A Primer on the Details of Health Care Reform - NYTimes.com

A Primer on the Details of Health Care Reform - NYTimes.com

This story tries to explain the basics of the health plans roaming around Congress. I have read it carefully and its two pages do not clarify the situation much. Reading between the lines suggests to me that the most important and controversial details are left to future determinations by regulatory agencies.

What it does say, however, is that TeamObama's rhetoric is less than truthful. Perhaps that's the reason folks are so riled up about this massive change.

Charles Krauthammer has suggested the best kernels on which to reform the system to reduce costs. TeamObamaCare can lead to nothing less than rationing, higher taxes, or both.

Is Google Voice a Threat to AT&T? - NYTimes.com

Is Google Voice a Threat to AT&T? - NYTimes.com

Pogue lay out the sequence of events in the recent dustup over Google Voice on the iPhone and suggests that there will be no stopping GV on the iPhone. One way or another Google and the legions of 'free' programmers will thwart the best efforts of Apple/AT&T.

Verizon and the other cell providers are watching this passion play with glee.

An Email to flag@whitehouse.gov

I don't know the person in Vermont that wrote this, but it is worth the read because of the clever rebuttal of TeamObamaCare. Click on the link to view it.

Why Do We Tolerate Our Leadership?

Perhaps our real leaders refuse to stand forth and run for public office. Whatever the reason, Charlie Reese describes the outcome below.

I know this may be emotionally satisfying to some and objectionable to others, or simplistic to many. But our culture and conditions ARE shaped by leadership. We find ourselves in a mess because, IMHO, we have experienced a fundamental failure of leadership. I don't mean just the current crop in Washington, but for decades.

We deserve better. I know the forces and conditions we find in the world are powerful and difficult, but we deserve better.

In my view, the leaders of our military have stepped up to the task set before them. I wish I could say the same for our civilian leaders.

Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years.

545 PEOPLE
By Charlie Reese

"Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason.. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red .

If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!"

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.

The Wireless Internet Access Door is Opening

TechCrunch has a short summary about the FCC actions yesterday to probe the refusal by Apple to allow Google Voice and related apps on the iPhone.

This inquiry is a really a big deal for the wireless providers, far beyond the specific issues of the iPhone and AT&T's exclusive contract for selling and carrying traffic to/from iPhones. Google wants openness while the carriers want control of both apps and traffic to protect their revenues.

This will take a while to play out, but more rather than less openness will eventually prevail.

This policy game has played out in the past, the distant (pre-wireless, pre-internet past), when the old AT&T monopoly for all telephone services, including end-user devices was broken open by the Carterphone decision eliminating the prohibition against connecting non-AT&T/Western Electric devices to the network. AT&T obviously lost that battle and the wireless carriers, though not monopolies, eventually will lose this one too.

Technology, particularly software-driven advances, will prevail aginst the walled garden business model..

More Thoughts on Henninger's Observations

Henninger: The Blue Dogs’ Final Dilemma is Health Care - WSJ.com:

Henninger's quote below certainly applies to Vermont. We are a state where the public sector is intentionally squeezing the private sector as it has increased government services and commensurate spending. Vermont's economy was unhealthy even before the recession began. Nevertheless, Vermont racheted up spending beyond the ability of the tax base to support it.

State government is now facing runaway pension and retiree health care liabilities and a massive (by Vermont standards) hole in its future revenue stream. The basic problem: Vermont for a decade or more has been on a "Cadillac" state spending binge fueled by a "clunker" private sector economy.

"The problem is that in Washington and many states the public sector’s revenue needs have arrived at a point where space for the private economy is more or less beside the point. That is the clear message of the California and New York budget crises and the difficulties of financing the Obama health-care plan.

For centrists in both parties the moment has come to decide which side of the public-private divide they want the U.S. and its future workers to be on. Trying to live in both has brought us, inevitably, to that decision."

My guess is that leaders in Montpelier are hoping that national health care reform will bail them out of the fiscal pit of Medicaid and Catamount Health. Yet none of this relief would kick in, as I understand it, until 2013 at the earliest if approved.

Let's have a Discussion About Health Care Service Rationing

Missing in the debate about health care change is the obvious requirement to ration services.

Adding millions more people to a government system without stringent cost control, including rationing, defies common sense and is a prescription for higher deficits or massive tax increases, likely both. Other nations with a government-run system implement rationing in one form or another. Yet, on a personal level, denial of service is a tough pill to swallow.

Those who contend that 'health care is a basic human right' are obliged to answer the question: how much care and at what cost? Of course, the devil is in the details, but I might favor rationing, if I understand how it will applied.

This mad rush by Congress and the President for massive restructuring is wrong. We deserve a debate that is clear, reasoned and thoughtful. We should understand both the personal and system ramifications of overhauling health care, an industry that accounts for one sixth of our economy, before plunging headlong into it. Clear information for that debate should be coming from our Congressional delegation and the health care industry. But it's not. Instead we get generalities from the President and from most lawmakers.

President Obama recently extracted promises from the hospital industry and the drug companies to save $Billions. We deserve to know how those savings will be accomplished. Will hospitals and doctors choose to earn less? Will they ration procedures, gain speculative efficiencies from electronic health records? If the cost savings are real, I want to know how, where and when they will be achieved.

Vermonters should understand how restricting services will be accomplished. We don't even hear the word rationing used because our political leaders and others are afraid to talk about it. Yet, we obviously cannot afford a system of medical care that treats every person for every condition with all possible means regardless of costs.

Now is the Time to Revamp Vermont State Government

Now that economists advising the state have rendered an even more dismal view of Vermont revenues (forecasts down by another $28 Million), some legislators have begun the predictable hand-wringing and 'woe is us' groaning. But the Governor and Legislative leadership have an enormous potential to revamp government and set spending on a far more rational path for the future. Opportunity is knocking.

Many government employees are choosing to accept incentives for early retirement. Others are losing their jobs. Yet, this painful downsizing of government opens a rare opportunity for an overhaul that will serve us more efficiently.

The economy may be in the tank for some extended period and far too many people have already lost their jobs in the private sector during this recession. Tax revenues will continue to deteriorate. Yet, now is absolutely the right time to seriously analyze and prioritize the services that government provides, eliminating those that are not essential. When you can't afford business-as-usual, business must adapt.

We must do this because the economy will unlikely rebound quickly, if ever, to former levels. Without a healthy private sector economy driving a future increase in the tax base, Vermont simply cannot support the present level of education, health care and social services spending. Lawmakers should not expect to see increased tax revenues anytime soon nor enough federal bailout. Banish the notion they should even entertain yet more new taxes in the next legislative session!

In the midst of myriad special interest groups jockeying for their dollars and programs, this will be very hard work. Perhaps the Governor's "Tiger Teams" searching for cost savings are a small step in the right direction. However, simply belt-tightening and chopping out a bit of cost here and there will not accomplish what's needed. We must insist on a far more comprehensive review of government.

Let's take advantage of this opportunity to seriously examine how much Vermont government can do a lower balanced budget. Government simultaneously must become more efficient, less costly and continue providing essential services of high quality. It may take a few years to accomplish this, but we must muster the will for it now.

Many people tell us that Vermont government is sorely lacking in effective technology, much of which is clunky and obsolete. Typically, legacy systems are underutilized and difficult to upgrade. It's not an easy task and one that is likely to fail if changing or replacing systems is done haphazardly without examining the processes, interrelationships and interactions necessary for efficient citizen service and internal operations. The worst mistake is to insert new technology into obsolete functions.

The tasks ahead for our government should be:

• Take a deep and thoughtful look at what government should be doing, consistent with reduced revenues.
• Determine the right combination of people, organization and technology to deliver those essential services with high quality.
• Source to the private sector (profit or non-profit) those functions that make sense and can be done more efficiently there.
  
• Spend money wisely to implement efficient systems based on proven, web-based technologies.
• Place people in the proper roles and train them on new systems.
• Demand performance-based accountability from managers and employees alike.
• Negotiate with unions the modifications in work rules needed to accomplish these changes.

Revamping government will surely cause great turmoil, yet we are already in the midst of that upheaval because of the recent budget reductions, layoffs and retirements.

Let's insist that government reinvent itself while it has this rare opportunity. Ask Governor Douglas and your legislators, particularly the leadership, to bury their political hatchets and step up to this effort. Government reform should be a centerpiece of 2010 political campaigns.

