Sen. Bunning is doing what all members of Congress ought to do; be fiscally responsible.

Breaking news struck around 6:30 p.m. that Sen. Bunning (R-KY) had reached a deal with Senate Democrats to end his objection to extending funds for unemployment benefits that put thousands of government workers on furlough starting last Monday. "I hope Senate Democrats tonight vote for their own 'pay fors' and show Americans that they are committed to fiscal discipline. I will be watching them closely and checking off the hypocrites one by one" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35675122/ns/politics-capitol_hill/). Many accused Sen. Bunning as being a hypocrite for his past votes on spending and tax cuts while objecting to hold Democrats to their own "pay as you go" bill. Sen. Bunning did vote against "pay as you go".

The objection raised by Sen. Bunning was refreshing to see a member of Congress to stand up others in the chamber to demand fiscal responsibility. I have been reading Facebook, media outlets and various blog sites as it pertains toward the objection raised by Sen. Bunning. When Sen. Bunning first made his objection last week he asked for Majority Leader Sen. Reid (D-NV) to use the Stimulus bill to pay for the $10B instead of passing the current bill without a funding source. I understand that $10B may be viewed as insignificant compared to the trillions of dollars being spent. Many, even some inside of Sen. Bunning's party, complained that he was hurting Americans by holding up the funding.

Sen. Bunning should be applauded for his stance regardless if it late in the game. A stance needs to be taken. The last time we went to the ballot box to vote for President of the United States many pulled the lever for Sen. Obama because he promoted change and hope. Even though many, those who took the time to vet Obama, knew his run to the middle was a charade and the true Obama leans extremely to the left. Since taking office we have seen a quadrupling of the deficit, a rise in the debt ceiling, broken promises to change Washington and to get people back to work. Obama has failed on nearly every campaign promise. Sen. Bunning is not running for re-election this year so perhaps this is why he is standing on principle and holding things up and the feet of the Democrats to the fire. I really don't care his reasoning; I am just happy to see a member of Congress to stand up and demand to know how we are going to pay for the $10B extension of unemployment benefits.

It will be interesting to see how the vote comes out and the deal made to pay for this extension.

C-SPAN Rejected by Administration to bring transparency to the Conference Committee process

During the race for the Democrat nomination Sen. Barack Obama pledged that he would "have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who is making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies." Well, C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb took, then Sen. Obama, seriously and offered C-SPAN services to air the conference committee proceedings as leaders in the House and Senate look to merge the health care reform bills. The letter that CEO Lamb sent can be seen here: http://www.c-span.com/pdf/C-SPAN%20Health%20Care%20Letter.pdf. The offer by C-SPAN includes all the hardware to show all sessions "LIVE and in their entirety" while giving complete access to all footage to any "member of the Capitol Hill broadcast pool."

In so many words, the Obama administration, Sen. Reid, and Rep. Pelosi are saying thank you but no thank you. The latest report on C-SPAN's webpage, http://www.c-span.com/Topics/Health-Care-Insurance-Reform-Legislation-Town-Hall.aspx, that "the leadership is considering bypassing a formal conference committee in resolving differences between House and Senate versions of the legislation." Now, why is there not more public outcry by Americans or the mass media? The potential passage of health care reform will have massive implications to every American. Shouldn't Obama be held to his pledge of keeping the negotiations open and "televised on C-SPAN"?

Why are we so content on sitting idly by and watch the majority party dictate reform to America? What are they hiding? Will another Nebraska deal come through the pipeline? Perhaps Rep. Pelosi has it right about Obama when she said, "There are a number of things he was for on the campaign trail" (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31180.html). Is this what we are to accept as free citizens of the United States a secret government that has expanded its power and reach into the free market? It's about accountability and by Congressional leaders and President Obama no televising the conference committee sessions and potentially skipping the conference committee process all together, why are more Americans not enraged by the trampling of the process?

I was told a long time ago that a man is only as good as his word. What does this tell us about those that run our country? What does that tell us about our society that accepts it?

2010: The Year that Americans take back the United States of American?

