Answering liberals questions on healthcare.

This is a copy of a letter in the Bangor Daily News that I felt was a good example of miss-information and the liberal mindset on healthcare reform. I don’t mean to insult the writer of the letter, but would hope to answer her questions so that she and other liberals can gain a different perspective. Democrats don’t have a monopoly on reform and there are many ways to address the issues in our health care system. Anyway,here is the letter:

US health care system

Although this health care bill may not be what Sen. Ted Kennedy wanted, it’s a start. I don’t understand why some Americans are so adamantly against this, but if these questions could be answered I am eager to listen.

Why do conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh believe that the current health care system in America is fine when 50 percent of Americans are uninsured and thousands die every year due to lack of insurance? Why do Republicans say we can’t afford health care, yet they have no problem cutting taxes for America’s wealthiest, which has cost this country a trillion dollars over the last 10 years? Why not bring back that tax to help pay for the new health care system?

How come conservatives go on a rampage about government-sponsored health care making us socialistic, yet, have no problem cashing Social Security checks, collecting Medicare benefits, or cashing their welfare checks? Why are Europeans kind enough to pay higher taxes to have universal health care, but Americans will not?

Why is America’s current health care system the most expensive in the world, but we only rank 37th for quality?

How come insurance companies are not held to the same anti-trust laws as other companies?

Why were Bush and his party against allowing the government to negotiate lower drug prices in his Medicare bill?

Finally, Sens. Collins and Snowe admit we need health care reform, but complain this bill has been too rushed. They have had the last nine or more years when their party was in control and how did they help?

Here are my answers to the questions:

Q: Why do conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh believe that the current health care system in America is fine when 50 percent of Americans are uninsured and thousands die every year due to lack of insurance?

A: First of all, it is not just conservatives that think the system is fine. Most polls show 80% satisfied with their health care, although I assume most wouldn’t mind some help with the cost. For all it’s faults, our health care system is still one of the best in the world.  

Second, I am going to assume that this was a mis-print and that she meant 50 million, not 50%, but both numbers are wrong. When we started down the road of healthcare reform, the number we kept hearing was 45 million. Of course this fluctuates daily as people change jobs. More recently, President Obama has used the 36 million number which now excludes illegal aliens and prisoners. If we assume that number is correct, that would be about 10-12% of our population without insurance. But, 1/3 of these people are eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP benefits, but do not seek medical help, but would be covered if they did. Another 1/3 of these 36 million make over $50,000 per year and could afford it, but choose not to buy it, which should be their right, as long as they are the ones who pay the price if the decision does not work out. So that leaves us with about 12 million people who want health insurance but can’t afford it. That would put most of them just above the level of Medicaid eligibility and below $50,000 per year. I believe that 50% of these people, if they budgeted correctly and lived within their means, could sacrifice something to afford health insurance, which would leave us with about 6 million. Go ahead and put them on Medicaid, which will not cost a trillion dollars and call it a day. But to help pay for it, impose a $20 co-pay on all Medicaid recipients.That is, if getting uninsured people insured is the goal of reform, which it shouldn’t be. One other important point, is although many people in this country do not have health insurance, they all have access to healthcare. It is not as if the hospitals can turn you away. 

Third, as for the thousands of people tha die per year from lack of health insurance statement, it is almost too ridiculous to write about. You don’t die from lack of health insurance. If I was uninsured and someone shot me in the head and I died instantly, was the cause of my death the lack of health insurance or the bullet? By your same logic, you are more likely to die if you do have health insurance as 2.5 million people die every year, 90% of them with health insurance.

Q: Why do Republicans say we can’t afford health care, yet they have no problem cutting taxes for America’s wealthiest, which has cost this country a trillion dollars over the last 10 years?

A: We can’t afford to provide healthcare to every citizen without crushing taxes that will destroy the fragile economy. Healthcare is not free, not in Canada or the UK or anywhere. Healthcare providers provide a service and they deserve to be paid for it. In theory we could tax people higher to provide coverage for all people, but the top 1% of taxpayers already pays 70% of all taxes in the US. We need to stop thinking that all “wealthy” people in America are like Montgomery Burns from the Simpsons or the monopoly guy that is sitting around lighting cigars with $100 bills. Most of the “wealthy” are small business owners that work hard and employ people. Tax them too much and they will go away and so will those jobs. I can’t say it better than Margaret Thatcher, “Socialism is great until you run out of other people’s money.” The Bush tax cuts were about stimulating the economy,which they did, bringing in more revenue to the federal government, but he foolishly just spent the extra revenue and more. 

