Showing posts with label against waste. Show all posts
Showing posts with label against waste. Show all posts

Sunday, August 16, 2009

The Health Care Debate Is Missing An Explation

The health care debate has become one of the most confusing and highly charged debates in recent memory. One main reason for this is that the administration has repeatedly left unanswered the basic question of how this plan will work. There is some good reason for this as there is no real concrete plan as of yet, just a bill that is in process which has been criticized as lengthy but not clear. However, the President has spoken about health care repeatedly in town halls, in press conferences, and has directly addressed the country, but has not once has he given a basic explanation on how his plan will work. Again today in a op-ed in the New York Times President Obama talks about why health care is needed. Yet no one is at a loss for why health reform is needed, they are at a loss for how health reform will work.

Cost is a major issue. The administration says that the plan will be funded approximately 1/3 by eliminating waste and inefficiencies. Yet CNN ran an article stating that little has been done in the current bill to address fraud. Tort reform has also been excluded, which means the waste that occurs through doctors practicing defensive medicine, and the underlying cost of malpractice insurance will not be dealt with. Digitizing medical records has been cited as a way to reduce costs. This would likely reduce costs down the road, but wouldn't there be an initial cost of moving records to a database, setting up a database (or other system) with the appropriate security and protocols? How will this happen? Who will establish this system and oversee its management and especially its security?

The reason so many people are nervous is that if the system is squeezed for savings it makes sense that care might suffer. Without the 'how' people are likely to jump to conclusions, and while proponents can complain that people 'are playing the politics of fear,' the reality is that some people are honestly afraid of what might happen to Medicare and Medicaid if reform means cuts. Granted some have come to ridiculous conclusions like Governor Palin's over-the-top remark about 'death panels.' However, the irony is that remark actually effected the debate because there was no other explanation out there about what 'end of life counseling' means. The administration is adamant that health reform pass, and pass quickly, but they don't appear to know what reforms they want or how they will work. How can the President expect the public to support reform when no one can explain it?

From Purple People Vote Independent Political Blog

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

Pro-Growth is Most Fair Option

Unfortunately, many in America are losing track of the logistics of the economy and are getting caught up in emotion. People are angry about bailouts and white collar crooks running ponzi schemes and are becoming resentful towards big business and the wealthy. Yet we risk losing site of the real goal of turning the economy around when emotion and arguments about fairness start start trumping logic and math. The reason not to raise taxes on the rich, businesses, and capital gains is not because one loves, hates, or feels indifferently about wealthy people. The reason not to raise taxes on those of means is because they are the ones able to create jobs, and invest in the businesses that are so desperately needed right now. The argument that the rich should pay more because that is what is fair ignores the fact that, particularly in a struggling economy, increasing taxes slows growth. Consequently economic recovery slows, and that is fair to no one. In reality when the economy slumps those just getting by pay check to pay check suffer the most. The rich may not be as rich as before, but they're still rich. Those being laid off and struggling to pay their bills are hurt the most in a prolonged recession, and implementing policies that hinder growth is not fair to anyone.

Also, small business owners are being grouped into the 'rich' category in an unfair manner. If a small business owner makes $250,000 a year that becomes a rather average income if he or she has to pay two to three employees salaries with that income. Also if they are trying to grow their business, it is likely a chunk of that income is being put right back into their business. That isn't the life of the highly privileged wealthy class. We'd be well served by taking the emotion and morality judgments out of economic policy, and simply look for policies that are pro-growth.

Larry Kudlow and Donald Luskin voice their frustration about the current policies that are anti-growth. Certainly, not unemotional in their criticism, they point out why a pro-growth strategy is simply the most fair economic strategy for all Americans.




Pro Growth is What is Truly Fair

Friday, January 30, 2009

Americans Will Pay the Bill for Overloaded Stimulus Package

Rasmusen reports that support for the Emergency Stimulus plan is slipping. This is not surprising since the stimulus has been packed with pork, which by anyone's definition seriously stretches the meaning of emergency. Regular Americans know better than many politicians the basic fact that bills have to be paid, and this proposal leaves Americans holding the tab for a pile of pork. President Obama and House Republicans have shown some willingness to compromise, but the House bill that passed yesterday had not one Republican vote for it and 11 Democrats also oppose it for good reason. Just take a look at a few of the items in this bill that have been stuffed into this bill...

• $20 million “for the removal of small- to medium-sized fish passage barriers.”
• $400 million for STD prevention
• $25 million to rehabilitate off-roading (ATV) trails
• $34 million to remodel the Department of Commerce HQ
• $70 million to “Support Supercomputing Activities” for climate research
• $150 million for honey bee insurance

Cited from Earmarks In House Bill
Americans Will Pay the Bill for Overloaded Stimulus Package

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Opposition to Auto Bailout Part 2

Yesterday's article Oppose the Auto Bailout was not intended to be anti-union or anti-auto company, it's simply the opinion of an old fashion cheapskate. If the government is going to spend taxpayer dollars they need to ensure that those funds are not being wasted. There has been little effort to explain why pumping money into failed businesses will fix that failed business model. Voters should contact their lawmakers and let them know they will hold them responsible if they give automakers billions of taxpayer dollars only to see those business collapse in the future.

Contact Your Senator

Contact Your Congressman

Similar sentiments we're expressed by Senator Mitch McConnell (R - KY).
U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate floor Tuesday regarding proposed auto legislation:

“The auto industry is vitally important to our nation’s economy and it is vitally important to my home state of Kentucky. This is not in dispute. The question before us is how to reverse the decline of some of these auto manufacturers after decades of complicity between management and labor.

“I understand congressional Democrats sent a revised proposal to the White House late last night. We will reserve our judgment until we see the latest text. But the proposal we saw yesterday afternoon fails to achieve our goal of securing the long-term viability of ailing auto companies.

“I want to support a bill that revives this industry. But I will not support a bill that revives the patient with taxpayer dollars yet doesn’t secure a commitment that the patient will change its ways so future help isn’t needed.

“To do so would be a betrayal of the millions of hardworking taxpayers who are not at fault for the troubles in the auto industry. And it would be unfair to the millions of Americans who depend on these companies.


No Auto Bailout Part 2