Today is December 31, 2009 and many within the land will be partaking in the annual New Year's Eve party. No matter the location one is at, many will be throwing out the old and ringing in the new. Several of us will make resolutions with the plan to follow through with them. As we watch the ball drop, count down 2009, and usher in 2010 prepare yourself for what lies ahead. America has several concerns before her shores but the biggest concern America faces' heading into 2010 is from our elected officials and the special lobbyists that control them. 2010 needs to mark the year that Americans stand up to their elected officials and take back the United States from their money hungry lobbyists and place freedom, liberty, and the United States Constitution on the front burner.

Shed your ideology. Challenge those that turn to government for answers and solutions to their situations in life. 2010 needs to be a time when Americans reverse the tide of bigger government and out of control spending. Congress, namely the Senate, before leaving on the December break passed a resolution that allowed the Fed to increase the debt ceiling. Essentially our Senators said to the Fed, "Go ahead, and print more money because we have more spending initiatives in 2010." Accountability of our elected officials has been replaced by apathy and acceptance that government is the answer. That is evident with the historic election of Barak Obama. Barak Obama promised transparency. Barak Obama promised that he'd not sign a bill with pork or pet projects included. Barak Obama said he would not surround himself with former lobbyist. All of these things he has gone back on.

Now, Barak Obama is not alone. Many in our Congress were in Congress when warnings were being made by highly educated people that the housing and financial markets were being propped up and a bubble was on the horizon. Now, these same members of Congress are attempting to be front and center to say they have the answer. Really? Can we as Americans accept this blindly? No. We need to stand up to government and demand a leaner and smaller government. It is time that our President stands up to the lobbyist, to Congress, and the World and say that we will no longer bend to the will of others. Tell Congress that I will not sign a bill that is not free of pork and has been fully vetted. When Congress comes back, Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi will meet in conference, with others, to hammer out merge of the House and Senate versions of the health care reform.

President Obama can send a strong signal to Congress by demanding that all conference committee meetings be aired on C-Span and any discussions on merging the health care bills be done in the public eye. That is the type of transparency Obama ran on and that many elected him to bring to Washington. So as you sip your drink of choice this evening and usher in 2010, prepare yourself and commit yourself to bring accountability to government. As our Founding Fathers did, it will take a grassroots campaign to bring about a smaller government and restore the freedoms that have been eroded slowly since the first session of Congress over 200 years ago. Happy New Year!!!

As an aside, The Hamburg Post is hearing a rumor that a special guest blogger will be kicking off 2010. Be safe and, again, Happy New Year!!!!

Reform: Does it exist in the Senate health care bill?

This morning the Senate just passed, 60-39, Sen. Reid's manager's amendment and paved the way for passage of the Senate version of health care reform by the Christmas deadline. Regardless if the bill passes the Senate it will take several weeks of hard negotiations in conference committee as Congress hammers out some major differences between the House and Senate versions. A friend of mine on Facebook posted an interesting article put out by the FDL. The article written by Jane Hamsher points out 10 reasons to kill the Senate health care bill:

1. Forces you to pay up to 8% of your income to private insurance corporations — whether you want to or not.
   
2. If you refuse to buy the insurance, you'll have to pay penalties of up to 2% of your annual income to the IRS.
   
3. Many will be forced to buy poor-quality insurance they can't afford to use, with $11,900 in annual out-of-pocket expenses over and above their annual premiums.
   
4. Massive restriction on a woman's right to choose, designed to trigger a challenge to Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court.
   
5. Paid for by taxes on the middle class insurance plan you have right now through your employer, causing them to cut back benefits and increase co-pays.
   
6. Many of the taxes to pay for the bill start now, but most Americans won't see any benefits — like an end to discrimination against those with preexisting conditions — until 2014 when the program begins.
   
7. Allows insurance companies to charge people who are older 300% more than others.
   
8. Grants monopolies to drug companies that will keep generic versions of expensive biotech drugs from ever coming to market.
   
9. No re-importation of prescription drugs, which would save consumers $100 billion over 10 years.
   
10. The cost of medical care will continue to rise, and insurance premiums for a family of four will rise an average of $1,000 a year — meaning in 10 years, your family's insurance premium will be $10,000 more annually than it is right now.
    

