My Health Care Plan

Eliminate the Social Security payroll tax cap that is currently $106,800 (limit benefits cap instead).

Allow crossing of state lines for purchasing of insurance plans.

Search out states with best medical tort reform plans to create national model.

Encourage individual employees assumption of buying own health care insurance by:

• taxing employment provided health care benefits
• allow individuals to purchase health insurance across state lines
• increase tax deductions for actual health care costs not covered by insurance or Medicare
• prohibit pre-existing condition denials of insurance coverage
• prohibit $2 million ceiling caps of lifetime coverage
• allow low interest rate loans of medical costs not covered by insurance or Medicare.

Create a pool of revenue to pay for uninsured from:

• elimination of SS payroll cap,
  
• taxing of employee health care benefits, and
  
• small tax levied on insurance company profits.

Proposed Medicare Reductions

I'm concerned about the proposed cuts for Medicare recipients. Proponents talk about cost-saving cuts such as 40% reductions on reimbursement of echocardiograms, stress tests and cardiac catheterizations.

These are payment cuts not incentives to encourage hospitals and physicians to reduce their costs. Patients will need to pay the difference either directly or through supplemental insurance plans.

Many seniors have supplemental plans already, even AARP has a plan available for purchase, but I'm sure those plans won't assume these additional charges without raising their rates.

So seniors will face not only a two year freeze in social security benefits, but a hefty increase in medical costs.

Should Rep. Wilson Apologize to House

This is not a defense of rudeness, but Rep. Wilson does not work for President Obama. Congress and the Presidency are two separate branches of a government established by the People and for the People of the United States.

Members of the House of Representatives also do not work for the Speaker of the House; they were elected by their congressional district to represent them in Congress (congress means a formal assembly of representatives).

The House has an established a code of conduct and procedures to be followed and the Speaker or someone standing in for the Speaker usually maintains order. Protocol has been established that it is inappropriate to call another representative of the assembly a liar or even to read a statement made by someone else that refers to a fellow representative as a liar. The Speaker of the House should uphold this practice.

Other than having the Speaker state for the Congressional Record during a regular session that Rep. Wilson was inappropriate in calling the President a liar, I'm not sure that any precedent exits to do more or that anything more needs to be done by the Speaker.

I have no doubt that Rep. Wilson believes that the President was fabricating the facts. I also believe that it would be mannerly of him to stand up during a session of the House to apologize for his outburst. It may open up another barrage of media attention, which Rep. Wilson could use to explain his disbelief of the merits of the President's health plan. But he better be prepared with accurate facts and figures and not just gut reactions.

Unspoken words

I hate it when people try to marginalize presidents of the United States by attacking them personally instead of effectively promoting or explaining their differing point of view .

I hated it when Bush was called a liar and stupid in every media and venue, except during a presidential address in the House, although looks of contempt and body language clearly conveyed that message. Both Bush and presidential rival Kerry had solid C averages at Yale, with a slight edge to Bush. It may be said that being an average student at Yale means more than achieving an average ranking at a state university, but why quibble. Bush and Kerry were distant cousins, both came from moneyed families, and both had relative success in their political careers before running against each other. The media labeled Bush a bumpkin and Kerry urbane.

I hated it when Congress and conservatives spent massive amounts of time and our money on impeaching Clinton for doing something many in politics do with a great deal of frequency – engaging in sexual indiscretions and lying about it. Yet the eight years during Clinton's presidency were very prosperous for our economy; perhaps due to the fact that government was too busy airing Clinton's dirty linen than messing with businesses.

The reality is that almost every president has had detractors and media attempting to marginalize their efforts in office. Maureen Dowd mentioned a few in her column today – Father Coughlin against FDR, Joe McCarthy against Truman, John Birchers against JFK. She failed to mention the entire liberal media against Bush. As a matter of fact, she omitted any detractors of conservative presidents. Being part of the liberal press, I guess Dowd can't see the forest for the trees or doesn't care.

Rep. Joe Wilson was disrespectful to President Obama during his speech before the House last week. For heaven sakes, people, this is the US House of Representatives not the British House of Commons!

But I have to say that I was appalled by columnist Dowd's inflammatory reflection that she heard the unspoken word “boy” at the end of Wilson's shout out. More fuel for the liberal fire, I guess.

Social Security - A Parachute Made of Sand

Two major topics in US politics - Social Security and health care - seem to have merged this week. According to the media SS recipients will not see COLA increases for the next two years. In fact those 32 million who participate in the Medicare prescription drug program will see a slight drop in SS benefits.

