The "My Opinion" article on health care reform that the Town and Country got a response. Wow - what an attack. Here is my response to the response - I have submitted this to the Town and Country to see if they want to publish it.
Title: I agree to agree, but without the name calling
According to the national media, the proponents of the health care bill offer rational thoughts while the opponents are crazy people, yelling a lot and making nasty personal attacks – here in the Valley it is the other way around. Two weeks ago, I wrote an opinion piece explaining in detail why the new health reform law won’t work. Last week’s reply was – well, geeze, I don’t know what I said to bring that on.
Ironically, if you overlook the fact that the author never contradicts what I said and omit the personal comments about me, the two real points the gentleman made were legitimate. First, the gentleman was critical of the efforts of the Republicans in the U.S. House or Senate. I agree. The alternatives offered by Republicans were weak and counterproductive. The only reason I harped on the Democrats was they are the only ones who voted for this stupid law.
Second, the gentleman suggests rules used by insurers to refuse to sell coverage to people with medical conditions be eliminated right now. I agree. Helping people with medical conditions get access to coverage right now is the single most important thing Congress should have done. Unfortunately, the Democrats can’t afford to implement the change he wants because they put so much junk in the law increasing federal spending and raising insurance premiums.
On the other hand, the gentleman suggests I don’t want 32 million Americans to get health care coverage. Not true. What I said is that raising taxes, the deficit, and the cost of insurance while reducing insurance company competition won’t result in more people getting coverage. Unfortunately, I am right. Benefit advisors have begun telling employers to consider cancelling health insurance to avoid the higher premiums and government red tape caused by the new law.
Rather than try to disprove anything I said, the gentleman closed with a whimsical comment - “there are big lies, little lies, and statistics.” Rather than respond to his personal comments, I’ll close by saying that what we need in our political discourse is less shouting, less threats, less name calling, less personal attacks and more honest, thoughtful, rational discussion.
Friday, April 9, 2010
President Obama and the Nuclear Treaty
This is a series of mixed comments about the news that President Obama signed a treaty with Russia to reduce nuclear weapons. On the positive side, it s good to see the President is trying to reduce nuclear weapons. This is a continuation of a tradition started by President Reagan. On the negative side, I find the media hype a bit ridiculous and I am sure questions about the treaty and a recent rewriting of the nuclear policy will arise. I just wish the discussions of what is, conceptually, a good idea were a bit more toned down.
After all, reducing the nuclear weapons in the world is not a bad idea. Russia is a country that could take a turn, politically, for the worse. So reducing the number of nuclear weapons they have pointed at us is not a bad idea. Also, the treaty did not sell out our development of a missle defense shield in Europe - again a good thing. It is good to see that ideas started by Ronald Reagan - reducing nuclear missiles not controlling the increase and defending ourselves against them - continue to develop.
Although you would not know this these ideas were started by President Reagan if you listened to the media hype surrounding President Obama's treaty signing. You would think that President Obama came up with a brilliant new idea that will save us from something horrible.
In some cases, the media's coverage is comical. For example, I actually heard a news report play a tape of one person saying that relations with Russia when President Obama took office were the lowest ever. Really? So our relationship with Russia when George Bush left office was lower than during the Berlin Airlift or the Cuban Missile Crisis? Are you serious?
On the other hand, the media's failure to question statements by the President and the Administration could lead to problems. For example, the President said, and some commentators made a big deal of this, that he feels he has a really good rapport with President Medvedev of Russia. That's nice. But, haven't all the news reports up to now said that President Medvedev is just a puppet for Vladamir Putin? Shouldn't someone ask President Obama if he really thinks rapport with a figurehead leader is all that valuable?
Also, the Bush Administration seemed to think President Bush had a good rapport with Vladimir Putin when Putin lead Russia. Within a short while, Putin was doing some things that were quite undesirable and the media began saying that President Bush's relationship with Putin really did not amount to much - and the media was right.
