Obama to meet Party Leaders to discuss Health Care Reform on C-SPAN

During the pregame show for the Super Bowl, CBS's Katie Couric interviewed President Obama and the topic of health care came up. President Obama, in a gesture of bipartisanship, announced that he wants to meet with leaders of both parties to "go through systemically all the best ideas that are out there and move it forward." The Democrats had the votes last year to pass health care reform without a single Republican vote. Now President Obama wants to meet with Republican leaders to find a way to pass a key piece of legislation. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said today, "If we are to reach a bipartisan consensus, the White House can start by shelving the current health spending bill" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35296874/ns/politics-health_care_reform/). While I doubt that Democrats will be okay with starting over at square one, Sen. McConnell does have a point.

Much of what is in the Democrat health care bills will not achieve the desirable outcome of lowering costs and reducing premiums. It will be interesting though on February 25^th when President Obama sits down for a 4-hour discussion on health care. This time it will be on C-SPAN. The election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts stirs the pot a bit as his major platform item was to stop the Democrat health care bill. Why this is a strong indication to the Obama Administration is that Massachusetts only has about 14% of its citizens registered as Republicans. That means that Independents and Democrats voted for Brown thus sending a message to Washington on the health care issue. Some may see the 4-hour discussion as a publicity stunt or grand standing by Obama; I rather look at it as an opportunity for Republicans to get their message out on reforming health care.

By extending the bipartisan olive branch Obama can score points with the American public after the backlash from closed-door negotiations with Democrats that lead to special provisions for Nebraska and Louisiana. At the same time though, it could be his Waterloo as it gives Republicans an opportunity to one up the president and have their ideas displayed for all to see. The move to have it televised is a smart move by the president, especially since he campaigned on allowing all negotiations and debate to be aired on C-SPAN. My hope is that they will streamline the bill that calls for the creation of at least 35 new agencies to watch over reform. Do we really need more agencies? Does government need to get bigger? Perhaps the white elephant will get discussed during this meeting and we will see movement to eliminate entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

Senate Health Care Debate Gets Good News/Bad News from the CBO

"In the greatest country on Earth, no American should die simply because they don't have health insurance. We have a historic opportunity to enact meaningful health care reform that will work to stabilize the economy, provide quality for millions of Americans," stated Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) on the Senate floor Monday (http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/senate-debate-begins-with-baitsmanship/). While one is hard pressed to locate a single America that does not feel reform is needed to control escalating insurance premiums and cost of health care. The trouble is that Congress is off the mark with either bill being discussed. The central tenet of the House bill is a public option while the Senate version has one with an opt-out clause. For the majority of the year thus far, Congress members have touted their take and pimped their vote all under the guise of health care reform.

I still, as of this post, not heard one signal argument that unequivocally demonstrates how adding only one option to the pool of options for health care is going to drive down costs and premiums so all can afford health care. In order for reform to have the desired affects – affordable choices and lower costs – Congress needs to scrap the public option and replace it with legislation that will open state borders for the purchase of health care insurance and remove the anti-trust exemption that health insurance companies currently enjoy. Open up competition will lead to lower premiums. The Congressional Budget Office(CBO) estimates that in the best-case scenario that premiums would go down for most Americans by 2016 due to government subsidies while a worst-case scenario results in a little more than 10 percent of policyholders will experience a decrease even after the subsidies. In fact the CBO estimates that, under the worst-case scenario, the majority of Americans will see no effect or an increase up to 13 percent. The assessment can be seen at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10781/11-30-Premiums.pdf.

Again, why are we allowing Congress to pass a bill that does not achieve the goals in all scenarios? Why not allow market forces to work through increase competition? Some may argue that free market forces are not enough. To that I agree slightly. To assist free market forces the government will need to repeal the anti-trust exemption. Let's demand true reform from Congress. If the CBO is correct and the best-case scenario does take place, we will be looking at higher taxes in order to fund government rule health care. It is the greatest Ponzi scheme every done if we allow our Congress to pass "reform" in its present state. Neither bill will start for at least three years after passage. In the meantime our "reform" does nothing but collect taxes; taxes that will have to be raised to cover the costs.

