Living With Runaway Inflation
Given the massive spending of the U.S. government in recent years, the specter of high inflation rates has been given new life. In a Washington Post article, “Deficit Projected To Swell Beyond Earlier Estimates, CBO Expects Trillions More in Borrowing,” Lori Montgomery noted:
“President Obama’s ambitious plans…would require massive borrowing over the next decade, leaving the nation mired far deeper in debt than the White House previously estimated, congressional budget analysts said yesterday…In the first independent analysis of Obama’s budget proposal, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) concluded that Obama’s policies would cause government spending to swell above historic levels even after costly programs to ease the recession and stabilize the nation’s financial system have ended…the CBO predicts that deficits under his policies would exceed 4 percent of the overall economy over the next 10 years, a level White House budget director Peter R. Orszag yesterday acknowledged would ‘not be sustainable’…The result, according to the CBO, would be an ever-expanding national debt that would exceed 82 percent of the overall economy by 2019 — double last year’s level — and threaten the nation’s financial stability…’This clearly creates a scenario where the country’s going to go bankrupt. It’s almost that simple,” said Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.), the senior Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, who briefly considered joining the Obama administration as commerce secretary. “One would hope these numbers would wake somebody up,’ Gregg said.”
“…the CBO puts next year’s budget gap at nearly $1.4 trillion. And this year’s deficit is now projected to soar past $1.8 trillion, or 13 percent of the economy — the deepest well of red ink since the end of World War II.”
The critical point in all of this is that the government is spending money it doesn’t have or expect to have, even with massive increases in taxes, forcing it to either borrow or print more money or both.
What happens when government massively overspends and either goes into debt or prints money to fund its expenditures? The answer has been known for generations: The result is inflation. How much and how fast is anyone’s guess, but history is clear about the consequence of increasing the supply of a nation’s currency without corresponding increases in production. It’s simply a matter of too much money chasing available goods and services.
However, what is not discussed much is how rapidly accelerating rates of inflation impact life for those who are forced to live with it.
Prices rise as consumers compete for available goods, and as the situation continues, the value of savings and investments are eroded, until they eventually become worthless, with the result that retirees and others living on a fixed income quickly descend into poverty. That has already started to happen in the U.S.
The best example in recent memory is Argentina, which experienced chronic inflation from 1949 through the 1980s. Hyperinflation exploded to almost 5,000 percent in1989, when government expenditures reached 35.6 percent of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) and subsequently topped out at an annual rate of over 20,000 percent. Note: “…according to the CBO, (the U.S.) national debt…(will) exceed 82 percent of the overall economy by 2019.”
“Living in Argentina in the 1980s” by Dale and Lynette Martin, who were missionaries in southern Argentina from 1988 to 1990, describes life during hyperinflation in graphic detail:
On my mission, my parents sent me $400 to support me each month. When I first got to Argentina, that money converted into 4,000 austral. By the time I left (two years later), $400 US gave me 1,000,000 austral.
The American dollar was worth so much to them because it was a stable currency. The austral was under constant hyper-inflation. The austral decreased in value every single day. When they went to work on Monday and were working for 3 austral an hour, by Friday they were working for half price. It got to the point where the rich did not keep any of their money in their native currency; it was kept in American dollars…The banks that kept the dollars were not even stable. Sometimes when we went to the bank it was closed…When the banks were closed, all the stores were closed too. Argentines did not have any way to store their food, so they usually went shopping every day. Their food supply ran out very quickly…The austral depreciated at a rate of 50% per day for seventeen days. At this rate 1 million austral at the beginning of the inflation cycle would be worth 7.63 austral at the end compared to the first day’s value.
The lines of people trying to get into stores were outrageous. They would be way out the doors and into the street. People stopped going to work because the money they earned for the work they did on Monday, at the Monday price, was worth almost nothing by the time Friday rolled around….Workers demanded to be paid, so they could stand in grocery lines with what little money they had and buy all the food they possibly could. Everything in the stores was sold; the shelves were complete empty. The owners had to restock during the night for the next day…In the few hours from one business day to the next, the store owners had less wealth than they did when they sold the products…The stable food was worth more than the fluctuating money. People started breaking into grocery stores and stealing food. Some people even shot at managers, and some of those managers shot back.
Good people do crazy things when they cannot get food. Riots broke out everywhere. The people did not plan on rioting, but their emotions got carried away with them and they were pulled into the panic. I head a story of two missionaries who were on a bus. It was calm and quiet. Then, without warning, a huge eruption of noise and violence raked the air. The missionaries felt an impression to duck, and as they did a bullet shattered the glass where their heads had been. Outside, people were tipping cars and busses on their sides. The police came to stop the crowds, and that’s when the fighting really started. It was mayhem everywhere.”
It’s hard to say what would have happened if an external source of financial stability hadn’t rescued the country. It’s likely whole sections of the population, especially in the cities, would have died.
