The main problem with America's health care system isn't too difficult to determine. The problem is, health care is way too expensive. It's so expensive that many people can't afford it. It's so expensive that many people forego health care insurance. As an example, a friend of mine recently went to see a specialist to diagnose his back injury. That office visit cost $765. He then had two MRI's at a cost of $4500. The total cost was $5265 just for my friend to receive a diagnosis of his back injury (a fracture). No treatment of his injury was included for that price. This is just one tiny example of the insanely high costs associated with health care in this country. Here are some numbers about the high cost of health care from the non-partisan National Coalition On Health Care:

In 2007, total national health expenditures were expected to rise 6.9 percent — two times the rate of inflation. Total spending was $2.3 TRILLION in 2007, or $7600 per person. Total health care spending represented 16 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). U.S. health care spending is expected to increase at similar levels for the next decade reaching $4.2 TRILLION in 2016, or 20 percent of GDP. In 2007, employer health insurance premiums increased by 6.1 percent - two times the rate of inflation. The annual premium for an employer health plan covering a family of four averaged nearly $12,100. The annual premium for single coverage averaged over $4,400.2

Keep this in mind as we compare the health care plans of Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain. I'd take it as a given that any health care plan that doesn't attempt to reign in these crazily high costs will ultimately collapse under it's own weight, and is therefore a bad plan for America.

The Obama and McCain health care plans are pretty much polar opposites. Obama's is centered around government control and McCain's is centered on free markets. Here's how the Cato Institute summarized the respective plans:

Senator Obama’s approach relies heavily on government mandates, regulations, and subsidies. He would mandate that employers provide health care coverage for their workers and that parents purchase health insurance for their children. He would significantly increase regulation of the insurance industry, establishing a standard minimum benefits package, and requiring insurers to accept all applicants regardless of their health. He would offer a variety of new and expanded subsidies to middle- and low-income Americans. [Link to Obama's website for details on his health care plan]

In contrast, John McCain emphasizes consumer choice and greater competition in the health care industry. He would move away from our current employment-based insurance system by replacing the current tax exclusion for employer-provided insurance with a refundable tax credit for individuals. At the same time he would sharply deregulate the insurance industry to increase competition. [Link to McCain's website for details on his health care plan]

HEALTH CARE COST REDUCTION: Both Obama and McCain make a claim for cost control in their health care plans.

Obama promises to modernize the heath care system to save money. After reading from his website several of the methods he'll use (integrate care, monitor providers, preventive care, catastrophic illness subsidization, cost transparency, electronic technology), I'm unconvinced they will reduce the cost of health care at all. It's as if Obama thinks he can micromanage the entire private health care industry, which is definitely beyond his grasp. He also promises to subsidize those who cannot afford insurance and calls that cost control, when it isn't. Subsidization is just another word for taxation. That is cost redistribution, not cost reduction. When I look at Obama's plan from a cost control standpoint, I see many new government mandates and regulations on health care providers and insuerers, and those invariably increase costs, not lower them. Where Obama's health care plan CAN reduce costs is through government intervention in the marketplace, through directly mandated lower costs. The Obama plan proposes to limit the amount of profit insurance companies can make, requiring them to funnel 'excess' profits into lower patient premiums. 'Excess' profit remains undefined by Obama (has anyone else noticed that liberals are attempting to gradually outlaw business profits ? Creep, creep, creep). Obama also proposes to lower prescription drug prices by allowing drugs to be purchased at lower prices in Canada and overseas (look kids ! a market-based reform ! This one would probably work. Yippee !…but what about FDA approval on those foreign drugs ?), and he would also allow the government to 'negotiate' with drug companies.

