Medicare

A rational and sustainable universal health care system.

by asmwizard

As an enemy of the Affordable Health Care Act, I want something else, yet I see the need for universal health care.  So, here I outline what I believe would be a sustainable and fair system of health care that would cover every citizen and would work in the United States.  I believe it would be far superior to Obamacare, if designed according to these principles.  It’s modeled after but differs from the Australian Medicare System, established 1984.  Link: Health Care Australia.  Australian Medicare covers 20 million people, or about a fifteenth of the number of people in the US.   I chose Australia because their system is more recent than the UK’s, it seems to work, and I suspect Aussies in the mass are a bit more rational than Americans.

Any universal health care system needs to satisfy the following goals:

  1. It needs to provide a reasonable level of care;
  2. It should be affordable for the patients, properly remunerate providers and hospitals, and be sustainable for the public purse;
  3. It should be free or nearly so for the poor and of moderate cost to the middle class.  The wealthier population should not be covered;
  4. It should be designed to minimize fraud and cheating by the public and by providers;
  5. It should allow competition from the private sector;
  6. It should not impose unnecessary regulations and restrictions;
  7. It should cover all aspects of health care including physican services, hospitals, pharmacy, rehabilitation, hospice, and long term care;
  8. It should cover major medical expense;
  9. It should make some provision for pre-existing conditions.
  10. It should totally replace the current Medicare, Medicaid, Federal Employees Health Plan, and Tri-Care plans, as well as care for inmates of federal prisons.  Like them, it should be funded from the public treasury with revenue from special taxes.    Except where lives are at risk, providers should not treat any person without ability to pay.  Hospital emergency rooms should no longer be clinics for the poor and uninsured. 

My plan:

  1. Issue a National Health Card (NHC) to every citizen or family requesting it.  It would be assigned a unique number.  Providers would charge fees to this number.  Duplicate cards would be given on request to each family member.  Family members would use a suffix on the NHC number to establish which patient is being served.  Each card would contain magnetic identification information,  as well as essential medical information such as blood type, chronic medical conditions, and date of birth.
  2. Establish a centralized health record in a national database accessible only by providers.  This is similar to the database provided for in Obamacare.  It should contain photos and fingerprints as well.
  3. Establish a health tax: say 2% off the top of all income.  No deductions, all would pay, including businesses.  The percentage is only a suggestion and would be adjusted as necessary to fully fund the National Health System (NHS).  The tax on business would be exactly equivalent to a sales tax, as businesses would pass the tax on to their customers.   Exceptions: food sales, medical expenses, and utilities would not be taxed.   Real estate and auto sales would not be taxed.
  4. Establish means testing: single persons with more than (I suggest) $100,000 income and couples with more than $170,000 income would not be eligible for NHC benefits.  They would need to purchase insurance or self-insure.  Persons with incomes up to three times the poverty level (3X poverty) would receive full benefits; above that level, benefit amounts would progressively decrease so that patients would have to pay more from their own resources.   Means testing parameters are only a suggestion and could be adjusted.  Means would also be tested by evaluating the patient’s net worth.  If more than $250,000 but less than $500,000, an NHC+ card is issued regardless of income less than 3X poverty.  The card for someone who earns more than the poverty threshold would be an NHC+ card for which there would be two levels of deductible.  The member would pay all charges up to say, $1000, and half of all charges above $1000 and less than $3000.   NHS would pay the remaining charges.
  5. A patient with a NHC who earns less than 3X poverty pays nothing at a hospital or clinic.  The NHS is billed by the provider, but does not pay the provider until the encounter is authorized by the patient.   With an NHC+ card, the patient pays any due amounts to the NHS. 
  6. Patients are free to take  out insurance to pay for their medical care, or to pay the percentage deductible. 
  7. The NHS would also pay for nursing home, rehabilitation, in-home, mental illness confinement, and hospice care on the NHC card.  It would also provide prescribed medical devices. 
  8. A patient who loses income and net worth may apply for an NHC anytime within a year.  The means test is applied annually; the NHC must be renewed annually.

Notes:

  1. Some health services would not be covered by the NHC, including: cosmetic procedures, sex change, abortion, sexually transmitted diseases, contraception, and conditions caused by drug/alcohol abuse.  Cosmetic repair procedures would be paid for injury or illness related disfigurement.
  2. The Department of Defense would still provide health care for military personnel without change.  Civilian employees and contractor personnel posted outside of the United States would be treated by the military health service, but Tri-Care would go away. 
  3. The Veterans Administration and the Indian Health Service would continue unchanged.
  4. The President and Vice-Presidential health plans would not change.  The health plan now available to Congress would be eliminated.
  5. Medicare, Medicaid, Tri-Care, and FEHP (Federal Employee Health Plan) will be totally eliminated.  The changeover might require as much as a year or more to implement.
  6. Once voted into law, no amendments, modifications, exemptions, exceptions, or rebates to the plan may be granted without being passed by a two-thirds majority vote of Congress and an endorsement by the President.
  7. The greatest potential for defrauding the NHC is in fraudulent billing by doctors, clinics, hospitals, and other approved providers.  For this reason, my plan would require a three  entity approach to provider reimbursement.   During a medical encounter, the provider will swipe the patient’s NHC to obtain current eligibility, and give the patient or representative a receipt with provider number, encounter number, and date.  The provider will render a statement of billed services, itemized by patient, to the NHS.  The NHS will forward it by mail or email to the patient (or designated representative) who would have to affirm the service was provided and return it with the receipt or the receipt information to the NHS, responding within thirty days.  If properly authorized, the NHS will forward payment to the provider, who eventually would be paid even if the patient failed to respond.   This system may prove too cumbersome, but there may be a workable variation.
  8. If a patient or representative fails to respond within thirty days, their NHC would be invalidated and they would be subject to a fine to reinstate it.  The medical provider will receive payment as if the charge had been authorized.
  9. The NHS will investigate discrepancies.  If fraud by a provider is proven and the patient or representative has authorized an invalid statement, the patient or representative would be subject to prosecution.  If the patient denies the charge the NHS would charge it back to the provider, who could submit it to adjudication at their discretion.
  10. Providers will be free to decline service to anyone who cannot prove capability to pay, without legal liability, providing the patient is not in immediate danger of death.  Prudent business practice would allow providers to take a deposit of credit card, cash, or proof of insurance from patients they do not know.
  11. It might be wise to take some of the revenue from the taxes and use it to subsidize education for more doctors and nurses.
  12. There will be a need for an arbitration process for patient-provider disputes, and a limitation in malpractice awards.  Malpractice should be redefined as deliberate injury or gross negligence.  Remembering that medicine is more art than science, no physician who has diligently worked to help the patient should be penalized if the result is unfortunate.
  13. The NHS will set reasonable fee schedules for each service to prevent providers from overcharging.  The NHS should take care to allow providers to thrive and prosper.
  14. Data collected during the billing process would allow extensive computer analysis to detect provider fraud, patterns of unnecessary services, and excessive charges for supplies and equipment.   
  15. Patients who walk in without an NHS card can give information to allow the provider to pull up their NHS record.  Undocumented non-citizens or persons with expired visas would be treated, but the police will be called, who will arrest and turn them over to the INS for deportation.  Non-citizens with work permits will be able to purchase an NHC good for two months, paying a fee of about $30.  Travelers entering the US will need to be insured.

