Miss M (as in M is for Money) hosts this week's roundup of finance posts, built round some old chestnuts.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Sunday, November 15, 2009
CMS on ObamaCare: Epic Fail
Two of the major (purported) benefits of ObamaCare cited by its proponents are reduction of health care costs and increased availability of health insurance. Advocates also claim that we can achieve these two goals while saving tax-payer money.
As we recently noted, a study by Wellpoint put the lie to these assertions.
Now comes another report, this one from that noted mouthpiece for private insurers, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which drives the nails even deeper into the coffin:
"With the exception of the proposed reductions in Medicare payment updates for institutional providers, the provisions of H.R. 3962 would not have a significant impact on future health care cost growth rates."
In fact, absent those hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicare cuts, the cost of health care actually increases under Obamacare. And that's based on historically low-ball gummint-touted numbers. The reality is likely to be far worse.
There's bad news about the much-touted "Public Option," as well:
"[P]ublic plan premiums would be roughly 4 percent higher than private as a result of antiselection by enrollees." [emphasis in original]
So much for the promise of lower health insurance costs.
But then, that's what we've been saying all along.
[Hat Tip: Politico]
As we recently noted, a study by Wellpoint put the lie to these assertions.
Now comes another report, this one from that noted mouthpiece for private insurers, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which drives the nails even deeper into the coffin:
"With the exception of the proposed reductions in Medicare payment updates for institutional providers, the provisions of H.R. 3962 would not have a significant impact on future health care cost growth rates."
In fact, absent those hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicare cuts, the cost of health care actually increases under Obamacare. And that's based on historically low-ball gummint-touted numbers. The reality is likely to be far worse.
There's bad news about the much-touted "Public Option," as well:
"[P]ublic plan premiums would be roughly 4 percent higher than private as a result of antiselection by enrollees." [emphasis in original]
So much for the promise of lower health insurance costs.
But then, that's what we've been saying all along.
[Hat Tip: Politico]
Friday, November 13, 2009
Cavalcade of Risk #92: Call for submissions
Next week's Cav is hosted by Jason Shafrin, the Health Care Economist. Submissions are due this Monday (the 16th), and Jason would like to remind you to include:
■ Your blog's url
■ Your post's url
■ The post's trackback URL (if available)
■ A (brief) summary of the post
And PLEASE remember: ONLY posts that relate to risk (not personal finance tips and the like).
You can submit your post via Blog Carnival or email.
Thanks, and have a GREAT Weekend!
■ Your blog's url
■ Your post's url
■ The post's trackback URL (if available)
■ A (brief) summary of the post
And PLEASE remember: ONLY posts that relate to risk (not personal finance tips and the like).
You can submit your post via Blog Carnival or email.
Thanks, and have a GREAT Weekend!
Thursday, November 12, 2009
The Skinny on Fat Mums versus the MVNHS©
It's not enough that the MVNHS© considers newborns "at risk" if their mums are a bit zaftig.
Now comes word that expectant mums may not have the opportunity to actually be admitted to hospital (as the Brits say):
"Mothers-to-be who have a body mass index (BMI) of over 34, the equivalent of an average woman of 5ft 6ins weighing 15 stone, will be turned away from Weston General Hospital, Weston-super-Mare, Somerset."
Ooops, better watch that weight gain, gals!
Fear not, though, portly preggies have to travel but 20 miles to the next closest facility. Assuming, of course, that they can make it that far when contractions are minutes apart.
Quick - Let's do that here!
Now comes word that expectant mums may not have the opportunity to actually be admitted to hospital (as the Brits say):
"Mothers-to-be who have a body mass index (BMI) of over 34, the equivalent of an average woman of 5ft 6ins weighing 15 stone, will be turned away from Weston General Hospital, Weston-super-Mare, Somerset."
Ooops, better watch that weight gain, gals!
Fear not, though, portly preggies have to travel but 20 miles to the next closest facility. Assuming, of course, that they can make it that far when contractions are minutes apart.
Quick - Let's do that here!
Unconstitutional, But "Fair"
Seems that the lower chamber of Congress echoes the sentiments of the upper:
"The legislation is very fair in this respect."
Dear. Lord.
[Video courtesy of RedState]
"The legislation is very fair in this respect."
Dear. Lord.
