bureaucracy

ObamaCare Truth & Consequences

Calvin Freiburger 2010, 2012, Barack Obama, bureaucracy, capitalism, dishonesty, healthcare, liberalism, liberty, Republican Party

Via Power Line, here’s a list of 20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms, and an op-ed on The Real Arithmetic of Health Care Reform (also, here’s a handy summary of what’s in the bill, courtesy of the Wall Street Journal, and for you masochists out there, the bill’s full text, courtesy of Open Congress).  Read ’em, print ’em out, and have ’em ready for the next time your lefty friends spout disinformation from the White House or MSNBC.  This recap of the states’ experiences with government meddling in healthcare is required reading, too.

Also, check out my latest NewsReal post for where we go from here.  The short version: we can, and must repeal this bill, but the GOP is really gonna have to bring their A-game.  And for a great explanation of what should actually be done to improve American healthcare, Ann Coulter’s got you covered.

Government Healthcare Across America

Calvin Freiburger bureaucracy, healthcare

Followers of healthcare debates are well aware of the dark side of government healthcare in countries like Canada and Great Britain, but what’s about its track record when it’s been tried here in the United States?  As it turns out, we have plenty of examples.

Department of Veterans Affairs

It seems like there’s a new horror story about VA medical care every week.  Exposing “10,000 veterans to the AIDS and hepatitis viruses” and a Pennsylvania facility giving “botched radiation treatments to nearly 100 cancer patients.”  “Often fail[ing] to provide adequate medical care to female military veterans.”  Walter Reed.  “More than 600 veterans wrongly told they had ALS.”  And, of course, a “death book for veterans” which was reinstated by the same administration that insists we have nothing to worry about from death panels for the rest of us.  It’s bad enough when anyone suffers due to bad policy, but that we treat those who take up arms to defend our country this way is especially disgraceful.

Indian Health Service

Things aren’t so great on the Indian reservations, either.  There, federal government’s IHS provides care “in one of two ways. It runs 48 hospitals and 230 clinics for which it hires doctors, nurses, and staff and decides what services will be provided” or “contracts with tribes,” in which “case, the IHS provides funding for the tribe, which delivers health care to tribal members and makes its own decisions about what services to provide.”  Predictably, the disastrous effects of the former method (“the common wisdom is ‘don’t get sick after June’”) are leading tribes to turn toward the latter, which is a step up but “still frustrated by funding constraints.”

Maine

Maine has a plan not unlike ObamaCare.  How’s it fared? “The program flew off track fast. At its peak in 2006, only about 15,000 people had enrolled in the DirigoChoice program. That number has dropped to below 10,000, according to the state’s own reporting. About two-thirds of those who enrolled already had insurance, which they dropped in favor of the public option and its subsidies. Instead of 128,000 uninsured in the program today, the actual number is just 3,400. Despite the giant expansions in Maine’s Medicaid program and the new, subsidized public choice option, the number of uninsured in the state today is only slightly lower that in 2004 when the program began.”

Tennessee

Launched in 1994, TennCare was supposed to “save the state money, reduce costs, and increase coverage.  Instead, in a decade, the program went from a budget of $2.5 billion to nearly $8 billion, became mired in litigation, and was forced to make major cuts.”

Massachusetts

Cato’s Michael Cannon writes that “Massachusetts reduced its uninsured population by two-thirds — yet the cost would be considered staggering, had state officials not done such a good job of hiding it. Finally, Massachusetts shows where ‘ObamaCare’ would ultimately lead: Officials are already laying the groundwork for government rationing”…“ The Legislature also plans to leverage its power under the individual mandate to require ‘evidence-based purchasing strategies,’ which is another way of saying government bureaucrats may soon be deciding who gets medical care and who does not.”

Further Resources

Please take the time to read these reports in their entirety, especially the full profiles of the three state healthcare plans.  For further resources in the healthcare debate, please see:

The YouTube page and Telegraph blog of British MEP Daniel Hannan

Independence Institute: Patient Power

Consumers for Health Care Choices

Free Market Cure

Faces of Government Healthcare

Hands off My Health

Association of American Physicians & Surgeons

Coulter: “Liberal Lies About National Health Care,” Part 1

Calvin Freiburger Ann Coulter, bureaucracy, capitalism, conservatism, healthcare, liberalism

Ann Coulter’s latest is well worth a read:

(1) National health care will punish the insurance companies.

You want to punish insurance companies? Make them compete.

As Adam Smith observed, whenever two businessmen meet, “the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” That’s why we need a third, fourth and 45th competing insurance company that will undercut them by offering better service at a lower price.

Tiny little France and Germany have more competition among health insurers than the U.S. does right now. Amazingly, both of these socialist countries have less state regulation of health insurance than we do, and you can buy health insurance across regional lines — unlike in the U.S., where a federal law allows states to ban interstate commerce in health insurance.

U.S. health insurance companies are often imperious, unresponsive consumer hellholes because they’re a partial monopoly, protected from competition by government regulation. In some states, one big insurer will control 80 percent of the market. (Guess which party these big insurance companies favor? Big companies love big government.)

Liberals think they can improve the problem of a partial monopoly by turning it into a total monopoly. That’s what single-payer health care is: “Single payer” means “single provider.”

It’s the famous liberal two-step: First screw something up, then claim that it’s screwed up because there’s not enough government oversight (it’s the free market run wild!), and then step in and really screw it up in the name of “reform.”

You could fix 90 percent of the problems with health insurance by ending the federal law allowing states to ban health insurance sales across state lines. But when John McCain called for ending the ban during the 2008 presidential campaign, he was attacked by Joe Biden — another illustration of the ironclad Ann Coulter rule that the worst Republicans are still better than allegedly “conservative” Democrats.

(2) National health care will “increase competition and keep insurance companies honest” — as President Barack Obama has said.

Government-provided health care isn’t a competitor; it’s a monopoly product paid for by the taxpayer. Consumers may be able to “choose” whether they take the service — at least at first — but every single one of us will be forced to buy it, under penalty of prison for tax evasion. It’s like a new cable plan with a “yes” box, but no “no” box.

Obama himself compared national health care to the post office — immediately conjuring images of a highly efficient and consumer-friendly work force — which, like so many consumer-friendly shops, is closed by 2 p.m. on Saturdays, all Sundays and every conceivable holiday.

But what most people don’t know — including the president, apparently — with certain narrow exceptions, competing with the post office is prohibited by law.

Expect the same with national health care. Liberals won’t stop until they have total control. How else will they get you to pay for their sex-change operations?

(3) Insurance companies are denying legitimate claims because they are “villains.”

Obama denounced the insurance companies in last Sunday’s New York Times, saying: “A man lost his health coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because the insurance company discovered that he had gallstones, which he hadn’t known about when he applied for his policy. Because his treatment was delayed, he died.”

Well, yeah. That and the cancer.

Assuming this is true — which would distinguish it from every other story told by Democrats pushing national health care — in a free market, such an insurance company couldn’t stay in business. Other insurance companies would scream from the rooftops about their competitor’s shoddy business practices, and customers would leave in droves.

If only customers had a choice! But we don’t because of government regulation of health insurance.

Speaking of which, maybe if Mr. Gallstone’s insurance company weren’t required by law to cover early childhood development programs and sex-change operations, it wouldn’t be forced to cut corners in the few areas not regulated by the government, such as cancer treatments for patients with gallstones.

(4) National health care will give Americans “basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable” — as Barack Obama claimed in his op/ed in the Times.

You want to protect consumers? Do it the same way we protect consumers of dry cleaning, hamburgers and electricians: Give them the power to tell their insurance companies, “I’m taking my business elsewhere.”

(5) Government intervention is the only way to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions.

The only reason most “pre-existing” conditions aren’t already covered is because of government regulations that shrink the insurance market to a microscopic size, which leads to fewer options in health insurance and a lot more uninsured people than would exist in a free market.

