Everyone seems surprised that the markets have risen approximately 200 points since the House passed its version of health care reform.  Perhaps the market is sensing that because health care reform barely passed , even with numerous compromises, it most likely will not survive the Senate, forcing it back to the House. With all the effort being focused on the health care bill, Cap and Trade seems to be a fading memory.

How can the American public feel comfortable with the U.S. Government setting the rules, creating their own product and then acting in the capacities of judge and jury? How can a system like this be successful with no checks and balances? What is funny on a local level is that House Representative Dennis Kucinich, the most liberal of liberal Democrats, voted against the bill because he feels that it does not approach Universal Health Care. In Ohio, we require everyone to have at least catastrophic auto insurance. This is the State mandate but private insurance companies are charged with providing the coverage. If the U.S. Government feels everyone should have health care insurance because this will lower costs for everyone, then why not just force everyone to buy coverage through a private insurance carrier?

Some Highlights from the Pelosi Health Care Bill:

1. Sec. 202 of the bill requires you to enroll in a “qualified plan.” If you are on an insurance plan, the government can force you to switch.

2. Sec 224 provides that 18 months after that the bill becomes law; the government can determine what a “qualified plan” will cover and how much you will have to pay for it.

3. Sec 303 makes it clear that although the “qualified plan” is not yet designed, it will be the “one size fits all” variety.

4. Sec 59b says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a “qualified plan.”

5. Sec 412 says that employers must provide a “qualified plan” for their employees and pay 72.5 % of it.

6. Sec 1302 moves Medicare from a fee-for-service payment system to a “medical home.” It is the government’s version of HMO restrictions on care. You may not get a doctor, just a nurse practitioner.

7. Sec 1114 replaces physicians with physician’s assistants for overseeing care for hospice patients.

8. Sec 115-1160 initiates programs to reduce payments for patient care to what it costs in the lowest-cost regions in the country. This will ultimately reduce the standard of care in higher-cost regions like New York, Chicago and Los Angeles.

9. Sec. 1161 cuts payments to Medicare Advantage plans which will result in reductions in optional benefits such as vision and dental care.

10. While the bill will slash Medicare funding, it will also direct billions of dollars to numerous inner-city social work and diversity programs with value standards of accountability.

Maybe the government should just consider tort reform and cost cutting measures as some states have already done to begin correcting the issues of health care reform without putting our futures, and those of our children, in further hock.

{ 0 comments }

Barney Frank is leading the way with proposed legislation which would allow our government to have takeover powers for our financial services companies.

Systemic Risk is what they deem the “watching over” part of the legislation. Resolution Authority is the “taking over” part of the legislation.

Their logic is that these companies are too big to fail. Why is this bad? Sure, in the short term there would be difficulties but why do they think we will not overcome these?

Economic Darwinism is a good thing. Think about it. We complain that companies have gotten too big. While there are pros and cons to this, the oligopolies have formed in financial firms, the auto industry, oil and others. In this scenario, a company would go out of business and their assets and clients would be absorbed by other well run companies. Is this not a better long term solution for business and consumers then spending billions of taxpayer dollars bailing out failing enterprises? They do not realize they are just throwing good money after bad.

We cannot become sentimental about companies. Well-run companies should be rewarded. Poorly run companies should eventually go out of business. What this legislation leads to is a foot in the door for the government to deem any other “too large to fail business” as a take over target and write legislation to operate these industries.

Is this a first step to Nationalization? Yes! The Frank bill shies away from making a hard-line declaration about what makes an institution systemically significant, instead saying the council should consider, among other things, asset size, reliance on short-term funding and off-balance sheet holdings.

The bill also would require any financial firm that is systemically significant to comply with the standards imposed on bank holding companies. Among other things, the Fed would stand to gain powers to impose risk-based capital requirements, leverage limits, liquidity and concentration requirements.

The central bank could also recommend that the primary federal regulator for any subsidiary of a holding company raise capital standards and take other actions. If the agency elects to buck the Fed, it must provide the central bank and the council a written explanation within 60 days.

The bill also would give the government resolution powers. Under the bill, the Securities and Exchange Commission, Fed and appropriate federal regulatory agency must recommend that a firm be placed into receivership. At that point, the Treasury would appoint the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to handle the receivership and appropriate actions to be taken.

If we do not step up and say “NO”, the American public better get used to having 535 Board Members (100 Senators and 435 House of Representatives) running the auto industry, banks, medical care and any other industry they deem needs the brain trust of non-business owners running our businesses.

{ 0 comments }