John McCain's health care plan would provide greater competition between insurance companies by allowing those companies to compete for business nationwide, instead of on a state-by-state basis. Like Obama, McCain would allow re-importation of drugs, greater use of generic drugs, coordinated care, prevention measures, new medical infrastructure, transparency, and technology. McCain wants to make Medicare more efficient. He also wants to pass tort reform to stop lawsuits against doctors who follow clinical guidelines and follow safety protocols. The heart of McCain's health care reform, however, is direct refundable tax credits for health care. Individuals would receive a $2500 tax credit, families a $5000 tax credit, to offset the high costs of insurance. This helps offset the cost of insurance to Americans without involving the iron hand of government, which I love, but it doesn't lower the costs of health care. Also, if you remember how much health insurance costs on the average ($4400 individual, $12000 family of four), McCain's health care credits don't cover it all, they just make coverage cheaper.

In the end, neither Obama's nor McCain's plan will probably alleviate the massive costs of health care significantly, though each could have some cost reduction effects. My buddy's back problem would still cost a bundle just for a diagnosis. Obama's plan would go further toward insuring the uninsured, though it won't achieve nor mandate universal coverage. Obama recently said that illegal immigrants would not be covered under his plan. Illegals make up a significant portion of those 47 million uninsured in America. Obama's plan will cost the taxpayers a bundle, while McCain's plan will save the taxpayers a bundle (but offset by what spending cuts, Johnny ? We can't keep running deficits, and you also promised to balance the budget). I'd prefer to save taxpayers a bundle, so I like McCain's approach better than Obama's. Obama's approach would be a giant step toward socialized medicine, which is tanking in Canada and Europe. It results in rationed care and long waits for treatment, and ends with the government telling you what medical procedures you can and can't have. And if you think lobbying and influence peddling is bad now, wait until the government controls such a huge chunk of our economy as health care. It'll be corruption city. No thanks. Obama's plan would also be very burdensome for small businesses and even large businesses, whom Obama would penalize if they didn't provide health care insurance coverage for their employees. McCain's plan allows for business growth, especially small business growth, by transferring the ever increasing health care burden away from business. That is a very big deal economically. McCain's plan will provide a tangential economic stimulus that would result in rising wages, lower prices, or lower unemployment. Obama's provides an economic damper that would result in lower wages, higher prices, and higher unemployment.

Verdict: McCain's plan is far from perfect, and it won't solve the uninsured problem (though it'll reduce it), but Obama's Big Brother, Big Tax, Big Spend approach scares the bejesus out of an old rumrunner like myself. Them dad-burned revenooers. Git the buckshot, Cletus. There has to be a better way.

Last thursday's Democratic debate on CNN between Hillary and Obama is being called the 'nice debate'. That's nice. Obviously, we don't want candidates arguing during a debate about who the next leader of the world's lone superpower will be. We should be nice. Have a nice day. Make love, not war. You can find a transcript of the nice debate here if you're interested.

I'd like to focus on some of Barack Obama's policy. In his opening statement, Obama said the following:

"And at this moment, the question is: How do we take the country in a new direction? How do we get past the divisions that have prevented us from solving these problems year after year after year?

I don't think the choice is between black and white or it's about gender or religion. I don't think it's about young or old. I think what is at stake right now is whether we are looking backwards or we are looking forwards. I think it is the past versus the future".

Fair enough, Mr. Obama. This election IS definitely about the future, not the past. It's about where we go from here as a nation, and who will lead us in the right direction. It's not about the 90's, and it's not about what Bush did. Bush isn't running. Please tell Hillary. She doesn't seem to know. She utters the phrase 'the failed policies of the Bush administration' in response to practically every question.

So, where does Obama want to take this country ? How DO we get past our divisions ?

Well, as it turns out, it's as easy as pie. We all just have to become uber-liberals and turn everything over to our government Big Brother. See, once we all become uber-liberals, then voila, no more division (no more affluent society or freedom either, but that's a small price to pay, isn't it ?).

Got a problem with health care ? Obama has a government Big Brother solution:

"Let's take health care… set up a government plan that would allow people who otherwise don't have health insurance because of a preexisting condition, like my mother had, or at least what the insurance said was a preexisting condition, let them get health insurance…What they're struggling with is they can't afford the health care. And so I emphasize reducing costs. My belief is that if we make it affordable, if we provide subsidies to those who can't afford it, they will buy it… I want to lower premiums by about an average of $2,500 per family per year, because people right now cannot afford it".

