But I’m not really sure yet – its complicated. The word is that his version of the obamacare bill is going to allow states to opt out. The little weasel is taking this approach to offset resistance in Nevada so he can get re-elected.

“We’ve spent countless hours over the last few days in consultation with senators who’ve shown a genuine desire to reform the health-care system,” Reid said. “And I believe there’s a strong consensus to move forward in this direction.” The Senate provision would give states the right to opt out of a government plan, though Reid spokesman Jim Manley was unable to provide further details, describing the legislative language as a work in progress that has yet to be scrutinized by the Congressional Budget Office.

Even though the little weasel is doing it for all the wrong reasons, he is opening the door to a big Obama failure and putting this issue smack-dab in the laps of the states – where it belongs in the first place, if it belongs anywhere at all.

In a, surprisingly, clear view into the mind of a liberal writer, a Washing Post article by David Broder is titled “Damaging option for liberals – Harry Reid’s self-serving bow to states’ rights.”

There is an air of desperate improvisation to Sen. Harry Reid’s scheme to pass a “public option” as part of health-care reform but at the same time provide an easy exemption for any state that objects to it. The warning flags ought to be flying for anyone who can count to three — let alone 60. The Democratic majority leader embraced this odd idea in hopes of satisfying two conflicting imperatives. On the one hand, he is under relentless pressure to satisfy the labor-left of his party in Washington, where a government-sponsored insurance plan has become the symbolic prize in the game, and back home in Nevada, where he needs union support to survive a scary election next year.

Now that is one fine example of speaking out of “both sides of ones mouth” isn’t it? It really does smack of desperation.

Broder goes on to pose the questions “Consider the precedent that would be set if a major piece of social legislation were to be passed with a states’ rights provision. Imagine, for example, if Franklin Roosevelt had signed the first Social Security law with the proviso that any states with Republican governors and legislatures could exempt themselves from its coverage.”

Just imagine. States exercising their rights. What an outrageous concept!

The problem, of course, is that even if states opted out, the coverage for the ones that didn’t opt out would be paid for, in part, by the the residents of the states that did opt out.

On the other hand, imagine all the moochers and illegaliens who would move out of the opted out states to the states which didn’t opt out. There’s a benefit to consider. It might even be a big enough benefit to offset the disproportionate taxation. If the moochers and illegaliens moved out, they would take their welfare, healthcare, free housing, etc with them. Those of us left would no longer be burdened with meeting all of their needs. That cost saving might offset the lost taxes. And, without the free healthcare given to the moochers and illegaliens healthcare costs would drop dramatically in the opt-out states making healthcare in those states more affordable. Hmmmm. That sounds like a plan to me.

Go Harry!

When you think about it, I think everyone would agree that reform is called for.  But what reform?  Follow models which have been shown not to work?  Well that doesn’t sound too bright to me.

One of the problems lies in the definition of “healthcare reform”.  There is no specific definition – everyone defines it to mean the reform they want.  Consequently there will never be agreement or satisfaction.  So lets just take a few specific measures to make some specific changes, see how that works and come back to it again if we can improve it even more.

Here are my thoughts on some areas of healthcare which could use some reform.

Tort reform. Lets put an end to ridiculous awards.  The fact is, every time there is an enormous “punitive damages” award it moves money out of your pocket (through increased medical malpractice insurance premiums passed on to you in the form of increased cost of service) and into the pockets of trial lawyers and “victims”.  That does nothing to keep medical costs down.  Mistakes happen in life.  From time to time a surgeon will leave a sponge in you after closing you up.  So what.  Your life probably wasn’t in danger.  But through TV ads you think you can hit the lottery.  That’s not right.  Lower the cost of treatment by lowering the cost of medical malpractice insurance by limitation of ridiculous awards to something representative of actual damage.

Emergency care. Stop treating anything except genuine emergencies in emergency rooms.  A runny nose is not an emergency and using the most expensive facility along with the most highly trained emergency healthcare personnel to treat non-emergencies is wasteful.  Stupid too.  People with genuine emergencies are writhing around on the floor waiting for a room which is occupied by someone with a hangnail to vacate it. Provide vouchers to those who qualify for care at a local physician or doc-in-the-box – there are plenty of them around.  Provide “non-emergency care vouchers” to anyone who qualifies for indigent care.  The details could easily be worked out to include showing a food stamp card or an unemployment check stub or some other government-issued item to prove indigence.

Illegal Immigration reform. Put a stop to illegal aliens coming here and running up the cost of medicine for the legal residents who have to pay for it.  When an illegal alien shows up for treatment, treat them, arrest them, ship them back on the next flight, sell whatever they have to pay for the treatment, deduct taxes from whats left and send them the balance.  Require that anyone wiring  money out of the country be required to prove they are here legally.

Care without payment. If someone states they cannot afford treatment, check to see that they really can’t.  Check property records, car registration, employment, etc. and make a determination as to whether they can’t pay or just don’t want to pay. Whether we like it or not, we should recognize that we have enabled a segment of society that is defined by moochiness.  If they can’t pay, as a caring society we should pay for them.  On the other hand, if its some mooch who doesn’t want to sell their Cadillac to pay for their own healthcare that’s another story.

