Side by Side Comparison of Health Care Proposals

Check out this website from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that compares all the health care proposals debated over the last year from the point of view of a health care provider vice a single political party.  What it shows is that GOP and Democratic proposals were largely similar, but that the Republicans had good ideas about limiting medical malpractice awards and deregulating the medical insurance industry.

Where were those ideas during the debate?  Why didn't the Republicans go big and go public with those arguments and get them into this law?  I'll tell you why, because the Republicans were more interested in embarrassing the President and thwarting his political agenda than in actually helping the American people.  The Republican strategy was (and is) to sell out our medical future so that they can win a few paltry seats in the House and Senate.  Come On!

Who is representing the interests of the people, certainly not the Democrats, big government is never a good solution.  It's one of the reasons we have run away costs in medical care now (Medicare and Medicaid are over 30% of the Federal Budget...that's larger than the defense budget).  Now we can see the Republicans are more interested in their political health than healthcare reform in the nation.

Man, I wish the Republicans would just man up an be a good party again.

Ann Coulter's Healthcare Plan

Uhm...I don't always agree with everything she says, but I kind of like this plan.

My Healthcare Plan

by  Ann Coulter 

03/17/2010

Liberals keep complaining that Republicans don't have a plan for reforming health care in America. I have a plan!

It's a one-page bill creating a free market in health insurance. Let's all pause here for a moment so liberals can Google the term "free market."

Nearly every problem with health care in this country -- apart from trial lawyers and out-of-date magazines in doctors' waiting rooms -- would be solved by my plan.

In the first sentence, Congress will amend the McCarran-Ferguson Act to allow interstate competition in health insurance.

We can't have a free market in health insurance until Congress eliminates the antitrust exemption protecting health insurance companies from competition. If Democrats really wanted to punish insurance companies, which they manifestly do not, they'd make insurers compete.

The very next sentence of my bill provides that the exclusive regulator of insurance companies will be the state where the company's home office is. Every insurance company in the country would incorporate in the state with the fewest government mandates, just as most corporations are based in Delaware today.

That's the only way to bypass idiotic state mandates, requiring all insurance plans offered in the state to cover, for example, the Zone Diet, sex-change operations, and whatever it is that poor Heidi Montag has done to herself this week.

President Obama says we need national health care because Natoma Canfield of Ohio had to drop her insurance when she couldn't afford the $6,700 premiums, and now she's got cancer.


Much as I admire Obama's use of terminally ill human beings as political props, let me point out here that perhaps Natoma could have afforded insurance had she not been required by Ohio's state insurance mandates to purchase a plan that covers infertility treatments and unlimited OB/GYN visits, among other things.

It sounds like Natoma could have used a plan that covered only the basics -- you know, things like cancer.

The third sentence of my bill would prohibit the federal government from regulating insurance companies, except for normal laws and regulations that apply to all companies.

Freed from onerous state and federal mandates turning insurance companies into public utilities, insurers would be allowed to offer a whole smorgasbord of insurance plans, finally giving consumers a choice.

Instead of Harry Reid deciding whether your insurance plan covers Viagra, this decision would be made by you, the consumer. (I apologize for using the terms "Harry Reid" and "Viagra" in the same sentence. I promise that won't happen again.)

Instead of insurance companies jumping to the tune of politicians bought by health-care lobbyists, they would jump to tune of hundreds of millions of Americans buying health insurance on the free market.

Hypochondriac liberals could still buy the aromatherapy plan and normal people would be able to buy plans that only cover things such as major illness, accidents and disease. (Again -- things like Natoma Canfield's cancer.)

This would, in effect, transform medical insurance into ... a form of insurance!

My bill will solve nearly every problem allegedly addressed by ObamaCare -- and mine entails zero cost to the taxpayer. Indeed, a free market in health insurance would produce major tax savings as layers of government bureaucrats, unnecessary to medical service in America, get fired.

For example, in a free market, the government wouldn't need to prohibit insurance companies from excluding "pre-existing conditions."

Of course, an insurance company has to be able to refuse NEW customers with "pre-existing conditions." Otherwise, everyone would just wait to get sick to buy insurance. It's the same reason you can't buy fire insurance on a house that's already on fire.

That isn't an "insurance company"; it's what's known as a "Christian charity."