In effect, the NHC would be a means-tested national health insurance plan funded by taxes, but it would not substantially dictate the fee schedules of providers, and would allow insurance companies to still provide services.  Patients would be free to choose any doctor or hospital who will accept them.  The only acceptable reason for providers to reject new patients is lack of capacity to treat them.  Doctors and hospitals would be free and encouraged to provide services outside of the NHC system.  If the tax rate is set at the proper level to balance revenues vs. expenditures, it will not drain the public treasury or add to the federal deficit.

Direct payment by the NHS might be controversial.  Many schemes try to generate competition through insurance.  My plan has some competitive pressure due to deductible payments for NHC+ members, who will pay two thirds of the first $3000 themselves, and would therefore be wise to accept providers with reasonable rates.  I believe these features of the plan will help to reduce costs: malpractice redefinition and award limits; deductibles, reduction in unpaid provider fees, and possibly subsidized medical education to train more doctors and nurses.    

Universal health care in the United States will be very difficult to sell, because the American public has been accustomed to high cost but has received high quality care.  The crazy patchwork of care programs we have now (individual insurance, provider unpaid, Medicare for the old, Medicaid for the poor, Tri-Care for the military, Federal Employee Health Plan for the federal employees, etc. ) is what we’re used to, and other than individual insurance, most of the cost is paid by the federal government — directly or indirectly.  The idea of more taxes to pay for a health care system is abominable, yet those taxes are built into our tax bill now.  I believe my proposed system would actually reduce health care costs, because unpaid provider costs would decline, and this would bring provider fees down. 

A final comment: the NHS tax should be set at a level to fully fund the system.  It might cost quite a bit to start.  Yet, Australia is currently taxing at 1.5 %.

 

The Poor: How far should government go?

by asmwizard

(As published in the Leavenworth Times Community Blog, May 2013.)

   There is no greater mess than public assistance (PA, for short) in the United States.  Kenneth L. Gentry writes:  Americans have long been known to be a charitable people. Unfortunately, government intervention could be changing that. The government has entered and gained monopolistic ascendancy in this field as in so many others. Being charitable makes it a bit difficult for us to speak out against public welfarism, lest we appear to be unconcerned for the needs of the poor. However, there are numerous compelling reasons why we can legitimately decry public welfarism and still maintain — even emphasize — our concern for the less fortunate in our society. Link to: The problems in public welfare   Dr. Gentry lists numerous problems.  It’s worth reading.

   A general discussion of public assistance can be found at Link to:  Wiki article

   As I see it, public assistance is fraught with fraud, political chicanery, and bureaucratic inefficiency.  It is unsupportable – more people are becoming dependent on fewer workers.  But, it’s necessary.  It varies a lot by state, because states administer it, often with federal funds.   

   I’d like nothing better than to list several things wrong with PA and propose a direct, effective solution for each.  But, it isn’t that simple.  Every family or recipient has a different situation.  Some people want to work, but can’t.   Others work part time, but can’t make enough, or blow what they make.  Some are poorly educated, perhaps can’t read.  Many are dishonest, and try to cheat the system.  They have different abilities, or none at all.  They have children or spouses with various needs.  Some do drugs or gamble.  Some have prison records.  Some are mentally disturbed or deficient, or have no sense of purpose.  I’m forced to admit, one size doesn’t fit all.

  There are some principles I’d like to apply, and these pertain to how much government at all levels should support PA.  Many of these principles are already being applied.

  Cash is a temptation to cheat, so the government should deal as little cash as possible.  Give benefits in kind, if it can be done.  To the extent possible, make sure that money from the government is spent for its intended purpose. 

First, limit the benefit total from all programs.  We’ve all heard stories that some people receive a total benefit that puts them well into the middle class.  There should be an absolute limit of something like 1.5 times the poverty rate.

  Second, pay the recipient very little directly.  Instead, provide vouchers or debit cards.  To a large extent, this is done now: Section 8 housing assistance is paid in vouchers; The SNAP program for food assistance comes with debit cards, etc.  The government has actually gotten quite a bit smarter – note how tough it is to get SNAP if you’re not a Hmong or a Martian.  Ultimately, people with little or no income need a bit of cash – but if the government provides it, it should be on a card.

  Third, make it possible for the government to review their participant’s spending.  Every participant should be reviewed at least quarterly.  This may require someone to visit the participant.  When they do, they should take pictures of the recipient and dependents to prove their existence (and leave an audit trail – you have to watch the social workers, who could cheat too.)   If the family has an income of 1.3 times poverty level or more, the only assistance they should be receiving is for health care. 

  Fourth, shut down the underground economy to the greatest extent possible.  Many people work for cash only, and don’t report their income.  Make the penalties for that severe – on both employer and worker.  People who work and are paid in cash may be cheating the government (and all the rest of us) by claiming they have no income.  It might be possible for people on public assistance who do odd jobs for individuals to bypass normal taxes on the payment, if the worker reports it.  The government needs to know about the income, not necessarily collect revenue out of it.

