Your Silence Is Your Consent

Teapot Dome. The Whiskey Ring. Tammany Hall and Boss Tweed. ABSCAM. Watergate. Iran-Contra. Add to these historical episodes of corruption and political abuse, "Nebraska Kickback," "Louisiana Purchase," "Gator Aid" and plenty of other promises, carve outs and political bribes that were successful in giving President Obama the only thing he apparently cares about: political victory for himself.

The ends justifies the means, the ends being Obama's presidency and legacy. In the end this is more important than our country's future and health care delivery. Why else would he tell the Congressional Hispanic Congress, as quoted by one member of the caucus "the fate of his presidency" hinged on the vote yesterday? Narcissism trumps duty.

For months we have seen this played out. The three most powerful individuals in American politics: the President of the United States, the Majority Leader of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representative, have used every dirty trick, every arm twisting threat, every strong political ally, every deception, mistruth and complete misstatement of numbers and facts. Everything they have learned, and their minions have perfected was brought to bear to first get everyone of their party members in the Senate and then barely the number needed from their party in the House, to pass legislation the people don't want and significant numbers of their party do not want.

And most of you have sat silently by and watched. Some have complained to others. Forwarded an email. Made a comment on an internet posting. Maybe gone so far as to write a letter to the editor. Living in Long Beach and in California, most of my friends and acquaintances are registered Democrats. Many, perhaps most, of them have been somewhat disgruntled or disgusted by the ugly politics and special deals that have had to be put together to pass the legislation. But what have they done about it other than murmur? Mostly they have stayed somewhat silent, not wanting to betray their party affiliation or criticize the people they have voted for. Is it because criticizing them makes it look like you made a mistake in voting for them?

No body supports or endorses everything someone does. We get disappointed or upset or disgruntled with choices and decisions of our spouses, our children, our parents, our friends, our co-workers, and we can either silently stand by or we can say, "hey, I wasn't real thrilled about that because..." It is how we stay spouses, good parents, solid friends and good co-workers. Why don't people do the same thing when it comes to their political representatives?

Why are not the many Democrats who have disagreed with the process, with the political bribery, with the dirty tactics, speaking up publicly and asking their party representatives and leaders to stop and listen? In 2008 they were calling for "transparency" and "open government" and "change in Washington." Well they got one in three, change in Washington. I can recall no Congress and White House that has so completely transformed the economic and social fabric of our nation dependent on so many closed door agreements and pay-offs. And so much silence from those who disagreed.

Are those of you who are opposed to the process that just completed and said nothing to your elected officials worried you would be labelled a "Tea-bagger?" Concerned your friends would criticize your opinion?

What happens now? The President and Congressional Democrats have seen that they can target weak members of their party and buy them off, several hundred million here, a couple of hundred million there, a ride in Air Force One for you, an Executive Order or two, that's all it takes. With your consent they can, and may, continue to govern this way. The opinions and desires of the American people don't matter. What matters is Obama getting his way for his legacy. And with your money, they have learned that can be bought.

In the past few days I have seen comments and postings on Facebook from local Democrats who work in government or are elected officials celebrating the pending passage, and then passage of the bill. In a way I can understand as their own political futures are probably tied to support from the party. But at the same time I can not understand. Why have they not been contacting our local Rep. Laura Richardson (D-duh) and demand she not vote for any bill unless the special payoffs for other states are stripped from the bill, at a minimum. In a week, a month, this summer they will complain that Sacramento is taking money from the city. And they support, or silently stand by, as legislation is passed that puts more of a burden on Sacramento with the feds pushing tens and tens of thousands more Californians onto MediCal. Creating even higher expenses and spending and burdens on local hospitals, the state will have to taken even more from local governments to fund the system. But the win for the President over rides the needs and best interests of our city, its hospitals and citizens.

California gets screwed in this bill. I thought for quite a while for a more appropriate word than screwed, but nothing else fits and still keeps this blog clean. With more people on Medicare and MediCal (Medicaid in other parts of the country), more illegal aliens, more people on public assistance than any other state, California gets nothing from this bill. Already losing businesses to other states due to high costs of regulations and taxes, added taxes and burdens from this bill will further cut into profits and desirability of doing business here. How will our state pay for this legislation? Our Senators and Democratic Representatives don't care, nor do the majority of our local officials who have been cheerleaders for Obama and any health care legislation--as long as something passed.

And the people for the most part remain silent, which is taken for consent from politicians. No letters, no phone calls, no letters to the editor, no rallies, no speaking out against a process that have been wrong. Fraught with payoffs we may never learn about, the bill passed is so bad it immediately required amendments and more pay offs for the votes cast.

