The First Base Coach’s Box

According to Merriam-Webster, a myth is “an unfounded or false notion.”  According to the White House there are several “myths” surrounding health care reform that people believe.  Apparently you can take a prediction and discredit it by simply relabeling it a myth.  As I have written in opposition to a number of concepts (though not every concept) surrounding the vague health care plan that the President has put forward as well as the more detailed plans that Congress is actually debating, I have not been spreading myths.  I have been sharing very logical predictions about how these reforms will effect health care, the economy, the power of government, and freedom in general.

I would argue that, as we carry out this debate, we would make much more progress if we stopped denying that both reform is needed and that health care reform (as vaguely dreamed up by our President and specifically carried out in the proposals of Congress) will have an impact on health care, the economy, the power of government, and freedom in general.

If we were to accept those things and be honest about them, we could make a decision based on the real world costs of a national health plan.

Looking at the Yahoo article that presented the White House position, I found the following:

Among the results on items the White House considers myths:

67 percent of respondents believe that wait times for health care services, such as surgery, will increase (91 percent of Republicans, 37 percent of Democrats, 72 percent of Independents).

I find it odd that wait times for care, especially surgery and cancer treatment, are always longer in countries with nationalized health insurance and yet this is characterized as a myth.  It seems logical to me that once the government takes its place as the chief guarantor of care, once profits are restricted, compromises will have to be made.  I am not going to assert that care will not be available as that would be just as crazy of a prediction as it would be to predict that waiting times would not be increased (or that they would be even less–as some liberals have suggested).

About five out of 10 believe the federal government will become directly involved in making personal health care decisions (80 percent of Republicans, 25 percent of Democrats, 56 percent of Independents).

Here we find out that half of the people polled believe the government will eventually become involved in some personal health care decisions.  If you prefer a treatment not covered by the government plan, then the government is now involved in personal health care decisions in the same way insurance companies are involved today.  The difference is that the government plan will be based on the opinions of the public through their elected officials.  As the burden of paying for care is assumed by the tax payer through its agent, the government, tough choices will have to be made.  We can hope that they won’t limit care in the area that we find ourselves afflicted.  The government can promise it won’t.  But a promise only lasts until budget negotiations begin to eat into everybody’s fall recess.

I imagine that some things such as prenatal care or treatment for heart disease will remain fully funded and supported.  Something will be cut.  Don’t hold your breath if you suffer from an illness that the public isn’t sympathetic to or that comes in the form of a more rare cancer.  There’s a reason why most countries with national health coverage don’t offer the same survival rates in these areas.

Roughly six out of 10 Americans believe taxpayers will be required to pay for abortions (78 percent of Republicans, 30 percent of Democrats, 58 percent of Independents)

Most major plans currently do not provide abortion coverage but what is included will always be up to currently popular trends.  You can’t be upset with people for not trusting the government to stay out of this area forever as it grabs more control over health care today.

46 percent believe reforms will result in health care coverage for all illegal immigrants (66 percent of Republicans, 29 percent of Democrats, 43 percent of Independents).

It’s a 100% fact that illegal immigrants receive health care today (thought not necessarily “coverage”).  Hey, I’m for doing the humane thing.  I just also think that we should send a law breaking illegal immigrant home as soon as they recover and tell us who’s been paying them to work while they were here.  I’ll be honest though and admit that the President is not advocating expanding coverage for illegal immigrants.

54 percent believe the public option will increase premiums for Americans with private health insurance (78 percent of Republicans, 28 percent of Democrats, 58 percent of Independents).

Will it increase premiums?  Well, maybe not directly.  It is said that the British pay less for health insurance than do Americans.  Unless you factor in their other taxes.  It’s really simple.  The money has to come from somewhere.  If you pay taxes, increase the amount by 50% (which would still have most of us paying less than the average Brit).  Now cut your health care premium in half.  Some of you just got a raise.  Most of us just took it in the shorts.  I suppose this one depends on your perspective.

There were exceptions.

Fewer participants believe “myths” regarding the impact of proposed changes on current health insurance coverage. For instance, less than 30 percent think private insurance coverage will be eliminated. And just 36 percent think a public insurance option will put private insurance companies out of business.

Private coverage isn’t likely to be eliminated but I am certain that it will change dramatically and be available to far fewer of us.  I can’t imagine my employer choosing private coverage over a cheaper, government option.  Do any of you find yourselves in the same boat?  I doubt the private insurers will go out of business but to suggest their business will be smaller and dramatically different doesn’t seem like a stretch.

I’d like to think that we could have a discussion on this matter but the reality is that the politics of fear requires both sides to call the other a liar and insist that theirs is the only, perfect solution free of any negative consequences.

How about a post that isn’t about health care for a change?

