bjalder26

Fred Endorses Mitt's Health Care Reform?

2007-09-30T20:33:00.000-07:00

It’s become apparent to me that Fred Thompson likes Mitt Romney’s Health Care Reform so much that he has decided to endorse it by adopting it onto his platform. Here are some excerpts from Edmund F. Haislmaier’s speech about Romney’s health care reform compared to Fred’s plan posted on his website.

Portablilty

Mitt's Plan:
"The first part is a reorganization of the state's insurance market to provide small business with a simple and practical way to defined-contribution their workers into individual, portable coverage of the workers' choice without, in the process, losing any of the benefits of current federal standards and tax preferences for employer-group insurance."

Fred's plan:
"Every American should be able to get health insurance coverage that is affordable, fully accessible, and portable."

Consumer-Centered Approach

Mitt's Plan:
"Credit for starting from a consumer-centered approach goes principally to former Governor Mitt Romney and his administration."

"Better Value for the Money. The first reason is to get the system to deliver better value. Market-oriented health reformers have long argued for improving the health care value proposition by making consumers, as opposed to employers or government, the ultimate decision-makers in the system. It is only when the users and the payers are one and the same that the incentives in the health care system will be properly aligned to produce better value—that is, better results at better prices."

Fred's Plan:
"I am committed to a healthcare system that:
Realigns programs and creates a system around individual consumers and patients by providing more information and more opportunities to choose affordable health care options that best meet their needs and those of their families. Coverage should meet their individual needs and put them in control."

Chronic Care Management

Mitt's Plan:
"The creation of Medicaid and Medicare, combined with increases in the costs and complexity of care resulting from advances in medical science, and the imposition of a federal treatment mandate under EMTALA have collectively produced the current situation wherein the vast majority of residual "charity care" in the U.S. health system is delivered in hospital emergency departments. because the EMTALA mandate applies only to hospital emergency departments, it also has the distorting effect of shifting more care to that venue and away from lower-cost, and often more appropriate, alternatives such as clinics and physician offices. In the case of individuals with chronic conditions, that shift often produces less continuity of care, resulting in poorer outcomes and higher system costs."

Fred's Plan:
"Improves the individual health of all Americans by shifting to a system that promotes cost-effective prevention, chronic-care management, and personal responsibility"

Free Market Solutions to Reduce Costs

Mitt's Plan:
"The Massachusetts Record Thus Far

Barely one year later, the Massachusetts reforms are still in their start-up phase. Nonetheless, we do have some sense of how implementation is going.

After receiving bids from 10 carriers, for the first plan year, six different carriers are now offering 42 plan options through the Connector for the unsubsidized population, and enrollment in those plans began on May 1. That's approximately 41 more options than most Americans have today. Nationally, 80 percent of companies offering health benefits provide workers a choice of one plan—take it or leave it. Outside of federal workers in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, Massachusetts citizens getting health insurance through the Connector are among the only group of Americans who can shop in a competitive health insurance market with such a broad range of health care choices.

Pre-reform, the lowest premium for a typical uninsured 37-year-old in Boston was $335 per month with a $5,000 annual deductible. Now, through the Connector, the same individual can get health coverage for $184 per month ($118 pre-tax) with a $2,000 deductible—well below the $250 a month target set back when the legislation was being developed. Indeed, most can get a health plan worth twice the value at half the price."

Fred's Plan:
"Increases competition and consumer choice while streamlining regulations through free-market solutions that benefit individuals and reduce costs for employers."

Notice any similarities? There are more similarities but I think it’s apparent that the Fred Thompson Health Care Plan is a simplified explanation of the Mitt Romney plan. Of course, a simpler explanation of Fred’s stance would have been “I support Mitt Romney’s Health Care Reform”.

Thanks for the endorsement Fred.

On the subject of Religion-as if anybody cares.

2007-09-30T09:19:00.000-07:00

It seems to me like some would have us believe that our presidents have all been “mainstream” Protestants with the single controversial election of a catholic.

They would also have you believe that Religion has been an important issue in politics.

They would have you believe that the American public is clamoring for information about Romney’s religion, and isn’t satisfied with Romney’s response.

While there have been quite a few Protestant Presidents, there have also been some that were explicitly non-Christian, and even more that many would deem “non-Christian” because their church didn’t subscribe to the Trinitarian view of God.

What’s possibly more telling is that a dozen Presidents were either not linked to a denomination or their religion is disputed. As if History is telling us that it’s such an insignificant factor in a President, that nobody saw any need to record it.