The article does offer links to parts of the bill that support the assertions made by the author. See the entire article here: http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/12/21/10-reasons-to-kill-the-senate-bill/

Other points of interest in the Senate bill are the bonuses, or bribes, given to certain Senators to get their vote. Florida seniors are now exempt, grandfathered in, from Medical Advantage cuts. Nebraska will have all Medicare and Medicaid payments made by the Federal Government after the three window closes. Vermont and Massachusetts will get additional Medicaid funds. The AMA supports the bill after hearing that 5% tax on cosmetic surgeries and cuts to elective coverage were dropped from the Senate bill. Does the Senate bill really create reform? Will it raise taxes? Will it increase your premiums? Should Congress pass something just to pass something?

Senator Sanders (I-VT) just admitted on Morning Joe that the insurance and drug companies will make out "like bandits" from this reform. If that is the case, then why pass legislation under the guise of "reform"?

Health Care Reform Now, Implementation in 4 Years

Over the past months I have sent several emails and called our Senators many times to express my opinion and solutions for health care reform. While I have been able to get timely responses, although the same form letter, from Sen. Klobuchar (D-MN) the same cannot be said for Sen. Franken (D-MN). Our two Senators have been working hard to eliminate the tax proposed on medical device companies to which they have been able to lessen the rate of tax. Yesterday, I finally received an email from Sen. Franken on the topic of health care reform and here is what it said:

Dear Chris,

Thank you for contacting me about health reform. I appreciate you sharing your views on this issue of critical importance.

When I traveled around the state during the month of August, Minnesotans were asking three basic questions about health care. How are we going to bring down the costs of health insurance? What happens if one of my kids has a pre-existing condition, and I lose my job, or want to switch to a better job? If something bad happens to my family, are we going to have to sell the house or go bankrupt trying to pay off the medical bills? These are the questions I heard most, and they are all great questions. And now they are the ones that I'm focusing on in the Senate.

We must pass health reform this year because too many Minnesota families are burdened with high health care costs, and are afraid of losing the coverage they have. Premiums for Minnesota residents have risen 90 percent since 2000, and 444,000 Minnesotans went without health insurance in 2008. If we don't act now, Minnesota families will pay an average of 40 percent of their annual income in health care costs by 2016. This path is unsustainable.

If you or your spouse loses a job, hits a rough patch or falls sick, you should not need to worry about health insurance. And if you want to pursue a small business venture but are afraid to leave your current job, concerns about health insurance shouldn't stop you.

Health reform will bring real change for Minnesota. If we pass health reform, insurance companies won't be able to deny you coverage or charge more because of pre-existing conditions. There will be no annual or lifetime caps on benefits. Minnesotans without insurance would be able to buy a high-quality plan through the health insurance "Exchange," which works like a Travelocity for health insurance. For Minnesotans who are having trouble making ends meet, there will be subsidies to purchase Exchange plans, similar to the current MinnesotaCare program.

Every day that I'm here in Washington, I'm proud that Minnesota sets the standard for health care quality in this country. Health systems like the Mayo Clinic provide coordinated, patient-centered care that the rest of the nation can look to for leadership. Minnesota's not-for-profit health insurance companies also create a unique environment which puts patients before profits. Minnesota's commitment to health care quality is commendable, but I know we can still do better.

As a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, I recently introduced a bill with the Minnesota model in mind that requires insurance companies to spend at least 90 percent of health insurance premiums on health services, not wasteful administrative costs and profits. I've also introduced S. 2734, the Diabetes Prevention Act, which is bipartisan legislation to help the 57 million Americans with pre-diabetes to make healthy lifestyle choices and prevent diabetes from developing. This will save lives and money, in Minnesota and across the country. 

In the coming weeks, I'll be working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to move sensible health reform legislation that will benefit Minnesotans by bringing much needed quality, affordability, and security to our health care system. Please be assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind throughout this process.

Thank you again for contacting me, and please don't hesitate to do so in the future regarding this or any other matter of concern to you.

