Media Matters; No Truth Go Un-Spun, No Deception Too Small

I've been on Media Matters (MM) email list for a few years now and I can say that I have never read one that did not twist the truth to conform to their agenda: Propping up Democrats, liberals and progressives, while attempting to marginalize Republicans, conservatives, and lately the Tea Party movement.

This Time MM is attacking Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday for asking Mr. Axelrod legitimate questions concerning President Obama's underhanded recess appointment of Donald Berwick to head up Medicare and Medicaid. The rant, titled "Wallace revives tired right-wing attacks on "controversial" Berwick quotes" was published July 11th, 2010.

MM says, "

Chris Wallace claimed that President Obama used a recess appointment to install Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services head Donald Berwick to avoid defending Berwick's "controversial statements" regarding health care rationing and Britain's National Health Service."

The fact that they feel the need to attack Chris Wallace reveals the truth of the matter.

To Media matters: If the real reason for this surprise recess appointment was not to avoid questioning by the US Senate, why did the President do it?

MM does not answer that question, and neither does Axelrod, the president or any of his staff. At the Whitehouse Blog, Dan Pfeiffer writes,

"In April, President Obama nominated Dr. Donald Berwick to serve as Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)."

So why didn't the Democrat controlled US Senate not consider this nomination? He provides this for an answer...

" Many Republicans in Congress have made it clear in recent weeks that they were going to stall the nomination as long as they could, solely to score political points."

Is that so? Does Mr. Pfeiffer prove his statement? Nope. He's a Democrat working for Democrats to give cover to the Democrats and the president. And, as we've learned, Democrats do not need facts, they only need someone to blame. He describes the US Senate confirmation process as "Washington game-playing" that they don't have time to "waste" on.

Now it is odd that the appointment had to be made in secret as there was an Acting Administrator, Charlene Frizzera, in place since January, 2009. Barack Obama has been the President for over 18 months. If the appointment was as important as is claimed, why did he leave a "temp" in there for 18 months?

Dr. Berwick was never scheduled for a US Senate confirmation hearing. The appearance is the president's staff pulled him out of nowhere and placed in charge of rationing the federal government's largest budget area ($700+ Billion annually).

Recess appointments are generally not a really bad thing and have been used many times by most, if not all prior presidents. But this one exceptionally devious and reveals the overall mindset of this administration, where Mr. Obama creates "czar" positions expressly to avoid an open information exchange in a government that was originally founded on transparency.

Media Matters has build a fine tradition of skewing information to meet their agenda. This is just another example.

More on Health Care Reform: Competition

It seems that Team Obama's understanding of what competition is needs some real world examples. Interestingly, Senator Waxman seems to know that there are at least 52 insurance companies that provide health care insurance. We know this because Mr. Waxman send them a letter, dated August 17th, 2009, demanding payroll information from all of them.

So do we need a another insurance company to provide "competition"?

The short answer is we don't need it at all.

Common sense says that 52 companies competing against each other makes for plenty of competition. In their defense, no one has ever accused the US congress of having common sense. Besides, anyone who believes that a government program would be competitive is either ignorant of how government works or they are trying to trick everyone. Since I can't believe Obama's people are ignorant, our problem reveals itself.

FYI: None of those 52 private sector insurance companies can print their own money to cover the unintended consequences of their self-serving policies. The US government can.

See my original post, Healthcare Reform: Competition, dated 8/12/09, for more on competition.

Healthcare Reform: Competition

In his town hall meeting Tuesday in Portsmouth, NH, the president said,

"I mean, if you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? No, they are. It's the post office that's always having problems."

How this remark helps his cause is unknown to me. If anything, he is acknowledging that a government run "business" in competition with private sector businesses, including the health care industry, will fail to be competitive.

'Nuf said.... almost.

Competition is the engine of self sufficiency and wealth in America. It is what created the most advanced living conditions in the history of man. Competition is responsible for the rapid advance of every aspect of American life. This includes the state of modern health care. Some Americans who do not believe that they are "competitive" will always end up in unions, on assembly lines or on welfare, and being dependent on those who are competitive enough to win them any income and benefits they may have. Competition lowers prices and costs as evidenced by the impetus to institute anti-monopoly laws in this country.

The same holds true for healthcare insurance. Competition, fair competition, will lower the cost of healthcare insurance and the cost of healthcare in general. There are some anti-competitive policies in place in this country right now that are causing the costs to skyrocket. Government healthcare programs and state restrictions on out of state insurers.