What will you do? What can you do? Unfortunately I'm somewhat stuck. As an outspoken person registered with the "opposing" party, my local Representative and Senators find it easy to discount me. But I will continue to speak my opinions, contribute my observations and hope that someone, hopefully several someones, from the "right" party will speak up, will challenge the status quo and blind following of party leadership that has passed for representing the people in Congressional District 37, and in California.

Dirty politics has won. Those who spoke out vocally were able to be demonized by the Democrats and their allies in the press. Those who wavered on supporting a flawed piece of legislation were able to be visited by union strongmen threatening political paybacks and party leaders laying out their future in the party if they voted "no." Dirty politics won.

Governance for the people, by the people and of the people lost. Thankfully the First Amendment remains intact and I plan to take advantage of it. I will not consent and I will not remain silent.

What will you do?

DCS03222010

Of Course It's Partisan, Duh!

The airwaves and blogrolls and editorial pages and lecterns are filled with acrimony decrying the "partisanship" in Congress, but only by Republicans. Those making most noise are either ignorant, hypocritical or stupid, and by the way it it possible to be all three.

From January 2008 well into January 2010 the Democrats have had super-majorities in the House of Representatives and Senate plus the King Democrat in the White House. For twelve months the Democrats have needed not one Republican vote to pass any legislation, but they did need every Democratic vote in the Senate. Despite this incredible legislative advantage Democrats were unable to rush through any health care legislation, evidently because of Republican partisanship.

While the votes are there to pass any legislation, the Democrats have had difficulties because the legislation they have wanted passed that has run into difficulties has been bad legislation. The problems President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid have had has not been Republican partisanship, but rather lack of partisanship within their own party. Democrats who have recognized the ruinous bills put forth by Pelosi and Reid for health care reform has either balked considerably to pass the bills, or as is the case with many Democrats in the House, have voted against the legislation.

So Obama decrying the partisanship in Congress, despite being extremely hypocritical, is right. His problem is partisanship, or rather lack of it as members of his party have rejected the hard swing left in policy taken by party leadership. Representing their constituents and not the ideals of a San Francisco liberal or a Chicago party loyalist, so called Blue Dog Democrats have refused to toe the party line. But their not being partisan has become a rallying cry and issue for attacking Republicans.

How ignorant is this form of attack? The elitist mentality that has driven the legislative agenda and pursuit of massive health care reform and full government control of the health care industry in American is one that presumes we are dumb and cannot do the math for ourselves. The arrogance of power and position has enabled Obama, Pelosi, Reid and their allies in the press to lambaste Republicans for blocking health care reform thinking you and I, and Uncle Joe in Oshkosh and Aunt Marie in Albuquerque are too dumb to know it is not Republicans that are preventing them from waltzing legislation through Congress but their own party members.

Fortunately, despite that fact that half of America is below average in intelligence, it does not take much intelligence to figure this one out. Are Republicans being partisan? You betcha! (And thank goodness.) But aren't they supposed to be? John Boehner won a Republican primary in his district in Ohio and then won the general election running, get this, as a Republican! He told the citizens of his district the values he held, the issues as he saw them and the solutions he would have. He was very clear with his positions and that he is a Republican. And he won the election. So did almost two hundred other members of the House who won Republican primaries and then general elections with (R) next to their name.

It is evidently the position of Obama, and Reid, and Pelosi, and liberal media pundits and editors, that now that they are in Congress they are to come under the messianic spell that dumbfounded the majority of American voters in 2008 and cast aside their party affiliations and vote the way our President desires. For Obama and the Democratic leadership their ideological objectives are more important than representation of the people of the United States. The majority of constituents in Pelosi's district in San Francisco are thrilled with her health care proposal, the majority of Rep. Hal Rogers' (R-KY) district however is against it. As are the majority of residents in Rep. Heath Shuler's (D-NC) district.

What is really either upsetting or hilarious is the gall of Obama to try to play the partisan card on Republicans. When he did vote, Obama voted straight down Democratic party lines during his stint in the Illinois legislature and his few years in the Senate. He voted against President Bush nominees for the Supreme Court (twice) against appointments to the U.N. and cabinet positions. Where was he when the Gang of 14 was established? Hiding in the Democratic cloakroom. Obama was a Democratic party hack while representing the people of Illinois, and now he expects the Republican members of Congress to betray their constituents and follow his extremely liberal agenda. His agenda is more important than their integrity. Talk about arrogance, my ideas are more important than your ideals--or those of the people you represent.