If there ever was a more boring subject than politics, it’s religion. People may be interested in their own religion but, very few people are interested in other people’s religions. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints maintains something like 50 thousand full time missionaries, who go door to door pleading with people to listen to them about the Latter Day Saint Church, but the vast majority of Americans just aren’t interested.

When Romney did give a response about his religion during the New Hampshire debate, it more than satisfied voters.

So why all the hubbub about Romney’s Religion? Because it’s an attempt to try and get Romney’s campaign stuck in the quagmire of unresolved religious debates. Imagine if Romney’s campaign had to solve all the doctrinal disputes among Christians before he could become elected President. It would be like the police telling you that they’ll find your stolen car, just as soon as they’ve solved all the murders. It’s just never going to happen.

Romney Care

2007-09-25T12:28:00.000-07:00

This week Edmund F. Haislmaier an expert in health care policy and markets with the Heritage Foundation (a conservative Republican think tank), addressed the Cato Institute (a libertarian research foundation) regarding the Massachusetts Health Care Reform.

While I would encourage you to read the whole speech, I’m going to excerpt the highlights because I know it is a long tedious read. I added my own headers, they don't belong to the origional speach.

INTRO

"my contribution was mainly to introduce the folks in Massachusetts to the concept and design of the Connector
as the tool for organizing and administering their broader, consumer-choice reforms.

Credit for starting from a consumer-centered approach goes principally to former Governor Mitt Romney and his administration. Credit for the details of the end product goes principally to the Massachusetts legislature. In between, there were numerous stakeholders who also shaped the results."

TWO PART APPROACH

"At its core, the Massachusetts legislation is a two-part approach to making consumer choice and ownership of
health insurance the fundamental organizing principle of a state's health system.

The first part is a reorganization of the state's insurance market to provide small business with a simple and
practical way to defined-contribution their workers into individual, portable coverage of the workers' choice
without, in the process, losing any of the benefits of current federal standards and tax preferences for employer-group insurance.

The second part is an accompanying shift of taxpayer funding for the uninsured from a provider-centered, and
largely opaque and unaccountable, reimbursement approach to a more transparent, consumer-centered system of
premium support for the purchase of private health insurance."

MARKET ORIENTATION

"Market-oriented health reformers have long argued for improving the health care value proposition by making
consumers, as opposed to employers or government, the ultimate decision-makers in the system. It is only when
the users and the payers are one and the same that the incentives in the health care system will be properly aligned to produce better value—that is, better results at better prices."

SIMILAR TO SCHOOL VOUCHERS

"The issue of reforming public education offers a good analogy. Children certainly get a better education if their parents are more involved and engaged in their school and its curriculum. But to transform the system substantially and produce better results on a large scale, it is necessary that parents gain direct control over the funding of their children's education and the ability to choose which school they will fund. Truly transformative change will occur only if the educational system is reorganized around the principle of parental choice made possible through education vouchers.

In the same way that education vouchers make schools the agents of parents, consumer choice and ownership of health insurance makes health insurers the agents of patients. It is that fundamental change, above all others,that can truly transform the whole health care system."

OTHER REASONS TO SHIFT TO CONSUMER CHOICE

"A second good reason a state would want to shift to a consumer-choice model is that the old employer-based model is steadily and irreversibly eroding. Today, only 60 percent of workers are covered by employer-sponsored insurance,"

" A third, and closely related, reason for shifting to a consumer-choice model is to better accommodate non-traditional employment patterns."

"A fourth reason to shift to a consumer-choice model is to reduce coverage disruptions. Far from being a static population, there is high turnover among the uninsured as individuals constantly lose and gain coverage."

"Finally, the fifth reason a state would want to shift to a consumer-choice model is that it is a precondition to removing obstacles to greater competition among medical professionals delivering health care services—competition to devise not only ways of reducing costs, but also ways of improving quality and outcomes. This is particularly true when it comes to the current system of financing uncompensated care largely through hospital emergency rooms. The creation of Medicaid and Medicare, combined with increases in the costs and complexity of care resulting from advances in medical science, and the imposition of a federal treatment mandate under EMTALA have collectively produced the current situation wherein the vast majority of residual "charity care" in the U.S. health system is delivered in hospital emergency departments."

PROBLEMS WITH OUR CURRENT SYSTEM

"One inescapable result of making hospital emergency rooms America's de facto health care safety net is that many hospitals are effectively deemed "too important to fail." For if society is counting on those hospitals to provide this essential public service, then they must be kept open—and since "free care" isn't really "free," it must be funded either through explicit public subsidies or cost-shifting to private payers, or a combination of both.

