Maggie's Farm

Two prominent blogs raise the question of whether President Obama is an “idiot.”

John Hinderaker at PowerLine wonders, “One seriously hesitates to draw the conclusion that Barack Obama is an idiot, no matter how strongly the evidence may point in that direction. But what are we to make of a man who is ignorant of history; who is ignorant of economics; who despises his own country; and who appears to believe that awareness of his own wonderfulness is enough to guide him? Has such a fool ever played a leading role on the world stage? I think it is fair to say, no: not until now.”

At HotAir, Allahpundit’s headline is, “Japan expert to ABC: Yes, Obama’s bow made him look like an idiot.” The post continues: “So much of an idiot, in fact, that according to Tapper’s source, at least one Japanese paper isn’t running the photo out of embarrassment. This tool actually groveled himself into a minor international incident.” Then, adds: “And yet, having said that, I’m not convinced that the “groveling” explanation for the bow is necessarily the correct one. For one thing, his protocol office is famously run by imbeciles. They may very well have simply given him bum advice: 'Be sure to hunch way the hell over and stare at the ground. They all do it that way.' ” Though, they don’t all do it that way. Jim Hoft, at GatewayPundit, brings us the video, “47 World Leaders – 46 Handshakes – 1 Bow.”

One could make a verrrry long list of President Obama’s ignorant statements and actions, and outright lies, apparently believing the MSM will continue to cover for and excuse him and the American people will continue to believe him. But, does that make him an “idiot”?

In strict definition, “idiot” is an outmoded term for someone so mentally retarded that their mental development is less than a 3-year old’s, with an IQ of 25 or less, but connotes an “uneducated, ignorant, ill-informed person.” In more common usage, Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “idiot” as “a foolish or stupid person.”

So, this jury holds that, yes, President Obama is an idiot, “a foolish or stupid person” who believes the American people are “uneducated, ignorant, ill-informed” idiots who can be gulled to believe in dangerous foolishness by he and his excusers.

The education provided by President Obama, along with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, in their versions of liberal fixes to our health care, economy, and foreign policies has been a boon to Americans, as polls demonstrate, who are now well-informed about the idiocy of Obama-Reid-Pelosi and their apologists.  More and more of the Americans who voted for Obama may have been "foolish and stupid", but are no longer.  President Obama is, still, an idiot. A very dangerous one.

P.S.: A professor friend at a leading university, who is learned in exegesis, just emailed me: "It's the kind of idiocy that only great arrogance and hubris can produce."  So, maybe the strict definition, above, does apply to President Obama, acting like "less than a 3-year old"!

Neither Russia nor China, nor Iran, nor other hostile countries are comfortable with the dominance of world power held by the United States. They are independently and together working assiduously to neuter the US’ sway in the world.  President Obama is helping them.

Russia is reasserting its influence over Eastern Europe, and over Western Europe via controlling its gas supplies. China is vigorously exercising mercantilist capitalism to rapidly build its economy and impoverish the West’s, locking up supplies of vital raw materials resources around the world, while racing ahead to build an ocean navy that includes aircraft carrier extensions of power throughout the globe. Iran is steadfast on attaining nuclear power and weaponry, which can reach Europe and will reach farther. Nuclear knowhow and development aid is shared with and by North Korea and Pakistan, purveyors to other countries. Venezuela, launch pad for subversion in Latin America, is to obtain nuclear assistance from Iran that will increase its sway and threat. Russia and China have used their veto seats on the UN Security Council to hamstring strong measures to slow or stop Iran’s imminent step into the nuclear power ring.

Arab states never really worried about Israel’s nuclear deterrence because Israel may be a convenient whipping boy but is not an aggressive power, so there was no need to build Arab nuclear counters. But, now, Arab states are seeing a need to build their own nuclear deterrence to Iran’s aggressive policies toward them. Nuclear proliferation within unstable nations that themselves may proliferate or where their technologies may fall into the hands of murderous extremists is spreading dangerously and rapidly. The ones to benefit are Russia, China and Iran, as the US’ deterrence is weakened and the US’ political and economic strength directly and relatively reduced.

Investors Daily lays out one scenario, a nuclear attack within the US: “For a superpower to be found so exposed to risk from a small group of fanatics might be too much to bear. And who would fill the vacuum? Which would become the new superpowers? Regimes that have proved unafraid to be ruthless to their own people, never mind their enemies?”

It need not even go that far. The Bush administration was not as stalwart as it could have been in facing these emerging new world orderers, but it tried. The Obama administration, by dangerous contrast, in its dithering, its weakened resolve to confront, its self-abandonment of deterrence and direct counters, is actually encouraging, in result aiding, the hastening of the new hostile, dangerous to the US, world order that will favor international thugs in Beijing, Moscow, Tehran, Pyongyang, Caracas, and a lengthening list of other capitals. Obama’s actions harming allies, while favoring or bowing before enemies, are part of this self-isolation, self-neuterization by the US within the world.

It is an interesting subject for debate whether this Obama self-defeat march comes from ideology or from incompetence or from ignorance, or their relative proportions. The consequences are the same: the neutering of the US, and possibly the day when one or more of our cities, and thus our economy, lays in ruins, topped by our bankruptcy from Obama economic policies and legislation.

Be afraid. Be very afraid. Be aware, and more determined than ever to slow and halt this self-destruction in the elections of 2010 and 2012. Start by demanding that potential Republican challengers are informed and resolute, and don’t ignore the saner Democrats. We’re all in this together.

Editor's comment: As Kudlow says, this is just one part of the administration's larger defeatist, declinist approach to everything: economics, trade, business, the military, international affairs, American values, American world leadership, etc. A deliberate attempt to downsize, if not damage, America. I think the O believes in himself - but not in us.

This morning I told a friend I often watch idiotic escapist movies. Those who make the better ones need to be creative wonders. A look behind the scenes at one of the more successful reveals that he needs also to be an idiot.

My local newspaper carries a wire service profile of the director of the upcoming $200-million special effects movie “2012.” This director, Roland Emmerich, from Germany, “has earned the unofficial title of ‘Master of Disaster’” for his prior hits, “Independence Day” (1996), “Godzilla” (1998), and “The Day After Tomorrow.” (2004) They were, indeed, fairly good idiotic escapist movies, to me.

His soon to be released topper will have “a collapse of the Earth’s crust, giant floods and hellish rains of fire (yet not enough to kill the main character, played by John Cusak).”

Wow! Can hardly wait. New York destroyed again. Been there, done that, you say.

Emmerich does more, but notice what he doesn’t do: "In fact, the man who rose to fame as a cinematic escapist is an activist in real life. In Germany, he’s a strong supporter of the environmentalist Green Party. He campaigns for gay rights, and he doesn’t hide his contempt for organized religion.” OK, he does fit in with Hollywood.