Maybe to get around the partisanship he is suddenly so concerned with Obama should scrap the Democrats agenda and listen to the Republican agenda. Put tort reform in any health care bill, allow insurance companies to offer health insurance nationwide to expand competition and opportunities, make permanent the Bush tax cuts. Try those positions on Mr. President and then talk to the American people about partisan politics.

When creating our government the framers of the Constitution put in roadblocks to prevent legislative abuse of power. They established a system of government based upon checks and balances with equal powers granted to the Legislative, Judicial and Executive branches. Within the Legislative branch further checks and balances were created with a bicameral legislature. For over two centuries this form of government has been better than any in the history of man in representing the people being governed and preventing run-away abuse of powers by a small cadre of leaders.

Today, because their own bad ideas, their own pushing of policy that is far beyond the desires of members of their own party Obama and Democratic leadership are failing to push through legislation that forever alters the American landscape. Being true partisans they do not put the blame for their failures where they belong, on themselves and members of their own party who are needed to pass any legislation, but instead blame their political opposition for being partisan. I ask again, ignorant, hypocritical or stupid?

When President Bush was unable to get judicial nominees through Senate confirmation because of the cloture rules (filibuster) and needing sixty votes to get to an up or down vote, being blocked by Senate Democrats like Harry Reid and Barack Obama, many Republicans wanted the Senate Majority leadership (then Republican) to engage in the "nuclear" option and change the rules so that judicial confirmations needed only a majority vote and not be subject to filibuster. Led by John McCain on the Republican side, fourteen Senators came together and agreed to a set of judicial nominees and guidelines to enable some Bush appointees, but not all, to be confirmed and seated. Today the same rules apply in the Senate because level heads prevailed.

Now to get around the rules in Congress the troika of Obama, Pelosi and Reid are cooking up schemes to push their health care legislation through Congress, avoiding their own party members and forever changing how legislation is done in Congress. A word of warning to the Democrats: you will not be in the majority forever, at some point Republicans will have control of one or both the House and the Senate and may follow any precedents you sent.

DCS 02242010

The People's Seat

This past summer I spoke to my Dad while he was enjoying a prolonged stay in Sweden. He was unusually, but happily, disconnected from the news in America. "What's happening?" he asked.
"Dad you would be so proud of the American people. They are speaking up across the country. Not just activists but ordinary Americans are travelling to town hall meetings and rallies given by members of Congress and demanding answers to questions on the health care legislation."

Americans spoke again yesterday in Massachusetts. On President Barack Obama's 365th day in office the most liberal and Democratic state in the union voted overwhelmingly against his policies, leadership and direction. The cradle of liberty, the home of the Boston Tea Party, the Shot Heard Round the World, John and Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, spoke with a clear voice, "No." The people of Massachusetts voted to fill the people's seat in the Senate with a Republican, Scott Brown, with 52% of the vote and a five point victory of the Democratic candidate.

Throughout the summer the mainstream media and Democrats tried to spin the townhall meetings as foaming Republicans screaming at Democratic members of Congress. They ignored the senior citizens who came out in droves to ask about their Medicare. They ignored the speakers from the audience who would preface remarks with, "I am a registered Democrat" or "I voted for President Obama." As the House barely passed Speaker Nancy Pelosi's health care bill, with one Republican crossing the aisle (a Republican filling a seat created when a Louisiana Democrat was caught with $98,000 in bribe money in his freezer, a district that is over 70% registered Democrat) the mainstream press and far-left partisans cried, "Bi-partisan support!" When in fact it was by-partisan opposition.

Throughout the fall as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid horse-traded over his version of a health care bill, not publishing the bill, not allowing it to be read except in his office as he brought in recalcitrant Democrats to strong arm their support, the mainstream media and far-left partisans cried, "Republicans are blocking health care reform." When in truth it was Democrats blocking the bill since no Republicans were required to pass the legislation. After bribing Senators with Federal tax dollars, Reid finally got his votes and passed his version of health care reform.

The President cheered, Pelosi cheered, Reid cheered, the editors of the Washington Post, New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times cheered, the news directors and anchors at ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN cheered, the publishers of Time and Newsweek cheered. And they thought the American people were cheering with them. Ignoring the polls being published daily, ignoring the emails and letters being sent to Washington, ignoring the people back home in real American who vote, they cheered.

Cracks and fissures were visible all over the Democratic party, Pelosi and Reid were urged by Obama and members of his administration to get a deal done. Get the Senate version and the House version reconciled before his State of the Union. He wanted it done before summer recess. He wanted it done before winter recess. He had to have it done before the State of the Union. Obama and the Democratic leadership did not care what was in the bill, just that they passed one to hold up to the American people and say, "See? See what we have done for you?"

