Congress @ MindSay

The Washington Post reported yesterday that "typical Blue Dogs receive significantly more money–about 25 percent–from the health-care and insurance sectors than other Democrats, putting them closer to Republicans in attracting industry support." Most of us could have drawn that conclusion ourselves.

When I was a college student, this catchy, derisive aphorism was often heard: Those who can do; those who can't teach. Clever claptrap and we all knew it; otherwise we wouldn't have been in college in the first place. Numerous people who have become absurdly rich doing what their professors taught them to do routinely donate huge sums to their alma maters. What better proof could there be?

A variation of this aphorism, however, may be true. Those who know teach, those who can do, and those who neither know nor can become members of Congress.

The American scandal of politicians asking for, receiving, and accepting money from special interests is too well known to be worth much mention. And although politicians routinely deny that those contributions influence their votes, everyone knows that politicians routinely lie. Emerson summed it up nicely: "What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say."

If you've ever wondered why the idle rich (48 percent have net worth's estimated to be at least $1 million), attorneys with unsuccessful private practices (about 30 percent), and former shopkeepers run for seats in the Congress, one possible answer is that their votes are the only things of value that they have to sell.

Are America's failures running the country? Well they certainly haven't enacted much effective legislation in the last half-century. (09/07/31)

(On June 3, 2009, I sent the following reply to Louise Radnofsky’s article, Lawmakers Bill Taxpayers For TVs, Cameras, Lexus [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124364352135868189.html?mod=googlenews_wsj].)

Dear Ms Radnofsky,

I began reading your piece, “Lawmakers Bill Taxpayers For TVs, Cameras, Lexus,”  with heightened interest, but by the end, I was overwhelmed with a feeling of disappointment. You entered a forest and ended up describing a few shrubs. But what Americans need to know is the big picture.

I may not be correct in all of the following, but this is what I have come across:

·           Every Congressman is paid at least a $174,000 salary which is automatically adjusted upward for inflation.

·           Every Congressman is entitled to a retirement plan in addition to a 401K plan and also Social Security. The retirement and 401K plans are taxpayer subsidized.

·           Every Congressman is entitled to participate in a healthcare plan which is also taxpayer subsidized.

·           And now you report that every Congressman also receives between $1.3 and 4.5 million yearly for office expenses.

Wouldn’t it be useful to the American people if they were told how much this actually costs taxpayers?

Wouldn’t it be useful to the American people if they were told just what Congressmen had to spend their $174,000+ salaries on and how much of it is just money in the bank?

You write as though the Treasury, in pure generosity, provides the office expense funds. But doesn’t the Congress, which receives the funds, legislate the fund’s existence and its amount?

I find this very odd, and you should have found it so too.

The Congress, which Constitutionally, is the principle part of the government, enacts legislation for itself which provides itself with what are essentially employee benefits. So the Congress, the government, treats its members as employees of themselves. Wouldn’t it be nice if the rest of us could do that? In doing so, the Congress provides taxpayer subsidized employee benefits to its members that it refuses to provide to the people Congressmen are supposed to represent. Isn’t the notion that an elected official is merely a hired employee somewhat odd?

Had you revealed all of this, you would have revealed, I suspect, a major scandal that would make the current British one look trivial.

I would truly love to receive a reply and later a better article, but I doubt that I’ll ever see either.  Your employer would likely prohibit you from doing it. But I can hope. (06/03/09)

Ah, yes, John!

“I believe for every drop of rain that falls a flower grows

I believe that somewhere in the darkest night a candle glows

I believe for everyone who goes astray, someone will come to show the way

I believe above a storm the smallest prayer can still be heard

I believe that someone in the great somewhere hears every word

I believe, I believe.”

Yet beliefs, as yours are, are far more often erroneous than right.

You write,

“I believe our top priority should be to lower the cost of health care, without reducing quality or access to care.”

No, John, the top priority should be to lower the cost of health care and improve quality and increase access. Maintaining what we’ve already got won’t help.

You write,

“I believe we can lower the cost of health care without giving Washington more control over the decisions of doctors and patients.”

But, John, what control has Washington had over the decisions of doctors and patients? Private insurers are notorious for exercising that kind of control, not the government. All the government has had control of is reimbursement to providers, and reimbursement is not a medical decision.