Therefore, hospitals need to be publicly subsidized and allowed to overcharge private patients to keep their doors open, regardless of their cost structures or the quality of care they provide. Furthermore, anything at all that might threaten those existing funding arrangements, and thus the survival of the hospital, must be avoided."

"It is also down this path that we find the justification for the tens of billions in federal and state tax money being shoveled out to hospitals to offset their uncompensated care costs, with virtually no transparency and no accountability. Today, that cost to America's citizens is in excess of $40 billion annually."

"it also has the distorting effect of shifting more care to that venue and away from lower-cost, and often more appropriate, alternatives such as clinics and physician offices. In the case of individuals with chronic conditions, that shift often produces less continuity of care, resulting in poorer outcomes and higher system costs.

Thus, converting hospital uncompensated-care subsidies into a system of premium support to aid the low-income in buying coverage is a precondition for creating value-focused provider competition."

INDIVIDUAL MANDATE

"final prototype issue is the contentious one of the Massachusetts individual mandate or similar "personal responsibility" provisions. Clearly, as long as there is a federal mandate on hospitals to treat patients regardless of ability to pay, there will be an incentive for some to forgo purchasing health insurance and, if they need care, to try to stick others with the bill. Insurance reforms and premium support can never completely counter that incentive. Thus, state governments will inevitably have to consider some mechanism for enforcing personal responsibility if they are to escape would-be "free-riders" imposing not only their direct costs, but also the bigger, indirect costs—such as the cost of propping up uncompetitive providers—on the rest of us.

Here, too, the Massachusetts experience is instructive. Governor Romney did not propose a health insurance mandate. What he proposed was that those who still insisted on going without coverage in a reformed system demonstrate proof of their willingness and ability to pay their own bills by posting a bond or establishing an escrow account. The Massachusetts legislature replaced those provisions with a requirement that individuals buy health insurance or be fined—essentially an individual "play or pay" requirement.

I contend that the governor had the better idea, on both philosophical and economic grounds. Other states will likely improve on the Massachusetts prototype by developing still different approaches. However, regardless of the specific mechanisms and their relative merits, the larger issue is important. Put simply, one cannot expect the system to work well if individuals are allowed to privatize the benefits of their actions and socialize the costs."

HOW THE MASSACHUSETTS PLAN HAS PREFORMED

"Barely one year later, the Massachusetts reforms are still in their start-up phase. Nonetheless, we do have some sense of how implementation is going.

1. After receiving bids from 10 carriers, for the first plan year, six different carriers are now offering 42 plan options through the Connector for the unsubsidized population, and enrollment in those plans began on May 1. That's approximately 41 more options than most Americans have today. Nationally, 80 percent of companies offering health benefits provide workers a choice of one plan—take it or leave it. Outside of federal workers in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, Massachusetts citizens getting health insurance through the Connector are among the only group of Americans who can shop in a competitive health insurance market with such a broad range of health care choices.

Pre-reform, the lowest premium for a typical uninsured 37-year-old in Boston was $335 per month with a $5,000 annual deductible. Now, through the Connector, the same individual can get health coverage for $184 per month ($118 pre-tax) with a $2,000 deductible—well below the $250 a month target set back when the legislation was being developed. Indeed, most can get a health plan worth twice the value at half the price.

But had the state allowed health plans into the Connector on an "any willing plan" basis and not required the board's "seal of approval," certifying all plans already approved by the state's insurance commissioner, Massachusetts residents might have had even more choices and a more competitive marketplace. Moreover, had the legislature done more to revisit the inflexible regulatory regime in Massachusetts, including 43 benefits mandates, health insurers could have offered residents still more variety and even more affordable products.

2. In the past year, the number of uninsured in Massachusetts has been reduced by 34 percent. As of June 1, enrollment of the uninsured eligible for subsidized coverage through the Commonwealth Care program was 78,900— ahead of the target set of enrolling half the eligible population (70,000) by July 1, 2007—and as of July 1, enrollment was 92,046.

3. For the year to date over the prior period (October 2006–May 2007), uncompensated care pool utilization has decreased by 12.8 percent, and the associated hospital costs are already down by 9.3 percent."

Flip-Flop Mitt?