Another big story that hit towards the end of last week concerned the release of convicted terrorist Abdulbaset al-Megrahi.  The convicted Lockerbie bomber was serving out a life sentence in a Scottish prison for his role in the destruction of Pan Am flight 103 that killed 270 people.  He was released last week and allowed to return home for humanitarian reasons because he is dying of cancer.

The outcry concerning this action has been tremendous and almost universally in opposition.  Everyone seems to think that such an act of mercy only encourages terrorists and future terrorism.  The families of his victims have also been quite vocal in expressing their justifiable outrage.

Let me chime in and express a differing viewpoint.  I am assuming that, since he was convicted by a world court, this man is guilty of the crime that he has been imprisoned for.  He is the murderer of 270 human beings.  And he is suffering and going to die of cancer.  His return to Libya will not change any of those things.

The act of letting him die with his family is one of compassion and an extension of grace.  It is an act of compassion and an extension of grace to a man who most likely deserves no compassion or grace.  The celebrations of the Libyan people and the Libyan government that accompanied his return home only add insult to injury.

And yet, I still support the action of the Scottish government and I will tell you why.  You see, none of us are entitled to and none of us deserve the grace that we have received in this world.  We call ourselves a Christian nation (or at least some of us do) and many of us refer to ourselves as Christians.  If you truly know Christ then you know that we are all sinners who will spend an eternity in heaven with the Lord only because of grace.  Christ died for us while we were yet sinners and not after we had made ourselves righteous.  It is true that many people learn of His sacrifice, of the grace that God has extended us and then reject Him.

Abdulbaset al-Megrahi has, as far as we know done this.

But, if we are seeking to be Christ-like, if we are wanting to do as our Savior would do, then we would not use Megrahi’s actions–past or present–as a reason to deny him grace.  That the Scotts have taken this action with the full knowledge that the world would disapprove and likely with the knowledge that their decision would be disrespected and abused by the very man to whom they were showing grace and mercy is a deeper sign of their maturity and Christ-like character.  It is easy to show mercy when there is something in it for you.  The reality is that it really isn’t mercy, really isn’t grace unless there is nothing in it for you.

I am not sure what sorts of Scottish things I might come across to purchase in the coming days but I can assure you that I will not be avoiding the purchase simply because the product came from a land where the government has the courage to (at least sometimes) do the right thing even in the face of massive disapproval.

The actions of the Libyan government are clearly inappropriate and Libya should suffer consequences because of their choices. Abdulbaset al-Megrahi has suffered from the consequences of his actions.  He has spent his last healthy years imprisoned and  will die with a name forever tarnished by his murderous acts and his refusal to accept responsibility for them.  The Scottish leaders will be known for having both carried out his just punishment and showing mercy on a dying man.

I cannot predict when or how or who this act of compassion will bear fruit but such acts often do work in the hearts of those who hate us the most.  It could be that Libya’s inappropriate response will lead to a closer look at radical Islam or the causes of terrorism.  It could be that the efforts of Middle Eastern states to silence the truth will not be entirely successful and the heart of only one individual will be touched by this act of the Scottish government.

Those who condemn them, who cannot forgive those who have wronged them will be limited to a life of hatred.  They would not have found closure at his painful death in captivity and are missing the chance to let go of their hatred in order to claim revenge.

Remember Romans 12:19

Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

I’d sure like to have an honest debate with the left wingers about health care.  The trouble is, they don’t want to accept reality and don’t let anyone who disagrees with them into the discussion.  The end result is that those of us willing to have a discussion become frustrated enough to listen to the screamers on the right. You know, the ones who feel the need to use the same kinds of exaggerations and scare tactics that the mainstream media and Nancy Pelosi types feel the need to employ to drum up support.

Obama said illegal immigrants would not be part of the health care overhaul, taxpayers would not be mandated to fund abortions and he does not intend a government takeover of health care — all claims that critics have made at contentious town hall-style meetings withmembers of Congress.

Alright, not that you’ll respond, but here’s how this works.  You make a statement and I’ll respond directly to it.  Then I get to make a statement and you get to respond to that as well as the things that I said about your initial statement and so on.  It’s called a debate.  I know, it doesn’t make for good TV and so most of the world hasn’t actually seen such a thing in a couple of decades.  We don’t get to call each other names and you don’t get bonus points for sound bites (which means it won’t help you much in an election campaign).  Instead, you have to settle for letting people form an informed opinion.  Compromise is likely and credit for actually solving a problem gets spread around.  Also, the only TV coverage such a boring thing will get is  from CSPAN.  Some would argue that it would be better than the worship you receive from CNN or the roasting you get on Fox News.  Advertisers would disagree (but then again, there isn’t advertising on CSPAN).

Part 1:  Illegal immigrants would not be a part of the overhaul.  That’s probably true but we’d still be paying for them.  We pay for them now.  The cost of care for illegal immigrants is rolled into the bills of those of us who have earned private insurance or pay for our own care as well as subsidized by the government.  We don’t currently turn poor people away from our hospitals and people in our country get access to world class care no matter their ability to pay as it is.

