Now that I have watched the latest televised presentation by the president on ObamaCare (the one in which he lied), and studied research and suggestions from various organizations and columnists, I am ready to present my "Oh!BarbaraCare" plan.
I realize that I'm no more qualified to have my own health care plan than most citizens. But all citizens of a representative democracy should acquire enough solid information so they can guide their representatives on vital issues. So if you don't like my plan, feel free and competent enough to do your own.
We must first use our rational faculties to challenge assumptions before we begin offering solutions.
Assumption One: All of us are entitled to health care.
Question: At whose expense? We can't be entitled to something that someone else must be forced to provide. Aside from the payments, what if no one wants to be a doctor or a nurse?
Yet: We as a society have decided that we want all Americans (and legal immigrants) to have at least basic and emergency health care. To ensure this, we must be careful not to discourage providers and hospitals by paying them less than the service is worth to them.
Assumption Two: The U.S. health care system is broken.
Reality: The U.S. health care system is the best and the most effective in the world.
However: There are some problems, and it does need to be reformed.
Assumption Three: The U.S. health care system is too expensive.
Consumers, define "too expensive." How much is it worth it to you to be healthy?
However: It's reasonable to assume that health care could cost less if waste, fraud and inefficiency were addressed.
Anyway, President Obama says that HisCare will be funded by addressing these things, so that the cost doesn't add to the deficit.
Oh!BarbaraCare says, address those things now with existing government programs, before adding even more people to a wasteful system. Let's get those legitimate savings, then proceed to address the real problems, which are:
1.) Cost. Some low-income people, not eligible for Medicaid, and many small businesses, really can't afford expensive health insurance.
Oh!BarbaraCare would continue and expand the programs that subsidize basic insurance for the poor. For all of us, the focus should be on insurance for catastrophic health events, requiring almost everyone to pay reasonable deductibles and co-pays (see "not entitled," above).
One big change here: Oh!BarbaraCare would not use business to provide insurance. Business provides the jobs that allow us to afford life's basics. Let's encourage more job creation, not additional expenses that hurt that basic business mission.
If we consumers own our own health insurance, as we own our automobile insurance, then we keep it even if we lose our jobs. Also, our unemployment is less likely if the government doesn't burden businesses with mandated expenses.
There should be tax breaks for buying basic insurance and for health savings accounts, paid for by no longer allowing tax breaks for business-supplied health insurance. Since the latter includes Cadillac plans for executives and unions, the savings should be substantial.
We should be able to choose from many health insurance companies across the nation to maximize competition. And, we should be able to organize in our own groups — small business, baseball fans, redheads — to allow for economy of scale, just as seniors do for AARP services.
Another way to cut costs is to address malpractice insurance — paying patients for avoidable mistakes and clear negligence, but not for the assumption that we are all entitled to every test. And for truly frivolous suits, the loser should pay all court costs.
2.) Pre-existing conditions. Clearly, if insurance companies must cover all pre-existing conditions, then no one would buy insurance until he was sick! No one would pay into the system until it was time for him to take out of the system.
So the only way to cover pre-existing conditions is to mandate that everyone get insurance and that there are companies for everyone to choose from.
When we own our own policies, with Oh!BarbaraCare, anyone who has been paying all along for health insurance will be covered, at the level they originally chose, when they get sick, even if for some reason they have changed policies.
For those who make a case that it is unconstitutional to force citizens to get insurance, Oh!BarbaraCare would allow them to opt out of this requirement if they sign a statement that they will not expect the system to pay for their care. They can self-insure, or when necessary, roll over and die. However, compassionate Oh!BarbaraCare would provide hospice care to make the end easier for them.
Which takes us to the controversial ...
3.) End-of-life counseling. It's true that extraordinary costs accrue during the final months of some patients' lives, when they are kept alive with extraordinary efforts.
Oh!BarbaraCare would advocate living wills and more choice for patients who want to leave peacefully on their own terms. Death is natural, we should learn to accept and embrace it when the time comes.
However, Oh!BarbaraCare would provide legal assistance to elderly patients who were being pressured by family or providers, rather than counseled.