The free market has produced a dizzying array of insurance products in areas other than health. (Ironically, array-associated dizziness is not covered by most health plans.) Even insurance companies have “reinsurance” policies to cover catastrophic events occurring on the properties they insure, such as nuclear accidents, earthquakes and Michael Moore dropping in for a visit and breaking the couch.

If we had a free market in health insurance, it would be inexpensive and easy to buy insurance for “pre-existing” conditions before they exist, for example, insurance on unborn — unconceived — children and health insurance even when you don’t have a job. The vast majority of “pre-existing” conditions that currently exist in a cramped, limited, heavily regulated insurance market would be “covered” conditions under a free market in health insurance.

I’ve hit my word limit on liberal lies about national health care without breaking a sweat. See this space next week for more lies in our continuing series.

Must-See Video: Steven Crowder Exposes CanadaCare

Calvin Freiburger Barack Obama, bureaucracy, Canada, capitalism, healthcare, liberalism, media, propaganda, socialism, Steven Crowder, video

Pajamas Media’s own Steven Crowder takes a trip up north to get an up-close, undercover look at Canada’s nationalized health care to answer the big questions: Is it cheaper?  Is it more efficient?  Does it help people?

Er…not exactly.

His findings aren’t pretty, to say the least.  There’s a reason that, as Crowder pointed out, even “the father of Quebec medicare” has changed his views and now says the system is in a “crisis,” which he believes requires “a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice” to alleviate.

Every American needs to see this video.  Share it with friends, family, anyone you can.  It’s accessible, comprehensive, and eye-opening—just what we need to cut through the Left’s spin and the media propaganda on the joys of socialization before they demolish health care on our side of the border.

Waste 101

Calvin Freiburger Barack Obama, bureaucracy, liberalism, waste

Fox News has a few videos from last night’s special, “Waste 101,” in which Sean Hannity highlights 101 examples of wastefully-spent taxpayer dollars from the stimulus bill Barack Obama is so very proud of (and is so wonderful that new restrictions on criticizing it are in order).  It’s more of the same crap that groups like Club for Growth and Citizens Against Government Waste have been sounding the alarm on for years—bridges named after politicians, useless government make-work jobs, gifts to lobbyists and special interests, obscure scientific research, et cetera.  It puts the lie to the claim that Obama and the Democrats have any interest in fiscal responsibility.

Two points, though.  First, this is from the guy who not only claimed to be different (which all politicians do), but based his entire campaign on the concept.  Second, not only does Obama reflect all the problems of the status quo, but he amplifies them: Hannity’s rundown totaled over a billion dollars, out of a $787 billion bill, meaning it barely scratches the surface of the waste this administration has already spent in less than half a year in office—and there’s more where that came from.

Cleaning up the mess the 44th president is making is not going to be a fun task.

PS: Wisconsin Dems are no better.

Hey Hackbarth! Am I a Bad Conservative?

Calvin Freiburger bureaucracy, Coulter, military, scandal, Walter Reed
———–
Ann Coulter, 3/14/2007