  Fifth, and this will be controversial but I’ll say it anyway:  when a woman on public assistance has a child (for a total of two or more) benefits should not be increased.  The government should offer to pay for having her tubes tied.  The worst possible thing is to keep having children that must grow up in poverty.  TANF — The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Act  is a pretty good solution. 

  Sixth, no benefits whatever to illegal aliens or people on drugs.

  Seventh, luxuries owned or subscribed to by PA folks should be taken into account – and should reduce PA benefits.  Example: the recipient subscribes to cable and has HBO (a premium).  The cost of HBO should not be paid by the taxpayers – subtract it from his benefits.  Only basic cable should be subsidized, and then only if broadcast reception isn’t available.  The taxpayer pays extra for premium internet service? – deduct it from his benefits.  The recipient owns or leases or makes payments on a car that is worth more than some reasonable amount (such as $20,000), or owns two cars but only needs one?  Deduct.  You get the idea.

  Finally, the government should check, check, check on benefit participants, particularly those claiming disability – if they claim they can’t walk, they shouldn’t be discovered running marathons.  The social worker should have authority to disqualify them on the spot for cause.  Dependents claimed should be personally verified and photographed in their homes. 

  Charities might choose to help families with money or benefits.  That’s very welcome, but they should follow the same principles.  They might help in finding people who need assistance and showing them how to get it. 

  Public assistance is a necessary evil, and should only function as a safety net for those who have no other choice.  It should provide a “no-frills” existence, with adequate food, shelter, and clothing for the needy, but should be unsatisfying for the greedy.   It shouldn’t be an opportunity to scam the government or become a permanent way of life. 

  It appears that government at all levels is following many of these principles now.  It’s a constant struggle.  

 

The 1st presidential debate of 2012

by asmwizard

I’ve written on all the Republican primary debates, so I might as well do the presidential ones. 

October 3, in Denver, Jim Lehrer presiding.  The subject was domestic issues.  For the first time, I liked the format: six very general questions to be asked the whole evening of 90 minutes, Lehrer acting more as a timekeeper than anyone else.   For once, the moderator didn’t ask loaded questions designed to embarrass one candidate or give the other guy an easy ride.

I took notes, but anything I report they said is necessarily paraphrased – my version, which only gives a general idea of some of what was said.

The first question was on their differences on creating jobs.  The second, differences on the deficit.  Third, differences on entitlement reform.  Fourth, differences on federal regulation.  Fifth, entitlements, and finally, what would they do as president to resolve partisan gridlock.

The discussion was polite, at times friendly, but neither man pulled punches.  Both cited statistics and provided detail.  There were no major gaffes, as far as I know.  I don’t believe there were any memorable lines, although Romney addressed Obama’s investment in renewable energy something like: “You don’t pick winners and losers, you just pick losers.”  I may have gotten this wrong, but it’s the general idea.

Obama kept telling Romney about his (Romney’s) plans, such as “you plan to raise taxes by 5 trillion dollars”.  Romney repeatedly came back and said that was inaccurate, and said what his plans really were.  These exchanges made Obama look bad, I believe.

When they talked about health care, Obama struggled.   Romney never did, looked presidential, and looked right at Obama when he spoke.  Obama looked at the camera when he spoke, and looked down a lot when Romney was speaking.

I can’t cover much of what was said.  Here are some selected tidbits from my notes:

Creating jobs: 

O – 4  years ago, I inherited a big depression; much work to do; we need a “new economic patriotism”.  (That last means people must be willing to pay more in taxes.)

R – Need a different path, balanced budget, energy independence.  The president wants a “trickle down government.”

O – Mentioned need to improve education.  He began a program called “Race to the Top”.  Wants to hire 100,000 math and science teachers.  He would cut tax on business, he said.

R – described O’s economic record.  Said he would not do a tax cut that adds to the deficit.

O – claims to have cut taxes on middle class by $3600 per family.  Said R wants to cut taxes by 5 trillion dollars (over 10 years?) and the only way this could be done is by raising taxes on the middle class.

and so on.

Deficit:

R – there are 3 ways to cut the deficit: raise taxes, cut spending, or grow the economy.  He’ll cut spending and grow the economy.  His criteria for federal program is: will we have to borrow money from China to pay for it?   He’ll cut the size of government by attrition.

O – claims to have cut 18 govt. programs, went after Medicare fraud.  Claims to have a 4 Trillion dollar debt reduction plan – that requires tax increases.

R – Spain spends 42% of GDP on government, we’re approaching that.

O – brought up subsidies to oil companies, about 5 billion/year.  He said budgets reflect choices.   Medicaid block grants to states would be a 30% cut.

R – You subsidized green energy by 90 billion/year, 15 times the oil companies.  He dropped the “you just pick losers” line.  He said the Medicaid block grants would be what each state got last year plus 1 per cent.  He said the governors would be delighted.

Entitlements:

O – said his and R’s policies on Social Security are similar.  He said his Medicare savings would come from cutting overpayments to insurance companies and providers – hospitals and doctors. 

R – said O will cut 716 billion (over 10 years?  Dammit, they never mention the time frame), and cutting payments to hospitals and doctors would make them drop Medicare patients.

There was a lot of further discussion on Medicare.  O – didn’t like Ryan’s voucher program for Medicare (insurance payment subsidy).

Federal Regulation:

R – regulations are necessary, but can be excessive.  Cited problems with Dodd-Frank.  It makes some banks too big to fail, kills smaller banks.

Health Care:

Obama defended, said R didn’t have details on his plans.  R – attacked, said he’d repeal it but keep some of the features.  O struggled here, didn’t do well.

Role of Government:

O – keep people safe; create framework where people can succeed. 

O – hit a homerun here; said it was to follow the constitution.

Partisan Gridlock:

R – as governor, I had a legislature which was 87% Democrat, yet succeeded.

O – I will take ideas from anyone (and ignore them).

============================================================

Obama didn’t mention Bain Capital or Romney’s 47% remark.  Romney didn’t seize on any of Obama’s gaffes or lack of producing credible budgets.

