Government shouldn't be exempt from accountability

A newly sworn in President Obama made a point about executive salaries back in 2009. He said:

"We don't disparage wealth . . . But what gets people upset -- and rightfully so -- are executives being rewarded for failure."

Unveiling a plan to cap executive compensation for companies receiving federal bailouts, Obama had some choice words regarding banking execs who received lavish bonuses from institutions receiving billions of our tax dollars:

 "(Such behavior) is exactly the kind of disregard for the costs and consequences of their actions that brought about this crisis: a culture of narrow self-interest and short-term gain at the expense of everything else,"

Regardless of where a person stands on this issue, we must all question why such edicts apply only to the private sector. Obama's sentiments are just as applicable to our elected officials, none of whom have seen a decrease in compensation during America's economic crisis despite their obvious culpability for our exponentially increasing debt and deficit. Why aren't members of Congress conributing towards their own healthcare and pensions? Why haven't they taken a salary cut, reduced staff, found ways to reduce expenses across the board? Why hasn't his administration reduced expenses for staffing, travel and other non-essential perks?

Let's Just Give Them Keys to the Pentagon

There's been a lot of recent debate about the proposed NYC trial in civilian court of 9/11 terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Now the trial is going to be held elsewhere because NYC doesn't want it.

Speaking of Unchecked Fraud

This January 2010 NBC news story states, “Officials said Medicare pilferage is so widespread, with so much of it never detected, that no one can accurately say how much it costs American taxpayers. But a figure widely used by law enforcement officials suggests a staggering $60 billion a year is stolen”. The story cites very troubling figures, like more than 72% of Medicare-paid HIV/AIDS treatment in 2005 came from South Florida but only 8% of Medicare’s HIV/AIDS patients reside in that area. The article gives other unsettling examples, like a single $5,000 wheelchair that was billed to Medicare repeatedly to the point that this one device ultimately cost $5 million. Oh, and no patient ever even received this device because the entire thing was fraudulent. One criminal who spoke to MSNBC anonymously after his arrest said he was “amazed” at how Medicare unquestioningly paid his fake claims, even though the patients whose names he billed under were reporting the charges as fraudulent.

Health Care Courtesy of the Fourth Reich

Continuing our series of pointing out the flaws in Obama's Blueprint for Change, there's some pretty scary stuff about health insurance coverage here. Let me preface my criticisms by stating that I am more than superficially qualified to critique health care proposals. I've been without coverage due to assinine reasons (having had a non-malignant freckle removed from my arm 5 years prior made me "uninsurable" according to BCBS). I have paid both ridiculously high premiums & ridiculously expensive bills when I was without coverage.

I also have family members & friends who have been driven to bankruptcy (or the very brink) due to medical costs. I'm studying for an RN degree so have knowledge from the perspective of both a consumer & a health care professional. Perhaps most significant, I've had sole responsibility for all benefits at a small business for almost 10 years. This has led to an extensive education in the different types of insurance, premium levels, coverage inclusions/exclusions & much more. It has also allowed me to become intimately familiar with problems, obstacles & costs both from the employee's view & the employer's.

That being said, some of the most basic tenets of his plan are disapointing at best & sometimes frightening. For instance on page 6: "Guaranteed Eligibility: No American will be turned away FROM ANY INSURANCE PLAN because of illness or pre-existing conditions." By forcing insurers to cover people they would ordinarily decline, one of two things will happen: Either tax dollars will be spent subsidizing premiums for a select few while the rest of us continue to pay our own way OR the insurers will rape us all with even grossly higher premiums thanks to the government mandates. Most likely, both will happen to some degree.

"Subsidies: Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need
financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public
plan or purchase a private health care plan."

"National Health Insurance Exchange: The Obama plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan. The Exchange will act as a watchdog group and help reform the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating insurance plans to ensure fairness and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend on how healthy you are. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and have the same standards for quality and efficiency. The Exchange would evaluate plans and
make the differences among the plans, including cost of services, public.

