truetexan's Blog

If healthcare is an issue for you this post is a MUST READ,especially for those that voted for obama because of his healthcare plans.

Daschle-Obama Health Care Possibilities A Commentary by Tony Blankley Wednesday, November 26, 2008

As President-elect Obama's apparent choice for health and human services secretary and as White House health care czar, it is a fair guess that Tom Daschle's view on health care legislation may be decisive.

So it is worth reading his book "Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis," in which the gracious former Senate leader lays out without equivocation both the policy he recommends and the tactics for how to pass it.

He proposes setting up a board to establish standards for health care delivery in the United States that would be modeled on how the Federal Reserve Board and Securities and Exchange Commission oversee banks and corporations. Technically, it only would oversee the public health systems (Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Health Administration, etc.), which provide about 32 percent of health care nationwide.

On Page 179, he writes, "The Federal Health Board wouldn't be a regulatory agency, but its recommendations would have teeth because all federal health programs would have to abide by them." But here is the kicker: Although his board technically would have no say on the 68 percent of health care that is provided through the private sector, at the bottom of Page 179, Daschle modestly adds: "Congress could opt to go further with the Board's recommendations. It could, for example, link the tax exclusion for health insurance to insurance that complies with the Board's recommendation."

Those last 19 words would spell the end of independent private-sector health care in America. Obviously, no health insurance would be sold if it were denied the tax deduction. Thus, every policy, every standard decided by this board would be the law of the land for every drug company, every hospital, every doctor and every health insurance company.

Indeed, 20 pages later, in the section in which he identifies "losers" under his plan, Daschle is admirably candid. Among the explicit "losers,” he includes: "Doctors and patients might resent any encroachment on their ability to choose certain treatments, even if they are expensive or ineffectual compared to alternatives. Some insurers might object to new rules that restrict their coverage decisions. And (SET ITAL) the health-care industry would have to reconsider its business plan (END ITAL) (emphasis added)." That is to say, they can stay in business and deliver their services, but only as the government bureaucrats say they may. They no longer would be genuinely independent.

One of the things that Daschle says will have to change is the "technology arms race" he claims hospitals are engaging in "to attract aging baby boomers with the latest diagnostic imaging machines." Imagine that, offering customers the latest technology, which, as Daschle admits on Page 125, "help(s) doctors estimate the spread of cancer or the extent of cardiac disease without surgery."

Of course, for Daschle, the problem with such high-tech diagnostics is that it leads to treatment. On pages 123-124, he cites a study approvingly for the proposition that there are too many angiograms being performed. By too many, he specifically cites a study of 828 angioplasties in which only a third were likely to benefit the patients. Another half might or might not, and 14 percent were not likely. Now I might conclude that if 85 percent of the patients receiving the treatment might benefit (the one-third who definitely would and the 50 percent who might) and if I were one of them, I might want the procedure. But for Daschle, that would be a waste of money, and "the imaging test that shows narrowing of the arteries was to blame (for the excessive treatment)."

What followed is my favorite line in the book: "When the test revealed a narrowing of the artery, however slight, cardiologists couldn't resist doing something about it." Imagine a doctor trying to cure his patient.

Cardiologists may have thought they were carrying out their responsibilities. But under the Daschle(/Obama?) plan, political hacks appointed to the Health board will decide whether your cardiologist is allowed to image your arteries and, if they find blockage, try to treat it successfully.

But that is not all he doesn't like about private-sector health care. On Page 174, he points out the dangers of letting drug companies advertise their products to the public: The public may want the drugs even if some Washington bureaucrat likes another drug instead.

He believes that Americans are not entitled to just any care that might do some good. Yep, Page 122: "Many patients with insurance want any care that might do some good, and plenty of doctors will oblige them."

Recognizing that some of these ideas may not be vastly popular, he recommends two basic legislative strategies. First, seek to pass the legislation early in the first year of the president's first term, when he is most popular and is least likely to be resisted. That is a valid analysis.

