health care reform

Guess Connecticut's Chris Murphy doesn't want to face any more nonscripted events like this

As he tries to explain the trillion dollar, two thousand page health care "reform" bill drawn up by Madame Speaker, Nancy Pelosi  

Now he can't just pretend he didn't solicit any opinion from the public. No, what he's done is try and sneak a couple of quicj town meetings in before anyone notices, probably stack the hall with SEIU/ACORN types, and then claim that public sentiment is radically more in favor of the new health care bill---which is just as bad, if not worse, than the piece of sludge Murphy helped draft in the Energy and Commerce Committee.

So what's a swing district Democrat to do. Give the actual voters less than 48 hours notice your are holding the Town Halls. And hold both in the more Democratic eastern end of the district.  And add a single hour for a "telephone town hall" which we can be sure is going to be stacked with liberal lackeys..

Dear Friends,

I’m bringing the health care reform conversation back to you.

When I held a series of public events in August on health care, I told you that I would host more meetings after the House unveiled the health care bill and before the vote. The House will likely vote on a health care bill within the next few weeks, so I am organizing these events so that I can hear from people in Connecticut about what you think should be done to make health care more affordable and accessible for residents of Connecticut.

I hope you can join me at one of the 2 town halls I am hosting this Sunday, November 1 to talk about health care reform. Due to space limitations, these town hall events will be for residents of the Fifth District only.

I will also hold a telephone town hall style meeting on Wednesday, November 4, at 6:20pm from Washington, DC. To join the call, follow the instructions below.

At all three events, I will address questions and concerns from both proponents and opponents of health care reform.

SUNDAY

WHO: Congressman Chris Murphy (CT-5)

WHAT: Town hall meeting on health care reform legislation

WHEN: Sunday, November 1, 1:30-3pm

WHERE: Avon High School

510 West Avon Road

Avon

 

SUNDAY

WHO: Congressman Chris Murphy (CT-5)

WHAT: Town hall meeting on health care reform legislation

WHEN: Sunday, November 1, 5:30-7pm

WHERE: Lincoln Middle School

164 Centennial Avenue

Meriden

 

WEDNESDAY

WHO: Congressman Chris Murphy (CT-5)

WHAT: Telephone town hall on health care reform legislation

WHEN: Wednesday, November 4, 6:20-7:20pm

CALL IN: (877) 229-8493

PIN: 13348

Now the worst part of this is Murphy is holding these events so as to compete with a) the New York Giants football game ( 1pm Sunday) and the World Series; which features the Yankees ( start time 7:30 Sunday). So if you wanted to ensure a crowd full of wonks that hate sports, well this is when to schedule this. Most of Murphy's regular constituents are sports fans. Too bad for them. But if you are some bleeding heart who thinks valium prevents a suicide squeeze, you're all good.

There's shameless. And then there's Chris Murphy.

For a few weeks now, Democrats have been fighting attempts to post the "Baucus Bill" online so that we, The People, can see what they have in store for us.  It's been called a "Vapor Bill" since it contains nearly no legislative language and, in essence, is a conceptual document.  In other words, the Senate is actually debating and voting on a bill that will be finalized at some point under the cover of darkness, if they get their way.

That alone should raise gigantic red flags for every freedom-loving American.  But wait, there's more!  They've even convinced the CBO to "score" this conceptual document and wouldn't you know, it is going to allegedly trim $81 Billion from the budget over 10 years.  I'd laugh if I didn't know that the completely-in-the-tank-for-Democrats-media will run with this one juicy detail at full speed to rally public support for the plan.

As always, The Heritage Foundation is out front calling out this nonsense for what it is:

Indeed, the CBO went to great pains to emphasize this fact in their letter to Congress: “CBO and JCT’s analysis is preliminary in large part because the Chairman’s mark, as amended, has not yet been embodied in legislative language.” But this isn’t even the most deceptive part of what the left in Congress is trying to pull on the American people. Not only does the Baucus bill not even really exist, just a Vapor Bill filled with conceptual language, it is about to be completely thrown out the window when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) merges it with the deficit busting HELP bill to move it to the Senate floor.

You'd almost think that Congress hasn't yet gotten the message that people are on to them.  Have they not seen the constant stream of polls showing that people, across the entire political spectrum, don't trust them and overwhelmingly disapprove of their performance?

When you see this latest example of the utter contempt Congress has for us, and you recall how Pelosi once claimed this would be the most transparent / corruption-free Congress ever, there's only one conclusion anyone with half a brain could come up with:

They think we're stupid.

UPDATE: Reid didn't waste any time, did he?

Nevada Democratic Sen. Harry Reid said the Finance Committee will vote at that time on a 10-year, $829 billion proposal that covers 94 percent of eligible Americans while reducing the deficit. The positive estimate by the Congressional Budget Office was a breakthtrough for Montana Sen. Max Baucus, the plan's author.

In case you missed it, The Chronicle of Higher Education published a provocative essay by Columbia University's Mark Lilla under the title "Taking the Right Seriously".  Lilla writes: 

"[David] Horowitz makes hay (and money) by affirming conservatives' longstanding conviction that the university is a hostile place best avoided. He apparently doesn't see how his campaign hurts the larger conservative cause, since it gives students one more reason not to pursue graduate studies and actually become professors. My brightest conservative students, brought up on hair-raising tales of political correctness, dismiss academic careers out of hand because they are certain of not being hired or getting tenure. And I can't say I blame them. Even as an ex-conservative, I was lucky to have passed through the eyes of those two needles.

The late Paul Lyons, a professor at Richard Stockton College of New Jersey until his death, in January, recognized the problem but proposed something far more radical than anything David Horo witz has considered. And that was to persuade his liberal colleagues to teach courses on conservative political thought. Lyons was an American historian who wrote about the 60s and made no secret of his liberal politics or his loathing of Reagan and post-Reagan conservatism. But he was also disturbed by how few colleges offer courses on conservatism, treating it as a "pathology" rather than a serious political tradition, and by reports from his conservative students that "most of their liberal professors blow their comments off." So he not only posted a course on American conservative thought in 2006 but also kept a diary about his teaching experience. That diary has now been published, along with some of his own essays, in American Conservatism: Thinking It, Teaching It (Vanderbilt University Press).

The diary is fascinating and reassuring, at least about our students. Lyons's class was split almost evenly between liberal and conservative students, who had no trouble arguing with each other. They seemed to understand what thin-skinned professors wish to forget: that intellectual engagement is not for crybabies. The students had loud debates over Reagan's legacy, Bush's foreign policy, religious freedom, abortion, even the "war on Christmas"—and nobody broke into tears or ran to the dean to complain. And the more the students argued, the more they came to respect one another. According to Lyons, students learned that that conservative guy was no longer just the predictable gun nut or religious fanatic. And the conservative students learned that they had to make real arguments, not rely on clichés and sound bites recycled from Fox News."

Jon Henke seems to agree, blogging yesterday that "[t]he problem is not with the basic ideals of limited government and personal freedom, either. The problem is a movement that plays small-ball and cedes responsibility for infrastructure to business interests, leadership that rewards those who make friends rather than waves, an entrenched Party and Movement support system that mostly supports itself, an echo chamber that has rotted our intellect, a grassroots that is ill-equipped to shape the Republican Party, and a Republican Party that has replaced strategy with tactics, substance with marketing."

Lyons discovers and Henke examples that not every conservative is as predictable as the ones on TV.  Lilla and Henke agree that the Right needs more-substantive arguments.  Lilla notes that "that intellectual engagement is not for crybabies."  

That said, does the Right really oppose a strong public option to the health care reform bill?  If so, why?  What concerns you about it?

Medical malpractice insurance has skyrocketed in the last 5-6 years, hitting certain specialties extremely hard. As a result, many health care providers feel they have been forced to raise prices to compensate for the increase in insurance premiums. This may well be the case, but a simple solution based on free-market principles has not received much attention and would alleviate much of the price inflation. Not only would doctors benefit, but the vast majority of patients – and insurance companies – would be left paying reduced prices and lowering the cost of care for those willing to participate.

Currently, only a small percentage of cases involving perceived malpractice are brought to court and plaintiffs awarded hefty sums for their suffering. But that small handful – who are largely responsible for raising liability insurance premiums over the past half-decade – are charged the same as the vast majority who avoid using the legal system as a means of redress.

One possible solution is the following: at the time of purchasing an insurance plan, individuals would determine their own cap for non-economic damages in the case of malpractice on the part of their provider. Poorer people might be willing to forego more expensive plans in exchange for a promise not to bring lawsuits against doctors and hospitals except in extreme cases of negligence. As a result, healthcare providers will know their personal level of liability ahead of time and price their services accordingly. Patients less inclined to seek damages in the case of something going wrong will likely be charged less, while those more inclined to do so could be charged more.

When punitive damages are either unlimited or capped at one global rate, many in need of care are still priced out of the market. On the other hand, if that limit is adjusted on the basis of one’s willingness to avoid litigation, price discrimination may just do a better job matching what the doctor is willing to charge with what the patient is willing to pay.

In turn, liability insurance will decrease as a result of insurance providers being able to more accurately predict what a policy will cost them based on the category of patients (those more willing to seek damages versus those who are not) a doctor is treating.