I don’t believe you are going to begin turning illegal immigrants away from hospitals and clinics after you pass your reforms.  Are you?  If you aren’t then someone will have to pay for the care that they receive.  Possibly you plan to shift that burden onto the taxpayer more heavily.  I don’t see that it matters whether I help cover them with my tax dollars or with higher insurance premiums and co-pays.  I’m not suddenly going to advocate just letting them suffer and die and neither are you.  I wish the Republican leadership had not even brought this up as it was meant to scare people (oddly enough, people who likely already shared the Republican view anyway).

I wonder though, are you aware that we currently subsidize the care of many poor people in the same way (not to mention the elderly)?  We may send an uninsured individual a bill for thousands of dollars and make them pay as much as they can possibly afford but hospitals often end up “writing off” a lot of those costs.  By “writing off” I don’t mean giving away care though.  They’re smarter than that.  They recoup some of those expenses through government aid and they roll the rest into the bills of those of us with coverage.  It’s kind of like the way car insurance costs us more because of so many people who irresponsibly drive around without (enough) auto insurance.

Part 2: I’m glad to hear that you will not be using taxpayer dollars to fund abortion.  In your opinion we have to agree to disagree about whether or not a conceived child is a living person.  I don’t see how a rational person could conclude that he or she is not.  Any argument in favor of legal abortion that focuses on the economic and social impact having a child will have on the parents who the vast majority of the time chose to conceive that child seems insignificant to me when you compare it to the physical and deadly impact that the abortion will have on the life of the unborn child.  I’m all for prosperity but there are limits to what I’d do to insure mine.

This, of course, means that under no circumstances could any government subsidized or provided plan ever cover any part of the cost of providing an abortion and under no circumstances could an abortion clinic or provider receive funding from the government.  Would you be willing to publicly make that statement?  If so, I will yield this point to you.

Part 3: I believe you when you tell me that you do not “intend” for the government to take over health care.  I don’t believe that you are evil incarnate, that you aren’t really a US citizen, or that you are a member of a secret Islamic sleeper cell meant to overthrow Christianity either.  I do wonder if you understand the impact that what you have vaguely described as a “public option” will have on health care and health insurance in this country.

Given the chance to cross examine you, I would ask you to definitively state what your public option would be.  We have not heard that from you and that leaves us with our own imaginations (and Speaker Pelosi’s words) to fill in gaps in your intentions and desires.  I believe that you are either being intentionally vague for political reasons (which isn’t the greatest thing when you are trying to solve problems) or that you are unintentionally naive about the fallout of your decision to insist on a government created, funded, and run health plan.

It would appear as though you want health insurance to be purchased through our employers or through a government cooperative program that includes a government created and managed plan as well as private choices.  I wonder, who will decide what medications to cover, procedures to fund, premium amounts, and co-pays to charge?  If it is a government plan then I assume it will be a government agency.  Will it be an agency under the executive branch?  Such agencies aren’t exactly famous for staying within budget.  Will it be an agency more like Amtrak or the Postal Service?  They do such a great job of providing good service and earning profits (note sarcasm, please).

You see, if the government controls the agency then the agency will put the desires of the people who elect the government over the very real, actual costs of providing care.  The government will be forced to constantly pump more and more money back into the system to keep it afloat.  That never ending pumping can only be funded by higher taxes and continued budget deficits.  I don’t see how you can propose a public plan without publicly admitting this.  It is a very real disadvantage and you need to acknowledge it.

Our health care system needs help and every single solution will have its disadvantages.  You can’t have a discussion without accepting that fact.  You need to convince me that your plan will improve things enough to make it worth the costs, worth the disadvantages.

Of course, your claim that I will be able to keep the coverage I have is my greatest point of contention.  I didn’t choose my coverage.  My employer did.  If my employer wants the “public option” and has access to it, that will be my only choice.  The fact that you intend to use the power of government to subsidize the “public option” means that you intend to keep the costs down for people and employers.  You have said it will force private insurers to compete.

I say that since the taxpayers will be taking on the cost of the subsidy (either with our current tax dollars or those of our great-great grandchildren) you will drive the immediate cost of coverage so low that private insurers cannot compete and choose to leave the business.  You cannot force the market to lower the cost of something.  Once private insurers are either marginalized or pushed out, won’t the government effectively be in control of health care?  It may not be your intent, but, if it is the ultimate outcome, does it really matter what your intent was?

Ironically, you claim that we have a system that favors one class over another right now and you will create a system that favors the upper classes even more.  Currently the wealthiest Canadians come to the US for care that is more advanced and received much faster than the Canadian health system provides.  I imagine that higher taxes paid by everyone keep the poorer Canadians from doing the same.  In Britain they do still have private health insurance.  The wealthiest Brits often get to move to the front of queues (the word they use for waiting lists) and get other prioritized care (sometimes overseas in the US).  Does that sound like equal access to care?