If you think it can’t happen here (in the U.S.), think again. The process has now been accelerated by Obama’s massive, unfunded spending.
NOTE: This is an update of an article that was written in 2009.
© 2010 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved
Tolerant To A Fault
Just how tolerant should we be? Are we, that is, we Americans, tolerant enough toward others? When do or should we draw the line between tolerance and allowing ourselves to be manipulated?
The issue of the mosque at Ground Zero has evolved into a national discussion about our tolerance toward the Islamic faith, and as people line up on both sides, the schism between many of our political leaders and the general population has become increasingly pronounced.
The latest shot from the bow of our government’s ship of state has been leveled by none other than the president himself, who declared that Muslims “have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country.” It’s especially interesting that he made this statement at a recent Iftar meal at the White House, which observed the end of the Muslims’ Ramadan fast. Obama further stated that they have “the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan.”
Those who favor construction of a mosque just a stone’s throw from the World Trade Center (WTC) have based their argument on property rights, which presumably allows the Muslims to do anything they want on their own land.
But they are wrong.
If property rights are unlimited, why do we have zoning laws, and why are some properties designated as Historical Sites, in addition to being required to conform to a plethora of building codes and labor laws that exist in abundance in every jurisdiction in the nation. Not just in New York City, but in every city, county, borough and state in America. Every community has limitations on what an owner can do with their real property, as well as when and how.
The assertion that because the site of the proposed mosque is “private property” as the rationale for allowing the Muslims to build the mosque they are proposing at Ground Zero is absolute nonsense. It’s a sophistry, “a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone.”
Think about the community where you live. Can you build anything you want on your own land? Of course you can’t. So, I believe it’s time we stop those who favor the mosque at Ground Zero from using a false argument in an effort to buttress their case.
But, there’s more. How about religious tolerance? If we are supposed to be tolerant of the concerns of Islamic believers in America by respecting their desire for a mosque at a particular location, how about also expecting the Muslims to reciprocate, perhaps by allowing a Jewish Temple to be built next door or across the street from their own place of worship?
Unfortunately, considering that one of the basic tenets of Islam is the total destruction and/or domination of the Jews, it’s highly unlikely that the Muslims would tolerate a Synagogue next door to their site at the WTC. Case in point: Try building a Christian church of any denomination or a Jewish house of worship anywhere in Saudi Arabia and see how far you get.
Furthermore, has anyone thought about the daily calls to prayer that are often broadcast from the towers of mosques, calling the Muslim faithful to prayer five times a day? How about laws that limit noise levels in many communities? Should they be waived on the grounds that this mosque is exempt because it’s an integral part of the Islamic faith?
So, where does tolerance start and end? Is it just one-way? Should those Americans who disagree with building a mosque at Ground Zero cool it and stop raising objections, or should their concerns also be “tolerated” by others, including the Muslims?
And how about the families and friends of the thousands of people who were killed by Muslims on 9/11? They, along with many other Americans, see a mosque at Ground Zero as an insensitive, in-your-face act by those Muslims who support the construction of the mosque and Muslim cultural center at that location.
So, which side should be challenged to be “tolerant” and respect the rights and concerns of others? Just those who believe tolerance should be limited to the people who oppose the mosque at Ground Zero or both sides? A recent CNN/Opinion Research poll found that 68% of Americans oppose the plans for construction of the mosque at Ground Zero, while only 29% favored it. So, who should be admonished to be “tolerant”?
The resolution of this problem is really quite easy. Why not just move the mosque to another location that everyone can find acceptable? Or is that too much to ask of the Muslims?
© 2010 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved
The Mosque At Ground Zero
I don’t appreciate being lectured on fairness, that is, what my attitude should be about some particular issue, based on whether I am willing to be “tolerant” of “the other” point of view, which amounts to agreeing that my own opinion is wrong.
The Mosque at Ground Zero is a case in point.
In addition, I am also not interested in being politically correct to the point that I am willing to tolerate the in-your-face construction of a $100 million Islamic cultural center and mosque at ground zero, within a stone’s throw of the World Trade Center (WTC).
Furthermore, notwithstanding the support of New York City’s Mayor Bloomberg and other civic leaders, including the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission, it’s clear that millions of other Americans oppose what they see as a deliberate assault on the sensibilities of those who lost friends and family in the WTC attack on 9/11.
Attorney Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) has filed an action urging the New York state Supreme Court, arguing that the mosque currently on the site deserves “landmark status,” which would prevent the building that now occupies the site from being torn down. His brief compares building a mosque and cultural center at ground zero to “putting a monument to kamikaze pilots at the Arizona memorial at Pearl Harbor.” In addition, he questions the source of the $100 million that will be needed for the projects, asking: “where is this money coming from and who’s behind it?”
Speculation about who is actually funding this project is running rampant, and N.Y. Congressman Peter King has asked for an investigation, noting: “It’s a house of worship, but we are at war with al-Qaida…(and) I think the 9/11 families have a right to know where the funding comes from. I think there are significant questions.”
