Jul 17 03:43 PM US/Eastern
By CHARLES BABINGTON
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House is asking Congress to give the executive branch more power to limit Medicare's rising costs.

A White House letter to top lawmakers on Friday said the move would be "a critical step forward" in controlling health care costs and providing better care.

The proposal would allow an independent advisory board to recommend changes in Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors, hospitals and other providers. If the president approved the recommendations, Congress could still vote to reject them altogether. But Congress could not approve some recommendations and reject others.

Currently, Medicare reimbursement rates vary from region to region. Key lawmakers often get involved in setting local rates, a practice the Obama administration plan would end.

This is scary! Obama wants authority to create legislation while leaving congress with a veto? Is anyone going to stand up to this man? He is not even pretending to honor the constitution.

Give it time?

Weeks into the US invasion of Iraq, and the liberals were already calling it a quagmire and a "Vietnam". When Bush and friends started pushing for a troop surge, the left couldn't help but bash the idea and continued to do so until the success of the surge became so utter obvious that anyone who spoke against it was effectively pasting a giant "Moron" sign to his forehead. It is obvious to anyone with an objective view that the Democrats were invested in failure in Iraq. Why shouldn't they be? Bush's legacy would forever be fused with the success or failure in Iraq, of course the democrats would want to push it towards the failure direction, that is just good political strategy (even though it dances on the edge of treason).

Now the role is reversed. Obama has attached his name and his legacy to the pork-laden 700+ billion dollar stimulus bill that was designed with the express purpose of preventing a major recession from occuring. While never as ruthless as the democrats, conservatives and republicans are up in arms calling this stimulus a failure, while the democrats led by Obama, are calling for patience in a very Bush-esqe fashion. So now the question is whether or not this is just politics as usual? Are the republicans calling this a failure because it is, or because they really want it to be?

Lets be honest, if someone like Mitt Romney had been elected as POTUS (one can only dream), and he was implementing a more market-driven recovery program, republicans and conservatives would not be expecting full recovery a mere six months later, and we would probably be crying for patience in the same way. However, we would see some indications that it was working. The US occupation of Iraq lasted five years, but after one month Baghdad had been captured and Saddam had been deposed, another 3 months and Saddams sons had been killed and another 5 months and Saddam himself was captured. Whether you felt the war was justified or not, you can't deny that the military was progressing and making headway, the fact that they underestimated the amount of civil unrest notwithstanding.

It has been 6 months now since Obama signed his stimulus bill into law. Since that time the average unemployment rate has risen 4 percentage points (some parts of the country it is approaching 20%), translating into millions of lost jobs. Despite Obama and friends constant reassurances that the stimulus is "working as intended" what evidence can they show to that effect? GM still went bankrupt despite the billions of taxpayer dollars dumped into it, Banks still aren't lending money, despite their almost forced bailout, and now the state of California, like the Titanic is sinking fast and threatening to pull the whole country down in its wake. Where, Mr. President, is any indication that the stimulus is working? Please show me something...anything that I can look at that indicates that the economy will recover faster because of the near-trillion dollars you and your love-slave congress have dumped into it?

Or...am I to assume that "working as intended" means that the purpose of the stimulus was to sink the American economy even further.

Two Weeks...Zero Hour

I don't usually post twice in one day...heck, I don't usually post twice in one month, but you know what they say about desperate times. The Health Care plan being touted by the Sun God Ra-Obama (thanks Panda) is a serious issue and we as a nation need to get busy. In my last post, I talked about the need for everyone to call their representative and their senator and tell them that you oppose a yes vote for the Cap and Tax bill. Well, if you didn't take me seriously then, you had better do so now because Obama's Health Care for All Americans bill has just been passed by a senate panel and it is on its way to general debate.

The first thing that should raise a flag about this bill is how quickly the Democrats are trying to get it through. I mean, the people of this country have been going without a "public option" for 200+ years, a few more months won't hurt. A prudent leader might want to encourage the Senate to take its time, weigh the costs and benefits, and put together a good healthcare policy that not only makes health care affordable and accessable, but is sustainable over the long term. Their mad dash reminds me of a job I once had as a teenager working for a telemarketing firm selling newspaper subscriptions. The trick was to get the person to agree to the sale before they had any idea what was going on. The only difference is that buying a $10/month newspaper subscription is pretty insignificant while passing Obama's healthcare plan/bastard love child is one of the biggest expansions of the federal government in US history. Its current projected cost sits at 1.5 trillion which, considering how accurate those predictions usually are, will probably skyrocket in 5 or 6 years.