So there it is. Of course, I'm always open to bipartisan negotiation with anyone who doesn't lie.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Friday, September 11, 2009
BAY STATE'S HEALTH CARE FUTURE
State government's potentially dire fiscal prospects, the specter of a national health reform bill that's still taking shape, and tens of thousands of job losses have clouded the progress of Massachusetts's landmark health care programs, as members of the board overseeing it wondered Thursday how their efforts would be affected and how they should proceed.
Massachusetts has seen hundreds of thousands of residents newly insured since the advent of a 2006 law mandating individuals to obtain health insurance and subsidizing coverage for low-income individuals - 97.4 percent of the state's 6 million residents are insured, according to the Patrick administration's latest tally. But a new state report shows that about 15,000 fewer people had health insurance in March than in December 2008, largely the result of losing their jobs, and therefore, their employer-sponsored coverage.
In addition, the removal of 31,000 legal immigrants from Commonwealth Care, a state-subsidized health insurance program for low-income residents, combined with changes to enrollment procedures, renegotiated insurance rates and generally shaky budget conditions have led members of the state Connector Board to question the effect on insurers who rely on enrollees steered to them by the state.
Four "managed care organizations" (MCOs) provide the bulk of coverage to low-income Massachusetts residents who don't receive insurance through their employer - BMC HealthNet Plan, Neighborhood Health Plan, Fallon Community Heaelth Plan and Network Health -- and a new entrant in the market, CeltiCare, is hoping to make inroads.
State leaders recently announced that most of the 31,000 immigrants removed from Commonwealth Care would be eligible for a special CeltiCare plan that provides coverage for most health services, except vision, dental, hospice and skilled nursing, and with some significant co-pay increases. The other MCOs have expressed dismay at CeltiCare's exclusive deal, with the Massachusetts Association of Health Plans arguing that the other four plans weren't given a fair chance to compete.
"I have very serious concerns about what this is doing to the margins and the service levels of the MCOs," said Ian Duncan, a member of the Connector Board.
Duncan, along with a handful of other board members, asked for a more thorough briefing about the "cumulative effect" of all the recent changes on the ability of MCOs to provide coverage.
The changes in service are playing out against a backdrop of questions about state government finances. Secretary of Administration and Finance Leslie Kirwan, who chairs the Connector board, said September revenue intake could have a significant impact on whether the administration seeks expanded powers to cut government budgets.
"Through the first two months of this year, we're just about on budget," she said. "That appears to be something that will be reversed in September."
As board members expressed dismay about the cuts to health benefits for legal immigrants, Kirwan emphasized that although their decisions are often made solely in the realm of health and human services, whose budget is constantly expanding, her job is to balance competing interests in programs across government, many of which have been scaled back and are facing severe cuts.
"We don't have information about what the impacts of all those choices would be," she said. "In a revenue decline, other parts of state government ... are declining in order to accommodate growth in health care and human services. We recognize why there is growth. We have more people depending on the commonwealth for programs. It does sort of mask the fact that there are bigger choices and in some cases much bigger budget cuts elsewhere ... If we're in this sort of pattern for a very long time, the challenge is going to be different than if we are in this for a short time."
The discussion also came as the Connector Board undergoes some of the most significant changes in its three-year history. Two members - Tom Dehner, who heads the one-million-member state Medicaid program, and Nonnie Burnes, the state insurance commissioner - are leaving their posts and will vacate their seats on the ten-member board.
Members of the board expressed renewed optimism that a national health plan would pass, offering a generally positive review of President Obama's speech to Congress Wednesday night. In his speech, Obama touted a proposal for a health insurance "exchange" that would help consumers shop for the most appropriate health plan for them, a program, not coincidentally, akin to the Connector. Connector Executive Director Jon Kingsdale said there had been discussions with the Obama administration about a Commonwealth Care member being recognized during his speech.
During testimony to the Committee on Election Laws Wednesday, Sen. John Kerry also emphasized the proposed health exchange, telling members of the Legislature that it's "your plan" that the Obama administration is pushing for national consideration.
Arguing for a change in state Senate succession laws to allow for an interim successor to Sen. Edward Kennedy, who passed away last month, Kerry said the absence of a second Massachusetts senator could lead to the demise of a national health plan.
"[Without a second vote] we don't build a health care system similar to what a vast majority of you here in this body voted for," he said. "The Connector ... we're going to build what's called an exchange that's based on the Connector. We're going to vote that everybody has to sign up. We're going to do it like you did."
Worrying that some iterations of a national health reform proposal could leave Massachusetts worse off, board member Nancy Turnbull wondered if the Connector could help influence the national reform debate to "create a protective bubble around ourselves."
Kirwan agreed, arguing, "We want to be helped for going first, not hurt. I think we need to keep that drumbeat."
"That may be a good reason to appoint a replacement for our senior senator," Kingsdale remarked, referring to the debate over a potential successor for Kennedy.
During the meeting, board members gave unanimous approval to emergency regulations, first adopted in June, permitting Connector staff to cancel auto-enrollment for the lowest-income members of Commonwealth Care, those earning below the federal poverty level. Auto-enrollment is a process that places those deemed eligible for Commonwealth Care into a health plan. By nixing auto-enrollment, the Connector, which over the years has sought to boost enrollment, hopes to curb the growth in enrollment, although members worried that it would lead to gaps in coverage.
Also Thursday, the U.S. Census Bureau released updated information about rates of insurance around the country, providing national context for the health reform debate.
In 2008, 46.3 million people around the country went without any health insurance, about 15 percent of an estimated 301 million U.S. residents. The total is up from 38.4 million people who went without insurance in 2000. Of the 255 million insured Americans, 176 million have employer-sponsored insurance and 87.4 million have a government-sponsored plan, according to the new data.
State-by-state numbers showed Massachusetts had a combined 5.4 percent uninsurance rate in 2007 and 2008, as the state's health reform plan took hold.
"We're about a third of the national average and the lowest in the country," said Brian Rosman, research director for Health Care for All, a Massachusetts consumer advocacy organization. Rosman noted the Massachusetts uninsurance rate dropped in the 2007-2008 time period by 4.4 percent compared to the previous two years, beating a national 2 percent drop in that time.
An August report by the state Division of Health Care Finance and Policy found that the ranks of privately insured dropped by 45,000 between December 2008 and March 2009, reflecting rising unemployment. The losses came as government programs, MassHealth and Commonwealth Care, grew by about 7,000 members. Overall, 5,484,000 Massachusetts residents were insured in March 2009.
Harvard Pilgrim Health Care saw the steepest enrollment decline since the advent of Massachusetts's landmark health plan, dropping by 46,000 members since June 2006, according to the DHCFP report. BMC HealthNet Plan grew by 89,000, the most of any plan in that interim, followed closely by the other three original Commonwealth Care MCOs.
Families USA, a national advocate for consumers, said the number of individuals uninsured nationwide exceeds the collective population of 24 states: Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
Opponents of national health reform plans argue that government involvement in health care will hinder care, place bureaucrats in charge of important medical decisions and limit coverage levels. President Obama has vowed that people who already have health insurance can keep it and maintain their current doctor; however their insurers would be forbidden from dropping them due to preexisting conditions or sudden serious illnesses.
A Rasmussen Reports poll out Wednesday found that 44 percent of Americans support Obama's plan while 53 percent oppose it.
Massachusetts has seen hundreds of thousands of residents newly insured since the advent of a 2006 law mandating individuals to obtain health insurance and subsidizing coverage for low-income individuals - 97.4 percent of the state's 6 million residents are insured, according to the Patrick administration's latest tally. But a new state report shows that about 15,000 fewer people had health insurance in March than in December 2008, largely the result of losing their jobs, and therefore, their employer-sponsored coverage.
In addition, the removal of 31,000 legal immigrants from Commonwealth Care, a state-subsidized health insurance program for low-income residents, combined with changes to enrollment procedures, renegotiated insurance rates and generally shaky budget conditions have led members of the state Connector Board to question the effect on insurers who rely on enrollees steered to them by the state.
