The free market fix for health care

You might remember last year when Whole Foods CEO John Mackey sparked a furor among progressives for having the temerity to exercise his First Amendment rights and pen an Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal that proposed an alternative to the big government takeover of health care that Obama/Pelosi and Reid have been pursuing.  Mackey had the gall to point out a central truth that the left seems to ignore time and time again: incentives matter.  If you continue to shield patients from the true cost of care through an overly regulated, overly complex system,  while insisting that they not be financially responsible for all but a tiny fraction of their treatment, you will get abuse of the so-called "health care dollar".  It's a pretty basic concept for those who understand (and accept) that human behavior is sensitive to incentives: when things are perceived as "free" or when someone else is paying, consumption goes up.  When people have "skin in the game" they require more information, look harder at choices and tend to make better (more cost-effective) decisions. Businessmen like Mackey at Whole Foods and Steven Burd, the CEO of Safeway, understand this much better than do the politicians in Washington.  Of course, Mackey and Burd view the health care issue as a problem in search of a rational solution, rather than as an opportunity for government to achieve its ideological goals while taking over one-seventh of our economy.  They both instinctively know that doubling down on government entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security are not the answer. Burd, in particular, has written a number of outstanding op-eds on how Safeway has used incentives to drive down the cost of their company's health care programs, principally by rewarding healthy behavior and making employees financially responsible for a portion of their out-of-pocket health care costs.  As Burd notes, what Safeway has done has been successful beyond dispute:

As a self-insured employer, Safeway designed just such a plan in 2005 and has made continuous improvements each year. The results have been remarkable. During this four-year period, we have kept our per capita health-care costs flat (that includes both the employee and the employer portion), while most American companies' costs have increased 38% over the same four years.

It is clear to me after watching the recent "Health Care Summit" that neither Obama, Pelosi, Reid or their fellow ideologues on the left are really interested in solving the health care cost problem.  If they were, they would be looking at the real world examples where market-based solutions have worked.

And its not just in the private sector.  Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels -- who has been getting a lot of positive attention recently for his handling of Indiana's fiscal house during the recession -- has penned an opinion piece today that takes the Safeway model and expands it for government workers.  The foundation of Daniels' program are Health Savings Accounts (HSA) that put tax-free cash into accounts for patients to use for their own health care.  It's the kind of market-based innovation that promises to create incentives for patients to ask questions about how much things cost and about how effective a given treatment is (not surprisingly, ObamaCare eliminates the use of HSA's altogether -- all the better to keep patients out of their own health care decisions.)  Daniels describes this as "individually owned and directed health care coverage" -- a description that big government progressives will undoubtedly dislike, since it actually puts power in the hands of people.  But the Indiana experience shows that in health care plans where the patient has "skin in the game" the use of medical care is more judicious and effectively applied.  Indiana state employees enrolled in the plan will save some $8 million in 2010 compared to their co-workers enrolled in the old-fashioned PPO system where the employee pays nothing more than a co-pay.

It should be no surprise that the real solution to rising health care costs is to let the free market work: empower consumers with more information, give them a stake in the process and then let dollars flow to the most efficient, effective providers.  Health care has an example it can look at today in the area of cosmetic surgery -- a fee-for-service market place that is highly competitive.  Patients shop for the best combination of quality and price because they are generally paying out of pocket for the service; the result is a true market where providers actually compete for business.  Its the best way to enforce the twin goals of quality and cost.

One can only hope that Pelosi and her band of merry socialists fail to jam through Obamacare now, and that a new Republican majority in November will enact a series of market-based solutions that will work to make care both more accessible and affordable.