With arrogance and contempt of the people who disagreed with the tactics, the process and the content of the bills being reconciled Democrats in Congress were being urged to pass a bill, "we can explain it to them once it passes." "Them" being us, you and I.

But the plan did not work. The plan to arm twist moderate Democrats into voting a bill through was seen as twisting the arms of the people back home. People in Agawam (64% Brown) didn't like the bills or the process. People in Dedham (55% Brown) didn't like it. Adams, Hanover, Rowley, towns across Massachusetts were filled with people who said, "No." And this time they have to listen. But will they?

Since his election there have been three significant special elections where President Obama has travelled to the state to campaign for the Democratic candidate. And each time the Republican has won the race. In Virginia, in New Jersey and now in Massachusetts. Each time the candidate was blamed, certainly it could not be the President. As excuses and blame begin this morning, Brown's opponent, Martha Coakley, will be blamed for running a bad campaign--she did. She will be blamed for not taking her opponent seriously and assuming a Republican could not win in Massachusetts--she did. She will be blamed for costing the Democrats the critical 60 seat super-majority they have held throughout 2009--she did not.

What cost the Democrats this seat was the Democrats, specifically the Democratic leadership, the Gang of Three (Obama, Pelosi, Reid) pushed their agenda with such arrogance and ignorance of those objecting to the reach of the policies and agenda and the costs. The voters in Massachusetts echo almost exactly the national polls: No. No huge deficits and spending. No to your version of health care reform. No to your trying to hijack the democratic processes of the United States Congress.

Ironically the results in Massachusetts is the best result possible for Democrats facing re-election this fall. The Senate cannot pass a reconciled bill because there are now only 99 Senators until Brown is sworn in. In the House, Pelosi can try to strong arm her fellow Democrats one more time, this time to pass the Senate version of health care exactly as presented; but those who already voted against it won't change their vote and those who compromised before see Massachusetts' results and will say "no thanks." So the current versions of health care reform die in conference. And when they hit the campaign trail this summer and fall the Democrats can say, "Republicans blocked health care. We didn't get a chance to pass a bill that would help all Americans." They have their blame, and they are not blamed for passing a bill that would add trillions in debt and forever change how health care is delivered and paid for in our country.

For Democrats in swing states and 50-50 districts, no health care bill is better than the ones being presented in Washington. The people of Massachusetts told them that.

Moving forward for the Republicans, what Scott Brown delivered was an opportunity and a rallying cry. In a debate last week Brown was asked about filling "Ted Kennedy's seat." Brown replied, "This is not Ted Kennedy's seat, this is not any party's seat or any individual's seat. This is the people's seat." That statement pointed out the arrogance and assumption of the Democratic leadership in Boston and in Washington D.C. This underdog candidate who was behind by 30 points when his election started pointed out to the nation what our Constitution states, our leaders are representatives of the people. Not of parties. Not of special interests. Not of corporations or unions. Of the people, for the people and by the people.

This is the slogan and talking point the Republicans need to take to the Hastings this summer and fall. Rekindling the voice the people felt in last year's town hall meetings and the nascent Tea Party movement that has remained strong, remind the voters that they control government. They are the ones who actually vote and whose votes are counted. So speak! Make your district's seat the people's seat.

As for opportunity, now is the time for Republicans in Washington to come together and make a united statement regarding health care. I have written several times in the past about how I feel health care reform should progress, and I hope Republicans adopt some of the process. Primarily to put together a Pledge For Health Care Reform. Much like Newt Gingrich's Contract With America that led to GOP victories in 1996 during Clinton's first term, the Pledge would be a simple to read and understand step-by-step outline of what the Republicans wish to see in health care reform. Once drafted they can work with Democrats who have been resistant to Reid and Pelosi and Obama to have them sign the Pledge.

The Pledge should state that health care reform is needed, but needs to proceed methodically and incrementally and not all at once. Reform Medicare and Medicaid to eliminate waste and fraud. Tort reform to take the practice of defensive medicine from the burdens of our doctors and hospitals. Allow insurance companies to offer insurance across state lines to increase competition and lower costs to consumers. Remove the burden of providing insurance from employers so people do not lose their insurance when they change jobs, freeing people to shop for health care insurance that is best for them and not their employers. Protect hospitals and health care providers from the over-burdensome regulations and bureaucracies that prevent growth and expansion. With each of the items provide a timeline. Project into the future that the Pledge will be offered to all candidates for Federal office to ensure work will continue when they are gone.