Ultimately, poorer patients benefit from reduced prices for the same services, doctors benefit from peace-of-mind as well as lower liability insurance, and insurance companies benefit from improved mechanisms of gathering information on what patients and doctors will cost if they choose to offer them a policy.

A few weeks ago, Chris Dodd was eager to take over the official chairmanship of the Senate Health, Education Labor and Pensions Committee as a tribute to his good friend Ted Kennedy, so as to continue Ted's life work of bringing socialized medicine to the United States.

Tonight, Dodd decided to stay with the sinking ship he's already been piloting, the Senate Banking Committee 

This is quite a surprise, since the conventional wisdom just days ago was the Dodd would benefit politically from quitting the Committee responsible for the 2008 Financial Meltdown and going to the committee that is writing the Ted Kennedy Memorial Health Care bill. (not that anyone can figure out exactly what it says, anyway)

So what happened?

Maybe Dodd decided that being blamed for only one sinking ship was enough, and once Obamacare sank it would be wise to be out of the line of sight when folks went looking for scapegoats.

What also happened is one of Dodd's Republican opponents, Sam Caligiuri,  has been hammering Dodd for trying to run two committees at once, and failing at both jobs. 

I  am calling on Senator Dodd to decline the position of the HELP Committee Chairman, if it is offered to him. He should be finishing the job he has barely started of fixing the financial sector problems that got us into this economic disaster in the first place, and not spending his time promoting ill advised health care legislation.

Guess Mr. Dodd couldn;t conjure up a coherent response to Senator Caligiuri's challenge. 

Of course, there's been no progress on reforming the financial regulatory system all year, because Dodd was out pretending to be Teddy Kennedy. Now Dodd returns to a reform effort in tatters. , as nothing has been done in months to advance the complex issue.

Hey, it's not like we didn;t have a financial meltdown recently or anything that would warrant making this a priority.

Well, let's give Dodd credit.  He's staying on the same sinking ship he's already captained. After all, Captain Smith is treated more kindly by history than Bruce Ismay.   

The passing of Teddy Kennedy has given Chris Dodd a dicey dilemma to deal with.

For months Dodd has been the de facto head of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, sheparding a partisan public option health care bill through the committee in Kennedy's absence.

All the while, Dodd was still supposedly chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, which now, as the bailout era has reached a pause, reverted to the same lassitude it displayed in 2007 and 2008 as the financial system proceeded to meltdown.

Nevermind that financial market reform was supposedly a high point of President Obama's agenda, and that Secretary Geithner recently took to reaming out other bureaucrats for their lack of support of the administration's effort.  The bill has yet to even be scheduled for committee mark-up.

Now, Dodd can do what Washington politicians suggest would be a good career move--abandon the albatross of his failed chairmanship of the Banking Committee and take over for Teddy on the Health Committee--with the avowed goal of passing Obamacare as a trillion dollar tribute to the late Senator.

Amazingly, the clueless Dodd thinks the entire protest movement over socialized medicine will fade away in the good vibes generated by the Teddy funeral.

Yep, this guy really is so haughty he thinks we will meekly agree to whatever the power brokers on Capitol Hill think is really, really good for us.

Some Connecticut Republicans have other ideas. Like Senate candidate Sam Caligiuri      

Sure the lefties are upset but someone has to call out Chris Dodd on this!

Caligiuri is outraged that Dodd would leave the Banking Committee without cleaning up the monumental mess that the chairman has made of the financial economy.

Republican U.S. Senate Candidate Sam Caligiuri today started an online petition calling on Senate Majority Leader Reid to force Senator Dodd to do his job at the Banking Committee rather than leaving it to take over the chairmanship of the Health Committee left vacant by the death of Senator Kennedy. Caligiuri issued the following statement:“At the end of my tenure on this committee," Senator Dodd said in early 2007 of his role at Banking, "I want it to be said that the safety and soundness of our financial institutions was not weakened on my watch.” (See the full article here) As of today, it must be said that Chris Dodd failed and the safety and soundness of our financial institutions has been badly weakened over the past two-and-a-half years since Senator Dodd’s comment. Now, at a time when our economy and our financial institutions need oversight and attention to ensure our country is on the road to financial recovery, Chris Dodd has conveniently taken on a new and massive undertaking with the current health care debate – yet he still is grossly negligent in the job he is supposed to do – protecting our financial institutions. It is time for him to actually complete the task assigned to him at the Banking Committee, not to try and pass it along to another senator and sweep his failings under the rug. 

If you think Chris Dodd should clean up the mess he already made, before making a new mess out of the nation's health care system, you can sign this petition here.