As the profile continues: “In 2012, the pope is buried under debris when St. Peter’s dome comes tumbling down, and peace-loving Tibetan monks are not spared by the great floods. No Islamic site is seen perishing, though. ‘We didn’t destroy Mecca because we didn’t want to have to deal with a fatwa,’ Emmerich says.” OK, he does fit in with the PCers who made the Ft. Hood massacre possible and the media community apologists for poor, misunderstood, stressed Hasan. Can’t wait for that Hollywood film version, huh? What courage it takes to trash Western civilization, and make the world safe for its destroyers!

Emmerich puts the idiot cherry on his half-baked cake of a mind with this one, why he “couldn’t make a patriotic feel-good movie like ‘Independence Day’ anymore: ‘These days I have a much more pessimistic outlook for our civilization, despite the good America can do for the world under Barack Obama.” OK, we’re waiting for his film about how Obama’s abandonment of oppressed peoples in Tibet, in Iran, in Honduras, in the growing list to include Afghanistan and maybe Iraq, will cheer shmuck Emmerich up. (Couldn’t resist the alliteration.)

BTW, I’d love to give you, dear reader, the url to see this profile in idiocy for yourself. But, due to the past triumphs of idiocy in media my local newspaper’s falling circulation cannot afford to pay extra anymore for the wire service reports in its dead-tree edition to also appear at its website, and the MCT wire service website – unlike AP's, even – doesn’t even steer the reader to a newspaper that does.

This song, “Before You Go,” will be performed today at the National Celebration of Veteran's Day, 2009 at the Vietnam War Memorial Wall in Washington, DC. The song's authors Dr. Sam Bierstock and John Melnick have received the honor.

The "Before You Go" project now has a formal affiliation with "Veterans Helping Today's Returning Heroes", designed to directly benefit our returning heroes. Veterans Helping Today's Returning Heroes (VHH) is a charitable 501(c)3 organization providing support dogs and guide dogs to wounded, blinded and disabled veterans returning from the global war on terror. These dogs cost between $35,000.00 and $50,000.00 to raise and train, and are not funded by the government. To date, VHH has raised over $2,000,000.00 toward this worthy cause which allows our veterans disabled in war to enhance their quality of life with honor and the companionship of one of these wonderful dogs, each of which is trained to support the specific disability of each wounded veteran.

For that reason, Sam and John do not allow websites to post embedded videos of their song, so that purchases will be made at their site, and part of the funds go to VHH.

But, they do allow you to visit their site and see the videos for free that they’ve made to accompany the song.

For the WWII and Korean War version, click here.

For the Vietnam War version, click here.

Here’s some of the national TV features that have been made about this song-writing duo, how they came to do this, and why. As one says, “we’d have nothing without them,” our veterans. “Thank you, before you go.”

Here’s the letter President Bush and wife Barbara sent Sam Bierstock, and the “tears in our eyes.”:

In the 1970’s, Forbes magazine published a study of the most common backgrounds of the top five executives of each of the Forbes 500 largest corporations in the US. (I can’t find a copy online.) The prevalent backgrounds were former Marines, being from Brooklyn, and being Jewish.  I recall thinking at the time, just beginning my corporate rise, that having all three I had it made.

Well, I rose high, but never “had it made.”  Instead, I “made it” through the traits and training acquired from each of these backgrounds.

Well, again, you don’t have to be from Brooklyn or Jewish to be a United States Marine.  Just be The Few, The Proud. Have the intestinal fortitude to be the best. Marines are still the most sought after proven performers and leaders for every walk of life.

During my time in the Corps, older timers used to regale us with stories of the “Old Corps” and how we had so much to live up to in order to be worthy to be Marines.

I live near many of today’s Marines at Camp Pendleton, and speak with them often.  A few may, but it’s now rare to hear the young Marines regaled with “Old Corps” tales.

Today’s Marines are the finest product of the toughest training and -- overcoming the harsh conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan -- are our best and, deservedly, proudest professionals and warriors.  Us older Marines recognize that.

From Tuns Tavern on November 10, 1775 to today, the Marine Corps has always been The Few, The Proud.  We are a family who are always there for each other and for America.  As long as there’s a Marine, there’ll be someone fighting for America, and overcoming.

Happy Birthday, brothers and sisters of the USMC.  OORAH!

Here, from the 1950 film “Halls Of Montezuma” is the original movie theater trailer:

Here is this year’s official Birthday message.  It is tradition for the oldest Marine present to get the first drink to toast, then pass it to the youngest, as we pass our traditions on and on:

Semper Fidelis, Always Faithful, is not just a motto.  It's a way of life.      

Every once in a while a book comes along that reveals a startling gap in our understanding of the world, our passions and desires, and ourselves. Start-Up Nation: The Story of Israel’s Economic Miracle is such a book.

The 236-page (plus copious footnotes) book is written in layman’s ease while delving in Harvard case-study depth, based on over 100 interviews of those who made it happen, into the question of how a tiny, imperiled nation with a relatively miniscule population came to be a leader in international hi-tech and a leading prosperous economy.

As I literally devoured the book, heavily highlighting its insights, I kept wondering why I, a student of Israel, hadn’t seen this before. The authors themselves, one an editor of the Jerusalem Post and the other a senior fellow at the US Council on Foreign Relations and member of global investment firms, finally answer: “We assumed there must be some book that explained what made the start-up scene so vibrant and seemingly impervious to the security situation. There wasn’t. So we decided to write one.” Thank you Saul Singer and Dan Senor.

This from someone who actually had/has PTSD, with good reason: he lost an arm to an IED.

I’m more than a little angry right now.  Yes, I’m irate that some shitbag Major (“shitbag” is often used as a technical term in the Army) opened fire on a group of his fellow Soldiers killing 12 and wounding 30. But that’s not even what is under my skin right now. What is bothering me is the general reaction of our media and those stupid enough to think this was not an act of terrorism, but was caused by supposed PTSD caused at Walter Reed Army Medical Center….

In order to actually have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, you have to go through some sort of traumatic event(s) to have “post stress.” Can therapists be emotionally troubled by the things they hear from patients? Yes.  But you cannot catch PTSD from someone.  It's not the fucking swine flu.

I cannot tell you how angry I am right now as a former patient of Walter Reed.  It is an absolute fucking slap in the face for people to use his time there as an excuse for what he has done.  It is an absolute fucking slap in the face for all the wonderful people there who help soldiers every single day.  Some of the most kind, caring, and noble people I have ever met in my entire life work at Walter Reed Army Medical Center day in and day out helping wounded Soldiers like me.

To fallaciously say this guy has PTSD from his time at Walter Reed as an excuse for opening fire on a group of innocent Soldiers is beyond reckless.  It's an absolute slap in the face for every caregiver and every wounded warrior who ever set foot on Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

BTW, here's a column I wrote at Military.com a few years ago about PTSD, based on a study that even the NYTs called "authoritative."