The other strategy, which is very smart, is to leave the nasty details out of the bill. He says that was one of Clinton's mistakes in 1993. Clinton put too many details in the bill, thus alerting those who disagreed to mount an opposition (pages 108-109). Daschle recommends passing a vague bill and then "a Federal Health Board should be charged with establishing the system's framework and filling in most of the details. This independent board would be insulated from political pressure."

By "political pressure," he means the democratic process of electing fellow citizens to Congress who then pass legislation about which the public is informed before final passage -- and about which they may wish to petition their government for redress of grievances. Apparently, we can end petty bickering and partisanship by not letting anyone know what the new laws will contain.

Tony Blankley is executive vice president of Edelman public relations in Washington.

This is just a short quiz to test your knowledge of your faith.

    Would you belong to or  join a church or religious org. who's bible taught that it is ok to,

   #1: Be homo-sexual

    #2:Have sexual relations with children

    #3: Have more than one wife

   #4: Have sexual relations with your own children

  If your bible or religion teaches against any of the above please QUOTE the scripture.

  I will respond in a day or so,how little you pay attention may suprise you.

You scream "EQUAL" but when the people say not, you Assault and beat up little old ladies.   Now a company offers a service and it does not "include"YOU,this is how YOU react. eHarmony forced to offer same-sex dating services; Update: And now, a class-action lawsuit By Michelle Malkin  •  November 20, 2008 12:59 AM

 

So, this is “progress?” eHarmony, a Christian-targeted dating website, gets sued by a gay man demanding that the business match him up with a same-sex partner. The New Jersey Attorney General intervenes on behalf of the gay plaintiff and forces eHarmony to change its entire business model. To be clear: The company never refused to do business with anyone. Their great “sin” was not providing a specialized service that litigious gay people demanded they provide. This case is akin to a meat-eater suing a vegetarian restaurant for not offering him a ribeye or a female patient suing a vasectomy doctor for not providing her hysterectomy services. Sadly, eHarmony has settled . I wish they hadn’t, but I understand the decision given the chilling antics of the anti-Prop. 8 mob. The company agreed not only to offer same-sex dating services on a new site, but also to offer six-month subscriptions for free to 10,000 gay users. Behold the submission:

Coming soon to EHarmony — Adam and Steve.

The Pasadena-based dating website, heavily promoted by Christian evangelical leaders when it was founded, has agreed in a civil rights settlement to give up its heterosexuals-only policy and offer same-sex matches.

EHarmony was started by psychologist Neil Clark Warren, who is known for his mild-mannered television and radio advertisements. It must not only implement the new policy by March 31 but also give the first 10,000 same-sex registrants a free six-month subscription.

“That was one of the things I asked for,” said Eric McKinley, 46, who complained to New Jersey’s Division on Civil Rights after being turned down for a subscription in 2005.

The company said that Warren was not giving interviews on the settlement. But attorney Theodore Olson, who issued a statement on the company’s behalf, made clear that it did not agree to offer gay matches willingly. “Even though we believed that the complaint resulted from an unfair characterization of our business,” Olson said, “we ultimately decided it was best to settle this case with the attorney general since litigation outcomes can be unpredictable.”

The settlement, which did not find that EHarmony broke any laws, calls for the company to either offer the gay matches on its current venue or create a new site for them. EHarmony has opted to create a site called Compatiblepartners.net.

Warren had said in past interviews that he didn’t want to feature same-sex services on EHarmony — which matches people based on long questionnaires concerning personality traits, relationship history and interests — because he felt he didn’t know enough about gay relationships.

eHarmony had been previously sued by a lesbian looking to force the company to match her up with another woman and by a married man who sought to force the company to hook him up in an adulterous relationship.

Perhaps heterosexual men and women should start filing lawsuits against gay dating websites and undermine their business. Coerced tolerance and diversity-by-fiat cut both ways.

Update 4pm Eastern 11/20. Geez. Now, a California judge has approved a class-action lawsuit by gays against eHarmony. When it rains, it pours:

(onlinedatingmagazine.com - November 20, 2008) A California Superior Court judge has certified a class action lawsuit against eHarmony.com for discrimination against gays and lesbians in California. The news comes one day after eHarmony settled a case in the State of New Jersey where a gay man accused the company of discrimination. In that settlement, eHarmony agreed to open up a service that matches gays and lesbians.

