Public Option=Single Payer=Socialized Medicine

The problem with a “public option” for a consolidated Health Care program is not rationing (the government never rations anything). The problem is competition. The public option in the bill before the house would pay for most medical procedures (even if they are rationed) at public expense, much like Medicare and Medicaid do now. Most insurance companies could not compete with the “bottomless pit” of the government’s wallet. That would leave only Walmart-sized regional centers like the Mayo Clinic as private options, forcing most Americans in rural areas to depend on the government public option. The Progressive Caucus, led by Southern Arizona’s own Raul Grijalva, has forced the public option on Congress as a form of Trojan Horse that will lead to “single payer” healthcare (ie. government run, see Barney Frank’s comments on Youtube)This is what has people who recognize what it means in an uproar. Eventually, the majority of health care in this country will be in the hands of the government if there is a public option. In Europe this is called “Socialized Medicine.”
Why is Socialized Medicine a problem? Costs. When has the government ever run a program with any kind of efficiency? (Check out Medicare, Medicaid, the Obama stimulus package, Cash for Klunkers, etc.). The Congressional Budget Office estimates the cost of the proposed HR3200 plan at $10 trillion over the next ten years IF the majority of health care remains in the private sector. The estimates beyond ten years are astronomical. Furthermore, these estimates do not include the ballooning costs that go with every government program. The public option is simply a bad idea, rationing aside.
Why isn’t District 7’s Raul Grijalva coming to Yuma this month to hear our voices on the proposed plan? Because he doesn’t need to hear our opinions. Our opinions do not matter to him on this issue. As the leader of the Progressive Caucus, his only concern is ‘getting to’ a single payer system, no matter what the cost to taxpayers. Government-funded healthcare is “progressive” and that is all that matters.
The problem for the Progressives’ plan for healthcare is that there are better researched, more cost effective programs out there, notable, those proposed by the Heritage Foundation. Rather than involving the government as payer, they emphasize competition and standardization, leading to reduced cost, not more and more choices, not fewer by putting responsibility in the hands of Americans and not Progressives in Washington. They would strengthen our health care system, keep the choices you have, and avoid the problems already encountered with Medicare and Medicaid. Rationing would be your choice, not the governments.

Why taxing the rich STILL doesn't work!

Seventy five years of economic data have shown that taxing the rich does not work, yet President Obama and House Progressives continue to push for increased taxes on the 'wealthy' to pay for their extravagant spending, to the tune of 10 trillion in deficits over the next 10 years. They use data from the Uberliberal Citizens for Tax Justice, who's founder, Steve Wamhoff, has tied himself to outdated keynesian economic models. These models have never worked effectively during a recession, because they are based on the idea that business and investors are making so much money, skimming a little off the top shouldn't be a problem. During a recession, however, investors look for tax shelters and businesses look to cut costs and find tax-friendly markets (hence the fantabulous economic growth of Arizona over the last 30 years while California's huge economy has lagged). A complete explanation of this idea, borne out in the economy over the last 30 years, comes from the Heritage Foundation. Written by independent economist Curtis Dubay of the Tax Foundation, the arguments are based on what has worked in government political practice for raising revenue, not proposals based on balance sheets and thought up by a college student. In truth, the connection between Wamhoff and Raul Grijalva is much more laughable than the policy statements Wamhoff has been paid by the Arizona Congressman to write. Using a donor's relative to write policy statements smacks of conflict of interest, Raul, but such are the ways of Community Organizers.