In what might be the biggest upset in modern politics a Republican won an election for United States Senate in Massachusetts. A simple man ran a campaign on issues, on substance and on integrity speaking directly to the people he will represent. He let them know it is their seat he will fill. The people of Massachusetts fired the shot heard around the country.

But are the people in power in Washington able to hear a shot from the people? We will see.

Turn On The Cameras, Open The Doors

It is increasingly clear that Joe Wilson spoke some truth, not with much decorum but nonetheless his outburst as President Obama addressed a joint session of Congress is showing to be not far off the mark. Of course he could have been addressing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid or House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. This Gang of Three, Obama, Reid and Pelosi, are trampling all over their prior statements and pledges to the American people as they conspire to complete a health care reform bill.

Our nation is a republic, it is a nation governed by laws not by (wo)men. While the laws are crafted by elected representatives, signed by elected Executives and presided over by judges both elected and appointed by our elected representatives, it is the law that rules not those who create and enforce them. Today our republic is in transition to being a nation ruled not by law but by men, and one tough woman. And if they are successful our future will be changed, not only because of the changes in health care delivery and coverage for all future generations, but because of the precedent they will have set in ruling our country. Not governing but ruling.

As you have probably been aware both the House and Senate have now passed health care reform bills. Both were passed with the minimum of votes. In the House of Representatives one Republican, who is in office because he replaced a Democratic Representative arrested after $90,000 was found in his freezer and despite efforts by his party to save him ultimately gave up his seat in a district that is as deep blue with registered Democrats as you will find in America. In the Senate the bill passed despite never leaving Reid's office for a reading or public debate. Whoever on the Democrat side of the aisle spoke out against the bill and what may have been in it got a call from Reid's office and the White House and invited to a sit down. Most left with something nice for their state to buy their votes. Nebraska got their Medicaid deficits created by the bill covered and guaranteed by the Federal Treasury, Louisiana got a cap on Medicare premium increases for all recipients, current and future, Florida got guarantees that Medicare reimbursements for providers would not get cut and in some instances where providers in other states get cuts Floridian health care providers would get Medicare payment bumps. A vote in the middle of the night and it was "Here you go Mr. President a bill."

Throughout the debates Obama stayed out of the fray, publicly saying it was not his job to craft the legislation and to let the process work. Despite his constant rhetoric on the campaign trail about inclusive government, reaching across the aisle, open debate for Americans to see and experience, he said nothing of Reid's behind closed door meetings, nor members of his Administration arm-twisting Democrats to back any bill presented. In the end several closed door meetings with just the President and Democrats, if your registration says "GOP" you're not welcome, resulted in a bill.

And now we are on the precipice of, as defined by Obama and Reid and Pelosi, the most significant legislation to change America since Civil Rights legislation in the 1960s. Crafted behind closed doors. With legislative bribes used to gain passage. That an overwhelming majority of Americans oppose.

At this point the legislative process calls for a reconciliation of the two bills passed by the Senate and the House so one bill can be presented for passage by both. A Conference Committee is appointed by the leadership of the Senate and House, typically bi-partisan with membership determined by party representation in each chamber. Thus a Health Care Reform Conference Committee would consist of Senators and Representatives with a majority of each being Democrats; as is their right they have the majority in both houses as a result of the elections in 2008. This committee with argue and debate and trade and eventually should reach agreement and produce a bill--often not resembling at all the original bills presented. This bill is then voted up or down by both chambers and then presented to the President for signature and passage into law.

Small problem. The gaps between the two bills are so great that everyone appears dissatisfied. As evident as it was before that the purpose appears not to reform health care so much as to give the President a huge legislative victory before his first year in office is over, it is becoming more evident now. It is not about listening to the American people, or the members of their own party, for Obama, Reid and Pelosi; it is about passing any bill to say they passed monumental legislation reforming health care. Consequences be damned.

As evidence of this consider the plan being worked on by the Gang of Three to obviate the Conference Committee and instead work over members of their party behind closed doors and control the reconciliation process. Instead of having an open Conference Committee with representatives of both chambers of the legislature and both political parties, Obama, Reid and Pelosi are planning to shut out the opposition party and the American people and craft a new bill to gain passage. This is not about health care reform, this is about personal victory for narcissists ruling our country.

Promises of transparency from Pelosi in her campaign to gain Democratic majority in the House, promises of open leadership from Reid in his support of Obama's Presidential campaign, speech after speech by Obama about new day, and change, and transparency, and no more back room deals or governance by lobbyists. Rhetoric or deceit? You decide. In the meantime the representative elected by the American people are aiding and abetting their take-over of the government and disregard for the rules and laws which govern us. And complicit in the take-over is the majority of the American people who have elected those representatives. Will they continue their complicity in 2010? Will it be too late? Obama, Reid and Pelosi are betting it will be too late, that they can get to their fellow Democrats to pass their version, the Gang of Three version, of health care reform before the American people get to them in the ballot box in 2010.