What Democrats are insinuating when they denounce exclusions of "pre-existing conditions" is an insurance company using the "pre-existing condition" ruse to deny coverage to a current policy holder -- someone who's been paying into the plan, year after year.

Any insurance company operating in the free market that pulled that trick wouldn't stay in business long.

If hotels were as heavily regulated as health insurance is, right now I'd be explaining to you why the government doesn't need to mandate that hotels offer rooms with beds. If they didn't, they'd go out of business.

I'm sure people who lived in the old Soviet Union thought it was crazy to leave groceries to the free market. ("But what if they don't stock the food we want?")

The market is a more powerful enforcement mechanism than indolent government bureaucrats. If you don't believe me, ask Toyota about six months from now.

Right now, insurance companies are protected by government regulations from having to honor their contracts. Violating contracts isn't so easy when competitors are lurking, ready to steal your customers.

In addition to saving taxpayer money and providing better health insurance, my plan also saves trees by being 2,199 pages shorter than the Democrats' plan.

Feel free to steal it, Republicans!

Why Passing the Health Care Bill is Strictly the Republicans Fault

That's it, the Grand Old Party has lost it.

From the looks of it, they really hope that blaming this expensive healthcare fiasco is going to unseat President Obama and win back Congress.  Here's the problem, the reason this bill is going to pass, and the reason the bill is so crappy is because the Republicans refused to drop their partisan behavior, refused to stop thinking about ways to thwart the President's legislative agenda long enough to actually craft a bill that actually helped America.  That makes me mad.

First, this healthcare bill looks a lot like the bill proposed by Nixon and opposed by Ted Kennedy back in 1974!    The Democrats opposed it the bill because they thought...wait for it...that it would be too expensive and would only benefit the insurance companies.  Gah!!! it's back to the future night.  Am I the only one that sees this or am I on crazy pills.

Here's a novel idea, stop fighting the President just because he beat the crud out of your candidate in the last election and start freaking legislating for a change.  Try that as a strategy and you might actually hold on to the elusive center of the nation's political sepctrum.

What's the Same About New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger?

What you may find is that both leaders may have identified a model for post partisan cooperation, a model identified by Mark Satin, Editor of the Radical Middle Newsletter  as,"the first genuinely American political ideology," our country ever has had.  


If you read Bloomberg’s and Schwarzenegger’s speeches HERE and HERE (and supplement them with Schwarzenegger’s important Second Inaugural and National Press Club speeches, both from 2007), you’ll find the outlines of a powerful new political ideology, broken down into 10 key elements below.

---

From Post-partisan!: The first uniquely American political ideology is being born, Issue No. 110 (August 2007), Radical Middle Newsletter, by Mark Satin, Editor.

1. Relationships as important as convictions. At Los Angeles, Bloomberg waxed eloquent about “teamwork,” “reaching across the aisle,” etc. He went so far as to call for “a fundamentally different way of behaving -- one built on cooperation and collaboration.” And in his National Press Club speech, Schwarzenegger said, “[Politics] starts with something very basic -- establishing relationships. I read where the President asked a Senator about his son who is in Iraq. The Senator’s dismissive reply was not in the spirit of the question. How did that reply advance the public good?”

2. Criticism well balanced by self-criticism. Bloomberg and Schwarzenegger do not hesitate to criticize whatever earns their ire (e.g., Bloomberg: elected officials “become hooked on partisanship because it offers easy answers.”). But they also look coolly at themselves. For example, Bloomberg pointedly noted that it’s “a waste of time pointing fingers and blaming the politicians in Washington -- after all, we elected them.” And Schwarzenegger told the National Press Club, “Ladies and gentlemen, I don’t claim to be Gandhi. In 2005 I contributed to the polarization. I tried to push through some [California ballot] initiatives the wrong way -- us versus them.”

3. Overriding commitment to dialogue and deliberation. Ben Franklin used to convene feuding Constitutional Convention delegates under a gorgeous mulberry tree in his back yard (see “Origins of the Post-Partisan Perspective” below). Just so, Time magazine reports that Bloomberg “broke with 200 years of tradition by rearranging [New York’s formalistic] city hall into a bullpen modeled on a trading floor, with his desk in the middle of 50 aides.”  And Schwarzenegger told the L.A. conference,

In the courtyard of our State Capitol in Sacramento . . . I have a politically incorrect smoking tent. And let me tell you, a lot of [legislators] come down there, take off their jackets, loosen up their ties, take a stogie out of my humidor, and they smoke and they schmooze. How come Republicans and Democrats in Washington don’t schmooze with each other? You can’t catch a socially transmitted disease by just sitting down with some people who maybe hold ideas different from yours.

