Obama to Back Federal Insurance Office, Not Federal Regulator

By and | June 17, 2009

  • June 17, 2009 at 10:07 am
    Mark says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Obama continues on his path of Socialized policymaking….another layer of government and sadly the infamous leader in Congress is Mr. Barney Frank!! Didn’t he already contribute to the financial meltdown?

  • June 17, 2009 at 10:15 am
    Bubba says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    HW Bush was a progressive republican, which isn’t really any different from a progressive democrat. They are both big Gov’t, tax and spend politicians. They all need to take a permanent vacation.

  • June 17, 2009 at 10:15 am
    insurance geek says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Sadly our “free” press doesnt cover the fact that Barney Frank and his policies resulted in the downfall of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – too bad we cant impeach a loser like him…

  • June 17, 2009 at 10:18 am
    Mark the Wiz Bang says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Or maybe they can do nothing and keep the status quo. That has been working pretty well so far, hasn’t it? I was not aware that Barney Frank put together that unit of AIG responsible for the Credit Default Swaps that contributed to the financial meltdown. Thanks Mark for a really thoughtful and well researched post. More reactionary BS concerning an issue that affects us all. I hope they are not paying you too much where you work.

  • June 17, 2009 at 10:18 am
    Paz says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Mortgage, Banking, Auto, Healthcare, Insurance..

  • June 17, 2009 at 10:26 am
    Mark says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Well, Wiz Bang…No, Barney Frank didn’t have anything to do w/ AIG; but he most certainly did contribute to the loosened policy of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae; so I suggest you understand his background and so-called leadership in pushing lending practices which by far brought the housing industry to a screaching halt.

    I do not disagree our industry needs some reform; but it should be handled on the state-level, not our federal government. If I didn’t know otherwise, you must reside in Barney Frank’s home state and likely voted for the moron!!!! If you can’t tell, I am Republican!!

  • June 17, 2009 at 10:28 am
    Bill says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I think the point trying to be made here is Barney Frank is a flaming homosexual liberal who couldn’t navigate a financial statement if he was given a pre-programmed GPS.

  • June 17, 2009 at 10:29 am
    Fred says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    good job Mark…Facts usually shut them up pretty fast don’t they

  • June 17, 2009 at 10:32 am
    AL Agent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The current administration knows that they’ve got many Americans scared due to the Socialist direction they’re taking, so they’re approaching this in stages. This article indicates that this plan “postpones further any final decision on federal oversight.” So its still open, and will eventually happen if Obama has his way. Right now they’ll just set up the office and not regulate, they’ll give Americans some time to digest this and forget about it, then down the road the regulation will come.

    It’s time for America to wake up. Wake up your friends, your neighbors, anyone who will listen. We can stop this in the upcoming elections. Take a stand.

  • June 17, 2009 at 10:32 am
    Paul says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    “Congress and international industry groups have complained in the past about the absence of a central source for insurance market information.”

    They stripped away ISO and then complained that the industry lacks a central source for insurance market information?

    Gee, makes one wonder why? Oh, oh, I get it. Dumb me. The Feds are better at running and overseeing the various interests of the country. Look at the auto industry, medicare & medicaid, social security, mortgage industry, and who can forget their oversight of the financial sector? Yep, the change is in.

  • June 17, 2009 at 10:33 am
    Bob says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The government was never intended to protect everyone from every bad thing that could ever happen. From the research I have done it appears that the federal government did in fact force the hand a freddie and fannie to offer loans to unqualified individuals in the interest of fostering the American dream of home ownership. This even though many senior officials warned of the potential pitfalls of the approach. There is more than enough blame to go around on this subject but in my opinion at least more federal oversight is NEVER the solution.

    We have a president who wants goverment to solve all the problems and he will do everything possible to jam his big government ideas on the people. Congratulations to all who wanted change because we are going to get more and more of it….just wonder how we will pay for it all.

  • June 17, 2009 at 10:44 am
    NC Agent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Maybe by next year the Feds can service my customers for me through some Charter Insurance program. Then I can get Socialized medicine, Food stamps, and Unemployement! Let our Big Government think for us and take care of us! I love more government in my life! This is change that we all deserve..America owes us!

  • June 17, 2009 at 10:44 am
    Arthro says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I think it’s the kiss of death to put Barney Frank anywhere near this. He has been so closely associated and blamed for the Freddie and Fannie meltdowns. I think that’s a bad idea. I thought Congressman Kanjorski was leading this charge. Better.

    Take a look at what is happening in Florida right now. Gov Crist has put the state on the hook for $18 billion it doesn’t have, and in a sense, socialized the property insurance system there and put, not only Floridians, but also all US Citizens on the hook, too, for the $18 billion. Where do you think the money will come from to bailout Florida after the next big hurricane? It will probably come from Obama using your tax dollars, even if you don’t live in Florida. Did anyone ask the citizens of the other 49 states if that was okay with them? No. Maybe that’s reason enough to have a national office of insurance – to monitor “Governors gone wild” so they don’t put a big strain on the entire US economy by making bad insurance industry decisions in their own states.

    Also, the insurance system needs an overhaul. 50 states with 50 different regulations and 50 different insurance depts – all heavily influenced by local/state politicans like Charlie Crist in Florida whose agenda is more about getting elected to Senate than creating a property insurance sytem that makes sense. In the past, having each state with a different insurance system may have made sense. Today it doesn’t, in light of the technology that exists, and the potential to provide greater consistency and efficiency.

  • June 17, 2009 at 10:45 am
    Paul says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    We will pay for it with hyperinflated interest rates (the Fed will need to pull back in all of the money they have been printing), a ruined economy and the end of this wonderful experiment we call the USA.
    An investment tip:

    Hangzhou Calenda Machinery Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

    No country has ever survivied the consequences of the level of spending we are witnessing here. Not one.

    They manufacture wheel borrows. We’ll be needing one to haul our money to the bread store!

  • June 17, 2009 at 10:48 am
    Oh My says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I can picture you all now…holed up in your compounds, armed to the teeth, waiting for the revolution to start. Maybe you’re forgetting that the President’s job is to fix this country’s problems – and the only avenue he has to do that with is through the government. State-level regulators aren’t equipped for the type of oversight his plan is proposing. Frankly, I don’t think a little extra vigilence in our current situation is a bad thing. It has nothing to do with Socialism, Communism, Kool-aid drinking, or any of the other catchy phrases you conservatives love to throw out.

  • June 17, 2009 at 11:03 am
    Bob says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Well thnk you for enlightening me on the role of the president. I thought the number one job was to enforce the constitution of the United States of America. You may have forgotten about the tenth amendment to our constitution that grants to the State all rights not granted to the Federal goverment in the constitution. Last time I checked the supervision of insurance had not been granted to the fed.

    I just hate it when the law get’s in the way of liberal ideas for improving us all via big federal government.

