What is most like Alice in Wonderland is discussing medical care reform in the abstract, as if there are not already government-run medical care systems in this country and elsewhere.

Yet there seems to be remarkably little interest in examining how government-run medical care actually turns out– medically and financially– whether in Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Administration hospitals in this country, or in government-run medical systems in other countries.

By all means look at other countries, but not just to see what to imitate. See how it actually turns out. Yet there seems to be an amazing lack of interest in examining what government-controlled medical care produces.

While our so-called health care “summit” last week was going on, British newspapers were carrying exposes of terrible, and often deadly, conditions in British hospitals under that country’s National Health Service. But this has not become part of our debate on what to expect from government-controlled medical care.

Such scandals are an old story under the National Health Service in Britain, one repeatedly producing fresh scandals that their newspapers carry, but ours ignore.

In addition to a whole series of National Health Service scandals in Britain over the years, the government-run medical system in Britain has far less high-tech medical equipment than there is in the United States. Neither in Britain, Canada, nor in other countries with government-run medical care systems can people get to see doctors, especially surgeons, in as short a time as in the United States.

It is not uncommon for patients in those countries to have to wait for months before getting operations that Americans get within weeks, or even days, after being diagnosed with a condition that requires surgery. You can always “bring down the cost of medical care” by having a lower level of quality or availability.

Editor’s Note:  This is an excerpt of an essay by Thomas Sowell from Tuesday, March 3, 2010.

An unofficial memo from the White House has revealed plans for the federal government to seize more than 10 million acres from Montana to New Mexico, halting job creating activities like ranching, forestry, mining and energy development.  This land grab would dry up tax revenue that is essential for funding schools, firehouses and community centers, says Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.). 

The 21-page document marked “Internal Draft-NOT FOR RELEASE,” names 14 different lands President Obama could completely close for development by unilaterally designating them as “monuments” under the 1906 Antiquities Act.  Rep. Robert Bishop (R-Utah) made the memo public because he did not want another unilateral land grab by the White House, like what happened under former presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, says DeMint: 

• Using the Antiquities Act, President Carter locked up more land than any other president had before him, taking more than 50 million acres in Alaska despite strong opposition from the state.
• President Clinton used the authority 22 times to prohibit hunting, recreational vehicles, mining, forestry and even grazing in 5.9 million acres scattered around the country (the law allowed him to single-handedly create 19 new national monuments and expand three others without consulting anyone).
• In Nevada, the Obama Administration might make another monument in the Heart of the Great Basin because it supposedly is a “center of climate change scientific research.”
• In Colorado, the government is considering designating the Vermillion Basin as a monument because it is “currently under the threat of oil and gas development.”  

The government currently owns 650 million acres, or 29 percent of the nation’s total land.  Federal bureaucrats should not be wasting time thinking up ways to acquire more, especially in the middle of a recession, says DeMint. 

Taking the nation’s resources offline will stifle job creation and dry up tax revenues.  If anything, the government should be selling land off, not locking more up, says DeMint. 

Source: Jim DeMint, “White House Land Grab,” Washington Times, March 2, 2010. 

For text:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/02/white-house-land-grab/

• “I support Senator Jim Bunning.  Frankly, unemployment benefits are currently 99 weeks or almost two years. While I support extending the benefits for a short period of time longer, we must find a way to pay for those benefits.  I do not support extending unemployment benefits beyond two years.  Even Germany limits unemployment benefits to one year.  Benefits here in America are exceeding those offered in the most liberal countries of Europe.  Two years of government support is not a safety net. It is an entitlement program. I am tired of paying for entitlement programs that continue well beyond a compassionate need.”  (Bill Johnson, Press Release, 3.2.10)
• “Jim Bunning is being unfairly attacked for saying we should spend money already set aside for benefits rather than borrowing more.   He deserves our support and he is going to get it.” (Rand Paul)
• “I would proudly stand up to ensure that programs are paid for and think that this is further evidence of mismanagement of the Senate by Harry Reid.  If we had not wasted time debating and passing a pet bill for Reid, we would not have been in the situation that led to the delay.  I agree with Senators Bunning and McConnell that the government has a responsibility to pay for its programs and a good place to start would be to cut funding from the stimulus in order to pay for the extension of unemployment benefits.  If the stimulus had created jobs as promised, then we would not need more unemployment insurance.” (Trey Grayson)

Editor’s note:  Thanks to these candidates for swiftly stepping out and supporting Senator Bunning in what has been a career-long quest to support fiscal responsibility.

“We think it’s critical that power shifts to the American consumer and away from government, employers and insurers, as evidence shows medical care prices come down when patients pay directly. Government should offer tax relief, such as refundable tax credits, to encourage private health insurance purchasing — especially for low-income families. Similar ideas, like those in the Patients’ Choice Act … are important for Americans to consider. We would do well also to consider creative ideas such as changing federal payments to state-based medicaid plans to individual vouchers or expanding health savings accounts, as has been done in South Carolina.”  (Dr. Scott W. Atlas, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor at Stanford University Medical Center, and South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford).

Natural experiments are rare in politics, but few are as instructive as the prototype for ObamaCare that Massachusetts set in motion in 2006.  The bills for “universal coverage” are now coming due, and it appears the state political class is prepared to do lasting damage to one of America’s top-flight health care systems, says the Wall Street Journal. 