Four "managed care organizations" (MCOs) provide the bulk of coverage to low-income Massachusetts residents who don't receive insurance through their employer - BMC HealthNet Plan, Neighborhood Health Plan, Fallon Community Heaelth Plan and Network Health -- and a new entrant in the market, CeltiCare, is hoping to make inroads.
State leaders recently announced that most of the 31,000 immigrants removed from Commonwealth Care would be eligible for a special CeltiCare plan that provides coverage for most health services, except vision, dental, hospice and skilled nursing, and with some significant co-pay increases. The other MCOs have expressed dismay at CeltiCare's exclusive deal, with the Massachusetts Association of Health Plans arguing that the other four plans weren't given a fair chance to compete.
"I have very serious concerns about what this is doing to the margins and the service levels of the MCOs," said Ian Duncan, a member of the Connector Board.
Duncan, along with a handful of other board members, asked for a more thorough briefing about the "cumulative effect" of all the recent changes on the ability of MCOs to provide coverage.
The changes in service are playing out against a backdrop of questions about state government finances. Secretary of Administration and Finance Leslie Kirwan, who chairs the Connector board, said September revenue intake could have a significant impact on whether the administration seeks expanded powers to cut government budgets.
"Through the first two months of this year, we're just about on budget," she said. "That appears to be something that will be reversed in September."
As board members expressed dismay about the cuts to health benefits for legal immigrants, Kirwan emphasized that although their decisions are often made solely in the realm of health and human services, whose budget is constantly expanding, her job is to balance competing interests in programs across government, many of which have been scaled back and are facing severe cuts.
"We don't have information about what the impacts of all those choices would be," she said. "In a revenue decline, other parts of state government ... are declining in order to accommodate growth in health care and human services. We recognize why there is growth. We have more people depending on the commonwealth for programs. It does sort of mask the fact that there are bigger choices and in some cases much bigger budget cuts elsewhere ... If we're in this sort of pattern for a very long time, the challenge is going to be different than if we are in this for a short time."
The discussion also came as the Connector Board undergoes some of the most significant changes in its three-year history. Two members - Tom Dehner, who heads the one-million-member state Medicaid program, and Nonnie Burnes, the state insurance commissioner - are leaving their posts and will vacate their seats on the ten-member board.
Members of the board expressed renewed optimism that a national health plan would pass, offering a generally positive review of President Obama's speech to Congress Wednesday night. In his speech, Obama touted a proposal for a health insurance "exchange" that would help consumers shop for the most appropriate health plan for them, a program, not coincidentally, akin to the Connector. Connector Executive Director Jon Kingsdale said there had been discussions with the Obama administration about a Commonwealth Care member being recognized during his speech.
During testimony to the Committee on Election Laws Wednesday, Sen. John Kerry also emphasized the proposed health exchange, telling members of the Legislature that it's "your plan" that the Obama administration is pushing for national consideration.
Arguing for a change in state Senate succession laws to allow for an interim successor to Sen. Edward Kennedy, who passed away last month, Kerry said the absence of a second Massachusetts senator could lead to the demise of a national health plan.
"[Without a second vote] we don't build a health care system similar to what a vast majority of you here in this body voted for," he said. "The Connector ... we're going to build what's called an exchange that's based on the Connector. We're going to vote that everybody has to sign up. We're going to do it like you did."
Worrying that some iterations of a national health reform proposal could leave Massachusetts worse off, board member Nancy Turnbull wondered if the Connector could help influence the national reform debate to "create a protective bubble around ourselves."
Kirwan agreed, arguing, "We want to be helped for going first, not hurt. I think we need to keep that drumbeat."
"That may be a good reason to appoint a replacement for our senior senator," Kingsdale remarked, referring to the debate over a potential successor for Kennedy.
During the meeting, board members gave unanimous approval to emergency regulations, first adopted in June, permitting Connector staff to cancel auto-enrollment for the lowest-income members of Commonwealth Care, those earning below the federal poverty level. Auto-enrollment is a process that places those deemed eligible for Commonwealth Care into a health plan. By nixing auto-enrollment, the Connector, which over the years has sought to boost enrollment, hopes to curb the growth in enrollment, although members worried that it would lead to gaps in coverage.