But, at least you’ll have brought the middle class down so that most of us receive equal care.

In the end, the greatest disadvantage and risk your “public option” presents will come once the government is the driving force behind care.  When the burden of subsidizing the poor and covering the unpaid costs of illegal immigrants (unless you do actually say that we will turn them out), and paying the administrative costs, as well as picking up the tab for the healthcare infrastructure–less profits at hospitals means less money for new equipment after all….. When the costs of all these things are finally totaled, when the systems has been reformed to the point of no return, it will greatly exceed our ability to pay.  Taxes will be raised as much as possible but, even then, we aren’t likely to be ale to afford everything that popular opinion and thus officials elected by popular vote desire.

At this point, our world class care will have to be sacrificed to find a balance in the budget.  It is here that waiting lists will grow and services will have to be cut.  It is here that the great catastrophe that is national health care will be most apparent.  At this point, more harm will have been done than good.  The job loss and the lowered standard of care will be the damning evidence of your misguided reforms.

We can do better if you’d just let us take care of ourselves and protect us from large corporations that have too many politicians in their back pockets (I have a feeling that they will fair better under your “reforms” than most of the rest of us will).  I know, some people refuse to grow up and take care of themselves.  They think they are entitled to a free education, housing they like, and health care no matter the cost to someone else.  Sometimes the best way to help someone isn’t to hold them up but rather to allow them to get up on their own.  Offer them a hand if you must but don’t agree to carry them eternally.  You’ll wear us (you know, those of us paying taxes) out before we get a farther than a few steps.

At least, not for very long.

President Obama has said over and over again “no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what. My view is that health care reform should be guided by a simple principle: fix what’s broken and build on what works.”

He says this in the same speech that he declares the need to establish a public health plan as an option that will “force insurance companies to compete,” or to “keep them honest.”

85% of the American people have health insurance.  Most of them don’t have a clue how much that insurance really costs because their employers are paying for most of the policy.  I don’t think President Obama is evil or intentionally misleading us.  I just think he is failing to see how the actions on one hand are going to impact the other.

First of all, I did NOT choose my health insurance.  My employer chose it.  Oh, they have an “insurance committee” to make recommendations but the final say is made by the employer.  Would anybody like to guess what the most important factor in choosing one plan over another is?

If you said price, you are correct.  When the government offers its own plan with mandated coverage and a mandated price (to make insurance companies compete) it is going to be cheaper than the private insurance we currently purchase.  I will not be able to keep my current coverage.

Private insurers make a profit.  That’s their incentive.  As much as we complain about them, quality of care is based on the profits that they earn.  When the government decides to dump insurance on the market at below market value it will drive private insurers out of business.  When a company does this the government brings anti-trust lawsuits against them.  What do you call it when the government does it?  One could argue that it is a form of tyranny.

What is the real risk here?  The real risk comes after the government drives private insurers out.  Presently, when hospitals, insurers, and other providers aren’t making a profit (or more importantly aren’t profiting enough to fund research) they increase their rates.

We complain.  But we do receive care.  Uninsured people receive care too.  When they can’t pay their bills the losses are tacked on to top of the bills that the insured pay.  The same thing happens when seniors can’t pay the percentage of their bills not covered by Medicare.  We need to do something about this but the President’s plan will come with such severe side effects that we will face another crisis almost immediately.

Doctors, hospitals, and other providers will not be able to profit on the plan that the government establishes.  They will be prevented from raising their rates.  Increasing capacity by building new hospitals or purchasing new technology will not be possible.  In other countries the government subsidizes these things, when they can afford it.  Often they can’t.  Guess we’ll have to wait for that new CT or MRI machine.  In the meantime the line for the existing machines will just get longer.  Project the same consequences for everything that the health care industry uses its profits to provide.

The industry will now depend on government funding rather than existing profits to provide services.  What happens when the money runs out?  The government can deficit spend and contribute to inflation or it can reduce services.  I don’t see how either option is a good one for us?

I think that the President would find a good deal of support for a number of his initiatives if he would drop his insistence on a government health plan.  I would still prefer that he help transfer the cost of health insurance from the employer to the individual by giving individuals a tax credit for every dollar they spend on health insurance.  This would create the competition that the President has said he desires and help restrain the growing costs of coverage.  Insurance companies won’t like it but I’m not here to make friends.

This leaves the people who cannot afford coverage.  The president wants to mandate coverage for individuals and subsidize anyone who doesn’t earn enough to purchase it.  Seems fair enough so long as the subsidy shrinks as incomes go up.  It’ll cost us a few tax dollars but probably not much more than we pay in higher bills right now to cover the costs of the uninsured as it is.

We’ll probably still have to cover the costs of our seniors who can’t pay the share not covered by Medicare.  I’m alright with that but I’d prefer to increase the amount paid by Medicare and reduce the percentage that seniors pay.