  • June 17, 2009 at 11:09 am
    Bob says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Bob: Great analysis of State vs Federal….hopefully Whiz Bang who made his earlier “far” left Liberal comments is still online to read your well stated analogy….

  • June 17, 2009 at 11:10 am
    Fed Up says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    No, Contrary to what you may believe……the government is NOT the only avenue that Obama has. He could not take as much of our tax money and let the people work out a solution…….which is what most hard working Americans are fully capable of doing…..THANK YOU :)

  • June 17, 2009 at 11:12 am
    Staright Shooter says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    What has happened to the P&C sector in Florida is a shame and the severe consequences the next hurricane will have should be frightening and be a wake up call for everyone. As Mr Alford stated in his book “Crime of the Century-Insurance” one must remember that the insurance industry is not in the catastrophic recovery business they are in the finance business. Until they underwrite the risks properly and receive the appropriate premium for the risk they take, it will never be right!

  • June 17, 2009 at 11:13 am
    NC Agent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The problem is when Gov’t fixes problems, it creates many more problems somewhere else. You missed the point that every politician or party has an Agenda they follow, and do whatever it takes to advance the Agenda, to get re-elected, etc. No one says what they mean anymore, we are too sensitive or too politically correct. We don’t take sides anymore, or have firm positions. We say things that appease others that will ultimately benefit ourselves.

  • June 17, 2009 at 11:25 am
    Phil says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    THIS IS SIMPLY MORE OF A SUBTILE PLAN TO TAKE OVER EVERYTHING! IF WE DON’T WAKE UP WE WILL BE FRANCE OR WORSE BEFORE WE KNOW IT. THIS ALONG WITH OBAMA CARE SHOULD BE A REAL WAKE UP CALL TO BUSINESS AND THE AVERAGE JOE OUT THERE. HOW MANY BRAIN DEAD AMERICANS ARE THERE OUT THERE!!!

  • June 17, 2009 at 11:29 am
    Oh My says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I promise to vote for you if you ever run for office. Unfortunately, I don’t believe the vast majority of Americans are capable of solving this country’s biggest issues. That’s why we have the ‘dreaded’ government everyone seems to hate these days…elected “by the people, for the people”.

    NC Agent – I don’t disagree that there are greedy, mis-guided politicians out there. But constant mistrust of everyone in office does no one good.

  • June 17, 2009 at 11:31 am
    Rich Manak says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    When the same Federal philosophy that wanted everyone to have a home gets added to let’s insure everybody’s home even if it’s located in a place where homes don’t belong. I fear government dillusion
    If hurrican Andrew came through Hollywood Ft Lauderdale it would have bankrupted the majors. It could still happen. Why is that my problem in Illinois? We have our own pending disasters with welfare, generous public pensions, forclosures and public health care. California here we come next,thanks to government management.

  • June 17, 2009 at 11:39 am
    NC Agent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The constant TRUST of everyone in office does no one good. And that’s what this administration wants! Shouldn’t we mistrust rather than trust these people in office?

  • June 17, 2009 at 11:45 am
    liberal lilly says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    2 — election of a president who touted ‘change’

    2 — election of the most liberal senator in the USA

    4 — what else did you expect but a lot of change and a lot more government intervention!

  • June 17, 2009 at 12:12 pm
    Oh My says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Call me crazy, but I’d rather trust someone – whether in the government or not – until they give me a reason to not trust them. There are plenty of people in the government I don’t trust. There are millions of shady, self-centered people out there, regardless of what business they are in. That’s human nature. But I’m trying to avoid an early-life stroke or heart attack by sterotyping all politicians, which is more than I can say for many of the distrusting, anger and hate-filled people who post on IJ.

  • June 17, 2009 at 12:16 pm
    NG says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Hey, all you brilliant people. How do you recommend we deal with the incredible corporate greed that no one seems to want to address? We have made changes, but absolutely nothing to address the fix we are in to ensure this meltdown doesn’t happen all over again. Deregulation got us where we are. How do you suppose we should regulate ethics? We can’t; it is clear from the financial mess we are in. Blame Obama all you want. But look at the real cause of this meltdown. I didn’t make a CEO salary of millions and walk away with a golden parachute after I decimated a company and its shareholders. Did you? So wake up and smell the catfood and quit blaming “socialists.”

  • June 17, 2009 at 12:18 pm
    George says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It’s interesting that so many of you are alarmed by the Obama position that is supported by state regulators, independent agent groups and most insurers, except life and some large p/c insurers that want federal regulation. Obama’s position is in FAVOR of continued state regualtion. The Bush Administration’s Treasury, by the way, supported federal regulation of insurance.

  • June 17, 2009 at 12:18 pm
    AL Agent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    You don’t want to stereotype politicians but have no problem stereotyping people posting on this forum?

    Just because we don’t trust the gov’t does not make us “anger and hate-filled people.” It makes us realists who pay attention to the world around us and analyze it on our own rather than believing everything the media feeds us.

    Gov’t as a whole has done us, the American people, wrong. That goes for many Democrats AND Republicans. I won’t trust the gov’t because it has not earned my trust.

  • June 17, 2009 at 12:33 pm
    rick says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It is obvious this freeking idiot can not solve a problem of any type ie; Korea Iran Gitmo The economy all he can do is come up with policies that have no real
    relevance as our country self destructs
    The worst part ios ignorant Americans elected him.

  • June 17, 2009 at 12:36 pm
    Joe says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Gov. Crist is just another RINO (Republican in name only). Vote libertarian. Live free or die. Google Alex Jones, Infowars is the name of his site. Also, Beck, he’s a true independent.

    Fyi, there’s a blogger on this site using several monikers and he’s a left wing wacko who defends all Dems. I doubt he has any type of position of responsibility in the industry, if he’s even in the ins. industry.

    He may be a cubicle-dwelling gov’t. employee, but he has time to blog all day and change his moniker several times.

  • June 17, 2009 at 12:39 pm
    Mike says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    As Oh MY Posted:

    Posted By: Oh My
    Comment:
    I can picture you all now…holed up in your compounds, armed to the teeth, waiting for the revolution to start. Maybe you’re forgetting that the President’s job is to fix this country’s problems – and the only avenue he has to do that with is through the government. State-level regulators aren’t equipped for the type of oversight his plan is proposing. Frankly, I don’t think a little extra vigilence in our current situation is a bad thing. It has nothing to do with Socialism, Communism, Kool-aid drinking, or any of the other catchy phrases you conservatives love to throw out.

    He states tht it is the presidents job to fix this country, Tell me where in the Constitution does it say this, I will like to know where, since I have never seen this in the Constitution.

    Remeber the oath of office that he will protect and defend the US Consitition, not tear it apart to create a Socialist/Fascist regime. By creating an Insurance Department, placing the Federal Reserve in charge of all Financial Insitituions, places to much power under one branch of Government. Although the Fed is not part of the Government but is a separate entity, in which is also un-constitutional, since On;ly Congree has the power to coin money.