[Video courtesy of RedState]
Southwest Ohio Network Alert: Medical Mutual Edition
Once again, Premier Health (and its associated hospital network, including Miami Valley) is on the outs with a major carrier. This time, Medical Mutual of Ohio has declined to renew its contract with Premier, effective January 1st of next year (about 7 weeks away). This could mean a potentially huge disruption of service: in addition to over 100 local doc's, the network includes Miami Valley and Good Samaritan Hospitals, and a home health care agency.
This isn't the first time that the network has clashed with insurers: about this time last year, Humana and Premier parted ways, and have yet to reconcile. And a few years before that, Anthem and Premier separated for quite some time before they kissed and made up.
My guess, based on the timing, is that MMO is looking to pressure Premier into concessions on price; this isn't a bad tactic, per se, and could result in some savings for their insureds. This far out, it gives both sides time to posture, and still come to an agreement before the clock runs out.
We'll keep you posted.
This isn't the first time that the network has clashed with insurers: about this time last year, Humana and Premier parted ways, and have yet to reconcile. And a few years before that, Anthem and Premier separated for quite some time before they kissed and made up.
My guess, based on the timing, is that MMO is looking to pressure Premier into concessions on price; this isn't a bad tactic, per se, and could result in some savings for their insureds. This far out, it gives both sides time to posture, and still come to an agreement before the clock runs out.
We'll keep you posted.
Small Town, Big (Insurance) Troubles
Recently, FoIB Rick Byrne tipped me to a fascinating, if convoluted, story out of northeast Ohio. There's as much small-town politics as group health insurance in this tale; I'll be focusing on the latter as much as possible.
Briefly, this suburb of Youngstown is home to some 12,000 residents. It's governed by an eight-person city council, and and has about 60 employees. These employees (and some of the city council staff) are covered by a group health insurance plan issued by Anthem, which has recently notified them of a renewal rate increase.
And thus our story unfolds.
A short time ago, one of the council members proposed deleting staff from the group plan. Dan Yemma, an insurance broker himself (although not the agent for the city's plan), thought that only certain classes of employees should be covered, and that shrinking the group would be an efficient way to save money. For whatever reason, this proposal was deep-sixed, and things went on as they had.
To a point:
The Anthem renewal increase was for 13% (a not unreasonable percentage in this market, but well above the city's anticipated budget for insurance). The agent of record, Michael Caparso, agreed to "shop" the group, which is generally a good idea. Until recently, this would have involved simply generating a census (a list of employees, their family status and ages, etc) and adding whatever additional underwriting information was available (autistic dependendents, pregnant spouses, etc) in order to generate a "pre-screened" rate. Absent that medical information, the carrier would simply issue a "street rate" quote; that is, one which assumed (rightly or wrongly) that everyone was in fine health. In the past year or so, though, carriers have become more stringent in their screening process, and now require completed applications (or waiver form) for each employee. This can be a real burden if one is seeking quotes from multiple carriers; the good news is that pretty much every carrier will generate a quote off of a UHC application.
And so, the agent supplied apps to everyone, and all but one were completed and returned. The one holdout was the aforementioned council member with an apparent axe to grind. He refused to submit either a completed application or a waiver; without that, the carriers wouldn't issue a "pre-screened" quote.
[ed: it should be noted that throughout the linked article and the emails I've received, folks keep referring to these as "binding quotes." They are not: a "binding quote" in this instance is an oxymoron. What they're really talking about are "pre-screened" numbers]
The city's dilemna was that they really couldn't afford the 13% hit from Anthem, but their agent's hands were tied because of the missing form.
And there things stood. And (apparently) stand.
When I first read Rick's email, I was a bit puzzled by a number of issues. First, I didn't understand why the other council members didn't force their recalcitrant colleague to cough up the form (although I really didn't know what leverage they may have had to do so). I was also puzzled by the revelation that the city auditor, who was tasked with getting and evaluating the quotes, was on the city's plan and apparently felt it was her only option. Finally, I wondered about some of the things that Mr Yemma allegedly said, which did not reflect well on his professionalism or ethics. A number of things just didn't add up for me, and so I decided to do a little research.
Jeanne Starmack, the reporter who broke the initial story, quickly and graciously responded to my email asking if she'd be willing to discuss the situation. In reply to my questions, Ms Starmack told me that, as of the 5th, Mr Yemma had yet to submit either a completed application or a waiver. She also noted that the other council members really had no means by which to force him to comply: "He's not an employee, he's an elected official and they can't make him do anything." That makes sense, of course, and explains why there's been no official sanctions. I had wondered if there was perhaps some professional jealousy involved (since he's an agent, but not the agent), but Ms Starmack quickly quashed that. She also helped me understand exactly which kinds of folks he'd have preferred be taken off the plan: "the city council, the mayor, the law director and the auditor." Interestingly, she also told me that the city's group insurance is the auditor's "only source of insurance."