4. Overriding commitment to diversity of opinions and perspectives. Post-partisanship goes beyond just accommodating differences. Bloomberg put it nicely when he said, “Solutions will require a diversity of opinion” [emphasis ours - ed.]. And at the L.A. conference Schwarzenegger said, “If you stick to just one party’s proposal[s] you miss half of the good ideas.” (He also said, “My in-laws for the last 30 years, every time I go over there [they have] Democrats and Republicans over there!”)


5. Compromise not the only endgame. “From my experience,” said Bloomberg,

ending Washington paralysis means bridging divides, but that does not mean just splitting differences. That’s a common political cop-out. Public policy is not a zero-sum game. . . . By thinking outside the box, and bringing creative ideas to the table, we can increase the benefits that both sides can achieve -- and more importantly, what America can achieve.

Schwarzenegger made the same crucial point when he said, at the National Press Club, “Politics is about compromise. . . . Post-partisanship, however, is not simply Republicans and Democrats each bringing proposals to the table and then working out differences. Post-partisanship is the new concept of Republicans and Democrats giving birth to new ideas together.”

6. Simultaneously creative and practical. Bloomberg is attracted to “creative” ideas, he said, not because of a taste for high theory but because he’s interested in “producing real results, solving tough problems.” In his Second Inaugural Address, Schwarzenegger called for “a new creative center . . . a dynamic center.” But his motives are as pragmatic as Bloomberg’s. He expects that the creative middle will generate neither haplessly visionary nor “warmed over” public policies, but “well-balanced and well-grounded” ones.

7. A penchant for big ideas. Partisan politicians “see the same problems we do,” said Bloomberg. “But instead of working to address their causes, and provide real, lasting solutions, they tinker around the edges, offering band-aids. . . . We’re not going to solve [our challenges] with small ideas.” In his L.A. speech Schwarzenegger proudly claimed, “Last year California passed the world’s most comprehensive plan to reduce greenhouse gases.”

8. A bias for action. Michael Grunwald, who wrote Time magazine’s aforementioned cover story on Bloomberg and Schwarzenegger, put his finger on a key part of the post-partisan dynamic when he said, “Love of action is the real link between Schwarzenegger and Bloomberg.” He quoted Schwarzenegger saying, “We don’t need another meeting on global warming. We need action.” And he observed that the real source of Bloomberg’s appeal is his image as “a businessman who can work across party lines to get things done” [emphasis ours - ed.].

9. A concern with values and principles. Pragmatism and compromise are parts of the post-partisan arsenal. But a deeper part is values and principles that can ensure integrity. At the L.A. conference, Bloomberg devoted a good part of his speech to describing his six key personal and process values: independence, honesty, innovation, courage, teamwork, and accountability. In his National Press Club speech, Schwarzenegger memorably declared, “The left and the right don’t have a monopoly on conscience! We should not let them get away with that! . . . You can seek a consensus and retain your principles. What is more principled than giving up some part of your position to advance the greater good of the people? That is how we arrived at a constitution in this country.”

10. A long-term vision. Bloomberg envisioned such far-seeing policy solutions as a preventive-care-oriented health care system and an anti-poverty program that offers cash to poor people for maintaining high rates of school attendance, participating in job training programs, etc. (“This approach has worked well in Mexico, but it’s never been tried in the U.S.,” Bloomberg said -- thereby boldly and even bravely exemplifying his insistence on taking good ideas from everywhere.) In his Second Inaugural Address, Schwarzenegger offered a vision of California 20 years hence:

Because we . . . committed ourselves to the environment, we lead the world in the transition from fossil fuels to clean energy -- and as a result, a clean-tech industry has sprung up creating jobs for our people. And because we were leaders in stem cell research, California’s bio-tech industry has boomed, offering new cures for spinal cord injuries, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and other diseases. And because we took action to correct our fiscal crisis [we] have learned, once and for all, to live within [our] means. . . .

---

So how is this working.  Well, after having read this article I need to do some research.  How are Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Schwarzenegger doing three years later?  The Mayer looks like he's an effective chief executive, but the Governor seems to be struggling with his legacy in California.  I wonder if that has more to do with the dysfunctional California Legislative environment.  

