Reid Makes His Case

Senator Harry Reid takes to the pages of the Review-Journal today to defend his health care, I mean, health insurance reform bill. He claims “[t]his bill will save lives, save money and save Medicare.” But this bill will definitely not do the first two and is unlikely to accomplish the third.

Reid doesn’t offer a single idea in his piece that would address the cost of health care. His entire discussion is founded on the flawed, false and, frankly, fabricated premise that insurance company profits are a major driver of health care costs. Every suggestion involves attacking insurance companies – forcing them to cover more people and more procedures while reducing their ability to either pass those costs on or to charge people who consume more health care more for health insurance.

In fact, some of the measures he discusses are certain to increase the cost of health care. According to Reid,

The bill provides protection from unfair out-of-pocket costs, and restricts arbitrary limits on the amount of coverage you can receive. We end discrimination based on gender and limit insurers' ability to charge more based on age. We will also allow young adults to stay on their parents' insurance. The bill also eliminates co-pays and deductibles for preventive services, putting an emphasis on wellness and prevention.

Each of these items is designed to shift costs from the health care consumers to health insurance providers. This will force insurance providers to charge all of their customers higher rates to cover the increased outlays since they will be largely prohibited from charging more to those on whom they are forced to spend more. In addition, it will exacerbate the problems caused by insulating health care consumers from the actual costs of care. This increases demand for these services, thus further driving up costs. (This effect was discussed in this presentation by then-CBO director, Peter Orszag, who is now President Obama’s Budget Director, and we noted it in an earlier post here.)

Several other measures within the proposed legislation will necessarily raise the cost of health care and health insurance. Beginning on p. 2010, the proposal imposes taxes on a series of industries essential to the delivery of life-saving and life-improving goods and services.

Section 9010 of the bill, entitled “Imposition of Annual Fee on Health Insurance Providers” (p. 2026), socks health insurance providers with an additional $6.7 billion in annual taxes simply for the privilege of offering health insurance coverage. We're interested to hear an explanation of how these additional taxes will reduce the cost of health insurance, or health care for that matter.

Section 9009 (p. 2020) imposes $2 billion in taxes annually on companies that manufacture and import medical devices, while Section 9008 (p. 2010) hits pharmaceutical companies with $2.3 billion in new fees every year. These added levies are certain to increase the costs of the very devices and medicines that are critical to improving life spans and quality of life.

The bill offers nothing but lip service to tort reform, something that may actually reduce health care costs. In its 2000+ pages only a single 109-word section entitled “Sense of the Senate Regarding Medical Malpractice” (see * below) even remotely involves the idea. Reining in runaway lawsuit costs might detract from the vital task of crushing private insurance carriers.

Reid touts the supposed transparency of the process, asserting “[t]he bill has also been posted numerous places online for all to read, including on the front page of my own Web site: http://reid.senate.gov.” (This is, in fact, where we accessed it to find the sections referenced above.) Either someone needs to inform his Number 2 in the Senate of this or the bill he submitted to the Congressional Budget Office for scoring is not the same bill he’s talking about. So much for transparency.

Reid and his allies are scrambling in an attempt to salvage this legislation. If they actually supported proposals that would reduce health care costs rather than bashing health insurers they might be more successful. Kind of makes you think that reducing the cost of health care isn't really the point after all.

P.S. - And you say you want transparency? Here’s some transparency for you. Page 869 contains a section entitled “Subtitle C – Provisions Relating to Part C; Sec. 3201 Medicare Advantage Payment.” It begins as follows (I've changed the formatting somewhat):

(a) MA BENCHMARK BASED ON PLAN’S COMPETITIVE BIDS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 1853(j) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–23(j)) is amended—

(A) by striking ‘‘AMOUNTS.—For purposes’’ and inserting AMOUNTS.—‘‘
(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes’’;

(B) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively, and indenting the subparagraphs appropriately;

(C) in subparagraph (A), as redesignated by subparagraph (B)—

(i) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses (i) and (ii), respectively, and indenting the clauses appropriately; and

(ii) in clause (i), as redesignated by clause (i), by striking ‘‘an amount equal to’’ and all that follows through the end and inserting ‘‘an amount equal to—

‘‘(I) for years before 2007, 1/12 of the annual MA capitation rate under section 1853(c)(1) for the area for the year, adjusted as appropriate for the purpose of risk adjustment;

And it goes on from there. Clear as mud, right?

