About Me

Name: DecoNservAtiVE
Location: Newark, DE
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Delaware GOP becomes irrelevant - again

The Delaware GOP has waged a war against conservatives.  For the last decade they have propped up the same tired candidates (Mike Castle comes to mind) and basically run "token" candidates in many political races.  They have lost touch with the base, the people and reality.  They have refused to develop a website with any substance and have generally been a stagnant group of country club Republicans.  There are those who do have some Common Sense and who do question the leadership but not enough involved to make a change.
 
There are some of us, over a number of years who have tried the polite approach.  Get involved locally, speak to our leaders, attempt to show them where WE were disenfranchised and where others like us (numbered in the hundreds of thousands in Delaware) were also disenfranchised but they have repeatedly ignored us or casted us off like buzzing flies.  WE ARE SILENT NO MORE!  Tom Ross, Priscilla Rakestraw, Mike Castle and Mike Stafford you have run your course.  Your days are numbered and we conservatives will no longer stand for your inaction and inattention.  You WILL change by your own will preferrably but force if necessary.  We are prepared to overwhelm you and to overthrow your operation. 
 
The GOP in Delaware at least should be embracing this TEA Party idea and react to it as much as possible.  Candidate meet and greets should be done at large conservative events featuring GOP members as well as disenfranchised former members and not at closed door pay to play country club picnics.  That doesn't mean sponsor the event or fund it but rather to "show up" and meet the people.  Have you learned NOTHING from the now in charge left?  They show up at block parties and other events to hang out with people any chance they get.  Why?  Because the PEOPLE need to know you, not the party elitists.  The GOP leadership (speaking mostly of Tom Ross, Patricia Rakestraw and Mike Stafford) havent got a clue what they are doing to be honest.  We conservatives have let them run the party into the ground and to be honest Im sick of it.  I WANT to rescue the GOP but that wont happen until the party fundamentally changes in the following ways.

1.)   1.) It dumps whatever issue based approach it takes currently and focuses on returning to the GOP founding principles which were built on living out the legacy of the founding fathers, opposing big government, keeping taxes low and protecting the nation.

2.)    2.)It phases out candidates like Mike Castle who have helped lead the party into the black whole of liberalism.

3.)    3.)Replaces the Do nothing leadership with active conservatives who will engage the state and the Democrats in an open and honest debate.

4.)    4.)Returns to being the party of the people.

Its come to this now because we recognize that we can no longer wait for the GOP leadership to get it.  They never will.  Its up to us to change it.  Id ask conservatives to swallow that pride and understand where we come from.  Its time to rise up and stand out.  Its time to scrap our old ideas and embrace A New GOP.  Id actually ask and hope that true conservatives would be able to sacrifice these old ideas and replace them with new and wide reaching ideas.  It's time to stop attending the "Republican picnics" and "Republican dinners" until they recognize who they should have been.  It's time for the candidates to realize that if they play with the party elite, they will die by the voters sword.  We cannot afford to accept any of the old style GOP.  We have tried the respectful and polite approach for 4 years plus and no one has listened.  Were willing to rip the Republican party to pieces and rebuild it in order to build a better and smarter GOP.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Cost of Coverage

Universal healthcare is coming.  President Obama has promised us that by the end of July we would see it.  We’ve spoken with Senate and House leadership and we’ve been assured that to some extent they will vote for it.  We understand the Constitutional implications but do we understand the cost implications? President Obama’s healthcare program is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to cost between $1 Trillion and $1.5 Trillion just in the first 10 years.  That works out to an annual cost of between $100 billion and $150 billion per year or between $274 million and $411 million per day.  To put that in perspective, $100 billion per year would pay the annual budget for the departments of Housing and Urban Development ($52.3 billion), Energy ($23.3 billion) and Justice ($25 billion).  But are these numbers even accurate?

Most of us remember 15 years ago when Hillary Clinton submitted her healthcare plan at a cost of $1 billion dollars per day.  According to government reports that measure medical inflation, prices for healthcare have gone up by 80%.  The Obama administration has set its aim just as high and yet this estimate comes out between 27% and 41% as high as the cost of Hillarycare in 1993. Without even factoring in population growth the inflation suggests that Obamacare should cost in the neighborhood of $658 billion per year or $6.6 Trillion over the first 10 years.  For reference, our Social Security liability is $13.6 Trillion.  

So how can the Obama administration claim that it will shrink the cost of nationalizing nearly 20% of the American economy?  Mandates and regulations will shift the cost more and more to the private sector to hide the rise in costs.  Administration officials have spoken eloquently about “cost control” being a major step toward affordable government insurance.  Obama has touted Healthcare IT as a major step toward achieving these cuts but without changes to regulations or the ability to create a single information form, this would only reduce costs by .3% leaving the main source of cost savings as direct rationing of healthcare through a harmless sounding concept called “comparative effectiveness research”.  This sort of process would allow government bureaucrats to delay and deny care on the grounds that it is not effective.  There will also be indirect rationing through tightening the reimbursement of providers.
  
In 1966 when Medicare was conceived its cost was $3 billion a years and “conservative” estimates projected that the cost would be $12 billion per year by 1990.  In 1990 Medicare costs were 9 times that “conservative” estimate, topping out at over $107 billion annually.  How can we honestly expect a government to keep costs down with a government run national healthcare plan when they have run up Medicare Parts A & B to unfunded liabilities of $68 trillion dollars and added to that with another $17.2 trillion in Medicaid part D (prescription drug coverage) in 2003?

