The Post Office is broke... again

Why are Americans so worried about turning over control of our Health Care to the Federal Government? Because even the oldest Federally-controlled corporations - the Post Office - is dead broke. The postmaster reports that they will be out of money by October. If they can't get it right in in 236 years, what hope do they have to fix an already-broken health care system?

Donahoe said that as of Sept. 30 his agency will owe the federal government a payment of $5.5 billion to fund medical costs, in advance, for future retirees, and in November it will need to make a $1.3 billion payment for worker's compensation.

"The Postal Service will not have the cash available to make both of these payments. We need legislation this year to address that fact," he said.

If it does come down to crunch time, said Donahoe: "We will deliver the mail." Employees will be paid, as will suppliers, he said. "The thing we will not do is pay the federal government."

Without some important changes to the law the post office "cannot survive as a self-financing entity," Donahoe said.

Did you know you're over $2 trillion in debt?

It is easy to think of "the government" as some vague, faceless entity that is "out there" somewhere. But we have a government "of the people, by the people, for the people" in the words of Abraham Lincoln. And that means, essentially you are the government. Therefore, you are over $2 trillion in debt. And it's only getting worse.

The government's net operating cost, or deficit, in the report grew to $2.080 trillion for the year ended September 30 from $1.253 trillion the prior year as spending and liabilities increased for social programs. Actual and anticipated revenues were roughly unchanged.

The cash budget deficit narrowed in fiscal 2010 to $1.294 trillion from $1.417 trillion in 2009. But the $858 billion tax cut extension package enacted last week is expected to keep the deficit well above the $1 trillion mark for another year.

One wonders exactly what you will do when this debt comes due? I am pretty sure winning the lottery is not an option.

COBRA - Not enough for some?

COBRA (Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985) is a government program which allows downsized employees to purchase insurance thru their former employer for up to 18 months. The Obama administration put into the bailout bill a subsidy of 65% of the premium, as well, to help out unemployed Americans who need insurance. This particular program has been of GREAT help to those in my family during tough times - so much so that at one point I suggested a compromise health care reform step might be to change COBRA to have no set end point for the unemployed.

But now, many unemployed Americans are saying it is no help to them at all - even with the subsidies.

Cynthia Parras decided not to enroll in Cobra after she was laid off from her job as a financial-services product manager in San Francisco in February, because she felt she couldn't afford it. Over the summer, she was diagnosed with shingles. The infection moved to her eyes, and doctors told her she could lose her sight without treatment. She paid about $2,500 out of pocket. To help compensate, she skipped her mortgage payment last month, and signed up for a state insurance plan for welfare recipients.

"This is scary and degrading," she says. "I never have been without insurance, and never in a million years thought this would happen to me."

Stories like these remind us that no government program can solve all of the ills of the health care system, because some of those ills are part of the human condition. We should be careful with the final health reform bill, and humble in not trying to overreach.

If you wonder why some fear Universal Government Care...

...then it is time to read this report from Britain, where some experts are claiming patients who are not dying are being caused to die by an uncaring bureaucracy.

In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, a group of experts who care for the terminally ill claim that some patients are being wrongly judged as close to death.
Under NHS guidance introduced across England to help doctors and medical staff deal with dying patients, they can then have fluid and drugs withdrawn and many are put on continuous sedation until they pass away...The warning comes just a week after a report by the Patients Association estimated that up to one million patients had received poor or cruel care on the NHS.
The scheme, called the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP), was designed to reduce patient suffering in their final hours...It has been gradually adopted nationwide and more than 300 hospitals, 130 hospices and 560 care homes in England currently use the system.

It is important for Universal Health Care proponents to understand that opponents aren't (generally) saying that a government-run system can't be good. But opponents rightly fear that an actual government-run system would deteriorate the way Great Britain's has. If so, then the cure might be worse than the disease, if you'll excuse the pun.

Do as I SAY not as I do!