Scott Johnson, at PowerLine blog, sums up the reaction among apologists/deludists re: Hasan as "PISS", post Islamic stress syndrome.

This is weird, but  interesting!

fi  yuo cna raed tihs, yuo hvae a sgtrane mnid too

Cna yuo raed  tihs? Olny 55 plepoe out of 100 can.

i cdnuolt blveiee taht  I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of  the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it  dseno't mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny  iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae.  The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by  istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot  slpeling was ipmorantt!

November 9 marks the 20^th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, put up by the communist rulers in 1961 to stem the drain from behind the Iron Curtain of those to whom freedom meant everything. There was widespread shock throughout the West at the end of the Cold War, which seemed endless, costly and perhaps unwinnable, and the fall of the existential threat of communism and its terrible toll on mankind, which to some seemed impervious or even eventually triumphant.

Roger Kimball, editor of The New Criterion, writes about “Tyranny Set In Stone: Why We Must Not Forget The Lessons Of Berlin.”

As we look around the world today, a melancholy spectacle greets our gaze. The Soviet Union is no more, but a minatory if diminished Russia has taken its place. A possibly nuclear Iran. A confirmed nuclear North Korea and Pakistan. Preposterous anti-American strongmen like Hugo Chávez in Venezuela. An increasingly rampant threat of Islamofascism. The enemies of freedom and the West are more numerous than ever. It is here that the two deepest lessons of the Berlin Wall lie. First, that tyranny frankly confronted can be defeated. But, second, that the victory of freedom is never final: it must always be renewed not only through our willingness to acknowledge and struggle against evil, but also through a forthright proclamation of our own founding principles. It is this last requirement of freedom that seems most difficult for Western intellectuals. To quote Kolakowski once more, there is “one Great Cause that has persisted more or less intact throughout the past decades in the Leftist mentality: the loathing of democratic countries. Allegiances changed, but if there was something enduring in Leftist politics, it was this: in any conflict between a tyrannical and democratic country, the tyrants were right and democracy wrong.” One would have thought that the admonitory tale of the Berlin Wall would provide an incontrovertible disabusement. Alas, it is a lesson we have yet to absorb.

President Obama is too disinterested, and occupied accomplishing nothing, to attend the 20th anniversary celebration in Berlin.

P.S.: Here's another rumination on 1989 and another fall.

Those who don't remember, or who never learned about communism, might want to read this short essay.

It's not a real commercial, but still...

The Congressional Budget Office’s initial analysis of the Republican alternative to Obama/PelosiCare is striking.  Lowered federal deficit, lowered premiums, more freedom of choice, less government intrusion into medicine and peoples’ personal lives, support for health care and savings innovations (including cutting the huge costs of “defensive medicine” by having tort reform – which the tort lawyer funded Democrats conveniently left out), and increased and easier coverage for those with pre-existing conditions.

This op-ed and the CBO Director’s transmittal letter briefly sums it up; the full CBO analysis is here. According to the CBO, less of those called uninsured, although in actuality only about a quarter are citizens truly needy, would be covered than under  ObamaCare.  Many of those actually needy would be covered, and others already insured would better afford keeping their coverage. This is at a savings of $1+ trillion, and our freedoms, and the ability of our world-leading health care innovations to not be stifled.

Sounds like a real choice, right? Throw out the baby with the dirty water, a la ObamaCare, or provide a proper cleansing.  Not with this heavily Democrat Congress.  But, wait and work for 2010 to correct that.

The Associated Press screwed the pooch*, in multiple ways, in its reporting of the release by the JFK Presidential Library of previously classified recordings of President Kennedy's meetings in 1963 with advisors about Vietnam. The discussions involve the unauthorized cable from the State Department lending support to a coup against South Vietnam’s President Diem.

1. The JFK Presidential Library, administered by the National Archives, expressly admonishes in its press release: “Members of the media are cautioned against making historical conclusions based on the sound clips and transcript alone.”

The AP’s report, instead, leads with, “Newly released White House tapes from the Vietnam War era portray President John F. Kennedy wrestling over the fate of South Vietnam's strongman in a situation that appears to mirror President Barack Obama's quandary today in dealing with Afghanistan's shaky government.” The AP’s headline: “Tapes show Kennedy was conflicted over Saigon coup” My local newspaper one-upped the AP by changing the headline to “Like Obama with Afghanistan, Kennedy had issues with an ally.” (Sorry, the website for the San Diego Union-Tribune is still down, but once up you can find the link there.)

2. The AP report concludes with a sheer ignorance by its reporter, Barry Schweid: “The battlefield situation gradually worsened for South Vietnam and the United States, and the conflict drew to a close under President Richard M. Nixon. All U.S. ground troops were gone by March 1973, and the United States evacuated Saigon in April 1975.”

In fact, the battlefield situation, after the governing and combat chaos spawned by the US backed 1963 coup against Diem, stabilized and, indeed, markedly improved after the almost total decimation of the Viet Cong during and after Tet ’68, then under President Nixon’s turning command over to General Abrams (see here) whose direction reduced the North Vietnamese forces to barely subsisting across the borders in sanctuaries, then with US logistics and airpower backing it up the South Vietnamese Army roundly defeating the North Vietnamese invasion of 1972. It was the post-Watergate abandonment of US pledges to supply airpower and arms to South Vietnam, perpetrated by the liberal majority that got control of the US Congress, that led to the downfall of South Vietnam to the massive invasion from North Vietnam in 1975.

3. In between, the AP doesn’t bother to mention that JFK’s Ambassador to Vietnam, Frederick Nolting, in the recordings released says, “my view is that there is no one that I know of who can – who has a reasonably good prospect of holding this fragmented, divided country together except Diem.” Many careful scholars of Vietnam have documented that Diem was falsely portrayed by some influentials in the media and within the US government’s advisors. The coup unleashed years of governmental instability and weakness within Vietnam, requiring heavier US commitment of troops to hold and reverse the unleashed downslide in South Vietnam’s defenses. (See, for example, here.)

4. President Kennedy, in the period in these tapes, is not in favor of the coup unleashed by his State Department. In effect, though, he at least ultimately acquiesced.

In no substantive way does the situation in Vietnam during the 1960’s parallel that in Afghanistan today, except in the muddled thinking within our White House and Congress, poor MSM reporting, and the American people’s declining confidence in and tolerance for unsuccessful half-way measures.

* http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/screw_the_pooch [edit] Verb

1. to screw up; to fail in dramatic and ignominious fashion

After my morning prayers, and thanks for Republican victories in yesterday’s elections that may help stop the ObamaCare obomination in its tracks, I picked up my morning newspaper and on page 3 read the article, “Move to put spiritual care in health bill.” (Sorry, my local newspaper’s website is down for overhaul, but here’s the complete wire service dispatch.)

