Health Care Redux
By J. Patrick Bertroche, D.O.
Pres. Obama has now decided that HE will write the new health care “reform” bill. In a bid to save a bill that “isn’t about me, it’s about America”, Pres. Obama now has “written” his own health care reform bill, in order to save one of his platform pieces. We all know by now he is a Socialist Elite. But to stepping in and writing this bill is saying, “Ok, it is about me after all”.
With the Looney Left at a fever pitch over the last year, I can see why they won’t give up the “reform” of the best health care system in the world. They want socialism, and they want it now. No matter what the citizens say. They know better than we do what is good for us. They want a nanny state, because they are the nannies.
Since the people have decried the health care “push”, (more like a shove down and kick) the next obvious tactic is to simply eliminate those people from the debate. And they are attempting to do so by introducing a bill that looks pretty much like the Senate and House bills, but with no public option. By doing it this way, they just need a simple majority. What the Looney Left is not getting is , whether or not you are for or against the public option, people are NOT for more taxes, or more bureaucrats, or having our “option” be government health care. The Dems are “lukewarm” to the bill, according to Fox News, and the CBO has said that it is too vague to really estimate how much it will cost. The WSJ said it would cost $950 billion. As I have said many times, health care reform should not cost a trillion dollars.
We need to reform the health care system in our country. No one disputes that. But what the Looney Left doesn’t understand, and most people don’t realize, is that our health care system is in such a mess because of government interference. At a recent campaign stop, a person asked me why the insurance companies are starting to cut back on reimbursements to doctors and hospitals. The answer is simple: They follow what Medicare does. Medicare reduced payments, insurance companies reduce payments. Medicare this year eliminated consultations. So if you are in the hospital, and something happens beyond the scope of your doctor’s expertise, Medicare won’t pay for another doctor to help you. And here the Looney Left is telling us there will not be any rationing.
The next good example of government interference raising the cost of health care is immunizations. It costs somewhere around $78 to immunize a child during its first year of life. That comes to around $320million for immunizations for the first year of life. The taxes (yes, the government taxes immunizations) is about $6 per child per year, or about $25million. The indirect taxes, such as getting FDA approval, for example, drive the government’s share of the immunization close to $40 per child, and maybe even as high as $60 per child. If you eliminated the government’s taxes from just immunizations for just the first year of life, you would save a minimum of $25million, and potentially $280 million PER YEAR!
But the Looney Left doesn’t see anything wrong with taxes. Or government interference. They just see something wrong with free enterprise and limited government.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Congressional Cowardice
Congressional Cowardice
By J. Patrick Bertroche, D.O.
Congressional candidate, Iowa’s 3rd Congressional District
With McCain-Feingold shot down by the Supreme Court, the Looney Left is decrying the decision as a blow “to the little person”, and, with much wailing and gnashing of teeth, accusing the “rich” and corporations of now being able to buy politicians. Of course, the Right is celebrating like it is “1999”, since “free speech” for all citizens will now reign. Really.
If you recall, at the time McCain-Feingold was passed, the issue was Republicans “buying” the White House, and there was a tremendous uproar over corporations being able to “buy” influence. The bill was framed as a victory for “the little people” and a strike against the evil, nasty corporations. By creating another layer of paperwork, it was felt that people would be “more equal” in the ability to buy their legislators influence.
If a corporation, with its army of lawyers, can figure its way around the tax code, then working around McCain-Feingold was like playing “Chutes and Ladders” for them. So they play the game, file the extra papers, and continue business as usual.
Of course, any law that could potentially change the flow of cold, hard cash to the politicians in power will always have a fatal flaw designed into it. Among the most basic laws of the land is Free Speech. And that was the fatal flaw designed into this bill. Corporations are viewed, legally, as people. They have the right to free speech just as everyone else does.
What Congress does, always, is take an issue that is important to the people, create a bill or law that they KNOW will not stand up to legal challenge, and then they can keep the people happy without any real risk to the status quo. Or to themselves. Campaign finance a real issue? McCain-Feingold to the rescue. Back in the 1980’s, it was deficit spending and balanced budgets. Gramm-Rudman came charging in like the cavalry.
The common factor is that both were designed to lose a legal challenge.
Both bills “tried” to solve a pressing and current issue. The same issues are important today, but now Congress can blame the Courts for striking the laws down. Either these guys are dumb as rocks, without any clue about Constitutional Law, or they are just cunning enough to create these bills. The challenges to automatic congressional pay raises haven’t gone anywhere, because the bills were written well, with no fatal flaws.