Government vs Creativity: Real solutions to economic crisis

The economic recession has hit everyone, but it has hit local governments and school districts the worst. Tax income for cities and school districts is at its lowest level in 30 years. While the state of Arizona can increase the state sales tax or cut highway funds with little effect on most individuals, local governments and school districts already operate on tight payroll and tax revenue formulas. Local funding problems will not be solved by massive federal government handouts like the Obama stimulus package. the trillions of dollars which the President hangs hopes for a recovery and votes for Democrats in 2010 will be a drop in the bucket for cities like Phoenix and Mesa that have closed facilities. There is simply not enough money to be printed to 'fix' the economy. In order for local governments to continue to function, there needs to be creative solutions, not government handouts.
I recently saw an example of creativity at work in Yuma's Parks and Recreation Aquatics programs. Like many Arizona cities, Yuma Parks and Recreation saw shutting down its pools during the winter as easy savings. When resident lap swimmers and competitive clubs showed up at council meetings in droves, they were shown the figures, the city could not afford the costs to keep two heated pools open for so few programs.
enter two individuals, Coach Rich McClure of Cibola high school and Alan Anderson of the Yuma Heat. McClure proposed adding fee programs to the new Valley Aquatics Center in order to keep its doors open. Anderson, concerned that losing winter pools would mean the end of USS Swimming in Yuma, proposed that the HEAT operate Abe Marcus Pool during the winter months and work with the city to create a plan for a more efficient solar heating system for the pool in future years. The city has agreed in principal to Anderson;s proposal and is looking at details for the Valley Aquatics Center proposal by McClure.
For a nominal cost to the city compared to past years, it looks as if Yuma will now have two pools open during the winter months instead of one with increased programs during a year when many cities of comparable size are closing their pools. Economic hard times drive people to be more creative. When our backs are against the wall, we Americans come up with solutions rather than looking for government handouts.
The problem with 'stimulus packages' is the same as when I was a teen and wanted to take the car out on Friday night. If I had already spent all my money, I would go to my dad. With money from my father, there were always strings attached, mowing the lawn, helping him with his fishing boat, painting the house. But if I found a way to earn the money myself, it was my own. What Americans need is not another stimulus bill, or nationalized health care, or town hall meetings to show us what we want. what Americans need is a chance to be creative with our resources, not borrowing from the Chinese until they begin eyeing Arizona as debt payment for an offloading site for their deep seaports in Mexico.

Facts are Stubborn things

Below is my email response to the new White House watchdog address flag@whitehouse.gov. Their Witch Hunt response to the growing criticism of Obamacare smacks of Big Brother strong arm tactics:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

In response I wrote:

To whom it may concern:

I am sending this email to turn myself in. I have read the significant portions of HR 3200 and disagree with major parts of it, especially the Public Payer option. I believe that Ronald Reagan spoke correctly when he said "Government is not the solution to the Problem, government is the problem." I believe President Obama has spoken erroneously about many provisions of the bill and the intent of the legislation as presently written. I believe the Constitution gives me and others the right to speak our mind publicly about political issues whether those opinions go along with the President or not. I believe, furthermore, that we have the right to go to rallies, to ask questions of the individuals who represent us in Washington, and the right to expect that their answers will be truthful. I believe the President made statements that he would, in effect, be such a representative to all Americans when he was elected. Unfortunately, I now believe he feels the need to misrepresent the legislation before Congress in order to get it passed without the full support of the majority of Americans just because he has the power to do so. He has the right to influence policy. That is the way politics works, I understand that. However, please do not demean my right to disagree with policy and do not try to intimidate myself and other Americans from voicing our concerns publicly.

I too believe, like John Adams, that "Facts are Stubborn things..." Unfortunately the blogger who posted these words did not quote the entire statement, which reads:

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

John Adams, 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,' December 1770
US diplomat & politician (1735 - 1826)

The context of the quote is that no matter how passionately one feels about an issue, no matter how much of a wrong we think we are correcting in our sense of justice, the other side must have the right to be heard before judgment is rendered. John Adams offered up his defense to the accused who had no representation. This is a basic right of all Americans, and the White House, in policing public political expression, besmears John Adams and the rights of Americans to be heard by quoting his words in the same article as it threaten to squelch the right of political speech. As John Adams allowed himself to be ridiculed by the people of Boston, I too am willing to stand proudly in defense of those who have been attacked by your office.