Think of the taxes that we all pay each day or as a small business owner: federal, state, property, sales, excise, gas, payroll, unemployment, workman’s comp, tolls, etc. Most Americans spend 4 to 5 months working just to pay their tax liability. There is a limit to how much we can tax. Ask a Canadian about their taxes and then about their “free” healthcare system. I heard from a Canadian retiree who pays about 50% of income in taxes but has “free” healthcare. An American retiree in the same community pays health insurance premiums and taxes that combined are less than 25%. And the American gets better care.

Q: Why not bring back that tax to help pay for the new health care system?

A: You are in luck, those breaks expire this year and Obama is sure to not continue them. I guess this will not technically qualify on a tax for those under $250,000, but the end result is the same. Higher taxes. Want to bet that there is higher spending as well? The fallacy of liberal thinking is that more money will solve the problem. Give me just one example when that was so?

Q: How come conservatives go on a rampage about government-sponsored health care making us socialistic, yet, have no problem cashing Social Security checks, collecting Medicare benefits, or cashing their welfare checks?

A: Real conservatives aren’t all that fond of Social Security or Medicare, but they also have paid into the system and deserve to draw back off of it. Conservatives have tried to reform these programs to make them more sustainable but the liberals have prevented it. I could ask why liberals, who are so concerned with everyone, don’t pay more taxes to help the greater good. Maybe liberals should have a box on their 1040s that allows them to waive all deductions and tax credits. As far as welfare, I doubt you would find a whole lot of conservatives in that system.

Q: Why are Europeans kind enough to pay higher taxes to have universal health care, but Americans will not?

A: Please, Europeans are no kinder, they are forced to pay taxes. Americans are some of the most generous people in the world, not only do we spend money, but we sacrifice lives in support of other people’s freedoms. Do you not take any deductions off of your taxes? Do you try and pay more than what the government collects? Only someone who doesn’t pay taxes could ask this kind of question.

Q: Why is America’s current health care system the most expensive in the world, but we only rank 37th for quality?

A: This is the type of “statistic” that drives me nuts about liberals. Michael Moore was real big on this one. The fact is, we spend more than most nations AND we have some of the highest quality in providers and technology. But if you really want to look at why it costs so much, look at your precious government. Government rules and  regulations, fraud in government programs, and frivolous lawsuits all lead to higher health care costs.  The report you are quoting is from a  2000 report comes by the UN that has very questionable rating systems. It focuses way too much on life expectancy, instead of real items such as the number of MRI units per patient and the survival rate for most cancers.

Q: How come insurance companies are not held to the same anti-trust laws as other companies?

A: Not exactly sure what she is asking here, but I assume that she is concerned about the lack of options that we have, specifically in Maine. I would say that the reason we only have a few health insurance companies in Maine is mostly due to government regulations and the cost of healthcare in this state. If companies could make money, they would certainly come here to compete. By the way, one of the three major insurers is a non-profit and it still can’t compete in pricing.

Q: Why were Bush and his party against allowing the government to negotiate lower drug prices in his Medicare bill?

A: Another silly question. One of Bush’s worst decisions was passing a new Medicare prescription benefit without paying for it, but the government can’t just force private companies to lower prices. Prescription drugs cost money to develop, a lot of money. Would the pharmaceutical company spend all that money on a pill that helps people lead better lives, if they lost money on the pill? Of course not. This is part of the innovation of the American health care system and it will be killed in a  universal health care bill. Drug companies have to recoup their R&D costs and they do that by charging what the market will pay, while their patent is still good. Many drug companies, knowing that their costs will be recouped by sales in the US, will sell the drugs to other countries (Canada) at a reduced cost to make more money, but this will go away as well when we have a nationalized system. How many drugs do we buy from Canada that were invented in Canada? 

Q: Finally, Sens. Collins and Snowe admit we need health care reform, but complain this bill has been too rushed. They have had the last nine or more years when their party was in control and how did they help?