A major disconnect between the Right and Left on the issue of Health Care Reform is our relative trust of government. The Left tends to see government as made up of well-intentioned activists, looking to do what is right without regard to personal profit. The Right tends to see government as a necessary evil, run by people who ultimately do what we all do - look for ways to make their own jobs easier, even at the expense of others. This is, in my opinion, the source of the "Death Panel" quote that has been attributed to Sarah Palin. She is not talking about what has been proposed, but the logical extension of many of the proposals, once bureaucracy has gotten ahold of them.

For those on the Left who do not understand this attitude, consider this story about the State of California. The State, in the middle of a financial crisis of historical proportions, had put off its debt holders with IOUs which promise payment at a future date. This allows the state government to spread out payments to manage its cash flow. Seems reasonable, right? The problem is, they have one set of rules for themselves and another for the People. If you have been paid with an IOU, you are expected to pay Income Tax on the IOU. But the State won't take their own IOUs as payment!

Consider if you are a company whose only customer is the State of California. You may now be shut down for non-payment of taxes because the government won't pay you!

These are the kinds of "Hypocrisy Overload" scenarios that create nightmares in the minds of Health Care Reform opponents.

The Biggest Enemy of Private Health Insurance? Insurance CEOs

I an very concerned about President Obama's clear desire to end private health insurance in favor of a comprehensive government-run health care system. This removes the profit motive entirely from medicine, and may lead to a brain-drain and a loss of the American lead in medicine and pharmacology. But it is hard to defend the current system amidst reports like this one.

A Texas nurse said she lost her coverage, after she was diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer, for failing to disclose a visit to a dermatologist for acne.

The sister of an Illinois man who died of lymphoma said his policy was rescinded for the failure to report a possible aneurysm and gallstones that his physician noted in his chart but did not discuss with him.

....Late in the hearing, [Bart] Stupak, the committee chairman, put the executives on the spot. Stupak asked each of them whether he would at least commit his company to immediately stop rescissions except where they could show "intentional fraud."

The answer from all three executives: "No."

My father died of brain cancer, and I know that his insurance tried to drop him a few times. But luckily, they were unable to do so, so he got the best care possible.

CT Church Government Bill dies

The bill reported on by CRChair and I over the last couple of days which would have given the legislature the power to regulate church government, is apparently dead. The uproar appears to have been more than the bill's authors expected, and even after the bill was shelved there are protests planned in Hartford.

Would Universal Health Care threaten personal freedom?

There are many reasons to be suspicious of President-elect Barack Obama's plan to introduce Universal Health Care: fears about corruption, lowest-common-denominator treatment, limitation of options, etc. But perhaps the most deep-seated is the fear that it may the first step toward legislating the behavior of citizens. After all, if I am paying for your health care, don't I have a say in how you live? This is not merely a "what if?" scenario, but a situation that many European and Asian democracies are dealing with today.

Government is always a balance between protecting freedoms and limiting freedoms in order to allow human being to live together peacefully and productively. As the debate over Universal Health Care begins in the next few weeks, we must remember the potential for evil in a system which is intended to do good.

Things we take for granted

This observation is profound, and reminds us of some unique strengths of America.

...The colleague had been touring the young democracies of Eastern Europe during the American election, and he found it wasn't so much Barack Obama that immediately knocked out observers but Mr. McCain's concession speech. This is the first American transfer of power they'd seen in eight years, and they couldn't get over the peacefulness and grace with which Mr. McCain accepted the people's verdict...

Perspective on the Iraqi Withdrawal Date

One of the most under-reported stories of the Thanksgiving season was the Iraqi and American governments signing a treaty to authorize American troops in Iraq thru 2009 and setting a withdrawal date in 2010. Charles Krauthammer has up a good analysis of the deal achieved, and what it means for Iraq's government and people. The short version: It shows a much more mature parliament than we expected to ever see in Iraq only a year ago.

Canada suspends Parliament

For the last 8 years, it has been common for internet posters living in Canada to make fun of Americans unmercifully for the election of 2000 (hanging chads, etc.) and various other peculiarities of the American system of government. It appears the old saying is true, "Those in glass houses should not throw stones." Now, the Canadian government is in upheaval as for the first time ever, Canada's Prime Minister has suspended parliament by order of the Queen.