This is exactly one of the absurdities that argues against ObamaCare or most further government takeover of healthcare. Special interests intrude their mandates, and costs, on us all, even with little justification outside their mustered political power.

One of the battles in Congress is over a provision of the House ObamaCare bill that would require insurers to pay for prayer treatments as for other medical treatments. It was proposed by a Republican congressman, whose district includes Principia College, a Christian Scientist school.

There’s some evidence that a patient’s morale affects their recovery. There’s some evidence that prayer can improve a patient’s morale. There’s, also, much more evidence that prayer will not cure most ailments and, indeed, there are sufficient studies that substituting prayer for proven scientific medicine can prolong or worsen serious ailments that otherwise could be alleviated or cured.

I, personally, like the saner holistic approach to medicine, to add proper diet, exercise, some vitamins, and yoga to one’s health regimen. And, I pray. But, to require that medical insurance cover these is insane, and costly, crowding out the core scientific medicine that is essential. Many who are uninsured are, thus, priced out of coverage due to the costs of mandates for usually lesser effective treatments, like chiropractry or acupuncture or massage, being added into insurance. Further, adding in very expensive in vitro fertilization, as desirable as it may be for those infertile to enjoy having children, is similarly counterproductive to our main concerns about improving health care. If they want children, pay for it, or accept your fate. There is not a legal nor moral obligation for taxpayers or others who buy insurance to buy children for them.

This argument in Congress over whether to include insurance coverage for prayer is an absurd but indicative example of what we can expect when special interest government runs health care.

Addendum: The above are just a few more examples of some of the points that The B made in his Insurance Freedom post this week. It is, indeed, insane. Furthermore, I never heard of paying for prayer. Prayer is one of the few things that remains free and untaxed.

Addendum: Christian Science practioners do charge.  Other "clergy" may and will, as well, if they can get paid by insurance.

BTW, see my comment below about which "mandate" I'd like to have in my insurance!

Why the heck should anyone care about how health insurance agents will fare under ObamaCare?

Under the House bill, for example, the Small Business Administration will help businesses and individuals figure out how to obtain affordable coverage. (The bill provision is titled, “Assistance for Small Employers.”) Health insurance agents are not precluded from providing advice. But, the SBA will be allowed to bypass agents.

A health insurance agent is required to complete initial and regular formal training courses in the subject (including ethics), pass initial and periodic tests, and are screened by their state and by insurance companies for criminal or personal conduct (including declaring bankruptcy) that may negatively affect their reliability to be licensed to provide agent services. In addition, through professional associations, through insurer education programs, through self-study, and through competitive pressures, health agents stay current on the latest laws and offerings from various insurers. Furthermore, almost all health insurance agents are independent businesses or work for independent agencies, not beholden to the insurers but to their customers. Importantly, individuals, small and larger businesses have priorities more important and pressing than becoming experts in health insurance or its interactions with other laws or aspects of their primary concerns, and heavily depend upon qualified, trusted health insurance agents. Lastly, many health insurance agents have extensive credentials and experience. For example, I attained earned, tested, rigorous certifications – Chartered Financial Consultant (ChFC), Registered Employee Benefits Concultant (REBC), Registered Health Underwriter (RHU), Chartered Life Underwriter (CLU) – that, along with other experiences outside health insurance (I was a senior financial and business operations exec for Fortune 100 and small companies for 15-years before becoming a health insurance agent) and years of experience as a health insurance agent (I’ve been at it for two-decades). This delivers wide-ranging values to my clients and of the interactions of their health insurance with their broader business, regulatory and financial affairs.

Does anyone expect the staff hired or created by the SBA to have this independence, experience or training? If so, get real!

Surely, there are some health insurance agents who are lesser or incompetent, or who are crooked, or who steer some business toward favored insurers for added volume bonuses. However, the less competent exist in a highly competitive market, where they lose business to the more energetic and competent in delivering value to clients. The crooked or shady are winnowed out similarly plus by stiff regulations and prosecutions.

This is just another aspect of the losses that individuals and businesses will suffer under ObamaCare.

A leading expert and opponent of Obamacare, Grace-Marie Turner, writes in the New York Post:

The 1,990-page bill the House leadership unveiled Thursday would impose a dizzying barrage of new regulations on employers, and force them to either provide government-specified health insurance or pay a penalty of up to 8 percent of their payroll.

Even firms that now provide health benefits get slammed -- since that coverage may not meet the government's definition of "acceptable." …

The head of the National Federation of Independent Business, Dan Danner, said the reform bill's huge cost "will ultimately come out of small business owners' pockets and prohibit them from growing, investing in their business and hiring new employees." …

The pain continues: The bill would also subject businesses and employees to a bigger, hidden tax -- a shifting of costs from public to private payers.

The legislation would expand Medicaid -- the joint federal/state program designed to insure low-income Americans -- to cover another 15 million people. But Medicaid payments to doctors and hospitals are well below market rates -- and often below their costs of providing care.

A study by the independent actuarial firm Milliman Inc. concluded that families with employer-based health insurance already pay $1,788 a year in hidden taxes to compensate for underpayments by government programs. That figure will plainly grow under the House bill.

For a final blow, the bill imposes surcharges on high-income individuals that will certainly hit many small business owners -- who pay business taxes through their personal-income tax forms.

Also, read The Worst Bill Ever.

For disclosure, I’m nearing retirement, and have shrunk my successful business. I am not going to directly suffer as a health insurance agent or small businessman, although I will as a taxpayer and as someone who cares about quality health care for myself and others if ObamaCare passes.

It was reported earlier today, here and here, that the machine-picked liberal Republican candidate whose poor polling -– and lack of support from Republicans -- led to her withdrawal from the race threw her support to the Democrat instead of to the Republican who challenged her – Doug Hoffman.  Hoffman is polling neck-and-neck with the Democrat for this upstate New York Congressional seat.  The outcome of this race will send an important signal to Washington waverers about what should be their upcoming congressional votes affecting the course of our country.

Congressman Darrel Issa just sent out an interesting and telling email about how important Obama sees this election:

Astonishingly, the Republican nominee in the special election has dropped out, and endorsed the Democrat! Just hours before she endorsed the Democrat, she received calls from Barack Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. She also received calls from the Chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Senator Chuck Schumer. Was Scozzafava promised something in return for her endorsement of the Democrat? Time will tell.

Issa says,

Volunteers continue to pour into upstate New York, but we are short of funds to pay for their transportation, lodging and meals. This race has turned into an all out battle between the White House and the conservative base of the Republican Party. Apparently all tactics are on the table.