————–
Democrats have leapt on reports of mold, rats and bureaucratic hurdles at Walter Reed Army Medical Center as further proof of President George Bush’s failed war policies.
—————-
To the contrary, the problems at Walter Reed are further proof of the Democrats’ failed domestic policies — to wit, the civil service rules that prevent government employees from ever being fired. (A policy that also may account for Robert Byrd’s longevity as a U.S. senator.)
————-
Thanks to the Democrats, government employees have the world’s most complicated set of job protection rules outside of the old East Germany. Oddly enough, this has not led to a dynamic workforce in the nation’s capital.
—————
Noticeably, the problems at Walter Reed are not with the doctors or medical care. The problems are with basic maintenance at the facility.
————–
Unless U.S. Army generals are supposed to be spraying fungicide on the walls and crawling under beds to set rattraps, the slovenly conditions at Walter Reed are not their fault. The military is nominally in charge of Walter Reed, but — because of civil service rules put into place by Democrats — the maintenance crew can’t be fired.
————–
If the general “in charge” can’t fire the people not doing their jobs, I don’t know why he is being held responsible for them not doing their jobs.
————–
You will find the exact same problems anyplace market forces have been artificially removed by the government and there is a total absence of incentives, competition, effective oversight, cost controls and so on. It’s almost like a cause-and-effect thing.
———
The Washington Post could have done the same report on any government facility in the Washington, D.C., area.
————–
In a typical story from the nation’s capital, last year, a 38-year-old woman died at the hospital after her blood pressure dropped and a D.C. ambulance took 90 minutes to pick her up and take her to a hospital that was five minutes away. For 90 minutes, the 911 operator repeatedly assured the woman’s sister that the ambulance was on its way.
———–
You read these stories every few months in Washington.
———-
New York Times reporter David Rosenbaum also died in Washington last year after being treated to the famed work ethic of the average government employee. Rosenbaum was mugged near his house and hit on the head with a pipe. A neighbor found him lying on the sidewalk and immediately called 911.
———-
First, the ambulance got lost on the way to Rosenbaum. Then, instead of taking him to the closest emergency room, the ambulance took him to Howard University Hospital, nearly 30 minutes away, because one of the “emergency medical technicians” had personal business in the area.
——-
Once he finally arrived at the hospital, Rosenbaum was left unattended on a gurney for 90 minutes because the “emergency medical technicians” had completely missed his head injury and listed him as “drunk” and “low priority.”
—————
Months later, the deputy mayor for public safety told The Washington Post that “to the best of his knowledge, no one involved in the incident had been fired.”
————–
No one has any authority over civil service employees in the nation’s capital. Bush probably lives in terror of White House janitors. The White House bathroom could be flooding and he’d be told: “I’ll get to you when I get to you. Listen, fella, you’re fifth on my list. I’m not making any promises, just don’t flush for the next week.”
—————–
It’s especially adorable how Democrats and the media are acting like these are the first rats ever sighted in the Washington, D.C., area. There are rats in the Capitol building. There are rats in The Washington Post building. Bush has seen rats. But let’s leave Chuck Hagel out of this for now.
———-
On “ABC News” last year, a CBS radio reporter described a rat jumping off the camera in the White House press briefing room in the middle of a press conference. (And a shrew sits right in the front!) The Washington Post called the White House press room — located between the residence and the Oval Office — “a broken-down, rat-infested fire trap.” During David Gregory’s stand-up report on MSNBC about the damage done to Republicans by conditions at Walter Reed, rats appeared to be scurrying on the ground behind him.
————
Instead of an investigative report on the problems at Walter Reed, how about an investigative report on what happens when the head of janitorial services at Walter Reed is told about the dirt, mold and rats at the facility? If it’s before 2:30 in the afternoon and he’s still at work and he hasn’t taken a “sick day,” a “vacation day,” a “personal day” or a “mental health day,” I predict the answer will be: “I’m on my break.”
————-
The Democrats’ response is: We must pass even more stringent rules to ensure that all government employees get every single break so that public-sector unions will continue giving massive campaign donations to the Democrats.
———-
This was, you will recall, the precise issue that led to a partisan battle over the Homeland Security bill a few years ago: Whether employees at an emergency terrorist response agency could be fired — as Republicans wanted — or if they would be subject to civil service rules and unfireable — as the Democrats wanted.
————
HELLO? HOMELAND SECURITY? THERE’S A BOMB IN THE WELL OF THE SENATE!
———–
Sorry, not my job. Try the Department of Public Works.
———-
When Republican Saxby Chambliss challenged Democrat Max Cleland in the 2002 Georgia Senate race, he ran an ad attacking Cleland for demanding civil service protections for workers at the Homeland Security Department. Naturally, Republicans were accused of hating veterans for mentioning Cleland’s vote on the Homeland Security bill.
———–
Now that the Democrats are once again pretending to give a damn about the troops by wailing about conditions at Walter Reed, how about some Republican — maybe Chambliss! — introduce a bill to remove civil service protections from employees at Walter Reed and all veterans’ hospitals? You know, a bill that would actually address the problem.
———–
And don’t worry about the useless, slothful government employees who can only hold jobs from which they cannot be fired. We’ll get them jobs at the EPA and Department of Education.