Again, we’ve provided coverage for every American, reigned in the increasing cost of insurance, still allowed the industry to turn a profit, and NOT compromised the world class health care that the vast majority of Americans receive.

I’m not the most material guy in the world but I do realize that the things we want in this world all have a market established value.  Using that value and the profit incentive insures that everything society needs will be provided.  The entire system collapses when you force a non-market established value onto something.  When you eliminate the market value you eliminate the profit incentive and compromise quality.

So, knowing what will happen if the government establishes its own health plan as opposed to the existing private plans, I’m left curious about why President Obama is insisting on pressing for a public health plan.

Good morning, everyone!  I’m back after gallbladder surgery and feeling pretty good.  I’m catching up on my TV shows this morning.  I recorded the season finale of Pitch Men and I’m finally getting to watch the episode.  I’ve begun to wonder just how many Billy Mays products I’ve actually used.  How many do I actually own?

I’ve never bought any of them directly off of TV.  I have to think that he’s made much of his money by getting his products onto store shelves eventually.  It’s easy to call the stuff gimmicky but the reality is, I confess, that I have a couple of them in regular circulation around the house.  I looked the guy up and was surprised at how many of the things he pitched had made their way into my own house.

So, which Billy Mays sold products have you picked up over the years?

I confess that there are a couple I use on a regular basis.

Awesome Auger: Seriously, for planting bulbs, this thing is, well, awesome.  I love my flowers and the clay around here is brutal for bulb planting.  Give the free drill away though.  You get what you pay for so be sure not to give it to someone who’s a really good friend.

Kaboom!: Yeah, it’s good for cleaning the bathroom and kitchen.  Not sure I’d use it on expensive materials but on my cheap old surfaces at least they get clean.

Oxi-Clean: Yeah, it’s better than Spray-N-Wash for getting out stains.

I also have a Quick Chop and Slice Wizard.  I didn’t even realize the Slice Wizard and didn’t even know it was a Billy Mays pitched product!

What about you?

When I describe myself as a Republican with a heart for conservation I get odd looks from people.  Liberals seem to struggle to believe someone could make environmentally sound decisions based on conviction and even, gasp, sound economic principles.  Conservatives just become defensive of their liberty and begin to worry that I may have slashed the tires to their SUV on my way in.

Seriously though, sound economic decisions CAN be consistent with conservation.  I shy away from terms like “green” as few greens do much to help their cause in terms of being rational.  I really want my Republican friends to always have the liberty to drive their big trucks and SUVs.  Of course, unless you have an oil well and refinery in your back yard then you are going to have to purchase your petrol at the price the people who do own oil wells and refineries want to charge.

Sometimes I think my conservative friends would be willing to abandon their “government is not the solution” stand if the government is forcing people to conform to their own values.  Liberals and conservatives alike seem to love the idea of taking the market out of the gas price equation.  No research I have ever seen supports that being a sound economic idea.

Today I found an article declaring that most drivers in the world would choose an eco-friendly car.  It was full of unsound reasoning though (typical).  ”Even with money being no object, nearly 40 percent of respondents said green would be their preferred purchase. An additional 20 percent said green cars were their ‘dream’ car.”

Believe it or not, the question is influencing the results.  I know more wealthy people who make environmentally friendly decisions.  It is the poor and middle class that cannot.  We will become conservation friendly as a country until such choices become economically friendly.  To listen to our Congress and President that means adding taxes and additional costs to not so friendly industry (especially energy producers and manufacturers).  Those costs will be passed directly to consumers, especially the middle and working class.

You see, if money were no object, I could build a new house.  Instead of the 43 year old home that I sit in now, I would be able to use renewable building materials (which cost more).  It would be as energy efficient as possible.  I would be able to afford solar panels on the roof (to supplement hot water and heat production as well as on devoted outlets to slow charge battery powered devices).  There would be a wind turbine in the back yard as well (What’s $80,000 to someone who is rich?).  And, of course, there would be my large organic garden (bordering on a hobby farm) to produce at least half of my annual food consumption.

All of these things make economic sense.  The money saved in energy use would cover the costs in less than ten years.  The problem is that they require an upfront cost of probably $150,000 (on top of the land and house).  This is more than a daydream.  I’ve actually run the numbers.  Someday… things will come together (mental note, buy PowerBall ticket–just kidding).

Middle and working class Americans can’t afford those costs right now.  Buying a hybrid or electric car comes with a similar premium.  I’d love a new Chevy Volt when it comes out.  I’d drive on almost purely battery power five days a week!  Talk about a fuel savings.  Still, a low estimate is that the car would cost $30,000.  That’s a $16,000 premium over my current vehicle or around 7,000 gallons of gas.  My car averages 34 miles per gallon and that 7,000 gallons will take me 238,000 miles (6 years worth of driving).  Driving a Volt would require you to pay for better than six years of gas upfront.