I am not a Democrat, that should be pretty obvious by now. My Congressional Representative, Laura Richardson is, my two Senators, Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, are, the majority of my neighbors and fellow Californians are Democrats or historically vote that way. Will those neighbors and Californians that Richardson, Boxer, Feinstein and other Democrats in California depend on for votes and support contact their elected representatives and demand openness? Demand they tell Reid and Pelosi that the American people deserve and demand open debate on reconciliation of the health care bill that will not only change their lives but also their children and grandchildren? I am hopeful but doubtful.

In the end I'm just a guy in Long Beach, California with a laptop a teeny piece of space on the internet and lots of opinions. Opinions that are not too popular for many in my region but mine nonetheless. Hopefully however the American people who voted for Hope and Change and a new attitude in Washington will follow the lead of C-Span Chairman and CEO Brian Lamb who wrote our Congressional leaders asking that cameras be allowed to cover health care reconciliation. Hopefully other guys, and gals, across Long Beach, California and the United States with laptops and pencils and phones will contact their elected representatives and demand the same thing. Don't hide from us, don't forever change our country behind closed doors.

One can hope.

Here again is link to C-Span letter

UPDATE 3:00 PM 1/6/10: Here is collection of video showing then Senator Obama promising 8 times to have televised health care debates and transparency. Click here.

Back To Health Care

As Summer gets further away and Fall ensconces much of the country the town hall debates, the protests, the marches, the nasty statements, have settled back into committee rooms and back offices of Washington D.C. and the halls of Congress. Yesterday the Senate Finance Committee finally passed its version of health care reform and it appears headed to the Senate floor. Where it will probably get shot down.

Meanwhile across the building Speaker Nancy Pelosi is said to have gathered her strongest allies in the Democratic Party and is hammering out her own version of health care reform to put through the House of Representatives. Where it will probably get shot down.

In July it was critical, in the eyes of the President and senior Democratic leadership, that health care reform be passed by August, September, now the date has been moved to the November recess. But we are no closer today than we were when Obama took the Oath of Office.

So what to do about health care reform? There are many who feel governments should learn more from the private sector on how to run their business of governing. Health care reform is an area where the practices of private business could lead to health care reform that will be long lasting and positive for America.

First let's take a basic look at the problem. We have a huge amount of press and anxiety in some corners of the country because approximately 30 million Americans do not have health insurance coverage (I am aware that the White House and others have tossed out up to 45 million uninsured "in" America, but this includes illegal aliens). This amounts to approximately 10% of the population. So when it comes to costs of covering these 30 million people consider many of them have the opportunity for insurance but elect not to purchase it, while others are without and truly want insurance. So 10% uninsured that we want insured. Of the 90% with insurance polls suggest that upwards of 85% are satisfied with the insurance coverage they have. So 77% of the population happy with insurance, 13% unhappy with insurance and 10% without insurance but want it. Approximately 90% of those with insurance wish their premiums were lower and quit rising every year at renewal.

From the provider side, doctors and hospitals are getting squeezed by the government for Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements (currently about 18% of charges, due to drop in January) and insurance companies are looking to cut better and better contracts which means less reimbursements. The way the game is played reimbursements are based on a percentage of actual charges, charges must be in-line with other health care providers in a region, so every provider inches up their costs whenever possible to get the inches up in reimbursement. As this goes along government regulations increase the costs of personnel, equipment installation, oversight and other operating factors. Approximately 50% of hospitals in the country operate at a loss, were it not for private insurance reimbursements, which significantly outpace government reimbursements, many of those in the red ink category would close. So providers are getting less and treating more and the hospitals with less private contracts are in danger of closing.

Politics of course come into play on resolving this issue, a factor that is not an issue with the private sector--it is but not to the same extent dealing with shareholders or partners versus an electorate. Politically the President has been hemorrhaging political capital all summer and into the fall. His party has a large contingent that is aligned philosophically with the Republicans on health care reform and there are elections approaching in thirteen months that could cost Democrats the majority in the House, their filibuster proof 60 seats in the Senate or deep dents in those majorities. Passing health care legislation now will give Republicans thirteen months to pick out every issue within the legislation and make a case for how it is bad for the people of Greensboro, Columbia, Lexington or Talladega. It is easy for those on the coasts to say "big deal what they think," but those people vote and elect members of the House, and many of them did not see big margins in 2008.