I found it interesting that some push the "public option" for healthcare insurance, claiming it will be "competitive". If you believe private sector insurers can compete with the federal government, then, answer these questions...

Do private sector companies print their own money?
Do private sector companies use their power to forcibly extract money from others?
Do private sector companies make their own laws and regulations?

Of course not, which makes the argument for a public option irrational. Heck, the government doesn't even have to pay for advertising.

The question to ask is, "Do government programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid cause healthcare costs to go up?"

The answer to that is a firm "yes".

There are at least two reasons for this.

- One is that when the government pays the medical bills, those millions are removed from the customer base of insurance companies. According to Health Harbor, "Medicare covers between 42 million and 45 million Americans, making it the largest single payer of healthcare in the nation." That is 42-45 million people who are not buying private sector healthcare coverage, which causes insurance providers to raise fees on others to stay in business.

We all know that the insurance company model is to "spread the wealth" (to steal a phrase), or risk, among their policy holders. More policy holders means the risk is spread thinner and the cost to each would be lower.

- Another is that people using Medicare and Medicaid cannot see how much it is costing everyone. Sure, they see their own charges. But to most, those figures are meaningless. Why? Because the payment isn't coming out of their checkbook. They have no need to be concerned and if they were concerned, they have no way to tell if Medicare or Medicaid are being over or under charged. There is nothing for them to compare it with.

Many believe that Medicare Part B is paid for with payroll taxes, monthly premiums, copays and deductibles.

Not true. In fact about 75% of the payouts to Part B claims comes from general revenue, with payroll taxes, etc., covering the remainder (2007 numbers).

- Medicare and Medicaid limit prices. Logic would say that limiting prices would limit costs and make it less expensive. But Doctors, hospitals and big pharma cannot put an equal limit on their costs. They must earn enough to allow them to pay their bills and stay operational. Remember, no matter who pays for for goods and services, someone must get paid to make that product or provide that service. The government price fixing forces them to look elsewhere to make up the difference between what they need to pay their staffs, office space, utilities, medical equipment, etc. They end up charging more to those patients who use private sector insurance and those who pay cash. For proof, just look at any bill that is paid by Medicare/Medicaid. It will show how much their fee is for the service and how much Medicare/Medicaid allowed.

The bottom line is there is no way possible that a government public option would be competitive with private sector insurance providers and that the federal government's meddling in what should be private sector businesses is what has caused healthcare and healthcare insurance to skyrocket for almost four decades since Medicare and Medicaid stated.

Real competition is the road to lower healthcare and healthcare insurance costs.

Government Mandated Health Care Passes the Senate Health Committee

It's not too late to call or write your senators to register your opposition to this country killer.

Reuters is reporting that the Senate Health Committee passed their version of the the Obama health care plan in a party-line 13-10 vote. The albatross is to be combined with the Senate Finance Committee's input, which they have not written yet. Then it will be passed through 4 more senate committees before it comes to the florr.

The bill ostensibly will insure the 46 million people in America that do not have health care insurance. Of course, opponents say that it will insure only about one quarter of that 46M at a cost of $1.5 Trillion.

Additionally, it will add:
- A government-run health care program (will destroy competition and nationalize health care)

- Require most Americans to obtain health insurance (who are they leaving out? Whose insurance plan? ANS: The government's plan)

- Mandate most employers to provide it to their workers. (to reduce job opportunities for middle America, after piling on income and other tax increases on them)

- The legislation also would seek to reduce costs in the $2.5 trillion U.S. health care industry. (by lowering doctors' and hospital fees, thus reducing the number of doctors and hospitals and other emergency services and by cutting Medicare and Medicaid)

Translated this all means the government is going to further tell individual Americans what is best for us and make you pay extra to for arousing their attention.

President Obama has promised to reduce Medicare and Medicaid spending by over $500 Billion to make it whither on the vine.

I this what you want?

Sign the petition at www.freeourhealthcarenow.com

Healthcare Reform: The Public Option w/A View From the Huff

Bob Cesca, A Huffington Post Blogger, opines that the opposition to the Obama healthcare insurance reform is from the "crazy wing nuts" who are lying and exaggerating the situation. He had no real defense for the public option plan. Just your typical leftist insults on subjects he does not understand.

