The Senescent Man

Today, my Congressman, Rep. James Langevin, responded to me by email regarding my many entreaties to for him to oppose the ObamaCare Bill some months ago.  Below is my response to him.

Dear Jim:

Thank you for getting back to me on this subject after a number of months.  I am appreciative regardless of the fact that a lot has gone under the bridge since you voted for this terrible bill.  But you wrote to me on an auspicious day.  Excellent articles in today's Projo and Wall Street Journals underscore how anachronistic your email is today.

RIers woke up this morning to headline in the Projo of Blue Cross raising its rates about 13% for 2011.  13%.  Don't tell me it would have been worse without Obamacare because since I wrote you about my opposition several months ago, articles have abounded on how this bill will cost us much more than what we pay for our current health care plans, not to mention the extra tax burden it will now place upon us as it was conveniently and only recently revealed by the CBO, long after the lemmings approved it.

Also in today's paper, not the Projo but the Wall Street Journal, is an editorial entitled "No, You Can't Keep Your Health Plan."  The horror of that thought!  All brought on by this awful piece of legislation which you voted for.

If you recall Jim, I sent you lemons at great expense to me to get your undivided attention as to why this bill is bad for me, bad for my family, bad for the state and bad for the nation, but you not only did not heed one iota of my advice, you out and out voted for this pig of a bill without reservation.

One last observation.

I'll confess I voted for you over more liberal Republican counterparts in the past, particularly those who were opposed to the rights of the unborn, but your position on this issue has pushed me back a bit.  Today happens also to be election day in a number of states.  Long time Democrat stalwarts are about to get thrown out of office.  Results are not in yet, but I predict a rout.  Now I will grant you that RIers' are a lot more tolerant of liberal Congressmen and women, but I have a feeling, November 2010 will be very different.

See you in November, Jim.

Regards,

Labels: 2008 Election, 2012 Election, Age of Obama, health care, health care reform, Rhode Island

What, you ask? Why write about this now? That was in January; the big thing in the last week, even the last two days, is health care mis-reform. True. I can only claim that this is on my mind, and has been ever since it happened. I took some notes, expanded them into a theory, and waited for a quiet evening to come up. It's here, finally. I should do some more on my taxes tonight, but I made such good progress last night that I feel like doing other, more pleasurable things tonight. Taxes I have always with me; the Scott Brown phenomenon is still here, and again to take center stage as we see how he performs regarding the next phase of health care.

Why did Massachusetts turn from its Democratic party candidate and elect a Republican? The standard interpretations of this are:

• a Republican resurgence. I don't think so--not in way-out whacko Mass.
• a conservative resurgence. Again, in Massachusetts? Maybe a little, or rather what the electorate voted on this time was more in line with stock conservative policies, thereby appearing to be a conservative resurgence.
• anti-government health care. No, Massachusetts already have that; its electorate wouldn't mind a Federal takeover of a less-than-perfect State-run system.
• anti-Obama. I doubt it, not while his popularity far out runs the popularity of the health care reform bill itself.
• anti-Democratic. No, not in Massachusetts.

So what else could it be? A few things come to mind, all of which probably contribute to what my conclusion is.

• anti-Federalist (i.e. anti-statist). This seems more likely. Even in Massachusetts, the state that stood alone, or nearly so, in support of George McGovern and Walter Mondale, the state that never saw a Federal law it didn't like. Yet, the rhetoric of the campaign and what coverage I saw in fly-over country suggests people getting tired of the Feds always butting in, grabbing more power, usurping more of our God-given liberties.
• anti-deficit. This is likely, I think. People saw the accumulation of deficits beginning in the later Bush admin years and accelerating under Obama and his Congress. I think in part the Mass voters saw this accumulation and decided they had had enough.
• anti-Washington DC. This is a strong component, I believe. Once a person gets elected to an office centered in Washington, it's hard to get them out. Those occasionally voted out just stay there and become lobbyists, waiting till their own party returns to administrative power when they can get a fat Cabinet post, all while not paying the taxes they voted on the American populace (can anyone say Tom Dashcle?). By the way, I believe the Democrats are mis-interpreting this as an anti-incumbent vote. Perhaps it's difficult to separate anti-DC from anti-incumbent, but I see a shade of difference.

All of these add up to one thing: People have HAD ENOUGH. I wrote once before, I think on this blog, about the HAD ENOUGH Generation needing to rise up and fix all the mess that the late-WW2 generation and the Baby Boomers were leaving behind. I didn't know when the HAD ENOUGH Generation would show itself. Would it be our children, Gen X? Or their children, Gen Y? I personally thought it would be the latter, believing that our children would be too much like us to perceive that the government had failed. But they seem to be rising up, if I'm interpreting the Mass senate vote correctly.

It remains to be seen if this first breath of the HAD ENOUGH Generation will be followed through in the next couple of rounds. I would have liked to have seen what would have happened if there had been an election to replace Murtha. If that one went Republican, I think it would have been a good indication. We now have to wait till November, and then till 2012, excepting any intermediate elections that would come along.