Boiling this very complex problem into a few items: the overwhelming majority of Americans are satisfied or pleased with their health insurance, a small percentage of Americans are uncovered; health care providers are getting less and less for the same procedures under government contracts that could put them out of business; politically the party in power has an increasingly tenuous grasp on their majority heading into mid-term elections.

So what to do about health care reform? My advice to President Obama is this: take a long term approach and layout a plan for this and future Congresses to follow in a step by step manner, just as a private company would do when overhauling a process that is instrumental to their business but needs to be brought into the current era and technologies.

Were Obama to lay out a plan with time frames that are not days and weeks but rather months and years he would create a vision for Americans to follow to health care reform. Rather than tearing down the existing system that three-quarters of Americans are satisfied with in order to insure 10%, show a path of reform to existing processes and practices that will take several terms of Congress and will probably need to continue into the next Administration--be it his or someone else's. If the plan is working in 2012 he can pretty much guarantee his re-election based on his courage and vision to create a long term plan of reform that is methodical in its process rather than a short term plan that no one has read that is crammed with special interests and payouts that harm the entire system.

Step 1: Having admitted that Medicare/Medicaid is rife with fraud, abuse and waste, Obama creates as new department that only exists for two years, no permanent bureaucracy, that is composed of officials from Justice and Health and Human Services that is charged specifically with auditing the entire Medicare/Medicaid structure and correcting the waste, prosecuting the fraud and eliminating the abuse. With the savings from this audit and investigation contracts to health care providers are raised back to levels that would if not encourage at least not discourage their seeing patients. The remainder of the savings goes back into the general fund to cut deficits.

Step 2: Overhaul private insurance laws nationwide. While I am very much in favor of states rights over federal rights, in this instance the American public benefits if there are not 50 different regulatory bodies overseeing health insurance coverage. Allow insurance companies in Iowa to offer medical insurance in California and vice-versa--watch what happens to premiums when this type of competition is allowed into the marketplace. Next disconnect the insured from their employers and their insurance pools. Small and medium size companies, who employ the majority of Americans, are disproportionately impacted by a severe illness to one of its employees or beneficiaries, have a couple huge medical cases in a few years and watch premiums for everyone skyrocket. Further, too many employees are trapped in their employment situations because of the health benefits, having their own health insurance premiums and health savings accounts allows individuals to pursue better employment opportunities and will increase the efficiency, satisfaction and productivity across the nation. Just as employers make direct deposit into their workers checking accounts for salary and 401(k) accounts for retirement, so too can they make direct deposits into Health Savings Accounts that can be used for insurance premiums and co-pays. Make the individual responsible for seeking and obtaining their own medical coverage with a company, plan, deductible and payment that meets their family's ability and needs.

Step 3: The uninsured in our country already have access to health care, go into the emergency room of any hospital and you will see them sitting there waiting to be seen for routine medical care. Hospitals are not allowed to ration care based upon ability to pay, and the ethical and moral obligations of the health care providers prevent them from doing so as well. Beyond the moral aspect the legal aspect is one that is subject to legislation and enforcement. Allow a national database on uninsured patients, providing personal data such as name, date of birth and social security number, and reimburse health care providers for some of the cost of treatment. Not all of it but some of it. With the tracking the government can issue communications to those who appear to be abusing the system with liens and other fines to reimburse the costs through withholding, tax refunds, etc. Find a method that does not penalize the providers, does not unduly punish the tax payers and makes the individuals responsible for their health.

Sounds simple doesn't it? Present a plan with a realistic time line and reform the existing system within its current framework. It works for business and it would work for government if any of the elected officials had the courage to present a long term plan where implementation goes beyond their term of office. Voters would reward this type of vision and leadership if only given the chance.

Building On A Broken Foundation

Leslie and I have had plans to remodel our kitchen since we moved into our home in 1998. Our home in the Bixby Knolls section of Long Beach dates to the late 1920s and sits on expansive clay soil, when the dirt gets wet it expands significantly, when it gets dry it contracts. This expansion and contraction over 80 years is not very good for the foundation, as a result we have some plates and braces around various parts of the foundation. Last year our front lawn was taken out and replaced with drought tolerant landscaping; drought tolerant but still in need of some water, especially the first year. Unfortunately one of the drip hoses was installed too close to our home and the result of a year of thrice weekly dripping has resulted in what we think is more damage to our foundation.