Terrific, but…won't it cost a ton of money to subsidize health care for all those people ? How are you going to reduce costs to offset that hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending you just proposed ?

Here's the answer - Tax increases, expanded government control of business, and nonsense. Now that I think about it, those things are pretty much ALWAYS the answer for liberal Democrats.

"…but they [the drug companies] are making outsized profits on the backs of senior citizens who need those prescription drugs. And that is an argument that the American people have to be involved with, otherwise we're not going to get any plan through.

So I've already said a sizeable portion of my health care plan will be paid for because we emphasize savings. We invest in prevention. So that as I said before, the chronically ill that account for 20 percent — or the 20 percent of chronically ill patients that account for 80 percent of the costs, that they're getting better treatment. We are actually paying for a dietitian for people to lose weight as opposed to paying for the $30,000 foot amputation. That will save us money. We can conservatively save $100 billion to $150 billion a year under my plan. That pays for part of it. Part of it is paid for by rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the top one percent".

Let me deal with the nonsense first. Obama's "prevention" isn't going to save one dime. Unless he has discovered the key to immortality, all humans are going to get sick and die eventually. He can't change that. The additional preventive health care that Obama advocates will only INCREASE medical costs over the long haul. The truth is, the longer people live, the more medical costs they will generate. We'd only save money if we told everybody to start smoking three packs of cigarettes and drink a quart of Jack Daniels every day, so they'd die off early. It's not a fun fact, but it's a fact nonetheless.

So, all Obama is really telling you is that he wants to control what the drug companies and other "special interests" connected to the health care industry charge, and he's also telling you he wants to raise taxes (only on the rich, of course). And here I thought this country was based upon freedom and capitalism. Apparently, not in Obama's futureworld. For a guy who talks about the future, Obama sounds like he wants to return to the year 1848. That's when The Communist Manifesto was written by Marx and Engels. They didn't care much for freedom or capitalism either. The Manifesto suggested a course of action for a proletarian (working class) revolution to overthrow the bourgeois social order and to eventually bring about a classless and stateless society. Sound familiar ?

It isn't only health care where Obama advocates increased federal spending. It's virtually across the board, just like Hillary. What really gets me PO'ed about this is - the liberal Democrats are using the Republicans to justify all this extreme new spending, AND THEY ARE GETTING AWAY WITH IT DUE TO THE REPUBLICANS OWN FAILURE ! Listen to the first words out of Obama's mouth following this question:

MCMANUS: Senator Obama, one other thing both of your health insurance proposals have in common is they would cost billions of dollars in new spending and both of you have proposed raising taxes on a lot on Americans to pay for that and for other proposals.

Well, now, you know what's going to happen this fall in the general election campaign. The Republicans are going to call you "tax-and-spend" liberal Democrats, and that's a charge that's been effective in the past.

How are you going to counter that charge?

OBAMA: Well, first of all, I don't think the Republicans are going to be in a real strong position to argue fiscal responsibility, when they have added $4 trillion or $5 trillion…

(APPLAUSE)

… worth of national debt. I am happy to have that argument.

I guess this election isn't about the future anymore to Obama, because he's going back to the past to say 'it doesn't matter how much money the Democrats spend in the future, because the Republicans abdicated fiscal responsibility'. It's the equivalent of going from the frying pan into the fire. There is no actual connection between what the Republicans did and what the Democrats will do. The issue is, WHO WILL RESTORE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY IN THE FUTURE. From everything I've seen, you can rank them in the following order, from the most fiscally responsible to the least: Romney, McCain, Hillary, Obama. The two Republicans are close to each other, and the two Democrats are close to each other. The big difference is, the Democrats are advocating enormous spending increases, and the Republicans are advocating controlling federal spending, yet the Democrats are seen as having the most credibility in this area, due to the Bush years. Pretty insane, if you ask me. Remember, Bush isn't running, and the election is about the future, not the past. Obama said so, and I agree completely. That's why you shouldn't elect Barack Obama.