Another major irritant to those who oppose the mosque is its imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, who refused to acknowledge that the Palestinian group Hamas is a terrorist organization and stated in a “60 Minutes” interview that “United States policies were an accessory to the (9/11) crime that happened.”
As recently as June 8, 2010, Hamas has been labeled as a “terrorist group” by the U.S. State Department spokesman, P.J. Crowley, who stated: “We think there is ample evidence to show that Hamas is a terrorist organization in word and deed. It has not played a constructive role in the region.”
In his book, “The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism,” Chuck Morse poses the following questions: “Would it be all right to build a Shinto shrine at Pearl Harbor or would opposition to such a shrine be anti-Japanese? Is it OK for Americans to oppose a group that incites anti-Semitism, (to advocate) violence against their opponents, the subjugation of women, the beheading of homosexuals and other illegal practices?”
Greg Gutfeld noted in his blog: “So, the Muslim investor championing the construction of the new mosque near Ground Zero claim it’s all about strengthening the relationship between the Muslin and non-Muslim world.” Gutfeld says he believes they have a right to build a mosque anywhere they want, and declares that he is planning to “build and open the first gay bar that caters not only to the west, but also Islamic gay men.”
Of course the Muslim faith not only opposes homosexuality, but its more extreme adherents behead them, and I doubt that anyone would criticize any Muslim for opposing such a project near one of their own houses of worship.
So, why are Americans who oppose the mosque at Ground Zero being singled out as prejudiced?
And why, in particular, would Mayor Bloomberg argue for “tolerance” from those who oppose the mosque. Especially, when you consider that the mullahs in Saudi Arabia or their King wouldn’t give a second thought to executing Bloomberg if he attempted to practice his religion in their country, where it is outlawed.
To me, Bloomberg’s attitude is political correctness to the point of foolishness. Even a board member of Canada’s Muslim Canadian Congress called Bloomberg a “bleeding heart white liberal,” who doesn’t understand the Muslim strategy to “Islamize” North America.
New York’s governor Patterson commented, “I am very sensitive to the desire of those who are adamant against it (the mosque) to see something else worked out” and has offered to help find other suitable state property “if the developers agreed.”
A recent Marist College poll found that 53% of the New York City voters who were polled oppose constructing the mosque at Ground Zero, while only 34% favored the plan. The poll also showed a drop in Bloomberg’s usually high approval ratings.
So, around and around we go, each side labeling the other as insensitive to the concerns of the other, while the project moves along the path to approval and construction.
No doubt we will be hearing much more about this in the weeks and months ahead.
© 2010 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved
Let Them Eat Cake
Somehow, Marie Antoinette’s infamous statement, “Let Them Eat Cake,” seems to ring true today, because of the Obamas’ jet-setting, self-indulgent behavior as the president and first lady of the United States.
Hardly a day goes by that we don’t see one or both of them in the news, vacationing somewhere, often on our dime. However, that’s not really the issue. The president and the first lady are entitled to take time off whenever and wherever they can manage it.
And, the matter of cost and who pays for their vacations is also not really the issue. There has always been sniping about how much the president, any president, spends and where they go when they take time off, and how much is paid by the taxpayers. But again, that’s not really the issue, including the Obamas.
The pressures and demands of leading the greatest nation on earth often seem to be beyond the physical and emotional limits of most people, but presidential office holders invariably soldier on to the end of their term or terms of office, often aging beyond their years in the process.
To deal with this, every president has taken time out to play golf, go sailing on the presidential yacht, go fishing, or go home to their roots to refresh and recharge their energy levels.
The latest example is Michelle’s highly publicized trip to Spain, where she is reported to have reserved as many as 40 rooms in a five-star hotel to accommodate 40 of her “closest” friends. News and commentary coverage about Michelle’s vacation has blanketed the media: The cost, who’s paying for it, her activities while she’s there, where she dines and what she eats.
The president’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs, commented: “The First Lady is on a private trip…She is a private citizen and is the mother of a daughter on a private trip. I think I’d leave it at that.”
I’m inclined to agree.
However, putting all this aside, what really troubles me is the attitude of the Obamas. Ed Lasky noted the “sheer hypocrisy of Michele Obama,” who flew down to the beaches on the Gulf of Mexico at the height of the oil spill and attempted to promote the area as a vacation destination for Americans, while vacationing herself at Martha’s Vineyard.
This is typical of the Obamas’ “do as I say not as I do” behavior. They are quick to lecture the rest of us on how we should be willing to sacrifice for the common good, but don’t seem to show much interest in foregoing any of the privileges and benefits of their position as the nation’s leading couple at a time when so many of their fellow Americans are struggling.
It’s their “holier than thou” attitude that bothers me. It permeates everything they do and say.
While the rest of the nation tries to survive during the most severe economic recession and the highest rate of unemployment in decades, the Obamas apparently don’t concern themselves with the plight of most Americans. Their behavior betrays an arrogance and an “in your face” attitude that always seems to be “front and center” in their activities and public statements.