Governor General Michaelle Jean -- the representative of Queen Elizabeth, Canada's head of state -- agreed to Harper's request to shut down Parliament until Jan 26. Parliament was reconvened just weeks ago after the October 14 election.

Harper's request for suspension was unprecedented. No prime minister had asked for Parliament to be suspended to avoid a confidence vote in the House of Commons.

Such a vote had been set for Monday and the Conservatives almost certainly would have lost it, and faced the possibility of being replaced by a coalition of opposition parties.

I had no idea the crown still had so much power over our neighbor to the north. Here's hoping when Parliament reconvenes in January, they are able to govern effectively and not shown to be a paper tiger.

Tracking The Government

Want to keep tabs on the government? Check out GovTrack.us. You can view RSS feeds of what is happening with specific members of congress, issues, bills, and committees.

FYI, you now own AIG

It is not as crazy as it sounds. Yesterday the Fed made an $85 billion loan to AIG and now owns 80% of the company. Taxpayers own the Fed. So, you own AIG. (Yeah, I know it is more complicated than that.) I have to say that I am very uncomfortable with this approach to governing. Under a supposedly Republican administration, we now have a government takeover of one of the largest insurers in the world. Are we headed for a future with universal health care, simply because the government owns a major insurance company and decides to crush all competition? It is not as crazy as it once would have sounded.

Why Congress always wants to pass MORE laws

It is important to find wisdom where it is, not where you expect it. Consider this quote from Cringely which sums up many of the problems with the current Congress and American government in general.

" 'To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail,' wrote Mark Twain. In the current context this means that the organizations charged with reacting to this catastrophe will do so by doing what they have always done, only more of it. Congress, which controls the budget and passes laws, will want to pass laws and to allocate more money, lots of money, forgetting completely about any campaign promises. The military, which is the nation's enforcer, will want to use force, if only they can find a foe. The intelligence community, which gathers information, will want to be even more energetic in that gathering, no matter what the cost to the privacy of the millions of us who aren't thinking of terrorist acts. And agencies like the Federal Aviation Administration, which regulate, will want to create more stringent regulations. Now here is an important point to be remembered: All these parties will want to do these things WHETHER THEY ARE WARRANTED OR USEFUL OR NOT."

Singing In Our Public Buildings

A friend of mine is involved in an organization that puts on a weekly conference every year for teens to learn more about government called City on the Hill. During this conference they visit the California State Capital. This year, they decided to sing the national anthem and "God Bless America" in the rotunda. Sergeant-at-arms and California Highway Patrol officers (we don't have state troopers, the CHP takes on this role) entered the rotunda to stop the singing because they did not have a permit. Now, my first reaction to this was "duh, you're supposed to get a permit before singing on public property." Then I thought, why should we need the government to give us permission to sing PATRIOTIC songs on land that belongs to us, the people. I understand the need to not have groups coming in selling CDs or disturbing the peace, but it seems to me that those could be handled as separate issues. What do other Mod-Bloggers think? Should citizens be required to get a permit to sing patriotic songs in a publicly-owned place?

Solar Freeze is the worst idea this year

I usually try to keep weekends light, but I am still furious about the announcement yesterday to suspend all solar power building for two years on Federal Lands. Some have said to me "Well, that does not affect private land, so it is no big deal." Here is an article showing exactly how much land is tied up in the Bureau of Land Management which would be PRIME for Solar Power building.

Let me say it again. If the Bush administration or Congress does not reverse this decision by July 4, they ALL deserve to be thrown out of office. I include in that evaluation Barack Obama and John McCain. Supporting or ignoring this move displays complete incompetence at best, or simple corruption at worst.