Critics have long been saying that this legislation is nothing more than the first step to the eventual realization of a socialist single-payer system. Despite the fact that this is exactly what Rahm Emanuel and Tom Daschle have said multiple times, this statement still makes Obama chuckle and say; "Socialized? No siree, this ain't no socialized health care! Why, you can still keep the plan you have right now if you want too. All this here bill does is create a public option so's thems who can't afford your fancy care can get it from the gub'ment." That might (miiiight) be well and good if it weren't for a couple of glaring facts that are being all but ignored by the misty eyed and love-smitten drive-by media. Investor's Business Daily reports that on page 16 of the 1000+ page bill, it is expressly stated that you CAN keep your current private health plan, but if you want to change plans or get a new plan for any reason after the bill becomes law (including if you are born after the fact), you have NO CHOICE but to go with the public option. In other words, it will be illegal to have any private plan except the one you had before the bill becomes law. So for those of you who still think that this public option is anything but a mechanism to drive the private sector completely out of business, think again. But thats not all, for those of us who recognize health insurance as the ponzi scheme it is and elect to pay for our care out of pocket, we will be forced to pay an additional 2.5 percent income tax as a penalty. Whether we want this public option or not, you had better believe we are going to pay for it.

Now let's look at how this will affect business owners. Those who make more than $280 thousand a year will be getting a tax increase maxing at 5.4% for those who make 1 million dollars per year or more. Employers who don't provide coverage will have to pay 8% of their total payroll (exemptions for small businesses). The brilliance of this move is that the majority of the country don't fall into this bracket. You may think that this doesn't affect you, but wait until your employer either downsizes your job or reduces your salary in order to meet the mandates put upon him by the federal government, not to mention the investment dollars swallowed up by the governmental black hole in Washington D.C., dollars that could have gone to create jobs (really create jobs, not just fake create them).

Just so you know, those useful idiots who are still cheerleading this plan are going to say; "So you would prefer to pay 10 - 20 grand a year to an evil insurance company that will just deny you coverage because its a preexisting condition? At least with Obama's plan everyone will be covered for everything!" Folks, this is what we call a false dichotomy. It is the logical fallacy that says that a choice exists between only two options, in this case the current system (which we know is bad) and Obama's love child (which might be bad). The answer to this riddle is that we find a solution that allows the price of health care to come down, is sustainable, does not hand control over to the federal government, and relys on the personal responsibility and action of the individual. Believe it or not, such plans exist, but would require (shock and surprise) people to foot more of the bill themselves. In fact, I just happen to have worked out a health care plan that would fill all of these requirements and, in my humble opinion, is exactly what this country needs. I promise to share it with you, but this post is long enough already. Bottom line, don't fall for this "If you don't support Obama's plan, then you must love the current one" junk.

As I said before, Obama's poll numbers are dropping. People are waking up. The democrats in Congress know that their impentitrable majority days are numbered and they know that if they are going to be succesfull in transforming this country into the socialist state that they all fantasize about, they have to do it quick before, like the sap who bought the Los Angeles Times subscription, the American public realize what they've bought. Harry Reid wants debate to start in a week or two. It is up to each of you to contact your Representative and your Senator and tell them, without mincing words, exactly how you feel about this plan. Be sure that they clearly understand that if they do not vote the way you want them to, you will be actively compaigning against them in 2010. Remind them who they work for, remind them who really holds the power in this country. We have two weeks folks, lets get to work!

Fox News Article

Contact your Representatives

Contact your Senators

List of the "Blue Dog Democrats" (Democrats who ran as conservatives and on whom our efforts should be focused).

Cap and Tax

A few weeks ago, the United States House of Representatives barely passed H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, by a mere 7 votes (Interestingly enough, only eight republicans voted for it. Their contact information is provided below). This bill introduces a cap and trade program where the federal government establishes an emissions cap along with credits to the various industries which can be sold to one another. Under such a program, if company "A" needs more credits, and company "B" has more than enough, then B can sell some of its credits to A. Essentially, companies will have to pay for the ability to emit more greenhouse gases over the allowed "cap". The the goal is to reduce nation-wide greenhouse gas emmisions 17% by 2020.

Now my loyal readers (all 4 of you), as a chemist, I have read a good deal of literature on both global warming (GW) and alternative energy (particularly biodiesel). I am by no means an expert in those fields, but I am well read to the point that I can form a solid opinion on the subject. For all of you out there, it is important to understand two essential points:

1. The questions "Is climate change (CC) occuring?" and "Is it human-caused (anthropogenic)?" are scientific questions. They should be, and are, being investigated by scientists across various disciplines. There is no "scientific consensus" (as if scientific consensus equaled truth), and as such the results of such investigations have a minimal role in determining public policy.

2. The only questions that are relevent to making public policy are: "How much will it cost?" and "How much could it help?" A cost benefit analysis is the only pertinant investigation that should be done when making a policy with respect to climate change, and it is the only investigation that is being given little to no weight.