Insults:

"Political race-baiter (and, somehow, CNN contributor) Alex Castellanos"

"random "Republican analyst" on MSNBC: But this DMV crap on a stick is only one of many crazy attacks against the president's healthcare reform agenda and the public option."

"Predictably, as healthcare reform grows larger in the window, the claims from the far-right are becoming increasingly bizarre and ridiculous, topping, in some cases, the psychotic claims of, say, the Obama birthers."

He includes Sean Hannity, Representative Michelle Bachmann and Glenn Beck in his citing of "crazy wing nuts".

Then there is his absurd claims, while never once backing up anything he writes. (I've just read "True Patriot" by Eric Liu & Nick Hanauer. It has about the same in the lack of any evidence. So, this seems to be the way of the left.)

He states,

"First, no one in the government would mandate this switch."

(to the public option in lieu of their private sector plans)

What he simply doesn't know is the fact that there is no need to mandate it. The public option would put private sector providers out of business. Just as it almost did in Hawaii (an emergency session repealed the "public option" within 7 months of its creation to undo the damage)

"In non-wingnut reality, of course, the public option would function similarly to Medicare, which is hardly a spooky or unfamiliar program, and I challenge anyone to produce a single human being who would willingly give up his or her Medicare coverage."

Of course, this challenge is ridiculous as, except for the the very wealthy, no senior could afford the cost of private sector insurance. And there are reasons for that.

1. There aren't enough customers to spread the risk due to the government's unfair business tactics, which drives up the costs for everyone.

2. Seventy five percent (75%) of all Medicare part B payouts come from the federal government's general revenue. A small percentage comes from the participant's monthly payments (currently $96.40), their co-pays and payroll (FICA) taxes.

As for being reliable, the Trustees Summary Report for 2009 also says Medicare is unsustainable. Besides, President Obama is calling for reducing Medicare and Medicaid spending by $509 Billion annually. So, where is the money coming from?

He continues with,

"Hannity deliberately inflated the number to 20 million and overlooked how and why people would leave their private plans. But I don't think he expected Tom Arnold to be the one to call him on his lies."

Well, all I have to say is, 'Hannity is a piker in the exaggeration department.

President Obama and all of his foot soldiers in the legacy media are claiming that they will cover 47,000,000 uninsured Americans. This is a huge exaggeration of the facts. According to the US Census Bureau the total of 45.65 million uninsured in 2007 included 9.73 million foreigners, bringing the total down to 35.92 million. Of those there were about 9 million who made over $75K per year and chose not to buy insurance, bringing the total down to 27 million Americans who were uninsured in 2007. Moreover, those numbers of uninsured was down in each category.

47 million vs. 27 million

Tell me again, Mr. Cesca, who is exaggerating?

Then, flailing about at Rep. Bachmann, he misconstrues this way...

"As I was researching the topic of crazy wingnut healthcare arguments, I thought perhaps Michele Bachmann would have an insane healthcare quote on the record for me to exploit and debunk. I was wrong. It turns out that Bachmann's most recent healthcare reform attack accidentally underscored the leading argument in favor of the public option."

And what caused that unfortunate circumstance for him? Rep. Bachmann had said,

"Approximately 114 million Americans are expected to leave private health insurance. Why? Their employers will drop the insurance because the taxpayer-subsidized plan will be 30 to 40 percent cheaper."

To which he responds...

"Up to 40 percent cheaper? That's amazing. I've heard estimates of around 30 percent, but 40 percent is even better. Make sure to tell your Republican friends that The Michele Bachmann Unit says that the public option will be 40 percent less expensive than private health insurance."

On the very thin surface, it may look like an endorsement of the public option. When you know a little more, you realize that, once again, this will usurp the private sector's customer base and move huge numbers of Americans to the only plan available, the public option.

And will it cost less overall? Will it be better for individuals needing health care?

According to the CBO, probably not.



But, this is typical of your self-centered leftist blogger. He is way too busy raking the muck looking for insults rather than spending some time trying to dig out the truth. The president has also spent too much time on, well, I don't know what, because he simply has no idea of what is in this healthcare reform that he wants, he just wants it. And this example is typical of his supporters. They also have no clue of the consequences of too much government intruding into private sector free market economies (this explains, in part, how they can support Mr. Obama's policies.

ObamaCare or DemoCare is going to break the bank, if it isn't already beyond repair.

Public Health Care: A Letter To My Representative

A letter to my representative, sent June 25th, 2009.