Concerns are also mounting over the true scope of a “nationalized healthcare plan”.  The Senate’s plan, touted as Senator Ted Kennedy’s work with the administration will cover 16 million more people than are currently covered at a cost of $1 Trillion over the next ten years on top of our current Medicaid spending of nearly $500 billion per year and accounting for 22% of our current nationwide healthcare expenditures.  At the recent AMA speech Obama touted the $950 in tax increases and budget cuts (mostly tax increases) that would get us “almost all the way there” to covering the cost of this massive plan.  Unfortunately the CBO isn’t as optimistic about the Senate plans cost.  It weighs the plan in at a hefty $1.6 Trillion, a cost that Sen. Olympia Snowe (one of the three Republican Senators who voted for the Obama stimulus package) described as “a jolt of reality”.  Thanks Senator Snowe, where was that jolt in February?  Adding to concerns about the fiscal sanity of the Senate bill is the fact that while finance committee chairman Max Baucus is putting together a bipartisan group of Senators, Chris Dodd has been quoted as saying “My goal is to write a good bill” and “My goal is not bipartisanship.” So much for all the “civility and integrity and the bipartisanship that goes with that...” Nancy Pelosi called the congress to do.

Worse still is the plan in the House which has not yet been given a price tag.  That bill would require the HHS Secretary to establish a “public health insurance option” to compete directly against private plans in a national insurance exchange.  It would also raise the existing Medicaid program eligibility past the current threshold of 133% of the poverty line (currently $17,600 per year for a family of 3).  The public plan would pay providers based on Medicare payment rates plus 5% and could result in up to 113.5 million people losing their private insurance coverage.  The plan also calls for shifting costs to private plans or taxing insurance benefits at the employer level at a rate of $460 per person in order to reduce to “visible cost” of the plan.  Provider revenues would decline significantly and with the included individual mandate to obtain “acceptable coverage” or face a tax penalty of 2% of their income, personal liberty would be restricted at an unprecedented level. 

There are also questions about how many people are truly uninsured.  The administration has been claiming that if insurance is affordable, more people will buy it but unfortunately the evidence says otherwise.  Of the 47 million people the administration points to as unable to afford care, 20 million of them are college students or people making over $75,000 or more per year but choosing not to sign up for a healthcare plan.  Another 10 million plus are not U.S. citizens and 11 million more are eligible for state Children’s Health Insurance Program and Medicaid but have not signed up for the programs.  That leaves between 10 and 15 million people who are long term uninsured and that is manageable under the current private charities setup to deal with this problem.  If the government really must be involved, we could give the 10-15 million uninsured vouchers or debit cards that would allow them to choose their doctors and provide them with coverage.  We could even give them health savings accounts for retirement and according to some experts this approach would cost just $25 billion per year. 

 

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (6) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Is Healthcare a Universal Right?

The White House has set an expiration date for the Universal Healthcare Debate. Barack Obama has declared that Congress must pass healthcare reform by the end of July. Reform is necessary but how is the question. Senator Ted Kennedy has a plan for Universal Coverage run by the government and just about everyone else on both sides of the aisle has a plan either similar or in response to it.  The most asked question of all of these plans is “How much does it cost?” The arguments are intense and generally centered around two themes. First is the idea that healthcare is a right defined in the Constitution as “General Welfare”. The second is sustainability.
 

Founders Values had representatives at a listening session on healthcare reform hosted by Congressman Mike Castle recently. There were many groups represented and the overwhelming majority of them were groups like ACORN. In fact, a representative from one group stood up and proclaimed that healthcare is a universal right and a moral responsibility of our government which of course became the theme of the meeting. In fact our founding fathers felt decidedly different as described by Leonard Peikoff, Ph.D. in 1993 when he stated “Today, however, we are seeing the rise of principled immorality in this country. We are seeing a total abandonment by the intellectuals and the politicians of the moral principles on which the U.S. was founded. We are seeing the complete destruction of the concept of rights. The original American idea has been virtually wiped out, ignored as if it had never existed. The rule now is for politicians to ignore and violate men's actual rights, while arguing about a whole list of rights never dreamed of in this country's founding documents -- rights which require no earning, no effort, no action at all on the part of the recipient.”.

Our founding fathers believed that while we had certain unalienable rights, we also had responsibilities. They believed that Americans should provide things like housing, entertainment and medical care for themselves. The founding fathers specifically enumerated the federal governments powers and through the founders writings we can see that even the general welfare clause was clarified as Jefferson did in 1791 “They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”.

The argument of sustainability runs parallel to the question of Constitutional intent. If healthcare was a right specifically enumerated by the Constitution why then would James Madison have written "If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, everything, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."
? We also know that the founding fathers were very frugal. They put in place protections that were intended to limit the spending and taxation by the federal government to specific enumerated purposes even going so far as to suggest that the government ought not undertake any spending that they could not repay within 19 years. The Universal Healthcare Plan from Ted Kennedy, endorsed by the White House, would cost over 1 Trillion dollars over the next 10 year and would leave 30 million Americans uninsured.

So the real issue is of balance: healthcare reform without government control. While I cannot list all of the options here, CPRights.org compares the full text and basic details of 16 different plans including universal healthcare options. I urge all of you to read and decide for yourself what makes sense to you.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (7) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »