Health Care Reform: Questions for the President | Michael F. Cannon | Cato Institute: Commentary

Health Care Reform: Questions for the President | Michael F. Cannon | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Before this debate is over, Obama should answer a few questions about his plans for reform, including:

Mr. President, in your inaugural address and elsewhere, you said you are not interested in ideology, only what works. Economists Helen Levy of the University of Michigan and David Meltzer of the University of Chicago, where you used to teach, have researched what works. They conclude there is 'no evidence' that universal health insurance coverage is the best way to improve public health. Before enacting universal coverage, shouldn't you spend at least some of the $1 billion you dedicated to comparative-effectiveness research to determine whether universal coverage is comparatively effective? Absent such evidence, isn't pursuing universal coverage by definition an ideological crusade?
A draft congressional report said that comparative-effectiveness research would "yield significant payoffs" because some treatments "will no longer be prescribed." Who will decide which treatments will get the axe? Since government pays for half of all treatments, is it plausible to suggest that government will not insert itself into medical decisions? Or is it reasonable for patients to fear that government will deny them care?
You recently said the United States spends "almost 50 percent more per person than the next most costly nation. And yet ... the quality of our care is often lower, and we aren't any healthier." Achieving universal coverage could require us to spend an additional $2 trillion over the next 10 years. If America already spends too much on health care, why are you asking Americans to spend even more?
You have said, "Making health care affordable for all Americans will cost somewhere on the order of $1 trillion." Precise dollar figures aside, isn't that a contradiction in terms?
Last year, you told a competitiveness summit that rising health care costs are "a major anchor on the ability of American business to compete." In May, you wrote, "Getting spiraling health care costs under control is essential to ... making our businesses more competitive." The head of your Council of Economic Advisors says such claims are "schlocky." Who is right: you or your top economist?
You recently told an audience, "No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people. ... If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what." The Associated Press subsequently reported, "White House officials suggest the president's rhetoric shouldn't be taken literally." You then clarified, "What I'm saying is the government is not going to make you change plans under health reform." Would your reforms encourage employers to drop their health plans?
You found $600 billion worth of inefficiencies that you want to cut from Medicare and Medicaid. If government health programs generate that much waste, why do you want to create another?
You and your advisors argue that Medicare creates misaligned financial incentives that discourage preventive care, comparative-effectiveness research, electronic medical records, and efforts to reduce medical errors. Medicare's payment system is the product of the political process. What gives you faith that the political process can devise less-perverse financial incentives this time?
You claim a new government program would create "a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep insurance companies honest." Since when is having the government enter a market the remedy for insufficient competition? Should the government have launched its own software company to compete with Microsoft? Are there better ways to create more choices and more competition?
When government entered the markets for workers compensation insurance, crop and flood insurance, and disaster insurance, it often completely crowded out private options. Do you expect a new government health insurance program would do the same?
You have said there are "legitimate concerns" that the government might give its new health plan an unfair advantage through taxpayer subsidies or by "printing money." How do you propose to prevent this Congress and future Congresses from creating any unfair advantages?"

Why a Tesla electric car?

Tesla Motors - Customers: "Ilove the Roadster because it’s a hell of a ride – and the end of the day, for EVs to become mainstream options for customers, that’s all that matters. They need all the performance and convenience attributes of a gasoline car. They need to serve as your only car."

Government healthcare and regulating activities

Campaign For Liberty — Politically Homeless: "Often when the debate over the regulation smoking, fast food, and other health choices is brought up someone will eventually slip up and mention the cost to taxpayers - after all we cover there expenses through medicare, medicaid or some other form of socialized medicine. Taking over health care entirely gives that much more room to take away our ability to choose for ourselves."

Whose Right Is It, Anyway? - Art Carden - Mises Institute

Whose Right Is It, Anyway? - Art Carden - Mises Institute: "You and I disapprove of bigotry. But the private virtue of tolerance and the public virtue of pluralism require us to countenance things we do not approve. Tolerance means accepting the fact that other people's values might be very different than your own. Pluralism means eschewing the use of political power as a means for 'correcting' those values.
The idea of tolerating intolerance sounds suspiciously paradoxical, but so do a lot of other good ideas—like freedom of speech for advocates of censorship. In fact, freedom of speech has a lot in common with tolerance: Neither of them means a thing unless it applies equally to those we applaud and those who offend us most viscerally.
Tolerance is ennobling, which is why we should teach it to our children. Pluralism is insurance against tyranny, which is why we should demand it of our government. To speak up for even the most despised minorities is both morally right and politically prudent."