Buying a slightly more fuel efficient car would cost substantially less.  If money were no object, going green would be an easy decision.  Money though, is an object for many of us.  I do well by using my money wisely.

The recent energy bill passed by the House works backwards.  It seeks to raise the cost of existing energy up to the level of green energy.  We need to make homes more efficient and we need to use more friendly energy sources so we’ll tax existing sources and mandate improvements for consumers.  What a fabulous idea.  Now the middle and working class will be forced to quit using their cheap old gas guzzlers and living in those nasty and inefficient homes.

Bill Gates, no doubt, lives in a green home.  Jason does not.  I do what I can (as the humidity drops I open my windows and shut the AC off despite the temps in the 80s).  I drive an efficient, petrol burning car.  I don’t need the government to force me into these decisions.  Economics does it.  How many people did everything the could to get into an efficient car last summer?  The government didn’t send gas prices through the roof.

I even know people looking at new utilities and windows this summer because of the government incentives.  They’re finding that, if it’s time to buy new windows or furnaces anyway, it’s worth it to put in efficient upgrades.  Otherwise, the tax credit doesn’t make that much difference (not that anyone objects to it).

There’s another flaw in the survey mentioned above.  People lie on surveys.  The say, “I’d buy a green car.”  When it comes time to write a check though, things are different.  There’s a big difference in what people say they’ll do with their money and what they actually will do with their money (except of course when “money is no object”).

I dream of a Chevy Volt and a diesel powered small SUV that also runs on B100 and used vegetable oil, a wind turbine in the back yard, a pond and rainwater harvesting system to water my organic garden, and a town full of interconnected bike and walking paths.  But money is an object and fortunately (at least for now–as long as someone is willing to stand up to Waxman and Pelosi as well as President Obama) I have the liberty to make decisions concerning my own energy choices.

We use coal here in Missouri though we are investing in my favorite technology, wind.  For now, the best I can do is use God’s air conditioning and an attic fan when possible, substitute CF bulbs wherever possible, and control power leaks.  I have an efficient car and monitor my fuel use to save money (combine errands, share rides, ride my bike around town when I can).  Easy choices.  Buying local produce costs a little more but you are rewarded in quality.

Note that all my choices have built in rewards.  Encouraging conservation means emphasizing and enhancing these rewards.  Protecting these rewards from the lobbyists of those they are competing with helps too.  Penalizing the most economically efficient choices, taking liberty away from people, will catalyze opposition to conservation and, in the end, impair efforts to develop and reduce the cost of the new technology that we are hoping to encourage people to adopt.

Last summer a lot of people voluntarily parked or sold their SUVs.  If you come after them with the full force of government (“We’re from the government and we’re here to help?”), expect to find a lot more resistance.  The same is true of any energy policy that seeks to tax existing energy and industry out of existence.  All you’ll really do is tax the jobs they provide out of the country or tax the consumers into a lower standard of living.

I’ve been reading up on the “Cap and Trade” legislation scheduled for a vote in the House this morning.  I already contacted Ike and expressed my concerns about the tremendous tax burden the bill would place on all of us as well as my inability to understand how the legislation would really make much difference to the global climate (simply exporting our mess to another part of the globe along with even more jobs while increasing the price of goods seems to logically do more harm than good–but logic generally escapes the halls of the Congress).

It was this statement that drew my ire this morning:

By late Thursday, aides and lawmakers said Democrats were within a dozen of the 218 votes needed to pass the legislation. Democratic sources said their leaders aimed to lock in 230 yes votes — and leaning on key Blue Dogs such as Reps. Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota and South Dakota’s Stephanie Herseth Sandlin so that more vulnerable members such as Reps. Eric Massa of New York and Maryland’s Frank Kratovilcan vote no.
Read more:http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24232.html#ixzz0JXwhEiNt&C

Is this good legislation or not?  If it’s a good bill then why should it matter that a representative is “vulnerable” or not?  This is the problem with politics.  Politics makes it about winning or losing, about being in power.  A Congressman would vote against a bill that he or she believes in just to get re-elected?  The party would lean on a Congressman to vote for a bill that would harm his or her district’s economy just to save the party’s control of Congress?

It is for this reason that I really could never get elected.  Neither party would want someone who voted his conscience, someone who would do something unpopular because it was the right thing to do.  Who is really representing New York and Maryland?  Apparently it’s Nancy Pelosi and Al Gore.

Ike Skelton, you seem like a decent guy and are one of the few Democrats I have ever been able to vote for.  Just so you know, the likes of Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, and so on do not represent me.  Should it begin to appear as though they do then I will have to find someone else to fill your roll in Congress.

We should all be watching our Senators and Representatives.  If a vulnerable Congressman votes “no” for a bill that passes and hurts his or her district without doing everything possible to stop the thing then are they voting no?