Also Thursday, the U.S. Census Bureau released updated information about rates of insurance around the country, providing national context for the health reform debate.
In 2008, 46.3 million people around the country went without any health insurance, about 15 percent of an estimated 301 million U.S. residents. The total is up from 38.4 million people who went without insurance in 2000. Of the 255 million insured Americans, 176 million have employer-sponsored insurance and 87.4 million have a government-sponsored plan, according to the new data.
State-by-state numbers showed Massachusetts had a combined 5.4 percent uninsurance rate in 2007 and 2008, as the state's health reform plan took hold.
"We're about a third of the national average and the lowest in the country," said Brian Rosman, research director for Health Care for All, a Massachusetts consumer advocacy organization. Rosman noted the Massachusetts uninsurance rate dropped in the 2007-2008 time period by 4.4 percent compared to the previous two years, beating a national 2 percent drop in that time.
An August report by the state Division of Health Care Finance and Policy found that the ranks of privately insured dropped by 45,000 between December 2008 and March 2009, reflecting rising unemployment. The losses came as government programs, MassHealth and Commonwealth Care, grew by about 7,000 members. Overall, 5,484,000 Massachusetts residents were insured in March 2009.
Harvard Pilgrim Health Care saw the steepest enrollment decline since the advent of Massachusetts's landmark health plan, dropping by 46,000 members since June 2006, according to the DHCFP report. BMC HealthNet Plan grew by 89,000, the most of any plan in that interim, followed closely by the other three original Commonwealth Care MCOs.
Families USA, a national advocate for consumers, said the number of individuals uninsured nationwide exceeds the collective population of 24 states: Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
Opponents of national health reform plans argue that government involvement in health care will hinder care, place bureaucrats in charge of important medical decisions and limit coverage levels. President Obama has vowed that people who already have health insurance can keep it and maintain their current doctor; however their insurers would be forbidden from dropping them due to preexisting conditions or sudden serious illnesses.
A Rasmussen Reports poll out Wednesday found that 44 percent of Americans support Obama's plan while 53 percent oppose it.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Whole Foods CEO Has It Right On Health Care Reform
Finally...someone has published some common sense solutions to reform our current health care system, instead of radically remaking it in a socialist image. I always thought Whole Foods was a commie lib company (even though I do shop there quite a bit). Boy, was I wrong!
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Health Care Letter to Congressman McGovern
Dear Congressman McGovern,
I have viewed the "Common Health Care Myth's Rebutted" linked to your website, and I still find H.R. 3200 very scary even though you have uncovered some myths and falsehoods (your party does it too!). I have a few questions I would like answered directly.
1. What authority does Congress have in the Constitution to radically overhaul our nation's health care system? You may find this question inconvenient and irritating, but I would like to remind you that you have taken an oath 6-7 times to preserve, protect, and defend it. Please do not cite Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid or these other bankrupt disasters either. You did not vote to create those programs. Just because previous members during the so-called New Deal and Great Society violated their oath, it does not give you the precedent to do the same.
2. Why does this legislation assume that more government regulation, interference, and oversight will bring costs down? I do not know of any modern government social program in the history of the Western world that had brought costs down. Could you name one and cite documented proof that would support your claim?
3. If the rebuttal document claims that certain things such as doctor choice, end-of-life counseling, and plan approval does not mean rationing, government denial of end-of-life care, or pricing out private plans, why are they mentioned in the legislation at all? You know as well as I know that once regulators get to add hundreds of thousands of pages to the Federal Register, they will write rules that will distort the so-called intent of the legislation. How can Congress insure that the scores of rebuttals that are "misunderstandings" will not be misunderstood by the scores of unaccountable bureaucrats and "Czars" that escape Congressional oversight?
4. Are you a doctor? Is anyone who drafted this legislation a doctor? Why is it that the two physicians I am aware of in the United States Senate vehemently oppose this legislation or any form of it being drafted in the Senate?