2007-06-13T15:09:00.000-07:00

Mitt Romney gets criticized heavily for his change of stance on the issue of abortion. Most recently McCains camp has begun attacking Mitt on this issue, by releasing a youtube video of Mitt, on May 27 2005, explaining his pledge to not change the abortion laws of Massachusetts. To me, a flip-flop is when a politician makes claims in order to become elected, then while in that elected office, breaks his promises. If a flip-flop is evolving in your position of abortion, then maybe we have more floppers than we originally thought.

JOHN MCCAIN

Did McCain Flip-Flop on Roe vs. Wade?

Despite what McCain's spokesman Matt David is saying about his boss’s stance on abortion, “John McCain has a consistent 24 year pro-life record", it appears that his views have evolved as well.

FRED THOMPSON

Has Thompson Flip-Flopped on abortion?

Also, Thompson in 1994 checked a box while running for the Senate stating that he believed abortion should be legal in the first 3 months under all circumstances.

It’s important to note that in July 2005 Mitt Romney wrote an op-ed in the Boston Globe that iterated his pro-life stance.

Now I’m not saying that we have a bunch of flip-floppers running for president in the Republican party. What I’m saying is that it is somewhat natural for politician’s views to evolve as we gain new, better information. Currently, we have only one candidate in the Republican field that isn’t for overturning Roe vs. Wade.

Rather than speaking for candidates though,
I would rather let them speak for themselves.

Interestingly, the original label applied to Mitt, "Multiple-choice Mitt" came from when Mitt was running for office in Massachusetts and pledged not to change the status quo of Massachusetts’s abortion laws, even though he was personally pro-life. His opponents were afraid that if he got elected he would enact pro-life laws, he didn’t. He kept his pledge, not allowing their laws to change in either direction.

Is this really “Bush’s war” or is that, just a bumper sticker?

2007-06-12T12:16:00.000-07:00

"I think it's particularly important to point out this is George Bush's war. He is responsible for this war. He started the war,"
-Hillary Clinton, CNN Democratic debate-June 3, 2007

Iraq not linked to Terrorism? ABC seems to disagree.

Bush sr. faulted for not invading Iraq by Gore?

Claiming this is just Bush’s war is about as silly as thinking that prematurely pulling out our troops won’t have any negative consequences.

Can Giuliani & McCain compete at straw polls?

2007-06-08T11:50:00.000-07:00

Apparently Giuliani and McCain have learned that they can’t compete with Romney in straw polls. Does this show a lack of organization within their camps?

Mitt Romney Explains Iraq Weapons Inspections

2007-06-07T23:11:00.000-07:00

I’m kind of sad that I have to post this video, when they were debating an invasion of Iraq in the UN I watched every day because I knew our country was about to go to war. Unfortunately, it seems that a lot of people weren’t paying attention and Bush sold the war based on fear of WMD’s rather than the better reason that Saddam wasn’t honoring UN mandates.
Wikipedia has a description of the events leading to the 2nd Iraq War.

Is Skipping Ames a Strategic Retreat?

2007-06-07T17:49:00.000-07:00

The real question here is whether or not the move by Giuliani & McCain to skip the Ames straw poll is strategic, not whether or not it is a retreat. Giuliani’s campaign would like people to believe that this is a strategic move on their part; a way of moving around their resources in order to maximize their effectiveness in Iowa. McCain’s camp would like you to believe that they are skipping because of the “circus” nature of the poll and because Giuliani isn’t going to be there it is a meaningless poll.

The fact is, Ames is a big deal for Iowa. 37 percent of likely caucus goers are saying that they will definitely or probably attend the Ames straw poll. In the past 30 years no candidate has passes on the Ames straw poll and gone on to will in the Caucus. Passing up on an opportunity to reach a third of the caucus goers is a definite sign that Giuliani and McCain are surrendering Iowa.

So why would Giuliani & McCain skip Ames and is this a good strategy? The biggest reasons to skip Ames are to save face and save money. Saving face by skipping Ames will be difficult though. They’re depending on their staff’s ability to spin the predictably dismal results in their favor. I doubt they’ll be able to do this though; Ames won’t just close down because they’re not there. The media will still be there and the candidates that show up will be able to ridicule Giuliani & McCain for not showing up.

There is a difference between not trying to win the Ames straw poll and not showing up at all. A second place finish wouldn’t take much more than just showing up for Giuliani & McCain but they’re passing on the opportunity. This opens up them to the criticism that they are afraid to face Romney in a head to head competition. It also raises questions about the effectiveness of their campaigns at organizing and raising funds.