A: Finally, something I can some what agree with. The Republicans were in charge from 2000 to 2006 and should have put forth some ideas to help reform the system. Of course they were dealing with a recession, major terrorist attack, hurricanes, and two wars, and lost all political capital on Social Security reform, but they should have tried to put in some cost cutting methods. They never had the super majority that the Democrats have now. They are not innocent, but that does not mean that they do not have ideas now, and the will to help in the process of reforming the system. They have not gone along with the Democrats plans so far, because they have none of their proposals in them and do nothing to constrain costs, which is the true major issue with health care in this country.

The deficit, health care costs, housing bust, bank bust, credit bust, etc. did not happen because of the previous 8 years. It is a convenient argument, but it just isn’t true. Years of poor government, by both Republicans and Democrats, have lead us to our current mess, but also to a chance to be part of a defining moment in the history of the United States. The Scott Brown election may just be the start of the next revolution that leads us back to being the greatest country on earth, but we will have to get back to common sense solutions, instead of government mandated debacles.

A quick poll

Here is the poll question. Which political party in the United States looks to benefit the wealthy the most?

If you answered Republican, you are correct, and apparently have been paying attention. We constantly hear that the Republicans are only looking out for the wealthy, support tax breaks for rich people and companies, and don’t care about the ‘rank and file”. Since this is true (other than the not caring about the rank and file), than the opposite must also be true, right?

Democrats are often seen as the party that looks out for the poor and common man. They constantly fight for social justice and programs to help people to live, while attacking those fat cats on Wall Street and all the rich people who should just “pay their fair share”.

So if both of these are true, then the next logical step to take is to say that Republicans need rich people to get elected and Democrats need poor people. Right? Both parties want to stay in power so both have to make sure that they play to their respective crowds.

Therefore it is better for Republicans to support legislation or non-legislation that allow people to become more wealthy. The more money people make, the more conservative they tend to be, the more likely they are going to vote for a Republican. Conservativism is an all inclusive club, the more that join it, the more liberty, the more free enterprise, the more wealth.

So that means that Democrats have a vested interest in keeping people poor. And I would argue that is exactly what we see happening under the guise of “helping”. Has all of our money spent and laws made changed the level of poverty in this nation? No. What it is creating is a group of people who rely on the government, instead of themselves, for their very existence. How great for the Democrats to be seen as helping these people. Why do you think the Democrats want to extend amnesty to thousands of illegal (poor) immigrants. They need to increase their voting rolls.

So in conclusion, Republicans want more people to make more money to join the ranks of productive tax paying citizens and Democrats want to keep you poor so that they can play the role of “Father” and keep you voting for them.

So the real question is, why would anyone vote for a Democrat?

Bad banks, good President?

I rarely wake up in the morning without questioning what country it is that I live. Today, President Obama again had me questioning if this was the United States or not. I guess when your approval ratings are tanking and just about everything that could go wrong is, the one thing you can do is create an enemy and then attack them. Enter the Wall Street fat cats, everybody’s favorite people to hate.

So in 2008 when the system was supposedly collapsing, Hank Paulson (yes this started under Bush) dragged the CEOs of some of the largest banks into his office and made them take money from the TARP funds. Many of the banks needed an influx of cash, mostly because they made bad loans and bad decisions (due to the government backing in Freddie Mac and Frannie Mae), but others didn’t need money. But our government learned from the 1930s, if only the bad banks take money, then everyone will know which banks are bad and avoid them, increasing their difficulties.

Well apparently it worked as most of the banks got back on their feet and paid back the TARP money to the government. They probably sighed a big sigh of relief and figured they could go on running their businesses. What they didn’t count on was a weakened Obama that badly needs to look strong and in need of another cover as he rams through health care “reform”.

So what is Obama’s plan, to impose a fine/tax/fee on the banks, to recoup the costs of the bailouts, or as Obama says so emphatically, “We want our money back.” Actually we never wanted to give it to them in the first place, and many of the banks didn’t want it. But the ever fair Obama will force banks to pay this fee even if they never took TARP money (assuming they are over $50 billion in assets)!

How to count the things that are wrong with this. Lets start:

1. Taxes are to generate revenue for the federal government to use for their limited role, not to punish private businesses for bad behaviors. If we wanted to punish them, we should have let them go out of business. That is how the free market works.