Overall, Romney won.  Some liberal talking heads conceded that and were angry about it, thinking Obama didn’t make his case.   So, Obama took strike one, as Romney did a superb job.   However, there are two debates left.  Obama likely will be tougher in the next two, and he’d better be.  If Romney dominates the second debate, I believe he will win the election.    

The Arizona Republican Debate

by asmwizard

The debate held on February 22, 2012 in Mesa, Arizona may have been the last of the entire Republican primary season.  CNN hosted, and Don King moderated.  The audience saw Ron Paul on the left, the Santorum, Romney and Gingrich. 

It was a spirited debate, largely without mistakes by the participants.  There were no standing ovations, but applause was frequent.  There were even a few boos. 

If you assume that Paul and Gingrich were irrelevant, and the only real contest was between frontrunner Santorum and close runner-up Romney, I would say Romney won.  Santorum failed to gain significant ground, was booed over his statements on Title X (subsidies to Planned Parenthood),  and even though the two men attacked each other Romney probably inflicted a few more wounds on Santorum than the other way around.   The two received the most time.

Rating the performances only, Gingrich stood head and shoulders above the others.  He hit doubles and triples on every at bat, while the others hit only singles.  He almost certainly helped himself by giving the best answers on every question.  Asked about what he would do on illegal immigration, a huge issue in Arizona, he hit a home run by saying he’d build the entire fence, then work with the governors of the states which border Mexico.  He looked comfortable and happy on stage, smiling a great deal, but there were virtually no attacks on either him or Paul.  Paul was also comfortable as he responded in his typical erratic fashion.  Santorum and Romney spent a much of their time bashing each other – with trivialities, for the most part.  

My notes on the debate follow, with my evaluation at the end.  I’ll abbreviate by using the first letter of the candidate’s last name. I’ll also use O for Obama.

? As president, what would you do about the national debt?  S – I’d cut 5 trillion in my first 5 years; I have experience in tackling tough jobs; would cut entitlement spending.  R – S voted for raising the debt ceiling 5 times; in business, you balance the budget or go out of business; I’d look at every government program, if unessential, cut it; if state could do it better, I’d give it to them.  S – while I was in Congress, the % of national debt to GDP went from 68% to 64%.  R – will cut taxes on everyone by 20%; the federal government doubled in size during Santorum’s time in office.  G – we balanced the budget 4 consecutive years while I was Speaker;  you can’t make major cuts while there is high unemployment, we’d have to tackle that first; there is enormous potential for federal income in allowing oil, coal and gas production from them.  P – S is a fake fiscal conservative; S voted for No Child Left Behind; I never voted for a deficit; S has a credibility problem.  S – The Weekly Standard rated me the most fiscally conservative senator during my time; I took on Medicare and Social Security reform; I took on the tough issues.  P – Republicans like foreign aid; I don’t.

? (for R) You described yourself as severely conservative.  What’s that?  R – I cut taxes 19 times, etc. 

? (for G) Is it possible to have both deficit reduction and economic growth at the same time?  G – current fed government is a disaster; I’d modernize government.

? (for S) R said you gave too many earmarks.   S –  R asked for earmarks to help the Olympics; took 300-400 million for Massachusetts as governor; there are good and bad earmarks; Congress has a role in allocating resources.  R – as prez, I would ban earmarks tacked on to other bills, would require them to be separate bills, or ask for the line item veto; while I fought to save the Olympics, S was voting for the Bridge to Nowhere.  S – R is misrepresenting the facts; I support line item veto;  G – I worked to help the Olympics get the money they needed.

? (for S) Was it wrong to bail out the auto industry?  S – I oppose bailouts with federal money; opposed the Wall Street bailouts; government gains too much control; we should allow the markets to work; R supported the Wall Street bailouts, but opposed those to the auto industry.  R – there was danger that all the banks would go under, we would have had a financial collapse, so I supported it; the auto industry would have been helped by going through managed bankruptcy.   G – auto management caved to the UAW; O paid off the UAW at the expense of GM bondholders.  P – no bailouts, ever; government should protect contracts.

? Do you believe in birth control?  G – O voted, as a state senator, to protect doctors who kill survivors of late term abortions.  R – Obama warring on religion – his position is clear;  in Massachusetts, I worked to help Catholic institutions keep adoption, but couldn’t win.

? (for S) If elected, will you talk about the dangers of contraception?  S – children out of wedlock much less likely to succeed; 5 times the chance that a child raised in a single parent household will be poor.  P – government gets involved in things they shouldn’t; morality is bad, not pills.  R – there should be no requirement for Catholic institutions to provide a morning after pill.   G – when government is the provider of services, you move toward tyranny.  P – S voted for Planned Parenthood; they should get nothing.  S – I did, but it was part of a very large bill; if prez, I will defund Planned Parenthood.  R – S, you said you personally don’t support contraception.  S – true, but I voted for bills that support it.  Romney-care was the model for Obama-care.  R – our bill was 20 pages, while O-care was more than 2000.   As prez, I will repeal Obama-care;  S, you supported Arlen Spector; I balanced the budget every year as governor.  S – R, you used federal money to pay for Romney-care; you had a constitutional requrirement to balance the budget.

? What will you do as president to secure the border?  P – we need more resources.  G – Walls work; when we erected a wall between San Diego and Tijuana, illegals went elsewhere;   I’d be prepared to move up to half of the 23,000 Homeland Security employees to the border. 

? (for R) You talked about self-deportation.  R – I’d use e-verify; I’d drop lawsuits against states; will complete the fence. 

? (for S)  Would you penalize homeowners for hiring illegal aliens?  S – I won’t require them to use e-verify.

? (for G) Rubio said Republican rhetoric on illegals is too harsh.  Is it?  G – We may have been; I voted to close the border as early as 1986, but it never happened; we must go step by step, first close the border. 

? Describe yourself with only one word.  P – consistent.  S – courageous.  R – resolute.  G – cheerful.  (G got a laugh.)

? As commander-in chief, would you send women into combat?  R – I’d ask the military; more than 100 American military women have lost their lives in Iran and Afghanistan;  O is cutting our military; I would strengthen it.  G – we now live in a world of total warfare; all citizens are at risk; nuclear weapons used against our cities is a real possibility; Obama is the most dangerous president in history, because of his foreign policy incompetence.  P – we fight too many offensive wars.   S – women are in danger now; I am concerned about women in the infantry. 