Courtesy of the Patriot Post.

Can I get an amen here ? Don't we also call the following person a "thief" ?:

“A liberal is a man who will give away everything he doesn’t own.” —Frank Dane

Democrats finally admit that tax cuts work (welcome to the light, Dems):

“We’re so used to Democrats pushing tax hikes as the answer to all of America’s problems that we were taken aback to find the following words buried in Pelosi’s release on the stimulus deal: ‘Economists estimate that each dollar of broad tax cuts leads to $1.26 in economic growth.’ Gee, that sort of sounds familiar. It’s almost, though not quite, like what the much-reviled supply-side economists have been saying for, oh, 30 years or so. Pelosi, and other Democrats now suddenly touting tax cuts, may be on to something. We might demur on the notion that all tax cuts must be ‘broad’ to be effective. Evidence really lies more strongly with giving tax cuts to those who would start new businesses or expand old ones. But it’s refreshing to hear a Democrat admit the obvious—that tax cuts work. It’s no secret that high tax rates act as a deadweight on the economy by creating absolute losses from which no one gains. Martin Feldstein, head of the National Bureau of Economic Research, estimates that a $1 tax hike costs the economy 76 cents in output. That explains why the economy jumps each time there’s a tax cut.” —Investor’s Business Daily

Lots of bipartisan guilt to go around here:

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” —H.L. Mencken

I find the following comment very "stimulating":

“Washington, D.C. is a place where delusions go to thrive. That explains why Congress and the president are now agreed on remedies that will not work, expending money they do not have, to fix a problem that may not exist.” —Steve Chapman

Constitution ? You mean that g-d piece of paper ?

“Every candidate who repeats the misleading nonsense that ‘47 million in America have no health care,’ ought to be challenged with hard truth. The number is grossly inflated by including millions who are here illegally and millions of others who have the means to pay for health care insurance but refuse to adjust their budget and lifestyle. And don’t expect any media type to question where in the Constitution Congress derives any authority to dispense health care.” —Janet LaRue

Same as it ever was:

“Some Democratic and Republican presidential hopefuls are preaching economic doom and gloom, disappearing middle class, and failing health care industry. What’s their solution? The short answer is give them more control over our lives.” —Walter Williams

Economic dunce cap wearer:

“How do we stimulate the economy to prevent or shorten a recession? One way would be to repeal the Bush tax cuts two years early, in 2009.” —Len Burman, director of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, writing in The New York Times

They sure ain't conservatives, honey:

“Hillary Clinton and John Edwards and Barack Obama are not raging liberals.” —former CNN anchor Catherine Crier

This one's for you, Reverend, and your delusion that Chris Matthews is somehow a Republican shil:

“He’s come from a white family and a black family, and he’s married to a black woman, and they’re cool people. They are really cool. They are Jack and Jackie Kennedy when you see them together. They are cool. And they’re great-looking, and they’re cool and they’re young, and they’re—everything seems to be great… [I]f you’re in [a room] with Obama, you feel the spirit. Moving.” —MSNBC’s Chris Matthews

Der-da-der-der-durp:

“I don’t pay much attention to polls.” —Hillary Clinton, who in the next breath claimed that polls also show her ahead in “most of the Super Tuesday states.”

If only he would heed his own advice:

“I think it’s time for [Bill Clinton] to just be quiet. I think it’s time for him to stop. As one of the most outspoken people in America, there’s a time to shut up, and I think that time has come.” —professional race hustler Al Sharpton

Be careful what you ask for:

“Everyone seems to be campaigning as the candidate of change, but what does that mean exactly? Wouldn’t a depression be a change? How about basing our economy on Communism instead of Capitalism?” —John Hawkins

Lib vs Lib (and really funny):

“It’s down to Obama vs. Clinton, and it’s getting nasty. They hate each other, with the kind of passionate hatred that you see only between two people who hold essentially the same positions on everything. Edwards is still running, but at this point they don’t even bother to put a microphone on him for the debates. He just waves his arms to indicate how he’s going to take on the big corporations.” —Dave Barry

Hillary Clinton loves us, and she is going to take care of us. All us ignorant wretches out here in the sticks just have to be smart enough to make her the president. Thank goodness. Our problems are nearly over.