2. Corporations don’t pay fee or taxes, they pass those on to the consumers. Any punitive tax will just end up being paid for by the taxpayers. Great deal, taxpayers get punished for being forced to loan money to the banks.

3. The banks have paid back their funds already, but as Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett says, they will need to pay for the collective (that word should frighten us all) TARP recipients. This means AIG (who took $70 billion) and GM and Chrysler who have not paid back TARP funds need help from the banks that upheld their end of the bargain. In the case of GM and Chrysler, they will only be expected to pay back “what they can”. The difference between car companies and banks? Unions. This is like me taking a loan for 10k and paying it back, but then getting fined because my neighbor borrowed 100k and didn’t pay.

4. Doesn’t this just open up a big can of worms. If the government can just start attacking private banks (some of which didn’t take TARP money), what is next? We probably will only have to wait a few weeks to find out. Imagine how the fines and penalties are going to work in that health care bill.

5. Will this loosen or tighten the credit market? With economic recovery still hanging in the balance is it time to attack the very banks that you need to start lending money again to jump-start the private markets?

George Bush foolishly wanted to save the free market by abandoning free market principles. But at least that poor statement does imply that we will let it go back to being a free market. This is exactly what should happen now. Obama says not so fast.

The Cost of Healthcare and the Solution to the Problem

As the “debate” in Washington continues to rage on, I wanted to add a few more random thoughts to the issue.

The Democrats are fighting amongst themselves trying to get anything passed so that they can be a part of history and give Obama a much-needed “victory”. Many are doing this at their own peril, as the majority of Americans are against their type of reform and will most likely oust them in the next election. Many Democrats seem willing to make that sacrifice, just to advance the role of government in healthcare. Why would they be willing to do that? It is about power, plain and simple. Of course many of them will probably be able to get jobs in the new health care administrative offices once they lose their re-election bid so there noble sacrifice may not be all that impressive.

The Republicans are now standing back waiting to see a final bill, trying to delay the inevitable vote, and saying NO at every turn. They have been virtually shut out of the process and can now only stand on the sidelines, try to rouse (successfully) popular sentiment against the bill, and generally be a nuisance. What they can’t do is stop the bill. The Democrats can pass it, if they can get together in agreement, which is looking less and less likely. Contrary to Obama saying that this is the fault of the “opposition party”, the Republicans are powerless to stop it. The Republicans only have themselves to blame, they could have attempted their brand of reform when they were in power, but decided to not rock the boat. So they have no choice but to wait it out and being seen as the Paarty of No is not helping them either.

An amazing thing is happening from all of this with the Tea Party movement. In some new polls, a Tea Party candidate would be ahead of both the Democrat and the Republican candidates in the next election. The Tea Party doesn’t even exist yet, but this non-existent candidate is leading in the polls! There is a real movement starting in this country that is starting to lead us back to our roots and that is a good thing. The politicians and media are ignoring it so far, but eventually it will lead to some real change.

Back to health care, it looks as if both parties are losing on this one, but who is really losing? The American people of course. We are once again missing an actual opportunity to reform our health care system. Partisan politics has again destroyed an opportunity for real progress and reform. To be sure there are a lot of different ideologies and ideas around how to reform the health care system which makes it complicated, but there is some common ground as well.

ONE:  Almost all agree that the system needs to be reformed. Insurance premiums are through the roof, there are millions with no insurance coverage at all, hospitals and providers are buried in paperwork and administrative work, government programs are on un-sustainable paths, and the cost of care and health insurance just keep rising.

TWO: I would think that all people believe that doctors and providers deserved to be paid for the service that they provide. So we all must agree that there is a cost associated with receiving health care services and that someone must pay that cost.

THREE:  There are only three ways to pay for those costs.

1. The individual can pay as they go, just like buying groceries or getting a hair cut. For many years, this is how people paid for their health care and because it was their money they were more price conscious and used health care services less, which in turn kept the costs down. In today’s system, this is virtually impossible because the cost of care has gone up so much that only the very wealthy could afford to pay as they go for all of their healthcare needs. This also could lead to people not seeking medical attention and potentially missing a diagnosis that could have saved or prolonged their lives. 