If our home was under the control of the Nancy Pelosi/Barack Obama group of Democrats, who I now label the "New Democrats" for their combination of power in Washington and station on the far left of the Democratic Party, if our home was under the control of the New Democrats then we would go right ahead with our kitchen remodel plans. Leslie and I would borrow several hundred thousand dollars, not read the architect's designs, over pay our contractors, and build our new kitchen on top of our foundation without fixing the cracks and soil issues that will lead to future damage and possible collapse of that section of the home. No regard for budget, no care about the details of the plan, no time taken to fix what is already wrong and without attention will get worse in the future, just build a new kitchen.

This is the approach the New Democrats are taking on their health care overhaul. Operating on the premise that most Americans agree with, that our current health care system is in need of repair, the New Democrats have crafted proposals that are in Congress that seemingly ignores any budget, is being pushed without reading the details and most importantly without fixing what is already in place and needs attention: Medicare.

There are many issues I have with many of the proposals I have read and read about in the thousand plus health care proposal being pushed around committees by New Democrats in Washington. Those issues are secondary however to the complete lack of focus on fixing what is already in place, a government controlled health insurance program, before expanding it from a $425+ billion program to a $1.6 trillion program. The ultimate goal of the New Democrats is a single payer, government run health care system--while some deny it they cannot hide from YouTube and the internet with videos of speeches and interviews in which many have been seen stating the path they are on will lead to one insurance program in America that is run by Washington.

Medicare covers approximately 45.5 million Americans and costs over $425 billion in fiscal year 2009. It accounts for sixteen cents of every Federal dollar spent, third in spending behind social security (which is also broken) and defense spending. In 1983 Medicare cost almost $53 billion, so it has grown over eight times in just over twenty-five years. Despite a $200 million budget within the Health and Human Services budget for fraud and abuse control within the Medicare programs, it is conservatively estimated that 10% of the Medicare budget goes to fraud and abuse--that is over $42 billion each year. These costs are despite the contributions every paycheck by working Americans who have Medicare insurance payments automatically deducted from their paychecks along with their taxes, 401(k) and private health insurance premiums.

Medicare, and its little brother Medicaid (Medical in California) provide models for a government run health care system. It dictates payments to doctors and hospitals, has prescription drug programs, collects additional premiums and deductibles from those covered or partially covered. It operates at a loss despite collecting what amounts to premiums from every working American. To cover the losses funds are taken from the general budget of the United States, which has as its largest contributors the wealthiest Americans who earn the most income and pay into the highest tax rate.

To recap, the Federal run health insurance program that covers only about 15% of the American population is paid for by every working American in their paychecks and since it operates at a loss is supplemented by the tax dollars of every working American with the majority of the supplemental support coming from those making the most money and in the highest tax brackets.

If passed, how will the health care proposal being pushed by the New Democrats differ significantly from the current Medicare system? Will it be run by the same bureaucrats who are currently unable to make Medicare work? Will it reduce the amount of fraud and abuse that bleeds over 10% of the existing budget? Will it be able to control the amount of "premiums" collected from working Americans?

The ultimate goal of the New Democrats is single payer insurance, a system that pretty much already is in place in the United States due to the Medicare deductions and use of tax revenue to pay for the program. Before trying to force onto Americans a hodge-podge of proposals and policies as detailed in the thousand page bill they have written, should they not show us they can run an effective and efficient health care insurance program? Before committing to several trillion dollars of costs paid for by you and me should they not show they can offer quality health care for Americans being covered in a system that "only" costs $425 billion this year? Before committing to every doctor, hospital and health care provider in America to becoming a government employee should they not work with the doctors, hospitals and health care providers currently receiving Medicare patients to strike that fine balance between proper compensation and quality care?

The debates and arguments and focus the past several weeks have been on the health care proposal that has been written by the New Democrats. Most of the coverage has been on specific proposals within the proposed legislation. What I would like to see is the call for reform of Medicare before any new health care overhaul is passed. Given the way $1 billion has become small change in Washington, use Medicare as an experiment if you will for how a bigger health care system may work. It has most of the elements being proposed and it has many flaws and inefficiencies that have been acknowledged vociferously by New Democrats as a reason the system needs to be overhauled. But instead of fixing what they acknowledge to be wrong they are looking to commit trillions of dollars to what appears to be essentially the same broken system.

Leslie and I know we need to move our drip hose and some plants away from our home and fill the area with a drainage system, rocks, and concrete to keep water away from the dirt around our foundation. We then need to repair the foundation in that section of our home with braces and plates. Only when the existing foundation is secure can we think about rebuilding what sits on top of that foundation, to do otherwise would be foolish. What is the difference between our remodeling our kitchen and the New Democrats' plans to remodel our health care system? The biggest difference is we know where we need to start.

.