Dear Representative Buchanan,

I have been watching the current health care debate and I have to say that the Kennedy plan is the wrong plan for our country and its future as the land of the free in a world where freedom is the exception.

While the president assured everyone that the public plan will be competitive and lower costs, we only have to look to the great state of Hawaii to know the outcome. Their program lasted 7 months before they decided to repeal it due to a massive shift in private sector insured to the state plan. They nearly bankrupted the private sector insurers and ran into the red in the state budget almost immediately.

I realize that the federal government can simply print more money when it runs out, but that solution is extraordinarily inflationary and will come back to haunt us when the real costs start settling in. Besides, the president and congress have already spent us into a hole that will take decades climb out of. We simply do not have the funding for a massive health care takeover by the federal government.

The president's claim of competitiveness is false. When employers see that the government will provide insurance, they will drop their employee coverage, just as happened in Hawaii. Private sector insurance companies cannot print their own money to make up for lost customers, so they will have to price themselves out of business. Additionally, how can he claim to be competitive when the Kennedy bill calls for taxing health care benefits, but excuses union members from paying it? In addition it is violation of equal protection under the 14th Amendment and will coerce middle and lower income families to join a union to be able to have insurance.

I have a better idea. Though I'm sure some or all of this has been passed around before, I need to know that it is known to my representative.

First, change the income tax law to allow at a direct 10% or more deduction for all medical expenditures. Currently only the amount over 7% of one's gross income can be deducted on a 1040, and only when itemizing. Make it part of the 1040EZ form. It has been this way for many decades and tells a sad story about American politics. I believe this helps force people into government sponsored programs, such as Medicare.

Two: An additional dollar for dollar deduction for insurance premiums paid out of one's income. This will encourage many to purchase their own coverage instead of relying on Rep. Barney Frank for our insurance needs.

Three: Allow insurance companies to compete for customers across states. Interstate competition will lower costs by expanding the customer base. There are around 1300 health care insurance companies around this country. Let's get them all competing with each other.

Four: Phase out Medicaid and Medicare. The president has already said he will cut Medicare and Medicaid by $509 billion and no one squawked about it. This opens the door to move away from the government solution to a regulated private solution. It is a well-known fact that government insurance programs leads to much fraud and waste (around $60 Billion last year). Additionally, the people who watch their own hard earned money very closely are not so careful with free money from (what seems like) someone else. However, we all know, or should know, that that money to cover the doctor and hospital visits come out of our own pockets when the government is picking up the tab.

Five: Tort reform. The Democrat pundits are claiming it is a non-issue as the lawsuit judgments are relatively small when compared to the total cost of health care. But what is not said is that the malpractice insurance industry has not lowered their premiums. Doctors and hospitals still pay outrageous rates for malpractice insurance and this is passed along to the patients.

Modern society has Americans on-the-go all of the time to earn a living, raise children, maintain homes and personal budgets. I can see how there may not be much concern over having too many labs at the doctor's office when the bill is something they do not have to think about.

The answer to health care reform is for Americans to get involved in our own health care, reduce insurance costs through fair competition and tort reform. Please remember that there can be no competition between the government, with virtually unlimited assets, and private sector insurance companies, who depend on a large customer base.

I understand that changing health care from government issue to personal responsibility is a big job that may ultimately be impossible. Nevertheless, it is important to prevent this country from failing due to a lack of responsibility on the part of its citizens and a need for ever more and more power by some members of the federal government.

Thank you for your support.

Some Bloggers. Sheesh

Some bloggers censor their blogs. I would like to believe that the main attraction to to blogging is the free exchange of ideas.

However, while looking for a quote on public health care insurance, I came across "GOP Lies About American Health Care", Our Rants & Raves - Politics, by Michael Boh. It appears that Mr. Boh is only interested in opinions that match his own. I posted a rebuttal to his rant at about 9 PM Tuesday night and it yet to appear. I normally wouldn't be spending time ranting about someone else's blog, but this guy is just way too in the can for the Democrat policies and President Obama, while spewing hate for opposing politicians, and, apparently, opposing opinions.

Of course I have no problem with managing one's own blog, but censoring for opposing opinions is un-American. Especially when he says, "All opinions are welcome!"

I kind of liked Mikey's rules and thought I might plagiarize them for this blog. He'll never see it, so it would probably not be a problem. Here are his, very reasonable rules. Some of which he has violated.