Issa asks that urgent contributions be made via his own Political Action Committee to help elect conservative Republican Doug Hoffman, send the White House and Congressional Democrats the message that we’ve had enough of their ruinous tax-and-spend-and control our lives, send Republican hacks in Washington the message that truer Republican principles and support are required, and not let Obama and Emanuel run the Republican Party.

Instead of sending your contributions via Issa, send them directly to Doug Hoffman’s campaign.  The link is here to donate and to learn more about Hoffman.

We already know that Obama-style politics is payola politics, trying to buy off votes and power with our taxes and earnings. Say ENOUGH!

When I left New York City in 1968, after graduating college, I like many of my fellow graduates from working and lower middle-class families sought our opportunities elsewhere, and most metropolitan elsewheres were better than NYC.  The job market was still strong in NYC, but opportunities for advancement better elsewhere, the costs of living and taxes lower, the public services better, public safety higher.

Today, the New York City disease has spread more widely around the country.  Most major metropolitan areas, the hub of most states, have seen their infrastructure serving the upward mobility and the financial and personal security of their upward-striving or holding-on working and middle class deteriorate over the past 40-years.

Still, there’s striking differences among the states, and the results show.

William Voegeli writes in today’s Los Angeles Times, "The Golden State isn't worth it."  Voegli compares California to Texas, “Our high-benefit/high-tax model no longer works, especially compared with low-tax states like Texas.”  Voegeli says, “These alternatives, of course, define the basic argument between liberals and conservatives over what it means to get the size and scope of government right….[T]he superior public goods that supposedly justify the high taxes just aren't being delivered.”

It’s not ideologues who are moving.  For example, I recently ran into a couple I was friendly with in San Diego during the ‘90’s, he a French doctor-scientist and she a Dutch-Indonesian.  They compared San Diego favorably in all respects (except cuisine) to living in Europe, and were happy to be here.  Then they moved to a better job in Silicon Valley, where despite higher income they could afford a house half the size and they felt surrounded by selfishly aggressive strivers.  Then they moved to Austin, Texas, where they could afford a much larger house for their family, in an excellent neighborhood with top schools, the cultural life is vibrant, and the daily courtesies among residents are welcoming and provide good role models for their children.  These products of Europe are a reality test of America.

Voegeli continues: “Overall, the Census Bureau's latest data show that state and local government expenditures for all purposes in 2005-06 were 46.8% higher in California than in Texas: $10,070 per person compared with $6,858.”  Between 2000 and 2007, “16 of the 17 states with the lowest tax levels had positive "net internal migration," in the Census Bureau's language, while 14 of the 17 states with the highest taxes had negative net internal migration.”

Why?

The high-benefit/high-tax model can work only if things are demonstrably not equal -- if the public goods purchased by the high taxes far surpass the quality, quantity and impact of those available to people who live in states with low taxes.

Today's public benefits fail that test, as urban scholar Joel Kotkin of NewGeography.com and Chapman University told the Los Angeles Times in March: "Twenty years ago, you could go to Texas, where they had very low taxes, and you would see the difference between there and California. Today, you go to Texas, the roads are no worse, the public schools are not great but are better than or equal to ours, and their universities are good. The bargain between California's government and the middle class is constantly being renegotiated to the disadvantage of the middle class.

How?

None of this happens by accident. California's interlocking directorate of government employee unions, issue activists, careerists and campaign contributors has become increasingly aggressive and adept at using rhetoric extolling public benefits for all to deliver targeted advantages to itself. As a result, the political reality of the high-benefit/high-tax model is that its public goods are, increasingly, neither public nor good. Instead, the beneficiaries are the providers of the public services, and certain favored or connected constituencies, rather than the general population.

What to expect?

The recession will eventually end, and California's finances will get better. Given its powerful systemic bias against efficient and effective public services, however, the question is whether the state will ever get well. California's public sector has pinned its hopes for avoiding fundamental reform on increased federal aid to replace dollars the state's fed-up taxpayers refuse to surrender. In other words, residents in the other 49 states -- the new 49ers? -- would enjoy the privilege of paying California's taxes. Their one consolation will be not having to endure its lousy public services.

If, on the other hand, America's taxpayers (and China's bond buyers) succumb to bailout fatigue, California may reach the point at which, after every alternative has been exhausted, it is forced to try governing itself competently.

It’s not just California, or New York City, but throughout much of America today that we’re seeing the hollowing out of the infrastructure and services and opportunities that built America’s uniqueness and success compared to the rest of the world.  And, big-government advocates are clamoring for yet higher taxes. The New York Times reports today that “Faced with anxiety in financial markets about the huge federal deficit and the potential for it to become an electoral liability for Democrats” the White House and congressional Democrats are seeking some way to reduce the huge federal deficits they have created, and that more taxes are their prescription.

Government  workers and their unions are prime beneficiaries of our heavy taxes. Most of even the made-up stats recently released about jobs saved or created by the federal appropriation of the near $1-trillion “stimulus” show relatively few and most of those among government workers.  The $1-trillion, likely to be much more, cost of the wholesale upheaval of 1/6^th of the US economy in health care – which really only serves about the 25% of those who truly need it who don’t have insurance at the expense of the 85% of Americans who do have coverage -- will fall heavily upon the working and middle class.  The $trillions of indirect and direct taxes of the “cap-and-trade” illusory environmental bill will also add $thousands each year to each American's costs of living, to the economic benefit of profiteering fat cats and their politicos who garner contributions.

At root this may be an ideological battle, as Voegeli says.  But, it is really a practical battle between those who aspire and work for a better life and those relatively few who would squander its underpinnings for their own greedy benefits.  The real populist revolt is already shaking Washington and state capitals, and much more is to come.

President Obama’s appointee, Rocco Landesman, as Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) is an ignoramus, whose own words keep reaffirming his lackyism and lack of knowledge.  One might not think him unqualified by reading his official NEA bio: Yale PhD in Dramatic Literature, Yale assistant professor, president of a company that owns five major NYC theaters, successful Broadway show producer, board membership on several prestigious arts foundations.  But, that impressive background has not stopped him from saying some outrageously idiotic and incorrect things in excess praise of President Obama’s purported literary skills.

Scott Johnson, of PowerLine blog, critiqued Landesman’s assertions: “Well, so what if Landesman is a bootlicker? Landesman is also an idiot….It would be hard to pack so much ignorance into one short paragraph if one were really trying.”

Today, Johnson gives Landesman space for reply.  Landesman’s reply displays further ignorance of what he speaks, and Landesman’s attempt to slipperly elide from his previous stupid statement.  Johnson comments: “It's the bootlicking, the ignorance, and the higher illiteracy that are Rocco's problems, not the lack of an editor. He really need not worry. Those of us concerned about the politicization of the cultural agencies and intrigued by the phenomenon of Obama worship will continue to find Rocco of interest.”