Sincerely,

 

Al Franken
United States Senator

I agree with Sen. Franken that pre-existing conditions ought not to be something that insurance companies disqualify people for and agree that premium hikes are on an "unsustainable" path. Where I differ with Sen. Franken is the importance of passing reform before the end of the year. Now, if the reform before Congress actually did reform the industry I would support a push to pass health care reform prior to year end. A question I sent to Sen. Franken and Sen. Klobuchar, both via email and by phone, was this: While we all acknowledge that premiums, affordability, and cost are all factors that are pushing reform for the health care industry, why then will the United States government take the next four years collecting taxes before implementing reform?

Sen. Franken said, "Health reform will bring real change for Minnesota" in his letter above but what the Senator fails to say is that it will not bring "real change" until four years after it is signed. Why is this? If health care reform is drastically required, why then delay the implementation? Just as I struggle with the notion that a public option will increase competition to the point that will reduce premiums and save costs, I struggle with the notion that we will be taxed for four years before implementation of reform. Plus, reform that is being debated is nothing but a band aid. President Obama ran on the stance that the debate on health care would be transparent, yet groups like PHARMA and AARP have met privately with Obama to cut deals. President Obama has brought the Democrat Caucus to the White House for private conversations. Where is the transparency?

Do our elected officials believe that American's are naïve to believe that if reform is passed and not implemented for four years after that that health care insurance company will not use that time to get all they can? For those readers that live in Minnesota take a moment to send a message to our Senators: http://www.healthreformscam.com/fax-minnesota-senators/ .
Now, Sen. Reid plans to have around the clock debate in hopes to pass a bill out of the Senate, how is debate at 1 am open and transparent to the American public?

Sen. Reid marginalizes Slavery

"Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, 'slow down, stop everything, let's start over'. If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right. When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough'. When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply, slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn't quite right. When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). I have been watching a lot of the health care debate this summer first hand and have witnessed a lack of bi-partisan approach to health care reform.

During August we heard from the media and Democrats that public radio and Republicans were using scare tactics to sway public opinion. When average Americans showed up at the town hall debates, they were marginalized by the media as a fringe group. Now, Sen. Reid is likening the debate on health care reform to slavery. WHAT!!!! Sen. Reid needs a history lesson as it was under a Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, that the country went to war in an effort to end slavery. I do not see how going to war with one's own citizens is a "slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough" approach; rather it says quite the opposite. Where is the deal, how can anyone, let alone the Senate Majority Leader, assert that health care reform debate equates to emancipation, suffrage, or civil rights is pathetic at best.

The words spoke; see above, by Sen. Reid marginalizes emancipation, suffrage, and civil rights. Health care is not a right nor does the current health care system restrict the rights of others. Health care costs are skyrocketing and premiums continue to rise thus making it difficult for all in America to afford health care insurance but health care is not a right. Does it make sense for a society to succeed that a robust health care system is required; yes. Does the current form of health care reform really reform health care; no. Not only that, Sen. Reid and House Speaker Pelosi do not need the support of one Republican in Congress to pass health care reform. So it begs the question: Who is really digging in their heels?

Those digging in their heels are one-issue Democrats. Sen. Nelson (D-Neb.) amendment to deny taxpayer funds to pay for abortion was killed on the Senate floor yesterday to which the Senator warned that he will filibuster the bill if strict abortion language is not put in the final version. On the other side of the issue, many in the House of Representatives vow not to support a bill unless a public option exists. Moderate Democrats are at odds with their more Liberal brethren. Yes, Republicans are not in favor of the type of reform being proposed but their votes are not warranted to pass "reform". But I digress.

The assertion made by Sen. Reid that health care reform ranks in the annuals of history with emancipation, suffrage, and civil rights just proves the lunacy that exists in the leadership of the Democrat party. Even though I am a white male, I feel outraged by the marginalized comments by Sen. Reid as it belittles those that gave their lives to emancipation, suffrage, and civil rights. We all agree that reform is needed in health care but Sen. Reid's statement trumps any fear mongering alleged during the August research. Or am I missing something? Is health care reform on the same level of emancipation, suffrage, and civil rights?

Sen. Mikulski’s Pandora Box Amendment passes

Yesterday the Senate starting moving forward with the amendment phase of health care reform. Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) proposed an amendment (http://mikulski.senate.gov/_pdfs/BAI09N48.pdf) will require all health plans to cover comprehensive women's preventive care and screenings at no cost to women. The amendment passed 61-39. Currently the Sen. Reid's (D-NV) health care bill relies on the United States Preventive Services Task Force to recommend minimum coverage. It was the US Preventive Services Task Force that created a stir in the health word with their recommendation that women wait until 50 years old before getting mammograms.

Not only will mammograms be available for women at no cost so will cervical cancer screenings, pregnancy and postpartum depression screenings, screenings for domestic violence, annual women's health screening, and family planning services but will not include abortion; at least not yet. Passing the bill on the surface seems like a no brainer but it is a slippery slope. Remember the goal of health care reform is to reduce skyrocketing premiums and eliminate waste, inefficiencies, and fraud in the system to reduce costs. The amendment, as scored by the CBO, will cost taxpayers $940 million over 10 years. By requiring insurance companies to provide these preventative screenings will not result in the goals of health care reform.

Whenever a company, large or small, is taxed more, in this case told to cover additional services for free, the cost of the new tax is passed along to the consumer. The company does not feel charity and absorb the cost. So ask yourself, who is going to pay for the new services being offered at no cost? Everyone that pays a premium or uses a clinic or hospital for other services since the insurance company will need to recoup their "free" services someplace else. The slippery slope aspect comes into play because the next step will be to cover preventative screenings for men too. It only makes sense from the same rationale being applied to the requirement of preventative women screenings being offered for free. Then what? Everyone will see their premiums increase and the fees for other clinic and hospital services as well.

Now do not get me wrong. I think it is important for people to obtain preventative screenings to ensure themselves better health as they age. Where I struggle is to cloak this amendment and others like it, under the guise of "Health Care Reform". It is not reform to require an insurance company to provide services for free when the goals is to reduce costs and make insurance affordable for all. The Republicans offered, what some call a dual amendment, an amendment that would remove the US Preventative Task Force from the equation and leave preventative medicine decisions in the hands of the medical profession. That amendment failed.

I do not like sounding like a broken record, especially when some construe that to me being an ideologue, but in order to get real reform in the industry we need to open up competition. The easiest way and cost effective way to achieve increase competition is to remove the anti-trust exemption and allow interstate commerce of insurance. Allow the free market forces to work for the next three years, either bill being proposed wouldn't enact "reform" for at least three years from passage, and pass a law or regulation that prevents insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. Americans will find that by going this route that free market forces will achieve the goals of reform in regards to lower premiums and costs. Some may argue that if that is the case, "Why does it not already take place?" To that the answer is simple; anti-trust exemption.

The questions to ask ourselves going forward are: Does the amendment create a slippery slope? If so, is the slope worth it? Does the amendment assist in health care reform? Does the amendment reduce costs? Will the amendment make health insurance more affordable for all? Nearly everyone one of these questions were ignored or not brought up when debating the amendment. We cannot obtain real reform on emotional decisions.

Beware of China’s Role in the Health Care Debate

Americans stay on your toes this weekend as the Democrats in the Senate look to vote this Saturday to bring Sen. Reid's health care reform bill to the floor for debate. In order to open debate, on the bill, the Senate will need 60 votes to bring the bill to the floor. Republicans are looking to stall the process by requiring the bill be read word-for-word which is something typically motioned waived and accepted without objection. Normally I agree with dispensing of the reading but in this case it is extremely important that the entire bill be read. By reading the entire bill, Americans can be assured that our elected officials are not voting, again (Stimulus Bill), without reading the bill in its entirety. Per Senate rules all bills are to be read three times on three separate legislative days. Reading the bill once is sufficient and I hope that Republicans do not use this procedure to delay a vote.

The CBO scored the Senate bill and put the price tag at $849B over ten years. The Senate version, according to the CBO, would reduce the deficit by $127B. The CBO report can be seen here: http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10731/Reid_letter_11_18_09.pdf. Part of the scoring includes the belief that 1/3^rd of States will opt-out of the program and the start of the public option is push backed to 2015. A few concerns here: 1. What if no States opt-out? 2. If reform is needed, why are we waiting until 2015?