Rules
1. Write your own. (Did that)
2. Respect to be respected. (Did that)
3. Debate the topic at hand. (Did that)
4. Cite only reputable facts. (a matter of opinion)
5. No distractions, distortions. (a matter of opinion)
6. No "F" bombs, sexual language. (Did not do that)
7. No harassing, abusing bloggers. (Did not do that)

All opinions are welcome! Michael (Not so much)

You can read Mikey's rant and decide if I violated any of his rules.

My post to Rants and Raves:

This is incredible.

The singular cause of skyrocketing health care costs is the federal government.

Medicare and Medicaid set prices, control access and reduce the paying customer base for private insurance. The US Congress setup these programs while being influenced by lobbyists from the pharmaceutical, hospital, and doctors' organizations.

More government, especially a "public Program", will only make it worse. Look to the lesson of the great state of Hawaii. They instituted public health care insurance to compete with private insurance and fill in the the insurance gap. Hawaiians dropped their I-have-to-pay-for-it-out-of-my-pocket insurance for the better deal of the state program.

Some competition, aye?

Since the state cannot print their own hope dollars, they closed it after 7 months.

The lie is not the with the Republicans on this. The lie is that Obama's program will be competition.

The lie is that it will reduce costs. Only competition will do that. And competition is what Obama is trying to destroy.

Moveitright.blogspot.com

Mr. Boh's response: by Michael Boh said...

Mover/GR - I had to reject your recent comments for the following reason(s): they include misleading and/or disreputable facts (Rule #4) as well as distrations/distortions (Rule #5).

Unlike most "conservative" blogs, I will post comments that disagree with my own. However, I will not do it if I feel they are designed to mislead or disrupt the issue being discussed. Have a good day. June 24, 2009 7:55 AM

Say No to Public Health Care Insurance

The president's plan for universal health care is another bad idea in a long line of bad ideas on this subject. If he, or anyone is congress, would like to actually help folks obtain health care insurance he would push for tort reform, interstate competitiveness, medical savings accounts, and dollar for dollar tax credits to incentivise working Americans to purchase health care insurance for themselves.

Some folks already have medical savings accounts, but it should be made available to everyone.
Interstate competitiveness may be another hard nut to crack because it would in large part remove the several states' power to regulate medical insurance.

I realize this would be a long shot in today's political environment as our illustrious representatives do not understand the term "tax cut". If you explain it to them (and there is no camera or microphone near by) they may let you know that you're talking crazy talk. Tax cuts indeed! Tax cuts to elected Democrats is like garlic to vampires.

The other issue, tort reform, isn't going to happen anytime soon either. Can you imagine two rooms full of lawyers who get to make law and give themselves pay raises suddenly deciding to cut or remove the the largest jackpot lawyers have ever found? Yeah, me either.

All of these issues would have to take on life as a real grass roots issue. Much like the Tea Parties around the country, or the grass roots effort that killed the lame version of so-called "immigration reform".

But, I cannot just pick on the president all of the time as on some points, he gets it right. In fact this is his forte. He will say that which is so true that it defies contradiction. Wonderful. But then he will go on to say something that is completely contradictory or simply wrong. He outlines, as much as he has been able to, his government health care plan in a letter to congress.

In his letter to congress concerning health care insurance he says,

"Soaring health care costs make our current course unsustainable. It is unsustainable for our families, whose spiraling premiums and out-of-pocket expenses are pushing them into bankruptcy and forcing them to go without the checkups and prescriptions they need. It is unsustainable for businesses, forcing more and more of them to choose between keeping their doors open or covering their workers. And the ever-increasing cost of Medicare and Medicaid are among the main drivers of enormous budget deficits that are threatening our economic future."

I agree 100%. Like a hammer he's hit the nail on the head.

But then he ruins it with this...

"I strongly believe that Americans should have the choice of a public health insurance option operating alongside private plans. This will give them a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep insurance companies honest."

Public health care insurance is going to lower costs for everyone?

To borrow a phrase: "Here's yer sign."

But I wonder if Mr. Obama, or anyone in government, know why Health care and health care insurance has become so expensive? I believe they either do know why, and are not saying, or they really do not know why, in which case, they should be replaced with people who have a clue.

Health care in America has become prohibitively expensive because of our government. Through Medicare and Medicaid, government set prices on services and prescriptions, allow waste and fraud to run rampant, has become an unfair competitor to private insurance, and a lawyer led get-rich-quick scheme called "malpractice".