You criticize Kennedy’s bill, perhaps rightly so, but your points don’t make the case.

You write,

“First, Senator Kennedy's bill will cost at least $1 trillion over the next ten years – and that's just the beginning. . . . The taxpayers' $1 trillion does not include the cost of increasing eligibility for Medicaid for people up to 50 percent above the poverty line.”

But, John, what are the CBO’s assumptions? We know that currently, Americans pay more than twice as much per capita for healthcare than the populations of other developed counties and not only are fewer people covered but the quality of care is lower. If other countries can provide universal coverage for half as much as we spend, why can’t we simply divert what is currently being spent into one fund and cover everybody? It wouldn’t cost an additional cent. Certainly we ought to be able to provide universal care for twice as much money as other nations spend to provide it. If they can do it, why can’t we?

You write,

“Second, Senator Kennedy's bill includes a government-run health care plan that will force at least 15 million people to lose their current private health insurance. The Congressional Budget Office recognizes that no current provider can long compete against a government that calls the balls and strikes even as it takes the field. According to the independent Lewin Group, a government plan could eventually take away current health benefits from 119 million Americans, and force 130 million Americans into a Washington-run health care plan.”

So what, John, they would still have coverage, wouldn’t they?

You write,

“Third, a new Washington-run plan will increase the cost of private insurance. "Cost-shifting" occurs when a health care provider accepts low government reimbursement rates, but only if it can charge extra to those with private insurance. This cost-shifting acts like a hidden tax on millions of American families and small businesses. One respected actuary estimates that cost-shifting increases the average American family's health care premium by more than 10 percent, or more than $1,500. Adding another new government health care plan on top of Medicare and Medicaid will only increase this cost.”

But, John, taking private insurance out of the picture makes “cost shifting” impossible.

You write,

“Fourth, a new Washington-run plan would lead to government rationing of health care. Just look at the results in Canada. Thousands of our friends to the north come to the United States every year for life-saving surgeries, after their government has told them they'll just have to wait. Various studies suggest that Canadians, especially the poor, are less healthy under socialized medicine than those in our own country. More and more Canadians want to reduce the role of government and expand private options for health care, even as elites in Washington want to move America in the opposite direction.”

Oh, John, this is pure propaganda! First, you are misusing the word “ration.” Look it up! When things are rationed, everyone who needs them gets a share; nobody goes without. Second, “thousands . . . come to the United States . . . for life-saving surgeries, after their government has told them they’ll just have to wait.” That, John,, is a bald faced lie. Canadians do often have to wait for elective surgeries, but not life-threatening ones. But you fail to mention the thousands of Americans who are going to Latin America and even Asia for procedures that are unaffordable in America. And third, your use of “various studies” is nothing but a dodge or perhaps an Edsel. People who don’t cite studies are scoundrels. Studies are not created equal. Some are good; some are bad, and one can select just the ones that support his/her beliefs while ignoring the others.

You write,

“Fifth, a new government plan would replicate the model of Medicare and Medicaid, which illustrate everything that can go wrong with Washington-run health care. Costs for both plans have exploded. Low reimbursement rates force many providers out of the system, and many patients to long waiting lines. Taxpayers pay up to $90 billion a year in fraudulent and wasteful medical bills, about two-thirds of that in the Medicare program alone.”

Well, John, maybe true, maybe not. But the Congress wrote the Medicare and Medicaid plans. If they don’t work well, it’s your fault. Yes, the costs “have exploded.” So have the costs of private plans. And if those private plans were abolished, the providers would be unable to leave the system unless they stopped practicing altogether. And if there is fraud and waste in the system, it can only be because the Congress created programs with many loopholes and enforcement failures. Again, John, it is not the programs that are at fault, it is the Congress who created them without adequate safeguards. That’s you, John!

You write,

“The Kennedy Bill has other provisions that would increase Washington's control of our health care system – including new punitive tax increases. If a family doesn't have a Washington-regulated health care plan, they would pay a new tax. If a small business owner doesn't offer a Washington-regulated plan for every employee, then she would pay a new tax. These tax increases are designed not to raise revenue to pay for health care, but to punish families and businesses that step out of line.”