Ed Lasky further observed: “But the other aspect is the timing - given Obama’s radio address over the weekend. He castigated Republicans over resistance to extending unemployment insurance and tarred them with the brush of being proxies for the rich. Meanwhile, he flies off to a vacation in Maine and apparently is making plans to vacation (again) in Martha’s Vineyard - playground of the wealthy and well-connected. Even Bill Clinton, who liked the Vineyard, realized that the optics were bad since many people consider the Vineyard a private reserve of the elitists (hence, Clinton’s switch to Jackson Hole, Wyoming).”
Another problem I have with the Obamas is their seemingly perpetual round of vacationing. Between flying to political rallies and non-stop campaigning, we are treated to his almost daily T.V. appearances and interviews, a sight, which I must say, has become offensive to me.
While he lectures the nation on how we should behave and what we should think, Obama makes the round of venues such as “The View,” where he jokes with the hosts and castigates his political opponents.
The Obamas are, in a word, arrogant. Not stupid, far from it, but just indifferent and unconcerned about others, notwithstanding their public pronouncements to the contrary.
Given the nature of the political process in this country, it’s not surprising that politicians are contentious, including Obama. But, the president is more than contentious. His arrogant attitude transcends politics. It betrays a mindset that he is better than others, which I find offensive.
© 2010 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved
My Daily Outrage
Hardly a day goes by that I don’t find myself outraged by someone or something. It has almost become a ritual for me, watching the news, reading the newspapers and countless articles and editorials that are beamed our way via the Internet. It’s inescapable.
The latest outrage to catch my attention is a story told by Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, about the type of education we Californians are paying for with our tax dollars. Here’s how he describes the situation in his weekly “California Commentary”:
“Imagine walking though a California public school and hearing the voices of students of students singing ‘I am special’ to the tune of ‘Frere Jacques.’ One might look through the classroom window expecting to see kindergartners about to enjoy Graham crackers and milk – or perhaps a more politically correct snack…Now back to real life, where singing choruses of self-affirming music, such as ‘I Am Special’ is part of the curriculum in a college course called ‘Self Esteem’ taught at CSU Fresno…Students preferring to attend UCLA can enroll in a class on electronic dance music that explores ‘the political and cultural implications of the relentless hedonism of the dance floor.’ And at UC Berkeley, they can take a course entitled, ‘Sex Change City: Theorizing History in a Genderqueer San Francisco’ where they learn aall about the ‘regulation of gender-variant practices in public space by San Francisco’s Anglo-European elites.”
As Mr. Coupal notes, “These are just examples of real college courses funded with real tax dollars.”
Another outrage that recently came to my attention via a media website is a story headlined, “NASA chief: Next Frontier Better Relations With Muslim World.” The article noted that the NASA Administrator, Charles Bolden, in an interview with Al Jazeera, said: “When I became the NASA administrator – he (Obama) charged me with three things. One was to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science…and math and engineering.”
Since when is it the mission of the U.S. Space Agency to help make Muslims “feel good?”
Another aspect of the NASA outrage to me is Obama’s failure to reauthorize the Space Shuttle after the current program ends and his declared intention to cancel the Constellation program (space exploration), which will make us dependent on other countries, such as Russia, to carry our astronauts into space. It’s outrageous to me that it has become the policy of this country to become dependent on our enemies for key elements of our defense capability.
Stephen Frank’s California Political News and Views reported the following outrageous story with the headline: “Feds Spend $550,496 Studying Sex Lives of Truckers.” The article continues: “Is it any of your business to know the sex lives of truck drivers? Would it even matter?…’The federal government has spent $550,496 on a project that involved conducting focus groups and in-depth interviews with American long-haul truck drivers to learn about their sex lives in order to assess their risk of contracting HIV or other sexually transmitted infections. The project has failed to find any instances of HIV among the truck drivers studied’…Actually, this could have been done for about $10 — all the Feds had to do is check the records of the Center for the Study of Diseases in Atlanta, which keeps such records.”
Is this outrageous enough for you?
Finally, the steady stream of coverage of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has continuously demanded our attention with an endless parade of bad news. Since April 20, when the well blew, we have been subjected to 24/7 media coverage with a daily count of the number of days it has been since the incident occurred, how long Obama waited to become actively involved, blow-by-blow reportage of the efforts to cap the well, the callousness of BP executives, the plight of the people who live in the region, who will pay for the residents’ loss of income and the cost of cleaning up, and anything else anyone in the administration or the media thought was of interest. Regardless of who may be at fault or why it happened, the over-the-top reporting continues to be just another daily outrage.
Some people will probably say that I’m just a news junkie and that I should join “Outraged Daily Anonymous” (ODA) or some other self-help group to learn how to deal with my compulsion for news and information. Perhaps so, but unfortunately, as I commented earlier, being outraged by the news is inescapable.
