ARE THE POLITICIANS IN WASHINGTON LISTENING?

Pay attention folks, the debate is poised to take a turn for the worse. Not only has the Democratic machine been placed in high gear, but the heat has been turned up on the voices of dissent. Apparently, the politicians received an ear full when they returned home for summer break. Not just about health care reform, but about run away spending, giant deficits, and record national debt levels, even more than the white House had projected as recently as the Spring.

With the President's poll numbers falling weekly, the American public is beginning to question whether we are on the right track to solve the economic crisis, retard the rate of growth of health care costs, effectively combat terrorism, reduce unemployment rates, and return America to growth and prosperity. President Obama campaigned on these themes, amongst other promises (end the occupation of Iraq, liberalize union voting rules, and other issues that pandered to the radical left of his party).

Today, Obama is more like the Emperor without any clothes. Behind the curtain in the land of Obama, sits an organ grinder turning the wheels of progress, not some wizard who can command by intimidation, golden voice, and conjure up magical solutions. Yes, Obama has been humbled! Did he really think his golden voice of rhetoric could actually convince people to do something that they instinctively know is wrong for the nation? Enough Independent voters and moderate republicans switched side to give Obama a wide margin of victory. The vote ushered in an unprecedented Democratic control of both the House and the Senate. "It will be a cake walk" must have been the battle cry by the Obamaniks readying themselves for the White House, check books in hand to start spreading the money around their liberal ideology.

At this stage in the presidency, Obama should be riding high with power. With the wind of Congress behind him, his signature domestic agenda item, the overhaul of the American health care system, should have been railroaded through the Senate and the House. Union voting rules should have forever changed the landscape of labor relations between the employer and the unions representing the workers. We should be one step closer to a more socialistic model for America as envisaged by the Obama and the liberal left. But we are not!

Irrespective of the causes, whether it is the lack of presidential leadership in the drafting of the health reform package, the ineptness of the House and Senate leadership to insist on party unity, a poor sales job by the President and his band of Obamaniks, or just a poorly written and explained health policy, the end result is the same. Obama is playing defense when he has the strongest team (A House that can pass any bill without the support of one single Republican and a Senate, up until the death of Sen Edward (Ted) Kennedy, that was filibuster-proof.

The one thing the Obama administration would like to have avoided is the void created with the summer Congressional break, a period that would allow the opposition to gain a better understanding of what the thousands of pages of legislation contained, to muster support to oppose the legislation at the grass roots level, and mount a public education campaign to inform the public exactly what Obama has in mind for their health insurance and access to benefits.

The Administration got what they feared most, a public backlash. People attending the townhall meetings of the legislators greeted their representatives with hostility, questioning not just the health reform bills currently moving through Congress, but expressed their displeasure at the scope of spending, the effectiveness of the stimulus program, joblessness, and the increasing public debt. Stunned by the very act of questioning the Obama administration and its vision, the attack dogs mustered up the attack squads. Unions were dispatched to intimidate the voices of dissent. Advertising in vulnerable Congressional Districts were run to intimidate Democrats and Republicans alike who dared to disagree with the party manifesto, and I mean Manifesto. Shouting matches cropped up, each side attempting to silence the others. The Senators and Representatives were sent cowering behind the rostrums, whining about the pointed questions and disagreements that were hurled at them. Many cried out, "these people are not part of the district, they are from out of town". More than a few stopped the meetings. The brave few carried on, and in the spirit of American freedom of expression, stood by and took the questions and insults like a man.

Suddenly, townhall meetings became a political liability for both parties. The Democrats reasoned that the townhall meetings were not a good forum and suggested they conduct telephone conference calls so they could control dissent. Hardly an action any democracy should suggest if they want to hear what all the people think; great, if you just want to be stroked and field softballs from party loyalists.

The geniuses leading the House and the Senate came up another strategy equally repulsive. The American people do not like the program, at least a majority of the people polled think it is in the wrong direction. Nancy Pelosi, between breaths calling the dissenters "un-American", pledged to pass the bill as writte pointing out they had the votes sufficient to pass the bill without any Republican vote. Harry Reid bellows that their majority is filibusterer-proof and pledges to pass the bill no matter what the public thinks. Chucky Shummer, Christopher Dodd, Steny Hoyer, they all line up and propose to use a Parliamentary maneuver to pass the health care reform package with a simple majority. While within the rules, the original intention of the rule was to use it for appropriations not major legislation.

Thanks to the early Bush Republican years a precedent was set when the Republicans passed the 2003 tax cut legislation using the same rule. That time, there was not widespread dissent on the issue. The public generally approved of the tax cut. This time, there is not a general agreement by a public who supports the passage of a bill that will effect every American, most adversely, and will rearrange 17% of GDP. To the contrary, there is active dissent. The Republican cleaverness of 2003 is now potentially biting them in the rear as the Congressional Leaders giving serious thought to using the maneuver to pass the health care reform.

A sorry state of affairs for American ideals. Due to a rush to pass health care legislation for political purposes, we are about to possibly trample on the principles of a representative democracy, ignore the majority of the public who agrees that improving the health care system's cost and access should be a priority, but disagree with the plan that has been prepared, without any presidential leadership, as proposed by the pending bills in the House and Senate (the House passed a version in waning days of the session prior to the summer recess, but differs from the leading, but unpassed Senate version). Our elected leadership refuses to believe that the public is against the health reform plan or simply does not want to hear it.

But, as each day goes by, more of the truth of the plan emerges from the reading of the legislation, the comments from the "truth squads" dispatched to tell the public why they should like the plan, and from the opposition. We find out more about the Special Interests groups who were bought off by Obama to support the plan by agreeing to a minimal levels of cuts so a floor could be put under the damage to their industries represented.

This includes Big Pharma (the largest contributor to the rise in health care costs, agreed to direct negotiations with the government's Medicare program for the cost of pharmaceuticals incurred by Medicare beneficiaries and to provide a contribution to the cost reductions Obama needed by subsidizing the cost of drugs for low-income beneficiaries), The AMA (a law on the books as far back as the Clinton presidency called for a reduction of medical fees to achieve parity with other inflationary adjustments. Congress repeatedly ignored the law and gave an annual reprieve, the reduction required growing to a 25% reduction in 2009. In exchange for a floor of damage limiting the annual increase to the same rate as given to other health care providers and no across the board reduction and eliminating the provisions of the more severe law mandating a 25% reduction, the AMA agreed to support the legislation), AHA (agreed to live with a lower, but not crippling cost of living increase applied to the reimbursement rate for Medicare beneficiaries).

Off the table was any consideration of tort reform, opposed by the plaintiffs bar, a decision made strategically to minimize the number of dissenters. Not that anybody in the White House does not understand that tort reform is a key to the reduction in the over utilization of services and waste of health care dollars, they were not ready to have a powerful lobby, the plaintiff's bar, as an adversary at this time. The American public was a far easier target to roll over and quiet, so they thought! Now that's change we can believe in!

Then comes articles written by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a White House health policy advisor and brother of Rhamm Emanuel, the President's Chief of Staff. There is something about Chicago and it's politicians. Rhamm built his reputation as an attack dog in the Clinton years and is accustomed to the elbowing tactics of the Chicago political machine, a bare-knuckles approach perfected in the seedy street-fighting conducted daily in Chicago politics. Dr. Ezekiel prescribes a different sort of medicine to solve the issue of the high cost health care. Anyone with any interest should google Dr. Ezekiel to read his theories. They are scary at the least, and down right Un-American at the most. Dr. Ezekiel proposes to throw out the Hippocratic oath, an oath that every physician who is trained has taken that admonishes every physician to "use my power to help the sick to best of my ability and judgment". Why? Because DR. Ezekiel believes that that oath leads physicians to over-utilize health resources and channels the physician to think only about their own patient's need. Wow, amazing! Dr. Exekiel would rather have the physician think as a communitarian, placing the greater good ahead of the patient's need, upending over three thousand years of an ethic that physician's have committed to and that patients have grown accustomed to in their relationship with the physician who cares for them.

