Friday, January 29, 2010
Specific Issues with Proposed Senate Health Bill
Joe C. sent me this video (below) as a means of quickly running through issues in the Senate version of the health care bill that was initially offered last July. This is an earlier version than the one that passed the vote on Christmas Eve (a mere month ago), but you can check the claims of the video below with that of the actual text of the bill here (PDF file). The page numbers and lines mentioned in the video correspond with that PDF file.
The updated (current) version of the Senate bill is HR 3590 and can be found in text format here. The problem with connecting the video to this current version is that we don't have the same page and line numbers in this new bill as those mentioned in the video. But if you search the obsolete PDF version, you can find section heading numbers, then use your browser to search to those numbers (press CTRL-F to get on-page search ability, for the non-geeks) and compare the current with obsolete versions (geeky enough?). Plenty of work, but I noticed some of this garbage indeed remains within the current version of the bill.
Do some research, come to your own conclusions, and share what you find with others. After all, according to President Obama's recent state of the union address, American citizens are opposed to this bill because he failed to properly inform us of the bill's true contents:
Hey, Mr. President--I think I've found some better approaches. In fact, I wrote about them here months ago.
The updated (current) version of the Senate bill is HR 3590 and can be found in text format here. The problem with connecting the video to this current version is that we don't have the same page and line numbers in this new bill as those mentioned in the video. But if you search the obsolete PDF version, you can find section heading numbers, then use your browser to search to those numbers (press CTRL-F to get on-page search ability, for the non-geeks) and compare the current with obsolete versions (geeky enough?). Plenty of work, but I noticed some of this garbage indeed remains within the current version of the bill.
Do some research, come to your own conclusions, and share what you find with others. After all, according to President Obama's recent state of the union address, American citizens are opposed to this bill because he failed to properly inform us of the bill's true contents:
Still, this is a complex issue. And the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people. And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, this process left most Americans wondering, "What's in it for me?"
...
As temperatures cool, I want everyone to take another look at the plan we've proposed. There's a reason why many doctors, nurses, and health care experts who know our system best consider this approach a vast improvement over the status quo.
But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know.
Hey, Mr. President--I think I've found some better approaches. In fact, I wrote about them here months ago.
Labels: H.R. 3200, H.R. 3590, health care, health insurance, Obama, president, Senate, state of the union
Thursday, January 7, 2010
No C-SPAN for Health Care Wrangling?
With all the talk during candidate Obama's presidential run regarding transparency and accountability, perhaps it's right he catches some flack with the recent denial of open, transparent debate with the health "reform" bills in the House and Senate?
Perhaps you've heard the story going around lately? Here's the take at C-SPAN. What's the view from White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs? The Washington Examiner records an interesting exchange on this topic. How's that for transparency and accountability? I even found that elusive letter that remains unseen by Robert Gibbs, and you can see it, too. Something tells me Robert Gibbs might be avoiding seeing this letter (cue stunned music).
True, the president is part of the executive branch, while congress is part of the legislative branch of government. But if I remember right, the promise of "no new taxes" made by president Bush--though this was an issue for the legislative branch--was something that brought quite a lot of pain to the president at the time when not delivered.
Broken promises:
Perhaps you've heard the story going around lately? Here's the take at C-SPAN. What's the view from White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs? The Washington Examiner records an interesting exchange on this topic. How's that for transparency and accountability? I even found that elusive letter that remains unseen by Robert Gibbs, and you can see it, too. Something tells me Robert Gibbs might be avoiding seeing this letter (cue stunned music).
True, the president is part of the executive branch, while congress is part of the legislative branch of government. But if I remember right, the promise of "no new taxes" made by president Bush--though this was an issue for the legislative branch--was something that brought quite a lot of pain to the president at the time when not delivered.
Broken promises:
Labels: accountability, C-SPAN, debate, health care, House, Obama, promise, Robert Gibbs, Senate, transparency
Sunday, November 8, 2009
House Passes H.R. 3962
Coming down to a weak 220 to 215 vote, H.R. 3962 passed last night. That means if only three more members of Congress voted against this bill, it would have failed. Make no mistake--we've seen far more controversy over this bill than unanimity. Why?
Many point to this bill as missing its intended purpose, which is stated to solve our broken health care condition in this country. I don't dispute our current health care is sub-par and could use big improvements. However, is this within the realm of the federal government? If so, to which part of the Constitution is the federal government granted powers to enact such laws? Shouldn't this be--at most--an issue for the states? Is anyone in Washington even asking such a question with the bills they "write" (but don't read) anymore? It would seem not.
H.R. 3962 is a bloated stack of kludges that nobody has read. I wonder, then, how our representatives can demonstrate they're maintaining their vow to uphold the Constitution of these United States, if they repeatedly vote bills into law without even reading them. I wonder, also, who is writing these bills? Whatever happened to the promise to make such bills available to the American citizens several days before a vote? Was the full bill even available to those expected to vote on it several days before the vote? If not, isn't it safe to say upholding their Constitutional duties is impossible with behavior of this sort?
Anyway, it seems the real purpose of this bill has been diluted into solving the problem--not of access to good, affordable health care for U.S. citizens--but of an unacceptably low percentage of citizens holding health insurance. (Nothing like aiming high, eh?) What is ultimately the solution proposed in this bill? Simple. Citizens are now mandated to have health insurance, never mind the cost. Oh, that was easy--why didn't we do this before? If you don't get "acceptable" insurance, you'll be slapped with a fine. If you don't pay the fine, you can be criminally prosecuted for tax evasion.* Nanny state to the rescue, though I can find nothing in the Constitution to even allow such "rescues".