© 2010 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved
What Makes You Think We Read The Bills?
Thirty plus years ago, in 1978, California state senator H.L. (Bill) Richardson) wrote a small book with the intriguing title, “What Makes You Think We Read The Bills?” in which he describes how politicians are actually elected by a very small percentage of the voters in their district, about one or two percent, and as a result, officeholders really listen only to that small constituency. The title of Senator Richardson’s book also aptly describes the way the U.S. Congress functions today in writing and voting on new legislation.
The surge of bills that have been disgorged by Congress since Obama was elected further illustrates Richardson’s thesis, as a succession of major new laws have been approved without being read by most of the legislators who voted on them.
Legislation that moves through Congress without any legislative language is called a “vapor bill.” The term was derived from the word Vaporware, an expression coined during the dot-com era to describe all-singing-all-dancing software that had not yet been written.
A recent example of a “vapor bill” is the Senate’s 2,000 plus page Health Care Reform act, which had no legislative language and was amended in the Senate Finance Committee, where none of the committee members had read the actual bill. At the time, the Washington Post reported that “President Barack Obama’s push for a sweeping health care overhaul is going to be voted upon in the Senate Finance Committee…and nobody has read the actual bill yet.” The Washington Post also headlined, “Senate Finance Committee Releases Its Final Text of Health-Care Bill,” but if you clicked on a link to the “Bill” that was referenced in the Post article, all you got was a 262 page description of the legislation…no actual legislative language (was) being given to Senators, Staff or the American Public.”
Aside from the obvious inappropriateness of having legislators vote on bills they have not read, one of the most significant problems with vapor bills is that the Congressional Office of Management and Budget (OMB) can’t “score” the legislation, that is, estimate what such bills are likely to cost. The fiscal impact of any bill cannot be evaluated without the actual legislative language, and the health care bill that was approved by Congress was over 2,000 pages of what was essentially nothing more than an outline of the proposed law.
Vapor bills are not submitted to Congress by accident. They have actually been a key element of the current Democratic Leadership’s strategy, which has been to put incomplete proposed legislation before the members of Congress without having to disclose the details, which made it possible for just a few insiders to write the actual language of the bill behind closed doors.
Having successfully shepherded the president’s health care law through Congress with a vapor bill, the Democratic leadership continued this strategy for other major legislation, such as the A.I.G. Insurance Bonus Bill and more recently the new Banking and Finance legislation. Lawmakers were also given just hours to examine the $789 billion stimulus plan, sweeping climate-change legislation and a multi-billion dollar bailout package before final votes were taken.
For example, the stimulus bill was 1,100 pages long and made available to Congress and the public just 13 hours before lawmakers voted on it. The bill failed to provide the promised help to the job market, and there was outrage when it was discovered that the legislation included an amendment allowing American International Group, a bailout recipient, to give out millions in employee bonuses.
Four major pieces of legislation have been passed by Congress using the same procedure:
- House Energy and Global Warming Bill: passed June 26, 2009, 1,200 pages. Available online just 15 hours before vote.
- $789 billion stimulus bill, passed June 26, 2009, 1,100 pages. Available online just 13 hours before debate.
- $700 billion financial service sector rescue package, 169 pages, passed October 3, 2008. Available online just 29 hours before vote.
- USA Patriot domestic surveillance bill, passed October 23, 2001. Not available to the public before debate.
The Sunlight Foundation, which lobbies Congress to bring more transparency to government, has begun attempting to get Congress to post bills online, for everyone to see 72 hours before lawmakers vote on them. Lisa Rosenberg has noted that “It would give the public a chance to really digest and understand what is in the bill and communicate whether that is a good or a bad thing while there is still time to fix it.”
Good suggestion, but as the oft-quoted saying advises: “Don’t hold your breath.”
© 2010 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved
Health Care Reform and Doctors – Part II
Hardly a day goes by that we don’t learn something new about the negative impacts that Obama’s health care plan is having or holds in store for the sick and elderly in America.
Speaking to the American Medical Association in Chicago on June 15, 2009, Barack Obama made the following statement: “So let me begin by saying that there are millions of Americans who are content with their health care coverage – they like their plan and they value their relationship with their doctor. And that means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what. My view is that health care reform should be guided by a simple principle: fix what’s broke and build on what works.”
So, what happened on the way to implementing Obamacare?
For one thing, we certainly did not get a health care plan that is acceptable to the American people. Rasmussen reports that 58% of the public want the president’s health care plan repealed.
So, did we simply lose our way? Was it deliberate, a part of the plan all along? Or, was it just legislative overkill that most legislators didn’t expect or foresee? Or, all of the above?
Whatever the case, each new step in the process of implementing Obamacaare exposes more information about the unanticipated or unintended consequences of the president’s health care plan. And, they aren’t good.