Oh, John! Your claim that the increases are designed to punish is pure presumption. What evidence can you cite? Anyhow, John, someone needs to be punished for the creation of this abominable system.

You write,

“There are alternatives to a Washington takeover of the health care system, and the best of them will give patients more control over their care. Innovators in both government and the private sector have learned that empowering patients as consumers can lower costs. They've learned that the right incentives can encourage patients to make healthier choices, and providers to compete for their business. These are the ideas that can drive successful reform of our health care system.”

Pure bull, John. What patient has ever had control over his/her own healthcare? The physician he/she goes to has the control. When a physician diagnoses a patient’s problem, the patient is not given a menu of options. The physician doesn’t say, “I can sell you this treatment for x dollars, or this treatment for y dollars, or this treatment for z dollars.” A physician’s office is not a retail store. And what empowering practices have been learned that can lower costs? If they have been learned and can lower costs, why haven’t they? And how can medical providers compete for the business of patients? How can the model used by cosmetic surgeons be adapted to real medical problems? A patient suffering a heart attack doesn’t have the luxury of being able to shop around. 

You write,

“Health care reform can be successful if we take the time to get it right. . . . when Congress acts too quickly, it often delivers bad policy. . . . Washington elites want to dictate to the American people the future of health care, but I believe the best solutions will come when Washington begins to listen.”

Well, John, finally you’ve gotten something right. The Congress, of which you are a part, is made up of a bunch of Keystone Kops legislators who haven’t gotten anything right for decades. And although you believe (here we go again) that Washington (deceased) needs to listen, the question is to whom? And those “Washington elites,” who are they? Are you one of them?

Senator Kennedy’s bill is not a solution to the problem, because the problem with the American healthcare system is private insurance. It sucks an enormous amount of money out of the system without providing a worthless cent’s amount of healthcare. What medical procedure does an insurance company provide for the money it takes in? Not even an aspirin tablet! All private insurance does is collect money, skim a portion off the top, and pay the providers from what is left. The insurance industry is a worthless middle man, getting paid for nothing. And that, John, is the industry whose services you seek to preserve.

If private insurance companies had any interest or desire to provide Americans with a high-quality healthcare system, they have had half a century to do it and haven’t.  Private industry has no interest in solving social problems. Never has, never will have. It’s only interest is profit. And profit buys no medicine, John, none whatsoever. So, John, if you truly want health care reform to be successful, stand up, and for once in your life, do the right thing. Your only job is to provide the American people with high-quality healthcare, not to preserve an industry’s profits. You are a representative of people, John, not of business, that is, unless you’re just a scoundrel.

On Friday, May 15, 2009, Senator John Cornyn sent an update to his constituents the gist of which is this: “I believe harnessing the ingenuity and competitiveness of the American people to create more options for patients through the fair market is the best way to spur innovation, keep prices competitive and quality high.” Senator Cornyn is one of these Republican true believers who knows what he believes but never checks the facts to see if what he believes is true.

Senator Cornyn, as a member of Congress, has government run and subsidized health care which includes prescription drug benefits along with a government run and subsidized retirement plan. The yearly income of Congressmen exceeds $174,000 which is automatically increased annually for inflation. So I would ask Mr. Cornyn and all of his fellow Congressman, can’t you afford medical insurance provided by a private company? And if so, why don’t you buy it? If not, how do you expect your constituents earning twenty, thirty, forty, and even fifty thousand dollars a year to afford it? And why have you created your own publicly funded retirement plan? Can’t you afford regular contributions to 401Ks? If you can, why did you create a government run and subsidized plan for yourselves? And if you can’t, why do you think that your constituents can? Why are such plans good enough for members of Congress but not good enough for your constituents? If government plans are expensive and wasteful, why aren’t the government run plans for your benefit expensive and wasteful?

Senator, isn’t the current American health care system based on private companies competing in the marketplace? It hasn’t yet spurred innovation, kept prices competitive (whatever that means), and it hasn’t produced high quality health care. Why would continuing this dastardly system do these things? Senator, you yourself have written, “Congress recently began consideration of various proposals to reform health care - and our biggest challenge is to help make it more affordable. Health care costs have risen far faster than inflation in both good economic times and bad. Health care costs force many self-employed workers into the ranks of the uninsured.” Clearly, Senator, the marketplace has not worked. Your own statement proves it, so why are you defending it and attempting to continue it?