* - The entire text of the section “Sense of the Senate Regarding Medical Malpractice”:

It is the sense of the Senate that—health care reform presents an opportunity to address issues related to medical malpractice and medical liability insurance; States should be encouraged to develop and test alternatives to the existing civil litigation system as a way of improving patient safety, reducing medical errors, encouraging the efficient resolution of disputes, increasing the availability of prompt and fair resolution of disputes, and improving access to liability insurance, while preserving an individual’s right to seek redress in court; and Congress should consider establishing a State demonstration program to evaluate alternatives to the existing civil litigation system with respect to the resolution of medical malpractice claims.

So much for tort reform.

The Right to Regulate Your Breathing

As expected, the EPA today declared CO₂ a pollutant subject to regulation by the agency under the Clean Air Act. As the WSJ opines, this is a dangerous and undemocratic ruling. It allows the administration to impose regulations through the EPA and existing laws, sidestepping the legislative process.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said yesterday that her ruling that greenhouses gases are dangerous pollutants would "cement 2009's place in history" as the moment when the U.S. began "seizing the opportunity of clean-energy reform." She's right that this is an historic decision, though not to her or the White House's credit, and "seizing" is the right term. President Obama isn't about to let a trifle like democratic consent impede his climate agenda.

With cap and trade blown apart in the Senate, the White House has chosen to impose taxes and regulation across the entire economy under clean-air laws that were written decades ago and were never meant to apply to carbon. With this doomsday machine activated, Mr. Obama hopes to accomplish what persuasion and debate among his own party manifestly cannot.

As the editorial reports, this ruling is loaded with political cynicism. As the Cap and Trade bill has stalled, the administration has used this backdoor to impose draconian restrictions on businesses, who, it apparently hopes, will acquiesce to their demands for legislation limiting carbon emissions.

The administration realizes how ridiculous the limits are, as evidenced by its stated intention to raise the barrier from 250 tons per year to 25,000 tons. This is unlikely to survive for long as green groups almost certain to sue to force the EPA to enforce the more restrictive standards. As the law is explicit and clear these challenges have a good chance of succeeding.

For now, this decision moves into the courts, and years if not decades of litigation. Yet the decision really is historic: The White House has opened a Pandora's box that will be difficult to close, that is breathtakingly undemocratic, and that the country, if not liberal politicians, will come to regret.

We will all come to regret this. There is nothing that any of us do that does not in some way involve the release of CO₂. This ruling allows the EPA to literally regulate every single aspect of every single activity engaged in by every single person every single day, including breathing. As if there were any doubt it was dead already, we can chisel today's date on the tombstone of limited government.

Congressman Heller Addresses Panel on Issues and Politics

“I like to tell people I’m a low tax, small government, reasonable regulation, free-market capitalist,” two-term Republican Congressman Dean Heller told a gathering of bloggers, talk-radio hosts and others sponsored by the Nevada News Bureau. “There’s not very many of us left in Washington, D.C.,” he added.

Heller commented on the propensity of Congress to exempt itself from the laws it passes. For example, he noted that there is a provision in the Cap-and-Trade bill “that exempts Congress from that act...We even exempt ourselves from hiring practices. We’ve exempted ourselves from some of the OSHA rules. We’d exempt ourselves from gravity if we thought we could get away with it.”

During a committee debate on health care reform, Heller related, “a member on the other side said, ‘If I went home and told my wife that we were going to have the same health care as everybody else, she wouldn’t be very happy with me.’”

Addressing the complaint of the Republicans as the “Party of No” Heller responded, “It works well politically, but I don’t think it’s fair.” He noted that Republicans have submitted over 40 proposals on health care, mentioning two of his own – forgiving some student loans from doctors and nurses who agree to practice in underserved areas and allowing doctors to write off expenses for indigent care. The latter he claimed would allow the uninsured to avoid the more expensive treatment at hospitals and emergency rooms but it was opposed by even his fellow Republicans, who cited the fear that lawyers would then be able to deduct their pro bono work.

He expressed his belief that tort reform must be central to any health care reform, claiming that “you can reduce the cost of health care in this country by 20-25% by having meaningful tort reform.” But he isn’t optimistic about the chance of any such provision being included. “The trial lawyers are helping write this piece of legislation,” he said. “You’ve got 3000 trial lawyers right now that are camped in Washington, DC writing this health care bill for 300 million Americans. That’s what’s going on and that’s why you see no tort reform in the bill.”

He believes this is an example of the Democrats repaying their supporters. “This is just payback time for trial lawyers, environmentalists and unions right now. With card check with cap and trade and with health care – they’re paying those 3 groups back.”