For example, a recent AP (Associated Press) headlined, “Senate fails to spare doctors from Medicare cuts,” reported that, although the Senate passed legislation to avoid a 21% cut in Medicare payments to doctors, their action was too late to prevent Medicare from implementing fee reductions for the month of June because the House was unable to act on the bill in time. The president of the American Medical Association said, “This is no way to run a major health coverage program.”
But, this situation was just the tip of the iceberg. Offering further insight to the potential disaster that is now unfolding in America’s health care system, a blogger, Joseph Scherzer, M.D., recently noted: “There is hardly a week that goes by without some new concern or demand, none of which have to do with learning about Medicine. We are caught up in a torrential whirlwind of bureaucratic regulations admixed with a flood of threats.”
Dr. Scherzer further commented: “If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention!”, warning: “Because of government meddling in the practice of medicine and unreasonable, excessive rules, regulations and reimbursement that does not keep up with the actual cost of living, doctors nationwide are already decreasing the number of new Medicare patients they will take. Eventually, all across the country, and already in some states, there will not be enough doctors for all the baby boomers. I predict that because of the expected severe shortage of Medicare providers under Obamacare, our intrusive government will then force the doctors they are abusing to take on new Medicare patients or risk horrific fines if they refuse. And, with the appalling fines discussed below, consider how many physicians are just going to say “to hell with it” and throw in the towel and shut their doors so they won’t have to put up with government’s new socialist, terror tactics. Not only are the president and the Dems bankrupting the country and scaring off doctors, they are ensuring rationing of health care to seniors. Can you imagine what healthcare will be like for seniors in 10 years after Obamacare destroys the best health care system in the world?”
Some of the fines that Dr. Scherzer refers to range from $11,000 to $50,000 for such transgressions as making an error in Medicare billings, noting also that the government’s burden of proof is very light. In addition, the definition of “fraud” has been expanded to include “unnecessary” or “ineffective” services, or services that don’t “comply with Medicare requirements.”
Having run a hospital, I can tell you from firsthand experience that dealing with the bureaucratic overkill of Medicare and other government agencies can be enough to make many doctors decide to quit.
Put yourself in the position of your doctor, who must now practice medicine under the continuous threat of financial ruin for such simple mistakes as billing errors. Keep in mind that doctors do not actually do the billing themselves. It’s done by office staff.
The cumulative effect of all this regulation and financial risk can only result in increasing numbers of doctors giving up the practice of medicine.
Don’t be surprised if you call for an appointment to see your doctor one of these days, only to learn that he or she has retired or otherwise given up the practice of medicine.
You can count on it. And, who will be there to look after you?
© 2010 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved
Health Care Reform and Doctors – Part I
During the course of the debate over the Obama administration’s health care initiative, from any perspective, that is, Republicans vs Democrats, Liberal vs Conservative, legislators vs the health care industry, pretty much everyone has used extreme hyperbole, innuendo and downright misinformation in their efforts to sway public opinion.
As the health care bill was being negotiated by members of Congress behind closed doors, accusations regarding the content of the proposed legislation captured the daily headlines, but perhaps no aspect of the debate has been more egregiously misrepresented than the role of the medical profession.
For the record, my bonfides to weigh in with an opinion about this include almost seven years as the CEO of a small hospital in the community where I live.
Doctors, in particular, have been characterized as greedy, grasping and uncaring, ready to enrich themselves at the expense of patients and the government in any way possible. The obvious purpose was to sway public opinion in support of Obama’s health care proposal.
Quoting Obama in a speech he gave during his campaign for the presidency, Tom Blumer noted in his blog (August 13, 2009): “So we are going to be taking steps, as part of reform, to deal with expanding primary care physicians and our nursing corps. On the doctors’ front, one of the things we can do is to reimburse doctors who are providing preventive care and not just the surgeon who provides care after somebody is sick…All I’m saying is let’s take the example of something like diabetes, one of — a disease that’s skyrocketing…Right now…if a family care physician works with his or her patient to help them lose weight, modify diet, monitors whether they’re taking their medications in a timely fashion, they might get reimbursed a pittance. But if that same diabetic ends up getting their foot amputated, that’s $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 — immediately the surgeon is reimbursed. Well, why not make sure that we’re also reimbursing the care that prevents the amputation, right? That will save us money.”
Blumer also reported the response of one surgeon, who said: “…in fact, Medicare pays a surgeon between $740 and $1,140 for a leg amputation. This payment also includes the evaluation of the patient on the day of the operation plus patient follow-up care that is provided for 90 days after the operation. Private insurers pay some variation of the Medicare reimbursement for this service…Three weeks ago, the President suggested that a surgeon’s decision to remove a child’s tonsils is based on the desire to make a lot of money. That remark was ill-informed and dangerous, and we were dismayed by this characterization of the work surgeons do…”
Such statements are not just unfair, they also graphically illustrate the glaring ignorance of most politicians about health care and, in this instance, specifically Obama. The idea that doctors are overpaid for the services they provide to the patients of such programs as Medicare and Medicaid (MediCal in California) is ludicrous.