"If I give a government the power to force you to accept my values, I also give them the power to force me to accept your values at some point in the future. Another way of saying this is that any government with the power to take an atheist's money and give it to my church is also a government with the power to take my money and give it to Planned Parenthood. When we use force to restrict others' liberty, we endanger our own."

Jenny Sanford on Husband's Affair: I Told Him Not to See Her - Political News - FOXNews.com

Jenny Sanford on Husband's Affair: I Told Him Not to See Her - Political News - FOXNews.com: "South Carolina first lady Jenny Sanford sat in her oceanfront living room Friday, recalling how her husband repeatedly asked permission to visit his lover in the months after she discovered his affair."

Unbelieveable!

Record-setting fireworks to cap off Fourthfest | Duluth News Tribune

Record-setting fireworks to cap off Fourthfest | Duluth News Tribune | Duluth, Minnesota: "Terry Mattson, CEO of Visit Duluth, said the Duluth fireworks display is “the largest pyrotechnic display in Minnesota. They have earned the reputation as the best around.”

Comparing size of the fireworks display and the shells themselves, the Duluth fireworks are second only to Chicago, Mattson said."

TakeBackMedicine

TakeBackMedicine - Home: "Physicians have stood on sidelines too long as you have watched your control over the practice of medicine taken over by politicians, insurance companies and regulators – people who have never laid a hand on a sick patient, explained to a sobbing child why she needs a “shot,” or made split-second life-or-death decisions.
�
They’ve never know what it’s like to have a make a decision whether to “break the rules” or do what’s best for your patient in spite of the rules.
�
For too long, doctors have been carrying the burden of a scheme that increasingly leaves you out of the decision-making process, and tells you that your first responsibility is to the government or insurance company, rather than your real clients, your patients."

Obama Leaves Door Open to New Tax on Health Benefits - Political News - FOXNews.com

Obama Leaves Door Open to New Tax on Health Benefits - Political News - FOXNews.com: "Hospitals were being asked to accept a reduction of roughly $155 billion over the next decade in fees they are promised under government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, according to numerous officials."

"Baucus is seeking similar concessions from nursing homes, insurance companies, medical device makers and possibly others"

Money doesn't grow on trees and neither do cost reductions. We will pay for that someway or another.

"At its heart, any legislation is expected to require insurance companies to offer coverage to any applicant, without exclusions or higher premiums for pre-existing medical conditions."

So everyone will get higher premiums.

"Current law allows those expenses to be itemized when they exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income. The proposal under review would raise that to 10 percent, officials said."

Only people with massive medical problems will be affected by this so we'll tax the hurting.

"Gerald W. McEntee, president of the 1.6 million-member American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, said in an interview that union leaders believe Obama is 'a person of his word.' He was referring to Obama's opposition to taxing those benefits during last year's campaign.

'They're not going to take it,' McEntee said of workers' views of that proposal. 'They're not going to tolerate that.'"

"ABC News was the lone network broadcasting Obama's town hall -- drawing criticism from Republicans who wanted equal time.

In defense, ABC News President David Westin said the show would 'include a variety of perspectives coming from private individuals asking the president questions and taking issue with him, as they see fit.'"

So that makes it fair? Would they consider it fair to only do a Republican town hall like that?

Stop the Cap-and-Trade Bill

Campaign For Liberty — Stop the Cap-and-Trade Bill: "Supporters of the legislation are of course trying to downplay the cost of this scheme to the American people.

But if the bill does not directly and massively increase energy costs to consumers, how would it possibly achieve its stated aims?"

Supreme Court Rules Strip Search of Child Illegal - US Supreme Court | Cases | Justices - FOXNews.com

Supreme Court Rules Strip Search of Child Illegal - US Supreme Court | Cases | Justices - FOXNews.com: "The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a school's strip search of an Arizona teenage girl accused of having prescription-strength ibuprofen was illegal."

I don't understand why anyone would think it is ok to strip-search someone just because another student claimed she had ibuprofen!