Boy, that should teach Seniors to speak out about elements of health care reform in those Town Hall meetings. Actually I'm positive that this COLA freeze had been in the works prior to the Town Hall meetings. The economic downturn has put additional screws into the Social Security Program and something had to give.

The average SS recipient receives $1,153 a month in benefits (I receive about half that amount). Current workers pay SS taxes only on the first $106,800 of their annual income. This limit rises as the average national income levels increase. What I'd like to know is who the hell thought up that one up?

The average Joe maxes out at $42,000 in annual income and pays FICA taxes all that time, but those who earn more than $106,800 see this tax stop when that limit is reached. Young professionals earning $100,000+ salaries will see this tax stop toward the end of each year and end of year bonuses will be FICA free. Those huge bonuses that were given to executives who helped to get us into this financial mess are also FICA free.

When time for retirement rolls around and SS benefits are determined based on the last three years of employment, I'm sure that amount will only be a small portion of some retirement packages (maximum monthly SS benefit is $2323). For some Americans it will be all they have to live on. Not everyone gets a golden parachute.

This seems like a pretty good time to uncap the Social Security tax limit. I'm less favorable about raising retirement age to 70 to receive full benefits. I could see giving someone a bonus for working past 66 years of age or capping FICA once an employee has reached a combination of age and years of employment. But a cap on Social Security tax for those who can more easily afford to pay it seems irresponsible in our present financial situation.

No one gets out of here alive

Over 400 million people live in the United States and 90% of them are insured. I find that remarkable! Only 10% of US inhabitants are without health insurance, but does that mean that they are without health care should they require it?

We hear in the media of dramatic instances when someone is turned away from emergency rooms due to their inability to pay. Lack of treatment makes news, it's not the standard of practice. Serious illnesses or injuries will be treated by hospitals whether you are insured or not.

The uninsured are less likely to receive preventative care, such as blood pressure or cholesterol screening, prenatal care, mamograms, etc. There are free or very inexpensive services that provide this care, but not everyone who needs them line up to use them or even knows about them.

I also wonder how many of the 10% uninsured are sick at any one time - 2%, 5%, which would translate into 800,000 or 2 million people? There are approximately 6,000 registered hospitals and over 25,000 health clinics of various types in the US. Could these facilities take on 25 to 100 uninsured patients on a daily basis with assistance from an as yet to be determined public/private funding source or are they already doing this and passing on the cost to the insured?

The print and media coverage of health care reform is making my head spin. What I'm hearing doesn't seem to be about the issue of providing health care to the small minority of people who can't afford to pay for insurance. If that were the issue, then I think it would be a manageable problem.

There seems to be something at work here that is unrelated to providing health care to needy people. If Congress would address themselves to that issue only, perhaps solutions could be reached.

Douthat, NY Times columnist, says that if, "health care reform perishes, senior citizens will have done it in." Further blame is being dumped on the health insurers and the Republican Party for scaring people into public protests.

The truth is that government programs once begun always seem to outgrow their initial mandate. Social Security and Medicare were created to help those who were unable or failed to provide for themselves. These programs are on the verge of bankruptcy.

We have to be very careful that whatever health reforms we put into place won't add to this colossal debt. Why is this so difficult to understand?

New Encyclical on Economics

Pope Benedict XVI has released his latest encyclical just in time for the Group Eight meeting in Italy this week. Both Benedict and his predecessor, John Paul II, have warned about the greed that has accompanied economic growth.

Although I agree with the Holy Father that citizens of richer nations constantly need to be reminded that the accumulation of wealth should to be tempered by ethics and charity, I'm not sure that he's going to get much coverage in today's political and economic climate.

I'm also confused about the role of a democratically elected government using the money it has taxed its citizens for specific purposes to provide aide for other countries. It's not that I'm opposed to charity - I believe everyone should give at least 10% to charity, but I'm pretty sure that there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that gives our government authority to take care of the poor of the world.

To give an example closer to home, as director of a public library for twenty-four years I frequently received requests for the library to make contributions to many worthwhile charities. I refused those requests, because I could not use public tax money for anything that wasn't a library expense. Our unanticipated emergency fund wasn't to be used for charitable contributions, it was for true library emergencies.

Yes, I know this sounds heartless, but I believe that if every person and business in the U.S. and every economically developed country in the world practiced charity and ethical standards, then the poor would be cared for. I'm also not sure that we should turn over all responsibility for caring for the world's ills to big government. They tend to use our money rather poorly.

Greed and the accumulation of weath for its own sake is practiced throughout the world, even in Third World countries. I would like to see governments encouraging charitable contributions by increasing those deductions rather than eliminating them as our current administrations seems to want.