Ms Starmack told me that, in a series of emails, the auditor and Mr Yemma had quite a few disagreements about what was necessary to obtain pre-screened quotes. According to the article, and Ms Starmack's email, Mr Yemma claimed that it was not, in fact, necessary for him to submit an app or waiver in order to obtain the necessary quotes. Since we already know that this is untrue, I was a bit nonplussed that he would make this claim; as an agent himself, he either knew it and was lying, or he'd slept through a few CE classes. Neither of those alternatives seemed likely to me.
In Part 2, we'll learn the Insurance Department's reaction, as well as information directly from two principles: Mr Yemma and the city auditor.
[A Very Warm InsureBlog Thank You to Jeanne Starmack for her help]
Briefly, this suburb of Youngstown is home to some 12,000 residents. It's governed by an eight-person city council, and and has about 60 employees. These employees (and some of the city council staff) are covered by a group health insurance plan issued by Anthem, which has recently notified them of a renewal rate increase.
And thus our story unfolds.
A short time ago, one of the council members proposed deleting staff from the group plan. Dan Yemma, an insurance broker himself (although not the agent for the city's plan), thought that only certain classes of employees should be covered, and that shrinking the group would be an efficient way to save money. For whatever reason, this proposal was deep-sixed, and things went on as they had.
To a point:
The Anthem renewal increase was for 13% (a not unreasonable percentage in this market, but well above the city's anticipated budget for insurance). The agent of record, Michael Caparso, agreed to "shop" the group, which is generally a good idea. Until recently, this would have involved simply generating a census (a list of employees, their family status and ages, etc) and adding whatever additional underwriting information was available (autistic dependendents, pregnant spouses, etc) in order to generate a "pre-screened" rate. Absent that medical information, the carrier would simply issue a "street rate" quote; that is, one which assumed (rightly or wrongly) that everyone was in fine health. In the past year or so, though, carriers have become more stringent in their screening process, and now require completed applications (or waiver form) for each employee. This can be a real burden if one is seeking quotes from multiple carriers; the good news is that pretty much every carrier will generate a quote off of a UHC application.
And so, the agent supplied apps to everyone, and all but one were completed and returned. The one holdout was the aforementioned council member with an apparent axe to grind. He refused to submit either a completed application or a waiver; without that, the carriers wouldn't issue a "pre-screened" quote.
[ed: it should be noted that throughout the linked article and the emails I've received, folks keep referring to these as "binding quotes." They are not: a "binding quote" in this instance is an oxymoron. What they're really talking about are "pre-screened" numbers]
The city's dilemna was that they really couldn't afford the 13% hit from Anthem, but their agent's hands were tied because of the missing form.
And there things stood. And (apparently) stand.
When I first read Rick's email, I was a bit puzzled by a number of issues. First, I didn't understand why the other council members didn't force their recalcitrant colleague to cough up the form (although I really didn't know what leverage they may have had to do so). I was also puzzled by the revelation that the city auditor, who was tasked with getting and evaluating the quotes, was on the city's plan and apparently felt it was her only option. Finally, I wondered about some of the things that Mr Yemma allegedly said, which did not reflect well on his professionalism or ethics. A number of things just didn't add up for me, and so I decided to do a little research.
Jeanne Starmack, the reporter who broke the initial story, quickly and graciously responded to my email asking if she'd be willing to discuss the situation. In reply to my questions, Ms Starmack told me that, as of the 5th, Mr Yemma had yet to submit either a completed application or a waiver. She also noted that the other council members really had no means by which to force him to comply: "He's not an employee, he's an elected official and they can't make him do anything." That makes sense, of course, and explains why there's been no official sanctions. I had wondered if there was perhaps some professional jealousy involved (since he's an agent, but not the agent), but Ms Starmack quickly quashed that. She also helped me understand exactly which kinds of folks he'd have preferred be taken off the plan: "the city council, the mayor, the law director and the auditor." Interestingly, she also told me that the city's group insurance is the auditor's "only source of insurance."
Ms Starmack told me that, in a series of emails, the auditor and Mr Yemma had quite a few disagreements about what was necessary to obtain pre-screened quotes. According to the article, and Ms Starmack's email, Mr Yemma claimed that it was not, in fact, necessary for him to submit an app or waiver in order to obtain the necessary quotes. Since we already know that this is untrue, I was a bit nonplussed that he would make this claim; as an agent himself, he either knew it and was lying, or he'd slept through a few CE classes. Neither of those alternatives seemed likely to me.
In Part 2, we'll learn the Insurance Department's reaction, as well as information directly from two principles: Mr Yemma and the city auditor.
[A Very Warm InsureBlog Thank You to Jeanne Starmack for her help]
Health Wonk Review, Live from Colorado
FoIB Louise Norris hosts this week's round up of wonky posts, with an emphasis on PelosiCare. Lots of good stuff here, do check it out.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Constitution?! We don't need no stinkin' Constitution!
Or so opines Sen Jack Reed (D-RI). Addressing one of the many new mandates included in PelosiCare (buy insurance or go to jail) the Constitutionally-challenged senator observed that:
"it is not unusual that the Congress has required individuals to do things, like sign up for the draft and do many other things too, which I don’t think are explicitly contained [in the Constitution]."
[ed: our apologies to readers who must now clean their monitors]
Really, Senator? You're equating forcing citizens to buy something they may not want or need, with serving in the armed forces? Putting aside for the moment the sheer audacity of this position, let's examine what the Constitution says about the draft:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence ... To raise and support Armies ... To provide and maintain a Navy ... [and to] make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces" [Article I, Section 8]
Now let's see what the Constitution has to say about forcing Americans to buy health insurance:
...
Singing lessons are over.
"it is not unusual that the Congress has required individuals to do things, like sign up for the draft and do many other things too, which I don’t think are explicitly contained [in the Constitution]."
[ed: our apologies to readers who must now clean their monitors]
Really, Senator? You're equating forcing citizens to buy something they may not want or need, with serving in the armed forces? Putting aside for the moment the sheer audacity of this position, let's examine what the Constitution says about the draft:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence ... To raise and support Armies ... To provide and maintain a Navy ... [and to] make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces" [Article I, Section 8]
Now let's see what the Constitution has to say about forcing Americans to buy health insurance:
...
Singing lessons are over.
More COBRA Bites
Earlier this year, IB was the "go-to" place for COBRA/ARRA info, and we certainly wouldn't want to let our readers down. This morning's email brought news from COBRA admin Ceridian about new developments on the COBRA and ARRA front.
First, that 65% COBRA subsidy on which so many folks count? Well, it sunsets at the end of this year. If and/or when that happens, folks who lose their group benefits on or after December 31st won't be eligible for the subsidy (although insureds currently receiving it won't be cut off on that date).
Second, there are currently two House bills and one in the Senate that seek to extend the subsidy into (at least) next year. As Ceridean notes, with unemployment officially at over 10% (and unofficially at 22%), it's a pretty good bet that a lot more folks will be clamoring, not to mention eligible, for the subsidy. This, of course, will put even more pressure on Congress to "do something."
We'll keep you posted as things develop.
Oh, something else that caught my eye in that aforementioned e-mail: in analyzing their enrollment data, Ceridian found some interesting patterns. For example, "COBRA enrollments increased approximately 40 percent from pre-ARRA rates. About 18 percent of eligible workers chose COBRA health care continuation coverage, up from about 12 percent." Since someone else was footing up to 65% of the bill, that's not exactly a surprise. Click here for a copy of their full report.
First, that 65% COBRA subsidy on which so many folks count? Well, it sunsets at the end of this year. If and/or when that happens, folks who lose their group benefits on or after December 31st won't be eligible for the subsidy (although insureds currently receiving it won't be cut off on that date).
Second, there are currently two House bills and one in the Senate that seek to extend the subsidy into (at least) next year. As Ceridean notes, with unemployment officially at over 10% (and unofficially at 22%), it's a pretty good bet that a lot more folks will be clamoring, not to mention eligible, for the subsidy. This, of course, will put even more pressure on Congress to "do something."
We'll keep you posted as things develop.
Oh, something else that caught my eye in that aforementioned e-mail: in analyzing their enrollment data, Ceridian found some interesting patterns. For example, "COBRA enrollments increased approximately 40 percent from pre-ARRA rates. About 18 percent of eligible workers chose COBRA health care continuation coverage, up from about 12 percent." Since someone else was footing up to 65% of the bill, that's not exactly a surprise. Click here for a copy of their full report.
Eleven Eleven Campaign: For Our Veterans [UPDATED & BUMPED]
[Welcome Industry Radar readers!]