Health care was far from the only area with which Heller expressed disagreement with the administration. “I’m almost convinced that nobody in this administration has gone west of the Mississippi. You know all we’re hearing in the beltway right now…is that this economy’s turning around. We’re hearing that we’ve reached bottom and we’re well on our way.” He continued, “Boy, they need to spend some time here in this town. They need to talk to some developers; they need to talk to some of the planners, the city people, some of the gaming people and find out what’s really going on out here in the West...I don’t think they have a full grasp right now of the extent of how deep this recession really is.”

As for last week’s White House Jobs Summit, “There were some private sector people there but you know the bulk of those who attended that meeting, they were government employees, they were trial lawyers, they were environmentalists and they were unions.”

Its purpose was to reach a pre-determined conclusion, in Heller’s view. “[Obama] brought the people in who would tell him, ‘We need a second stimulus.’ When he did actually talk to…people who own small businesses, those who own manufacturers, they’re telling him just the opposite,” such as to abandon many policies that the President favors. “[Obama]’s all for a second stimulus. The second stimulus is going to be a bailout to states.”

There was one area in which Heller agreed, although with reservations, with President Obama – Afghanistan. “I hope he’s right. I want this President to be right,” Heller declared. His concern was that last week’s address by President Obama “was a very different speech. Everyone in here has heard this President speak. That was a very different style because I got the feeling that he didn’t believe what he was saying.”

He cautioned against half measures in prosecuting the war. “I will tell you from the data and information I get in Washington, DC that the troops on the ground felt and believed that they needed 80,000 troops and they got 30 [thousand]. So are we handicapping their ability to win this war? If we are, then we ought to bring them home, just bring them home right away...It’s either all in or get out.”

Later, he said, “What’s not realistic is telling them we’ll be out in 18 months.” He claimed Obama was trying to “split the baby with that speech. He knew that we needed to go in there, that there needed to be a surge. But he knew the left wouldn’t support that and so he put a timeline in there trying to make everybody happy.”

When asked to define victory in Afghanistan, Heller stated it would be when American troops were “able to come out of that country with [the Afghans] being able to police themselves – be able to govern themselves.” He expressed little faith in the current Afghan government. “I have a hard time thinking that we are going to release a country to a corrupt government.”

Heller expressed his opposition to trying suspected terrorists captured abroad in civilian courts and to torturing them as well. However, he was hesitant to define torture other than to defer to the judgment of the military. Heller also was reluctant to endorse a definite course when asked about the fate of the Navy Seals charged with mistreating terrorist suspect Ahmed Hashim Abed, saying that the President “needs to step in” and request all of the information but stopping short of advocating dropping charges against them without knowing all of the facts.

Heller expressed confidence in Republicans’ chances of defeating Senator Harry Reid. Referring to a recent poll in the Review-Journal, Heller stated, “I think it’s very clear we have candidates who can beat Senator Reid.” But he declared it’s very early in the race and a lot could happen, including changes in the mix of candidates, although he rejected a suggestion that he would be one. “I have no doubt it’s going to be a very typical Harry Reid race. It tightens, it gets close, it’s going to be ugly and it’s going to come down to a few thousand votes.”

The key, according to Heller, is exploiting Reid’s weaknesses. He explained, “I think health care is a weakness for him, I think Cap-and-Trade is a weakness for him, I think Cash for Clunkers is a weakness for him, I think bailouts are weaknesses for him, I think stimulus is a weakness for him, I think omnibus spending, huge spending bills is a weakness for him.”

Regarding the scandal surrounding Nevada’s other Senator, Republican John Ensign, Heller declared, “I haven’t asked for his resignation.” He did, however, state that if an investigation reveals that Senator Ensign violated any laws, “I think it’s a different thing if we start getting into things that are legal.”

As for the political fallout of the scandal, Heller said, “I don’t think there’s any doubt” that his scandal will have a negative impact on conservative candidates in next year’s election. Of his own campaign, Heller said, “I have not asked for his support in my campaign for reelection in Nevada. I’ll run on my own merits. I’ll run on my own…record.”

Heller predicted that the upcoming election cycle will “be anti-incumbent.” Although much sentiment runs against the Democrats because they are in power, this does not necessarily translate into support for Republicans. “There are some Republicans that the Ron Paul people won’t support. There are some Republicans out there that [the] Tea Party people won’t support. And they’re going to get” challenged in the primaries.

“It isn’t necessarily pro-Republican,” he continued. “I think that they kicked the Republicans out. They were tired of Bush; they were tired of the majority Republicans. Now they’re sick of the Democrats but I don’t think” that means they want Republicans back in power.