  • June 17, 2009 at 12:45 pm
    GH says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America (IIABA or the Big “I”) strongly supports President Barack Obama’s decision not to propose a complete overhaul of insurance regulation in the administration’s report titled “Financial Regulatory Reform: A New Foundation” released today.

    “We are pleased that the Obama administration’s proposal retains the current state regulatory system and does not directly call for the creation of a federal regulator,” says Robert Rusbuldt, Big “I” president & CEO. “The proposal clearly states that any changes to the insurance regulatory system that weaken or undermine important consumer protections should be discarded, and we will continue to press the point that the state regulatory system has done and will continue to do a solid job of protecting consumers and ensuring that they receive the insurance coverage they need. Of course we will continue to work for more efficiency and uniformity in the regulatory system as well.”

    The President’s plan calls for the creation of a federal Office of National Insurance (ONI) and a “modern regulatory framework for insurance.”

  • June 17, 2009 at 12:50 pm
    mike says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I agree with you George,

    The Bush Treasury did support having one single regulator (Federal reserve) to be in charge of all Financial Institutions, what is also kind of interesting is that Paulson approached the Congress in April of last year, well before the meltdown, it was sort of like he was expectng it to happen.

    I for one fall into Independent Thought an call myself a Constitutional Conservative, Because Bush was not a true Conservative and he endorse many socialistic policies, and Obama is also the same as Bush, but wants to spend more than Bush. If we do not stop the Government, we will not have the free country that our parents, and forefathers gave us.

  • June 17, 2009 at 12:55 pm
    Joe says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It’s worse than thinks you. Read this on socialized medicine: http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-on-corporatist-and-socialist-medicine/

    Read this (http://catoofutica.blogspot.com/2008/12/domestic-terror.html) on SWAT teams in Ohio and other states raiding cooperative farms that barter in order to get out of grip the world’s central bankers, including the US Federal Reserve.

    Also, the US economy has been on the slippery slope to socialism since 1913 when was established the Federal Reserve Board. When Nixon took the US off of the gold standard in 1971, it pretty much gave to the federal gov’t substantial and substantive control over the economy. Much of the current mess is such a result. Hence, today, Germany (goolge Meckel to read her admonishments to Obama on this subject), France, and some other EU countries are urging the US to stop printing money and reign in the Fed Reserve.

    There can be no true free market economy when the most basic element of such an economy and pure capitalism (i.e., the money supply) is controlled by the gov’t and not determined by economic activity.

  • June 17, 2009 at 12:57 pm
    Joe says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Amen, couldn’t agree more with you.

  • June 17, 2009 at 1:02 am
    Scary Phil says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Phil wrote:

    THIS IS SIMPLY MORE OF A SUBTILE PLAN TO TAKE OVER EVERYTHING! IF WE DON’T WAKE UP WE WILL BE FRANCE OR WORSE BEFORE WE KNOW IT. THIS ALONG WITH OBAMA CARE SHOULD BE A REAL WAKE UP CALL TO BUSINESS AND THE AVERAGE JOE OUT THERE. HOW MANY BRAIN DEAD AMERICANS ARE THERE OUT THERE!!!

    Phil…buddy….chill out. When will martial law be imposed? This story is nothing new. Obama’s making good on his plan to make sure no company gets as big as AIG without some oversight. It’s not a regulator. Read the story. The alternative is to do nothing. Is that a solution? You crazy right wingers…all you do is make crazy predictions. I miss guys like Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley. Those guys truly were the “smartest guys in the room” without calling people names and disrespecting those who have a different view of things.

  • June 17, 2009 at 1:03 am
    Joe says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    When Eisenhower warned against the military-industrial complex, he named big gov’t, big labor, and big business. So, these CEOs had the support of Clinton, Bush, Obama, Kerry, et.al. They’re all of the same cut of cloth.

    Google Obama’s contributions and you’ll find yet another lie by him. The overwhelming amount of his political contributions came from big business and big labor.

    But his supporters keep drinking the kool aid, even though none of them can answer this simple econ question in less than 30 seconds:

    What, if any, is the impact on the US and world’s money supply everytime there is a credit transaction (e.g., credit card purchase, loan from a bank, sale of property by contract for deed, & etc.) between parties?

  • June 17, 2009 at 1:08 am
    Joe says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    You’ve already drunk the kool aid. You haven’t responded to any of the facts in a substantive manner. You simply engage in name calling yourself and when you get it back in return, you wimp and whine.

    Grow up.

  • June 17, 2009 at 1:13 am
    Florida Guy says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    So I guess now they will make state run insurance like Citizens in Florida follow the same rules as private companies.

  • June 17, 2009 at 1:29 am
    Komrad Jefferson says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    “My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government…”
    “That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves…”
    “The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not…”
    “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”
    Thomas Jefferson

  • June 17, 2009 at 1:52 am
    George says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It’s interesting that so many of you are alarmed by the Obama position that is supported by state regulators, independent agent groups and most insurers, except life and some large p/c insurers that want federal regulation. Obama’s position is in FAVOR of continued state regualtion. The Bush Administration’s Treasury, by the way, supported federal regulation of insurance.

  • June 17, 2009 at 2:47 am
    TAR says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    King Hussein Obama is creating yet another layer of bureaucracy, spend more of taxpayer money and this new position is not going to propose any federal regulation? Well not just yet. You have to wait until they create the post, dig there feet in, then they will extend their marxist tentacles and control, control, control.
    This man, this administration and this government is out of control. It is very scary how rapidly he is implementing these radical changes. Talk about a marxist taking advantage of a crisis and circumventing the U.S. Constitution and Congressional oversight!

  • June 17, 2009 at 3:43 am
    Our King has no Clothes says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Somebody needs to tell this idiot that he is running around naked no matter what the Whitehouse tailor told him.

  • June 17, 2009 at 3:49 am
    Proof that Obama is chosen one says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Today the messiah was being interviewed on live TV. One of the national morning news shows. Suddenly a horsefly comes in and flys around him attracted by his messiah like odors. Our leader the Obama with his Ninja like reflexes grabs and squashes the pesky horsefly out of the air murdering it into oblivion. Then to make sure we all know he is really capable of such mystic and fantastic powers he orders the cameras to do a close up shot of the slain horse fly laying murdered in the floor. You just can’t have a more qualified self fulfilling leader than our Obama.

  • June 17, 2009 at 3:52 am
    TAR says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Joe, your last paragraph is the biggest question of all. Next MOnday and Tuesday, Russia, China and Iran are meeting regarding the U.S. Dollar and Economy apparently how the dollar will no longer be the monetary standard, nor will they use the Euro. Russia wants to keep the Rubles and China use their currency. Fascinating thing, U.S. asked to be invited, Russia and China said no. These two countries may determine the valuation of the dollar around the world in this meeting next week. We shall wait and see.