Keep going, HAD ENOUGHers. You have my best wishes as well as my support.

Labels: Age of Obama, Candy Store Generation, Had Enough Generation, health care reform

This morning’s Projo carries a rabid commentary from The Boston Globe’s Yvonne Abraham against Scott Brown, making the despicable charge that Brown is somehow against raped women.  The Democrats are pretty desperate to do this, and the Projo’s complicity should be condemned roundly by level headed, middle class Rhode Islanders.

With printed media on the rocks, I think the Editorial board at the Projo has gone mad.  They must have hired a bunch of recent grads and fired all the experienced regulars to save money.  It’s bad enough that they raised prices by 50% in the last year – they now must subject us with hyper-liberalism and no balance to it.

In the mean time, a more interesting irony is that President Obama comes today to support the mindless Coakley, who in 2008 was rebuffed Obama, sticking tenaciously to the already defeated Hillary Clinton.

Scott Brown needs to win on Tuesday just to return sanity to a few of New England’s institutions, not to mention the nation’s health care reforms.

Go Brown!

Labels: Age of Obama, health care reform, Rhode Island

There is a “news” piece from the Associated Press written by a reporter, Charles Babington, on the “double standard” of the GOP in the healthcare debate.  The essence of Babington’s so-called “news” piece is that Republicans hypocritically voted FOR a Medicare expansion that includes pharmaceutical drugs back in 2003 when they had control of the US Senate.  The claim is that the addition of drugs to the already existing federally funded health care entitlement added half a trillion in costs all by itself, and is actually “worse than” the current expansion in government run healthcare because the half trillion dollars was “deficit financed” which is purportedly unlike the current deficit financed bill because back in 2003 we had no way to finance the drug benefit expansion, and you see this new government entitlement is paid for (out of Medicare?!?!?)

Anyway, what royals me here is that first of all, this is NOT a news item.  It is pure, unadulterated, left of center biased opinion.

Secondly, there is an answer to this kind of sideswipe.

Mark Steyn says that, unlike the add on of drug benefits to an already existing entitlement, as bad as that may have been perhaps, what the Democrats have done is essentially turned over control of over one-sixth of the US economy to the government, and has placed government in between the patient and the doctor:

The monstrous mountain of toxic pustules sprouting from greasy boils metastasizing from malign carbuncles that passed the Senate on Christmas Eve is not the last word in “health” “care,” but the first. It ensures that this is all we’ll be talking about, now and forever.

Government can’t just annex “one-sixth of the U.S. economy” (i.e., the equivalent of annexing the entire British or French economy, or annexing the entire Indian economy twice over) and then just say: “Okay, what’s next? On to cap-and-trade . . . ” Nations that governmentalize health care soon find themselves talking about little else…

…My Republican friends often seem to miss the point in this debate: The so-called “public option” is not Page 3,079, Section (f), Clause VII. The entire bill is a public option — because that’s where it leads, remorselessly. The so-called “death panel” is not Page 2,721, Paragraph 19, Sub-section (d), but again the entire bill — because it inserts the power of the state between you and your doctor, and in effect assumes jurisdiction over your body. As the savvier Dems have always known, once you’ve crossed the Rubicon, you can endlessly re-reform your health reform until the end of time, and all the stuff you didn’t get this go-round will fall into place, and very quickly.

As I’ve been saying for over a year now, “health care” is the fast-track to a permanent left-of-center political culture. The unlovely Democrats on public display in the week before Christmas may seem like just a bunch of jelly-spined opportunists, grubby wardheelers and rapacious kleptocrats, but the smarter ones are showing great strategic clarity. Alas for the rest of us, Euro-style government on a Harry Reid/Chris Dodd/Ben Nelson scale will lead to ruin.

Labels: Age of Obama, health care reform

Here is the complete tally on the final vote last night in favor of establishing socialized medicine in this country. 

RI’s Langevin and Kennedy, of course, both voted with the slim majority.

Below are some other interesting cuts of the voting data.

The first is from Red Elephant who tracked the Democrats that have the most to lose (and we hope so) for supporting Obamacare.  The number next to their names is the percent of the vote McCain received in their Congressional District in 2008.  The list is also color coded to denote Freshman, 1+ Term and 3+ Term incumbents and includes McCain’s performance in 2008 in that congressional district.

MS-04 Taylor         67
TX-17 Edwards      67
OK-02 Boren         66
TN-04 Davis          64
AL-02 Bright          63
ID-01 Minnick        62
MS-01 Childers      62
TN-06 Gordon       62
AL-05 Griffith         61
LA-03 Melancon    61
MO-04 Skelton      61
AR-01 Berry          59
VA-09 Boucher      59
AR-04 Ross           58
MD-01 Kratovil     58
UT-02 Matheson    57
WV-01 Mollohan   57
GA-08 Marshall     56
TN-08 Tanner        56
WV-03 Rahall        56
KY-06 Chandler   55
PA-04 Altmire        55
AR-02 Snyder        54
AZ-01 Kirkpatrick 54
FL-02 Boyd           54
PA-10 Carney        54
ND-AL Pomeroy    53
SC-05 Spratt          53
AZ-05 Mitchell       52
AZ-08 Giffords       52
NC-07 McIntyre   52
NC-11 Shuler         52
OH-18 Space         52
FL-24 Kosmas       51
IN-08 Ellsworth      51
NY-13 McMahon  51
NY-29 Massa        51
PA-17 Holden        51
VA-05 Perriello      51
CO-03 Salazar       50
CO-04 Markey      50
IN-09 Hill               50
MN-07 Peterson    50
NM-02 Teague      50
OH-06 Wilson       50
OH-16 Boccieri     50
PA-12 Murtha       50