In every single political debate I hear on the issue of GW and CC, the democrats line up and say; "Its happening!" and the republicans line up and say "No it isn't!". As I said before, we don't really know the answer, and if we act, then we must take the cost into serious consideration. If the policy change cripples American industry, thus sending our economy into a free fall and putting us into a precarious situation with other less amiable countries like China and Russia, all for a 0.01% reduction in CO2 which may or may not be causing CC, I am inclined to think that the cost is not worth the benefit. But thats just me.

So now the question is what is the cost benefit analysis for the Cap and Tax act just passed by our esteemed House of Representatives? First, lets pretend that you're a business owner and you are informed that you have to spend millions of dollars to modify your production facilities in order to come under the cap or purchase additional "credits". Now, suppose you have been considering moving production overseas, but up until now, it wasn't cost efficient to do so. What do you do? We can say all we want about the evil businessmen who move jobs overseas, but lets be honest, like everyone else these guys are trying to make a buck, and they can either make it here or anywhere else. If we want jobs, and wealth, and growth, then we should be doing what we can to encourage businesses to come here, not run away screaming. This cap and trade act will do exactly that. Businesses will run, not walk, to the nearest foriegn power that won't care what their emission level is. Which leads us to the question about the benefit. Obama says 17% over 10 years. How important is that 17% going to be if China and South America increase their emmisions because of the influx of production and manufacturing facilities? Isn't that nice. The US managed a 17% reduction, but the rest of the globe increased their emissions by 25%. But hey, at least we drove businesses out of the country, expanded the power of government, destroyed millions of jobs, deepened the recession, and helped China become the economic leader of the world. I mean, we have to do something right?

But lets make this a little more personal. Right now the official unemployment rate is racing towards 10%. In some parts of the country, it is approaching 20%. The costs of basic necessities like food are increasing at a time when the income of the average American family is shrinking. This cap and tax program will only serve to force the providers to pass their increased cost onto you. That means the prices for manufactured goods, food, electricity, etc. are going to go even higher. Change we can believe in right? If this bill passes, not only will your job move overseas, but you will have to pay more for those basic necessities.

The house passed this 1500 page bill after adding an additional 300 pages hours before it was voted on. Nobody read it! Moreover, the public response to this bill was overwhelmingly negative. The apes in congress are ignoring the wishes of their constituents, and voting for bills that they haven't read! This is the government we voted for people! The only way to prevent this from going all the way is for everyone to call or write their senator and inform them that if they vote yes on this bill, come 2010, you will be shopping for a new senator. I am serious people. The goobers in washington think they can get away with this, because they are counting on the apathy of the public. Don't make them right! Contact your senator today!

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

For those of you who want to thank the republican representatives who felt that this was a good idea...hear is their contact information.

Bono Mack (CA) 202-225-5330
Castle (DE) 202-225-4165
Kirk (IL) 202-225-4835
Lance (NJ) 202-225-5361
Lobiondo (NJ) 202-225-6572
McHugh (NY) 202-225-4611
Reichart (WA) 202-225-7761
Chris Smith (NJ) 202-225-3765

Moving On...

Today was my last day at Brigham Young University. I packed up 3 years worth of science textbooks, my TI-89 Calculator, my pocket protector (yes I actually have one), my oil and acid stained semi-white lab coat, into a giant cardboard box, and bid farewell to my alma mater. Incidentally, after comming home, I realized that I had forgotten my charger for my palm pilot. One of the things I will miss will be my regular debates with Matt Asplund, one of my former professors. Matt is one of the few left-leaning people I know who has actually spent time thinking about his opinions. It was a pleasure to debate Matt, and I will miss it alot. Especially since the last few debates I have participated in have left me wanting to gouge my eye out with a KFC spork. In my experience, the more vocal the liberal, the more inane the comment. People of this type think that to debate is to rabidly spout off tired bumper sticker slogans and then, when their logic is challanged, to dramatically role their eyes and mumble something about being a "typical republican" and stomp out of the room. To my liberal friends, you are embarassing yourself. The only people who buy that tripe are the people who base their political opinions on material taken from "The Daily Show".

I found a blog post that outlines liberal debate tactics...check it out.

Questions from a Medical Student for President Obama regarding his Health Care plan

Some of you who know me personally might be aware that in April I graduated Cum Laude from Brigham Young University with a degree in Chemistry. My family and I are moving in a few days to Temple, TX where I will attend Texas A&M College of Medicine (pause for cheers and applause).