Is this because there is a need to modernize an old concept? Is it because these ancient concepts are, well you know, old-fashioned and out of step with today? Is this the kind of change we can believe in? I would venture to say, no, it is just another liberal concept, doing things for the greater good.

But, it gets worse than that. He is also championing a concept called "complete lives system". This is a formula-based system of allocating resources, not based on need, but to further the concept of "the greater good". In this system, scarce resources are allocated. "One maximizing strategy involves saving the most individual lives.." (Lancet, Jan 31, 2009). It goes on to view that everything being equal saving five lives is better than one.

In an Aug. 16, 2009 Washington Post interview, Dr. Ezekiel argues that decisions on allocation of resources should focus on a "communitarian perspective so resources are allocated to keep society going". In his thinking, the social guarantee is basic where service that ensure the future generations, where development of practical reasoning skills are achieved, and where it will ensure an active and full participation by citizens. Covering service to individual" are not basic and would not be guaranteed. He has devised a chart of the "lives system" that indicates a priority curve that benefit the 15 to 40 year age groups with the most substantial chance of resources being allocated to treat their disease, with the least chance assigned to the youngest and oldest people. Cold-hearted liberalism at it's finest!

This, from the man closest to Obama in health policy. Is there any question which direction health reform will go under the current House bill? Is there any question where Obama's head is? The American people are just learning the lies that have been told by Obama when he says, "if you like your health plan, nobody is going to take it away". Obama promises to generate savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention, and wellness, installing electronic medical records, and reduce fraud and abuse.

Even his health policy wonk, Dr. Ezekiel is skeptical. He wrote in the Feb 27, 2008 issue of JAMA (the Journal of the American Medical Association),"Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, and improving quality of care are merely "lipstick" cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change." How can Obama think the public is stupid enough to buy his explanation when his own advisor calls it what it is. If you put lipstick on a pig, it is still a pig!

Before we rush off as a herd running towards a cliff supporting the current health reform bills, let's pause, refresh our computers, and start over with a transparent public debate without the attack dogs, the lobbyist that Obama promised to ignore and eliminate, and bring the parties together with a clean slate. Keep the public well informed, be honest and accept that 85& of the people are happy with what they have. Figure out how to add the people who are un and under-insured without killing health insurance for 85% of the people. Keep ideology out of the debate and consider what is best of the country and it's people, not what will score points with your special interest groups and party support base. No plan will be credible if there is not shared sacrifice. That does not mean one group gets all the upside and the other shares all the downside. Good reform will be evident when everybody is unhappy that they did not get what they want. That includes the politicians.

If you can not understand this, then the voters will decide in Nov 2010 whether you will continue to represent them. The choice is yours. But, don't dismiss the public opinion, and don't get cute with words and try to con them. We are pretty good at sensing when we are being conned. And we sense it now!

PERLMUTTER "GREED IS GOOD" MEETS MICKEY MOUSE

Folks, this is hardly new news nor is it the only example of the continuing saga of "executive greed" to show up in the past few weeks. But, it is a good example of of the clear lack of judgment by a Board of Directors, a story that is beginning to be heard over and over in the US and Europe. Don't get me wrong, I am in favor of people making as much money as they can and for incentivizing people to do things in the best interest of the shareholders. The Perlmutter story goes beyond the pale. It ventures into the colorful world of executive greed and Board justification that defies common sense.

A few weeks back, the Wall Street Journal reported that Chairman "Ike" Perlmutter received 1.27 million share options in the weeks one of his subordinates was talking to Disney about a closer relationship. Months after the initial discussions, Marvel and Disney agreed to merge. Sounds harmless, so far.

But, the shares were granted at around $23 per share. Eight months later, after the deal was announced, the share price hit $50 per share. Bingo, Perlmutter walks away with more than $34 million dollars for nothing but being at the firm an additional 8 months and agreeing to a deal that gives the shareholders $50 per share. Are you with me so far?

Perlmutter did a deal that was very beneficial to the shareholders. He should be applauded, you say? Well, he should, it was a favorable deal for the Marvel shareholders. Then why complain?

Perlmutter, before the options were granted, held 28.9 million shares of Marvel, or 37% of the total shares outstanding. His stake was worth $1.445 billion. That is not the problem, though. Perlmutter took Marvel and developed a solid franchise, one that he controlled through a mighty 37% of the shares. He earned every penny of the $1.445 billion, not only for what he did for Marvel, the compnay, but for the company's shareholders. Why would he soil his reputation and the merger with yet another example of executive greed?

The Board said they gave him more options because his contract was up in Nov 2009 and was part of an agreement to extend his contract. For years, Marvel had awarded executives restricted stock, not options. But, this year, only Perlmutter received options instead of restricted stock. The other executives received restricted stock, vesting over a period of time. This inconsistency is not, in itself a problem. The reasons given by the Board of Directors is the problem. Apparently the Board was concerned that Perlmutter did not have enough incentive to continue his strong performance. As reported in the Wall Street Journal article, this was the reason given to treat his option grants as options and not restricted stock and to grant them in the first place.

How much more incentive does a man need if he owns 37% of the company? If he screws up, it cost him in a reduced share price. If he takes the eye off the ball, he loses. If he works hard and does the right thing, he wins. Why can a Board not see that this man had enough incentive. Was there another reason for the grant. Could be?

This is just a clear sign of a Board of Directors detached from reality. Not only was the reason given faulty, but the timing has an appearance of pandering to the CEO, granting extra pay in the face of a merger. The need for Mr. Perlmutter to act in the best interest of the shareholders was present in his ownership of 37% of the company. That sounds like enough of an interest to keep his performance strong. A ill-timed, questionable grant of 1.27 million shares worth $34 million, or 2.3% of the vaue of his holding is hardly an incentive. It smacks of a Board of Directors under the control of a greedy executive looking out for the biggest paycheck, no matter what it looks like. It conveys a decision made by the Board that lacks credibility. The very thought that Perlmutter needed another $34 million to do the right thing for the company is ridiculous, utterly preposterous. It is something you would see out a cartoon book, not a cartoon Board of Directors.

Now, many of you out there will say, who cares, he made a lot of money for the shareholders. I can imagine no big shareholder will begrudge the extra $34 million. There are thousands of excuses, apologies, or dismissive words to describe their behavior as fiduciaries. There may be no difference between the vesting of the restricted stock and the employee options. That, too, is not the point. And, shareholders miss the point if they do not at least recognize that this is the very behavior that could bring excessive pressure from the Obama administration and the regulators to improve executive compensation standards. The Perlmutter flies into the face of the Obama administration's moves to reign in excessive executive compensation and greed. The Board's behavior furthers the argument for stricter compensation policies.

The last thing I want to see is the government setting executive compensation. But, corporations and their Board of Directors must take the lead and make sensible policies for executive pay, reign in incentives that will not work, like Perlmutter's bogus option to keep him performing strongly, and align the interests of the shareholders with the opinions and perceptions from Main Street. The vast majority of people are willing to see the masters of the universe make a lot of money for the effort the put out on behalf of the shareholders. But cases where some CEO schmo owns a large percentage of the company should not necessitate additional option grants to keep the CEO on the ball. The price of the stock should provide the incentive if that case. Boards need to stop justifying ridiculous decisions with the same old excuse as used with people who have little to no ownership of a company, yet need long term incentives to assure strong performance.

The Boards can do it or the regulators can do it. Who do you want setting compensation for executives? If you were Main Street today, you may be more comfortable with the regulators. Boards and CEOs need to start building credibility with Main Street. Hopefully Goldman Sachs will hear that when they decide to reward their culture of greed with pay above the 2007 levels after receiving a hefty amount of taxpayer dollars to tide them over the rough patch last year. I dare say, Main Street will feel they got screwed. I would have to agree. Not that the Money Machine has not performed exceedingly well, but we will never be able to know their true success. We can only glance a glimpse and then just only momentarily!