That being said, it is time for Congress to pass true reform that takes effect immediately and does not raise our taxes. As Jonathan Gruber, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, states" This is not delivering huge premiums savings to the insured. But the flip side is that here's a bill that reduces the deficit, covers 30 million people and has the promise of lowering premiums in the long run" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/30/AR2009113004391_2.html?hpid=topnews). I don't know about the rest of you but Government said that Social Security was going to be there for me when I retire and we all know that it will be insolvent in the near future. If the bill does nothing but establish more government in our lives then why are we sitting idly by and allow Congress to pass "reform" that reforms nothing and will raise our taxes?

Massachusetts: Just say No!!!!

Yesterday an Icon in the political landscape succumbed to the illness that had kept him from performing his duties as the Senator of Massachusetts. Sen. Ted Kennedy who had been battling a tumor took his last breath and will be buried Saturday in Arlington National Cemetery alongside his two brothers. The vacuum left by Sen. Kennedy will be missed by the left as he was often dubbed the "Liberal Lion". Once Minnesota's Senate race was decided the Democrats held a 60-seat filibuster proof Senate majority. With the death of Sen. Kennedy and the law in Massachusetts the filibuster proof hold for Democrats is no longer. Or is it? The Massachusetts state law stipulates that in cases when a Senate seat becomes vacant during term a special election will take place 5 months after the seat become vacant.

A push in Massachusetts, both locally and nationally, is being made to pressure the state to change the law to give Democrat Gov. Deval Patrick to power to appoint an interim Senator until a special election can be had. Several weeks back Sen. Kennedy sent a letter to the Democrat hierarchy of the state to make a case to change the law and give power to the governor to appoint an interim Senator. Up until yesterday the major players in Massachusetts Democrat hierarchy had remained silent when Gov. Patrick broke that silence by saying to the Boston Globe, "I'd like the Legislature to take up the bill quickly and get it to my desk and I will sign it." While I recognize that having both Senate seats is critical to keeping ones state's voice heard in the Senate, it is the political game that is being played out that sickens me.

Back in 2004 the Democrats in Massachusetts legislature rejected the very legislation that is being discussed right now. At that time it appeared likely that Sen. Kerry would be elected President of the United States and to ensure that Massachusetts had equal representation in the Senate a bill was proposed to give the governor the power to appoint an interim Senator. The bill was voted down because the governor at the time was Rep. Gov. Mitt Romney. It appears that hypocrisy is seeping into the political game once again.

The health care debate is an important one and having all voices equally represented is important. That being said, perhaps Massachusetts should stay the course to allow the debate on how to reform health care rage on. President Obama has an ambitious goal of getting reform done by year end. While I commend the president for setting a goal, I do not see it as realistic especially in light of recent deficit reports. The current tab is outrageous and it doesn't even include $1.2T health care reform or the "Cap and Tax" program.

If Massachusetts reverses course to appease the Democrats it will be an abuse of political power. The citizens of Massachusetts ought to be ashamed of themselves if they allow their politicians to entertain legislation to change the process for filing vacant Senate seats. We in Minnesota saw the abuse of political power during the Franken and Coleman debacle. Citizens of Massachusetts learn from the mistakes of Minnesota and demand your state legislature leave the status quo alone.

Driving: Entitlement?

State lawmakers in Massachusetts are setting the stage as legislation moves through the Legislature in dealing with an aging driving population. The bill, if enacted, will require “vision and road tests every five years for all drivers 85 and older” according to a report in the Boston Globe. The catalyst of the bill is a recent accident on June 14th that took the life of Diya Patel. In a hearing yesterday “state Senator Brian A. Joyce introduced Nihan Patel, whose 4-year-old niece, Diya Patel, died on June 14, a day after being struck by a car driven by an 86-year-old woman” (Lawmakers vow to ‘fast track’ elderly driver legislation, Boston Globe, Matt Collette).

In the past I have discussed my disdain for seat belt laws but in this case I am in complete agreement. Personally, waiting until 85 is far too late. Driving in a privilege that many take for granted. If things continue done the path of entitlement – housing, jobs, and health care – soon the entitlement to a driver license may be next. After one obtains their license, it is important to adhere to the rules of the road. Now, I will admit that not every “rule of the road” do I follow; I am not alone.

That being said, it is time for the DMV’s across the United States to institute more testing. The attempt being made in Massachusetts is a step in the right direction. My suggestion is to reduce the age to 50.