(3) Employer Contribution: Employers that do not offer or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan. Small employers that meet certain revenue thresholds will be exempt.

(4) Mandatory Coverage of Children: Obama will require that all children have health care coverage. Obama will expand the number of options for young adults to get coverage, including allowing young people up to age 25 to continue coverage through their parents’ plans.

(5) Expansion Of Medicaid and SCHIP: Obama will expand eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs and ensure that these programs continue to serve as a critical safety net."

So we have a plan that will expand Medicaid & SCHIP at the expense of taxpayers in addition to creating new options for young adults. On top of that, federal money will be spent to subsidize coverage for people in other plans in addition to the 3 mentioned above. Then on top of that, even more federal money will be spent to create a new bureaucracy (never a good thing) which will impose rules & regulations outside of the letter of the law by circumventing our existing system of creating federal regulations.

This bureaucracy will also infringe on the rights of business owners by defining what is a "meaningful" contribution & enforcing financial penalties. This is a half-step away from that same government agency deciding that middle-class taxpayers aren't doing enough to help the rest of the country make ends meet. Such a plan would open the door not only to socialized medicine & insurance in the US but also to the socialization of the insurance industry, private healthcare providers, all privately owned business in the nation & our tax money.

It isn't the government's place to force businesses to change their client base. Our tax money should not be spent infringing on the rights of private business owners, providers or healthcare instutions. Reform should come through tort laws & consolidation of services, not through federal laws & excessive spending of taxpayer money. First we need to recognize that throwing money at a problem doesn't solve it if the plan of action is foolhardy. Then we also need to acknowledge that increasing bureaucracy is the opposite of efficiency, change, hope or accomplishment. Glaciers melt faster than bureaucracy works & global warming has nothing to do with it.

Finally, we should acknowledge that some states have already fantastic plans in place that show Obama's plan for the joke it is & these plans don't cost taxpayers a single cent. Massachusetts leads the nation in comprehensive, efficient, affordable blanket coverage for all but the Dems can't acknowledge the success of Romney's administration since it contradicts everything the Dems propose on this issue.

In MA, people both above & below the poverty level receive free coverage. A single person earning up to $30,000 and a family of 4 earning up to $60,000 are eligible for subsidy. The state has created a clearinghouse for insurers that drastically lowers administrative costs, allowing insurance companies to offer significantly reduced (read: reasonable, affordable) premiums. The clearinghouse works with residents & employers to offer single & group coverage on an income-sensitive sliding scale.

This keeps all freedoms intact without infringing on the rights of private business, healthcare providers or the backbone of our economy, the taxpayer. Rather than waste tax money, MA has "fixed" this complicated problem in their state without increasing spending or taxes. Romney proposes using it as a model for other states to create plans specific to their residents & leaving the federal government out of it entirely.

That seems like a win-win for everyone so why won't the Dems acknowledge this gem?

Land On This & Spin

What would you do if the FAA just decided one day to route air traffic over your home? Seems to me that your investment would start to seriously tank, since your home wasn't always on a major flight path.

Can you imagine the noise & frustration? Many an unlucky homeowner in suburban Philly is now dealing with this issue thanks to a federal "restructuring" intended to alleviate flight corridor congestion between Philly & New York. It's so typical of the government to try to make things easier for big business at the expense of everyday folks.

Who gives a damn if travelers have to wait on their layovers? Quality of life for the residents should be tantamount to everything else. Our taxes (expecially real estate taxes in PA) keep this state alive & without us, there would be no need for an airport.

A recent article on MSNBC describes the plight of affected homeowners. The FAA has a noise complaint hotline, but apparently you never get to speak to an actual person & the message mailbox is always full. So what's a disgruntled homewoner to do?

One clever couple decided to send a message right to the source by posting a candid message to the FAA on the roof of their home. The roof now reads "F-ck U FAA" above a picture of a plane with a slash through it & the words "No Fly Zone".

I like their moxy & only hope that all the neighbors do it, too. Maybe then it will get the attention of the powers that be at the FAA.