In a holiday television campaign ad, found here on YouTube, Hillary is seen wrapping her Christmas presents for America (but, of course, the word "Christmas" is never used and no Christian symbols are seen. We must be politically correct. Wouldn't want to offend an atheist or a Wiccan). These holiday "gifts" are marked "Universal Health Care", "Universal Pre-K", "Middle Class Tax Cuts", "Alternative Energy", and "Bring Troops Home". These are the things that the Great And Powerful Clinton is going to "give" to America. Isn't that just wonderful ? Elect Hillary and all this will be yours, America. I'm getting a little misty just thinking about the beneficence of our Once And Future Queen, aren't you ?

The great thing about gifts is that you don't have to pay for them. They are free. Somebody else pays, but you don't have to worry about that, right ? Hillary certainly doesn't want you to worry about that, because not only is she going to "give" you things like Universal Health Care and Universal Pre-School, she's also going to "give" you a tax cut at the same time ! Wow. This is one smart fem-bot, this Clinton 2.0. Evidently, Hillary's enormous new government programs won't cost anything at all. Very impressive. Dare I say miraculous ? She must be some kind of sorceress or something.

Now, in compliance with the Truth In Pandering Act (that should exist, but unfortunately doesn't), it must be pointed out that Hillary isn't a sorceress or a witch (insert own joke here). It must be pointed out that Hillary's enormous new government programs would cost hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars, and somebody does have to pay for them. In the world of liberal Democrats, the payers are always the same: the evil rich and the evil corporations. These two entities, who are actually viewed as one and the same by the Hillary Clintons of the world, are the bottomless well that is always tapped to pay for anything and everything that liberals can dream up to "help" us. What is never supposed to be mentioned is who REALLY pays when business and the wealthy are hit with regressive levels of taxation: ALL OF US. Whether it's through higher prices, lower wages, or fewer jobs, we all pay for those so-called painless "gifts" from the government. In the liberal system of class warfare justice, you are supposed to work hard to achieve the american dream, and once you do become successful, the government takes everything away from you, so everyone will be "equal". How liberals think that will motivate people to achieve anything is unexplained. How liberals do not see that as theft is also unexplained. If equality of outcome can be achieved by sitting at home on your couch, a whole lot more people are going to choose the path of least resistance, the path that requires no effort. An inevitable decaying of society is the result of such socialist thinking. I don't know how many times socialism must fail before liberals realize how flawed the concept is, but I know they haven't realized it yet. They still think that socialism just hasn't been done right yet, even though socialism has a 150 year record of failure and repression. Liberals must call themselves "progressives" because they have to move forward to try to escape the past.

The other aspect of these "universal" government programs is that they remove your freedom of choice. In the private sector, there is a choice of health insurance programs. There is a choice of day-care centers. Well, there WOULD be a real choice of health insurance programs, except the government has already taken control of half the health care industry and has mandated so much to the insurance companies and employers that real choice is already a fantasy. You can't really pick the health insurance coverage you want, because the government has made the decisions for you already. That's one of the reasons why the cost of health insurance is astronomical, all the mandated coverage. Naturally, the liberal solution to government fouling up the health care industry is for government to take over the whole health care industry (and thereby foul it up the rest of the way).

And in Hillary's current half step toward socialized medicine, when she says she's going to "give" you "Universal Health Care", she means she's going to force you to buy health care insurance, even if you don't want to. Some present. That's like your best friend buying you a new Lexus for Christmas. The only catch is that YOU have to make the car payments. Thanks for nothing, buddy.

So Hillary, thanks for all your good intentions, but please don't give me anything for Christmas this year, or any year.

I can't afford it.

Now that Bush's veto of the Democrat's S-CHIP expansion has been upheld, and the Democrats have had their hissy fit on the floor of congress yesterday, with one highlight (lowlight) being nutjob Pete Stark (D-Cal) making absurd comments about Bush "killing innocent people for his own amusement", maybe now the Democrats can quit playing political games and a reauthorization of S-CHIP can be worked out. I'm pretty tired of the Dem's tactic of using families that are already covered under S-CHIP as human shields to prevent any real dialogue from taking place on the issue. This vote on the veto override should have taken place two weeks ago, but the Democrats wanted to play the 'Republicans hate children' card for all it was worth, so they delayed the vote. I can see why the Dems mantra for S-CHIP has been 'For The Children', because their behavior has been totally infantile.

Democrats were so busy calling Republicans mean and hateful, that they pretended not to notice that Republicans are announcing an alternative S-CHIP plan today. The tenets of the Republican plan follow:

- Reauthorize SCHIP for eligible children. The bill would continue to cover kids in families with incomes at or below 200% of the federal poverty level.

- Enact a child health care tax credit. Rather than putting more people on a government-run program, the bill would offer tax credits to families with incomes between 200% and 300% of the poverty level. This would cover the population targeted by liberals with their bill, but instead of forcing them to drop their current coverage, it would provide assistance to keep their current insurance plan.

- Adopt a "federalism" health-care initiative. The bill encourages greater experimentation at the state level to expand health-care coverage.

The idea of a health care tax credit is far preferable to signing up millions of kids into an expanded government program funded on the backs of smokers (the Democrat plan). A tax credit offsets the cost of health care insurance for working families, plus it puts worker's wages back in the hands of workers where they belong. The idea in health care is NOT to fill the government coffers and then have the government decide how to spend it. The idea is to make health care insurance affordable. The tax credit helps. I think it would be a good idea if all health insurance and out-of-pocket medical payments were tax deductible. Hopefully, the Democrats will go along with this idea IF THEY CARE ABOUT THE CHILDREN, as they claim to. We'll see if they care about the children as much as they care about consolidating power unto themselves by taking all our money.

One more thing I should mention with all this 'Republicans hate children' crapola being thrown around by the Democrats regarding S-CHIP. The S-CHIP program was started in 1997 as part of the Balanced Budget Act. Two of the Act's three sponsors were Republicans (Gramm and Rudman. Hollings, a Democrat, was the other). The S-CHIP program was passed by THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS, and then Clinton signed it into law. So, the next time you hear Democrats lying through their teeth about this issue, let them know you are onto them. The next time you hear the Democrat's propaganda arm, the mainstream media, distorting the truth, let them know too.

If you haven't seen the Real Time With Bill Maher show yet, you are missing something. I'm not sure exactly what you're missing, but you're missing something….maybe the downfall of western civilization (but funny !). I watched part of a rerun of the october 12th episode on HBO last night while I was waiting for the Indians/Red Sox game to start (Go Tribe !). The basic premise of the Bill Maher show is: Republicans suck, Christians are stupid and delusional, americans are a bunch of ignorant hicks, and marijuana is cool. Needless to say, liberals LOVE the show, since it reflects their values. I watched this particular episode because I wanted to see if New York Times columnist Paul Krugman could possibly be as wrong about everything in person as he is in print. He was one of the panel guests, along with Joy Behar, alleged comedienne from The View, and MSNBC's Tucker Carlson, who played the token conservative, even though he isn't that conservative. A centrist on Real Time looks like a hard right-winger compared to a typical assemblage of Maher moonbats. Once, Christopher Hitchens played the role of the 'evil' conservative on the show, even though he is a socialist and an atheist. The conservative role was forced upon Hitchens for the sole reason that he acknowledges that Islamic fascism exists and realizes it's important that we fight against it. That's all it takes to be considered a crazed conservative fundamentalist fascist extremist by Maher's people. The audience booed Hitchens so much that Hitchens actually flipped them off at one point. I think that might have been a tv talk show first, unless you count the Jerry Springer type shows (I don't), where it's part of the act.