  • June 17, 2009 at 3:57 am
    Lekisha Keshondra WashingtonDC says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Next time I am voting for the candidate born in the United States.

  • June 17, 2009 at 4:03 am
    Other Mark says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, and subsequent “improvements” by H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton played a major roll in creating the sub-prime mortgage market, which led to the creation of credit default swaps in an effort to hedge against the rotting sub-prime mortgages that had been securitized by Fannie Mae and Freedie Mac.

    So, all of you haters of conservatives and free market economics need to take a look in the mirror, and stop blaming every problematic issue on George W. Bush and the Republicans. The economic issues we face today, were set in motion by the Democrats years ago.

  • June 17, 2009 at 4:03 am
    Hooray for Capitalism!!! says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I read several of your posts, and when I got the rambling philosophical BS one with no content, I knew why you liked Barry O. (the prez): you both have NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE TO SAY!

  • June 17, 2009 at 5:25 am
    NG says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Last time I check Herbert Walker Bush was a Republican. Did I miss something?

  • June 17, 2009 at 5:28 am
    Joe says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Lekisha,

    Funny. Thanks for the laugh.

  • June 17, 2009 at 5:32 am
    Joe says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Thanks, TAR. Yes, so many people are unaware of what’s going on with the money supply and the monetary system. They’re totally clueless as to how much permanent damage this will do to the US economy.

    All they can blog are inanities such as “He’s are president.” The gov’t has to solve the problem.” Followed by the usual leftist name calling.

  • June 18, 2009 at 7:21 am
    Rick says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I wonder how many thousands of unionized employees this new bureaucracy will employee? Even if a bureauracy fails, once formed, it never goes away. It continually gains more power and adds unionized employees slurping nourishment away from the tax payers and wealth creation.

    Remember the Department of Energy formed in the 70’s? The goal was to make us independent of foreign oil. After adding thousands and thousands of little bureaucrats it’s still there. How did that work?

  • June 18, 2009 at 7:23 am
    Stat Guy says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I don’t bother to get involved in these “discussions” anymore because I only read diatribe, a lot of chicken little stuff…got news for you, that is NOT the way that fly-swatting episode happened. If you can’t get those simple facts right, go back to reading your tea leaves. Somehow, we will live through the Obama Administration just like we live through the “GREAT” Bush years…but you can be sure that the rest of the world heaved a collective sigh of relief when our country voted, not necessarily for a democrat, but for “no more” from guys like Cheyney and Karl (Marx) Rove, you know them, the guys with history on their side? well, they may just end up in court like all crooks should; But as an American, I know we’ll get through this; the republican gave us the great depression, and now the great global meltdown, all in the name of the unfettered captilist market where if you can steal it and get away with it, you get to keep it, no matter what the consequences to MY SAVINGS, MY 401(k)! thanks for making this country safe for the rich!

  • June 18, 2009 at 8:27 am
    Rick says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I see you hid from the fact that 2 government sponsored entities, FannieMae & FreddieMac, with the assistance of Democrats Barney Frank & Chris Dodd were the prime movers of this mess.

  • June 18, 2009 at 8:40 am
    Bubba says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    George Bush was a screw up on this to some degree. Congress was right there with him. However, that doesn’t give President Obama the right to continue. You can’t fix your screwups with more of the same.
    His economic policy isn’t fixing opur deficit and debt problem, nor is it designed to. We’re headed for hyperinflation and a ruined dollar if we keep it up. On top of that we’re talking about new beauracracies and gov’t programs.
    As I’ve said before, you and I can’t live that way. We can’t go print more money like the Gov’t is doing. We’d be in jail real quick.

  • June 18, 2009 at 8:47 am
    TAR says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Unfortunately for America, the same den of theives are still in Congress. They are not help accountable for this financial meltdown – Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Maxine Waters and Charlie Rangel, got a free pass. Now they are going to impose further regulation, after failing the American people. They are still beholden to special interest and take no responsibility for their failed actions. But hey, government is going to get bigger and bigger.

  • June 18, 2009 at 9:10 am
    Bubba says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    That’s the thing. If you want socialized this, that, and the other, bigger Gov’t, more regulation, then you vote for that. If we had a balanced budget, it could be done. The taxes would hurt, but it could be done and maintain a balanced budget. The problem now is that our President is going to do it anyway, even though we are long past out of money and a million miles deep in the red.

  • June 18, 2009 at 9:38 am
    karen says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    You refer to ‘people’ who voted for change and that word should be used lightly. The change we are getting is that hard working tax paying Americans will change the life of many non-working, non-tax paying fools who voted for the government to tell them what to do on all fronts.

    Our industry is already heavily regulated by the states we do business in and in most states we provide a substantial source of revenue already to a bloated state government (NY in particular) through license fees, non-resident license fees, fines, continuing education fees, surcharges and fees on premiums,etc. Not to mention the already heavily staffed and over benefitted insurance departments and there related costs, expenses, etc.
    Obviously our ‘change agent’ wants to get his hands on this revenue and is using the failure of the financing/mortgage industry as a way to get at the insurance industry.

  • June 18, 2009 at 10:19 am
    George says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Joe– Just because people disagree with your “analysis” doesn’t mean they aren’t aware of what’s going on. A lot more people than you think are paying attention and are very aware.
    BTW, You have real chutzpah critizing others for name calling. Whether left or rigt, it undermines the credibiltiy of any argument and you are as guilty as the next one.

  • June 18, 2009 at 11:16 am
    Joe says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    You’re not a stat guy; you’re an angry, ranting maniac who is a potential serial killer. Are you a postal worker? Why are you so envious of successful people? Why do you have so much anger, Yellow Male? You also post under so-so socialist and a host of other names. You’re an obessive, compulsive freak with dangerous tendencies, because you have so much hate in your heart for people who’ve succeeded in life. So, you must be a real loser.

    By the way, there’s no health care crisis. It’s something manufactured by the power hungry Dems. Your 401K still is more than it would’ve been without the growth of the Bush years. Nothing last forever, what goes up must go down. You likely were too stupid to manage your 401k and now you blame others. You’re likely a person who doesn’t accept responsibility for your actions, so blame others, such as the successful of this world.