One negative effect of them not showing up is that it opens the door to second tier candidates to gain legitimacy as first tier candidates. Tommy Thompson and Sam Brownback are certainly in striking distance of overcoming Giuliani and McCain in the straw poll. Also, since this is a huge fundraiser for the Republican Party, it will be viewed as a slap in the face to republican candidates in Iowa. Since Iowa is a swing state it could also potentially harm the Republican Party in the National Election.

What I find most disturbing though is that this shows that Giuliani and McCain have a limited resources strategy. If they don’t feel that they can match the resources of another candidate they will run away and look for an easier/cheaper win somewhere else. If everybody followed this strategy then it might not be such a bad strategy, but I don’t think Romney will. When they run to Florida, South Carolina, or Nevada to campaign Mitt will follow with money and an organized campaign effort. None of the early states will be an easy win and since there are a very limited number of them before the February 5th super-primary, it is a mistake to concede any of them.

Please Don’t Illegitimatize My Hate!

2007-06-04T12:08:00.000-07:00

Bill Keller is very afraid that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will gain legitimacy if Mitt Romney is elected President. What does this really mean though? If he’s truly afraid that a “Mormon” in a position of power or fame would drive millions into the LDS Church then he is way too late. A quick visit to famousmormons.net will show that there are lots of famous “Mormons”. In fact Harry Reid, US Senate Majority Leader is “Mormon”, so are Gladys Knight, Steve Young, Donny & Marie Osmond, not to mention Amy Freeze of Fox 12 News.

Why would we even expect a “Mormon” winning the White House to have such an effect? I don’t recall a rush of people to join the LDS church when Steve Young first won the super bowl. The fact is that becoming LDS is a huge commitment that most people shy away from. As a “Mormon” You can’t smoke, drink alcohol, drink coffee or have premarital sex. On top of those prohibitions there are things you have to do. You have to go to church for three hours every Sunday, attend other midweek functions, tithe 10 percent of your income, and commit to a church responsibility called a “calling”.

So what could Bill Keller really be worried about? Could it be that if Romney is elected and does a good job then it will be much harder to spout hatred towards the “Mormons”. Keller admits about Romney, “I realize that he has a great marriage, great kids, and says he will stand for family values. He actually might be one of the best men there is to be President and lead this nation.” If this isn’t about picking the best man to be President, what is it about? Bigotry, Keller says, “If I had a dime for every time I have been called a bigot in the past 72 hours (since his infamous comment) Liveprayer would be funded for the next 5 years!”

It’s interesting that his mind goes straight to funding Liveprayer because one of his tactics to gain listeners is to make inflammatory statements, then invite people to argue with him over the air. He’s the shock jock of evangelicalism! Rather than lovingly trying to persuade callers he rails against them, which gets the callers and his listeners riled up, then the money pours in as listeners feel that he is fighting for their side (in a fight he created). I’m sure he would argue that he is defending Christian values, but he wouldn’t have to defend them if he didn’t start the fight to begin with. Instead of baiting non-Christians into fights, wouldn’t his time be better spent using LOVE to persuade believers and non-believers alike to live more Christ-like lives?

As Evangelicals for Mitt shows, not all Evangelicals are against Mitt Romney. Jerry Faldwell, founder of Liberty University, the College from which Bill Keller received his degree while in prison, had this to say about Mitt Romney,

"I have no problem voting for a person who is not of my faith as long as he or she stands with me on the moral and social issues. Mitt Romney may be a candidate for president. He's a Mormon. If he's pro-life, pro-family, I don't think he'll have any problem getting the support of evangelical Christians."

David Dockery, president of Union University, an evangelical institution said the following,

"There are key doctrinal differences between Mormons and Baptists--and most other evangelicals. But I don't see that that would be an issue [in a presidential bid] because he would share many of the same views on political and cultural issues, especially related to life and family, the economy and the environment."

Keller is also critical of Christians who support Mitt Romney, “Why men of God, great groups like the Southern Baptist Convention are willing to support a man who is part of a satanic cult is beyond my ability to comprehend.” He would rather have his listeners vote for a “third party candidate” who “has virtually ZERO chance of ever being elected” then vote for Romney. Keller, let me help you out; other Evangelicals don’t feel the same way as you, not because they have all lost their way but because they are more interested in teaching their beliefs, and supporting a strong moral leader than they are in trying to stir up controversy to promote themselves.

Alan Colmes interviewed Bill Keller on his radio show along with a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Listen here and pay particular attention to who acts respectful, and Christian and who doesn’t.