GOOD RIDDANCE, KENNETH

Remember, Kenneth, when you were in Kindergarten, how some of the kids would suck up to the teacher thinking they may be treated special if they were really, really, really nice to the teacher. Didn't work then, did it?

Then what in the hell were you doing back in the fall of 2008 forcefully arguing that all the financial chiefs should buckle under to the government's demands that the banks and financial institutions should take government money to ease the credit crunch. Were you thinking you will be rewarded in the future by regulators who may go softly on you and the organization? Didn't work, did it?

By December, your new friends in the government wanted to hear nothing about the possibility of backing out of the Merril Lynch deal. You said they forced you to do the deal against your better advise. Didn't work, did it?

When the public was outraged at the bonsus payments, you cried out that you and your organization had no hand in it, that it was done by someone else and that your friends in government knew all about it. Didn't work, did it?

In fact, you and your Board knew of the bonuses, it was part of the deal. Your friends in the government invited you to testify in front of Congress, only this time it was a new Administration, the Administration of the "Hopeful Messiah Obama". Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd and the band of merrymakers called the the democratically- controlled Congress were your new friends. It was payback time. Didn't work, did it?

Through the Spring and Summer, there was one lightening rod, it was you. If any CEO tried to wear the teflon coat it was you. Didn't work, did it? By mid summer, you did not need to know how to read tea leaves to realize you were toast.

Unfortunately, the great things you did for the little bank from the West when your little known east coast bank merged with Bank of America and you began an incredible run as a bank CEO. All that career, up in smoke over one last merger that would create a power house. Yes, congratulations on building a powerhouse financial institution. But, because of some serious missteps in this last acquisition, weak conviction, arrogance, and blame tossing, your successes have been blemished and you will be on the sideline watching as your company realizes the benefits of the Merril Lynch merger nd its large contribution to the earnings.

Oh, by the way, nice kiss-off pay. While your shareholders have seen there value drop significantly and will only recover over the next many years, you will be counting your $69 million exit pay. To bad your options are worthless. With some effort, you probably could have made a ton more money if you thought first about the shareholders and not about yourself. We at least are saved from that indignity, thanks to you.

With that, I say farewell, good-bye, and good riddance.

Senior Democrat turns healthcare debate into fight over immigration - TheHill.com

Senior Democrat turns healthcare debate into fight over immigration

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/59331-menendez-forces-immigration-debate-into-healthcare-fight

Pelosi: Democrats facing toughest midterms ever - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

Pelosi: Democrats facing toughest midterms ever - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

Shared via AddThis

Elephant in the room: Race also present in rebuke of Wilson | McClatchy

Elephant in the room: Race also present in rebuke of Wilson | McClatchy
Image source--http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/75492.html

Shared via AddThis

Obama-The Carnival Huckster

For every problem, there's a cure, and President Obama will tell you what that cure is before he knows the problem. His cure, the nationalization of the health insurance industry. So what's the problem? For one, the majority of Americans do not want his cure and he will not accept that the nation will not roll over and play dead over his "plan". Why? He doesn't have a plan, he has identified the problem, as he and his liberal friends see it, not as the American public sees it. He delegated the job of designing a solution without any guidance, to that much reviled American institution called Congress. No fewer than 5 committees from the House and at least one important Senate committee, with little to no input from the Republicans.

Without leaving Obama's fingerprints on it, Obama's White House negotiated the limitation of damages the major health industry players will incur provided they hop on board the Obama express and promote his "plan". In spite campaigning on a platform to limit the level of involvement of the Washington lobbyists, the backroom arm twisting was facilitated by the very lobbyists he promised to remove from influencing legislation. To show he was going to be tough on removing costs from health care system, he turned his attention on the health insurance industry and on the waste and fraud in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. He wants you to believe that success in these two areas will pay for the new entitlement, subsidized health insurance on a sliding scale for those who claim hardship or can not afford to pay for health care insurance.

Does he think he makes sense? Now, I want to tell you, he does, because he says so. Since the advent of Medicare and Medicaid, every breathing and thinking person in America knows that there is waste and inefficiency. After all, it is a government program, the same government that brought you $1000 toilet seats and several hundred dollar screw drivers. The Amercian people know that their government is not efficient in the handling of taxpayers funds. It knows that Congress is irresponsible with managing the people's money. Every President pledges to remove waste from the government, after all it is there for the picking. Why, with all the Harvard educated geniuses that find their way into government service, have they not wrung out the savings? You know the answer. But, President Obama says he will do it, that it is a new day and we have to look forward. "Yes we can" is his motto. Do you dare to contradict the President? You bet your sweet ass you should because it is all bullshit. If it was there to the degree Obama and his minions believe, it would have been taken and corrected well before now. Nothing in his plan indicates a path to the savings, other than stripping out $500 billion from Medicare under the guise of eliminating waste. Wonder what waste he is talking about, the waste of money by paying for end of life care? How about the "unwarranted subsidies" to insurance companies who offer better coverage to seniors who opt to go to a Medicare Advantage provider, an insurance company that is paid by the government a flat rate to assume 100% of the cost of Medicare patients. The same people who have attracted a growing number of seniors to a government sponsored alternative to traditional Medicare. A plan with growing popularity amongst seniors for its superior comprehensive benefits. Is this the type of waste reduction you can believe in?

When Obama says that seniors should not listen to the scare tactics of the opposition, Should you listen? Damned right you should listen! You need to be aware of the verbal tricks and verbal slight of hand that comes from the rhetoric of the President. You need to challenge his promises. When Obama says that "nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have" you need to be aware of the grand experiment of Congress in the past when the rate to be reimbursed by the government to the Medicare Advantage providers was cut to a level that caused the providers to pull out of the program, leaving the seniors who had opted out of the traditional Medicare up a creek. The reimbursement was reduced to a level that the business was unprofitable and nobody in the industry was going to lose money just to keep the enrollment numbers up. Congress, in subsequent session, reversed the cuts and attracted the insurers back to the program.

Will it happen again? It very well could if the cuts make the program unprofitable! Will Obama and the liberal Congress care, only if the seniors remain silent. Can you afford to be quiet? No, Congress changed the reimbursement and the enrollment was reinstated because the seniors and their lobbyists AARP caused an uproar. Congressmen may be many things, but when it comes to re-election they are not stupid. Obama on the campaign trail said he favored a single payor system. If he does, he may not care that seniors who opted out of Medicare in favor of the Medicare Advantage plans will have to change back to Medicare. He may not understand that your current physician may not take you under Medicare's poor reimbursement or that you will have to change pharmacy providers because the Medicare Advantage pharmacy benefits are managed by someone else. Now, that is change we can believe in!

Now, we know what Obama has said should bethe direction of the solution. His disdain for the health insurance industry is clear, they are the villains, the cause of the high costs of the health care and the leaders of the inflationary acceleration over the last decades. They caused the medical care inflation index to be two to three times the consumer inflation index. They are the greedy ones who kick insureds off the list at the time of most need, the ones who rate based on age and sex, that charge varying rates based on sex and age, and health experience of the individual or the community. Horrors! How could they do that?

Insurance is an underwriting game, a game that takes into consideration variables that attempt to quantify the risk so that a premium can be charged on some rational basis that relates to their expected medical loss ratio, the ratio of payout to premium, or simply, the expected costs of reimbursing providers for providing care. That the costs reflect experience and other actuarial algorithms related to risk and timing of incurred claims versus incurred and unreported claims does not make the setting of price irrational, arbitrary, or capricious as you would interpret from the remarks by Obama. That each state has an insurance commission and are members of the National Association of Insurance Commissioner (NAIC) is not recognized by Obama. Each state abides by the standards established by the rules of the state and the NAIC in formulating regulations that govern all manner of insurance. It should not be interpreted as a loose system that needs the assistance of the Federal Government. It is highly regulated and Obama would upset the delicate system of insurance regulation based on State insurance underwriting standards and would abandon sound actuarial standards of risk management in what he has proposed.