Since I have chosen medicine as my career, I have paid close attention to the ongoing debate on single-payer nationalized systems vs. private healthcare systems. I will have to save my personal opinions on what our health care policy should be for a later post, but I will say that Obama's plan is among the worst. At least socialized health care has the potential of cutting cost (though it furthers the advance of the nanny state and will completely and utterly stiffle inovation in the field). Obama crosses his fingers and swears up and down that his plan will cut costs, though when faced with questions on specifics, as in specifically how the plan will save money, Obama goes into 20 minute long diatribes on how Health care is important for the little guy, and how too many people can't afford health insurance, and how the greedy SOB doctors are gaming the system trying to take advantage of the people. All the while, the press and the rest of His adoring fans, their Obama T-shirts sweaty with anticipation and lustfull zeal, look up to the Dear Leader with tearfilled eyes and sing paeans of eternal love to the Sun God. Meanwhile I am left to pondering specific points of his plan. Yesterday, my Mother-in-law informed me that she would be hearing somebody (probably not Obama himself) talk up the Dear Leader's health care plan for us plain regular folks. She asked me for some questions that she could ask. I obliged and jotted down a small list, but then I realized that she would only get to ask one, if any, and so I will post them here and if anyone else gets a similar opportunity feel free to use them.

If you happen to get an answer (or a non-answer) please let us know what Obama the beloved has to say on the matter. If you have some other question, leave it for the rest of us.

1. One of the central features of this plan is the "public option" health insurance plan. You have stated that the purpose of this plan is to provide a low-cost option to the American public and to maintain a competative atmosphere with private heath insurance companies. I have 3 questions regarding this aspect of your plan: First, what types of deregulation do you propose to allow private companies (which are currently under various state and federal mandates) to compete directly with your "public option"? Second, will the "public option" be subsidized at all by tax payer dollars, or will it be funded entirely by premiums paid by policy holders? And Finally, what is your plan for keeping the "public option" in the black? Specifically, when health care costs rise, who will take the hit financially? Will policy holders see an increase in premiums, or will physicians see a decrease in reimbursements, or a combination of the two?

2. You have repeatedly called for cessation of the "pay for service" mode of compensating doctors and instead called for a "pay for performance" modality? First of all, how do you propose to measure "performance"? Second of all, will pay for performance be applied only to compensation that comes from a government source, or will it apply to all compensation. And finally, where does the government get the authority to dictate how a private citizen is renumerated for a service he or she provides?

3. It is reasonable to assume (based on the performance of other federal programs) that the "public option" will require additional subsidy from the tax payer to cover its expenses. This combined with the practice of cutting physician's compensations will enable the public option to operate at a loss, thus enabling it to undercut any other private plan. Two questions, how are private companies supposed to "compete" with a federal entity that can opperate at a loss? Second, how do you propose to handle the influx of people who will enroll in the public option once their preimiums start to rise?

4. It has been estimated that between 15 to 20 million of the oft-quoted 45 million uninsured are people who are in this country illegally. Will your public option be available to them?

It has been a while.

With school, work, and family, I have not been able to post anything in several months. That does not mean I have given up the fight, nor been silent.

Yesterday, the US House narrowly (219-212) passed a sweeping energy reform bill that republicans are calling the largest "tax hike" in history. Among other things this bill calls for higher CAFE standards, a 50 % reduction in foreign oil dependence (a good idea, but we are supposed to do it without drilling domestically or exploiting nuclear options), and a mandate to set up a cap and trade system. Now, I don't know all the details of this bill, but that's OK because the majority of the senators who voted for it don't either. That's right, fighting global warming is so important that we don't even need to read the bill before we vote for it. Of course who can blame the representatives, the bleeding thing is over 1,200 pages long for crying out loud (The democrats tacked on an additional 300 at 3AM Friday morning). Who can be expected to read that?

The most maddening thing though is that this lost by a mere 7 votes, and their were eight republicans who crossed the line. See, I know what to expect from the dems. They are going to raise taxes, increase entitlements, and sell producing members of society up the river for their pipe dream of "social equality". Republicans on the other hand, the are supposed to be the ones defending our liberty and property from the gaping black hole that is Washington. I don't blame the 211 democrats for voting for it. I can expect nothing else from them. I blame the eight sell-outs who, rather than representing the interests of those who voted them into office, rather than representing the interests of the conservative movement who is their base, crawled into bed glassy eyed and sweaty palmed with the Sun God Ra-Obama and the rest of his cronies.

Never fear however, because I happen to have the contact information of those eight representatives:

Bono Mack (CA) 202-225-5330
Castle (DE) 202-225-4165
Kirk (IL) 202-225-4835
Lance (NJ) 202-225-5361
Lobiondo (NJ) 202-225-6572
McHugh (NY) 202-225-4611
Reichart (WA) 202-225-7761
Chris Smith (NJ) 202-225-3765

If we are interested in fixing our nation, then we need to become more vigilant. In 2010 or 2012, these gentlemen need to be out of a job. Our congressmen need to learn that when they sell us up the river for a bill they can't even take the time to read, and that the majority of citizens are opposed too, then they will be looking for new jobs come election time.