The fact that the media and the Obama Administration have changed history to omit all references to Ronald Reagan as the person who first began the process of reducing nuclear weapons and developing a defense shield will bite them in the rear when opponents of the treaty start pointing out flaws with it. Invariably, these opponents will act like doomsday is upon us if the Treaty is signed. Had the media and President Obama given President Reagan due credit, Republicans would have had some reason to tone down the rhetoric. Instead there probably won't be any limit on the negativism due to come out and that's unfortunate. First, I'm tired of the wild eyed shouting opposition to everything President Obama does. Second, while the treaty may benefit from constructive criticism, nuclear destruction of the US by Russia is not a likely result if it is approved as is.
After all, reducing the nuclear weapons in the world is not a bad idea. Russia is a country that could take a turn, politically, for the worse. So reducing the number of nuclear weapons they have pointed at us is not a bad idea. Also, the treaty did not sell out our development of a missle defense shield in Europe - again a good thing. It is good to see that ideas started by Ronald Reagan - reducing nuclear missiles not controlling the increase and defending ourselves against them - continue to develop.
Although you would not know this these ideas were started by President Reagan if you listened to the media hype surrounding President Obama's treaty signing. You would think that President Obama came up with a brilliant new idea that will save us from something horrible.
In some cases, the media's coverage is comical. For example, I actually heard a news report play a tape of one person saying that relations with Russia when President Obama took office were the lowest ever. Really? So our relationship with Russia when George Bush left office was lower than during the Berlin Airlift or the Cuban Missile Crisis? Are you serious?
On the other hand, the media's failure to question statements by the President and the Administration could lead to problems. For example, the President said, and some commentators made a big deal of this, that he feels he has a really good rapport with President Medvedev of Russia. That's nice. But, haven't all the news reports up to now said that President Medvedev is just a puppet for Vladamir Putin? Shouldn't someone ask President Obama if he really thinks rapport with a figurehead leader is all that valuable?
Also, the Bush Administration seemed to think President Bush had a good rapport with Vladimir Putin when Putin lead Russia. Within a short while, Putin was doing some things that were quite undesirable and the media began saying that President Bush's relationship with Putin really did not amount to much - and the media was right.
The fact that the media and the Obama Administration have changed history to omit all references to Ronald Reagan as the person who first began the process of reducing nuclear weapons and developing a defense shield will bite them in the rear when opponents of the treaty start pointing out flaws with it. Invariably, these opponents will act like doomsday is upon us if the Treaty is signed. Had the media and President Obama given President Reagan due credit, Republicans would have had some reason to tone down the rhetoric. Instead there probably won't be any limit on the negativism due to come out and that's unfortunate. First, I'm tired of the wild eyed shouting opposition to everything President Obama does. Second, while the treaty may benefit from constructive criticism, nuclear destruction of the US by Russia is not a likely result if it is approved as is.
Why the Health Insurance Reform Law is a bad idea.
The following was published in the Town and Country on April 1 - and not this is not an April fools joke. :-)
Why the Health Care Reform Legislation really is bad.
The health reform law is a road to disaster paved with good intentions. Start with the nice ideas to protect consumers which, coupled with higher taxes, raise the cost of health insurance. To offset higher costs, the law provides subsidies that are nice if you enjoy a lower paying job. Along with costs, taxes and the deficit will go up too. What goes down is health insurance competition. When President Obama started this process he promised a thoroughbred horse instead we got a three legged camel.
For example, didn’t President Obama say he wanted the cost of health insurance to go down? Instead costs will go up because the Democrats wanted to be so good to us. Added to the taxes and regulatory red tape they heaped on insurance companies, there are a bunch of new health benefits that you have to pay for regardless of whether you need them or can afford them. The result, health insurance premiums go up, not down.
On the other hand, why lower prices when you can make people dependent on the Government instead. Thus, the Democrats created a subsidy program to help people making less than $88,000 pay for health insurance. Now $88,000 sounds like a lot of money. For one person, that’s a good paying job. But if both spouses work and earn $44,000 each, are those good paying jobs? Thanks to the Democrats, the couple earning $44,000 each faces a Federal penalty – loss of insurance subsidies – if either accepts a promotion. Seems the Democrats not only tax the rich they want to prevent anyone else from getting rich too.