Remember, this is the NEA that a few weeks ago was caught trying to elicit pro-Obama propaganda from its grants beneficiaries. Now, the trail back to the White House is being exposed.

A couple I’m friendly with teach drama at a prestigious university.  They are politically quite liberal, supporters of President Obama.  Both are quite knowledgeable about literature and the arts, a pleasure to discuss these topics with, and also very well versed in political and other topics.  Either would have made a superior appointee to Landesman.

So, why weren’t they?  Simple.  They are not rich and highly connected contributors to President Obama.

Michelle Malkin delves deeper into what she titles, “No Bundler Left Behind.”  Despite, as in other areas, Obama’s campaign pledges otherwise, he has stuffed his administration with rich sycophants, some clearly unqualified, acting nefariously, or displaying embarrassing inanity.

In earlier administrations, certainly Republican ones but Democrat as well, we might have seen media exposes and uproars over NEA and this wider pattern of appointments (not to mention VP Biden's inanities).  Instead, the media is behaving like relatives at a poorly performed way-off-Broadway production starring favorite incompetent relation Barack Obama.

Democratic Congressmen and Senators should think twice about whether they'd rather have an angry wife by lining up for Pelosi and Reid.

In a recent poll of women, Obamacare is rejected by most women.  This is important because there are more female than male voters, because women are usually more involved with and sensitive to medical coverage, and because women are most influential in making decisions about medical coverage.

Although John Hinderaker’s conclusion is telling that the various ObamaCare proposals from Congressional Democrats all add up to socialized medicine, the rejection of ObamaCare in this poll is even high among Democrat women.  The poll identifies political leanings, but the questions are not ideological.  Practical and personal concerns are polled, and are primary over ideology.

After several decades of experience in health insurance brokerage and consulting, I can tell you that women are far more concerned and demanding as to their coverage.  At least before middle-age, women have more health care issues and make more visits to their doctors.  Women  are most often the decisive influence on the choice made in the workplace, including that most HR people are female, and the wives of the senior executives or owners make their desires quite clear to their husbands. For example, try to separate a woman from her favored gynecologist or their children from their favored pediatrician and the broker usually faces  a fight, the women willing to even pay higher premiums to retain their favorite personal doctors.

A conservative-leaning organization, The Independent Women’s Forum, hired an independent pollster to question in depth what appears to be a representative national sample of female voters about their preferences in the health care legislation debates.  The poll analysis is here, and more details of the questions and responses are here.

Some of the key poll results:

75% want few to no changes to their own healthcare (40% ?? be modified, but mostly left as is; 35% ?? be left as?is) while 19% want it to undergo dramatic overhaul.

67% of women agree with the following statement: “I would prefer that United States Senators and Member of Congress not support poorly?crafted or rushed healthcare legislation. It is more important to get it done right than to get it done fast.”

When asked how much should be spent on healthcare reform, most put the acceptable amounts in the thousands (16%), millions (24%), or billions (16%). Only 10% say that $1 trillion (5%) or more than $1 trillion (5%) should be spent on healthcare reform.

66% of women describe the quality of their health insurance as “excellent” or “good.” 74% use the same terms to describe the quality of their healthcare. 29% say their health insurance is “fair” or “poor” while 24% say the same of their healthcare.

By a margin of 64%?27% of women would “rather have private health insurance than a government?run health insurance plan.”

55% think that the CBO projection of $829 billion is an underestimation of how much will ultimately be spent on healthcare reform. 17% think the figure is too high and 12% think the guess is about right.

46% of women predict that “increased federal involvement in healthcare” will result in more doctors leaving the practice of medicine while 12% think it will cause more to join; 34% think the ranks will remain unchanged.

58% disagree and 29% agree that “more federal involvement in healthcare will improve the relationships members of my family have with their doctors.”

51% of women think more federal involvement will cause declines in the quality of healthcare they and their families receive; 15% feel it will lead to improvements; and 28% believe the quality will remain unchanged.

Among Independents, 73% would be less likely to support a “candidate for Congress knowing he or she favored moving people from their private healthcare plans to government?run healthcare plans.”

Among Independents, 47% would be less likely to support a candidate “knowing he or she supports this new $829 billion healthcare bill,” 31% would be more likely.

Among small business owners, 65% trust that the private sector does a better job of providing choice in healthcare; 25% think the federal government does.

Among small business owners, 56% believe the private sector can offer lower costs while ensuring high quality healthcare; 36% give the federal government the advantage.

Majorities of voters in all age, regional, and educational attainment cohorts believed the private sector to be superior when it comes to providing choice in healthcare. Pluralities of selfidentified Democrats (45%) and liberals (49%) agreed, as well as majorities of self?identified Independents (64%), Republicans (81%), moderates (54%), and conservatives (74%).

Two?thirds of women objected to government paying for abortions in the healthcare bill, including majorities of women of all ages, races, regions, marital and parental statuses, and political parties (55% of self?identified Democrats, 66% of Independents, and 84% of Republicans). Even 39% of “prochoicers” qualified their views with their unwillingness to pay for it.

When informed that “one of the reasons why the deficit is expected to decrease is because the federal government is going to decrease how much it spends on Medicare,” 77% of women deemed this tactic a “mostly bad” one. Just 13% considered this approach a “mostly good” idea. Majorities of women of all ages, races, regions, marital and parental statuses, incomes, educational attainments, political parties, ideologies, and regions considered these cuts to Medicare to be a “bad idea.” At least 70% of women in every age cohort not benefitting from Medicare rejected this.

Almost 20 years ago I bought my expensive recliner-from-heaven. I’m almost always in it to watch the 19-inch 30-year old TV in my office.  (I only go into the other room to watch thunderous soundtrack action movies on the 60-inch TV hooked up to speakers that rock the house. The house actually vibrated when I cranked up Godzilla stomping through NYC.)

Now I’ve got a new hero, and possible hobby.

The Duluth [Minnesota] News Tribune reports:

A Proctor man driving a motorized La-Z-Boy lounge chair hit a parked vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.

Dennis LeRoy Anderson, 62, pleaded guilty Monday in St. Louis County District Court to DWI in connection with the Aug. 31, 2008, incident in Proctor. There were no injuries.

According to the criminal complaint, Anderson drove his motorized chair into a vehicle parked near a Proctor bar. Anderson told police he was traveling from the Keyboard Lounge after consuming approximately eight or nine beers. His blood-alcohol content was measured at 0.29 percent, more than three times the legal limit to drive.

Anderson claimed he was driving the chair fine until a woman jumped on it and knocked the chair off course. He has one prior DWI conviction. He couldn’t be reached for comment Wednesday.