Worse, Obama would nationalize health insurance, applying price controls on many of the elements essential to understanding the risk as an insurance provider, eliminating, in fact outlawing age and sex cohorts, experience-rating standards, prohibit pre-existing conditions as a risk factor, arbitrarily cap out of pocket expenses, remove life time caps. The Federal Government would set the rules and regulate the industry. Then, he would force the insurance providers to compete against a government subsidized not-for-profit option that he claims will have lower administrative costs, lower executive compensation, and more efficiency than the companies that provide coverage now, including the many fine Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans that are currently not-for-profit and cover many of the citizens who could not access group coverage without the BC/BS plans?

Obama says he wants competition to keep the insurance companies honest. This is ok if the competition was on a level playing field with like competition, but with the government establishing an agency-like health care entity with an implied government guarantee, doesn't sound a great deal like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, with all the benefits of Congressional tampering and politics as usual tramping on private enterprise. We all know how well Fannie Me and Freddie Mac worked out. Can we risk our health system to such antics?

How many companies will survive this competition? Who knows, but if history is any example, many will just cease to exist or merge creating even bigger behemoths and less competition. It means that the estimated number of 5% of the population is seriously understated. As Obama said, there is nothing in his plan that will require you to change your insurer if you are happy with the insurer. He also says, there is nothing that will require businesses to change the coverage for the employees. What he does not say is what happens if the employer, who makes an economic decision and who finds his costs have increased because of the new limits on underwriting such as out of pocket caps and pricing controls, mandated coverage, and other limits placed on his plan. If the cost is higher than the penalty to pay for not providing health insurance coverage, he may make an economic decision. Either drop and pay the penalty or raise his costs without any offset. Which way do you think he will go?What happens if some insurers simply change their business model, refusing to lose money on each subscriber? You lose, and the taxpayer loses.

Now, most large businesses no longer purchase "indemnity" plans, rather, they have switched years ago to what is called "ASO" plans, health coverage where the larger employers self-insure, contracting with insurance companies who bring a network of providers, negotiated prices, information systems for claims processing, consultation on plan design, etc, but not insurance. This is true of the large employers, but encompasses employers as small as 500 employees. The insurance companies charge a few per subscriber, but take no risk. The employer takes the risk and funds the medical expenses, accruing unknown medical expenses. Under Obama's plan, how will they know what their risk is and will they be able to charge the employees and the dependents enough of a contribution, together with the employers portion, so that the health care costs do not become a surprise? With much uncertainty in the calculation, employers will be motivated to find the cheapest care.

What about the people who have been responsible and purchased individual policies, joined community HMOs, bought indemnity plans who now see their cost go up with the uncertainity of underwriting? Will they keep their own coverage or will they capitulate and drop coverage and buy the cheaper plan? undoubtedly, there will be many who change plans to the government plan and probably will have to change doctors because their doctor will not accept the reduced reimbursement the government plan will pay.

That is why it is disingenuous of the President to sell his plan as if there will be minimum disruption to the existing system. This is why it it not credible for the President to stand there and lie to the American public and misrepresent the damge his plan will have to the safety and security of our healthinsurance we currently have. A health system that is working for 85% of the people, the people who favorably rate their existing coverage. Be honest, Mr. Presidnet, tell the people you really want a single payor system. Quite trying to sell them an elixir when you know it is just snake oil! Any other words, no matter how eloquently delivered, are just words, just words, you know!

We know the health system can be improved, can be held more accountable for outcomes, and should provide health care to American citizens who can not afford health insurance with out some help, either with tax credits or vouchers do to incomes to large to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to pay for Health coverage. We should mandate enrollment of all eligible children in CHIP and SCHIP programs as a condition for the continuation of welfare payments or food stamps. We can change eligibility for Medicaid to provide health insurance to the most needy. We do not need to upset the entire system working for 85% of the people for the 10 to 12 million who need a hand in affording health care. We do not need some grand experiment with a public option, we already have public options, and they are not very efficient nor cost effective, because they are government programs. We do not need another entitlement that will be bankrupt in 40 years. We need some common sense solutions that we can all get behind. We need a bipartisan consensus, not a partisan plus 1 or 2 solution.

Video of Joe Wilson's speech

Lumpen Bureaucratiat

The American people will not accept the status quo when it comes to health care, we are reminded by Tom Daschel. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Steny Hoyer toe the progressive line, insisting that the American people are demanding changes in the health care system. They want "universal coverage" for the greater good, a progressive ideology that justifies the redistribution of wealth and support changes for the many to benefit the few.

Candidate Obama promised to address the number one issue on the mind of the American public (they believe), the reform of health care, careful to avoid any link to the inevitable tax increase on the middle class that will be needed to pay for the reform, while hiding any semblance of a plan, in laying out grand principals: coverage for all with low cost high quality health care coverage. When pressed, he promised to rid Medicare of waste and abuse, soak the rich with a tax increase, and punish the health insurance industry by prohibiting sound underwriting principles. In short, increase the costs for the health insurance industry and redistribute the wealth to accommodate the reform of the largest component of the GDP, after defense, the health care industry. All to accommodate 5 million people who can not afford health insurance and to subsidize the health insurance for 10-12 million who make enough but chose not to buy insurance. To risk the health insurance of 90% of the population, 85% happy with their coverage.

President Obama, after countless speeches on health care reform, continues to lay out the same broad principles, quality health care for all at low cost. President Obama has left the writing of the legislation to the progressive wing of his party. Fearing a liberal backlash, he continues a pattern of ducking difficult issues needed for true reform so he leaves no fingerprints on a bill that may bankrupt America. A pattern of avoidance that can be seen in his Illnois Senate voting record, where he voted present more times than any other state legislator.

We are told health reform is good for business, for the people, and for the country. We are asked to suspend disbelief to support a reform that promises something for nothing. We can deliver high quality, low cost care to everyone and pay for it without raising taxes on the middle class (we are warned to be prudent consumers, that if it is too good to be true, it probably isn't). But if the President says it is true, we are to expected to be true believers.

We are also told that what is being considered by Congress is hog-wash. The Congressional scorekeepers have scored the bill passed by the House and have concluded the promise of savings is just that, a promise. It will never happen. Indeed, if passed into law, over the next 10 years the deficit will increase by 9 thousand Billion dollars (that's 9 trillion dollars, folks). This from a body that, according to a recent Rasmussen poll, 57% of the voters would throw out of office in mass based on their job performance. Now that is confidence in the Bureaucratiae. House polls in the 30% range of approval for the job they are doing, is paralleled by the ratings of Pelosi and Reid Even the President's rating has dipped below the 50% level, with more people expressing disapproval than voicing approval ratings for the handling of the domestic agenda. He still maintains a high level of support, in spite of the public's skepticism of his handling of the economy and the domestic agenda.

History is filled with inspired leaders, tapping the roots of discontent found in the masses, to overturn existing leaders, take control of nations, and impose their will on the people who made possible their revolutions. It is filled with the ruins of empires, masses subjected to progressive ideology, massive wealth distribution, chronic poverty, low productivity, and anemic economic growth. We have witnesses mis-steps in foreign policy lead by diplomacy by appeasement, the fall of prime ministers, the horrors of war in the name of ideologies.

One thing in common with the leaders of the 20th century who plunged the world into world war and isolated nations in a cold war lasting the better part of 40 years and Obama is that these leaders gained their positions by emphasizing progressive ideologies against the back drop of populist unrest. Promising a cure to all evils by the redistribution of wealth, demonizing business and their leaders, laying waste to years of progress by blaming the engines of growth for the disparity of income, and promising a new day. Isolation, trade barriers, appeasement with the enemies, were the norm, but underneath diplomacy was the bodyguard of lies. The most virulent of the populist revolutionaries made purges of the intellectuals, creating a more progressive intelligentsia. The masses, no better after the revolution, became the silent majority ruled by leaders who no longer needed to seriously respond to the will of the people, the progressives were in charge and they knew what is best.