Unfortunately, subsidies require money and money is something the Federal Government is short of right now. That means both raising taxes and creating new taxes. So tax the Democrats did – they added taxes to insurers, to employers, and to individuals. In addition to raising the cost of insurance, the Democrats violated President Obama’s promise not to raise taxes on people earning under $250,000.
Despite all the taxes, the health insurance reform law adds $562 billion to the Federal Deficit. Disregard the Democrats’ claim that the new law lowers deficits by $138 billion. The New York Times provided a detailed listing of how the Democrats fudged the numbers. For example, the Democrats created a long-term care program and the $70 billion in premiums was used as revenue to lower the deficit. Amazingly, not a single penny of those premiums was shown as being used to pay for benefits.
Of course, we were promised that there will be competition among health insurers and that will hold down prices right? Sorry. Once again, the Democrats “protected us” by playing games with the way insurance companies develop premiums. The result will be less competition because only large insurance companies will be able to stay in business. This is irony – Democrats complained about insurance companies dominating markets and they pass a law that skews the market so only insurance companies that dominate the markets can survive.
If the Editor would allow me five pages, I could go into greater detail. I felt compelled to write this because in the middle of a bad economy, the Democrats passed a law with new taxes and regulatory burdens and now the Democrats have embarked on a media campaign to tell us they did us a favor. The fact is the harm caused by higher premiums, higher taxes, higher deficits, and less competition is going to undo whatever benefits this law provides.
Why the Health Care Reform Legislation really is bad.
The health reform law is a road to disaster paved with good intentions. Start with the nice ideas to protect consumers which, coupled with higher taxes, raise the cost of health insurance. To offset higher costs, the law provides subsidies that are nice if you enjoy a lower paying job. Along with costs, taxes and the deficit will go up too. What goes down is health insurance competition. When President Obama started this process he promised a thoroughbred horse instead we got a three legged camel.
For example, didn’t President Obama say he wanted the cost of health insurance to go down? Instead costs will go up because the Democrats wanted to be so good to us. Added to the taxes and regulatory red tape they heaped on insurance companies, there are a bunch of new health benefits that you have to pay for regardless of whether you need them or can afford them. The result, health insurance premiums go up, not down.
On the other hand, why lower prices when you can make people dependent on the Government instead. Thus, the Democrats created a subsidy program to help people making less than $88,000 pay for health insurance. Now $88,000 sounds like a lot of money. For one person, that’s a good paying job. But if both spouses work and earn $44,000 each, are those good paying jobs? Thanks to the Democrats, the couple earning $44,000 each faces a Federal penalty – loss of insurance subsidies – if either accepts a promotion. Seems the Democrats not only tax the rich they want to prevent anyone else from getting rich too.
Unfortunately, subsidies require money and money is something the Federal Government is short of right now. That means both raising taxes and creating new taxes. So tax the Democrats did – they added taxes to insurers, to employers, and to individuals. In addition to raising the cost of insurance, the Democrats violated President Obama’s promise not to raise taxes on people earning under $250,000.
Despite all the taxes, the health insurance reform law adds $562 billion to the Federal Deficit. Disregard the Democrats’ claim that the new law lowers deficits by $138 billion. The New York Times provided a detailed listing of how the Democrats fudged the numbers. For example, the Democrats created a long-term care program and the $70 billion in premiums was used as revenue to lower the deficit. Amazingly, not a single penny of those premiums was shown as being used to pay for benefits.
Of course, we were promised that there will be competition among health insurers and that will hold down prices right? Sorry. Once again, the Democrats “protected us” by playing games with the way insurance companies develop premiums. The result will be less competition because only large insurance companies will be able to stay in business. This is irony – Democrats complained about insurance companies dominating markets and they pass a law that skews the market so only insurance companies that dominate the markets can survive.
If the Editor would allow me five pages, I could go into greater detail. I felt compelled to write this because in the middle of a bad economy, the Democrats passed a law with new taxes and regulatory burdens and now the Democrats have embarked on a media campaign to tell us they did us a favor. The fact is the harm caused by higher premiums, higher taxes, higher deficits, and less competition is going to undo whatever benefits this law provides.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)