    Read this article:

    ’45 Million Americans’ — Who Are Those Guys? Larry Elder
    Thursday, June 18, 2009
    About 45 million Americans lack health care insurance. Or do they?
    A pro-“universal health care” television host recently cited this widely accepted “fact.” The number is bogus.
    Here’s the skinny.
    Start with the math. We have 300 million Americans. Subtract the 45 million — 15 percent of us — with no health insurance. That leaves 255 million Americans, or 85 percent, with it.
    And the insurance is lousy, right? Not according to a 2006 ABC News/Kaiser Family Foundation/USA Today survey. It found that 89 percent of Americans were satisfied with the quality of their own health care.
    Nearly half of the 45 million fall in the category of my 26-year-old nephew. He smokes cigarettes, dates, eats out, goes to movies and, like all young people, lives through his cell phone. With a slight change in priorities, he could afford health insurance, the cost of which at his age and health starts at about $100 a month. Take a look at a Reason Foundation video of interviews with a bunch of non-health-insured 20-somethings.
    These Gen Xers copped to dropping money on clothes, booze, nightlife, the latest tech gizmos and other things of interest to them. With a change in priorities, these young folks — far more representative of those without insurance than the forlorn husband and wife sitting on a porch swing — could both afford and qualify for health insurance. They simply consider it a low priority.
    Millions more can access health care — through SCHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program), Medicaid or other government programs. But for whatever reason, 11 million people simply refuse to take advantage of them.
    Several million other Americans who want insurance do, indeed, go without it — for a time. Many are, however, between jobs, and most — at some point — will find employment that either offers health insurance or pays enough so that they can buy it. Millions more work at companies that offer health insurance, and for a few dollars out of every paycheck, they could add family members. They choose not to.
    What about criminals without insurance? More than 2 million Americans — with access to health care, by the way — use jail, prison or penitentiary mailing addresses. And for every one behind bars, how many live among us who survive by theft, drug dealing, prostitution or some similar career path? Taxpayer health insurance for them, too?
    So now we’re down to the Americans without health insurance on a persistent, long-term basis. This is approximately 10-15 million, a big number to be sure. But does this warrant a government takeover of the entire health care system?
    Lacking health care insurance is not the same as lacking health care . By law, most emergency rooms must provide health care — to both legals and illegals. Yes, they stand in line, but no health insurance does not equal no health care.
    Government (aka taxpayers) already pays half of our health care dollar, with programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP and other federal and state plans. The stated goals are accessibility and affordability. Congress passed Medicare in 1965. In the 20 years before the program’s inception, the cost of a day in a hospital increased threefold. In the 20 years following Medicare, a day in a hospital increased eightfold — substantially higher than inflation over that period. Because of cost controls on government plans, providers increased the cost on everybody else.
    So here’s the question.
    Do we allow a complete government takeover of the section of health care it doesn’t already run, for 10-15 million or so without health insurance on a persistent basis? Again, 255 million Americans already have it. Many millions more could get it if they wanted to. And 89 percent of Americans are satisfied with the care they now receive.
    What to do? Unleash the free market. Allow greater competition among health care providers. Decrease costly regulations that increase the price tag. Enable consumers to purchase insurance plans across state lines. Allow non-government-licensed paraprofessionals and others — currently prevented by law from offering any medical services — to provide low-cost care.
    What about poor care and negligence? We have laws against force and fraud, as well as a common-law duty of care. That’s why God created lawyers. (Just give us “loser pays.”)
    What about those who cannot afford it? What about those with pre-existing illnesses whose insurance applications carriers turned down? What’s wrong with charity — people helping people? America remains the most generous nation on the face of the earth. We donate more of our time and money than countries like England, Germany and Japan. During the Great Depression, before the New Deal, charitable giving skyrocketed. After the New Deal, charitable giving continued, but not at nearly the same rate. People expected government to address the problem, and taxpayers felt they gave at the office.
    We can provide such “universal” coverage at a “low cost” — through rationing. That means long lines, lower quality and less innovation for services that Americans currently take for granted.
    Economists call it T.A.N.S.T.A.A.F.L. There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.

    Anyway, Mr. or Ms. Loser, we look forward to your angry response, which response will ignore the facts of the above article and merely engage in angry ranting diatribes that make no sense.

    And, oh yes, do continue to post under various other monikers as though you have a legion of supporters. You’re a phony; you’re an unhappy and a dangerous freak. Nevetheless, Jesus still loves you; although He may be the only one.

    God bless you and may the Lord speed your recovery from your severe mental affliction.

  • June 18, 2009 at 11:23 am
    Joe says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Okay, then address the facts in my posts. If you’re as knowledgeable, as you suggest, then why can’t you address the facts in the my posts? Is it that you don’t know and don’t care to learn or find out? This is why I believe that you’re a kool-aid drinker.

    I don’t buy what’s put out by any party or politician of any stripe. As I’ve posted in previous blogs, Do you know of any poor politicians? Why is it that every politician leave office with a ton of money and great consulting gigs?

    Term limits and less gov’t involvement in the economy will increase the wealth of all people of the world. Visit the Ludwig von Mises site (http://mises.org/) and educate yourself instead of spouting the party line, Comrade.

    God bless, you.

  • June 18, 2009 at 2:21 am
    Alphonse Denayer says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    What is needed is a regulatory office to oversee the President. This is not constitutional of course, but in spite of his prodigious reputation as a fly killer, the President has made a mockery of constitutional principles (and the Presidency itself) since assuming office. Hence, in keeping with the highly sensitive tone already in play by this administration, a Presidential oversight office has become a necessity. Fortunately to this credit, the President has eliminated the need for a white house budget on flyswatters, saving the tax payers nearly $5, thus reducing a multi trillion dollar deficit Obama has created through his magical ability to produce money from thin air, with no material provocation– an attribute surpassing even his prowess at killing flies. The consuming question as to why flies find the President so compelling, in lieu of other competing attractions (cow pastures etc.,) is one still being hotly debated in congress, the MSM, houses of ill repute and other such weighty establishments, even as we speak. To express your opinions and further recommendation to the President on this issue please go to http://www.whitehouse.gov.

  • June 18, 2009 at 3:05 am
    Joe says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Mr. Denayer:

    I agree with what you wrote, b/c Congress and his soon-to-stacked federal courts don’t seem to have much fight in them to oppose his unconstitutional usurption of power. But, according to today’s WSJ, the American people are getting very concerned about gov’t intervention in the economy.

    Just one point of possible disagreement between us: I believe that President Obama will go down in history as the nation’s greatest Chief Executive Fly Swatter. What a skilled individual is he.

  • June 19, 2009 at 11:07 am
    Hooray for Capitalism!!! says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Yes, even the usually liberal Reuters news agency is spewing the concern people are starting to have ….from my experience reading their site, their own people put their opinions in the story..they were obviously pro-Obama prior to the election, but alas…..yesterday, they’ve raised an eyebrow!!!!

  • June 23, 2009 at 12:01 pm
    Joe says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Look at what he wants to “give” to the US citizens with his national health care.

    All of us need to do much more research. So, here’s some more research:

    THE rush to remake the 17 percent of America’s econ omy known as its health- care system is matched only by the muddle of the motivations driving it. Above all else, consider the confusion of health insurance with access to actual health care.

    The reality is that having insurance is not the equivalent of having access to care. In America and abroad, people with coverage (government or private) can lack access to timely care — while those without insurance in the United States may in fact receive timely care while paying little for it.