5. Many increases in health care costs have been directly linked to the high cost of malpractice insurance. It has been documented and proven that in many states or federal court districts stacked with former trial lawyers that malpractice case awards are extremely high. This cost is passed on to the health care consumer, which drives costs up. Why isn't this addressed in the legislation? Is your party bought and paid by the "slip and fall" lawyers of America? You could very well be, because your VP nominee in 2004 made his fortune on some bogus lawsuits. Could it be said then that the public option plans will be subsidizing slip and fall lawyers, since they can still have open season on our doctors, nurses, and other health care providers?
6. When are you going to be scheduling public appearances throughout the 3rd Congressional district to discuss these matters before you vote? There are a lot of questions and not enough answers, and frankly I would bet that a majority your constituents do not want the federal government calling all of the shots in health care.
7. Lastly, why are members of Congress exempt from this legislation? Are all of you too good for this plan? If it is so critical to reforming our health care insurance system, why don't you and your family sign on?
Just so you are very clear...I am not part of an angry mob, even though I am angry. I am not paid by K Street lobbyists, even though it would be nice. I also have not been given marching orders from the GOP, because they take marching orders from me. If you agree with the leadership of your party's contention that our anger is "manufactured", you have made a serious error in judgment and frankly you insult my intelligence. The American people are not stupid; they are generally disengaged from beltway politics. They have been awakened, and they do not like one bit what is going on in Washington.
Please do not claim that the GOP has not offered any alternatives. Most of their amendments have been denied or voted down by party line. I also understand that they have not even been consulted in the House of Representatives negotiations and mark-ups. Most Republicans are providing alternatives that are consumer based and free-market based, and that philosophy seems to have escaped your political party. HR 3200 is pro-government and controlled-market based.
So, I hope you will be courageous and do the right things ... engage your constituents even though you have been unopposed for most of you career. It will not be courageous to defy the people you represent and vote for this legislation. There will be severe consequences at the ballot box. At the least you will be a member of the minority in January 2011, and at the most you will be added to the unemployment rate cited by experts in our "jobless recovery."
Thank you for your time and patience. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me anytime.
I have viewed the "Common Health Care Myth's Rebutted" linked to your website, and I still find H.R. 3200 very scary even though you have uncovered some myths and falsehoods (your party does it too!). I have a few questions I would like answered directly.
1. What authority does Congress have in the Constitution to radically overhaul our nation's health care system? You may find this question inconvenient and irritating, but I would like to remind you that you have taken an oath 6-7 times to preserve, protect, and defend it. Please do not cite Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid or these other bankrupt disasters either. You did not vote to create those programs. Just because previous members during the so-called New Deal and Great Society violated their oath, it does not give you the precedent to do the same.
2. Why does this legislation assume that more government regulation, interference, and oversight will bring costs down? I do not know of any modern government social program in the history of the Western world that had brought costs down. Could you name one and cite documented proof that would support your claim?
3. If the rebuttal document claims that certain things such as doctor choice, end-of-life counseling, and plan approval does not mean rationing, government denial of end-of-life care, or pricing out private plans, why are they mentioned in the legislation at all? You know as well as I know that once regulators get to add hundreds of thousands of pages to the Federal Register, they will write rules that will distort the so-called intent of the legislation. How can Congress insure that the scores of rebuttals that are "misunderstandings" will not be misunderstood by the scores of unaccountable bureaucrats and "Czars" that escape Congressional oversight?
4. Are you a doctor? Is anyone who drafted this legislation a doctor? Why is it that the two physicians I am aware of in the United States Senate vehemently oppose this legislation or any form of it being drafted in the Senate?
5. Many increases in health care costs have been directly linked to the high cost of malpractice insurance. It has been documented and proven that in many states or federal court districts stacked with former trial lawyers that malpractice case awards are extremely high. This cost is passed on to the health care consumer, which drives costs up. Why isn't this addressed in the legislation? Is your party bought and paid by the "slip and fall" lawyers of America? You could very well be, because your VP nominee in 2004 made his fortune on some bogus lawsuits. Could it be said then that the public option plans will be subsidizing slip and fall lawyers, since they can still have open season on our doctors, nurses, and other health care providers?