?  How should we deal with Iran obtaining nuclear weapons?  G – Administration has it all wrong; General Dempsey said Iran is rational – that is totally wrong; when a dictator says he wants to kill us, I believe him; 3 nuclear weapons would wipe out Israel; I believe they have a moral responsibility to protect themselves, even with a pre-emptive strike.  R – we can’t allow Iran to have nukes; O bowed to stolen elections in Iran.  S – I agree with R’s comments; do the opposite of what Joe Biden says and you can’t go wrong.  P – we don’t know if Iran has a weapon; other crazy talk. 

? (for S) Should we intervene in Syria?  S – Syria is a puppet state of Iran; O never stands up to Iran.  G – we should change our energy policy to become independent, so we will never again have to bow to a Saudi king; I would covertly work to destroy Assad’s regime in Syria.  R – O is feckless; Syria is a key ally of Iran.  P – we have spent 4 trillion dollars in the mideast for no good results.

? What about No Child Left Behind?  S – I supported it, now I don’t; the feds and the states should get out of education; we must stand up to teacher’s unions.  G – I supported charter schools; we should urge states to return power to the parents; we need fundamental rethinking in education.  P – there’s no authority for the federal government to do anything in education. 

?  What’s the biggest misconception about you?  P – that I can’t win.  G – that I can’t get things done, unlike politicians who just talk about things they will do.  R – that I won’t lead the country as a conservative.  S – that I can’t defeat O, and that I can’t run a campaign on a shoestring.

 

 

 

The president has plans too

by asmwizard
This totally unbiased piece appeared in the Leavenworth Times on Feb. 14, 2012.  I hope you realize it is tongue-in-cheek.
The president has plans, too . . .

All we’ve heard lately are the plans of the Republican candidates, as to what they will do after becoming president. We forget that President Obama may be re-elected. He has plans too. He’s revealed most of them, in the State of the Union speech and in his actions so far, he just hasn’t written them down. I thought I’d write them for him so he won’t have to.

After his re-election, Obama will face a sobering challenge — it will be his last term. Without a reason to campaign full-time, he’ll have to divide his time between more vacationing and more partying with rich folks and taking money for Democrats in exchange for government favors and exemptions.

He plans to make the Executive Branch more efficient by creating two more cabinet positions: The Department of Republican Bashing will assume the job of telling everyone how bad Republicans are, freeing the President to play more golf and travel around. The Department of Tax Code Tweaking will seek new deductions that encourage businesses to hire more workers while going bankrupt. Complicating taxes has been an important tool of Democrats since President Wilson. The President is considering a deduction for not taking any deductions. Tax reform and simplification must be avoided at all costs.

The President’s plans for jobs, energy, and the economy are all related to environmental protection and union appeasement. The new cabinet positions will create many jobs. After increasing the number of federal employees by 15% in his first term, he ought to be able to add another 15% in his second. He’ll continue to create jobs – in other countries – by driving American businesses away with more regulations and higher taxes. His proposed minimum tax on millionaires is actually a doubling of the capital gains tax. To please the greenies, he’ll maintain his stranglehold on oil, gas, and coal production. For the unions, he’ll make certain that no state with right-to-work laws can obtain new business, if he can help it.

He plans to expand the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA’s new breathing regulations will reduce the carbon dioxide emitted by the American public. The “no breathing on Sunday” rules are controversial, but will make a large dent in greenhouse gases. Obamacare will cover any side effects of not breathing.

His plans for entitlement reforms? He’ll let the Republicans do all the work, then he’ll stop them. Entitlement recipients vote.

Health care? When the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare, he’ll ignore their ruling while saying he’s obeying it. Fortunately, he’s improved his game on ignoring the Constitution and his oath to defend it. He’s learned how to enforce only the laws he likes.

For illegal immigration reform, he’ll push for instant citizenship, allowing illegals to qualify for food stamps, welfare, and voting. But, they’ll have to pass a test. The test will consist of one question: “Habla English?” (“Si” is the correct answer.)

Obama’s plans for the federal deficit? He’ll tell the Senate to extend the record of no budget proposals by Democrats to 2000 days. He’ll instruct his party to ignore all urges to economize. Actually, they never have urges of this sort. He’ll raise the federal debt to mega-trillions, but at the right time, he’ll start a war with China, then confiscate all their American assets. China will go bankrupt. Easy win. Even if we lose the west coast cities, it’s worth it.

In his foreign policy, he’ll continue to ignore all problems in the Middle East, while saying what he’s doing is working.

The President will pursue his current wars. His war on Christians is going well. His class warfare plans are to tax the rich 500%. (send every millionaire a bill for 5 times his/her total income. They have savings, don’t they?)

President Obama will have many challenges in his second term, but he is up to tackling them. His new mobile golf course office will allow him to keep his finger on the pulse of the American people. No pulse? No problem.

State of the Union

by asmwizard

Instead of giving an accurate one sentence summary, “Its totally f***ed up”, President Obama elected to be positive.  This of course led to many inaccuracies about the state of the union.  

As usual, his speech was well done.  He might be the best speech reader in history.  His delivery is convincing.  There seemed to be little rancor, and at times you might have thought him conservative due to what he said.  As I watched, I kept in mind things he said he’d do in past speeches, and how few of them he had actually done.  Words and promises haven’t seemed to mean much to Obama. 

Before the speech, I made a list of things I thought he wouldn’t mention:  (My score in italics below – according to my notes and to the best of my memory)

  • Keystone Pipeline (not mentioned)
  • Entitlement reform (said he’d work with Congress.  Lots of luck)
  • Medicare reform (said he’d work with Congress. Lots of luck)
  • Social Security reform (said he’d work with Congress. Lots of luck)
  • Medicaid reform (said he’d work with Congress. Lots of luck)
  • Tax reform (said he’d work with Congress. Lots of luck)
  • Drilling in the Gulf (Not mentioned specifically, but said he would work to allow offshore drilling)
  • Reducing regulations (said has directed the executive branch to examine all regulations and recommend those not needed)
  • Reducing food stamp use (not mentioned)
  • High unemployment (not mentioned)
  • Obamacare  (not mentioned specifically, but he said he wouldn’t give up some features of it)

I also made a list of things I thought he would mention:

  • Raise taxes on the rich (he said this, in so many words)
  • I thought he would claim success.  (definitely)
  • Claim the economy is improving  (definitely)
  • invoke class warfare (not as much as I expected)
  • Call for more spending (not as much as I expected)
  • Fairness and equality (a whole lot)
  • Republican obstructionism (touched on it, but much less than I expected)
  • Republicans want to protect the rich (I don’t think he said this, may have hinted)

So, in many ways, his speech surprised me. 