    Official counts place uninsured Americans at roughly 46 million, an alarming 15 percent of the population. Yet a closer look paints a less scary picture. Of the 46 million, one in three, or 17 million, live in a household with an income greater than $50,000. Four in 10 are 18 to 34 years old — an age range where health spending averages less than $1,000 a year out of pocket.

    As many as 14 million — including many children — are already eligible for taxpayer-funded health insurance via Medicaid or SCHIP, but simply haven’t signed up. One in five, or 9.7 million are noncitizen immigrants, a portion of whom are here illegally. Seven in 10 people are uninsured for a year or less.

    Then, too, health insurance often doesn’t make financial sense for people with few assets, good health and limited income. They can pay out of pocket for routine care — and rely on the social safety net for large, unexpected and unlikely events.

    In the United States, that safety net includes: federally funded health centers, open-door policies at hospital emergency rooms, extra payments to hospitals that treat large numbers of uninsured, and charity care. Together, these work to insulate Americans from catastrophic medical bills.

    In 2008, uninsured Americans consumed an estimated $86 billion in health care, or $1,686 per person. This was (predictably) less than Americans with insurance, yet evidence suggests the system functions as an informal insurer.

    The uninsured reached into their pockets for only $536 of the care, less than the $681 that privately insured patients paid out of pocket. The other 65 percent of that care was paid for by either existing government transfers or absorbed by the institutions providing care. In short, anyone living in America — citizen, immigrant, documented or undocumented — has access to health care on multiple levels. The same is not always true under “universal coverage.”

    In Canada, the country of my birth, a person needing non- urgent care faces long waits — last year, it averaged 17.3 weeks — between seeing a general practitioner and getting treatment by a specialist, according to the Fraser Institute.

    And diagnostic technology is severely controlled. Dr. Brian Day, the immediate past president of the Canadian Medical Association, notes that Canada is a country in which a dog can get a hip replaced in under a week but a human waits two to three years.

    In Great Britain, everyone enjoys free health care — in theory. But the rationing is explicit and out in the open. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence denies the latest drugs and biologics to patients if the agency deems them not cost effective — even though they may be medically effective. So while Americans have access to Orencia for rheumatoid arthritis, NICE has denied the care to Britons.

    Massachusetts’ ongoing reform experience illustrates that insurance doesn’t equal access. The Bay State’s bipartisan reform imposed an individual mandate, built a quasi-public insurance regulator and greatly expanded taxpayer-subsidized health care — and the result has been a warning on the quest to achieve universal coverage.

    After three years, it has succeeded in cutting the percent of uninsured in half to 2.5 percent, the lowest in the nation. But the taxpayers have paid most of the price: The majority of the formerly uninsured were either added to Medicaid or to heavily subsidized plans. A mere 41,000 — less than 10 percent of the once uninsured — have purchased individual plans. And, 60,000 have been exempted by the government from having to purchase insurance.

    Costs are rising and many promised savings aren’t materializing. Bay State residents use emergency rooms at the pre- reform rate of 23 percent. Today, 20 percent of residents are having trouble securing a doctor. The Health Safety Net fund, which pays hospitals to care for the uninsured, still spent $410 million in 2008.

    Most startlingly, to control costs, the state is considering “payment reform” that resembles a giant HMO. Price controls and explicit rationing will surely follow.

    Americans need to think through Washington’s rush to reform. The last thing we want is what we’ll likely get. Trade a system that provides excellent, responsive care to the fully insured, uses taxpayer money to cover seniors and low-income families and children, and highly subsidized care to those without insurance, for one where everyone pays more for less.

    Sally Pipes is president and CEO of the Pacific Research In stitute. Her latest book is “The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care.”

    And some more,

    Physicians fear that near-mindless efforts to find cost savings . . . will damage our very ability to practice.

    WONDERING why the American Medical Association came out against a “public option” in health reform — that is, against government-offered health insurance for every American? For this MD, at least, it’s a simple matter of learning from experience.

    As a practicing internist, I’ve been dealing with two government insurance programs, Medicare and Medicaid, for more than two decades. Over the years, I’ve seen the government shrink reimbursements under first Medicaid and then Medicare — to the point that, in 2005, I finally decided that I couldn’t stay in business unless I stopped taking Medicaid patients, and saw no more than a few Medicare patients each day.

    It was costing me more to file the Medicaid paperwork than I got back from the government. I now either charge Medicaid patients a few dollars, or just see them for free.

    It’s getting tougher to take Medicare patients, too: New drugs and new technologies are wonderful health-care tools — but keeping current, and making sure to choose the right tool, uses up more and more of my time. Yet Medicare’s reimbursement for my efforts keeps on shrinking.

    I’m not alone. Each year, I find I have fewer specialists to refer my Medicare patients to. The best mammographer I know no longer accepts Medicare, so I find myself trying to persuade my patients to see her anyway (and pay $300-plus out of pocket) because she’s so good.

    Nor is this just my impression. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission reported that 28 percent of Medicare beneficiaries looking for a primary-care physician last year had trouble finding one, up from 24 percent the year before. And a survey last year by the Texas Medical Association found that only 38 percent of primary-care doctors were taking new Medicare patients. Here in New York, less than half the internists affiliated with New York Presbyterian Hospital accept Medicare.

    The problem is even worse with Medicaid — which only half of physicians accept, according to a 2005 Community Tracking Physician survey.

    The problem is spreading to private insurers — who often follow the lead of Medicare and Medicaid. HMOs, in particular, have cut reimbursements to doctors; many of my colleagues have dropped out of HMOS as a result (giving me fewer options of who to refer my patients to).

    Recent New York state surveys show doctor participation in HMOs is still far better than for public insurance — but the dropout rate is 10 percent a year from the state’s largest HMO, the Health Insurance Plan of New York, and 14 percent from the also-large Health Net of New York.

    The bottom line, I think, is that primary-care physicians fear that near-mindless efforts to find cost savings — the kind we’ve seen in existing government programs, and spreading to private plans — will irrevocably damage our very ability to practice, to prevent and treat illness.

    We’re told a “public option” will mean insurance for people who now don’t pay — but it seems to me, based on hard experience, that it will mean worse health care for everyone.

    Marc K. Siegel is a practicing internist at NYU’s Langone Medical Center and a Fox News medical contributor.

    And, yet one more:

    President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the legions of liberal political activists trying to ramrod nationalized health care through Congress face an insurmountable obstacle in the Internet. There are mountains of data available today regarding the decades of experience with similar systems in Canada, Great Britain and elsewhere, and the facts about that data are within a few mouse clicks of every American. As the debate in Congress and the nation’s public policy forums heats up, key facts gleaned from that abundance of data are becoming ever more prominent.