Steve Sebelius and NNB have reports on the gathering.

Good News! Now Let's Squander It

Because TARP recipients are repaying the money they've received from the program, the Treasury estimates the program will cost $200 billion less than previously thought. But, since Washington can't stand prosperity, they're looking for another way to squander it.

The Obama administration, buoyed by a resurgent Wall Street, plans to cut the projected long-term cost of the Troubled Asset Relief Program by more than $200 billion, in a move that could smooth the way for the introduction of a new jobs program.

The White House and leaders in Congress are debating whether to use any of the remaining TARP funds for other domestic efforts, such as a jobs bill. Congress authorized $700 billion for the program during the height of the financial crisis.

The Treasury now estimates that over the next 10 years TARP will cost $141 billion at most, down from the $341 billion the White House projected in August. The reduction stems in large part from faster-than-expected repayments by some of the nation's largest banks, as well as less spending on programs to help shore up the financial sector.

Rather than use the money to reduce the debt, the administration believes that it can be put to use on another Keynesian fantasy of government job creation. There is a reason that government programs to create jobs inevitably fail.

Like many in Las Vegas I have a lawn with no grass. The landscaping at our house is a combination of trees, shrubs and landscape rock.

I get up one morning determined to do my part to stimulate the economy. So I head off to my local hardware store and spend $500 on a brand-new lawnmower. According to Keynesian theory, I've just stimulated the economy with my purchase. That $500 I just spent will go to employees and suppliers, who will spend it on other items, multiplying its economic impact. But what have I really done?

The hardware store has exchanged a mower worth $500 for an equal amount of cash. What about my side of the ledger? I now have $500 less cash than I had before. In exchange I have something that's worth absolutely nothing to me. In fact, it's going to cost me time and money to store and maintain. I've reduced my net worth by $500.

This transaction, meant to stimulate the economy, has not stimulated anything. The reality is that it has actually reduced the combined net worth of the parties involved.

This is the problem with Keynesian stimulus. The idea that government spending can stimulate the economy results in the government doing the equivalent of buying a lot of lawnmowers for people without grass to cut, with the net effect of reducing the combined net worth of the country.

If It Sounds Too Good to be True

It probably is. Through all of the townhall meetings, Tea Parties, demonstrations and debate, this is the root of the flagging support for the Democrats' health care reform proposals.

As leftists often do while trying to sell their agenda, they're attempting to claim that there are no trade-offs; that you can have everything, if you'd just follow them. Their supporters are claiming that we can cover everything and everybody and it will be cheaper, too! Most people realize implicitly that this can't all be true - that in the real world there are trade-offs and that those pushing this reform are selling a fantasy.

The ad here and the other ads by this organization, many of which have run on local TV, are some of the worst offenders. They simply repeat the Democratic talking points but from an ostensibly independent organization.

"Keep the coverage you have" if you like it. Except that in an employer-based system employees don't have that choice. If the employer changes or drops coverage, the employee is forced to change. If the reform plan the ad supports passes, people who are in high-deductible plans and/or have Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) will have to change because those plans will no longer be available. While the plan doesn't explicitly make these illegal it does make them infeasible. HSA contributions are subject to increased taxes and those who selected high-deductible plans would still be subject to the tax (excuse me, fee) for not having health insurance.

"Medical decisions by you and your doctor." That is, except when they're not.

That's not all but you get the idea. Claim after claim that is either demonstrably false or that can be shown to be unrealistic by anything other than the most shallow analysis.

This is as to be expected since their entire concept of reform is founded upon a myth based upon a lie. The myth is that health care costs can be controlled by reining in health insurance costs. This is based upon the lie that the profits of health insurance companies are major drivers of health care costs. There are no legitimate studies that reveal this to be true, although there are some flawed and bogus ones that do (one of which I addressed here and here).

The reality is just the opposite - health insurance costs are increasing because health care costs are increasing. So the Democrats and their supporters are left with trying to sell a fantasy - you can have it all and it will cost less, to boot!

The Cost of Decadence

New York City tells its starving that it's better to go hungry than eat food with trans fat.

When a small church comes to the Bowery Mission bearing fried chicken with trans fat, unwittingly breaking the law, they’re told “thank you.” Then workers quietly chuck the food, mission director Tom Bastile said.

“It’s always hard for us to do,” Basile said. “We know we have to do it.”

Such is the inevitable cost of government do-gooderism.