Therefore, if there is a list of people who have spoken against health care reform, who believe that the President and Congress are mistaken in their assumptions about the need to indenture our nation to foreign governments in exchange for "health security," then please place my name at the top of the list. If there is a list of those who need to be arrested, to be silenced in order for health care or any other legislation to be passed in this country, then come and take me first. For while I have not been very active in politics until now, the changes I see now have angered me.To heed the words of Dylan Thomas, I will not "go gentle into that good night," but "Rage, rage against the dying of the light" of freedoms being ripped away by politics.

Sincerely,

Arthur Wallace

Southern Arizona too hot for Congressman Grijalva?

HR 3200, the Health Care bill from Hell, is suddenly getting a dose of democracy (with a small d). Constituents across the country are reading the bill and are giving lawmakers an earful.
The worst thing about the proposed Health care bill for Southern Arizona is the lack of input we have. Not One of our three representatives has plans for town hall meetings in the area during their month long recess. Senator MccCain is conducting online surveys, Jon Kyl is visiting talk shows, apparently preparing for a 2012 presidential bid. Worst of all is our District 7 representative Raul Grijalva, who is ignoring phonecalls and conducting Youtube press conferences in the safety of the Capitol in Washington. Grijalva's first appearance in Arizona will be a $200 per plate fundraiser September 13th for supporters only. Yuma residents need to email their representatives asking them to make an appearance to explain their position on this bill and take questions. It's part of their job whether they like what they hear or not.
Grijalva particularly has chosen to isolate himself from his constituents, choosing to communicate only with supporters on his Facebook page in order to avoid the embarrassing confrontations other Congressmen have faced. On this page, he brazenly touts to his supporters how he will withhold his vote from any legislation that does not lead to universal healthcare, despite the trillion dollar price tag.
"A majority of our members prefer single payer," Grijalva and Woolsey say in the letter, referring to a system of government-funded, government-run universal health care

that famously never survived congressional consideration back in 1993 and 1994 — the last time Washington tried to drastically expand coverage.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/25784.html#ixzz0NJYYRGQp

Is Grijalva so arrogant to think, first, he represents all of Southern Arizona with his demands for Universal Healthcare and soaring deficit spending, and second, that he can sabotage any healthcare reform if he doesn't get his way? Or is he just afraid to hear what you have to say? Either way, if past experience is any indication, if you disagree with him, he really doesn't want to hear from you. Southern Arizona is too hot in August anyway, so he'll spend it in Washington and hope you forget his arrogance when you go to vote in 2010.

Grijalva threatens to blackmail Americans on health care unless it includes socialist reforms