2. The individual can pay a premium to an insurance company and then the insurance company will pay for the health care services needed. The big issue with this, is that the individual loses the interest of price control. They don’t necessarily equate their higher premiums to their more frequent use of health care services. Indeed, since they are in a large pool of people with insurance, they themselves may not be increasing the frequency of their visits, but others are causing all insurance premiums to go up. Employers can also help pay for the premiums which is a great benefit but leads even more to people not equating the true cost of health care.

3. The third is essentially a single payer system and that single payer is the government. The problem here, is that contrary to popular belief, the government can’t just print money to pay the providers. They also just can’t pay them less and erase the other portion of the cost. So in this method, people pay more in taxes so that the government will then pay for their health services on their behalf. This completely removes all restrictions for seeking health care services and directly leads to higher costs. Again, people don’t equate their rising taxes with the amount of visits to healthcare services. What is worse, is that some of the biggest offenders of “over using” health care services are the ones who do not pay taxes. This is what we see under Medicaid now. More on that later.

So all three have one thing in common. The individual pays for health care services, either directly, through premiums, or through taxes. The only exception is the really poor who would not have taxes, so essentially have “free” healthcare. Of course in true economics, there is nothing free, so if the “rich” are carrying this burden, we are all paying for it one way or another. Of course, individuals should pay something for services provided to them. If you prefer not to pay, you can always pick up a scapel and perform the surgery yourself. There is a lot of great information on Web MD as well. But if you want professionals to provide the service, then you have to pay for it.

So if we agree that health care services have a cost, that providers deserve to be compensated for their work, and that we all have to pay for those services in some form, then the real question is what is the best way to pay for it?

The answer is different for different people but the bottom line is that the only way to control costs is to put people in control of their own money decisions. Would you go to a restaurant and order food if their were no prices on the menu? No, but you will go to the doctor’s office and allow them to order a number of tests without once asking the price. Why? Because you don’t think you directly pay for it, even though you do with higher taxes or higher premiums.

If the government raised taxes on everyone and then said, you no longer had to pay for gas for your car. How would people’s driving behaviors change? Would people drive more or less? Does the gas stop having a cost associated with it? That is essentially what happens under a single payer system. Eventually the taxes can’t cover the demand and the government has to start rationing the product or service. This is a law of nature and it cannot be legislated away.

The solution to me is obvious. Put people in control of their own money, with insurance providing money for the catastrophic items. (this is the very definition of insurance) Remove restrictions that prevent competition and make insurance companies compete with one another for consumer’s dollars. Make health care providers be more transparent and provide pricing, and compete with other providers for the consumer’s dollars. This competition is the only thing that will lower costs in the health care arena. Make health care like buying any other product and service.

If you don’t think it can work, look at Lasic eye surgery. Insurance will not pay for it, so therefore people pay for this service with their own money. What has happened? The technology has improved, the doctors and providers have become more patient focused and consumer driven, and the price has DECREASED. That’s right, you can now get a better service for less money and be treated like a real customer if you need Lasic eye surgery. Is this just a coincidence?

I want to finish with one thought on Medicaid and my solution to the health care crisis. I was watching a show last night and the gentleman said that the amount of money we pay in Medicaid each year would be enough to buy high deductible health plans for all the people on Medicaid AND fund $2500 into a HSA which would cover their annual deductible. I wanted to look into this a bit.

In Fy2009, the budget for Medicaid was $216 billion (that is $216,000,000,000). Amazingly, I could not find the amount of people who are on Medicaid, so I used 10% of the population or 30 million people. That ends up being about $7200 per person. The average cost today for a high deductible plan with a $2500 deductible is about $3500 (rounding up) per year which means that we could use Medicaid dollars to purchase a private insurance plan for all Medicaid recipients. We then could fund a HSA for them with $2000 and save $1700 on each recipient. This “savings” would be used to fund the people who would work within the Medicaid system. So this would mean that Medicaid recipients would need to come up with $500 to cover the remaining part of their deductible. Of course the left over money in their HSA would continue to rollover every year so they most likely would be 100% covered after that first year. To take away one objection to the plan, we could even seed the additional $500 that first few years to ensure that out of pocket costs were kept lower. The great thing is that this would allow Medicaid recipients to see any doctor they wanted and access that they might not have under traditional Medicaid. Insurance companies would be happy to add these people to the pool. Yes, they would make more money, but again profit should not be seen as a bad thing. In fact today, I estimate that less than $85 a year of your health insurance premium is actually going to the profit of the insurance company. 