What I Have to be Thankful For

The last year has been a notably interesting one for us, to say the least. Our lives have changed in so many ways and much of what we had taken for granted was lost. Through all the tumult and change there are many things for which I am thankful on this Thanksgiving.

I am thankful for my family. I married the most gorgeous, caring, thoughtful, understanding, forgiving woman in the world and we have the most beautiful, intelligent, kind-hearted daughter. My parents, brother, in-laws and stepfamilies, uncles, aunts, cousins, nephews, nieces and all the rest are a wonderful group of people. They have overlooked my numerous faults and have continued to love and support me through every bad decision and wrong turn I've made along the way.

I am thankful for my friends - for those whom I've known for years and those I've recently met. I am thankful to our military, police and others who put their lives and safety at risk to protect us and our freedoms. I am thankful to be living in the United States of America. I am thankful to be working. Having spent some time without a job and knowing so many people who are not employed now, I feel especially fortunate to be working.

I am thankful for all that I've experienced in the last year, much of which would not have happened but for the tumult and upheaval in our lives. I met many people whom I would not have met and became involved in many things that I would not have done. We began attending church, something we should have done years ago. Our daughter is enrolled in kindergarten at the school at our church and is getting an education (both academic and spiritual) that is superior to what she would get nearly anywhere else.

I thank God for all of these things and everything else He has given me and my family.

Teach Your Children Well

Child: I know lots of big numbers. I know thousands. And after thousands comes millions.

Right-wing nut job: Very good.

Child: Daddy, what comes after millions?

RWNJ: Billions.

Child: I know what comes after billions - trillions!

RWNJ: That is excellent!

Child: Daddy, what comes after trillions?

RWNJ: The Obama administration.

al Qaeda's Soapbox

I am absolutely flabbergasted by the Obama administration's colossally bad decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other terrorists (no "alleged" here) in civilian courts. In defending the indefensible decision, Attorney General Holder tried to allay fears that the bloodthirsty murders would be acquitted by doing his best Joe Namath and guaranteeing a conviction. As Charles Krauthammer put it tonight on Special Report (no transcript online that I could find),

Holder is telling us that he wants to uphold the high standards of justice but he’s guaranteeing a conviction in advance. Well, that’s a helluva way to do it.

I don't see how a fair trial with the presumption of innocence is consistent with a guaranteed result. There is no possible way that Holder can know how the judge will react to the litany of motions the defense is destined to present and which evidence will and will not be admitted and what sensitive information will have to be revealed.

In his press conference, Holder admitted that there was evidence that he had seen that was not public. How much of how, where, from whom, etc. will have to be disclosed and what the effects of those disclosures will be no one can know.

In addition, we will be providing KSM with a platform from which to spew jihad propoganda - in the shadow of his greatest triumph, no less. It's virtually certain that he and the others will attempt to put the US on trial. We will actually be assisting our enemies in waging their war against us.

Andrew McCarthy, who, unlike Holder, has actual experience in prosecuting terrorists in court, has a very cynical take.

We are now going to have a trial that never had to happen for defendants who have no defense. And when defendants have no defense for their own actions, there is only one thing for their lawyers to do: put the government on trial in hopes of getting the jury (and the media) spun up over government errors, abuses and incompetence. That is what is going to happen in the trial of KSM et al. It will be a soapbox for al-Qaeda's case against America. Since that will be their "defense," the defendants will demand every bit of information they can get about interrogations, renditions, secret prisons, undercover operations targeting Muslims and mosques, etc., and — depending on what judge catches the case — they are likely to be given a lot of it. The administration will be able to claim that the judge, not the administration, is responsible for the exposure of our defense secrets. And the circus will be played out for all to see — in the middle of the war. It will provide endless fodder for the transnational Left to press its case that actions taken in America's defense are violations of international law that must be addressed by foreign courts. And the intelligence bounty will make our enemies more efficient at killing us.

What happens in the event of an acquittal? Who believes the Obama adminstration would let KSM, for instance, go free? On the same Special Report, Stephen Hayes predicted that, in that case, the administration would continue to file a series of charges in order to keep KSM locked up. But what if some judge ordered him released? This is hardly out of the question. Does anyone believe they would continue to hold him in defiance of a judicial order, especially after all of their posturing about the rule of law and the need to be true to our values?

Beyond the potential for secrets being revealed and one of the terrorists being acquitted and freed inside the US there is also the possibility of terrorist attacks in conjunction with the trials. There is so much harm that could result from this decision it is insane to even consider it. I guess there is no price that is too high to pay to make leftist lawyers feel better about themselves and less ashamed of their country.