In California, services to MediCal (Medicaid) patients are so grossly underpaid that most doctors no longer accept them. The last time I checked, other than the local Indian Clinic, not one doctor in the community where I live would accept them as regular patients.
Two specific examples of MediCal’s gross underpayment for services that occurred when I was running the local hospital illustrate the point: One was a general surgeon who was called in by our hospital’s emergency room (ER) for a consultation one night and billed just $50 for his service. After an extremely long delay, he received a check for only 10 cents. Thinking there had to be some mistake, he contacted MediCal and was informed that 10 cents was all his service was worth, meaning it was all they could pay. In another similar incident, a neurologist was paid just 17 cents by MediCal for an ER consultation.
In March 17, 2010 article, the Seattle Times reported that: “…Walgreens drugstores, “which operates 121 stores in the state, “won’t take any new Medicaid patients” because they are reimbursed at “less than the break-even point for 95 percent of brand-name medications.” Walgreens is the third drug store chain in the state to stop filling prescriptions for new Medicaid customers.
During the run up to the passing of Obama’s health care plan, Dick Morris noted that physicians’ fees will be slashed by 21 percent, which will add impetus to the trend of doctors who are planning to retire early because they are no longer willing to passively accept what the government decides to pay them.
Since the government determines, in its sole discretion, how much doctors and hospitals are paid for services to Medicare and Medicaid patients, the inescapable result is that health care providers invariably end up being underpaid.
© 2010 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved
Obama’s Blowout
The evidence is in and is irrefutable. The BP oil drilling catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico is the fault of America’s anti-drilling crowd, including president Obama, who has seized on what he perceives as just another opportunity to push his “Cap and Trade” proposal. With Obama, it’s always about politics and the “change” he promised to bring to America, most of which the American public has rejected.
After essentially ignoring the oil spill for 57 days, Obama finally took to the air waves on June 15. Speaking to the nation from the Oval Office he attempted to assure us that he had the situation under control and that he is in charge. In his effort to convince the public that he was actively dealing with the problem, Obama made his now infamous comment on the NBC Today Show, saying: “I don’t sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar. We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers, so I know whose ass to kick.”
What a classy guy our president is. I don’t know about anyone else, but I was personally offended by his remark. Not because I don’t fault British Petroleum for this disaster, but because I just don’t think any of our political leaders should make public statements about major issues using street language. I believe it demeans both the office and the individual. The president of the United States is not and should not try to be just one of the guys.
But, talking tough or pushing BP into creating a $20 billion slush fund, presumably to cover the cost of cleaning up the oil mess, does not solve the long-term problem of risk in deepwater drilling. To solve that, Obama simply declared a moratorium on all such drilling, at least for now, as if that will accomplish anything except to make us more dependent on other countries, where many people hate us.
It will also drive up the cost of oil, gasoline and many other oil based products. Some sources are predicting that the price of gasoline may double, to $4.00 or $5.00 a gallon. The impact of an increase of this magnitude will affect everything from food to power, manufacturing and transportation, all of which will force most people to reorder their budgets for such basics as heating and air conditioning, their personal use of power, driving to and from work, trucking, just about anything and everything Americans use and do. This in turn will make the U.S. less competitive in world markets and induce many businesses to relocate operations overseas, which will cost jobs in the U.S.
Almost every nation throughout the world will continue drilling for oil, such as (in no particular order): 17 nations in Africa; Australia; New Zealand; 15 nations in Europe (including the UK, Norway, Netherlands, Denmark, Germany and Russia); the Middle East (Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates and Yemen); 31 of the 50 U.S. states; Canada and Mexico; 15 South American countries, including Brazil (which the U.S. recently helped finance).
You can be sure none of these countries will stop offshore or deepwater oil drilling because the U.S. has shut down any or all of its own drilling activity. Furthermore, none of them regulate oil drilling nearly as strictly as the U.S. So, what we will get for this trade-off will be far more pollution in other parts of the world, much of which will drift to other areas, to say nothing of the loss of some $6 billion in annual revenue to the U.S. Treasury from oil drilling royalties that are paid by the oil companies.
Obama can talk as tough as he wants, threaten or cajole BP and the other oil companies, but his statements are more about PR than accomplishing anything, other than using the situation as another opportunity to push for something he wants, which in this case is to have Congress pass his Cap and Trade bill. Once again, Obama followed the admonition of his chief-of-staff, Rham Emanuel, that “a crisis is a terrible thing to waste.”
Never mind that Americans overwhelmingly oppose this legislation, Obama pressed on, suggesting that passage of Cap and Trade would take us to “a new future that will benefit us all.”
Obama wants Americans to end their “addiction” to oil, but offers to replace it with such other sources as wind and solar power, along with other embryonic technologies, none of which are anywhere close to being developed to the point where they are not only practical but economically feasible, including automobiles that will run on electricity.