That announcement had no affect in the California case, which is moving forward.

Despite Bells and Whistles, 'Office of President-Elect' Holds No Authority The props that decorate the stage for the Office of the President-elect serve as just that, since Barack Obama will hold no actual authority in the Executive Branch until Jan. 20.

 

FOXNews.com

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

  Monday: President-elect Barack Obama introduces members of his economic team, including Timothy Geithner and Christina Romer (AP Photo).

President-elect Barack Obama is looking very presidential these days. When he makes an announcement, he is ringed by American flags and stands behind a lectern that has a very presidential-looking placard announcing "The Office of the President-Elect." 

But the props are merely that. Under the Constitution, there is no such thing as the Office of the President-elect. Technically, Obama will not even become the president-elect until the Electoral College convenes after the second Wednesday in December and elects him based on the results of the Nov. 4 general election, as stated in the Constitution.

So what is Obama's executive authority in the weeks leading to Jan. 20?

In the 11 weeks between Election Day and Inauguration Day, the next president must ensure a smooth transition by selecting political appointees to manage key agencies and offices within the Executive Branch, and by creating the policies that will define the new administration -- all while respecting the authority held by the current president.

The Presidential Transition Act -- created in 1963 and amended in 2000 -- establishes formal provisions for the transition period by outlining training and other assistance that the president-elect and his team of advisers can receive as they prepare to assume office.

The amended bill -- co-sponsored by lawmakers including former Sen. Fred Thompson, Sen. Joe Lieberman, and Sen. Dick Durbin -- calls for the "training and orientation of high-level presidential appointees," among other things, as well as more efficient background checks to ensure individuals are properly vetted and confirmed for office.

"New administrations face a series of hurdles they must overcome to accomplish this essential task before they can begin to govern," Lieberman told Congress in 1999 while arguing in favor of the amended legislation.

The original bill also allowed the president-elect and vice president-elect certain "services and facilities," like suitable office space to conduct transition operations, public funds to pay their staff's salaries and money to transport workers to and from Washington.

Obama has employed over 500 staffers to assist in his transition operations -- working from a nondescript office building in downtown Washington and from locations in his hometown of Chicago.

His transition team has received a budget of $12 million -- $5.2 million of which was allocated by Congress, and the rest from private donations of under $5,000.

As president-elect, Obama is also given the same highly classified intelligence briefings that President Bush receives on a daily basis. And Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden get full Secret Service protection, which Obama also received during the Democratic primaries and general election campaign.

But the "Office of the President-Elect," while critical in building the future government, has no official power -- which Obama himself acknowledged during his victory speech in Chicago on Election Night.

"It is an office -- it's just a quasi-government office for planning the takeover of the government," said Stephen J. Wayne, a professor at Georgetown University's department of government.

"Obama has no formal power as far as the existing government is concerned, but he has a lot of informal influence, which President Bush has encouraged," he added.

Wayne compared the function of the "Office of the President-Elect" to spring training in baseball.
"It doesn't count in the standings, but it does contribute to a team's ability to do well from day one," he said.

The extensive operations and considerable funding for Obama's transition office are not unique. President Bush received $8.5 million to fund his transition team -- a sum that was "unprecedented at the time," according to Georgetown University government professor Chris Hull.

"The Bush administration built their transition team a month before the election was over to make sure it would be a fully-functioning office on November 5," he said.

Despite its lack of formal power, some argue that the "Office of the President-Elect" must maintain an official and authoritative front -- even if just for show. This transition comes at a particularly vulnerable time for the U.S. government in protecting against terrorism -- as evidenced in 1993 when terrorists bombed the World Trade Center as former President Bill Clinton prepared to take office.

"President Bush and President-Elect Obama have stressed together that the times of transition are particularly perilous in terms of terrorist strikes," said Hull. "The President-Elect and his team must appear to maintain confidence."