Highlights of his speech as I saw it:

  • Last troops home from Iraq; Osama bin Laden no longer a threat; In Afghanistan the Taliban is broken (Is it?)
  • Imagine what we could accomplish if we worked together, like the military does.
  • Wants everyone to do their fair share. 
  • In 2008, house of cards collapsed, 4 million jobs lost before I took office; 4 more million jobs before my countermeasures took hold; but in the last 6 months, 3 million jobs created (Question – does that include the Christmas temps?  I don’t know)
  • I will fight obstruction (by Republicans?) with action.
  • I’m working to stop outsourcing of jobs; I have a blueprint for American manufacturers; tax credits for them to stimulate more jobs (credits the answer to every Liberal problem)
  • We saved General Motors; now GM is again the world’s leading manufacturer.
  • Tax code needs revision; no tax deductions for outsourcing; basic minimum tax for all companies; stop rewarding companies that ship jobs overseas.
  • Will form a trade adjustment bureau, will catch and penalize cheating by foreign countries; I’ve made trade agreements and will continue to do so; American exports will rise.
  • Businesses can’t find workers with tech skills, I will boost retraining, will commit to train 2 million workers; turn unemployment systems into reemployment systems.
  • We need more teachers; reward good ones, eliminate bad ones (sounds suspiciously like merit – teacher’s unions won’t buy that)
  • We shouldn’t let students drop out of school.  (Federal law to that effect?  Not so fast) Congress should reduce interest rate on student loans.
  • Illegals – we have put more boots on the border, fewest illegals crossing in the past 16 years (due to the economy?)  We need comprehensive immigration reform now (Not before closing the border, Charlie)
  • Women, equal pay for equal work; expand tax relief for small businesses; don’t gut federally sponsored research; develop every source of energy; no more subsidizing the oil industry; give it to clean energy (Like Solyndra?) I’ve directed the Navy to make a large purchase of clean energy (solar panels?  From China?) 
  • Congress should take the funds saved by no longer having wars, take half to pay off the debt, use the other half to fund infrastructure rebuilding (Let me count the ways this is wrong – we can’t pay off the debt as long as we’re borrowing a trillion or more per year from China.  What part about cut spending don’t you understand?)
  • No more bailouts for banks, ever.  We’ll regulate the heck out of them; I will establish a financial crimes unit within the FBI, which will chase down and punish financial fraud.
  • I want a minimum tax of 30% on the very wealthy (above $250,000); I’m prepared to reform Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security as long as the rich pay more.  (Note – I believe he’s effectively raising the capital gains tax here, although he didn’t say.  I don’t think a minimum tax on income only would raise much money.)
  • Send me a bill to penalize insider trading by members of Congress.  (It would also be nice to see a penalty (say dismissal from office and a 5 year prison term) for presidents who engage in crony capitalism)
  • I want a rule in the Senate that all nominations receive an up or down vote within 90 days; I want Congress to give me authority to consolidate and modernize the executive branch (translation – appoint 50 more czars)
  • I will act with or without Congress.  It would be better if Congress would help.
  • America is back, anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong. 

 

Comments on Fox News:

Krauthammer – the speech was less partisan than I expected; it had a much narrower focus than his first state of union speech; it seemed to lack long term objectives.

A.B. Stoddard – He pushed clean energy.

Bret Hume – He had a long laundry list, wanted to please everyone; it was fairly boring.

There was a Republican response from Mitch Daniels, governor of Indiana.

  • The State of the Union is grave; was bad when he took over, but he was hired to make it better; he can’t claim that he has made it anything but worse.
  • He’s added trillions to the national debt; his middle class is built out of government jobs and dollars; the young have been harmed; there is economic stagnation; the time is running out to save us from a Greece style meltdown.
  • The loyal opposition must do more than complain, we must offer solutions.
  • We need a simpler tax system with fewer regulations; must unite to save Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
  • Obama needs to stop accusing Republicans of obstructionism; Republicans have passed many bills which are blocked by the Democrats in the Senate and the President.
  • The President seeks to divide us; the government should serve, not supervise us.

My final take on the speech: it was an attempt to baffle us with Bulls**t.  It was a campaign speech. 

First Florida debate

by asmwizard

 

Conducted by Brian Williams, the first Florida debate, on January 23 — just two days after the SC primary — was televised by NBC. The audience was instructed not to applaud, which reduced the impact made by the candidates. It probably prevented a lot of boos and cheers for Paul, and made it harder to know who won the debate.

 

The roles of the candidates seemed to have been reversed. For the first time, it wasn’t Romney trying to be presidential and the other candidates attacking him, rather it was Gingrich who played that role. In my view, Gingrich won, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. On CNN after the debate, three left-leaners seemed to think Romney won, that his attacks were effective. I thought Gingrich deflected them and suffered very little damage. There was no doubt that Romney was out to destroy him in the first hour, and to a lesser extent Santorum and even Paul tried as well. There was little post-debate analysis.

 

Not much new was learned. This morning, Laura Ingraham described the debate as agonizingly boring. The absence of crowd response and the lack of new material, as well as the lack of substantial differences with the candidates probably made the debate average at best. Newt kept his cool, never went off against anyone, so the level of passion was less than in the SC debates.

 

Romney asserted that Gingrich was kicked out of the House by his fellow Republicans; Newt responded by saying he asked them to vote against him because they needed to get the issue out of the way. I thought the argument was acceptable. Romney also said repeatedly that Newt had lobbied while working at Freddie Mac, Newt denied it, and had released his last contract with them. Newt said he has never lobbied in his entire career.

