People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Monday, August 10, 2009

Snake Oil

This coming from the most hated and reviled woman (and compatriot) in America makes its lofty promises something less than believable:
'Un-American' attacks can't derail health care debate
By Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, writing in USA TODAY

Health care is complex. It touches every American life. It drives our economy. People must be allowed to learn the facts.

The first fact is that health insurance reform will mean more patient choice. It will allow every American who likes his or her current plan to keep it. And it will free doctors and patients to make the health decisions that make the most sense, not the most profits for insurance companies.

Reform will mean stability and peace of mind for the middle class. Never again will medical bills drive Americans into bankruptcy; never again will Americans be in danger of losing coverage if they lose their jobs or if they become sick; never again will insurance companies be allowed to deny patients coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

Reform will mean affordable coverage for all Americans.

Reform will also mean higher-quality care by promoting preventive care so health problems can be addressed before they become crises.

Now — with Americans strongly supporting health insurance reform, with Congress reaching consensus on a plan, and with a president who ran and won on this specific promise of change — America is closer than ever to this century-deferred goal. [link]
It's okay to laugh. I'll wait ...

Then let your laughter turn to anger.

Health care reform, as proposed by these two crooks, will do none of this. The experts - including Pelosi's own Congressional Budget Office - agree.

· Stability and peace of mind? When taxes skyrocket to pay for this "reform"? When patients can't find a doctor because nobody in his right mind would want to go into medicine as a career, what with the United States government controlling their paychecks and their every interaction with people in their care? Stability and peace of mind when the government sees the elderly as a burden to the system and an easy means of cost control? Peace of mind? When a person knows she's going to have to wait months to see an ob/gyn?

· More patient choice? When every employer in America dumps his health care coverage of employees, forcing everyone to go on the government-issued plan, what choice will there be?

· Affordable coverage? This the government can do. But only through the rationing of care. So you get a reasonable price on your appendectomy. But if you have to wait six months to get it, just how affordable was it?

· Higher quality care through preventive care? Isn't that the snake oil that Ted Kennedy sold us a few decades ago when he was pushing HMO's as the really swell alternative to regular Blue Cross/Blue Shield? What do Pelosi and this Hoyer character think of HMO's?

There is one thing these two slimeballs got right. Americans strongly support health care reform. While the tens of millions of people out there (including illegal aliens) who produce nothing want the government to provide cradle-to-grave protection (along with food, shelter, clothing, televisions, transportation ...), many of us, those who pay for this country and keep it running (and who stand up at town hall meetings shouting ENOUGH IS ENOUGH) want the government out of our health care.

Also in this op/ed piece you'll find Nancy Pelosi declaring the Americans who are raising hell at those town hall meetings to be "un-American." I've got news for her: Those who are fighting her effort to destroy this country are AMERICANS in the truest sense of the word. They are not going to idly sit by and watch her ruin the country they love. The country that our ancestors fought and died to create, protect, and preserve. The country that refused to allow her kind of government control to leave Europe and enter our shores.

Health care reform? We demand government reform. Starting with those at the top - Pelosi and her ilk - and working down.

Finally, Some Sunlight

I never understood why Congressman Rick Boucher would want to cite the Environmental Protection Agency as a credible source when it comes to his climate legislation and the impact it will have on the future of the coal industry in Southwest Virginia. After all, the EPA employs no economists. No analysts. It does the environment.

But there it was in his detailed - and rambling - explanation for his having enthusiastically endorsed the Cap-and-Trade bill after being against it. From his website:
Approximately 80 percent of the electricity in my district is coal generated, and coal production is one of our region's major industries and major employers.

Not surprisingly, my focus in the shaping of the bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee was to keep electricity rates affordable and to enable utilities to continue using coal which accounts for 51 percent of electricity generation nationwide.

Both of these goals have been achieved.

Electricity rates will only be modestly affected.

The EPA projects that the nearer term cost for the typical family is between $80 and $110 annually.

The claims by the opponents that the bill will impose enormous electricity price increases are simply wrong.

And, the EPA projects that by 2020 coal usage will grow. As transportation electrifies, the demand for electricity increases, and coal, our most abundant fuel, will still be the fuel of choice to meet that rising demand.

Some of his Democratic supporters propagandists have taken up use of the same tactic - citing the EPA:

Contrary to ... accusations, the Environmental Protection Agency has stated that coal use will actually grow as a result of this legislation. The legislation will end our dependence on foreign oil and encourage the development of technologically advanced and efficient electric vehicles.

I keep wondering: Why do they lean on the EPA for economic analysis? That's like going to the barber for a root canal. Why the EPA? Why not an expert who knows something about economics?

Well, as it turns out, folks at the EPA don't believe they should be used as a source for predicting future economic activity either. This comes to us from the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works:

EPA Denies Senate Request for a Complete Analysis of Waxman-Markey

Washington, D.C. – In a letter to Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio), EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson summarily denied the Senators’ request for economic analysis of the Waxman-Markey bill and how it would affect families, small businesses, and farmers. In her response, Jackson implied that EPA’s analysis is politically biased by referring the Senators to a separate analysis by the Energy Information Administration (EIA), which, she said, “operates independently of any political appointees.”

Sen. Inhofe: “In effect, EPA has refused to provide members of Congress, as they prepare for meetings and events with their constituents over the August recess, with critical information on the Waxman-Markey energy tax and how it will affect jobs in the Midwest, South, and Great Plains, as well as food, gasoline, and electricity prices for all American consumers. [link]

Rather telling, no? The EPA openly touts the fact that it is biased in favor of Boucher's climate tax and refers the Senate committee to an agency that "operates independently of any political appointees.”

Maybe that's why Boucher tries to use EPA findings to his advantage. He knows that their information is skewed and their analysis is tainted.

Explains a lot, if you ask me.