It’s no wonder Obama’s approval ratings have been dropping like a stone.
For Obama, the blowout is about more than oil, it’s about his ability to lead.
© 2010 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved
Out On A Limb
I’ve decided to put myself out on a limb and make some predictions about what’s likely to happen after President Obama leaves office.
First, I think he will be a one-term president.
Second, after he leaves office he will not be able to keep his mouth shut about the policies and actions of his successor, whoever it is, Democrat or Republican. He does not have the class to leave the stage to the next man (or woman). And if the next president is a Republican, Obama will simply not be able to contain himself.
Obama is the only president I can recall who directly attacked specific media outlets, such as Fox News, and there is little doubt that he will continue to do so from the seemingly unassailable perch of a “former president.”
Based on Obama’s performance to date, it appears that a great many fixes will be necessary to right America’s ship of state after he leaves office. The obvious premise of this commentary is that many of the actions taken by his administration are bad for America and the next president will see the need to change, correct or just plain reverse them when Obama is no longer in charge. Consider the following, among many others (in no particular order):
Foreign Policy: Israel, Iran, China and Russia. The United States will have been put into a position of strategic weakness by Obama’s policies that will probably linger for some time to come. We are already seeing adverse consequences in the conduct of North Korea, Palestine, Iran, Syria, Turkey and Russia, among others. The recent incident in Israel of the attempt to break the blockade of arms intended for Hamas in Gaza is a glaring example. The primary reason for the increased strength of America’s enemies has been the weakness demonstrated by Obama and his administration. Without him in control, that will probably be changed. Unfortunately, Iran will have “the bomb” by then and it will be increasingly difficult to counter their aggressive meddling in the Middle East. And, if they attack Israel, all bets will be off.
Health Care: Recent polls indicate that over 60% of the public now favor repealing Obamacare. That can’t happen while he is still in office, even if the Republicans regain control of Congress in November, unless they win a veto proof majority. Unfortunately, however, chances are that won’t happen after he is out of office either, because the new bureaucratic structure created by the president’s health care bill will have been put in place and will probably be too difficult to completely reverse or eliminate.
The Courts: Obama has consistently appointed liberal judges to the judiciary, including the Supreme Court. Given the young ages of his appointees, we will probably be forced to live with his choices of liberals for an entire generation. But, perhaps of greater importance are his appointments to the federal judiciary in general, where dozens of lifetime appointments of liberal judges have also been made to lower courts.
The War on Terror: Whether Obama’s successor is a Republican or perhaps a more conservative Democrat, America’s response to terrorists will likely be more aggressive and the term “terrorist” will be probably be restored to common parlance to describe the nature of the struggle.
Homeland Security: After Obama and Janet Napolitano depart the scene, if the next president is a Republican, we are likely to see a stronger policy for protecting our borders. 60% of Americans in general and over 70% of Arizona residents support the state’s recent bill regarding illegal immigrants. However, passing comprehensive immigration reform is likely to continue to elude Congress and the next administration for some time to come.
Guantanamo Bay and Enemy Combatants: If Obama has not closed Guantanamo by the time he leaves office, it may not be closed at all. He has been unable to implement his decision to close the facility and, at this point, many if not all the remaining prisoners will be hard core terrorists that other countries will probably not be willing to accept. The new administration will likely proceed to try them in military tribunals, and those who are not acquitted or executed will be imprisoned for life in federal facilities.
Expansion of Government: Obama’s intrusion into the free market has been unprecedented. In spite of having taken control of the banking industry, General Motors, Chrysler, and AIG, along with much of the health care industry (by virtue of Obamacare), I believe much of the president’s quasi-nationalization of industry will be reversed.
Energy (coal, oil, gas, nuclear): If the next administration is Republican, look for some loosening of restrictions on the development of all sources of energy, including oil, in spite of the recent disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.
Politically Correct Policies: Political correctness will continue to hamstring our society for many years to come and will probably not be changed to any great degree by the next administration, Republican or Democrat.
Taxes: A Republican administration will cut taxes, although not as much as many people would like, and the tax cuts are likely to be targeted to stimulate economic growth, rather than straight across-the-board reductions in rates. If a Democrat succeeds Obama in office, a VAT tax will probably be adopted.
Deficit Spending: A Republican administration will not necessarily curtail the out-of-control spending that has been the hallmark of Obama’s program, but the chances for some reductions in spending will be better.
Inflation: Due to the cumulative excessive spending of prior administrations plus the out-of-control spending of the current administration, there will be a continued risk of high rates of inflation for a number of years, regardless of which party gains control of Congress and the White House.
Just for fun, you might try making some of your own predictions.
© 2010 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved
-
Publisher/Editor
-
Spread the Word!
Help us spread the word about our site by bookmarking OPINIONFEST with your favorite social bookmarking application.
-
Sponsors & Partners
Interested in sponsoring or partnering with Opinionfest? Get in touch with Harris to let us know how you can help!