The progressives had become the tyrants, the despots, the dictators. The people outside of the progressive elites were the tools to be exploited, to be ignored. The will of the leaders substituted for the will of the people.

Today, our leaders run the risk of marginalizing the vast majority of the population. the American people have voiced great concern about their priorities. Yes, they would like health care improvements. They would like to see the rate of inflation of the health care in line with the general rate of inflation. Since Medicare and Medicaid was passed, the medical care cost index has been above the rate of consumer costs in general. With the Government running over 50% of the health care system, cost increases have consistently been more than twice the rate of growth of the general consumer costs. Health insurance premiums have been consistent with the governmental inflation rates. There are a lot of reasons for the high rate of inflation, but the least important reason is general price increases, the more specific culprits are increased medical loss ratios (the medical costs incurred by the insurance companies exceed the underwriting standards meaning more use per thousand population, increases in input costs of labor and capital incurred by providers, increased medical technology costs for better diagnostic equipment, drugs, and procedures, and increased waste in the systems do to lack of controls), population dynamics, and the structure of the delivery system.

The American people have also strongly voiced their priorities. They told their elected representatives at town hall meeting after town hall meeting in August that Washington should be focusing on the Economy and jobs creation, the Budget deficit, and the country's mounting debt problem. Carbon credit programs, environmental programs, health reform, and the numerous tax increases to pay for all the progressive reforms should be put on the back burner until the country has returned to economic health, jobs have been created, and the deficits reduced. A plan needs to be in place to shore up the strength of the dollar, build financial credibility for our financial institutions, and create the environment that stimulates business formation and job creation.

Only the progressives believe that their "green" programs and their income re-distribution schemes are stimulative. They convinced enough hapless moderates to vote for a non-stimulating stimulus program. They believe, truly, that by providing a government option to the private insurance companies that the country will be able to reduce the cost of health insurance for the vast middle class and reduce the deficit. With competiton from a government option, the consumer will make rational choices and look for value for money. It will force the insurance companies to change their business model, give up underwriting standards, and meet the price the government program, supported by the healthy tax revenues from the new tax increases imposed on a shifting sand definition of middle class taxpayers.

Can we believe what they say? Remember, Congress doe not have a great track record on estimating future costs of their landmark programs. In fact, with all their experts and the geniuses in Congress at the time of Lydon Johnson's Great Entitlements explosion and the passage of Medicare and Medicaid, the trajectory of costs forecast for these two grand entitlements was hopelessly underestimated leaving the shortfall to be made up by the now taxpayers in the form of higher and higher payroll related medicare taxes and still facing the prospect of insufficient capital to cover the costs of the entitlement. With budge gimmickry practiced by both parties over the past two decades, Congress wanted to avoid the difficult decisions of yesterday for a future generation. We have now run out of generational time to pass the buck.

Remember the budget overruns with Medicaid. When originally adopted, the cost trajectory for future program costs were woefully underestimated. Congress stepped in and did what they do best, they passed the buck and changed formulas for cost sharing and sent the bill to the states, keeping the majority of the overruns off the Federal books.

In fact, we can not believe what Obama promises, there is just no evidence that Obama, Congress or the administration can deliver the forecasted expenditures, without voodoo accounting used by Congress to ignore outer years and time the changes to meet "targeted" budget goals, goals that bear no relationship to the real run rates that can be expected, run rates that Corporate America must rely on to get a true picture of financial resources need rather than budget gimmicks to obscure the facts and give a true transparency that we were all promised.

Take back your country. Let your senators and representatives know where you stand on the health care issue. Let Obama know that you expected to be heard. Let your friends and neighbors know that sweet talk and shallow promises by an emptied- suited President imposing his will on the American public will not fly. Spin, innuendo and incomplete facts and facts out of context just will not make health reform anything but a fiasco. When Obama talks of shared sacrifice, he wants you to sacrifice so he can share the benefits with those less fortunate, even at the expense of the 90% of the insured poulation and at the expense of those over 65 who depend on security and stability to make it through the days, weeks and months. Real reform will require everyone to sacrifice. Unfortunately, Obama's plan does not address real reform, it does not give a path that is credible on changing how we cover our entitlements, how costs will be reduced, and how reform can be achieved when he has cut deals that minimize the cost reductions from the largest elements of the health care system, the physicians, hospitals, and the insurance industry, the very industry he wants to destroy.

It is not hard to understand why there are skeptics. It is even harder to understand why Washington does not get it.

ARE THE POLITICIANS IN WASHINGTON LISTENING?

Pay attention folks, the debate is poised to take a turn for the worse. Not only has the Democratic machine been placed in high gear, but the heat has been turned up on the voices of dissent. Apparently, the politicians received an ear full when they returned home for summer break. Not just about health care reform, but about run away spending, giant deficits, and record national debt levels, even more than the white House had projected as recently as the Spring.

With the President's poll numbers falling weekly, the American public is beginning to question whether we are on the right track to solve the economic crisis, retard the rate of growth of health care costs, effectively combat terrorism, reduce unemployment rates, and return America to growth and prosperity. President Obama campaigned on these themes, amongst other promises (end the occupation of Iraq, liberalize union voting rules, and other issues that pandered to the radical left of his party).

Today, Obama is more like the Emperor without any clothes. Behind the curtain in the land of Obama, sits an organ grinder turning the wheels of progress, not some wizard who can command by intimidation, golden voice, and conjure up magical solutions. Yes, Obama has been humbled! Did he really think his golden voice of rhetoric could actually convince people to do something that they instinctively know is wrong for the nation? Enough Independent voters and moderate republicans switched side to give Obama a wide margin of victory. The vote ushered in an unprecedented Democratic control of both the House and the Senate. "It will be a cake walk" must have been the battle cry by the Obamaniks readying themselves for the White House, check books in hand to start spreading the money around their liberal ideology.

At this stage in the presidency, Obama should be riding high with power. With the wind of Congress behind him, his signature domestic agenda item, the overhaul of the American health care system, should have been railroaded through the Senate and the House. Union voting rules should have forever changed the landscape of labor relations between the employer and the unions representing the workers. We should be one step closer to a more socialistic model for America as envisaged by the Obama and the liberal left. But we are not!

Irrespective of the causes, whether it is the lack of presidential leadership in the drafting of the health reform package, the ineptness of the House and Senate leadership to insist on party unity, a poor sales job by the President and his band of Obamaniks, or just a poorly written and explained health policy, the end result is the same. Obama is playing defense when he has the strongest team (A House that can pass any bill without the support of one single Republican and a Senate, up until the death of Sen Edward (Ted) Kennedy, that was filibuster-proof.

The one thing the Obama administration would like to have avoided is the void created with the summer Congressional break, a period that would allow the opposition to gain a better understanding of what the thousands of pages of legislation contained, to muster support to oppose the legislation at the grass roots level, and mount a public education campaign to inform the public exactly what Obama has in mind for their health insurance and access to benefits.

The Administration got what they feared most, a public backlash. People attending the townhall meetings of the legislators greeted their representatives with hostility, questioning not just the health reform bills currently moving through Congress, but expressed their displeasure at the scope of spending, the effectiveness of the stimulus program, joblessness, and the increasing public debt. Stunned by the very act of questioning the Obama administration and its vision, the attack dogs mustered up the attack squads. Unions were dispatched to intimidate the voices of dissent. Advertising in vulnerable Congressional Districts were run to intimidate Democrats and Republicans alike who dared to disagree with the party manifesto, and I mean Manifesto. Shouting matches cropped up, each side attempting to silence the others. The Senators and Representatives were sent cowering behind the rostrums, whining about the pointed questions and disagreements that were hurled at them. Many cried out, "these people are not part of the district, they are from out of town". More than a few stopped the meetings. The brave few carried on, and in the spirit of American freedom of expression, stood by and took the questions and insults like a man.