And this is from the Weekly Standard: The thirty-nine Democrats voted against it:

1. Rep. John Adler (NJ)

2. Rep. Jason Altmire (PA)

3. Rep. Brian Baird (WA)

4. Rep. John Barrow (GA)

5. Rep. John Boccieri (OH)

6. Rep. Dan Boren (OK)

7. Rep. Rick Boucher (VA)

8. Rep. Allen Boyd (FL)

9. Rep. Bobby Bright (AL)

10. Rep. Ben Chandler (KT)

11. Rep. Travis Childers (MS)

12. Rep. Artur Davis (AL)

13. Rep. Lincoln Davis (TN)

14. Rep. Chet Edwards (TX)

15. Rep. Bart Gordon (TN)

16. Rep. Parker Griffith (AL)

17. Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD)

18. Rep. Tim Holden (PA)

19. Rep. Larry Kissell (NC)

20. Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (FL)

21. Rep. Frank Kratovil (MD)

22. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (OH)

23. Rep. Jim Marshall (GA)

24. Rep. Betsy Markey (CO)

25. Rep. Eric Massa (NY)

26. Rep. Jim Matheson(UT)

27. Rep. Mike McIntyre (NC)

28. Rep. Michael McMahon (NY)

29. Rep. Charlie Melancon (LA)

30. Rep. Walt Minnick (ID)

31. Rep. Scott Murphy (NY)

32. Rep. Glenn Nye (VA)

33. Rep. Collin Peterson (MN)

34. Rep. Mike Ross (AR)

35. Rep. Heath Shuler (NC)

36. Rep. Ike Skelton (MO)

37. Rep. John Tanner (TN)

38. Rep. Gene Taylor (MS)

39. Rep. Harry Teague (NM)

So, for Obamacare to become the law of the land, first the Senate needs to pass a bill, and Harry Reid can't afford to lose a single Democrat if the Republicans stick together. And then the House and Senate would need to reconcile the two bills in conference committee and each vote on the conference report before it goes to Obama's desk. This fight isn't over.

Labels: 2012 Election, Age of Obama, health care, health care reform, Rhode Island

The health care debate rages. I've tried to stay out of it, believing something bad is going to come of it no matter whether I state my opinion or not, but now think I will weigh in with a couple of posts.

I watched President Obama's speech...when was it? A couple of Wednesdays ago, maybe? You know the one, where Representative Joe Wilson shouted "you liar" when Obama said no illegal aliens would be covered. I sat there fairly calm during it, and don't think I once shouted at the television. Though I did give the president some long-distance advice he didn't immediately take.

The thing that struck me most was that Obama said we could pay for most of the increased cost--just under a trillion dollars--with 1) increased efficiencies, 2) eliminating unnecessary treatments, and 3) ending Medicare/Medicaid fraud. Leaving the first two for a moment, who can argue with ending M/M fraud? That would be a good thing, right? I'm all for it. But...

...WE DON'T NEED ANY REFORM TO DO IT! DO IT NOW!!!

President Obama, do you know how stupid what you said sounds? If you know there is fraud in M/M, why haven't you appointed someone to root it out and end it? Why haven't you made this a priority? Why haven't you used it as a knife in the back of the departing Bush administration to show what a bunch of idiots they were? And if M/M fraud is such a problem that you can't be bothered to do anything about it, why in God's name should we trust your administration--or any administration--with an even bigger hand in health care? Good grief, Mr. President, think about your words.

How much fraud is there in M/M? I'd like to see it quantified in terms of percent of all dollars paid to physicians and care-givers, and in terms of actual dollars per year. I'd like to see some evidence as to why you think this is the correct number to base savings from ended fraud on? How long has this been going on? What are the specific steps that you propose to end the fraud? Who in your administration is handling this? To whom are they accountable? What savings do you expect in year 1, year 2, etc. from the increased fraud prevention efforts that you can implement immediately, without needing to go to Congress?

The answer, of course, is nothing. Obama is not doing anything special about rooting out fraud in M/M. If he were, he would already have been singing about it from the rooftops. He would have been chiding Bush, Cheney, etc. and making political points.

Mr. Obama, prove that the amount of fraud in M/M is enough to make a significant debt in that universal health care proposal of yours by ending fraud right now. Show us the savings. Maybe then I'll have a little trust in you, that you can do what you promise in regards to health care. Do it for the rest of this term. Then let's talk about health care reform.

Labels: health care, health care reform