Sorry folks, but attributing cost savings to government would not only be unlikely, it would be impossible. I'm afraid our president's advisers have not learned the lessons of public health care insurance from the great state of Hawaii, the government plan to fill the gap for the uninsured in Hawaii. It lasted an entire seven (7) months before being dismantled. The reason? The people who already had insurance dropped their expensive private insurance in favor of the free insurance and almost bankrupted the state while destroying the private insurance companies. People are not stupid. If the government is going to use someone else's money to buy them insurance, it would only be in their best interests to get in on the deal. Of course, private insurance companies cannot force dollars out of the pockets of their customers, so they were left hanging. It won't work.

A quick glance at Medicare and Medicaid's history is a huge clue. In 1980 Medicare accounted for .7% of the country's health care spending. It has now grown to 19.7% of total health care spending. To ensure participation in this government program, Americans are forced into Medicare at age 65 or earlier if they receive Social Security Disability payments. All of this has reduced the number of people buying private insurance and a smaller customer base means higher prices. (just look at your utility bill. Save a lot and they raise the price.) Read more about Medicare here, here and here.

On Medicaid, the numbers are scary as well. (from Reuters, Report says Medicaid spending "unsustainable")

"In 1970, the report said, combined federal and state expenditures for Medicaid represented 0.4 percent of the economy, but this percentage grew to 0.9 percent in 1980, 1.2 percent in 1990, 2.0 percent in 2000 and 2.3 percent in 2007."

Another inflationary problem with universal health care insurance is the same problem that continues to run up the cost of Medicare and Medicaid: Cost control.

When I have to pay for something out of my pocket, I go for the best price I can get. If someone else is paying for it, then the price is not so much of a concern.

Malpractice Insurance. Doctors are charged huge premiums for malpractice insurance, which they must pass along to patients and their insurance companies. In order to hold back these costs, some governors have frozen insurance premiums in their states. Also, back in 2002 in the article, "High Insurance Premiums Jeopardize Rural OBs" (Rural Health News, Vol. 9, No. 1), they report...

"Citing data from a survey by Medical Liability Monitor, ACOG said that nationally, the median insurance premium for OB/GYNs increased 167 percent from 1982 to 1998. In 2000, it rose seven percent. In 2001, it went up another 12.5 percent. For 2002, the expected increase is 15 percent.

According to American Medical News, eight states saw two or more liability insurers raise rates by at least 30 percent in 2001. In more than 12 states, one or more insurers raised rates by 25 percent or more."

How can this not affect doctor, prescription and hospital fees?

Sheila Guilloton, of the Examiner, writes that...

"Malpractice insurance for OB/GYNs is reported to have one of the highest premium for medical malpractice, with some areas reporting premiums of $100,000 per year for OB/GYN coverage. Premiums in major metropolitan areas can be as much as $250,000 per year."

You can read more on The Tort Threat at the the Insurance Information Institute (I.I.I.)

On the Bill Bennett radio show, Morning In America, Senator Bill Frist said that when a doctor asked if a patient had insurance and the answer is "no", the doctor will prescribe generic, less expensive drugs. If the answer "yes", then the doctor can prescribe the more costly name brand drugs. Since a patient on Medicare or Medicaid is "insured", the fees and prescriptions will add to the taxpayers' burden.

If the federal government enacts public health care insurance, the same pattern will follow. People are not stupid. If they can get free (to them) health care insurance, they will abandon private insurers in favor of saving hundreds or even thousands of dollars each month. Wouldn't you?

So, there you have it. Medicare and Medicaid, along with malpractice insurance rates, are the prime reason that health care costs so much. The way to reduce these costs is not to add more government, as the president, his advisers and the US Congress believe. The answer is less government. Much less government.

Tax breaks will enable the working to afford their own insurance and that will act to keep medical expenses and insurance premiums lower. Tort reform will reduce the number of excuses insurance companies have to increase premiums while lowering doctor and hospital costs.

It needs to be mentioned that government is now intruding into areas of individual freedom that Americans are not accustomed to, such as deciding what to eat and how much exercise we need (or not), what kind of cars we need and what kind of energy usage is better for us. As government moves to further influence our lives, they will use the excuse of 'saving taxpayer dollars to reduce health care expenditures' by a reward and punishment system to be more healthy, just as I did when raising my children.

We are not children and do not need the impersonal government dictating lifestyles of Americans. Americans did just fine when there were no big government babysitting programs and we will do just fine again when they go away.