Campaign's just begun, Mr. President

Mr. Obama admonished Sen. John McCain yesterday at the health care summit and reminded him the campaign is over.Sen. McCain had the nerve to attempt to bring up a major concern of the American people with Obama's health care insurance overhaul, specifically, the back room deals that were made to win the votes of certain Democrats.  It is irony at best that Mr. Obama would think the campaign is over when a WH staffer has been quoted as stating Mr. Obama's staff is actually gearing up the Chicago team for his re-election campaign. Mr. Obama also chastised Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor for carrying in the massive bills put forth by Congress.  He referred to the stacks of wasted paper as political props.  On one hand, he's angry with Republicans for not voting for those props, and on the other, he claims they now are not relevant, but rather his 11-page bill prototype is the topic for debate.  The CBO can't rate that prototype because it is void of specificity in terms of cost and spending.  Yet, the Dem's argued yesterday about cost from the CBO, conveniently ignoring the fact that Obama's own plan can't be rated.

I believe Mr. Obama sat across the room from Rep. Paul Ryan and also Mr. Cantor and saw potential opponents for 2012.  The president was so rude and dismissive of Paul Ryan that he spent most of Ryan's first allotted time with eyes diverted and listening to an aide talk in his ear.  He did not have the courtesy to pay attention, in part because he didn't like hearing the disagreement with having Kathleen Sebelius, an unelected WH appointee, determine the course of individual healthcare.  Mr. Obama came back quickly and said she would only be making those decisions for people in his new sytem, but we all know most of us will eventually end up in the ash heap of government controlled health care.  That was Mr. Ryan's point, but the president failed to allow him the reasonable opportunity to make his case.  His blatant display of direspect for Mr. Ryan's comments was indicative of the purpose of the entire exercise.  The summit was designed to diminish Republican ideas, ignore concerns and relevant questions, and allow the president yet another bully pulpit moment.  He intentionally ran out the clock, speaking more than either party combined.  It was very symbolic of the president and his interpretation of his office.  He does not view Congress as an equal partner in legislation development.  He is the infinite decision-maker and his comments are more valuable than those that must answer to their constitutents for their votes.  Mr. Obama's dominance yesterday was in fact, little more than a 2012 campaign stump speech for him.

The president commented afterward that the Democrats will move to pass the Senate bill, with or without the Republicans.  He fails to recognize that it just isn't the Republicans that he is going foward without, he's also going ahead without the support of the American people.  That type of political move is always a starting point for the next campaign and election season.

CSAP Testing to Sunset

When Arne Duncan was appointed by Mr. Obama as the Secretary of Education last year, his first call to action was increased spending for public education and overhaul of NCLB.An unprecedented amount of federal funds have been borrowed and printed to funnel to public schools.  George W. Bush was the first president to dramatically increase education spending, and he reached across the political aisle and signed Ted Kennedy's No Child Left Behind Act into law.  President Bush would never overcome the criticism of his action, along with accusations of failure to fund the Act.  In spite of record spending, it apparently was not enough. Colorado public school kids will take their last round of CSAP tests this spring.  Administrators are telling their teachers that the dreaded and much maligned CSAP tests will go away.  Maybe now teachers, both union and non, will have some other gripe besides having to "teach to the tests".  Most teachers had a real problem with being held accountable as to whether or not their students were proficient in basic math and reading.  They were forced to give up their own lesson plans and unable to insert their own particular diversity in how they taught and what methods were used.  Instead, from the first day of school, they were asked to focus on getting right down to business--teaching the basics so their students would produce good test scores the following spring.

To be fair, the system was indeed flawed in some ways.  Older students knew they could deliberately do poorly on the tests if they had a reason to get even with a certain teacher or their school in general.  Younger students were under alot of pressure to cram everything they'd learned all year into a couple days of testing.  Schools went to great lengths to get students ready to test.  Meals and snacks were provided; the promise of recognition and rewards for doing well.  Parents were educated on proper sleep required on the nights before tests, balanced with sufficient activity to prevent getting antsy in those testing seats.  All of that hassle will go by the wayside now, at least in Colorado. 

Secy Duncan came to his national position from being Superintendent of the Chicago Public Schools, often considered one of the worst systems in the nation.  During his term of service to the City of Chicago, he left behind failed and even closed schools, low graduation rates and his share of poor testing scores under the NCLB system.  Some would consider that a failed resume and indictative of a person perhaps not ready to lead the nation's public school districts.  An Obama loyalist and insider of Chicago and Illinois politics, Mr. Duncan is now our children's headmaster.