The Beyond Tribute Coalition has put together a bipartisan program to raise money for veterans' groups like Gold Star Mothers, Vietnam Veterans of America, and the Wounded Warrior Project, among others.
According to its organizers "(t)he objective of the Eleven Eleven Campaign is simple: to get 11 million Americans to donate $11 to support America’s Veterans." Although we promised no math here, that's $121,000,000 for our Vets. And they've chosen a unique way to go about it: by harnessing the power of the blogosphere.
How can you help? It's simple: starting today, and continuing until we've reached that magic number, you can text "VETS" to 85944 to contribute. Or, you can simply click on the 11-11 widget near the top of the sidebar to contribute $10 (Beyond Tribute will kick in the other $1)
If you'd like to show your appreciation to those who've served, then I encourage you to contribute the cost of a couple of lattes to this great cause.
The Beyond Tribute Coalition has put together a bipartisan program to raise money for veterans' groups like Gold Star Mothers, Vietnam Veterans of America, and the Wounded Warrior Project, among others.
According to its organizers "(t)he objective of the Eleven Eleven Campaign is simple: to get 11 million Americans to donate $11 to support America’s Veterans." Although we promised no math here, that's $121,000,000 for our Vets. And they've chosen a unique way to go about it: by harnessing the power of the blogosphere.
How can you help? It's simple: starting today, and continuing until we've reached that magic number, you can text "VETS" to 85944 to contribute. Or, you can simply click on the 11-11 widget near the top of the sidebar to contribute $10 (Beyond Tribute will kick in the other $1)
If you'd like to show your appreciation to those who've served, then I encourage you to contribute the cost of a couple of lattes to this great cause.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Grand Rounds: Veterans' Day Edition
Flight nurse and medblogger Emily McGee presents a Veterans' Day-themed round-up of great posts.
Wishful Thinking: Ohio Edition
If, as we've maintained here at IB, the states comprise 50 individual laboratories for health care "reform," then it makes sense to look at how these "experiments" are going. Case in point: Ohio's recently enacted HB 1 which the Department of Insurance claims, among other things, will result in some 52,000 currently uninsured Buckeye's gaining coverage.
Uh-hunh.
Immediately upon its implementation, I received this in an email from Anthem:
"Effective January 1, 2010, Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield will no longer offer the HIPAA-HIC (basic and standard) Open Enrollment plans in Ohio."
So what does this mean, exactly?
Currently, Ohio citizens who are either Federally Eligible Individuals (i.e. folks who were eligible for COBRA continuation, elected it, and "rode it out" for the maximum 18 months) or have been declined for individual medical insurance are offered specific, state-designed plans. Anthem was, of course, the go-to carrier for them, since it offered several "flavors" at almost-reasonable prices (although that last is debatable, they were certainly competitive). In addition, Ohio gives each carrier a "quota" of such policies to sell, based on market share. Since they're the 800 pound gorilla, they "got" the lion's share of this business [ed: way to mix those metaphors!].
Because HB1 set new - much lower - premium differentials for these plans, they become even less profitable for the carrier. If it sounds like I'm taking the carriers' side in this, it's because (for once) I am: the free market works when the government doesn't meddle. In this case, "meddling" means further restrictions on the companies' ability to make a profit, which means they're going to shed the less profitable business as quickly as possible.
What that means to insureds is that they'll have less choices, and there will be fewer "slots" available (supply and demand). It's not as if these things fly off the shelves to begin with, but they were at least a viable alternative to those with serious, chronic health issues.
So what's the lesson here? When you restrict carriers' ability to compete in the market, consumers end up with fewer choices. Maybe that was the point of this exercise (wonders the cynic), but it certainly does not bode well for similar efforts on a national scale.
Uh-hunh.
Immediately upon its implementation, I received this in an email from Anthem:
"Effective January 1, 2010, Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield will no longer offer the HIPAA-HIC (basic and standard) Open Enrollment plans in Ohio."
So what does this mean, exactly?
Currently, Ohio citizens who are either Federally Eligible Individuals (i.e. folks who were eligible for COBRA continuation, elected it, and "rode it out" for the maximum 18 months) or have been declined for individual medical insurance are offered specific, state-designed plans. Anthem was, of course, the go-to carrier for them, since it offered several "flavors" at almost-reasonable prices (although that last is debatable, they were certainly competitive). In addition, Ohio gives each carrier a "quota" of such policies to sell, based on market share. Since they're the 800 pound gorilla, they "got" the lion's share of this business [ed: way to mix those metaphors!].
Because HB1 set new - much lower - premium differentials for these plans, they become even less profitable for the carrier. If it sounds like I'm taking the carriers' side in this, it's because (for once) I am: the free market works when the government doesn't meddle. In this case, "meddling" means further restrictions on the companies' ability to make a profit, which means they're going to shed the less profitable business as quickly as possible.
What that means to insureds is that they'll have less choices, and there will be fewer "slots" available (supply and demand). It's not as if these things fly off the shelves to begin with, but they were at least a viable alternative to those with serious, chronic health issues.
So what's the lesson here? When you restrict carriers' ability to compete in the market, consumers end up with fewer choices. Maybe that was the point of this exercise (wonders the cynic), but it certainly does not bode well for similar efforts on a national scale.
Comments Update (Good News): Importing Complete
Thanks to the folks at Disqus, our archived comments from HaloScan/Echo have been imported and are now online.
That was really the final piece of the transition, and we're pleased as punch to bid JS-Kit/Echo "adieu!"
That was really the final piece of the transition, and we're pleased as punch to bid JS-Kit/Echo "adieu!"
Monday, November 09, 2009
DiabetesMine and Keas Get Crackin'
Our friend and healthblogger colleague Amy Tenderich has teamed up with the former honcho of Google Health to offer a first-of-its-kind tool for the estimated 23 million American diabetics. Called the "Keas plan," this interactive, web-based program empowers these folks to actually do something about their health.
The tool goes live today; please click here for details.
The tool goes live today; please click here for details.
Carnival of Personal Finance is up
This week's Carnival of Personal Finance is hosted by the Canadian Finance Blog. It's chock full of helpful tips.
Sunday, November 08, 2009
Let's all waste money, shall we?
I ran into an interesting situation the other day. One of my clients is a type 1 diabetic. She tests her glucose levels roughly ten times per day, which is pretty standard for intensive glycemic control. According to the claim information that's up on their web site, Anthem is paying almost $100 per 100 test strips at her local pharmacy. She wanted to know why she couldn't just purchase them on Amazon (test strips are a non-prescription item) at $25 for 50 and send in a receipt for reimbursement. It would save Anthem almost $1800 per year.
I called Anthem. Amazon isn't a contracting provider (no surprise), so they won't reimburse her. Not even a slight chance...
I wonder how many millions of dollars Anthem is unnecessarly spending on this item alone?
I called Anthem. Amazon isn't a contracting provider (no surprise), so they won't reimburse her. Not even a slight chance...
I wonder how many millions of dollars Anthem is unnecessarly spending on this item alone?
Saturday, November 07, 2009
Friday, November 06, 2009
On the Record with Joe Wilson
This morning, I was privileged to participate in a blogger teleconference with Rep Joe "You Lie!" Wilson (R-SC) about health care and the War on Terror. We'll focus primarily on the former, but I learned something very interesting about the latter which I'll share at the end of this post.
Rep Wilson began by acknowledging the terrible events at Ft Hood yesterday, and expressing his concern about the victims and their families. He then spoke about yesterday's demonstration in Obamington, and segued into his support of HR 3400 (a Republican version of health care "reform"). He spoke about "limited government and expanded freedom," which he believes is in direct contravention to PelosiCare.
Tuesday's elections, he observed, marked a watershed moment for those opposed to government take-over of our health care system. Given the results in Virginia and (especially) New Jersey, he thinks that Blue Dog Democrats have to be concerned about backing that kind of effort at their own re-election expense.
He spoke a bit about Afghanistan and Iraq, and then took questions from the half dozen or so of us on the call.
I had the privilege of asking the first one. Truth be told, I had at hand a number of questions, some my own, some from Mike, and chose to ask about his amendment that would require CongressCritters to go on the Public Option if it's passed. I pointed out that, two years ago, then-Senator John Edwards had proposed an essentially similar idea, which was deemed to be unenforceable. I asked Rep Wilson what he thought the chances were of its passing (slim-to-none) and whether it would be practical if it did.
He answered that the way his was worded was enforceable; that a specific class of "employee" could be carved out and put on that plan.
I followed up by asking why Speaker Pelosi was in such a rush, since Sen Reid was on record that no Senate bill exists and that they wouldn't even be considering the matter until after the first of the year. He replied that he believed that Nancy and her allies are obsessed with the government takeover of health care, in a continuing bid to "grow government." She knows that this may well be their last real chance at passing something, based on what they saw Tuesday.
Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit then asked about Rep Wilson's take on Sen Alan Grayson's recent outbursts regarding Republican efforts. He replied that "Sen Grayson speaks for himself...truly outrageous and insulting." For those who liken Sen Grayson's comments to Rep Wilson's outburst at SOTU, he pointed out that his own was a "townhall moment;" that is, spontaneous and unscripted. By contrast, Sen Grayson spoke with the aid of storyboards, and were obviously not spur-of-the-moment.
Publius Forum's Warner Todd Huston asked if the Republican caucus had pushed any further on the constitutionality of many of the ObamaCare provisions (e.g. mandates, jail time, etc). Rep Wilson said that, should it pass, it would take litigation to determine that. He also took to task those who would equate auto insurance to health insurance; these folks point out that auto insurance is mandatory, but neglect to finish the sentence: "if you want to drive." But no one is required to own a car, whereas we are all "required to breathe." Thus, it becomes a tax simply for living.
I then asked about his thoughts on tomorrow's (potential) vote. Rep Wilson believes that the Democrats are counting on winning with a "one vote margin," but that there's not much assurance they'll have even that [ed: see link re: "(potential")]. He said that so-called "Blue Dogs risk becoming Lap Dogs" if they toe the party line.
He also pointed out that it wasn't until July that folks began to understand the "squeeze on Medicare and the elderly" that ObamaCare represents. The other major problem, he said, was how it would adversely affect small business, "the backbone of our economy." He then praised groups like the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) for their efforts to educate the public, pointing out that the additional taxes which would accrue would likely result in at least "another 1.6 million jobs lost."
Next up was Jeff Poor from NewsBusters, who stayed on the unemployment theme, quoting (Sheriff) Joe Biden's claim about the mess this administration had inherited. Rep Wilson took that as an opportunity to point out that, in hard economic times, history has shown that tax cuts are the way to go, citing both Presidents Kennedy and Reagan. He also had little use for the "Porkulus" which, he said has cost more jobs than it's saved [ed: a claim borne out by this chart].
Richard Zuendt, from Conservatives with Attitude, spent some time reviewing the profound impact of the election results in New Jersey. He was quite concerned about how the draconian cuts in Medicare will fall to the states to make up. He and Rep Wilson agreed that governors from both parties are justifiably concerned about this increase in states' costs, especially in a troubled economy.
Rep Wilson then pointed to Tenncare as a failed example of government-run health care, one which nearly bankrupted the Volunteer State.
Finally, The Hill's Tony Romm asked about the "one vote margin" which Rep Wilson had mentioned early on. He wanted to know if the vote was really going to happen tomorrow [ed: doubtful], and Rep Wilson was skeptical. He believes that Tuesday's vote put a real damper on that effort. He also pointed out that the political class was surprised at the intensity of the Republican base, as well as the cooling off of the corresponding Democrat's.
In a followup from Mr Romm, Rep Wilson was asked about AARP's endorsement of Pelosicare. The Congressman replied that folks should cut up their AARP cards, and send them back with a letter as to why [ed: sound familiar?]. He then named some other seniors' organizations that more accurately reflect their members' needs.
I mentioned at the top of this post that I learned something interesting about Afghanistan, and that country's economic woes. Rep Wilson told us that there is obviously concern about continued poppy (and thus heroin) production, but that Afghani's actually have an attractive alternative: apparently, Afghani pomegranates and grapes are highly prized in the Arab world, and are actually more profitable than poppies. There's now an effort to move Afghanistan's poppy farmers to these more profitable (and safer) crops.
And that's that. Our very Special Thanks to Lyndsi Thomas for making this happen. And again, I'll be updating this post with names and links as they become available.
UPDATE 1: Conservatives With Attitude reports on the call here.
UPDATE 2: Names and links are now in place.
Rep Wilson began by acknowledging the terrible events at Ft Hood yesterday, and expressing his concern about the victims and their families. He then spoke about yesterday's demonstration in Obamington, and segued into his support of HR 3400 (a Republican version of health care "reform"). He spoke about "limited government and expanded freedom," which he believes is in direct contravention to PelosiCare.
Tuesday's elections, he observed, marked a watershed moment for those opposed to government take-over of our health care system. Given the results in Virginia and (especially) New Jersey, he thinks that Blue Dog Democrats have to be concerned about backing that kind of effort at their own re-election expense.
He spoke a bit about Afghanistan and Iraq, and then took questions from the half dozen or so of us on the call.
I had the privilege of asking the first one. Truth be told, I had at hand a number of questions, some my own, some from Mike, and chose to ask about his amendment that would require CongressCritters to go on the Public Option if it's passed. I pointed out that, two years ago, then-Senator John Edwards had proposed an essentially similar idea, which was deemed to be unenforceable. I asked Rep Wilson what he thought the chances were of its passing (slim-to-none) and whether it would be practical if it did.
He answered that the way his was worded was enforceable; that a specific class of "employee" could be carved out and put on that plan.
I followed up by asking why Speaker Pelosi was in such a rush, since Sen Reid was on record that no Senate bill exists and that they wouldn't even be considering the matter until after the first of the year. He replied that he believed that Nancy and her allies are obsessed with the government takeover of health care, in a continuing bid to "grow government." She knows that this may well be their last real chance at passing something, based on what they saw Tuesday.
Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit then asked about Rep Wilson's take on Sen Alan Grayson's recent outbursts regarding Republican efforts. He replied that "Sen Grayson speaks for himself...truly outrageous and insulting." For those who liken Sen Grayson's comments to Rep Wilson's outburst at SOTU, he pointed out that his own was a "townhall moment;" that is, spontaneous and unscripted. By contrast, Sen Grayson spoke with the aid of storyboards, and were obviously not spur-of-the-moment.
Publius Forum's Warner Todd Huston asked if the Republican caucus had pushed any further on the constitutionality of many of the ObamaCare provisions (e.g. mandates, jail time, etc). Rep Wilson said that, should it pass, it would take litigation to determine that. He also took to task those who would equate auto insurance to health insurance; these folks point out that auto insurance is mandatory, but neglect to finish the sentence: "if you want to drive." But no one is required to own a car, whereas we are all "required to breathe." Thus, it becomes a tax simply for living.
I then asked about his thoughts on tomorrow's (potential) vote. Rep Wilson believes that the Democrats are counting on winning with a "one vote margin," but that there's not much assurance they'll have even that [ed: see link re: "(potential")]. He said that so-called "Blue Dogs risk becoming Lap Dogs" if they toe the party line.
He also pointed out that it wasn't until July that folks began to understand the "squeeze on Medicare and the elderly" that ObamaCare represents. The other major problem, he said, was how it would adversely affect small business, "the backbone of our economy." He then praised groups like the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) for their efforts to educate the public, pointing out that the additional taxes which would accrue would likely result in at least "another 1.6 million jobs lost."
Next up was Jeff Poor from NewsBusters, who stayed on the unemployment theme, quoting (Sheriff) Joe Biden's claim about the mess this administration had inherited. Rep Wilson took that as an opportunity to point out that, in hard economic times, history has shown that tax cuts are the way to go, citing both Presidents Kennedy and Reagan. He also had little use for the "Porkulus" which, he said has cost more jobs than it's saved [ed: a claim borne out by this chart].
Richard Zuendt, from Conservatives with Attitude, spent some time reviewing the profound impact of the election results in New Jersey. He was quite concerned about how the draconian cuts in Medicare will fall to the states to make up. He and Rep Wilson agreed that governors from both parties are justifiably concerned about this increase in states' costs, especially in a troubled economy.
Rep Wilson then pointed to Tenncare as a failed example of government-run health care, one which nearly bankrupted the Volunteer State.
Finally, The Hill's Tony Romm asked about the "one vote margin" which Rep Wilson had mentioned early on. He wanted to know if the vote was really going to happen tomorrow [ed: doubtful], and Rep Wilson was skeptical. He believes that Tuesday's vote put a real damper on that effort. He also pointed out that the political class was surprised at the intensity of the Republican base, as well as the cooling off of the corresponding Democrat's.
In a followup from Mr Romm, Rep Wilson was asked about AARP's endorsement of Pelosicare. The Congressman replied that folks should cut up their AARP cards, and send them back with a letter as to why [ed: sound familiar?]. He then named some other seniors' organizations that more accurately reflect their members' needs.
I mentioned at the top of this post that I learned something interesting about Afghanistan, and that country's economic woes. Rep Wilson told us that there is obviously concern about continued poppy (and thus heroin) production, but that Afghani's actually have an attractive alternative: apparently, Afghani pomegranates and grapes are highly prized in the Arab world, and are actually more profitable than poppies. There's now an effort to move Afghanistan's poppy farmers to these more profitable (and safer) crops.
And that's that. Our very Special Thanks to Lyndsi Thomas for making this happen. And again, I'll be updating this post with names and links as they become available.
UPDATE 1: Conservatives With Attitude reports on the call here.
UPDATE 2: Names and links are now in place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