Proctor Deputy Police Chief Troy Foucault said the chair was powered by a converted lawnmower with a Briggs & Stratton engine. It has a stereo, cup holders and other custom options, including different power levels.

A National Hot Rod Racing Association sticker is posted on the chair’s head rest. The chair had a small steering wheel, about a third of the size of a golf cart’s, coming straight up from the middle of the La-Z-Boy.

Proctor City Prosecutor Ronald Envall said he charged Anderson under the portion of Minnesota law that makes it a crime to operate a self-propelled motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol or drugs. He declined further comment.

Anderson had to forfeit his motorized chair to Proctor police, who plan to auction it with other forfeited items, Foucault said.

This is the motorized La-Z-Boy chair that Dennis Anderson of Proctor was operating when he hit a parked vehicle in 2008. Anderson pleaded guilty to a DWI charge on Monday. (Submitted photo)

Here’s another photo I found of this hobby.

Just think of the pit groupies to co-enjoy this sport!

A Republican legislation-watcher emails this update on Democrats' arm-twisting:

Over the course of the debate on health care reform, a troubling pattern has emerged among the proponents of the various expensive proposals being pushed by the White House and congressional Democrats: a string of reports about strong-arm tactics being used against those who might dissent from, or even offer criticism of, Democrats’ health reform plans.  Senate Democrats in particular seem to be involved in these stories, and today it’s been revealed that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has not been shy in this regard, either.

According to a report in The Hill, “The White House and Democratic leaders are offering doctors a deal: They’ll freeze cuts in Medicare payments to doctors in exchange for doctors’ support of healthcare reform. At a meeting on Capitol Hill last week with nearly a dozen doctors groups, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said the Senate would take up separate legislation to halt scheduled Medicare cuts in doctor payments over the next 10 years. In return, Reid made it clear that he expected their support for the broader healthcare bill, according to four sources in the meeting.” Further, The Hill reports, “‘They said they’re going to need our help in getting healthcare reform over the goal line and they expect our support,’ said a participant who represents doctors. ‘Reid, Baucus and Dodd. All three said the same thing: They want and expect our support.’”

Today’s news comes in the wake of a push from Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to remove anti-trust exemptions for health insurers, which came right after health insurers began pointing to a study they commissioned showing that insurance premiums would increase under a proposal from Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT). Politico reported at the time, “Schumer’s push comes on the heels of a controversial industry-sponsored report released over the weekend that makes the case that insurance premiums will go up by as much as $4,000 per family by 2019 if the Senate Finance Committee legislation is signed into law. The release of that report by the industry group America’s Health Insurance Plans sparked angry blowback from Democrats in both chambers.”

Prior to that, Baucus called in the Obama administration to slap a gag order on the insurer Humana, forbidding it and other companies from communicating about cuts to Medicare Advantage benefits that would result from some of the Democrat health care proposals. Stunningly, even The New York Times editorial page found fault with what it called a “ham-handed attempt to stop health insurers from warning buyers of private Medicare Advantage plans . . . .” The NYT writes, “The administration stepped in after Senator Max Baucus . . . charged that the industry was engaging in unfair scare tactics. But an inquiry by the government’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services had to stretch facts to the breaking point to make a weak case that the insurers were doing anything improper.”

And that followed a summer of strong-arm tactics from Baucus and others, as Brian Faughnan previously documented. These actions included Baucus staffers “pressuring hospitals and insurers to follow the lead of the pharmaceutical industry and pony up to help pay for health reform,” pressuring unions to drop ads criticizing Democrats for plans to tax insurance benefits, and even warning lobbyists not to attend meetings with Republicans about health care. A Democrat lobbyist said he was told such a meeting would “be viewed as a hostile act.”

What is it about health care reform that makes Democrats think they need to resort to such tactics as gag orders, strong-arming, and back room deals? Certainly, Americans remain skeptical of Democrat proposals on a trillion dollar experiment that we know will raise premiums, raise taxes, and cut Medicare. Perhaps Democrats would be better served addressing these fundamental flaws in their bills, instead of resorting to pressure tactics designed to discourage criticism.

It’s time for Jimmy Carter to take on Barack Obama on the issue of human rights.  I don’t expect that to happen but it is clearly called for.  Even Jimmy Carter doesn’t deserve for Barack Obama to be called the most incompetent president since Jimmy Carter.  Barack Obama is worse.

I often surprise critics of Jimmy Carter’s presidency by reminding them he returned US foreign policy to an emphasis on human rights, and that laid a foundation for Ronald Reagan’s successes in reaffirming American dedication and actions to support those who  fought to stay freer and to ultimately dismantle the Soviet Union and its Iron Curtain.

Skipping Carter’s own excesses of idealism and grave mistakes in executing foreign policy, which led to many considering his presidency a disaster and voters rejecting him in 1980, and his descent into outright extremism since, read Jimmy Carter’s commencement speech at Notre Dame in 1977, for example.

I believe we can have a foreign policy that is democratic, that is based on fundamental values, and that uses power and influence, which we have, for humane purposes. We can also have a foreign policy that the American people both support and, for a change, know about and understand.

I have a quiet confidence in our own political system. Because we know that democracy works, we can reject the arguments of those rulers who deny human rights to their people….

First, we have reaffirmed America’s commitment to human rights as a fundamental tenet of our foreign policy. In ancestry, religion, color, place of origin, and cultural background, we Americans are as diverse a nation as the world has even seen. No common mystique of blood or soil unites us. What draws us together, perhaps more than anything else, is a belief in human freedom. We want the world to know that our Nation stands for more than financial prosperity….

In the life of the human spirit, words are action, much more so than many of us may realize who live in countries where freedom of expression is taken for granted. The leaders of totalitarian nations understand this very well. The proof is that words are precisely the action for which dissidents in those countries are being persecuted.

Nonetheless, we can already see dramatic, worldwide advances in the protection of the individual from the arbitrary power of the state. For us to ignore this trend would be to lose influence and moral authority in the world. To lead it will be to regain the moral stature that we once had.

The great democracies are not free because we are strong and prosperous. I believe we are strong and influential and prosperous because we are free.

Throughout the world today, in free nations and in totalitarian countries as well, there is a preoccupation with the subject of human freedom, human rights. And I believe it is incumbent on us in this country to keep that discussion, that debate, that contention alive. No other country is as well-qualified as we to set an example. We have our own shortcomings and faults, and we should strive constantly and with courage to make sure that we are legitimately proud of what we have.

Compare that to Barack Obama’s virtual abandonment of human rights and to any pride in a generation of costly and brave resistance to the Soviet Union, and at least to most others who trampled human rights who weren’t necessary to that primary mission during the Cold War.