We'll how eager Harry Reid is to anger Connecticut voters even further by letting Dodd pull a switch akin to that of Bob Torricelli. 

Chris Dodd thinks he can move on to something more pleasant and leave the nation's damaged economy to someone else to fix. He abandoned the Banking Committee before to run for President. Now he wants to abandon it again so he can pretend to be Teddy Kennedy and improve his fading chances for re-election.

Connecticut voters are a little smarter than that, Chris.  You may try and quit us; but we're ready to fire you.  

Five to one, baby...one in five....

No one here gets out alive...

The late Jim Morrison wrote and sang this over 40 years ago, and it seems rather poignant now that we have passed the anniversary of the Woodstock Nation and consider the divisive national health care debate.

For one thing, it does point out the limitations of salesmanship. Medicine will never fully solve the fact life is a terminal condition. It may prolong life, and improve life, but mere mortals are not "partners with God"; and only He can grant life beyond the here and now.

And the term Five to One applies clearly to the imbalance in media spending between the unions and industries looking to pass the government health care takeover, and the relatively impoverished opposition.

The lyrics of "Five to One" depict rebellion against a distant establishment :"they got the guns, but we got the numbers" which sure seems like the attitude of angry citizens screaming at smug incumbent officeholders eager to label their own constituents a mob. 

One of the major problems I think that the Obama team and the Hill Democrats have is they fundamentally don't understand the mentality of most of the 1960's protesters, who are now today the 60-somethings opposing Obamacare with fervor reminscent of that era.

Perhaps Bill Ayres wanted a "revolution"; but most Americans agreed with John Lennon that if you were carrying pictures of Chairman Mao you weren;t gonna make it.  The rebelliouness of the 1960's was largely spurred by opposition to a "mandatory government program"--to wit--the Draft. 

Sure ,some people of that era wanted communes and socialism--but a huge number--especially bikers and druggies--wanted the government to "leave them alone".

Don't send then to Vietnam. Don't bust them for pot. Don't tell them how to live their lives.

So when the military draft ended in 1973  much of the fuel of the counterculture was taken away. Free from government coercion, young people were then accused of becoming part of  a "me decade"

True, there was a huge cadre of earnest lefties who entered government as a result of the "Watergate election". But the relentless expansion of government demanded by the likes of Chris Dodd. Henry Waxman, David Obey, and Tom Daschle  was dealt a huge setback by the decisive 1980 election.

Some observers have noted that while voters under 30 in 1972 were slightly inclined towards McGovern (as he lost nationally by 21 points)   the same age cohort of voters (i.e. voters DOB 1942-1954) were inclined towards McCain as he lost to Obama by 7 points.  Clearly in the interim these voters became less entralled with "change" candidates.

I would suspect a substantial part of this has to do with the fact these Americans rebelled against statism and much as they may support "their" entitlement programs, they will never sign on to new forms of big government without profound skepticism.  Remember, they saw with their own eyes the extravagant promises and expensive failure of the Great Society. Those eyes are jaundiced now.  

If the government told you 40 years ago you had to go fight in Vietnam, you might not be too keen on having your kid told by the government what kind of health insurance he is required to have. We are taking people open to the "leave us alone" coalition.

Remember, Dennis Hopper was the prototypical hippie in "Easy Rider". He is a Republican now.

So, it appears the Obama team has started an era of divisive national unrest over a program which it cannot sell, promises to bankrupt the nation, and where there is no definition of victory. Sounds, hmmm like a quagmire.   

Back to "No one here gets out alive". I think this will end in one of only two ways. 

The Obamacare fiasco will collapse in a heap, and then next phase will be investigations into the sleazefest employed to try and sell the debacle, including a "pay to play'"scheme between Billy Drugbucks and David Axelrod.  and Axelrod's improper e-mail spamming. 

Note to Mr. Axelrod. Transactions your firm performed in northern Illinois are within this gentleman's legal jurisdiction.   Perhaps you ought to acquaint yourself with this law   .   or this law.  Some politicians around here  found out it's not good to mix business and politics. Don't worry. These laws run a lot less than a thousand pages to read. You'll have plenty of time to call white collar counsel.

The alternative will be Obama and his allies win an absolutely  Pyyrhic victory  decimating the ranks of Democratic moderates in 2010 elections and creating a huge radicalized political movement even more and more ardent to fight the socialization of American culture. Perhaps the Greater Great Society is enacted; only to rip  to shreds the nation it was meant to heal. Or maybe we become France, except with more debt.. Which might be worse.