You write, “We must work to reduce the costs associated with providing quality care.” Then you write, “Reining in health care fraud, waste and abuse could save taxpayers up to $90 billion a year. Reducing lawsuit abuse is also necessary. Texas is a great example of a state that has seen reduced insurance premiums for providers as a result of reducing lawsuit abuse, while still protecting the real victims of medical negligence. A focus on wellness and prevention is also crucial to cutting the cost of health care. I recently introduced legislation with Sen. Tom Harkin, the Healthy Workforce Act, to make comprehensive wellness programs affordable for more small businesses. A new emphasis in the workplace on prevention and wellness will lower the costs businesses incur in providing health care for their employees (emphases mine).” But Senator, not one of the things mentioned lower the costs for patients.

Then you write, “A Washington-run health care system would mean less individual freedom to make our own health care decisions, including choosing our own doctors. I am concerned that a Washington takeover will deny care and delay treatment.” Oh, Senator, who chooses his own doctor? Many private insurers have lists of approved physicians. Often that’s not much of a choice. When you go to the Office of the Attending Physician, Senator, how many doctors do you get to choose from? Who makes his own health care decisions? A person gets sick, goes to a doctor, and the doctor makes the decisions. And have you not heard of insurance companies denying care ordered by physicians for their patients? And finally, Senator, how many choices do all those Americans have who lack access to the system? Do they choose their doctors when in the emergency room? Do they select the treatments they receive?

You correctly write, “Americans now spend twice as much per capita on health care than other industrialized nations, our massive investment has not led to higher quality care.” Tell me, Senator, why can’t we pay for universal, single payer, healthcare by merely diverting what we already spend to a single fund that pays providers directly for whatever treatment and procedure doctors prescribe, no questions asked? If other industrial nations can provide universal healthcare to all of their residents at half the cost of what we Americans pay, why can’t America provide the same coverage for twice what other nations pay? No new money is needed, Senator, to fix this broken system. Plenty of money is already being spent; it’s just being spent in the wrong places.

The truth, Senator, is that you and many others in the Congress don’t want to fix the system. You prefer that the sick and infirm just suffer and die. Their suffering and dying doesn’t cost you and those like you anything. You prefer to have corporate America get rich off of the suffering and death of your constituents, because corporate America funds your campaigns, bribing you to do its bidding rather than the bidding of your constituents.

Senator, I don’t believe that you believe any of the claptrap you write. You can’t be that dumb! But if you are, you certainly don’t belong in the U.S.Senate.

My Online Response to Rep. Broun’s

3/12/09 Whiny Newsletter entitled,

"Hold Your Leaders Accountable"

[He did, however, provide an interesting link to the supposed “Pork” in the latest bill that he accuses President Obama of signing all that exorbitant spending into law as if that is what the President wanted included in the first place.  What a silly little man.  http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/upload/porktable.html]

13 March 2009

Mr. Broun,

Thank you for your informative newsletter regarding the "pork" included in the Stimulus Bill.  Like you, it is distressing to me that excess spending finds its way into important legislation.  Moreover, it is nearly impossible to tell exactly what Congress is voting for in the end.  In order to support the integral parts of a bill, it has become necessary to accept all the trash thrown in the mix.  This makes it terribly complicated for the voters when we try to understand the merits of our politicians.  For example, did you actually and enthusiastically vote FOR the infamous Bridge to Nowhere?  Or was that just part of the trash included in a bill regarding something really important that demanded your support?

It would make great sense to me for the President to be given line-item veto power so that he could ferret out the ridiculous inclusions while at the same time getting the business of the country done in a proper fiscal fashion.  Unfortunately, he does not have this latitude.  So, instead of berating the President for conducting business with the very same shackles you share as you do your voting as if he is choosing to do so, work to create a better way of doing the peoples’ business, such as introducing a “line-item veto” bill.  Your critical rhetoric is just more of the same political shell-game that is misleading subterfuge.  Please get real and get busy.

Sincerely,