Brett Stephens summarizes Barack Obama’s abandonments, in China, Sudan, Iran, Burma, and now not even attending Germany’s celebration of the fall of the Berlin Wall, “a high-water mark in the march of human freedom.”  Obama’s dwindling defenders say he looks forward, not back, or that his vision of a humble US in harmony with other nations will encourage those hostile to be more cooperative.  So far, there’s been exactly the opposite result, as those determined to preserve and extend their despotism and influence are encouraged by US reticence and retreat-after-retreat from Obama’s prior pledges to be firm and resolute.  Stephens concludes:

It also takes a remarkable degree of cynicism—or perhaps cowardice—to treat human rights as something that "interferes" with America's purposes in the world, rather than as the very thing that ought to define them. Yet that is exactly the record of Mr. Obama's time thus far in office.

In the early days of the Cold War it was the moral courage of stout liberals, indeed many being former allies of socialism or communism, who defined the stark difference between the West’s essential core virtue and worth against those who continued to defend or kowtow to its enemies.  These men and women of integrity and grit were my early mentors, and led the free world's resistance to tyranny and repression.

Again, it is time for those with a sincere belief in their primary humanist motivations to stand and dispute the wayward Obama and those who are misled.

An example is the founder and former 20-year president of Human Rights Watch, critical of HRW’s one-sided myopia regarding the Middle East, who writes:

At Human Rights Watch, we always recognized that open, democratic societies have faults and commit abuses. But we saw that they have the ability to correct them — through vigorous public debate, an adversarial press and many other mechanisms that encourage reform.

That is why we sought to draw a sharp line between the democratic and nondemocratic worlds, in an effort to create clarity in human rights. We wanted to prevent the Soviet Union and its followers from playing a moral equivalence game with the West and to encourage liberalization by drawing attention to dissidents like Andrei Sakharov, Natan Sharansky and those in the Soviet gulag — and the millions in China’s laogai, or labor camps.

When I stepped aside in 1998, Human Rights Watch was active in 70 countries, most of them closed societies. Now the organization, with increasing frequency, casts aside its important distinction between open and closed societies….

Only by returning to its founding mission and the spirit of humility that animated it can Human Rights Watch resurrect itself as a moral force in the Middle East and throughout the world. If it fails to do that, its credibility will be seriously undermined and its important role in the world significantly diminished.

Obama isn’t about to listen to conservative critics, indeed he seeks to stifle them.  Perhaps he and his acolytes inexperienced in the great moral battles and sacrifices of the Cold War might listen to allies who know better.  These former liberal leaders owe that to their own integrity and legacy, or else cooperate in its demise.

All the interest groups are trying to protect their piece of the national health care spending pie in the various legislative proposals.  Tort lawyers, the largest contributors to Democrats, have succeeded beyond all others.

Tort reforms that reduce the costs of defensive medicine are off the table in all the legislation.  Now, they want to increase their portion of the pie, by eliminating the right of insurers to recover from tort settlements the amount paid in claims.  Claimants, thus, have increased motivation to sue, the possibility of suits and the awards increasing defensive medicine costs, and tort lawyers gain increased business.

Aetna is the closest “fellow traveler” among insurers to the advocates of ObamaCare, playing a delicate game of seeking like other insurers to increase premiums flowing to it from a mandate to have insurance while avoiding excess claims impact on increasing premiums, reducing private insurance due to guaranteed coverage without a mandate, while increasing the enrollment in a taxpayer subsidized government-plan.

So, alone among insurers, Aetna emailed me today (an independent employee benefits broker and consultant), “Aetna participated (as the only invited insurer) in a discussion among a cross-section of key players in the health care debate: the trial bar, employers, unions, and an insurer.  The convening authority was the senior staff from all three key House Committees.”  The subject: “The issue is whether the House bill should include a trial bar-supported provision to deny insurers (and union plans) the right to recover, from the insured, health care payments when the insured member has already received payment for the very same expense from a court award or settlement.”  Guess what?: “The staff and the trial bar want this provision.”

Recovery by insurers or medical providers from tort awards is currently particular  and complex in each state and federal jurisdiction.  The tort lawyers aim is to in one fell swoop have their way, damn the costs to others than the fees to themselves and the double-payments to clients.

Last week, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that tort reform caps on settlements would reduce the federal costs of health care by $54-billion.  The Associated Press concludes: “Even in the health care debate, that's real money.” But, the CBO report only touches on a small portion of the total cost of defensive medicine.

One of the leading doctor-bloggers (not hostile toward much of reforms) wrote in USA Today: “At $210 billion annually [according to various studies; about 9% of total health care spending], defensive medicine is one of the largest contributors to wasteful spending, and it can manifest in many forms: unnecessary CT scans, MRIs, cardiac testing and hospital admissions. A 2005 survey in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that 93% of doctors reported practicing defensive medicine.”

The association of major insurers, America’s Health Care Plans (AHIP), finally launched a last-minute counter-attack the day before the Senate Finance Committee vote, to little avail.  It will have even less influence in the legislation negotiations in Harry Reid’s office, only including Reid, Senator Dodd, Senator Baucus and the White House.

Tort lawyers' objectives and influence is clear.  The rest of us are not adequately represented.

P.S.: Good discussion of the context. 

In considering the motivations of Maine Senator Olympia Snowe’s decision to vote in the Senate Finance Committee in favor of sending its unwritten healthcare bill to the full Senate one should understand that aside from any other reasons Maine would benefit.

Snowe has teeter-tottered, basically desiring an expansion of government health care programs, but the decisive factor may well be that she is a Senator from Maine.  Regardless of her political stripe, the best explanation of Senator Snowe’s vote is she wants to bring home the dollars from other states’ taxpayers to provide medical coverage to the voters in her state.

Some of Maine’s latest statistics:

Maine is a gross receiver of $1.41 of federal spending for each dollar of federal taxes paid from the state’s taxpayers.

Maine, however, has one of the highest state and local tax burdens among the states.

Maine’s business tax climate is among the least attractive.

Maine’s Dirigo Health, its attempt at universal health care, is a failure, as in other states. The percent uninsured in Maine did not budge under Dirigo.  Dirigo contains a “public” option, which didn’t work, so Senator Snowe has opposed one.  She, however, has pushed in the Senate Finance Committee to reduce the penalty for not buying insurance, which together with the guarantee of coverage regardless of health condition will result in increased premiums to those who are insured and make a subsidized government plan more attractive.  Similarly, the taxpayers' or overall costs of the expansion aren’t primary to her.

Politico has a discussion of the leverage Senator Snowe may obtain from her vote. Some of those in favor of a more extreme bill fear that.  They needn’t, as now that she has voted in the Finance Committee, her voice can and will be ignored by the Democrat leadership patching up whatever they wish to move forward.  That will likely include some sort of sub rosa “public” plan.

Others notice the bailout of Maine's failed Dirigo, at the expense of other states.  Instapundit wonders "Payola?"