The Right Guy Show

An old fashioned libertarian’s view on the world

Archive for the ‘Government Healthcare’ Category

Grassley: The Imperial Clown is at it again

leave a comment »

Yesterday, I received an email from the Grasshole’s office expounding on how he was doing everything he could to keep the healthcare reform bill from becoming government run healthcare.

Nowhere does it say that it isn’t the governments purview to manage healthcare. In effect, with this bill, with or without a public option, the government will in effect be managing some of the healthcare system in this country.

It baffles me how politicians can make the distinctions between evil and evil light. Such are pragmatists that both want to show they are doing something for us and also controlling more and more aspects of our lives. Such a transfer of personal sovereignty also leaves me baffled as well.

According to Grassley, the healthcare industry makes up one sixth of the us economy. If this is true, LEAVE IT ALONE! The best he could do would be to reverse policies that have been set forth that have increase insurance premiums and forced insurance companies to ration healthcare and increase rates. He won’t do this or even suggest it because there is nothing to offer or a matter of consideration for us. Again, bribery takes front seat.

One thing that should be done is allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines. Having a blue cross of Iowa and of NY makes no sense. It should be one company that competes for the who pot. Any insurance company should be able to compete in any and every state.

Another thing is pre-existing conditions. Making insurance companies insure regardless of pre-existing conditions raises rates. In fact NY has a pre-existing condition clause that when compared to NJ, which doesn’t have one, the rates in NY are 2x what they are next door.

Yet another contention is the labeling. Lets be clear here: It’s not healthcare we are talking about, but medical insurance. Moreover, it’s about who pays the medical bills. Honestly, people have become to accustom to cadillac plans that cover everything. If anything, this should serve notice that socialization of medicine doesn’t work, as it causes over utilization of the system because “it’s free” and it takes the free market force out of the equation. People should be able to pay for regular doctor’s visits out of their pockets and before any senior citizens or alleged poor rail against that statement, let me say, no one owes you anything. Services rendered should be paid in the standard currency. This will lower costs because doctors have to compete with other doctors based on cost, and it also reduces a doctor’s overhead as they would have much less insurance paperwork to process .

Where medical insurance does make sense is for what it was originally intended: For catastrophic care. The cost of catastrophic care would bankrupt people and insurance is a reasonable way to mitigate that. It would also be cheaper than plans that offer to pay for everything.

Are we done yet? Clearly not. Pharmaceuticals are another area. Many people glorify countries that price control drugs. Really? Guess what? This raises the costs here. What most people do not realize is that American is the preeminent country for developing drugs and treatments, and by a multiple factor. It costs money to do this and even with patent protections, it takes years to develop drugs and years to pay for that development. Throw in the price controls and we end up paying for the cheap drugs in other countries and let me be clear here: Drug companies are there to make a profit, and that is a good thing. If you want cheaper drugs, everyone has to pay the same. This will bring down costs, as would extending the patent period by a couple years.

So what is the Grasshole offering?

During Finance Committee consideration of amendments, I won unanimous approval for an amendment that will improve access to medical care for seniors in Iowa and other rural parts of the country.  It’s getting harder and harder for seniors to find doctors serving in rural areas.  A large part of the problem is Medicare’s reimbursement policies that shortchange rural states. They act as a disincentive for doctors to serve these areas.  My amendment would remedy a problem that occurs today when  physicians in different parts of the country are paid different amounts for the same service or procedure.  This amendment addresses one aspect of the geographic disparities in physician payment, the adjustment for physicians’ costs in running their practices, by requiring Medicare to use more accurate and reliable data.  An accurate formula will provide more equitable physician payment because the differences in payments will be based on real differences in the physicians’ practice expense costs.  Part of providing greater access to health care is making sure doctors in rural areas are able keep their doors open to seniors in need of care.


First off, the bribe here is to seniors and I suppose rural doctors. How is paying doctors more in rural areas going to improve healthcare for seniors? Is a doctor going to refuse to treat someone based on reimbursement rate? Doctors may have differences in costs related to things like malpractice insurance rates and costs associated with doing business in that particular state. If Grassley wanted to really help, he’s promote a low flat income tax for everyone, as well as tort reform to lower malpractice premiums. Such isn’t forthcoming. 


The real problem here is that Grassley has not changed very much is a bill that is over 1000 pages long. The public option is still on the table and here he’s trying to save face (pun intended) by trumpeting some bullshit provision for seniors that won’t make a hill of beans of difference to anyone, and anyone with an IQ over 110 should see this like blaze orange against a green background. He is still stuck in the we have to pass it just because we can’t stop it so I’ll throw some BS provision in it that will make my constituents think I am doing something for them when in fact I am not. Thanks mr Grassley, but again, you are feckless. Just like when you voted for TARP. Are you still looking for bankers to commit seppuku?


The problem here is we have a career politician who is more interested in being a politician than doing what is right. He may know that this fabian socialist fantasy of a bill is what it is, but he won’t stand up. Well Chuck, it’s time to go then and in 2010, I surely hope so. The only way to make Obamacare right is to kill the bill. If you can’t, then help make people understand what it really means. May be that is the problem: Not even Chuck has read the bill. Unbelievable. How and why we elect these snake oil salesmen, I’ll never understand. 


Thank you for reading this blog. 