Of course, it's easy to throw stones (and particularly easy to throw stones at our so-called representatives), but that still leaves us with the problem of sub-par health care, doesn't it? How might a reasonable person address this problem?
I've recently read an excellent article in the fall edition (Southern Colorado) of the Good American Post by Sean McCarthy, which draws, in part, from another article in the Wall Street Journal by John Mackey (CEO of Whole Foods Market) which I highly recommend reading as well for eight solid health reform ideas.
If you look around, you might locate a copy or two of this edition of the Good American Post around town, and I highly encourage you to read it and consider the ideas therein. McCarthy's basic assertion in his article is that--as with all government programs--discouraging a particular activity (such as smoking) uses tools such as regulation and taxation, whereas encouraging a particular activity requires relaxation of these tools. Therefore all the options being discussed in Washington regarding health care appear to be headed in exactly the wrong direction, by increasing both regulation and taxation!
With all the good ideas available out there in tackling this health care issue, isn't it a wonder that our servants in Washington haven't stumbled across any of them? Of course a cynic like myself might wonder if that's really their intended purpose in the first place. From their poor approval numbers, it looks like I'm not alone.
Please make a priority to inform yourself of viable, Constitutionally-sound alternatives to the broken proposals seen on Capitol Hill. Learn, think, debate, and contact your representatives and let them know what you think. After all, they don't even read the bills they pass into law--how can you expect them to read your mind?
Remember, this recent legislative disaster passed the House with only three votes' margin. Could your involvement with your representative have changed that outcome? What will you do when this bill hits the Senate floor? Anything?
*Edit: I've found several articles backing up these claims, as well as the language in the H.R. 3962 bill itself, and decided to add it to this post, for reference. See Section 59B under Part VIII for the special tax on individuals without "acceptable" health insurance coverage. Because this is a special tax, it's subject to enforcement by the IRS. See this article at the National Underwriter for why non-payment of the special tax can result in criminal prosecution. And this article at the National Federation of Independent Business details 15 reasons why this bill is necessarily bad for independent/small businesses.
Many point to this bill as missing its intended purpose, which is stated to solve our broken health care condition in this country. I don't dispute our current health care is sub-par and could use big improvements. However, is this within the realm of the federal government? If so, to which part of the Constitution is the federal government granted powers to enact such laws? Shouldn't this be--at most--an issue for the states? Is anyone in Washington even asking such a question with the bills they "write" (but don't read) anymore? It would seem not.
H.R. 3962 is a bloated stack of kludges that nobody has read. I wonder, then, how our representatives can demonstrate they're maintaining their vow to uphold the Constitution of these United States, if they repeatedly vote bills into law without even reading them. I wonder, also, who is writing these bills? Whatever happened to the promise to make such bills available to the American citizens several days before a vote? Was the full bill even available to those expected to vote on it several days before the vote? If not, isn't it safe to say upholding their Constitutional duties is impossible with behavior of this sort?
Anyway, it seems the real purpose of this bill has been diluted into solving the problem--not of access to good, affordable health care for U.S. citizens--but of an unacceptably low percentage of citizens holding health insurance. (Nothing like aiming high, eh?) What is ultimately the solution proposed in this bill? Simple. Citizens are now mandated to have health insurance, never mind the cost. Oh, that was easy--why didn't we do this before? If you don't get "acceptable" insurance, you'll be slapped with a fine. If you don't pay the fine, you can be criminally prosecuted for tax evasion.* Nanny state to the rescue, though I can find nothing in the Constitution to even allow such "rescues".
Of course, it's easy to throw stones (and particularly easy to throw stones at our so-called representatives), but that still leaves us with the problem of sub-par health care, doesn't it? How might a reasonable person address this problem?
I've recently read an excellent article in the fall edition (Southern Colorado) of the Good American Post by Sean McCarthy, which draws, in part, from another article in the Wall Street Journal by John Mackey (CEO of Whole Foods Market) which I highly recommend reading as well for eight solid health reform ideas.
If you look around, you might locate a copy or two of this edition of the Good American Post around town, and I highly encourage you to read it and consider the ideas therein. McCarthy's basic assertion in his article is that--as with all government programs--discouraging a particular activity (such as smoking) uses tools such as regulation and taxation, whereas encouraging a particular activity requires relaxation of these tools. Therefore all the options being discussed in Washington regarding health care appear to be headed in exactly the wrong direction, by increasing both regulation and taxation!
With all the good ideas available out there in tackling this health care issue, isn't it a wonder that our servants in Washington haven't stumbled across any of them? Of course a cynic like myself might wonder if that's really their intended purpose in the first place. From their poor approval numbers, it looks like I'm not alone.
Please make a priority to inform yourself of viable, Constitutionally-sound alternatives to the broken proposals seen on Capitol Hill. Learn, think, debate, and contact your representatives and let them know what you think. After all, they don't even read the bills they pass into law--how can you expect them to read your mind?
Remember, this recent legislative disaster passed the House with only three votes' margin. Could your involvement with your representative have changed that outcome? What will you do when this bill hits the Senate floor? Anything?
*Edit: I've found several articles backing up these claims, as well as the language in the H.R. 3962 bill itself, and decided to add it to this post, for reference. See Section 59B under Part VIII for the special tax on individuals without "acceptable" health insurance coverage. Because this is a special tax, it's subject to enforcement by the IRS. See this article at the National Underwriter for why non-payment of the special tax can result in criminal prosecution. And this article at the National Federation of Independent Business details 15 reasons why this bill is necessarily bad for independent/small businesses.
Labels: Congress, Constitution, H.R. 3962, health care, health insurance, Senate
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]