Mr. Duncan began his appointment last year by meeting with the largest national teacher's unions in the country.  He commented during an early interview that he had "lived through" the NCLB era under President Bush and as a result, he had a vision of more rigorous academic standards and accountability.  As that pertains to Colorado, some might wonder how public school officials are going to be able to monitor progress of students undergoing more rigorous learning if they aren't tested. 

The CSAP tests were very expensive for Colorado school districts.  Teachers and administrators felt the pressure of   government intrusion.  Teaching styles and curriculum preferences were shelved in order to teach in such as way as students would perform well, and subsequently, keep funds coming into the schools.  The tests are going away now and while all the details are not yet available, apparently under the direction of Arne Duncan, a new day is dawning for public school students in Colorado.  Our head of education out of Washington, D.C., brings hope and change, or at least we better hope so, otherwise, our schools may follow the trends of Chicago public schools under his guidance.

Teachers and administrators will almost always tell you what they believe is the answer to solving all problems in public education:  we need more money.  We've thrown more money at public schools in the last 10 years than ever before in history.  Our U.S. Constitution does not even delegate the responsibility of public schools to the federal level, but rather to state governments.   Arne Duncan doesn't just want to increase accountability and require more rigorous academic standards, he also wants to overhaul Division I college athletics, and Mr. Obama's "Organizing for America" group is recruiting high school students to volunteer this summer.  Required reading for young volunteers includes Saul Alinsky's, "Rules for Radicals".   Our First Lady gets into the act by instructing us on what to eat and how much.  Apparently, too many parents are too irresponsible to make good food choices for the family table. 

Administrators and teachers want more money and less govt. interference.  Parents want better grades and more accountability of teachers, including having bad teachers fired.  Mr. Obama wants to pacify teacher's unions and he also wants to get those young voters to join his initiatives to reorganize America.  Mr. Duncan wants more money, too, along with stricter student requirements and he wants to purge what he believes is a bad system in college basketball and football.  Mrs. Obama wants to bring her version of change to school lunches and student exercise initiatives. (Doesn't the Dept. of Agriculture set standards for food served in schools?  Is it possible we have yet another govt. agency that maybe isn't doing it's job satisfactorily?  Should we perhaps start there and leave American families alone?)

Maybe those that support home schooling and charter schools and choice in education in general have it right after all.  Keep government out of the classroom to the extent possible, unless of course, we decide to start teaching American history again that hasn't been revised to suit political agendas.

Is Tea Party movement still pure?

One year ago, Rick Santelli lit the fire on the idea that fed-up Americans should host a tea party. Santelli suggested he and others at the Chicago Board of Trade should host a Tea Party on the banks of the Chicago River on the Fourth of July.  Santelli was typically shredded by the media.  Afterall, the president had only been in office a month!  How could anyone in America have questions or concerns.  He promised change and a fundamental remaking of America and voters had bought it.  Santelli was maligned, but something happened. A month into the "Fundamental Changing of America" administration, the Middle began to close.  Conservative Democrats and Independents started to peel away the veil and questioned whether or not they had been misled.  Within weeks, Americans of all political persuasions started gathering in city parks, on court house steps, community centers and private homes.  Conservatives quickly dropped the "I TOLD you so!" attitude and Americans came together.  As the backgrounds and political opinions of Obama's Cabinet and Czars became knowledge and as spending spiraled beyond imagination, the gap began to close.