Suddenly, townhall meetings became a political liability for both parties. The Democrats reasoned that the townhall meetings were not a good forum and suggested they conduct telephone conference calls so they could control dissent. Hardly an action any democracy should suggest if they want to hear what all the people think; great, if you just want to be stroked and field softballs from party loyalists.

The geniuses leading the House and the Senate came up another strategy equally repulsive. The American people do not like the program, at least a majority of the people polled think it is in the wrong direction. Nancy Pelosi, between breaths calling the dissenters "un-American", pledged to pass the bill as writte pointing out they had the votes sufficient to pass the bill without any Republican vote. Harry Reid bellows that their majority is filibusterer-proof and pledges to pass the bill no matter what the public thinks. Chucky Shummer, Christopher Dodd, Steny Hoyer, they all line up and propose to use a Parliamentary maneuver to pass the health care reform package with a simple majority. While within the rules, the original intention of the rule was to use it for appropriations not major legislation.

Thanks to the early Bush Republican years a precedent was set when the Republicans passed the 2003 tax cut legislation using the same rule. That time, there was not widespread dissent on the issue. The public generally approved of the tax cut. This time, there is not a general agreement by a public who supports the passage of a bill that will effect every American, most adversely, and will rearrange 17% of GDP. To the contrary, there is active dissent. The Republican cleaverness of 2003 is now potentially biting them in the rear as the Congressional Leaders giving serious thought to using the maneuver to pass the health care reform.

A sorry state of affairs for American ideals. Due to a rush to pass health care legislation for political purposes, we are about to possibly trample on the principles of a representative democracy, ignore the majority of the public who agrees that improving the health care system's cost and access should be a priority, but disagree with the plan that has been prepared, without any presidential leadership, as proposed by the pending bills in the House and Senate (the House passed a version in waning days of the session prior to the summer recess, but differs from the leading, but unpassed Senate version). Our elected leadership refuses to believe that the public is against the health reform plan or simply does not want to hear it.

But, as each day goes by, more of the truth of the plan emerges from the reading of the legislation, the comments from the "truth squads" dispatched to tell the public why they should like the plan, and from the opposition. We find out more about the Special Interests groups who were bought off by Obama to support the plan by agreeing to a minimal levels of cuts so a floor could be put under the damage to their industries represented.

This includes Big Pharma (the largest contributor to the rise in health care costs, agreed to direct negotiations with the government's Medicare program for the cost of pharmaceuticals incurred by Medicare beneficiaries and to provide a contribution to the cost reductions Obama needed by subsidizing the cost of drugs for low-income beneficiaries), The AMA (a law on the books as far back as the Clinton presidency called for a reduction of medical fees to achieve parity with other inflationary adjustments. Congress repeatedly ignored the law and gave an annual reprieve, the reduction required growing to a 25% reduction in 2009. In exchange for a floor of damage limiting the annual increase to the same rate as given to other health care providers and no across the board reduction and eliminating the provisions of the more severe law mandating a 25% reduction, the AMA agreed to support the legislation), AHA (agreed to live with a lower, but not crippling cost of living increase applied to the reimbursement rate for Medicare beneficiaries).

Off the table was any consideration of tort reform, opposed by the plaintiffs bar, a decision made strategically to minimize the number of dissenters. Not that anybody in the White House does not understand that tort reform is a key to the reduction in the over utilization of services and waste of health care dollars, they were not ready to have a powerful lobby, the plaintiff's bar, as an adversary at this time. The American public was a far easier target to roll over and quiet, so they thought! Now that's change we can believe in!

Then comes articles written by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a White House health policy advisor and brother of Rhamm Emanuel, the President's Chief of Staff. There is something about Chicago and it's politicians. Rhamm built his reputation as an attack dog in the Clinton years and is accustomed to the elbowing tactics of the Chicago political machine, a bare-knuckles approach perfected in the seedy street-fighting conducted daily in Chicago politics. Dr. Ezekiel prescribes a different sort of medicine to solve the issue of the high cost health care. Anyone with any interest should google Dr. Ezekiel to read his theories. They are scary at the least, and down right Un-American at the most. Dr. Ezekiel proposes to throw out the Hippocratic oath, an oath that every physician who is trained has taken that admonishes every physician to "use my power to help the sick to best of my ability and judgment". Why? Because DR. Ezekiel believes that that oath leads physicians to over-utilize health resources and channels the physician to think only about their own patient's need. Wow, amazing! Dr. Exekiel would rather have the physician think as a communitarian, placing the greater good ahead of the patient's need, upending over three thousand years of an ethic that physician's have committed to and that patients have grown accustomed to in their relationship with the physician who cares for them.

Is this because there is a need to modernize an old concept? Is it because these ancient concepts are, well you know, old-fashioned and out of step with today? Is this the kind of change we can believe in? I would venture to say, no, it is just another liberal concept, doing things for the greater good.

But, it gets worse than that. He is also championing a concept called "complete lives system". This is a formula-based system of allocating resources, not based on need, but to further the concept of "the greater good". In this system, scarce resources are allocated. "One maximizing strategy involves saving the most individual lives.." (Lancet, Jan 31, 2009). It goes on to view that everything being equal saving five lives is better than one.

In an Aug. 16, 2009 Washington Post interview, Dr. Ezekiel argues that decisions on allocation of resources should focus on a "communitarian perspective so resources are allocated to keep society going". In his thinking, the social guarantee is basic where service that ensure the future generations, where development of practical reasoning skills are achieved, and where it will ensure an active and full participation by citizens. Covering service to individual" are not basic and would not be guaranteed. He has devised a chart of the "lives system" that indicates a priority curve that benefit the 15 to 40 year age groups with the most substantial chance of resources being allocated to treat their disease, with the least chance assigned to the youngest and oldest people. Cold-hearted liberalism at it's finest!

This, from the man closest to Obama in health policy. Is there any question which direction health reform will go under the current House bill? Is there any question where Obama's head is? The American people are just learning the lies that have been told by Obama when he says, "if you like your health plan, nobody is going to take it away". Obama promises to generate savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention, and wellness, installing electronic medical records, and reduce fraud and abuse.

Even his health policy wonk, Dr. Ezekiel is skeptical. He wrote in the Feb 27, 2008 issue of JAMA (the Journal of the American Medical Association),"Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, and improving quality of care are merely "lipstick" cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change." How can Obama think the public is stupid enough to buy his explanation when his own advisor calls it what it is. If you put lipstick on a pig, it is still a pig!

Before we rush off as a herd running towards a cliff supporting the current health reform bills, let's pause, refresh our computers, and start over with a transparent public debate without the attack dogs, the lobbyist that Obama promised to ignore and eliminate, and bring the parties together with a clean slate. Keep the public well informed, be honest and accept that 85& of the people are happy with what they have. Figure out how to add the people who are un and under-insured without killing health insurance for 85% of the people. Keep ideology out of the debate and consider what is best of the country and it's people, not what will score points with your special interest groups and party support base. No plan will be credible if there is not shared sacrifice. That does not mean one group gets all the upside and the other shares all the downside. Good reform will be evident when everybody is unhappy that they did not get what they want. That includes the politicians.

If you can not understand this, then the voters will decide in Nov 2010 whether you will continue to represent them. The choice is yours. But, don't dismiss the public opinion, and don't get cute with words and try to con them. We are pretty good at sensing when we are being conned. And we sense it now!

Obama's Little Engine That Could

Let's get one thing straight from the beginning: America's health care is too expensive, too over-utilized, uneven in delivering a quality product, and too damned dependent on the Federal government for over half of it's revenues and, for most of the rest, the business community continuing to provid health insurance as a benefit to their employees.