 

I don’t believe this debate will affect the polls very much.

 

That’s about as much as I feel like analyzing for this debate. The debate can be replayed from First Florida Debate


First SC January debate

by asmwizard

Conducted by Fox News on January 16, Martin Luther King Day.  Moderator, Bret Baier.  Questioners, Juan Williams, Jerry Seib, Kelly Evans.  Attendees, Perry, Santorum, Romney, Gingrich, Paul.  John Huntsman announced earlier in the day that he was suspending his campaign, then endorsed Romney.  A huge crowd attended in a very large auditorium.

In my opinion, Gingrich was the clear winner, getting very large crowd response; Perry, Romney, and Santorum tied for 2nd.  Paul was glib and tried to look more moderate, except for foreign policy.  Romney stuttered a few times, was not quite as smooth or confident as in previous debates, but probably didn’t hurt himself very much.  Perry may have had his best debate.  Santorum scored some points, was not at all deferential to Gingrich as he had been in past debates.

Fox News has some articles available which should persist: Gingrich spars  Romney put on defense

There was sharp questioning, my notes are very approximate, as I didn’t have time to jot down the questions.  I’ll try to show highlights only:

? Gingrich.  Last September, you vowed to be non-critical of the other candidates.  Why aren’t you now?  G – After the barrage leveled against me, I had to change my approach; Romney’s business record should be explored.

? Romney.  Your record at Bain?  R – 4 of the businesses I created were extremely successful; handled over 100 businesses.

? Perry.  You accused Romney of vulture capitalism.  P – in Georgetown SC Bain picked the company clean; Romney should release his income tax records; Dodd-Frank needs to be repealed, is choking banks.

Romney – the firm in question was a steel mill, hurt by foreign dumping; dumping broke about 40 steel producers about that time; I founded a new steel mill using modern technology that succeeded.

? Paul – your scathingly critical ads on other candidates. Pl – it’s OK if it reflects truth; Santorum voted against right to work.

Santorum – Paul has been quoting left-wing outfits like CREW; I did vote against right to work because my state (PA) was not a right to work state.

? Santorum – you accused Romney’s Super PAC of distorting your record.  R – his PAC accused me of advocating the vote for convicted felons; after a felon has served his time, been released, he deserves to regain his vote.

Romney – a convicted felon remains that all his life, should never be allowed the vote.  (Romney stuttered here.)

Perry – this is a state issue.

? Romney – in New Hampshire, Huntsman called you a “perfectly lubricated weather vane”.  Will you change again?.  R – No. (in so many words)

? Perry – in South Carolina, the federal government is suing to stop voter ID.  Does the fed have a right to do that?  P – Federal govt. has declared war on my home state of Texas and against SC; NLRB ruled against SC and Boeing because it’s a right to work state; As prez, I’ll boost state’s rights; Fed is also at war against organized religion; Obama’s administration is out of control.

? Santorum – would you support extending the jobless benefit by 20 more weeks?  S – not unless they receive training while receiving benefits.

? Gingrich – How many weeks of jobless benefits would you support?  G – All should be tied to training; 99 weeks of school would get you an associate degree.

— Skipping questions and trite responses from Romney and Paul;

? Romney – will you release your tax records?  R – I will, around April.

? Romney – you have a hard policy against illegal immigration.  Are you alienating Latino voters?  R – No; I would veto the Dream Act.

? Santorum – there are currently very high levels of unemployment and poverty in black population.  What would you do about that?  S – studies show if you work before marriage, graduate from high school, and refrain from having children out of wedlock, chances are only 2% you’ll be poor.

Paul – skip

? Gingrich  – aren’t your remarks about blacks working derogatory?  G – No; Black Americans should prefer jobs over food stamps; my daughter’s first job at 13 was as a church janitor, she loved having money; I’ve been publishing a newsletter on the subject; New York City pays ridiculous wages to their janitors because of unions; kids could also work in the cafeteria, library, and office, it would teach them responsibility and give them money which poor families especially need; only the elites despise money.

? Gingrich – didn’t you imply that Blacks are lazy and irresponsible?  (The crowd booed this question by Juan Williams)  G – Obama has put more people on food stamps than any other president in history; I will find a ways to help poor Blacks get a job and own it.  (Standing applause)

Paul – skip his remarks about foreign policy.

? Gingrich – Would you go into a country such as Pakistan and kill someone (such as Bin Laden) without declaring war?  G – Pakistan had to know Obama was living a mile from a huge military base; Andrew Jackson was sabered in the face as a young boy by a British officer, and his idea about dealing with enemies was – kill them!

Paul – we should have a golden rule in dealing with other countries – do with them as we would want them to deal with us; We wouldn’t like it if China came into our country and killed someone.

Romney – Gingrich was right; Barack Obama should not have announced the date of our withdrawal in Iraq; we are under attack, need a strong military.

? Romney – would you negotiate with the Taliban?  No, Biden said we would, and he was wrong to want to do that.

Skip dialogues with Santorum, Paul, Perry.

? Perry – Now that Islamist regime has taken over Turkey, should they be kicked out of NATO? P – cut their foreign aid to zero; Turkey no longer works with us; There should be no space between US and Israel; I served in the Air Force.

Paul – I too served in the Air Force – 5 years; Taliban just wants us out of Afghanistan, Al Quaeda wants to come here and kill us.

? Romney – would you have signed National Defense Act, which allows us to retain Guantanamo prisoners forever? R – foreign terrorists have no rights.

Santorum – American citizens caught as terrorists should have right of Habeas Corpus. 

Skip

? Romney – what are your plans for entitlement reform?  R – Medicare, premium support like Ryan plan.

Gingrich – Social Security voluntary choice between old plan and new plan; personal savings accounts like Chile, (wildly successful there); 95% would take advantage of PSA’s; every American becomes an investor.

? Santorum – Isn’t your plan to cut taxes for manufacturers to zero actually having govt. pick winners and losers?  S – I’d cut business taxes to a flat 17.5%, but manufacturing is where we’re losing jobs, which is why I’d cut taxes for them to zero; Newt’s Social Security plan is fiscally irresponsible because he’d have to borrow money to put in the personal savings accounts.