But the bottom line is that those in Congress, for the most part, are cowards. They try to cover themselves so they can continue to reap the tremendous rewards they give themselves. They run from issues important to the nation in order to continue their “free” lunch at our expense. (There are exceptions: Sen. Grassley, Rep. King, Rep. Latham) The current health care laws are a great example. Sen. Ben Nelson sold his vote to help keep Nebraska’s Medicare/Medicaid rates the same, instead of his state taking cuts. But this also bears out my very pointed opinion that Congress, after a while, lose touch with the people they represent. Sen. Nelson should have known that Nebraskans, much like Iowans, play fair. And would hate the deal that he made, even though it benefitted them. It was underhanded, and Nebraskans didn’t like it.
Another good example is this week the Hawaiian legislature voted against a gay marriage law in their state. But they didn’t vote it down by taking a vote and having the votes recorded. They took a “voice vote”, which is just everyone saying “yea or nay”, and not recording who voted which way. Hawaii is a strange state, in as much as religion and worship is deeply ingrained, alongside very non-traditional liberal values. So it was interesting to read the papers as everyone, both right and left, dodged the issue in an election year.
It really doesn’t matter at what level politicians operate. They are interested in getting re-elected, and will do what it takes to make sure they take no stand they cannot weasel out of. That’s why I believe strongly in term limits for all elected officials. And I also believe strongly campaign spending limits. Instead of limiting what we, as citizens, can give candidates, I think the limitations should be on how much the candidates can spend on being elected.
By J. Patrick Bertroche, D.O.
Congressional candidate, Iowa’s 3rd Congressional District
With McCain-Feingold shot down by the Supreme Court, the Looney Left is decrying the decision as a blow “to the little person”, and, with much wailing and gnashing of teeth, accusing the “rich” and corporations of now being able to buy politicians. Of course, the Right is celebrating like it is “1999”, since “free speech” for all citizens will now reign. Really.
If you recall, at the time McCain-Feingold was passed, the issue was Republicans “buying” the White House, and there was a tremendous uproar over corporations being able to “buy” influence. The bill was framed as a victory for “the little people” and a strike against the evil, nasty corporations. By creating another layer of paperwork, it was felt that people would be “more equal” in the ability to buy their legislators influence.
If a corporation, with its army of lawyers, can figure its way around the tax code, then working around McCain-Feingold was like playing “Chutes and Ladders” for them. So they play the game, file the extra papers, and continue business as usual.
Of course, any law that could potentially change the flow of cold, hard cash to the politicians in power will always have a fatal flaw designed into it. Among the most basic laws of the land is Free Speech. And that was the fatal flaw designed into this bill. Corporations are viewed, legally, as people. They have the right to free speech just as everyone else does.
What Congress does, always, is take an issue that is important to the people, create a bill or law that they KNOW will not stand up to legal challenge, and then they can keep the people happy without any real risk to the status quo. Or to themselves. Campaign finance a real issue? McCain-Feingold to the rescue. Back in the 1980’s, it was deficit spending and balanced budgets. Gramm-Rudman came charging in like the cavalry.
The common factor is that both were designed to lose a legal challenge.
Both bills “tried” to solve a pressing and current issue. The same issues are important today, but now Congress can blame the Courts for striking the laws down. Either these guys are dumb as rocks, without any clue about Constitutional Law, or they are just cunning enough to create these bills. The challenges to automatic congressional pay raises haven’t gone anywhere, because the bills were written well, with no fatal flaws.
But the bottom line is that those in Congress, for the most part, are cowards. They try to cover themselves so they can continue to reap the tremendous rewards they give themselves. They run from issues important to the nation in order to continue their “free” lunch at our expense. (There are exceptions: Sen. Grassley, Rep. King, Rep. Latham) The current health care laws are a great example. Sen. Ben Nelson sold his vote to help keep Nebraska’s Medicare/Medicaid rates the same, instead of his state taking cuts. But this also bears out my very pointed opinion that Congress, after a while, lose touch with the people they represent. Sen. Nelson should have known that Nebraskans, much like Iowans, play fair. And would hate the deal that he made, even though it benefitted them. It was underhanded, and Nebraskans didn’t like it.
Another good example is this week the Hawaiian legislature voted against a gay marriage law in their state. But they didn’t vote it down by taking a vote and having the votes recorded. They took a “voice vote”, which is just everyone saying “yea or nay”, and not recording who voted which way. Hawaii is a strange state, in as much as religion and worship is deeply ingrained, alongside very non-traditional liberal values. So it was interesting to read the papers as everyone, both right and left, dodged the issue in an election year.
It really doesn’t matter at what level politicians operate. They are interested in getting re-elected, and will do what it takes to make sure they take no stand they cannot weasel out of. That’s why I believe strongly in term limits for all elected officials. And I also believe strongly campaign spending limits. Instead of limiting what we, as citizens, can give candidates, I think the limitations should be on how much the candidates can spend on being elected.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