Advertisements

Written by James Lagnese

October 3, 2009 at 12:35 pm

Oh Canada: Even your head doctor says your healthcare system sucks

leave a comment »

The incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association had this to say: “Dr. Anne Doig says patients are getting less than optimal care…” This is an understatement. Still, the progressives in this country want a system just like Canada. May be all the progressives and their minions can move to Canada. It’s not that far and I am sure they will help Canadians fix their healthcare system. Sounds like a plan to me.

Thank you for reading this blog.

Written by James Lagnese

August 17, 2009 at 6:14 am

Grassley Doesn’t Get It.

leave a comment »

Chuck doesn’t get it. We don’t want it. The government can hardly do anything right, and we want to entrust them with healthcare? Yet he still says he’s going to fight for the bill. Fight for what? Less bad? So basically Chuck is giving us a reach around while we are getting stuck in the bum. Chuck suffers from a common disease that politicians get. It’s called do something at any cost disease. You see, politicians want to show their constituents that they are doing something, even if it is wrong, farcockt, unethical or even feckless. It’s like they can’t help themselves. May be it’s arrogance. May be it’s just part of the narcissistic personalities that most politicians have. Who knows. But if he tries to tout that he did something during all this and brought some kind of bacon home or saved us from Obamacare, I have something to tell him. I do know that come 2010, you Chuck will find out you are out of a job. Good riddance. By the way, I know the chick in the right in the photo. Good for Cindy for being there.
Thank you for reading this blog.

Written by James Lagnese

August 13, 2009 at 7:22 pm

More Great News From Socialized Medicine

leave a comment »

A grieving father opened the coffin of his premature baby, who had been pronounced dead just hours before, for a last good bye. What he found was that the baby wasn’t quite dead, and in fact was breathing. So much for socialized medicine.
Thank you for reading this blog.

Written by James Lagnese

August 9, 2009 at 9:44 am

O Canada: Glenn Beck Discusses Government Healthcare

leave a comment »

Better to be a dog in Canada than a person if you are sick. Glenn Beck and two libertarians discuss government healthcare. Welcome to Obama’s Farm.
H/T Eric Dondero at Libertarian Republican.
Thank you for reading this blog.

Written by James Lagnese

July 24, 2009 at 6:05 am

RHETORIC V. REALITY: HEALTH CARE BY ORWELL

leave a comment »

RHETORIC V. REALITY: HEALTH CARE BY ORWELL

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published in the New York Post on July 23, 2009

President Obama’s rhetoric last night summoned the memory of “1984,” George Orwell’s novel of a nightmarish future — where the slogan of the rulers is “War is peace; freedom is slavery; ignorance is strength.”


The president assures us that he will cut health-care spending…by adding $1 trillion to health-care spending.

He says that “health-care decisions will not be made by government”…while he sets up a new Federal Health Board to tell doctors what treatments they can offer and to whom and under what circumstances.

Obama told the media, “I will free doctors to make good health-care decisions”…by telling the physicians what to do.

When the president says he guarantees the “same coverage” to people who like their current health-insurance policies, he means that their current HMOs, insurers and doctors will be the ones to implement the protocols and instructions the government hands down to them — not that we’ll have our current freedom of decision-making.

When he blandly assures us that we will “stop paying for things that don’t make us healthier,” he really means that his Federal Health Board will overrule your doctor and stop him from using his own best judgment in your treatment.

The president will “get the politics out of health care” by putting it under government control.

Obama says that he will not “add to the deficit” to fund health care. But the bill reported out by Rep. Charlie Rangel’s Ways and Means Committee leaves $550 billion unfunded.

The president says that he’ll identify savings that will reduce the need for more taxes — even though the Congressional Budget Office refuses to say that his “savings” will actually work and warns that the bill will really be added to the deficit.

He repeatedly tells us that he’ll cut health-care spending. What he means is that he will cut doctors’ incomes and will turn down patients — particularly the elderly — when they seek medical care that his bureaucrats disapprove of.

And he ignores that cutting incomes in the medical field will reduce the number of doctors and force further rationing of care.

The president opines that he will replace the most “expensive care” with the “best care” by empowering government officials who have never met you to substitute their judgment for that of your doctor, who has examined you thoroughly.

When Obama laments that “14,000 people lose their insurance every day,” he is referring to the job losses that his own failed efforts to end the recession have permitted.

He warns that health-care costs are gobbling up money that employers should use to raise wages and worker pay — yet the plans he backs would require employers to pay 8 percent of their payroll as a tax or provide insurance to their workers.

The Obama plan highlights greater preventive care — but, at the same time, cuts medical incomes and so will cut the number of doctors who might provide it.

The stimulus package, in the Gospel According to Barack, was “designed” to work over the next two years. But at the time, he demanded immediate passage to “jump-start the economy” — something that clearly did not happen.

Medicare and Medicaid are “driving the deficit” even as he increased the amount of red ink by at least $800 billion in six months with little, if any, increase in the cost of either program.

He says he “expects” banks to repay their TARP money. In fact, they’re lining up around the block to do so — but the Treasury will only permit a handful of them to do so.

In summary, Obama’s health program will promote “lower cost and more choice” by increasing spending by $1 trillion, telling patients what care they’re permitted to have, and limiting their access to quality care.

Orwell’s heirs should sue for violation of copyright.


Dick Morris say it better than most here. Thanks Dick, Eileen and…

Thank you for reading this blog.

Written by James Lagnese

July 23, 2009 at 7:04 pm