Gingrich – I’d finance it by cutting out 185 bureaucracies.  (My note – actually, in Chile a portion of payroll tax is paid into the personal account)

Romney – Rick is right; we can’t borrow more money at this time; Newt’s plan is fiscal insanity!  (I thought this was a mean choice of words)

Skip conversation on gun control

? Gingrich – You voted for a bill supporting one child per family in China.  G – wrong.  On Super PAC – I’ve called on mine to edit out that isn’t true.

Romney – we’d all like to see Super PAC’s ended.

? Perry – Now that illegal immigrant rate of border crossing is at a 40 year low, shouldn’t we stop spending money on it?  P – immigration is low because the economy is at a 40 year low.  If I’m president, border will be closed within one year.

? Gingrich – Has the No Child Left Behind Act been a failure?  G – yes; teachers tend to teach the tests; I would eliminate the Department of Education; return control to states; and they should eliminate their departments of education, return control to local school boards.

(end at about 1:50)

Note – there was a running twitter for the TV audience where the audience could indicate whether the candidate answered the question (above the line) or didn’t (below).  Newt and Paul were consistently above the line, Romney was the least here. 

There was a very good Fox News post-debate show with interviews of Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Huckabee Presidential Forum

by asmwizard

The forum of December 3, 2011 was not a debate.  Mike Huckabee’s idea was interesting.  Give each candidate exactly 11 minutes, with a final one-minute summary at the end.  The questioners were state attorneys general, from 3 states.  The general topic was the relationship between the federal government and the states.

Herman Cain, having dropped out of the race earlier that day, was not present, nor was John Huntsman.  The six candidates were Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Michelle Bachmann, and the Ricks – Perry and Santorum.  The 3 questioners – all lawyers – posed some but not all tough questions. 

Newt’s most difficult test was on his immigration ideas – having a local board select which long-term illegals can stay was questioned, and rightfully so.  He was also questioned on his initial support of a federal mandate for insurance.  He handled the questions well and wasn’t hurt too much.  For the second time, I heard him refer to President Obama as a “Saul Alinski radical.”  In my view, though arguably true, this is a mistake.  Such references should be saved until direct debates between Newt and Obama.

Romney did quite well.  He called the EPA a tool in the hands of the president to crush fossil fuels in favor of renewables.  He would eliminate the NLRB.  While harshly criticizing the Department of Education, he would continue to test kids.

Perry said some interesting things.  He would not support a national right-to-work law, would leave that to the states.  He believes the federal government should reimburse states for their expense in dealing with illegal aliens.  He wants to amend the constitution to have shorter terms for Supreme Court judges, doesn’t like appointment for life as it is now.  As said earlier, he wants congress to meet every other year.

Bachmann also did well.  She favors a federal law enforcing right-to-work in all states.  She confirmed she would deport all illegal aliens without exception.   She would abolish the Department of Education, and supports the amendment for human life, defining a fetus as human.

Ron Paul’s performance was terrible.  He came across (to me) as cranky and crazy.  His opposition to the Patriot Act would strip tools from the federal which give them the ability to stop acts of terror before they happen.  He thinks terrorism is a crime, not a way.

Santorum did fairly well.  He said the government does things to hurt families, citing aid to unmarried mothers which results in couples not marrying so they can continue to receive government money.   He cited EPA regulations that hurt states.  He said the president has an obligation to enforce the law, and supports the Patriot Act.

In my view, the candidates are over-exposed.   This is the most heavily televised pre-primary season of all time.  There are currently 4 remaining events this month, 3 to be held in Iowa, and the Huntsman-Gingrich debate to be held in New Hampshire.   Two of these events were arranged within the past few days, as was the Huckabee Forum.   Perhaps the most interesting is the Donald Trump debate, coming up on December 27, a week before the Iowa Caucus.   The Donald says that sometime after the debate, he will endorse one of the candidates.      

Cain–Gingrich Debate–November 5, 2011

by asmwizard

Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich met for a special debate on November 5.  It was held in Texas and televised on C-SPAN.  Billed as a Lincoln-Douglas style debate, it lasted about an hour and a half and concentrated on entitlement reform.  An relatively small in-house audience of two or three hundred (my estimate) was present.

Supposedly, there would be no moderator, only a timekeeper.  Actually, there was a moderator plus another questioner, but they only asked questions.  The debate met the objectives of allowing the candidates to speak at length to answer a question thoroughly.  Cain and Gingrich were very friendly and uncritical toward each other, with no “gotcha” style remarks.  Both men came across as very likeable.  However, last night there wasn’t a debate in the true sense – there was no argument back and forth – no criticism of the other’s position.  The two men just took turns giving their perspectives on a question.

Herman Cain surprised me with the depth of his knowledge and his ability to relate entitlement reform to his business experience.  I no longer consider him a flyweight as a potential president.  He tends to favor most features of the Paul Ryan reforms to Social Security and Medicare.  He also mentions the reforms made in Chile, and I had thought he was talking about health care reform there, and had been a bit critical of that.  Last night, he mentioned Chile in relation to Social Security reform, citing the fact that people have personal retirement accounts in Chile as part of the government plan.  

Newt Gingrich probably impressed viewers as having considerably greater knowledge and understanding of issues.  He favors allowing people to choose from options rather than outright mandate from government.  I had heard him say he isn’t in favor of advancing the retirement age, and doesn’t advocate means testing for Social Security and Medicare, and I had wondered why.  It turns out that he doesn’t want to limit choice.  He’s in favor of premium-defined plans  with flexibility rather than one-price government-defined benefit packages, and wants them structured so that wealthier people will choose to self-insure.   He emphasized the use of computer systems to greatly reduce fraud in the entitlements, would form a consortium of IBM and the credit card companies to administer the entitlements with an emphasis of catching crooks trying to defraud the system.  

Both men favor block granting Medicaid to the states, while giving them fewer federal guidelines to follow.  I had thought this was a cop-out from a very difficult problem, but it does make sense.  The risk I see is that some states may be less competent than others in delivering health care.

I would like this format used between two men who disagree with each other, and don’t like each other so much.  Gingrich–Obama or Cain–Obama debates in this style would produce some real fireworks, in my opinion.