Henninger: The Blue Dogs’ Final Dilemma is Health Care - WSJ.com

Henninger: The Blue Dogs’ Final Dilemma is Health Care - WSJ.com

(Note: This link may not be active for more than a week for non-subscribers to WSJ Online.)

The health care debate is really about something much deeper. Henninger adroitly describes the tug-of-war between the private sector and the public sector as drivers of our economic health and personal well-being. This debate is much deeper than health care.

"With President Obama’s health-care bill, the forces that across 40 years grew into unbridgeable opposition to each other could not be more plain to see. American politics has arrived at a crossroads.

This struggle over health-care legislation isn’t just another battle between the Democratic and Republican parties. It’s about which force is going to take the United States forward for the next generation: the public sector or the private sector. If by now you haven’t figured out which sector you are in, then you’re a Blue Dog Democrat"

The Blue Dogs and other moderates have been sliding to this final dilemma for years. The issue is not whether one is for or against “government.” The issue is: Do they work for us, or do we work for them?"

Consider the massive public sector costs that would require ever more taxes on private and business activities at both the state and federal level. We are in an era of potentially huge public policy shifts that may make Americans ever more reliant on government.

"The problem is that in Washington and many states the public sector’s revenue needs have arrived at a point where space for the private economy is more or less beside the point. That is the clear message of the California and New York budget crises and the difficulties of financing the Obama health-care plan.

For centrists in both parties the moment has come to decide which side of the public-private divide they want the U.S. and its future workers to be on. Trying to live in both has brought us, inevitably, to that decision."

This is not a good thing for our country. How can anyone argue that racking up huge public debt and massive tax increases with no hope of repayment is good for America? This reaches far beyond party affiliation.

Folly of Waxman-Markey H.R. 2454

I subscribe to a monthly printed newsletter called The Energy Advocate. In the July 2009 issue publisher Howard Hayden quotes from the Waxman-Markey (H.R. 2454) "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009." This is part of his story about the tremendous strides that have been made in the last 20-30 years in reducing health-affecting air pollutants in the United States.

Because of EPA's attempt to classify CO2 as a pollutant and to regulate its emission, Hayden implies that Congress is on a fool's errand with H.R. 2454 because CO2 is a naturally occurring component of our atmosphere (0.04% by volume), essential for all plant life. He points out that the legislation may have an escape clause (see below).

The respected Christian Science Monitor also has a very recent editorial faulting other elements of the Markey-Waxman bill. My hope is the Senate will drastically modify it or let it lie. I have long maintained that cap-and-trade schemes on this scale are fraught with risk of manipulation, doomed for failure, and will dramatically increase the costs of energy and further repress our economy. If Congress thinks it must control carbon dioxide, a direct carbon tax on the end users is far more rational so that people will see it clearly, not camouflaged in high prices.

The act specifies that the Administrator of the EPA

"shall annually prepare and certify a report to the Congress regarding whether China and India have adopted greenhouse gas emissions standards at least as strict as those standards required under this Act. If the Administrator determines that China and India have not adopted greenhouse gas emissions at least as stringent as those set forth in this Act, the administrator shall notify each Member of Congress of his determination, and shall release his determination to the media."

He also makes the case that CO2 is not a pollutant (as proposed by the EPA).

"With the recent politically directed EPA finding that CO2is a pollutant, there seems to be a feeling among our lawmakers that a reduction in CO2 emissions can be accomplished by laws, regulations, and cap-and-trade schemes. Engineers will use some magic equations and magic substances like Unobtanium to accomplish the will of Waxman, Markey, Pelosi, and other starry-eyed true believers.

The chemical facts are these. Natural gas is primarily methane, CH4, which has four atoms of hydrogen for every carbon atom. Petroleum contains a great many compounds but all-in-all, the lot of them can be roughly represented by CH2; there are two atoms of hydrogen per atom of carbon. Coal is roughly CH, with one atom of hydrogen for each carbon atom. (We ignore contaminants here.)

When we burn any of these fuels, part of the energy comes from burning the carbon and part from burning the hydrogen. Necessarily we get H2O and CO2 as products of the combustion. It's not as if the carbon is some sort of contaminant in the fuel; it is part of the fuel. There is no such thing as low carbon natural gas, low carbon oil, or low carbon coal. Another way of saying it is that without carbon, coal, oil and natural gas would not exist. If I dwell on the obvious, it is precisely because Washington's climate controllers are unable to understand such subtleties."