6. When are you going to be scheduling public appearances throughout the 3rd Congressional district to discuss these matters before you vote? There are a lot of questions and not enough answers, and frankly I would bet that a majority your constituents do not want the federal government calling all of the shots in health care.
7. Lastly, why are members of Congress exempt from this legislation? Are all of you too good for this plan? If it is so critical to reforming our health care insurance system, why don't you and your family sign on?
Just so you are very clear...I am not part of an angry mob, even though I am angry. I am not paid by K Street lobbyists, even though it would be nice. I also have not been given marching orders from the GOP, because they take marching orders from me. If you agree with the leadership of your party's contention that our anger is "manufactured", you have made a serious error in judgment and frankly you insult my intelligence. The American people are not stupid; they are generally disengaged from beltway politics. They have been awakened, and they do not like one bit what is going on in Washington.
Please do not claim that the GOP has not offered any alternatives. Most of their amendments have been denied or voted down by party line. I also understand that they have not even been consulted in the House of Representatives negotiations and mark-ups. Most Republicans are providing alternatives that are consumer based and free-market based, and that philosophy seems to have escaped your political party. HR 3200 is pro-government and controlled-market based.
So, I hope you will be courageous and do the right things ... engage your constituents even though you have been unopposed for most of you career. It will not be courageous to defy the people you represent and vote for this legislation. There will be severe consequences at the ballot box. At the least you will be a member of the minority in January 2011, and at the most you will be added to the unemployment rate cited by experts in our "jobless recovery."
Thank you for your time and patience. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me anytime.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Senator Timilty gets it!
Senator Timilty is right-on about this...while D'Amico fights Hollywood!
Touting the creation of new jobs and spending on hotels and restaurants, the Senate voted unanimously Tuesday afternoon to begin state regulation of mixed martial arts events. The bill passed 35-0 after a state senator from Walpole urged his colleagues to pass the bill and attract so-called ultimate fighting bouts. "This is a good thing for the Commonwealth," said bill sponsor Sen. James Timilty, noting the potential for new state revenues without raising taxes. "It is much safer than the sport of boxing," Timilty said, noting only 6 percent of mixed martial arts fights end in knockouts.
Timilty acknowledged the changing times during floor remarks, noting he grew up following Brockton boxing champ Marvin Hagler while many of today's fight fans are following Kenny Florian, a Boston College grad who has excelled in mixed martial arts competitions. Sen. Robert Hedlund (R-Weymouth) also urged passage of the bill.
Before adopting the bill, the Senate agreed to a Sen. Marc Pacheco amendment allowing cities and towns, by local option, to choose not to host mixed martial arts events. The bill clarifies that promoters, physicians, referees, judges and contestants must be licensed by the State Boxing Commission and directs the commission to establish minimum skill requirements for licensure of contestants.
The bill also expands the commission from three to five members, increases the amount of accident insurance event holders must acquire for each contestant ($5,000 for medical expenses and $50,000 in case of death). It establishes a 4 percent fee on ticket sales and a 2 percent fee on revenues from TV, pay-per-view and other broadcast rights, to be paid to the commission. The bill also limits mixed martial arts matches to five rounds, except for championship matches. Rounds may last no longer than five minutes and the gloves worn by competitors must weigh at least four ounces, according to a bill summary.
Touting the creation of new jobs and spending on hotels and restaurants, the Senate voted unanimously Tuesday afternoon to begin state regulation of mixed martial arts events. The bill passed 35-0 after a state senator from Walpole urged his colleagues to pass the bill and attract so-called ultimate fighting bouts. "This is a good thing for the Commonwealth," said bill sponsor Sen. James Timilty, noting the potential for new state revenues without raising taxes. "It is much safer than the sport of boxing," Timilty said, noting only 6 percent of mixed martial arts fights end in knockouts.
