Tag Archives: morality

Another Non-Existent Idea for Health Care Reform

Posted on by
Reply

The Republican Study Committee has offered yet another Obamacare alternative in a long line of Obamacare alternatives Republicans have offered in the past two-three years.  The gist of the latest alternative is this:

Title I – Repeal of Obamacare

Title II – Increasing Access to Portable, Affordable Health Insurance

  • levels the playing field between those who receive insurance from an employer and those purchasing it in the individual market: replacesthose with qualifying health plan receive an SDHI of $7,500 (individuals) or $20,000 (families) which will apply to income and payroll taxes, and will increase at CPI-U
    • 1) the current uncapped tax benefit for employer-sponsored health insurance
    • 2) the self-employed tax deduction with an above-the-line standard deduction for health insurance (SDHI)
  • full SDHI goes to the individual or family regardless of the cost of the policy bought—the SDHI above the cost goes right into the individual’s or family’s pocketbook
  • expand access to and allowable expenses for health savings accounts (HSAs), increase the maximum allowable contribution into HSAs, and allow employers to offer a larger benefit for successful completion of a wellness program

Title III – Improving Access to Insurance for Vulnerable Americans

  • expand federal support for state high risk pools to $25 billion over 10 years
  • guarantees that individuals with pre-existing conditions can move between the large group, small group, and individual health insurance markets, so long as they maintain continuous coverage

Title IV – Encouraging a More Competitive Health Care Market

  • allows Americans to purchase health insurance products across state lines
  • permits small businesses to pool together to negotiate better rates

Title V – Reforming Medical Liability Law

  • caps non-economic damages, and limits attorney fees

Title VI – Respecting Human Life

  • prohibits federal funds authorized or appropriated by this act from covering abortion, except in the case of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is jeopardized
  • ensures that no state pro-life or conscience protection laws will be preempted

But this doesn’t exist; Democrats say Republicans have offered no alternatives.

Privacy and Validity

Posted on by
Reply

Eric Boehm, in a recent Watchdog.org post, noted some concerns about Obamacare.

Thanks to new regulations that are part of the federal Affordable Care Act, patients will be asked to disclose more personal information to their doctors—including how often they have sex and how with how many sexual partners.

And once they do, it won’t really be personal information any more.

Similar questions exist for drug use history, and the questions are required of all doctors, from your dermatologist or osteopath to your GP—regardless of the questions’ relevance to the health problem that brought you to the doctor.

On top of that, as Goldwater Institute lawyer, Christina Sandefur, says,

Once you’ve shared your information with a private third party, the Supreme Court has ruled that is fair game for the government[.]

Apocalyptic?  Likely (the Supremes’ rulings on the related matters didn’t exactly say that), but it can’t be casually discounted.  Additionally,

Doctors and hospitals who refuse to participate could be cut off from some federal funds, and individuals who decline to share sensitive information may have to pay the fines…outlined in the federal health care law.

Regardless of the validity of the concerns in Boehm’s column, people—and doctors—will react to those concerns.  Which raises this set of questions:

What will be the validity of the data collected?  At what rate will patients, to protect their privacy while satisfying (their perception of) the letter of the law, falsify their data—deny drug use to their dermatologist, make up answers to questions about their sex lives?  How will the government reconcile patient-provided data that conflict from their dermatologist to their cardiologist to their GP?

Obama’s Government Shutdown

Posted on by
Reply

Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew had this to say in a Tuesday speech to the Economic Club. The President

will not accept measures that would tie a debt-limit increase to defunding or delaying the Affordable Care Act.  There are not and will not be negotiations about the debt limit.

There it is in so many words.  President Barack Obama insists on blowing up our economy and trashing what’s left of our national credit rating because his ego will not let him negotiate—anything—on the debt ceiling.

Obama’s shutdown.  Obama’s trash.  He’s even setting up for his shutdown.

Be More Like Europe

Posted on by
Reply

Maybe we should, at least in one area.

The Strasbourg-based European Parliament passed an amendment to limit the amount of transport fuel, such as gasoline and diesel, that can be obtained from food and energy crops to 6% of total energy consumed for transport by 2020, from 10% previously. … The new limit is meant to ease concerns about the amount of agricultural land that is turned over to growing crops for biofuel use….

There shouldn’t be any requirement, but this is certainly a step in the right direction.

Corinne Lepage, the lawmaker driving the legislation [says] “Taking indirect land-use change into account is important for the integrity of the EU climate-change policy.”

Because, among other concerns, “food prices could rise if crops are diverted from the dinner plate to the fuel tank.”  Our…environmentalists…need to understand this.  It diverts, here in the US, actual food crops—like corn—from the mouths of our poor to the gas tanks of “environmentalists'” cars.  And it jacks up the costs of food crops that substitute for corn.  And it jacks up the price of food that eats corn—like cows, pigs, and chickens.

Be like Europe.  At least in this.

The Danger of Accepting Federal Money

Posted on by
1

…made manifest.

Labor Secretary Thomas Perez…threatened to cashier federal grants for 83 local transit agencies because he claimed California’s pension reforms violate the Federal Transit Act, which requires the Labor Department to certify that “protective” arrangements are made for workers (i.e., the Teamsters) before the feds dole out dough.  Nearly $2 billion in federal funds are at stake this year alone.

And there’s this:

In July, HUD published…”Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” in the Federal Register…a sweeping set of land-use regulations…. The agency wants the power to dismantle local zoning so communities have what it considers the right mix of economic, racial and ethnic diversity.  A finding of discriminatory behavior, or allegations of discrimination, would no longer be necessary.  HUD will supply “nationally uniform data” of what it thinks 1,200 communities should look like.

Local governments will have to “take meaningful actions to further the goals identified.”  If they fail to comply, HUD can cut federal funding.

Of course, if the States weren’t addicted to Federal handouts, the Feds’ pushers wouldn’t be able to make such threats, much less have this control over a State’s internal affairs.