Moreover, many people are left without access to health care insurance through their own neglect, either by failing to enroll their children, who would otherwise be covered by Children's Healthcare programs in existence, and recently extended by the CHIPS program extension in the Stimulus package and in various add-0n features of the flurry of bills passed in the first one-hundred days of the Obama presidency. Yes, there are people who can not afford health insurance and are not provided health insurance through their employer or do not meet current thresholds for assistance, "the working poor". There are also people who could afford health insurance but decline to allocate the money to buy it.

Included in the group of un-insured is the demographic age group spanning the 18 year olds to 35 year olds, who often eschew health insurance. Of course there are a multitude of illegal aliens who are without health insurance, in spite of have employment, that daily tax the health care providers with unpaid bills. There are older adults who choose not to buy health insurance that add to the number of people who are un-insured.

That a nation as rich as America can not figure out how to assure every citizen has the opportunity to be insured against the risk of disease speaks more to the will of a nation than the ability of that nation. It also audibly cries out the need for honesty in the debate.

The populists politicians sound convincing as the assess the blame for this sorry state of affairs. It is the rich corporations who pass on to much cost to the employees and paternally dole out health care benefits at an alarming increase in cost to their employees, all for the sake of profit for their rich shareholders. Big Health insurers are blamed for being profiteers. Opposition parties are cast as fear mongers and "mobs" when they loudly rally to protect the health insurance they have from falling into government hands. "The party of 'no', is the rallying cry of those pushing for radical reform.

Few would argue against a serious attempt to improve access to health care, to make it more inclusive, to be less expensive for the insurer, the sponsor, and the insured, for "cost" are different for each stakeholder. Imperfect terms lead to imperfect interpretations. One man's cost (the insurance company or the government's cost) becomes another's benefit. If we move to reduce the cost of services covered by the government or the insurance company, it has to be taken out of someone's hide. In the case of the insurance company, it means either less service covered for the beneficiary or more out-of-pocket costs to the beneficiary. Simple!

In the case of the government's drive to reduce its costs, similar effects occur: services are reduced for beneficiries (as often happens when States experiencing cost overruns in their State Medicaid programs) or when the cost of Part B benefits increase for those enrolled in Part B under Medicare to offset the annual inflationary costs of the Medicare program. Who pays? Not the Federal Government. It is the beneficiary who pays, either in more dollar costs or in reduced covered service. In either case, the beneficiary either pays or defers service. Then there are those who take the service and leave the providers with bad debts, in which case it raises the cost to the provider, burned by the bad debt. Somebody pays and it is usually the beneficiary and the trade off is in dollars or in reduced benefits. There is no free lunch.

The liberals want government heath care and are glad to spend anyones money ecept their own to achieve this goal. The conservative like the status quo, private enterprise approach filled with incentive to make the right decision (what ever the right decision is) and take responsibility for one's own health care decisions. Now this make a lot of sense! Let people, ill equiped to make life or death decisions with little to no support but the internet and the Pharmacy industry advertisments on there favorite soap oprea. Now that is improvement!

Both major parties insist that it is possible to provide low cost, high quality health care to all regardless of financial or health status. (We usually are warned, "If it sounds to good to be true, it probably isn't). We are asked by both parties to suspend disbelief. The liberals want radical reform atany cost and ditch the existing system as a failed system. The conservatives want to find cost-savings, but take serious cost savings off the table. Neither party is willing to be honest with the American public.

During the aftermath of the recent financial meltdown and busting of the housing and credit bubbles, the politicians began to assess blame. First on the target, big business, big banks, and greedy executives. Having assigned the blame, their job was to come up with a solution: assign the government the job of preventing the abuses they identified, seek penalties against the perpetrators, raise taxes and impose restrictions on executive compensation. In short, re-regulate, for the Government is the only entity that can assure competency. We are to believe that these steps, imposed on the engines of growth, would have no unintended consequences. That there would not be a cost to somebody in all these actions. that banks would not figure out how to charge higher costs to offset punitive aspects of the government's drive to prevent financial meltdowns. They want us to believe that you can lower cost and not effect the quality of financial services.

What is scary, they want the same wrong-minded thinking applied to the one thing that trumps financial self interest, the health insurance system that pays our health care costs so we do not have to worry. Was the government successful in managing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. How about our perpetually bankrupt US Postal Service? Is the VA well managed, how much waste do they experience annually as a result of Congressional tampering? Are we getting our moneys worth out of all the Amtrak subsidies? Were is the return for all the taxpayer money invested in AIG? Can you think of one governmental program that would give you comfort that the Government can get health care right?

Well, they know better than that. All that talk from Obama and his White House advisers about squeezing the excess out of Medicare, eliminating the abusive practices of doctors and hospitals, ending fraud, and reducing the costs of Medicare and Medicaid to a sustainable level is just talk. Remember during the Obama campaign, we heard Obama say, in response to points driven home by the challengers, "these are words, just words". We now know what that means. The program laid out are "words, just words" lacking any substance and merely to move the populist notions ahead to a naive body of listeners ready to drink the "next kool-aid" of Obama thoughts.

Of cousre, the Republican party is no better at coming up with hyperbole. What they lack is any measure of a plan. Obama has words as his plan, since he delegated the process to Congress and has remained aloof in it drafting. Read that, provided no leadership. Republicans have only one word, "no". Like a two-year old going through the "terrible twos", they cry out "no". They have nothing else. No plan to improve access, cost, and assure quality. The Republican National Committee only today announced the "senior's health bill of rights". As usual, the tone-deaf body is proposing to be opposed to any move to trim Medicare spending or limit end-of-life care.
Nice move, Mr Steele! You too, like Obama and Congress, have taken any serious attempt to reduce the cost of the Medicare program off the table. You and the Obamaniks must still believe everything keeps rising, housing prices, the stock market, and your poll numbers. Do you believe in the tooth fairy? Why, Obama has even cozied up to the special interest groups (Big Pharma, Hospitals, and Doctor lobbyists) and cut deals that are meaningless to cost saving (the savings woud come anyway, Obama just put a floor on the damage at a pittance of what could be saved under existing law). Why, to get there vote, to enlist them in his campaign to shove a costly health reform plan down the throats of an unwilling public.

We have heard the clear message from a majority of Americans. They don't like the snake oil Obama is selling. They want to know the truth. They want a debate, not a freight train, Yet, Obama and the Obamanik elites want to dismiss the voices of the rabble as the bable of a mob. Un-American mobsters to boot.

Yet, we have the Obamaniks and Congress hell-bent on pushing health care reform, including a public option (the White house handlers have banned the real term Government option). They believe that Choice and Control (they have also banned the use of the real term Competition when describing their plan). The plan they envisage will result in Quality, affordable healt care (The White House has also banned the true description "Universal coverage).

You get the drift? Words, just words used to manipulate the debate and keep the naive public in the dark by choosing words that the public likes and confirmed by focus groups and polls of words that describe the plan, well chosen words to obfuscate, manipulate and deceive. But don't worry, our friends at the loyal Republican opposition have their own obfuscating words. "Patient-centered health care" is substituted for "Private/free-market health care", "health care is seriously toubled and needs serious reform" is used instead of "health care is a good system but still needs tweaks". The list goes on and anyone interested can read more about this on the Wall Street Journal Part A article entitled "Obama Allies Find Words Fail Them". Health care reform by the polls, now that is change we can believe in!

When you think about a government designed program for health care reform, we should all keep in mind these simple phrases: Amtrak, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, AIG, USPS. Each a creation of government planning gone wrong. Each a financial disaster. Can we trust them with 17 % of our GDP? With out more conscientious debate, more open and honest dialog with the American public, we are on a collision course for a major train wreck with 17% of our GDP and trillions of dollars in deficits you and me, the taxpayers, will have to pay. That would eliminate most of the artificial savings targeted by the current plan, not to mention the increase tax that a growing number of Americans will pay to adopt a poorly thought out plan.