Alright, just to pant a few songs in your head that you won’t be able to get out of your mind all day, here’s a poll on your favorite Michael Jackson song.  You types that see this on facebook will probably have to navigate over to the actual blog to respond.

http://firstbasecoach.wordpress.com/

Once again, I have taken time to write my Congressional delegation concerning an issue at hand.  I sent this letter off today:

Congressman Ike Skelton, Senator Claire McCaskill, and Senator Kit Bond

I have been following the efforts of the Congress to reform healthcare in the United States for some time and I am hoping that you will take time to hear some of my own observations and experiences concerning this issue.

I first became aware of how our health care system works in 1993 as a high school sophomore.  Most of my peers were not all that interested in such things but that year’s high school debate resolution was “that the United States government should significantly increase access to health care” or something to that effect.  We spent the year debating former President Clinton’s plan as well as numerous other national health insurance plans from around the world.  At the time I had so little experience funding my own health care that I lacked the perspective needed to share an informed opinion on the issue.  I also lacked the fiscal understanding to clearly know how actions in one area would dramatically influence another.

I am now 31 years old and have been a user and provider of my own health care for nearly ten years.  Like a little better than 85% of my fellow Americans I have health insurance.  In my case the insurance is partially provided by my employer.  I am generally happy with my doctors and the care I receive.  I am a little troubled by the rising cost of coverage but I do understand why care itself is so expensive and don’t believe it can be made less expensive just because the government wills that it be cheaper.  Any forced decrease in the cost will lead to the same decrease in care provided that a voluntary reduction of cost would lead to.

Americans receive the finest care in the world but technology and training is not cheap.  We also receive the best service from our providers.  The ability to see my doctor today if needed, have tests done tomorrow, and schedule a procedure within the week are essential to what Americans consider quality care.  Any reform efforts that diminish the ability of providers to meet our demands for care would undercut the gains of “universal coverage” as it is touted today.

That said, I do hope that a working solution can be found to help the 15% of Americans who are either without coverage temporarily or unable to get coverage.  I hope you will make it a priority to insure that older and truly disabled Americans (Can we agree that some “disabled” people are really able bodied?) will always receive top-notch care.

I’m quite protective of my tax dollars and regularly complain when you seize and then spend my money on things for which I do not approve.  Let me be clear.  You are encouraged to use my tax dollars to provide care for senior citizens.  They not only cannot afford private insurance but insurance companies find it difficult to profit on their policies as a healthy senior can still use thousands of dollars worth of health care each year.  Likewise children who’s parents should but for a variety of reasons cannot or will not provide coverage, should be provided for even if it means using my tax dollars.

Insurance companies profit by collecting affordable premiums on people who don’t usually get sick, right?  In nearly ten years as a schoolteacher I have remained quite healthy.  My insurers have collected nearly $70,000 in premiums and been forced to treat a couple of sinus infections.  After my co-payment they may have spent nearly $500 on me.

This year will demonstrate why insurance is so important.  I will be having my gallbladder removed in a couple of weeks and by the time it’s all said and done I will probably use $20-30,000 worth of health care.  Luckily my insurance policy will cover all but a couple thousand dollars of that.  I can’t complain about this system and would like to insure that it remains available to every hard working American.

I understand that the President would like to offer a government health plan that could force insurance companies to give us a better deal (I believe he said, “Keep them honest.”).  I have two concerns that no one seems to be addressing.  In typical Washington and political fashion my concerns are often heard and then ignored.

First, what happens if the deal the people want won’t allow the insurance companies to profit?  For example, I would like a new Corvette but I want a better deal than the one GM is offering.  Could the government force GM to sell me the car for $5,000?  I understand that the government does exactly that with some of its Medicare prescription plans, literally forcing a pharmacy to sell pills for less than they cost (with the tax payer making up the difference).  As I said before, I’m in favor of such a thing for senior citizens.  I’m not sure it is as justifiable for everyone though.  I’m concerned that it will be destructive.

If the government, backed by popular opinion, can make its insurance plan too cheap will it not force private insurance out?  Who will compete to keep the government “honest” then?

The national insurance plan is the scariest of all proposals and I won’t even bother discussing its costs.

My second concern is about the quality of care.  My doctor’s office has made it a point to always have same and next day appointments available.  After all, if whatever was bothering you could wait a few days then you wouldn’t bother to go to the doctor.  As demand for the doctors increased they found it difficult to maintain that standard.  They ended up renting extra space, hiring a nurse practitioner, and adding a couple of nurses to the staff.  Such actions seem to be both good for the economy and good for our quality of care.

What happens when doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies have to base their rates on the government plan?  When profits diminish, will my doctor choose not to add a nurse practitioner?  Will doctors begin working longer hours?  Will offices be open as often or as long?  Will new equipment be purchased as frequently?  Will new treatments and medications be researched as freely or will only the most likely successes be pursued?  It is easy to say that these things won’t happen here but it can’t be denied that they are happening in the countries that everyone believes model universal health care.