Timilty acknowledged the changing times during floor remarks, noting he grew up following Brockton boxing champ Marvin Hagler while many of today's fight fans are following Kenny Florian, a Boston College grad who has excelled in mixed martial arts competitions. Sen. Robert Hedlund (R-Weymouth) also urged passage of the bill.
Before adopting the bill, the Senate agreed to a Sen. Marc Pacheco amendment allowing cities and towns, by local option, to choose not to host mixed martial arts events. The bill clarifies that promoters, physicians, referees, judges and contestants must be licensed by the State Boxing Commission and directs the commission to establish minimum skill requirements for licensure of contestants.
The bill also expands the commission from three to five members, increases the amount of accident insurance event holders must acquire for each contestant ($5,000 for medical expenses and $50,000 in case of death). It establishes a 4 percent fee on ticket sales and a 2 percent fee on revenues from TV, pay-per-view and other broadcast rights, to be paid to the commission. The bill also limits mixed martial arts matches to five rounds, except for championship matches. Rounds may last no longer than five minutes and the gloves worn by competitors must weigh at least four ounces, according to a bill summary.
Friday, July 17, 2009
On Revolution
In early June of this year I had the privilege of watching the 3rd grade class at the George R. Martin school in Seekonk put on a play about the American Revolution.
As I watched the kids dance around on stage I couldnt help but wonder if these kids really undertsood the significance of what they were performing. Did the teachers even understand or was the concept of the events that sparked the American Revolution just empty words and stories from a long ago?
It really is amazing, when you think about it, how quickly America has squandered it's good fortune, killed it republic, and turned it in to the very thing we faught to vanquish.
233 years since our forefathers declared their independence from tyrany; if America fell tommorrow it would probably not even register more than a footnote in history as an expiremental nation that failed in such a short period of time. It was not defeated by a foriegn enemy. No missles touched it's soil. Instead it collapse in on itself to the delight and glea of all freedom hating nations accross the world.
"They tax our tea, our iron, our cotton!" those 3rd graders sang. What did King George have on our current government? In 2009 the government will have spent almost 40% of our GDP. They spend barely 3% before the Geat Depression. People earning over the 100 thousand dollar a year threshold are losing almost 40% of their income to state and federal taxes. Then factor in the sales tax, the excise tax, the property tax, the sin tax, and then the variouse fees and surcharges that local governments collect. New York City residence are estimated to lose over 60% of their income to taxes.
This is far from the America we would have known has we been alive a meer 233 years ago. This America is not what the founding fathers envisioned for us when they framed the constitution. To quote Jeff Schreiber of Americas Right, "Our framers founded this nation knowing less about what they wanted America to be than what they never wanted her to become."
The time has come for a new American Revolution. We don't need to march in the streets with guns to achieve this. All we need is our voices shouting loud and clear and in unison to "Get Out!" We need to write to the papers and let the masses know that we are here, and we are mad as hell! We need to call our Senators, the White House, Post Signs in our front yard. We need to vote, we need to show up where these lunatics give their 50 thousand dollar speeched and heckle them. We need to run for office. We need to donate money to the candidates that run on freedom and liberty as their message. We need to organize.
"It seemed to me that all over the world intelligent people were waking up to the indignity and absurdity of being endangered, restrained, and impoverished, by a mere uncritical adhesion to traditional governments, traditional ideas of economic life, and traditional forms of behaviour, and that these awaking intelligent people must constitute first a protest and then a creative resistance to the inertia that was stifling and threatening us. These people I imagined would say first, "We are drifting; we are doing nothing worth while with our lives. Our lives are dull and stupid and not good enough."
It seemed to me that as, one after another, we woke up, that is what we would be saying. It amounted to a protest, first mental and then practical, it amounted to a sort of unpremeditated and unorganized conspiracy, against the fragmentary and insufficient governments and the wide-spread greed, appropriation, clumsiness, and waste that are now going on. But unlike conspiracies in general this widening protest and conspiracy against established things would, by its very nature, go on in the daylight, and it would be willing to accept participation and help from every quarter. It would, in fact, become an "Open Conspiracy," a necessary, naturally evolved conspiracy, to adjust our dislocated world."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