    Take, for example, the report out last week from the Wait Time Alliance (WTA), a group of 13 Canadian medical groups, including the Canadian Medical Association. For cancer patients, the report found that “the median wait time for radiation therapy was almost seven weeks.” That figure exceeded the recommended maximum wait time of one month. Note, too, that as a median figure, there were just as many patients who waited longer than seven weeks as who waited less than seven weeks. The WTA report also found unacceptably long delays for people seeking emergency room treatment, with an average of nine hours for patients who were treated and released. The average for patients who needed to be treated and admitted to the hospital was 24 hours! And patients needing psychiatric care for major depression are being forced to wait up to six weeks before starting treatment, according to the WTA report.

    Long waits for critical treatment are inevitable in government-run health care systems for one simple reason: Making health care “free” creates an infinite demand for medical services. But no country can satisfy an infinite demand, so government bureaucrats always end up rationing health care. Long lines of people waiting for services are the result. It’s the same process that produced long waiting lines for decades in the Soviet Union for basic necessities like bread and housing.

    Obamacare advocates can only hope their friends in the mainstream media do a better job of carrying their water for them in the weeks ahead than The New York Times and CBS with their latest poll. Using a sample with exactly twice as many Obama voters as McCain voters, the Times/CBS pollsters got a result in which 57 percent of their respondents said they would pay higher taxes “so that all Americans have health insurance that they can’t lose no matter what.” But, as anybody who has taken a basic statistics course knows, a warped sample and an “apples-to-oranges” comparison has zero credibility.

    And more:

    http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/medicarehealthinsurance/i/nathealthins.htm

    And more:

    ‘Too Old’ for Hip Surgery
    As we inch towards nationalized health care, important lessons from north of the border.
    Article Comments more in Opinion ┬╗Email Printer
    Friendly Share: Yahoo Buzz ↓ More
    facebook
    MySpace
    LinkedIn
    Digg
    del.icio.us
    NewsVine
    StumbleUpon
    Mixx
    Save This ↓ More
    Text
    By NADEEM ESMAIL
    President Obama and Congressional Democrats are inching the U.S. toward government-run health insurance. Last week’s expansion of Schip — the State Children’s Health Insurance Program — is a first step. Before proceeding further, here’s a suggestion: Look at Canada’s experience.

    Martin KozlowskiHealth-care resources are not unlimited in any country, even rich ones like Canada and the U.S., and must be rationed either by price or time. When individuals bear no direct responsibility for paying for their care, as in Canada, that care is rationed by waiting.

    Canadians often wait months or even years for necessary care. For some, the status quo has become so dire that they have turned to the courts for recourse. Several cases currently before provincial courts provide studies in what Americans could expect from government-run health insurance.

    In Ontario, Lindsay McCreith was suffering from headaches and seizures yet faced a four and a half month wait for an MRI scan in January of 2006. Deciding that the wait was untenable, Mr. McCreith did what a lot of Canadians do: He went south, and paid for an MRI scan across the border in Buffalo. The MRI revealed a malignant brain tumor.

    Ontario’s government system still refused to provide timely treatment, offering instead a months-long wait for surgery. In the end, Mr. McCreith returned to Buffalo and paid for surgery that may have saved his life. He’s challenging Ontario’s government-run monopoly health-insurance system, claiming it violates the right to life and security of the person guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    The Opinion Journal Widget
    Download Opinion Journal’s widget and link to the most important editorials and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page.
    Shona Holmes, another Ontario court challenger, endured a similarly harrowing struggle. In March of 2005, Ms. Holmes began losing her vision and experienced headaches, anxiety attacks, extreme fatigue and weight gain. Despite an MRI scan showing a brain tumor, Ms. Holmes was told she would have to wait months to see a specialist. In June, her vision deteriorating rapidly, Ms. Holmes went to the Mayo Clinic in Arizona, where she found that immediate surgery was required to prevent permanent vision loss and potentially death. Again, the government system in Ontario required more appointments and more tests along with more wait times. Ms. Holmes returned to the Mayo Clinic and paid for her surgery.

    On the other side of the country in Alberta, Bill Murray waited in pain for more than a year to see a specialist for his arthritic hip. The specialist recommended a “Birmingham” hip resurfacing surgery (a state-of-the-art procedure that gives better results than basic hip replacement) as the best medical option. But government bureaucrats determined that Mr. Murray, who was 57, was “too old” to enjoy the benefits of this procedure and said no. In the end, he was also denied the opportunity to pay for the procedure himself in Alberta. He’s heading to court claiming a violation of Charter rights as well.

    These constitutional challenges, along with one launched in British Columbia last month, share a common goal: to win Canadians the freedom to spend their own money to protect themselves from the inadequacies of the government health-insurance system.

    The cases find their footing in a landmark ruling on Quebec health insurance in 2005. The Supreme Court of Canada found that Canadians suffer physically and psychologically while waiting for treatment in the public health-care system, and that the government monopoly on essential health services imposes a risk of death and irreparable harm. The Supreme Court ruled that Quebec’s prohibition on private health insurance violates citizen rights as guaranteed by that province’s Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

    The experiences of these Canadians — along with the untold stories of the 750,794 citizens waiting a median of 17.3 weeks from mandatory general-practitioner referrals to treatment in 2008 — show how miserable things can get when government is put in charge of managing health insurance.

    In the wake of the 2005 ruling, Canada’s federal and provincial governments have tried unsuccessfully to fix the long wait times by introducing selective benchmarks and guarantees along with large increases in funding. The benchmarks and the guarantees aren’t ambitious: four to eight weeks for radiation therapy; 16 to 26 weeks for cataract surgery; 26 weeks for hip and knee replacements and lower-urgency cardiac bypass surgery.

    Canada’s system comes at the cost of pain and suffering for patients who find themselves stuck on waiting lists with nowhere to go. Americans can only hope that Barack Obama heeds the lessons that can be learned from Canadian hardships.

    Mr. Esmail, based in Calgary, is the director of Health System Performance Studies at The Fraser Institute.

    And more:

    Nationalized Healthcare Would Be a Middle Class Disaster
    February 27, 2009 03:09 PM ET | Bonnie Erbe | Permanent Link | Print
    By Bonnie Erbe, Thomas Jefferson Street blog.

    I’m not as thrilled with the O’budget on health care as on education. Nationalized health care has been a disaster for the middle class wherever it exists. Yes it gives access to the deeply impoverished, but at the expense of the middle class. The rich can always buy their way out of any health care system and get the best of care. Here’s what the Obama administration will do:

    Obama’s prescription for the nation’s ailing health care system comes with Medicare cuts and tax hikes. Obama is asking Congress: If you’re going to cover 48 million uninsured Americans in the world’s costliest medical system, how do you pay for it? His plan would set aside $634 billion over 10 years in a major effort to cover all Americans – a goal that could cost more than $1 trillion. Half would come from tax increases on upper-income earners, half from cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.