The other great thing is that Medicaid is essentially run through the states so it would be easy to test in one state before a national rollout. Today Medicaid recipients are one of the leading causes of higher costs of health care. They use health care services more than any other sector, other than Medicare (for obvious reasons), because in most cases they pay no premium, no co-pays, and no taxes. Medicaid of course pays the providers less and that gets passed on to the rest of us through higher taxes or higher premiums. By making Medicaid recipients pay something for their coverage, it would slow this down and eventually drive down costs for the rest of people as well. If this was tested, and I would volunteer Maine for the test, and it worked, there is no reason to think it couldn’t work for Medicare as well. Not only could this drive the cost down for all health services and health insurance, it could actually end up fixing the two government areas that are on unsustainable paths to insolvency. Just reforming these two items might actually lower costs and lower premiums for those with private or employer based coverage. If not, more reforms could be taken in these areas to continue to lower costs.

There, problem solved. How do we convince Washington to try it?

My response to my Congressman

A few weeks back I wrote a letter to my Congressman to find out why he would not support the Republican plan for health care reform and why he voted for the Democrat plan after meeting with President Obama, who assured him that he would help with Medicare and Medicaid in Maine. It just didn’t make sense to me that the biggest issue in Maine was the government run programs, yet the Congressman voted for even more government intervention.

I got the same BS form letter back, but it had some interesting comments from his office so I decided to respond. In modern days with Facebook, Twitter, and blogs, we may actually have a little bit of influence on how people think so I am not going to just take his letter and file it. I am responding to him and posting his letter with my responses in italics here.

Enjoy

I understand your concern with the cost of paying for H.R. 3962, the America’s Affordable Health Care Act. My true concern was not how to pay for it, but doing it at all. However, I do not believe that the proposal offered by Republican leadership would result in real reform or stop the spiraling costs of health care in our country. Why not? I haven’t seen anything in the Democratic proposals that lower cost or result in meaningful reforms either. At least the Republicans plan only costs $61 billion, doesn’t include a government takeover, attacks medical malpractice suits, and according to the CBO will actually lower premiums for most people by 2 to 10%. After hundreds of meetings, hours of careful consideration, and lots of soul searching, I have decided to lend my support to H.R. 3962. Although I continue to have serious concerns with pieces of the health care reform package, I have decided that being at the table will more effectively advance the interests of the people of Maine than by standing on the sidelines. How many conservatives or Republicans were at the original table? What inputs have you already offered? What would you do to address those concerns? I have taken the time to read and carefully study all 1,990 pages of the bill and the accompanying amendments, and I supported the bill before the House because this process must move forward. So what does this paragraph on page 432 mean?

“The Federal medical assistance percentage determined for a disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State under paragraph (1) shall apply for purposes of this title (other than with respect to disproportionate share hospital payments described in section 1923 and payments under this title that are based on the enhanced FMAP described in 2105(b)) and shall not apply with respect to payments under title IV (other than under part E of title IV) or payments under title XXI.”

No one understands this and no one could read that many pages of this drivel and actually understand it. So I am not buying it.

This bill is not perfect. First thing we have agreed upon. Since August, I have raised several concerns over this legislation. Most specifically, I remain concerned about parts of the bill that cut Medicare and Medicaid. But the Democrats say those cuts would fix Medicare and Medicaid. Every other problem under the Obama administration is fixed by spending more money, but these two will actually be fixed by cutting money out. Very strange. Don’t you find it ironic that the two biggest issues that keep coming up in the health care debate are these two government entitlements? Your parties plan would be to add more to these programs and add a whole other entitlement in the form of a government option, and that doesn’t raise a red flag for you? These cuts would unfairly impact Maine due to our unique situation as having one of the most efficient health care  systems in the country (based on what data?), while receiving some of the lowest reimbursement rates for services provided. Good point, low reimbursement rates, not to mention late ones, are what directly leads to higher costs in the private market. Hence, government is causing higher costs in health care. A healthcare service has a cost, no one knows what the true cost is because we don’t hold providers accountable for their role in healthcare, but there is a cost. Paying the provider less does not eliminate or lower the cost, it just shifts it. This is the fundamental problem with our health care system. These concerns were raised by many in Maine, and I have made sure that they have been heard by the highest levels of government in our nation. I will also redouble my efforts with Senator Snowe to ensure that rural access to health care is protected and strengthened in the State of Maine as both the House and Senate move forward toward a final bill. We need to stop with this rural healthcare stuff as an excuse. People choose to live where we live. I live in a rural community and part of that is making sacrifices including access to great health care. I don’t need the governments help here.  My health care options in my rural county are still better than what I would get under a nationalized system like Canada.