It is a trade off that we are talking about.  I wonder though, do we have to give up our world leading quality of care and innovation in order to provide better coverage for all of our citizens?  Is it possible that there is a better way?  I’m sure that a good many lobbyists will stand in the way of any effort that the Congress undertakes.  I hope that you will work to extend coverage without destroying a system that provides world-class care to nearly all of its citizens.

What of the system’s limitations?  For one thing, I didn’t get to really choose my own insurance plan.  My employer chose the company.  The company wrote the plans my employer asked for.  To purchase insurance from someone else would cost me a fortune as the school district pays 90% of my premium (as long as I get coverage from the provider they choose).  Worse still, changing jobs requires me to change insurers, possibly doctors, and might risk trouble with coverage for pre-existing conditions.

This situation is made far worse for someone losing a job.  Their coverage ends immediately unless they pay not only their employee share of the premium but also the employer’s share.  That’s a pretty tall order when you are unemployed!

Imagine a country where Americans were really free to purchase their own insurance?  With a 100% tax credit for qualified plans and the money my employer currently sends to the insurance company I would be free to purchase from the company that offered the best service, fit my needs most perfectly, or was most affordable.  Companies would have to offer competitive rates because they would no longer have the cash cow that is employer provided insurance to feast on.  Changing jobs would be a non-issue because my coverage would be independent of my employer.

What is the first thing that insurance companies would have to get rid of if they were competing with individuals for customers?  Why, it would be the whole pre-existing condition clause!  Why on earth would I ever change, on purpose, to an insurer who didn’t cover a pre-existing condition?  I know that clause is waived every time my district changes insurers.  Now they would have to do it for individuals too.  Eventually this would have the effect of driving down costs by injecting competition.  It would be exactly the same effect that the President is hoping to get out of his government health plan option.

I realize that this small effort would only begin to reign in the costs of health care.  It would begin to make insurance affordable for the small percentage of Americans who do not have coverage and are insurable.  It would also allow Americans to exercise control over health care spending by making them aware of more than the employee share of coverage and various co-payments.  This awareness combined with the liberty to choose their own coverage would allow costs to be reigned in without exercising the destructive sledgehammer that is government control on our existing system.

I work with many younger teachers who simply choose not to take coverage and pocket the money.  I know other young adults who choose to spend enough money on their cars and lifestyles and then claim they cannot afford to cover themselves or, tragically, their children.  Efforts to educate them about insurance and the risks their choices are running are essential.  Simply passing the cost of covering these individuals on to responsible taxpayers will not help them learn to make better decisions.

I would support your work to insure that the children of this country receive appropriate preventative care and treatment.  Likewise, every effort should be made to cover senior and disabled citizens.

I do beg you to please not destroy a system that works quite well for so many of us in the process.  It seems as though the current administration is using emotional rhetoric to force this reform effort through in a huge rush.  We are relying on the system of checks and balances that were established in our Constitution to slow this process down and help us avoid making costly mistakes that could impact our health and economy for generations.

The framers of our great republic did not intend for it to be governed by popular opinion or pure emotional response.  They were well aware that such things were easily manipulated.  I recall that Thomas Jefferson had ongoing issues with the way some newspapers portrayed his efforts and have my own concerns about the upcoming ABC special presentation from the White House.  I’m concerned that the popularity of the President and the attitudes of the majority of our current press will prevent justifiable criticism of some of these ideas from being raised.

We, the citizens and taxpayers of the country, are relying on you to ask these tough questions in your committee meetings and on the floor of the House and Senate.  We are hoping that the exercising of your vote will balance what is popular with the wisdom and self-discipline that is required of a legislator in our great, federal republic.

Thank you for your time and service,

Jason Woodson

Harrisonville, MO

Guys, I’d really like to know why it’s so hard to not cheat on your wife.

http://townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2009/06/17/nevada_gop_sen_ensign_admits_extramarital_affair

I seriously have zero experience with marriage but as I look at the number of people who fail to remain faithful I am troubled.  I’m even more troubled by the world’s acceptance of infidelity as being so commonplace that it isn’t considered a character defect.

I wonder if the problem doesn’t stem from our reduced expectations for “marital relations.”  If you insert that synonym for sex then I think we get a better picture of what’s going on.  The term marital relations implies that a marriage exists.  It has been my experience that there are many challenging and time consuming steps that have to take place prior to that point.  It seems baffling that anyone would go through all of that and then do it again with someone else at the same time.

Of course, in our world today, we are told that those steps are unnecessary because “marital relations” aren’t really a big deal.  They aren’t any more significant than watching a movie or holding hands.  We can skip all the steps and damn the consequences.  With the value of marital relations diminished so substantially, is it a surprise that the cost of extra-marital relations would be brought down as well?

I know that the devil is a crafty fellow.  We shouldn’t make it so easy for him to tempt us.