    The only reason Canada’s health care system works, for example, is that 90 percent of Canadians live within 100 miles of the U.S. border and they come here for urgent needs. A personal friend whose sister is Canadian brought her sister here for a brain C-T scan. The waiting list in Canada was six months long, due to its wonderful nationalized health care system. Her sister had a brain tumor and needed a scan and surgery immediately. If not for America’s more limber system, her sister would have died waiting for treatment in Canada.

    Another friend is Italian by birth. His sister still lives in Italy. She has an illness that requires expensive medication. The Italian healthcare system doles out her pills three days at a time. So every three days she must go to the local health care center and wait for hours for her next three days-worth of medicine. Would Americans stand for that? I don’t think so.

    And more:

    Tuesday, June 23, 2009
    Nationalized Health Care’s Failures

    Jillian Bandes cites an interesting new report about Canand’s government-run medical system.

    The information was released in an annual report produced by the Wait Time Alliance, comprised of Canadian doctors who are concerned over delayed access to care. The WTA was formed after the Canadian government vowed to reduce wait times in 2005, committing over $4.5 billion between 2005 and 2011.

    The title of the WTA report, “Unfinished Business,” highlighted the glacial progress the country has made since that commitment.

    “Although there are signs of improvement, the lack of uniform and timely information on wait times is just one symptom of the ‘unfinished business’ relating to wait times in Canada,” the WTA reported.

    Psychiatric care averaged 5.7 weeks, nearly two weeks longer than was recommended by the Canadian Psychiatric Association’s maximum recommended wait time of four weeks. Eighteen weeks usually goes by before a patient is seen by a specialist after receiving a referral from his physician, with particularly egregious waits in the areas of ophthalmology, obstetrics and gynecology, gastroenterology, plastic surgery and orthopedics.

    “In England, the maximum allowable target time set by the National Health Service for referral by family doctor to the day of treatment is 18 weeks,” said Dr. Lorne Bellan, WTA co-chair, in a release. “Our study shows that for many medical specialties in Canada that we examined, we don’t even come close to that.”

    Sixty-two percent of specialists believed wait times would increase over the next five years, according to the WTA. Between 23% and 37% of physicians refused to take referred patients outright.

    The report also complained that in more than a few provinces, there was no way to track wait times, meaning that the possibility for decreasing wait times is poor. In Newfoundland and Labrador, no mechanism exists for monitoring wait times

    “People can go online and track the progress of a package they shipped from one end of the country to another, yet in many parts of Canada patients still cannot find out how long they can expect to wait for critical medical treatments and procedures,” said Bellan. “We need to do a better job of tracking and reporting on the full wait that patients experience to access necessary medical care.”

    Sounds terrific, doesn’t it?

    No to ObamaCare.

    All of us should be particularly concerned that nationalized health care is the worst option for women with breast cancer, per this article about Canadian and UK national health care:

    Nationalized Health Care and Breast Cancer Are a Deadly Mix
    By: Jim Hoft
    Democrats stepped up efforts this past week to introduce their disastrous socialized health care plan. President Obama already called on his Democratic colleagues to enact this legislation by August. To persuade Americans that this plan is needed Obama has often repeated, “The cost of health care now causes a bankruptcy in America every thirty seconds.” This, of course, is simply unsupportable. If you add up all bankruptcies in a year you barely get one every thirty seconds and not every bankruptcy is due to the cost of health care. Team Obama certainly understands this. You would hope so anyway.

    Obama and democrats insist their program will benefit the 46 million Americans who they say are uninsured. This, of course, is not accurate either. According to The American Spectator, 9.7 million of this 46 million are not citizens of the United States. Another 14 million of the uninsured are eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP but have never signed up for the programs. They could be signed up for government insurance if they ever made a visit to the emergency room. Another 17.6 million of the uninsured had annual incomes of more than $50,000. This leaves you with around 5 million Americans without insurance which is a far cry from 46 million. But, why let facts get in the way? Barack Obama and Democrats have a plan to push on America. They want their socialized health care.

    Like everything Obama does, this plan will have an enormous cost. That’s why Obama has already announced that he will get the rich to pay for it. And on the flip side, Democrats also plan to penalize those with adequate financial resources who don’t elect to get insurance. This mandate on adults who do not purchase insurance is something Obama said he would not do during the election.

    But, not much is being said on how this plan will affect Americans and women in particular. Looking at the nationalized health care systems in Europe Obamacare will likely be a big step backwards for women’s health here in the United States.

    Currently the United States leads the world in treating breast cancer. Women with breast cancer have a 14 percent higher survival rate in the United States than in Europe. Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States, and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Breast cancer mortality is also 9 percent higher in Canada than in the US. Less than 25 percent of U.S. women die from breast cancer. In Britain, it’s 46 percent; France, 35 percent; Germany, 31 percent; Canada, 28 percent; Australia, 28 percent, and New Zealand, 46 percent. The European Network of Cancer Registries reported:

    Breast cancer is also the most common cancer in females in Europe. It is estimated that in the year 2000 there were 350,000 new breast cancer cases in Europe, while the number of deaths from breast cancer was estimated at 130,000. Breast cancer is responsible for 26.5 percent of all new cancer cases among women in Europe, and 17.5 percent of cancer deaths.

    In Britain, where they enjoy socialized medicine, breast cancer rates have soared by more than 80 percent in the past 30 years under their system. A big reason for this is early diagnosis. Nine of 10 middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to less than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent). Women who develop breast cancer in Europe are four times more likely to be diagnosed when the tumor has spread and survival is less likely than are women in the US.

    The BBC reported that US women were more likely to survive breast cancer than their European counterparts because they are diagnosed earlier, research finds. The five year survival rate in the US was 89 percent compared to 79 percent in Europe. One reason was that 41 percent of the US cases were diagnosed at an early stage, compared to just 29 percent in Europe and this greatly improved the survival rate.

    The failures of nationalized health care have been widely reported. The failures of nationalized health care in treating breast cancer have also been widely reported. Thousands of women will be affected. In fact, it’s hard to imagine anything worse for cancer patients than government-run health care. Nationalized health care and breast cancer are a deadly mix.

    Let’s face it, nationalized health care is an idea whose time has not and never will or should come to the US:

    Anyway, pleasea read this with an open mind.

    (Yellow Male, Italian, So-so socialist, or whatever moniker you’re using today, I know longer respond to mentally challenged bloggers in need of psychiatric care. I note that you’ve literally copied and pasted to your blogs the very comments I’ve made about you on other blogs on the IJ site. Please get help soon before you go postal. Remember, God loves even people with your special mental health needs.)

  • June 24, 2009 at 8:18 am
    TAR says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Boy don’t you all feel better that Chairman Barney Frank will continue to have committee hearings in September. The same Barney Frank who’s House Leadership lead to one of the biggest financial meltdowns in U.S. History.
    The insurance industry should feel confident that BArney’s leadership will do to insurance what he did to banking and real estate!



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*