The exorbitant price of prescription drugs. This is usually justified by the drug companies claiming that research drives up the price.  That could be true.  I’ve got two suggestions.

• Establish a national drug research laboratory and begin developing patent-free drugs for production by any qualified manufacturer – in or out of the United States.  Put our brain power to work for us.  Make a deal with qualified science graduates to pay off their student loans after a period of time with the national lab.  Look at how well NASA and the CDC work for us.  it can be done.  The long-term benefits and spin-offs from the research at NASA are astounding and undeniable.  If it worked like NASA has, we’d probably end up curing cancer and every other ailment thanks to the research and testing done by the national lab.
• Establish an “export tax” on drugs exported from the US to other countries.  If drug manufacturers want to sell drugs which cost $100 in the US for $10 to Canada tax them $90 and bring parity.  Of course we could have exceptions for those countries who can’t afford drugs needed for national epidemics.   Why should we be burdened with the cost of research so other countries can benefit?  Let them pay their share of the research costs.  Of course this would result in drug companies charging them the same as they do us which would lead to more competition among the drug companies and result in fair pricing.  Overall, it would bring the cost of drugs down in the US and raise the price of drugs in other countries.  Maybe their socialized healthcare systems wouldn’t look so good to those in the US who think socialized medicine is the way to go  if Americans weren’t subsidizing the cost of their medications…

When Republicans were waving copies of their healthcare proposals in the air, he should have stopped his speech, pointed at one of them and asked the congressman to bring it up and give it to him.  Or, he could have sent someone to fetch it.  In either case he would have been seen literally asking for the plan.  If it had turned out to be a prop he could have exposed it right there.  If it was an actual plan he could have promised to read it and incorporate any good ideas.

He blew his chance because the thought of reading proposals from Republicans never occurred to him. He’s not really interested in what Republicans or Conservatives have to say.  He’s not really interested in the specifics of a healthcare bill.  He is only interested in passing something identified as healthcare reform with his name on it.  That’s it.

He has gotten himself to a critical juncture in his career and is now scrambling to have any credibility at all.  He has hyped this issue to the max and cannot let it go away – if it does, so does his presidency.  So his only solution is to get something called Healthcare Reform passed by an increasingly contentious and polarized congress.  They could label a McDonald’s menu as The Healthcare Reform Bill and as long as it is called Healthcare Reform he will be happy.  He can spout all he wants to about what he’ll sign or not, but my money is on his signature no matter what is contained in the bill.

Morally, the self-serving factor should be considered when the decision affects only you.  In othe words, if you represent others (publically-held corporation, government entity, non-profit organization, etc.) the self-serving factor should not be allowed to come into play.

Why, in the face of continuing and mounting losses (offset to some degree by continuing and mounting price increases),  is the United States Post Office not offering email distribution for the various federal, state and local governments?  Logic tells me it is not better, cheaper and faster.  So why hassn’t government created their own service for email to replace the independent contractor they currently use?  Well, I suspect they think the timely and successful delivery of their email is too important to them to put it into the hands of a government bureaucracy.

Yet, they are anxious to run healthcare.  Yours, not theirs.  Can government-run healthcare be proven to be better, cheaper or faster?  Of course not.  The only way to do that would be to try it for a while and examine the results.  Given the historically poor track record of bureaucracy, self-serving politicians, special interest groups and lobbyists a national health care system is doomed to fail.

• Current Massachusetts law prohibits the governor from appointing a replacement. Ironically it was Kennedy himself who instigated the change while Mitt Romney was governor in order to prevent Romney from appointing a replacement in the event that Kerry won the 2008 Presidential Nomination. Kennedy recently sent a letter urging a change back so that Deval Patrick, the current governor, would be able to appoint Kennedy’s replacement if he died in office. Pretty hypocritical, but that’s politics.
• This issue is very hot and one vote really counts. So much so that the senate is considering the very slippery manuever of reconciliation in order to get around the possibility that the peoples elected Republican Senators and a few “blue dog” democrats might be successful in defeating it.
• The summer recess has demonstrated clearly that an awful lot of vociferous voters are adamantly opposed to obamacare and self-serving politicians want nothing more than to keep there seats and stay in positions of power, influence and free lunches from lobbyists.
• Senator Kennedy was a champion for national healthcare. In fact, you could say he was the face of healthcare. Without his indefatigable support and tremendous political influence some senators who might otherwise have reluctantly been on board with it may waiver in their support.

Logically, to me anyway, the above factors put an end (for now) to obamacare. Lets watch and see if I’m correct.

1. The government funds the set-up of “cooperatives” which, ostensibly, are set up to provide an alternative to conventional health insurance companies. The idea is that the cooperatives would provide a more “cost-effective” alternative to conventional health insurance providers and/or provide a health insurance option to those who are denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions deemed unprofitable to insure.