I'll write back again after I've done some home work.

What Does it Mean to be Center of the Spectrum

CENTRISTS espouse a "middle ground" regarding government control of the economy and personal behavior. Depending on the issue, they sometimes favor government intervention and sometimes support individual freedom of choice.  Centrists pride themselves on keeping an open mind, tend to oppose "political extremes," and emphasize what they describe as "practical" solutions to problems. 

What's Arabic for "You're No Atticus Finch"?

by Ann Coulter for Townhall.com

A group of "leading conservative lawyers" -- a phrase never confused with "U.S. Marines" -- has produced an embarrassingly pompous letter denouncing Liz Cheney for demanding the names of attorneys at the Justice Department who formerly represented Guantanamo detainees.

The letter calls Cheney's demand "shameful," before unleashing this steaming pile of idiocy:

"The American tradition of zealous representation of unpopular clients is at least as old as John Adams' representation of the British soldiers charged in the Boston Massacre."

Yes, but even John Adams didn't take a job with the government for another 19 years after defending the British guards -- who, in 1770, were "the police." He also didn't take a position with the U.S. government that involved processing British murder suspects.

I'd be more interested in hearing about the sacred duty of lawyers to defend "unpopular clients" if we were talking about clients who are unpopular with anyone lawyers know.

Every white shoe law firm in the country has been clamoring to take the cases of Guantanamo detainees, while young associates line up to be put on the case. This is even more fun than defending Ted Bundy!

As The Wall Street Journal put it in a 2007 article, a list of the law firms representing Guantanamo detainees "reads like a who's who of America's most prestigious law firms" -- which conveniently doubles as Santa's "naughty" list.

The terrorists' lawyers have included Shearman and Sterling, Arnold & Porter; Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr; Covington & Burling; Hunton & Williams; Sullivan & Cromwell; Debevoise & Plimpton; King & Spalding; Cleary Gottlieb, Morrison & Foerster; Jenner & Block; O'Melveny & Myers and Sidley Austin.

At least 34 of the 50 largest firms in the United States have performed pro bono work on behalf of Guantanamo detainees.

Years ago, when I nearly died of boredom working for a law firm, I heard whispered rumors about a partner, Michael Tierney, whom none of the female associates wanted to work with because his pro bono work included defending -- gasp! -- pro-life groups. (There was at least one female associate who wanted to work with him!)

I didn't hear a peep about the august "American tradition of zealous representation of unpopular clients" back then.

Like Hollywood actresses, lawyers need to believe they're noble and courageous to help them forget that they are corporate drones doing soul-destroying work, which mostly consists of making photocopies.

Defending terrorists gives status-conscious attorneys a chance to get standing ovations at the annual ABA convention -- much like promoting "global warming" makes climatologists feel like they're saving the world, rather than studying water vapor.

It took me exactly one Nexis search for "ABA," "award" and "Guantanamo" to find that the 2006 "Outstanding Scholar Award" at the ABA annual banquet was given to New York University law professor Anthony G. Amsterdam for his "extensive pro bono practice, litigating cases that range from civil rights claims, to death penalty defense, to claims of access to the courts for the detainees at Guantanamo Bay."

A rule I have is: You're not defending an unpopular client if you're getting awards from the ABA, particularly if the award mentions "courage."

You'll never see a pompous letter like the one attacking Liz Cheney on behalf of any lawyer defending clients who are unpopular with lawyers, which terrorists are not.

Ken Starr, a signatory to the "Please God, Let This Get Me a Good Obituary in The New York Times" letter, once, totally by mistake, had a case unpopular with the establishment: Bill Clinton's impeachment.

He's shown his mettle by saying that if he met Clinton today, he'd say "I'm sorry." Because isn't that what Jesus said? Be very concerned with the opinion of the world!

Speaking of which, I also never heard any testimonials to the sacred duty of lawyers to defend unpopular causes when every lawyer working on the Clinton impeachment was being smeared as a "tobacco lawyer."

Tobacco companies, being wildly unpopular, are in need of a lot of legal services. Scratch any litigator from a big law firm and you'll find someone who, if necessary, could be slimed as a "tobacco lawyer."

You will notice a pattern developing: We only hear paeans to the "American tradition of zealous representation of unpopular clients" when it's being used to defend causes popular with liberals -- serial killers, terrorists and a horny hick who promised to save partial-birth abortion.