I understand that if a public option is passed and a Health Benefits Advisory Committee is established it will take time to iron the red tape out but 6 years? Do our elected officials believe that we are naïve and stupid? I think so. During those six years it will give the government an opportunity to tie the public option, Medicare, and Medicaid to the States in a manner that if they opt-out it will cost them Federal funds much in the same manner the transit dollars were tied to the lowering of the DWI limit, speed limit, and drinking age. The States need to learn, and the citizens of those States, that we cannot continue to allow the growing beast in Washington D.C. to exert so much power over our lives. Thomas Jefferson sums it up best, "Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition."

Concerns are already being raised by Governors over the Senate health care bill because it will shift responsibility to paying for the expansion of Medicare and Medicaid onto the States. My hope is that the States will now finally use this abuse of Federal power to exert their 10^th Amendment rights. The trouble is that too many States have become drunk on the Federal tit and may not be sober enough to fight for their rights. Granted we are the United States but our Founding Fathers wrestled with the concept of a central government leading to tyranny. In just over 200 years we have seen the central government of the United States grow in power and stature.

We hope that all elected officials are looking out for the best of all Americans but let's face it, what is good for California may not be applicable for Minnesota and vice versa. Government ought to be local. The role of our Federal Government is a growing beast that must be tamed before it consumes us all and ruins the great land we have all come to cherish. The mounting debt and unchecked actions by the Federal Reserve already have our biggest benefactor worried about repayment of debt. China is not looking favorably on the actions of the United States and is looking to replace the American dollar as the standard world currency.

The health care reform being proposed by Congress will only exasperate the problem. We can achieve reform without $900B bills. The Federal Government needs to be reminded of their limited role and I hope citizens of the different States realized that too. More is at stake than reform of the health care system with the two bills floating through Washington D.C. Our future as a country rides on the shoulders of our States to exert the power granted them in the United States Constitution to stand up the tyranny of central government that resides in Washington D.C. Or fear the wrath of the debt collector.

Whether you agree or disagree with actions being taken on health care reform be wise to the beast that grows in Washington D.C. Be wise to the mounting debt and the day of reckoning when the debt collector comes calling. It is not too late to stem the tide. Call your local representatives and Governors to lit the fire of defending the 10^th Amendment and reclaim what is rightfully the States.

Opt-Out is a Cop-Out

For weeks leading up to the Senate Finance vote on the Baucus Bill – that still has not been given Legislative language (thus not a bill) – the White House and leading Democrats courted the vote of Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME). Now Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), who is fighting for his political future, announced Monday that the merged bill in the Senate will have an "opt-out" public option. The very type of option that Olympia Snowe and Senate "Blue Dog" Democrats are dead set against having as an option. The move by Sen. Reid may put him in the crosshairs of the White House as the Obama Administration has used a lot of political capital to make health care reform appear to be bi-partisan.

President Obama has been campaigning and fundraising for a number of Democrats embattled for political life in the past weeks. Will the move by Sen. Reid put his biggest political chip in jeopardy by putting in a public option? Only time will tell. Having an "Opt-Out" option will negate a slew of lawsuits, well that is if State's get a backbone, as forcing States to offer further expansion of Medicare is an affront on State Rights. As I have said before in previous blog entries, health care reform is needed to curb the escalating premiums and bring cost savings within the industry itself.

The goal of President Obama is to reduce costs and increase competition. The trouble with the public option is that it does neither. To increase competition, open the borders of the states to allow insurance companies to offer coverage across state lines. Roughly 1600 insurance options exist within the borders of the United States yet the majority of states have between 2 and 5 options. Looking to Economics 101 for an answer is required. Economics 101 sales, provided the price is at equilibrium, an increase in supply, while keeping demand the same, the price will drop. So, why are that so many politicians disregard this model of Economics?

The other goal is to reduce cost. Doctors must carry expensive insurance to shield themselves from lawsuits. The malpractice insurance does not discriminate. Surgeons, specialists, and family practioneers all must carry it to protect themselves. Tort reform is required. Without Tort reform doctors will need to earn more and more money to cover the cost of malpractice insurance. So, why doesn't the Democrat led Congress include Tort reform within their health care reform platform?

We can create legislation that will not cost $.01 but Congress lacks the courage to do so while achieving the goals of health care reform. So, why doesn't Congress do it?