Health Reform: Bad Assumptions versus Good Logic

I have been watching this "so-called" debate in health reform with interest and, as most of you know, this really has been a debate amongst Democrats only. The Republicans have been essentially squeezed out of the key meetings in the Senate except for Olympia Snow of Maine, since she seems to support this monstrosity of a bill. The specifics of the actual Senate bill are now being "worked out" behind closed doors between Rahm Emanuel, the President's Chief of Staff from Chicago, and Harry Reid the Majority Leader of the Senate along with a couple of aides, who basically take notes of the wondrous utterings of these gigantic intellectuals who single handedly are going to tell us what we should now do with 1/6 of our economy. Does that send shivers down your spine?

As this goes on, the President is telling you that we now have a bill that represents the best ideas of the Congress and of Republicans, Independents, and Democrats alike. It is a "bi-partisan bill that will not add one dime to the deficit". If you really believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you or you can continue to read on in order to make your own judgment based on facts and history.

First, as a rational human being, does the idea of adding more than 20 million uninsured to the roles subsidized by $500 B in savings from cuts in Medicare fraud and benefits in addition to a 40% tax increase to private insurance companies, make you comfortable that the quality or availability of your health care will stay the same or even improve? If you said "yes" to this question then please stop reading this post because it appears that you have imbibed too much of the Kool-Aid.

Not only is the $827 B ten year cost of this bill a fantasy, but the bill is effective for only 7 years of the ten years. How is that for doctored math? Let's now look at the government's track record of estimating the costs of these health plans:

Government Cost Overruns - $B

Program	Year	Predicted Cost	Actual Cost
Medicare	1965	12	110
Medicare Hospital	1965	9	67
Medicaid Hospitization	1987	1	17
Medicare Home Care	1988	4	10
Schip	1997	5.4	6.8
Medicare Prescription Drug	2003	49	41

These overruns were recently published by the Wall Street Journal. Ironically, George Bush's prescription drug plan has actually underun predictions. How come we hear no kudos for Bush on this? The Congressional Office said that the primary cause of the success of the prescription drug bill was that "the pricing is better than anticipated, which is likely a reflection of the competition that's occurred in the private market". Wow! Look what happens when you let the private market operate instead of having politicians regulate what they think is warranted. I don't think Obama will admit he "inherited" something good from the Bush Administration, do you?

At this point I think you should let your logic dictate over what you're hearing from Washington and then decide whether this is reform or just putting your children and grandchildren further into hock.

Nordic Revenge

While you’re still basking in the glow of President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize, I thought a few comments were warranted. As you know, this corner has not been kind to our President but obviously he was not looking for this and his aides are actually mortified, since this raises world expectations that will obviously not be fulfilled, at least, if the first 9 months of his presidency is any indication of the future.

The Politics of Peace

Unlike some of the other Nobel prizes which actually are awarded for accomplishments, the Peace Prize has become a political comment by the Nobel Committee, which in recent years has been a cheap shot at the U.S. Since no one cares what the Nobel Committee says anyway, I wouldn’t get too upset about this. Norway is an ultra Socialist society where citizens give almost all of their money back to the government to take care of them for the rest of their lives. The economy goes nowhere, the suicide rate is off the radar screen, they are notorious for their prejudice about anything non-Scandinavian, and they rarely smile. So those of you who are irate about this, just relax and remember that Obama is part of a line of recent recipients, such as Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, and Yassar Arafat, that never did anything for peace or worthwhile for that matter. If I were Obama, I’d consider this an insult!

The End of American Exceptionalism

Obama won this infamous award because he professes all that Norway extols: pacifism, green radicalism, socialism, high taxes, the distribution of wealth, big government, global disarmament, and mediocrity. Now that this administration wants us to “blend in” with the rest of the crooks and despots in this world who have an equal vote in the U.N. with the greatest nation in the history of the world, the Europeans, particularly the likes of Norway, are elated. Thus, Obama gets the Nobel Peace Prize.



Potential versus Accomplishments

As a technically trained person, I always considered the Nobel Prize in the sciences as credible, but when it comes to literature, economics, and peace, the prize is generally awarded on how far left the recipient leans rather than real accomplishments. To Obama’s credit, his comments were appropriate considering his admission of his lack of accomplishments to date. However, he is scheduled to go to Oslo to accept the prize in December so he can make another speech apologizing for past U.S. transgressions and preach global disarmament and the new world of “multilateral diplomacy”. The period of American exceptionalism may be dormant for a while, at least the next three years, but we will rise again when a real leader emerges.

I was disappointed, I thought Michael Jackson might win the Peace Prize for his song, We are the World, We are the Children. What about Bono, what about Sean Penn, maybe Oliver Stone………?

Love at the Office

The recent admission by late night comedian, David Letterman, to numerous sexual encounters with his staff members and interns over the years, has caused some interesting dialogue that illustrates the changing trends in our values. Many people thought this was funny; in fact, the way Letterman related this to his audience it appeared that he was telling a joke. He also said that he was concerned that his admission might embarrass the women involved. Now, tell me that wasn’t a sexist remark! Of course, he wasn’t embarrassed at all. I never thought I’d see the day that a married man with a child, admitting to such an indiscretion on national TV would be applauded and laughed at.

Now, I’m not a moralist or a prude, but since I was born in a different era I may be considered “a little behind the times”. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against love in the workplace, in fact, surveys show that 40% of us have been involved in romance with a co-worker. Most people don’t mind if it’s a peer relationship, however, when it’s between a boss and a subordinate and either one is married, it gets a negative reaction. It’s particularly egregious when the supervisor controls the promotions, salary, and career path of the subordinate. In many companies the involved parties are shown the door. In fact, some executive contracts have language to that effect.

It’s clear that in Letterman’s case, the affairs were well known by co-workers, they occurred when he was married, CBS was aware of it, but nothing was done, even though Letterman controlled the destiny of these people and they were considerably younger. In fact, it’s been revealed that he offered to pay for law school for one of them and then hire her as his attorney once she graduated.

I encountered such a situation as an executive when a manager who reported to me was caught in a comprising sexual situation by a cleaning woman when she unexpectedly arrived at his office. She reported it immediately to our Human Resources person, who was still in the building, and the act was verified. The manager was married for 30 years, had married children, and the female involved reported to him. She had been aggressively promoted and given generous salary treatment. I immediately took action by sending the female to another division and the manager was re-assigned and demoted. He eventually divorced his wife and married another workplace mate.

I was eventually thanked by many people in the organization who were aware of what was going on but were intimidated by the manager and his indiscretions and didn’t make me aware of it. I guess today my actions would be considered as somewhat of an “overkill”, but I think most of you over 50 believe I did the right thing. In the meantime, Letterman keeps using it in his monologue, the audience keeps laughing, and his ratings are sky-high.

I never did think Letterman was funny…now I know why.