Almost Classical

I've noted this issue repeatedly: health care reform will not and cannot reduce federal spending. Only in the absurd world of Congress can you pretend "The cuts are coming!" year after year, always delaying them, and yet count those "cuts" as savings. Do you really believe Congress is going to cut payments to doctors by 20% or more? Do you really believe Congress is going to increase taxes on union health plans 20-50% in four years? But, as long as Congress claims it is going to cut, the CBO has to pretend the cuts will happen. Viola! Health care reform cuts the deficit! No, it does not. It will not, it cannot. Read this at Real Clear Politics: Extreme Budget Illogic At the CBO It's simple: the CBO has to use the fake numbers provided by Congress. If the Congress claimed taxes will be 100% and no jobs will be lost, the CBO would have to use those assumptions. That's how the CBO functions — lots of garbage in, tons of garbage out. Sadly, the CBO know...

This response to various news stories on the repeal of healthcare reform is one of several interesting responses. Will Repeal of Obamacare Increase the Deficit? One of the problems with any estimates from the CBO is that such estimates can only use numbers and assumptions provided by Congress. Usually, the assumptions of Congress are incorrect, assuming cuts that are never enacted and revenues that never materialize. The CBO states in its analysis of H.R. 2, the heath care repeal act: As with all of CBO’s cost estimates, these estimates—both for the first 10 years and beyond—reflect an assumption that the provisions of current law would otherwise remain unchanged throughout the projection period and that the legislation being considered would be enacted and implemented in its current form. CBO’s responsibility to the Congress is to estimate the effects of proposals as written and not to forecast future legislation. However, current law now includes a number of policies that might b...

Today, I watched yet another MSNBC commentator asking libertarian scholars and a Republican party hack where their plans for national health care were. Here's a clue, MSNBC: conservatives and libertarians both are suspect of federal power and effectiveness. By definition a libertarian isn't going to have a "national" plan with any central authority. To keep asking the question, badgering guests, demonstrates a special kind of ignorance. This line of questioning assumes a center-left alignment in the two major parties that does not exist. Admittedly, the GOP under Bush expanded the federal government and control. You can find plenty of libertarians disgusted by the GOP expansion of federal authority: No Child Left Behind, Dept. of Homeland Security, Medicare Part D, and on and on. The GOP gave in to typical Washington intoxication. But, a principled libertarian would not have a national health care plan. Libertarians might offer a plan to allow states to experime...

For something to be a "right," it must be something you have the right and ability to pursue on your own. A right is contained within the self. If you believe in personal property, personal control, personal choice, the end result is a philosophy that rights are individual liberties. A good is something it is nice to have, but to which there is no inherent entitlement. Goods are purchased or bartered for in some way. Health care is not a right. You have the right to pursue a healthy lifestyle. You have the right to negotiate for health-related goods and services, but you are not entitled to the services of other people. We cannot mandate a certain number of medical professionals exist. We cannot mandate that trained doctors treat everyone. A doctor is free to retire and go fishing if he or she wants. Since health care relies on other people taking actions, to force them to do anything is servitude. Is there an ethical reason to have national health care? Sure. But t...

I've heard a few comments this week that summarize why there are doubts about government's ability to "reform" health care. "Government does some things effectively, and a few things efficiently, but it never does one thing both efficiently and effectively." The examples cited included the military and U.S. Postal Service. Yes, they function, but no one can claim, at least not with any honesty, that the Pentagon is efficient. Procurement is a nightmare and waste is rampant. Mistakes, even on the battlefield, are common because innovative thinking is rare. War games are, sadly, rigged to support preconceived notions that "more is better" -- more soldiers, more information, more technology. (Malcolm Gladwell has written on this, documenting the changes made during simulations to assure outcomes!) "Any public option will either compete unfairly or end up needing a bailout. Look at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." Yes, we also g...

This is the current mess of health care bills: http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/hr3200_summary.pdf http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf When I read the bills, they do worry me. I tell everyone, read the actual bills. Trust no press coverage. Anyone claiming these are an "improvement" forgets the HMO history: In the Senate, Kennedy, author of the 1971 HMO Act: "I have strongly advocated passage of legislation to assist the development of health maintenance organizations as a viable and competitive alternative to fee-for-service practice..." Signed in 1973. I have to ask: How did that Kennedy "improvement" work out for everyone? Senators at the time admitted, "The bill is a bit too complex to read and understand" (Senator Herman Talmadge, only "NO" vote -- and a Democrat.)