Lawyers want to be congratulated for their courage in defending "unpopular" clients, while taking cases that are utterly noncontroversial in their social circles.

They'd be scared to death to take the case of an anti-abortion activist. Defending the guy who killed George Tiller the Baby Killer won't make them a superstar at the next ABA convention.

Not only do Americans have a right to know the legal backgrounds of lawyers setting detainee policy at the Department of Justice, but I personally demand the right not to have to listen to Eddie Haskell lawyers constantly claiming to be Atticus Finch.

In Marjah, Rooting Out The Taliban Is Only The Start

An NPR story by TOM BOWMAN

Thousands of U.S. and Afghan forces are continuing an offensive to clear insurgents from Helmand province in southern Afghanistan.

It's been a long slog, with dozens of casualties and the continued threat of roadside bombs. But the most difficult part of the operation — paving the way for effective local governance — has only just begun.

People in Marjah and places like Marjah have actually preferred the Taliban to the government because of the lack of security, the lack of justice, the lack rule of law that past missions have represented.

- Alex Thier, Afghanistan expert at the U.S. Institute of Peace

Marine Brig. Gen. Larry Nicholson has been at war with insurgents in Afghanistan for more than a year. After operations last summer in Helmand province and the fight now against the Taliban in Marjah, Nicholson reminds his troops of this basic reality.

"I tell the Marines consistently that — and they always give me big eyeballs when I say [it] — we cannot win this war, we can't possibly win it, but we can help the Afghans win it," Nicholson told reporters.

Helping the Afghans win means offering a better life. But Nicholson, speaking recently from Afghanistan, says not everyone in Marjah believes that will happen.

"We've got a very skeptical population here, though. The population here is concerned about what we're going to be able to do for them," he said.

That's because if they have seen any government at all, says Nicholson, it's been corrupt politicians and police chiefs. The Marines say they have a "narrow window" to win over the residents of Marjah.

The U.S. has "failed to maintain security and to establish decent enough governance," said Alex Thier, an Afghanistan expert at the U.S. Institute of Peace, a nonpartisan group created by Congress.

Thier says in past military operations in Afghanistan, the Americans were never able to provide security and better governance.

EnlargePatrick Baz/AFP/Getty Images

A U.S. Marine officer with the 1/3 Charlie Company guards an Afghan family in Trikh Nawar on the northeastern outskirts of Marjah in February.

"People in Marjah and places like Marjah have actually preferred the Taliban to the government because of the lack of security, the lack of justice, the lack rule of law that past missions have represented," he said.

But, as Thier acknowledges, these issues are "enormously" out of U.S. hands. He says there has been one clear lesson from America's involvement in places like Vietnam, Bosnia and Iraq.

"Unless it is ultimately under local leadership, then we will not succeed," he said.

U.S. military leaders in Afghanistan are aware that history is not on their side, but they say their mission is to try anyway. So U.S. forces have been transporting local leadership and bureaucrats into Marjah by convoy. Those leaders will have to demonstrate to residents that they are the legitimate government.

One U.S. official who requested anonymity says the second test will be if and when those leaders will deliver schools, health clinics and jobs to residents.

It is these basic-level services that Afghans are looking for most, British Maj. Gen. Nick Carter, the top NATO officer in Afghanistan's south, told reporters at a briefing at Kandahar Air Base.

But he says local leaders just aren't getting the help they need from the national government, long seen as corrupt and incompetent.

"Trying to get Afghan capacity from Kabul in support of the district governors is challenging. But nonetheless there are some good Afghans stepping up to the plate in Kabul that are able to deliver what Afghans require on the ground. We're talking about basic stuff, basic human needs," Carter said.

The Marines are delivering some of those basic human needs.

The third part of the plan is long-term projects, also run by the Americans and the international community. One is an agricultural development program that will bring tens of millions of dollars to Marjah and elsewhere in Helmand province. The aid money will help rebuild the rural economy with wheat and vegetable crops, along with fruit trees such as pomegranates.

Richard Owens, who manages the program for the State Department, says it will begin with a quick infusion of cash for work — which will include everything from rebuilding markets destroyed under the Taliban era to cleaning out and repairing irrigation canals and re-establishing plant nurseries.

Owens hopes to begin soon, once Marjah is more stable.

"We have a team ready to move out and begin cash for work. At this point we're just waiting for a green light," he said.