Feds freeze solar power building

So, you're facing an mounting energy crisis with oil at $4+/gallon and looking to reach $5/gallon by summer's end. Everyone and their brother are crying out for alternative energy sources, and the solar power community is rolling out breakthrough after breakthrough to make solar energy production cheaper and easier. So what do you do? Well, if you are the Federal Government, you announce a 2-year freeze on building new solar power plants.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/us/27solar.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1214584113-v3z1P+TfnrPGbc97b/n4hw

That's right. At the HEIGHT of an energy crisis, we are cutting off the cleanest form of energy available "for environmental concerns." If Congress or the Bush Administration does not reverse this order by July 4, they all DESERVE to be thrown out of office in November. This is not just the usual government foolishness, this is downright criminal.

You know that right against self incrimination? Yeah, forget about that.

One of the fundamental rights is the right against self incrimination. One of the ways that we ensure this right is by making it illegal for the government to seize your DNA without a court order - essentially a warrant. And a warrant can only be granted if there is some reasonable cause that a judge accepts as valid. The exception to this rule is if your DNA is already in a public database for any reason (for example, if offered as a condition of employment for a Federal job). Now, it appears Minnesota is ready to ensure all citizens surrender this right at birth.

According to the Citizens Council on Health care the state of Minnesota has illegally collected and claims ownership to the DNA of 780,000 children and has provided the DNA of over 42,000 children to genetic researchers without parental consent. Their report goes on to say that approximately 73,000 children are born each year in the state of Minnesota and about 4,200,000 are born in the United States of America and all of them will loose their genetic privacy and DNA ownership rights if this trend in public policy is allowed to continue.

Minnesota treats this procedure as an opt out program where parents of the newborn infant do not specifically opt out of the process, the state presumes it has informed consent and the parents have elected to allow this to happen.

This amounts to at least two seizures by the State: (1) Right against search and seizure/self incrimination by making this DNA automatically available to authorities without a warrant, and (2) Seizure of property by eminent domain since in the future, your DNA may be valuable for research or commercial use. Isn't our Constitution supposed to LIMIT government? Maybe not in the age of DNA science. Gattacca, anyone?

An Expose of Sweeden's "Successful" National Recycling Program

In the debate over government-run Health Care, the question is often asked "What has the government ever run that worked, besides the military?" The first answer is usually "The Post Office" until people realize how often things get lost in the mail. The second answer is often the Sweedish recycling program, which is trumpeted as a profitable enterprise. At least one Swede strongly disagrees. And if this is the model for government-run Health Care, God help us all if it is ever enacted.

The authorities have established trash collection centers in most neighborhoods where you get to throw away your trash. These "centers" offer numerous containers where you can throw away your trash — there is one container dedicated for each and every kind of trash and they are all neatly color-coded to help you find the right one. But this means you better have separated your aluminum from your other metals and your newspapers from your soft and hard papers before you get here. You wouldn't want to throw away dirty milk cartons or unsorted paper, would you?

But it seems people do just that: they cheat if they believe they are better off doing so. So the authorities have responded by making it more difficult to cheat. Their first measure was to redesign all containers so that it is more difficult throwing the "wrong" trash in them. For instance, containers for glass have only small, round holes where you put your bottles, and containers for hard paper and carton materials have only letter-slit shaped holes (you need to flatten all boxes before recycling — that's the law).

Well, that didn't do the trick. People kept on cheating. And the more difficult the authorities made it to cheat, the more difficult it was to get rid of the trash even if you intended to put it in the right place. So people went to these centers and simply put everything next to the containers instead — why bother? The authorities responded by appointing salaried "trash collection center spies" (!) to document who was cheating so that they could be brought to justice. (There have actually been a few court cases where people have been tried for not following recycling laws.)

Are we really ready to face these kinds of central planning issues when we go to our doctors? I'd say no, but I will admit I have friends who would claim they already do in dealing with their health insurance provider.

Tax Rebate Checks Considered

President Bush and Congress, concerned about the potential cost of government assistant programs should a deep recession hit, are considering offering $800 rebate checks for singles and $1,600 rebate checks for married couples. The idea is that people will spend that money which will boost the economy. The rebate program could cost $150 billion, but the government estimates that spending $150 billion could save them $500 billion. Will it work? It could, so long as people spend the money, but with everyone feeling a crunch, many may use it just to pay bills and save, leaving the government in a potentially worse situation.