A lighter side of how a POLITICIAN THINKS.

 

Obama Misses the (Extra) Point

Monday, November 24, 2008

By John R. Lott Jr.

Politicians pose as the ultimate experts. They may never have worked in an industry or studied an issue before, but after few months of time on a topic they know everything: the types of cars that should be produced, the science of global warming, and how much doctors should charge for different types of surgery.

Outside of studying law, few in Congress even have backgrounds that are closely related to some of the issues covered by government. Just take the Senate this year, almost half, 45, are attorneys. Only one doctor, four farmers, 13 business people, seven teachers, four professors (all law, and three are listed as just adjuncts), and virtually all the others list their past experience as professional politician. No members of the Senate are scientists or economists. One member of the Senate played professional sports, and another owned a professional sports team.

A president and members of Congress deal with thousands of complicated topics each year. But is there anything politicians consider off limits?

Apparently not. Take President-elect Barack Obama’s foray last week into how college football should be run. Obama told CBS’s 60 Minutes:

"I think any sensible person would say that, if you've got a bunch of teams who play throughout the season and many of them have one loss or two losses, there's no clear, decisive winner, that we should be creating a playoff system. Eight teams, that would be three rounds to determine a national champion. It would -- it would add three extra weeks to the season. You could trim back on the regular season. I don't know any serious fan of college football who has disagreed with me on this. So I'm going to throw my weight around a little bit. I think it's the right thing to do."

One could surely debate the pros and cons over extended playoffs, and many fans will do so passionately. Some will even point out that we already have a one-game playoff for the two leading college teams.

Obama supports a particular plan -- an eight-team playoff -- to create a “decisive winner,” and he is right that extended playoffs would reduce uncertainty about who has the best team. Still, this won’t eliminate all doubts about who has the best team since a lot more than eight teams consider themselves in the top eight. There is always something more that could be done to further change the system.

Unfortunately, there are drawbacks with proposed change. Extended playoffs might well make the regular-season games less important. Right now there is a lot of pressure not to lose any games -- a single loss can determine whether a team makes the championship game. And playoffs would eliminate the bowl system, where bowl games allow a “rewarding postseason experiences for far more student-athletes than will ever play in a playoff,” according to University of Nebraska Chancellor Harvey Perlman. A shortened regular season that would be necessary to accommodate the extended playoffs means that a lot of traditional rivalries couldn’t be played.

But this debate is really beside the point. The real question is: who should make the decision? Are politicians better at making this choice? Or are those who are directly affected by the decisions? Doesn’t Obama have more important issues to “throw [his] weight” around, anyway?

There is a reason why those most directly affected should make the decision. If colleges make the wrong decision, making college football less interesting, they are the ones who will lose. Their alumni and students will be disappointed.

Are those organizing college football so stupid they don’t realize the benefits that Obama claims exist for a playoff system? Why do we believe that so many people whose jobs are on the line for running colleges are less capable of making good decisions?

True, colleges aren't the same as for-profit firms that must directly and quickly answer to their customers and shareholders. But would those at the top not listen to fans, students, and alumni? Even donations from alumni depend on how much they identify with the school and the excitement that they feel about the team.

The arrogance of politicians can be seen in how politicians just assume that others are making mistakes. If “any serious fan of college football” agrees with Obama, why don’t we see extended playoffs?

The problem isn’t just with college football. Consider the recent debate over Congress bailing out the automobile industry. Democratic majority leader Harry Reid says Congress will give the automobile companies another $25 billion when they provide a “viable plan.” But how is Congress going to evaluate what a “viable plan” is better than the shareholders and bankers whose money is at stake? The auto companies presumably have to turn to Congress for money because others don’t think that they are good investments.

Would you want to invest in a company that congressmen tell you is a viable investment, or in companies where shareholders and banks are willing to put their own money?

Just something to remember during the coming months when Obama and other politicians start telling us how government should run health care or the energy industry. Why do you think that they are more likely to get those complicated industries right than they are to figure out whether college football should have playoffs?