There is usually one token pseudo-conservative present on Real Time, because that way the rest of the panel and the audience will have someone to boo and shout down, and Maher can pretend he's being fair. There is never more than one conservative, though. That might shift the balance of power too much, and they can't have that. A liberal's idea of fair and balanced is when the liberals control 90% of the discussion (at least), just like in the mainstream media. When conservatives control more of a media audience than liberals, as in talk radio, liberals start looking for ways to legislate away the conservative advantage (i.e. The Fairness Doctrine). I think this must be because liberals love diversity SO much and are SO tolerant of the viewpoints of others.

Since Real Time is a contained sea of liberal self-congratulation, the absolute dumbest comments are treated as brilliant examples of liberal insight, as long as they bash Republicans, of course. For example, during a discussion of blogger Michelle Malkin's revelations about the Democrat's 12-year old S-CHIP poster boy Graeme Frost (his family owns 3 vehicles, sends all their kids to private school, owns their own business, and have a $300,000 home, yet the taxpayers are picking up the Frost's heallth care insurance tab) , Joy Behar put her finger on why Malkin was talking about the Frosts and S-CHIP. "Because she's a selfish b*tch, probably", bleated Behar. Huge applause from the crowd followed, naturally. Behar beamed. Ms Behar also called Republicans "p*ssies" earlier in the show, another Hallmark moment that drew huge applause from her fellow policy wonk sophisticates in the Maher audience.

I was disappointed with Krugman, because he didn't say much. He was soft-spoken, and was overshadowed and seemed cowed by the loud, boisterous, tv veteran blabbermouth trio of Maher, Carlson, and Behar. What little Krugman did say WAS wrong, such as his pronouncement that Iran is not a threat (I wonder if Israel and our soldiers being blown up by Iranian IED's agree), but mostly he just mumbled.

So, if you want to hear 1001 Bush jokes, you will LOVE the Bill Maher show. If you like to know what clueless overpaid Hollywood actors think about politics, you'll like it even more. If you want to hear a nonstop stream of leftist propaganda, Maher's your guy.

But if you are looking for serious issue discussions, look elsewhere.

That is how Democrats are framing the debate over the proposed $35 billion expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) that Bush is threatening to veto. I saw Nancy Pelosi claim to be praying to her higher power (Karl Marx ?) for the president to discover his compassionate conservative heart and approve the SCHIP expansion. The Democrats are trotting out 12-year olds to ask the president why he doesn't want kids to get needed medical treatment, why he wants them to, sniff, die instead. Yesterday on the Chris Wallace program, that Schumer guy who is on TV every other day shook his head in sadness at the depth of Republican cruelty, as he listened to coldhearted GOP Grinch Trent Lott objecting to the taxpayers paying for the 700,000 adults who are covered under SCHIP, the taxpayers paying for the children of families making over $60K per year, the taxpayers picking up the health insurance tab for middle class families who can afford to pay for it themselves, and other such Republican trivialities. Chuck Schumer knows this is no time for a rational policy discussion. THIS IS ABOUT THE CHILDREN, man, and that should be the end of all discussion.

Wrong.

SCHIP was started in 1997 in response to the growing number of children who were going without health insurance. It was targeted at children in families who earned too much to be covered under Medicaid, but too little to afford the rapidly escalating cost of private insurance. SCHIP currently covers an estimated 6.9 million children, and the current bill under consideration wants to cover an additional 4 million kids by lessening the requirements for SCHIP. Instead of limiting coverage to families who make 200% of poverty level wages, now families earning up to 300% would be eligible. That is $62,000+ for a family of four, with variations from state to state, which is why some families earning into the $80,000's would become eligible. The expansion will supposedly be paid for by increasing taxes on the government's favorite whipping boy, the evil tobacco plant. As Schumer pointed out, this might also have the side benefit of getting people to quit smoking due to the prohibitive price of a pack of cigarettes (and thus reducing SCHIP funding, Chuck). But has anyone bothered to stop and think who these smokers are ? Statistics show that lower income people smoke at much higher rates than higher income people, so maybe someone should tell the Democrats that they are endorsing raising taxes on the backs of the poor to expand the SCHIP program to provide insurance to middle class families who can afford to pay for it themselves. Someone tell me how THAT is right. It has also been estimated that 22 million new smokers would be needed over the next 8 years to pay for the SCHIP expansion, according to a Heritage Foundation article, which would put our government directly at odds with it's own stop smoking campaign.