2. First, it will be necessary to organize, staff and provide infrastucture to the cooperatives as none of this exists now.

• This opens the floodgates to ACORN-type organizations to begin their own bureaucratic businesses.
• It takes the pressure off conventional insurance companies to re-consider their healthcare decisions as it can then be said that people have an alternative.
• Billions of dollars will be used to organize, staff and provide infrastructure – none of which will provide any healthcare to anyone.

3. Once steps 1 & 2 are complete, the process of providing actual healthcare begins.

Due to the bureaucratic nature of the cooperatives, the opportunites for graft and abuse of power will be innumerable.

• Local activists will demand, and get, coverage for anyone in their group regardless of ability to pay, immigration status or any other aspect not related to the constituency of the activist group. Because the cooperatives depend upon the “largesse” of the government to exist they will have to bend to the will of the activists regardless of the monetary consequences.

4. There will, no doubt, be an Administration-appointed “healthcare cooperative czar”.

The czar will be under political and party pressure to insure anyone who is not conventionally insured. This will result in the czar dictating health coverage policy based on political pressure.

• The czar’s power will derive from the Adminsitration and funding from congress.
• The cooperatives may (almost certainly) also find themselves under the authority of the various states and municipalities in which they operate, adding additional layers of bureaucracy and the inevitable corruption which is part and parcel of bureaucracy.

5. When additional funding, beyond the original mandate, is required to offset losses (and it most certainly will be) the only source will be the American Taxpayer. It is possible that “donations” to the cooperatives will be tax-deductible, again effectively resulting in tax increases on everyone else.

When conventional insurers are seen to be “unfairly” causing problems for the cooperatives, such as denying unprofitable coverage and causing the cooperatives raise prices, the government has two basic choices: additonal funding to the cooperatives or mandating unprofitable coverage from the insurers.

• Every possible “cure” will have to be considered and (depending on who you know, how you vote, or who you pay off) paid for without consideration of cost or efficacy.
• “Alternative Healers” will thrive and become a huge government-funded industry.
• The czar will dictate what “appropriate” charges for care and treatement are like Medicare does now. This will result in fewer people entering the medical field, fewer business providing healthcare, testing etc. and Canadian-type waiting periods for service.

6. The result will be that trojan horse is exposed and the U.S. will effectively be in the Universal Health Coverage business which was the intent all along.

At every election, the party which represents the people covered by the cooperatives will have the threat of loss of coverage as their #1 plank. Realistically, who would you vote for if you believed your healthcare hung in the balance?

• The above point, if accurate, will guarantee a greater divide between the “haves” and the “have-nots” which will result in social unrest at never-before-seen levels.
• Taxes to cover the shortfall of the cooperatives will have to be raised, but not for those who are actually in the cooperatives.
• We will be flooded with illegal aliens seeking free healthcare.
• Some people will have less of an incentive to have gainful employment.

7. Those who currently pay for their own healthcare will be dis-incentivized to continue to do so and will drop it and join the cooperatives.

Steady loss of paying customers will cause insurance companies to find ways to offset the loss of income: more stringent review of coverage, layoffs, closings, etc.

• The result of the above measures to stay profitable will result in a “virus” which will take down the healthcare industry.

8. Ultimately, the private healthcare industry will fail due to regulation and unprofitability in the same way that private delivery companies like Fedex and UPS would fail if the government regulated what they could do or charge based upon what it took to keep the USPS operating without continued government subsidies. Follow the analogy below:

In this analogy, the  USPS equates to government-sponsored healthcare, private delivery companies equate to private healthcare providers and cooperatives equate to junk mailers.

Junk Mailers cannot survive without the USPS due to the low rates provided them. If the USPS closes or raises rates to achieve profitability, the junk mailers are in trouble. Currently the US government subsidizes the industry, so in effect tax-payers are paying to have their mailboxes filled with junk mail. Ironically, trees are dying every day in order to fill up re-cycling bins to save the environment.

If the government chose to fund a fleet of airplanes to deliver packages without consideration to profitability or efficiency, the for-profit delivery companies would be forced to raise rates or close up shop. If they raise rates, either the public pays more or the service shrinks. If either of those two things happen, the USPS is the benficiary.

That means that all tax-payers have to pick up the financial slack, thereby shifting the cost of package delivery to everyone rather than focusing it on those who need the service.

The junk mailers will do whatever is necessary to protect their business. They will hire lobbyists to sway the votes of congresspeople towards bills which benefit their industry. They will complain to congress saying that since poor people cannot afford overnight delivery that they are being discriminated against and that junk mail should be delivered overnight at no additional cost by the USPS in order to “level the playing field”.

Finally, since decisions regarding the industry are made based only on criteria related to providing service to people who can’t afford it, might not want it, or don’t deserve it,  the private providers fail. Investors in those companies lose their money. The previously provided service it provided by the government-subsidized USPS and the entire industry becomes like the Mexican Post Office where it can take weeks to get mail if it arrives at all and where you might have to pay off your postman to get the mail. And the postman can’t be fired because he is the nephew of the Postmaster.