I've had my differences with Peggy Noonan, but now she's spot on.  A prudent leader would pull the plug   and stop sinking deeper into the health care quagmire

But our President is insistent on making the worst mistakes of 1960's Democrats, accusing critics of merely being  irresolute . History lesson, folks.  No one there got out alive, either. 

Awhile back, I posted a memo forwarded to me from a friend on Wall Street, wherein one of his firm's senior analysts saw the nation being a bunch of boiled frogs as the Obama adminstration gradually remade the nation in a socialist image.

Of course, the whole "boiled frog" plan was dependent on one thing.

The frog not seeing the thermostat getting turned up. 

Unfortunately for the wee-wees in the White House, the frog noticed.

Now the Obama team is left trying to argue:   

a) The frog really didn't see the thermostat being turned up

b) The frog shouldn't complain about the heat of the water

c) The water really isn't as hot as he thinks it is

d) The frog is a fool and listening to people who want it to freeze to death

e) Hot water is really good for the frog

  Needless to say, the frogs aren't in a buyin mood

I was going to give Chris Dodd the rest of the month off to recuperate from surgery, but, sorry, what he said today simply can't go unnoticed.

Indeed, upon reading this all I could think of was Saddam Hussein's chief flack  "Baghdad Bob", insisting that the Americans were far from the Iraqi capital getting their butts kicked in the desert.

I attach, verbatim, the Senator's statement on health care reform from the Hartford Courant's "Capital Watch" blog

 At this historic moment, faced with an urgent crisis in our health care system but blessed with an unprecedented opportunity to fix it, we cannot let politics as usual prevent us from delivering on the promise of change,'' Dodd said in a statement.

A senior member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Dodd, a Democrat, was tapped by committee Chair Sen. Edward Kennedy, to help lead the committee's healthcare effort. "The Senate HELP Committee has passed a uniquely American bill, one that cuts costs, protects patient choice, and guarantees every citizen access to affordable, quality health care.  It also includes a strong public option that has earned the support of moderates in both the House and the Senate,'' Dodd said. He acknowledged winning passage will take "hard work, careful consideration of all perspectives, and a commitment to get to the finish line no matter what obstacles are thrown in our way by the cheap politics of the status quo." But Dodd offered the following prediction: "When Congress returns in September, the misinformation and anger of a hot summer will subside - and we will continue to move forward. "In fact, we will pick up exactly where we left off.  There will be a good bill on the floor.  There will be a spirited debate with ample opportunity for all ideas and perspectives to be heard.  But we will get this done.  And we will pass comprehensive reform this year." 

Chris, about those "moderates" backing the Public Option Bill .....mind telling us who they are?

This seems to be a bit more representative of reality, Chris

When a questioner, Ray Evans, said he believed the President wants to do too much at once and asked whether Boyd would "be willing to scrap everything" and start over to do pursue reform more incrementally, the congressman responded: "I think that is an excellent idea … we may end up there."

But what do we expect from Chris Dodd? This time last year he was insisting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were "fundamentally sound".  Didn't quite work out that way, did it?  

Chris, don't worry. If the Senate thing doesn't work out for you there's plenty of work out there for propaganda ministers.

The pictures here might be accurate representations of "Blue Dog" (aka Pelosi Poodle) Mike Ross. The Arkansas Democrat achieved the "little feat" of appearing to oppose a health care bill that he helped write!

Most interesting was Ross's use of an excuse that I'd anticipated but which, especially in his case, makes no sense. He pleaded that he had yet to endorse any particular bill; that there was no final bill yet; that he would still make up his mind as to whether he would support the final bill. According to one person in attendance, Ross also pleaded repeatedly that he was just one out of 535 members of Congress, and therefore could do little on his own. The problem is, there is a final bill in the House, HR 3200. And Ross's was one of the key votes that moved it to the House floor from the House Energy and Commerce Committee prior to the August recess. Ross, as a de facto leader of a group of seven moderate Democrats on the committee, was uniquely positioned among the 535 to change HR 3200. And yet he did vote for it in its current form on July 31 

I do give Ross this much credit. At least he showed his face back in his district to try and spin people, unlike these worthless cowards. You know, guys, once upon a time you could play moderate or conservative when you shlepped around your home district and then go back to DC and play errand boy for liberal party bosses.  Technology's made that trick a bit harder to pull off. Especially since we know that the whole bill is just a trojan horse to get "single payer". The question Arkansas voters ought to ask themselves is if Mike Ross can't defend the very bill he voted for to get it out of the Energy and Commerce Committee, what use is he to anyone in Washington?  At least this guy  isn't playing "Dixie Chicken"; which all Mr. Ross is doing about now.    You could still vote against it after you voted for it, Mike.  It's been tried before.