A Swiftian Question

If I have to pay for your and your family's housing, education, food--and now, health care, can I have a say in how many damn kids you have?

The number of people who can't afford any of life's basics, yet have 3, 4, 5 or more kids, is astronomical.

I would never begrudge anyone having a child. But number 2? 3? 8?

Don't we have a right to say no (or at least that there are no benefits)-- if only because we are being REQUIRED to pay for them?

According to the Census Bureau, of the families with zero children, only 4% are below the poverty line. 1 or 2 children? 12% 3 or 4? Then it jumps to 23%.

Of the families with five or more children, 41.5% are below the poverty line!

That means of the 8 million families with 3 or more children, over 2 million are below the poverty line--meaning they qualify for the full buffet table of government subsidies, handouts and aid.

Now, there are people who had 3 kids, could afford 3 kids until something bad happened.

But come take a trip with me to Family Court someday--you'll see plenty of women and men who have had children they could never take care of.

I don't suppose any of that is covered in the health care reforms before Congress.

A Couple of Quick Health Care Questions

I haven't heard or read anyone, other than me, talk about increasing the supply of health care workers, including doctors, to help lower health care costs and increase health care availability. Which leads me to this question: If one of the main goals of this effort is to insure the 45 million uninsured, and to move people away from emergency room care to preventative and primary care physicians-- do we have enough doctors?

Here on Long Island we have probably the lowest doctor-to-patient ratio in the country. Yet most times we have to wait for appointments and sit in the waiting room, sometimes for hours. I know doctors who are turning patients away. Doctors all claim to be overworked.

I assume the situation is the same, or worse, around the country.

If 45 million people show up next year for an annual physical, who is going to treat them?

Why aren't we addressing the supply portion of this equation?

2) The key problems I keep hearing are people being denied coverage for preexisting conditions; being booted from their plans for being sick; and lack of portability.

Can't those problems be addressed without a massive federal program? Haven't many states done so?

If the goal is to make health care better, and not let more power settle in Washington, aren't there better ways to go than the bill(s) presently in the House & Senate?

Health Care FAQ

Dems are bleating that the protesters of health care reform are misleading the public--yet I haven't heard anyone, including Pres. O, give a point-by-point explanation of the proposed legislation.

Pres. O and his team are so Internet-savvy--you would think it would be easy for them to whip up a web site, complete with a simple explanation of the bill--and FAQ's for people to see, easily, how this will affect them.

Some of the reforms I've heard I think I approve of. Some I am very concerned about. I hear talk that the bill must not add to the deficit--but if we are now going to offer health insurance to 40+ million, how can that not create new costs--and who will pay them? And how much?

The problem is that Pres. O left this to Congress. The same Congress that has about a 15% approval rating. And he's wondering why Americans are upset!

Quick Notes

...Problem with this health care "debate" is that we have no idea what we are debating. And that's Pres. O's fault. Of course people are angry, upset and, in the minds of the Dems, misinformed.

We ALL are misinformed--if that word means lacking information.

Pres. O should have met with his Dem leadership, put together a package, explained it to America, then passed it. They control everything--they can't be allowed to blame Republicans or conservatives. You have control. You think you have a way to deliver better, cheaper health care? Pass it.

Just don't blame us if we're concerned that your plan, whatever it might be, winds up being another FEMA.

...Governor Sanford should be impeached for leaving his post. They shouldn't have to be making up financial improprieties from years ago regarding flights he took that weren't the cheapest available. Nonsense. No one who runs a company or a State has any right to be missing that long-- what if a hurricane or train wreck or flue epidemic had hit? Didn't the people of South Carolina have the right to have their governor making decisions?

...Hillary got all up in the face of an African teenager for asking what her husband thought about an issue. The typical Clinton response--it was OK, because the boy was mistranslated.

Huh?

The Secretary of State looks and acts like a petulant child--in response to a question from a kid--and its not her fault? The Clinton morning news was great--she was tired; he was mistranslated; its about respect.

BS. It's about a woman who should have been able to handle that question with ease and who, as our leading diplomat, should have handled herself better.

She should apologize. I know that word isn't in the Clinton vocabulary--but she should. Without the usual Clinton spin and dance. Apologize and move on.

Health Care

My good friend Bruce wrote in a recent piece:

The question should not be why is health care so expensive. It's so expensive because it saves lives.

The question should be how do we save everybody's life.

I am really disappointed with the turn this health care debate is taking.

I agree with him.

Republicans blew it--on this and so many other issues--when we had control. Trying to keep demand down on health care is doomed to failure. Americans will not put up with restrictions on the quality or length of the lives of themselves or their loved ones.

The answer is supply side. We should be doubling and then doubling again the number of medical schools in this country. Doctors have imposed limits on the number of medical students-- there are about the same number now as 25 years ago, when there were less of us and we were demographically much younger.

We should have built dozens of new medical schools, or provided financial support for the independent creation and expansion of existing ones. Competition would go a long way towards lowering the cost of and increasing the access to medical care.

There obviously is no silver bullet. However, a combination of vastly increasing the supply of medical care providers, health savings accounts, public clinics (especially for Medicaid patients), the computerization of medical records (so you don't have to fill out the same damn clipboard 804 times), some med mal reform, and reasonable restrictions on insurance companies makes the most sense.

I like President Obama. I honestly do. However, this is the second time that he has pronounced the need for a solution to a problem NOW, and then let Congress come up with a "solution". It failed miserably with the so-called stimulus "plan". And it is failing now with health care.

Pres. O will get a bill. But it will be a bill cobbled together by the likes of Pelosi and Reid and Frank & Kennedy--4 people I guarantee few Americans would be happy to have babysit their kids, let alone decide the fate of our nation.