We must insist on a careful and thoughtful debate. We need to assess the health care system in its entirety. Do we wreck a system that is working for 85 % of the people in order to solve the problems of access for a yet undetermined number of un and under insured people. What do we do to strengthen the existing health care insurance system, make it affordable, lower costs, and improve quality outcomes that would fund the access for those who need a hand in buying health insurance and mandating those who can afford insurance, but chose not to buy it. Can this be done by providing incentives, negative or positive, that incorporates the many Democratic and Republican ideas being offered, but ignored by the Obamaniks.

Can we face the need to rein in health care costs to make the system affordable and turn a deaf ear to the lobbyists? Can we understand that this will have to be a shared sacrifice by all, not just a taxing exercising aimed at the rich?

With a more open debate, an informed public, and a slower pace, yes we can achieve change. Yes we can achieve improvements. But we can not tax our future generations and leave them with trillions of dollars of debt in the name of progressive (liberal) ideology. We can not accept the status quo in the name of conservative ideology. the answer is always at the mean.

At the entrance to Zhong He Dian at the Forbidden Palace, Beijing, is an inscription written by Emperor Qianlong. It reads, "the Way to Heaven is profound and mysterious and the way of mankind is difficut. Only if we make a precise and unified plan and follow the doctrine of the mean, can we rule the country well". This was written around 1627. It is a lesson our leaders would be wise to follow. For surely, as we hear the rhetoric from the liberals on the fringe of American society, a couse of action that bypasses customary legislative protocal in an attempt to ram through radical reform, is surely a road to a train wreck. If the Obama administration truely wants to govern well, they are heading on the wrong track to nowhere. The American people know that. Hopefully they will learn that, too.

Whose Company Is It Anyway?

Folks, we are witnessing a Board of Directors at it's finest! A company, newly emerged from bankruptcy, lead by a Board of the powerful and not-so-powerful, asserts its control over the former Bankrupt and its management, sallies forth to the bar, and orders it 's first drink of power? Screw the deal, management, go back and explore the option of retaining that dog you thought you had hived-off in an auction to European buyers in accordance with the Bankruptcy plan, the plan you and the government, who lent you a mere $50 billion of taxpayer's money, had negotiated.

See, if by September's Board Meeting, you can put together financing sufficient to capitalize the the German subsidiary. After all, we are the mighty Board of Directors of the Mighty GM. Are duty is to protect the shareholders interest and make the right decisions, no matter that the US Government owns 70% of us and they want the deal to go through. No matter, this action will have diplomatic consequences and put the US Administration in a relationship bind with some of our biggest trading partners. We know what is best and we do not have to explain a thing. For we are the Mighty Board of Directors of the Mighty GM.

Let's get one thing straight, we taxpayers own 70% of GM. You are their representatives. The US Government does not own you. If you now suddenly want to retain what some fine minds have concluded would be better to jettison, I would like a clearer understanding why you novices want to overrule a management that was executing on a plan everybody but you guys have singed off. What audacity you have, sounding as if you are providing leadership when you are just assesrting power. It is up to you to explian your rationale to the American Taxpayers. Just because you have been appointed doesn't suddenly make you geniuses.

Suffice it to say, I am unimpressed. I am sure you could care less, but as a shareholder/taxpayer, what you do will affect me personally. You owe us an explanation, don't you think? If it is the right decision, we are capable of making that determination if you provide us the information. But if you insist on doing things in secret, then GM will never acheive anythig but a modest improvement, and at worst, will fall back into bankruptcy. Maybe then, the European buyers , or for that matter the Asian buyers, will be able to pick up some assets at an even further discount. Nice job, so far.

Now It's Stock Manipulation-adding woes to King Wiedeking

Isn't it time, King Wiedeking, to give back your severance payment? How long do you want to punish Porsche and their shareholders for your misdeeds. It was enough for you to throw away a perfectly wonderful asset as Porsche Automobil Holding by taking on enough debt in a pure speculative play. But, to add fuel to the fire, stock manipulation? At least, that is the latest allegation. Where there is smoke, there must be fire. Think about it, using derivatives to accumulate sufficient shares to assert control over the Volkswagen company directors. Genius! Except for the leverage taken amidst a credit collapse. Brilliant? Sounds to good to be true, doesn't it?

If you do not get it, maybe the Porsche Automobil Holdings directors can claw-back the severance payment they were so generous in granting. There are other shareholders than company insiders. Perhaps they could execute on there fiduciary duty and push for a claw-back. If not, I say, let the government be the government and take the severence by force! The old fashion way, confiscate it after you have been convicted of a treasonable offense!

Seriously, how many times do we have to allow the government to do the dirty work of elected and appointed directors of Public Corporations. Take the right steps and correct your mistake before we see the government do your job.

What do you think?

Wow! Microsoft and Yahoo are getting together in a new pact. This is earth-shattering, a virtual temblor of temblor. The all-awaited final quake that will cement Microsoft's icon permanently on the face of Technology's Mt. Rushmore. At least that is what the bombastic head of Microsoft insists. The man, taken to lecture us more unfortunate idiots on just about everything, Mr. Humble pie says we mere mortals just don't understand the deal and that it is a "win-win" pact.

Try that thinking on a shareholder community burned by Governmental malfeasance in the handing of the economy since the accelerator was floored on the economy in early 2000, Wall Street tycoons finding a large vein of gold by overcharging fees, taking undo risk with the shareholders money, and handing the economy over to a group of neo-hippie liberals hell-bent on running up the shareholders (and the majority of the taxpayer who pay the largest share of taxes) tab with an unprecedented deficit created by spending best described as totally out of control.

Just as Obamaniks can't explain their policies, Mr. Dullmer can't explain, in concrete terms, the benefit of the pact with Yahoo to his Microsoft shareholders. At least that appears to be the case as more questions arise by the investor community. Before the Bombast explains the issue again in his patronizing way, he should look in the mirror and ask, "is this too good to be true?" If so, we all know the answer! Hopefully he will be able to see the answer through the haze of his self-importance.

Dance Monkeyboy! The world is watching.

Wiedeking Hits the Jackpot after Losing Bet

Holy Mackerel! Talk about "pay-for-performance" executive compensation in Germany.
Wendelin Wiedeking took over a debt-laden luxury car maker and nursed it to a leader in the automotive industry. By that account, he deserves not only plaudits but financial rewards befitting a titan of industry.

Not so fast. Years later, Mr. Wiedking made a poor bet and lost. Wait a minute. it appears he did not lose. Porsche lost.

Earlier, Porsche had acquired some shares of Volkswagen, using an options strategy that included leveraging the power of the shares with debt to purchase options for enough shares to force a merger of Volkswagen and Porsche, with Porsche the surviving entity and Wiedeking on top of the throne. Considering this also involved an inter-family dispute, the majority holders of Porsche and Volkswagen were related. The "kissing-cousins" were jockeying for control of the combined companies.

Enter the financial meltdown, the seizure of credit markets, a ton of debt added to Porsche to execute the strategy, and a free-falling stock market. Boom! The options strategy is blown up and the company was left over-leveraged. Sound familiar, something your next door neighbor with a decent job but greed in his eyes did to trade up in to a more expensive house, refinance a number of times so he could by his boat, Porsche, and the latest LCD flat screen TV, only to wake up after the melt-down with too much debt to cover. Foreclosed!

So, Porsche needed a financial rescue. Enter Volkswagen, the pursued becomes the pursuer. Porsche is forced to merge into Volkswagen. Wideking's strategy blew-up the company. How is he rewarded for such a sterling performance? He gets �50 million. Now, that's pay for performance that should make the Managing Board of Supervisors feel proud!

How tone-deaf could a group of business leaders be to reward catastrophic performance with the riches of a kingdom. And, right under the nose of the EU minders, pushing to put limits on executive compensation to put an end to greed. Where was the Managing Board while Wiedeking was aboard his pony, sabers drawn, in hot pursuit of Volkswagen? Who was looking after the non-family shareholders?

Congratulations, Mr. Wiedeking on a job well done! Let us know in advance where your next job is so we can all short the company.