.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington sent a letter to the Secret Service asking about visits from 18 executives representing health insurers, drug makers, doctors and other players in the debate. The group wants the material in order to gauge the influence of those executives in crafting a new healthcare policy.

The Secret Service sent a reply stating that documents revealing the frequency of such visits were considered presidential records exempt from public disclosure laws. The agency also said it was advised by the Justice Department that the Secret Service was within its rights to withhold the information because of the "presidential communications privilege."

Yeah, I know. The left will say, "Well, Bush did it, too!", and they're right about that. Remember Cheney's meetings with energy company executives?

But guess what? When you just spent eight fucking years howling about every little thing Bush did while he was in office, you don't get to say "It's OK, 'cause Bush did it, too!", especially not when this president promised a new kind of politics and the most transparent administration ever.

'She's with me'

During a town hall meeting to pimp his health care plan, Barack Obama gave 10-year-old Kennedy Corpus something she'll never forget:

Her father, John Corpus of Green Bay, stood to ask Obama about health care during the president's town hall-style meeting at Southwest High School on Thursday. He told Obama that his daughter was missing school to attend the event and that he hoped she didn't get in trouble.

"Do you need me to write a note?" Obama asked. The crowd laughed, but the president was serious.

On a piece of paper, he wrote: "To Kennedy's teacher: Please excuse Kennedy's absence. She's with me. Barack Obama." He stepped off the stage to hand-deliver the note -- to Kennedy's surprise.

"I thought he was joking until he started walking down," Kennedy said after the event, showing off the note in front of a bank of television cameras. "It was like the best thing ever."

Young Ms. Corpus declined to comment on what actually is the best thing ever.

Anyway, this is very cool for young Kennedy. Her share of the national debt is already $546,668 so in 10 or 20 years, she can sell the note on eBay and pay down her share. Or if she finds herself with health issues, she can use the money to go to some other country for treatment.

Obama's veterans' health care plan: Retaliation?

Just spitballing here...is it possible that Barack Obama's immoral scheme to make service members carry medical insurance to pay for injuries suffered in combat is retribution for the fact that service members voted overwhelmingly against him in the last election?