Raul Grijalva is nothing if not consistent. He is sticking to his guns that health care reform must have a government "public option" in order to work. In fact he has promised to vote against any reform that doesn't include this expensive option, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates will cost over a trillion dollars. (See Youtube). Unfortunately for Arizonans and the rest of the country, Raul knows nothing about health care or economics. Health care experts across the board have repeatedly argued against such a plan. (see Heritage.org,
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed072809e.cfm for one example).
Why is the "public option" so bad? One word: profits. Health care, like anything else in America, operates on profit. Without profit, there would be no quality televisions, cars, . . . or health care. Liberals hate profits. Like Lenin (founder of the Soviet Union, not the singer, although they both . . . never mind), they believe that all waste is useless and can be eliminated by getting rid of profit. The problem with the present system is that the government mandates costs for certain health care: the poor, retirees, and of course, government workers like Raul at a loss to taxpayers of millions each year. This means that Doctors and hospitals must offer health care insurance to these groups at bottom basement prices for no profit and must still pay outside costs like malpractice insurance which have skyrocketed in recent years. How do medical providers make a profit? Well, since they can't make a profit on government financed health care, they try and make it up with the rest of us through increased charges to private payers and insurance companies (for analysis, see Heritage). The more health care controlled by the government, the more private payers are asked to pay. Contrary to what Grijalva and others may say, it is not the doctors' fault that they are trying to stay in business. It is the government, trying to fix prices, that is the problem.
In 1973, then president Nixon tried the same approach to consumer prices to prevent inflation. Nixon fixed prices on gas and heating oil and other necessary commodities. The plan backfired as prices on other consumer items skyrocketed and companies hoarded commodities waiting for government prices to change. This is why government intervention to "fix" problems in the economy never works. This is why Grijalva and the Progressives, if they get their way on health care, will destroy what is left of the American economy.
I like to call it the Walmart Effect. Here is the way it will work. Obamacare will be implemented in phases, starting with state and local employees and the uninsured and "trickling down" to small businesses in its last few years. Taxes will need to be raised on the corporate owners and small businesses (even though they are not included in the plan until later). These taxes, while destructive to the economy, will not even begin to pay for the program (according to the CBO) and it will need to be supplemented by billions in government spending (Grijalva knows this and is counting on it, government deficits are not a big deal, he says). Like Walmart, the public Payer option will suck up the majority of the providers because it will buy care in bulk and because it is subsidized by the government. Because they can no longer afford to stay in business, many doctors, hospitals and insurance companies will close their doors or limit their services in order to maximize their profit under the government payer system. Competition in health care will decrease if not end completely, the budget deficit will soar, and not only will you not have the same doctor, you will have higher taxes, less security (military and border patrol spending will need to be cut to pay for all this, if you don't believe it ask European nations who started programs in the 1950s when it was cheaper) and you will need to follow government guidelines for doctors visits and hospitalizations that make Orwell's 1984 sound like a hippie commune.

The answer? less government and more competition. Get rid of all government payer options, including medicare and medicaid. Instead, allow states to give all persons wealfare a credit card that can be used for health care with any doctor they choose with a maximum payout per year. Allow small businesses to band together to purchase blocks of insurance. Promote health insurance exchanges at the state level. Reinstate individual medical accounts. Encourage doctors and hospitals to offer discounts for paying cash for services. limit liability claims. A plan, similar to mine, was outlined by the Heritage Foundation and instituted successfully in Massachusetts, is available on their website .
Not only would this cost about 7 billion less, but it will stimulate the economy, and, OMG, limit big government. the only problem with implementing such a plan is that Raul Grijalva's Progressive Caucus will have nothing to do with a plan that does not put the government in charge of your health care.
Never Mind.

Expanding the Cash for Clunkers Program

Obama's stimulus package is a complete failure. The exception is the wildly popular Cash-for-Clunkers program originally budgeted for one billion dollars, which has been committed in the first week of the program. Proponents of the program figured that the cash would keep the program in operation until November. It lasted one week. The bureaucrats in Washington stumbed upon something that works in a sagging economy: Giving people incentives and a choice to keep more of their money!
Congress is so excited about this novel idea that they have added two billion to the Cash for clunkers program and speculations abound about expanding it to other consumer products: Televisions, Computers, recycling services, maybe even taxes. These are all great ideas, but they don't go far enough in fixing what is broken.
I propose we expand the rebate program to government. We'll call it the "Cash for Congressmen" program. Voters in each congressional district can trade their wasteful, cash-guzzling representative in for a more efficient one and save up to $4,500 in taxes each year. The rebate could be based on the voting record of each congressman for failed "stimulus spending" and the money given to the campaign of any candidate running against them who promises to balance the budget and cut the deficit (a radical concept, I know). This program would do two things: it would hold the present members of Congress accountable and would help to stimulate the economy by allowing millions of Americans to keep their money and spend it on what they want. The cap on the program would be 50 billion, a drop in the bucket by the Obama administration spending standards, and would bring real change to America and excite the electorate in an off election cycle. Write your Congressman today!