There is jockeying now for the hearts, minds and votes of the Tea Party movement.  Even the media speaks with newly gained respect toward the group they once trashed, lied about and called every name in the book.  Pundits that once claimed only hacks for health insurance companies were showing up at townhall's and tea parties now admit there just might be something to this whole concept of average Americans actually taking back their government.gathered in parks and town halls and court house lawns, holding up homemade signs, waving flags and doing their best to send a loud and clear message to governments of all levels that we are, T.axed E.nough A.lready.  Of course, any disagreement with government and spending eventually lands at the feet of the president, so the media loyalists rallied around the White House and did their utmost to discredit the 'angry mobs'.  Seeing that no respect was to be had and the intended message was ignored, patriots gathered steam, planned more parties and increased their numbers.  The more names they were called, the more vocal and visible they became. 

As April 15, 2010, approaches thousands of parties will take place but this time, Washington and the cable networks will be listening.  Instead of labeling participants with despicable names or claiming them to be hacks hired by health insurance companies to ride buses and hold up signs, those that take time off work or school, brave all kinds of weather and show up at their local party will be held in a bit higher regard.

The Tea Party movement has now captured the nation's attention.  With a clear majority of Americans considering themselves to be conservatives, the numbers grow as more and more people watch the decline of our nation on so many levels.   As with every movement, there are activists that organize and plan and facilitate, but this particular movement will survive only if the grass roots Americans that had the courage to show up at that first party continue to stand up for America.

Let's hope the movement remains true to its original purpose and intent.  There is much debate as to what exactly is the movement, where does it go from here, will it evolve into a Third Party in our system?  Those that have self-appointed themselves into leadership positions in the movement, like to dangle the carrot of a growing block of voters before both the GOP and the Democrats.   They claim no allegiance to any party, only to a set of conservative values and allegiance to those politicians intent on reform. 

There are rumors of the movement being infiltrated with liberals, progressives and anti-GOP independents.  Their purpose is to create as much malcontent with the Republican Party as possible and to split votes to the extent that  Team Obama/Reid/Pelosi remain in power.  The Democrats and the media did their best but the movement prevailed.  Conservative voices are winning elections and public figures such as Sarah Palin continue to draw huge crowds in spite of the media claiming otherwise and reporting poor polling numbers for Mrs. Palin.  They can't beat the movement, so is the next tactic to join it and thus destroy it?

The majority of the nation wants to clean up the many messes in our governmental systems--local, state and federal.  We should be wary of expecting perfection from any candidate and assuming there is one person out there that has a platform that totally lines up with every voter.  The Tea Party movement created interest and every day Americans can see that their voice can be heard and they do actually have an impact.   We must realize that Republican conservative candidates are our best choice if we are to impact spending, borrowing, debt, national security, jobs creation, taxation, the preservation of personal freedoms and liberties, reforms in health care costs and education.  The Democrat platform will entice us to believe that more spending, more Stimulus plans and more big government is the answer.  There is no such creature today as a fiscally conservative Democrat.  Don't be fooled into believing that both parties will somehow meld together into the hopes and dreams of the Tea Party movement. 

Last April 15th, Americans drew a line in the sand.   Before we cross that line, we need to be sure the candidates we vote into office are going to do the will of the people.

Rahm Emanuel Should Do More Than Apologize

Once again, Rahm Emanuel has been exposed for being crude and insulting. He has admitted to making a very morally corrupt statement about persons with disabilities. Sarah Palin rightfully called him out on it, and he has reportedly made apologies to several advocacy organizations that support persons with disabilities. Apparently, he takes his cue from the president, who made the comment on the Jay Leno show that he bowls like a Special Olympics person. This White House apparently supports a culture in which people are demoralized and verbally abused. We see our president tour the country, making jokes and poking fun at Republicans, tea party goer's and anyone that disagrees with him. His audiences join him in laughing and pointing condescending fingers at those they believe are beneath them.

The New York Jets just levied a $50,000 fine against their head coach, Rex Ryan, for making an obscene hand gesture at some hostile fans. If the NFL has no tolerance for such conduct, how can the American people allow those in the White House to degrade our citizens?

An apology is not enough. Mr. Emanuel should pay a fine that is either donated to an organization that assists those with disabilities, or to the Treasury Department. At the rate our leadership spews such hateful remarks, they could impact the budget in a big way.