Last month, Democratic Governor Deval Patrick proposed hard price controls across almost all Massachusetts health care: 

• State regulators already have the power to cap insurance premiums, which Patrick is activating.
• He also filed a bill that would give state regulators the power to review the rates of hospitals, physician groups and some specialty providers.
• Those that are deemed too high “shall be presumptively disapproved.” 

The administered prices of Medicare and Medicaid already shift costs to private patients while below-cost reimbursement creates balance-sheet havoc among providers.  Now the governor wants to import these distortions to save the state’s heavily subsidized insurance program as costs explode, says the Journal. 

Ironically, former Governor Mitt Romney (like President Obama) sold this plan as a way to control spending.  As with all new entitlements, the rolling cost crisis began almost immediately, says the Journal: 

• For fiscal 2010 taxpayer costs are $47 million over budget, in part due to the recession, and while the $913 million Patrick requested for 2011 is a 5 percent increase over 2010, spending has grown on average 6.7 percent per year.
• Meanwhile, average Massachusetts insurance premiums are now the highest in the nation; since 2006, they’ve climbed at an annual rate of 30 percent in the individual market.
• Small business costs have increased by 5.8 percent.
• Per capita health spending in Massachusetts is now 27 percent higher than the national average, and 15 percent higher even after adjusting for local wages and academic research grants.  

All of this is merely a preview of what the entire country will face if Democrats succeed with their plan to pound ObamaCare into law in anything like its current form.  Massachusetts is teaching the country a valuable lesson in how not to reform health care, if only anyone would pay attention, says the Journal. 

Source: Editorial, “Back to the ObamaCare Future: The Massachusetts ‘model’ moves to price controls,” Wall Street Journal, March 1, 2010. 

For text:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703444804575071294139286892.html

TIME TO TAKE ACTION

Note: It doesn’t matter that 60-70% (depending on the poll) of the American people do not want this bill, nor any contorted version of it.  They know it’s not about health care reform.  It’s about power and our government wielding it over us all in yet another critical area of our lives.   So, through a process called “reconciliation,” the left can force this bill upon us all with no participation in the process by conservatives or the American people.    The “Summit” is an illusion, a ruse, a thinly-veiled attempt to make it appear to be an honest effort towart bipartisanship.   But make no mistake about it: This is a power-play.  And once passed, we WILL all answer to some government official or panel to determine what any of us can or cannot do medically.

This week there is forward momentum again in the health care debate. President Obama rolled out his own version of a health care plan. It is reported that if the Republicans filibuster, the Democrats will push the bill via reconciliation through anyway. On Thursday, the President will meet with the leadership of both parties to “discuss” health care.  

So, that means, it is up to us, We the People, to make sure Congress knows we do not want the government to take over our health care. Call your Congressman and Senators and tell them to vote no on Health Care. Also tell Senator McConnell not to compromise in the meeting with the President on Thursday. The American people do not want any part of this Health Care bill, do not compromise.

McConnell – 502-582-6304

Bunning – 800-283-8983

Yarmuth – 502-582-5129

Chandler – 202-225-2122

Rogers- 202-225-4601

Davis – 202-225-3465

Whitfield – 202-225-3547

Guthrie -270-842-9896

So, if you love liberty, want the insane spending in Washington to stop, believe in smaller, less intrusive government and you want a forum to stand up, speak out and get involved, well…you’ve come the right place.  See you there.   Board member Rachel Ford will be there to sign you in and help you get acquainted and connected.

Come out.  Vent.  Brainstorm.  Be energized.  And enjoy.

    For more info, email us: louisvilleteaparty@gmail.com

(This analysis offered by ex-governor of Delaware, Pete du Pont)

Earlier this month, the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page did an analysis of the federal government’s debt that will be held by the public over the coming decade: 

• When the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007, the debt held by the public was 36.2 percent of gross domestic product.
• It rose to 40.2 percent the next year.
• This year it will be about 63.6 percent, next year 68.6 percent, then 77 percent of GDP in 2020.
• And the Obama administration’s budget estimates 218 percent in 2050. 

The reason for these rising deficits is the huge increases in federal spending — the intended growth of the federal government — that Congress and the president are pushing, says du Pont: 

• The deficit in 2007 was $160 billion.
• In the next year the Pelosi-Reid Congress took it up to $458 billion, and when President Obama came into office in 2009 it hit $1.4 trillion.
• The current 2010 projected deficit is $1.6 trillion, which will lead to a tripling of our national debt from 2008 to 2010. 

To the White House and congressional Democrats, these large figures are not a surprise, a mistake or a worry.  They are part of a strategy to Europeanize America, to make the government larger, broader and in charge of almost everything.  And that would of course require broad and massive tax increases, says du Pont.  

Source: Pete du Pont, “Nightfall in America; The Obama deficits portend a gloomy future,” Online Journal, February 16, 2010. 

(Editor’s Note:  How can any group, whether from the Executive or Legislative Branch of government, feign shock and surprise at the cavernous deficit that they are all too well aware that they are creating?  Pete du Pont’s theory, while deeply disturbing, is entirely plausible.  “Quel surprise???”  N’est ce pas, citizens. ~~Dan Blanchard)