In addition, a 2007 analysis by the Congessional Budget Office showed that "for every 100 children who gain coverage as a result of SCHIP, there is a corresponding reduction in private coverage of between 25 and 50 children." The CBO claims this is due to the superior coverage SCHIP provides compared to private insurers. Um, okay. It couldn't have anything to do with getting something for 'FREE' as opposed to having to pay for it, could it ? Naw, who would go for a deal like that, other than everybody ? I guess it would also be very mean of me to ask why I should pay for my next door neighbor's decision to have children ? Oh sorry, that just slipped out. Not very PC. I forgot, the era of personal responsibility is over (and here Bill Clinton thought it was the era of big government that was over. Ha ! It's only just beginning).

The SCHIP expansion as currently written should be vetoed by the president and sent back to congress for revision and compromise. As far as government programs go, SCHIP isn't the worst one. Let's not ruin it and turn it into a backdoor to socialized medicine. That is the Democrat's game here. Yes, Republicans will have to hear all this nonsense about how they don't care about our children, because the Democrats and their pet media will play those violins for all they are worth, but vetoing the SCHIP expansion is the right thing to do. It's about time Bush is finally threatening to veto something anyway. Far past time, actually.

Hillary has announced her new universal health care plan, and I have to say, I like it better than the old plan already. For one thing, the new plan is only 16 pages long, while her 1993 version was about the size of the Old Testament. Plus, nearly half of the 16 pages are just pictures of people smiling over the wonderfulness of Hillary's happy health care plan, so the actual text is probably only 8-10 pages written in a large font. I'm sure Hillary has covered all the health care bases though, because, after all, her husband balanced the federal budget in the year 2000. You can link to Hillary's health care plan here

As a public service, I offer my Politico-To-English translations of some key points of Hillary's plan. Since Hillary's plan is just a collection of broad generalities, so are my translations. That's all there is so far, though you'd never know it by all the media fanfare.
—————————————————————————————-
Hillary : A Guarantee of Quality Coverage

Da King: The government will FORCE you to carry health insurance. No exceptions, comrade. You WILL submit.
—————————————————————————————-
Hillary: Reducing Costs: By removing hidden taxes, stressing prevention and a focus on efficiency and modernization, the plan will improve quality and lower costs.

Da King: Hillary, please. No efficiency measures are going to come anywhere near to offsetting the costs here. Overall costs will increase greatly, since the taxpayer will pick up the costs for all those who can't afford coverage, and insurance and drug companies will be mandated to cover all pre-existing conditions without exception, thus driving up their costs dramatically. And incidentally, for you smokers, cigarettes will soon cost about $295.00 per pack. Okay, I'm exaggerating about the cigarettes. They might only be $15-20 per pack. In any case, very expensive for plants that grow in the ground, but that's what they get for being 'sinful' plants, I guess.
—————————————————————————————-
Hillary: End to Unfair Health Insurance Discrimination

Da King: American taxpayers will have to pay the health insurance costs for tens of millions of the geometrically increasing numbers of illegal aliens
—————————————————————————————-
Hillary: Government will ensure that health insurance is always affordable and never a crushing burden on any family and will implement reforms to improve quality and lower cost.

Da King: Be very afraid. The socialists are coming ! Your taxes are heading through the roof. The problems with the health care system have only just begun.
—————————————————————————————-
Hillary: A Net Tax Cut for American Taxpayers

Da King: I have a bridge to sell you.
—————————————————————————————-