My vote does not guarantee where I will ultimately come down on the future conference report. I hope not. While I understand the legitimate concerns that have been expressed over the direction of reform, this work is too important to fail, and I could not in good conscience let the perfect be the enemy of the possible. This is where you are wrong. It is too important to get wrong. We can’t afford a massive failure here which quite frankly is the track record of government intervention. That is why we should take smaller steps to fix what is broken and not replace the entire system. This is not about being part of history and passing a historic bill. It needs to be about fixing the problem.

H.R. 3962 is deficit neutral and will not add to our national debt. If you believe this, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. When has a government projection ever been even close? Medicare was supposed to cost $11 billion by 1990. The real number was over $90 billion. Now, Medicare’s budget is over $400 billion per year and it loses $50 billion to fraud. We are talking about a 45 year old program that is completely out of control and has now promised $38 trillion in benefits, it can’t cover. Excuse me if I doubt that this will not add to our debt. While the initial cost will be $894 billion over the next ten years, the Act is completely offset and will actually reduce the deficit by $104 billion. Sure. What about the next ten years? Or why not take the ten years that it actually will run without the ramp up in 2011 to 2014. The numbers I see for 2014-2023, the cost will be more like $2.5 trillion. The one thing government has proven that it can do, is spend money. These promises hold no water.  Studies show that at least 5% of Medicare spending currently goes to waste, fraud and inefficiency, (yeah, this is a well known problem that no one has addressed. If we know it is an issue, let’s fix it. Why does it need to be tied to this bill? If this really was an easy fix, I would hope that it would have been done years ago. But I guess it is more important to focus on the $8 billion in insurance company profits instead of the $50 billion in Medicare fraud. Oh, and even if this bill was successful, the new government run program will just have the fraud again.), the Medicare savings contained in the bill come from eliminating this unnecessary spending. Additionally, the bill achieves savings by ensuring that a 50% reduction in price on any brand-name drugs will go to Medicare Part D beneficiaries falling into the donut hole where drugs are not reimbursed and requiring that drug companies provide rebates for individuals enrolled in both Medicare and Medicaid. Where will these costs get passed onto?

The legislation will raise additional revenue through a surcharge on the portion of annual income that exceeds $1 million for couples and $500,000 for individuals. This surtax does not affect 99.92% of taxpayers in the 2^nd Congressional district; only 250 households would be affected. Nationally, only 1.2% of small business owners would pay the surcharge, and these business owners have an average annual income of nearly $3 million. Not sure why you think I would think that it is ok to tax the business owners, many who pass through the income from their businesses on their personal income tax return that puts them into this threshold, is a good thing. I understand that those with wealth are never truly the ones that pay. I am not really all that ok with having people in Massachusetts paying for this on my behalf. I think you might want to focus some energy on growing more of those 250 households, then fleecing other people to pay for your constituents. Small businesses can easily pass that additional tax unto their employees by not paying a bonus, making them work more hours, not offer benefits, or hire more help, etc.  As Margaret Thatcher once said, “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” I would like to think that Maine and the United States was built upon the hard work and dedication of Peter, not the dependency of Paul. This bill seems to only help Paul at the expense of Peter. It will not work. It is what destroyed California and it what will bring this great nation down.

I urge my colleagues in the Senate to pass their own version of legislation so that we can come together and present the American public with final legislation. We must get the best possible bill passed so that the Mainers I represent not only have more affordable coverage but coverage that meets their needs. This vote for health care reform is a vote for expanding health care coverage to the thousands of small businesses and people in Maine who do not have it and, to those who do, making it more affordable and better. I will bet $1000 that my health care premiums will not be lower after this bill passes. This vote says yes to ending the practice of denying coverage due to preexisting conditions and other abusive insurance industry abuses. How does that lower cost of premiums?

I understand that health care is in need of reform, I just don’t think the Democrats bill is the way to fix it. In fact, I think it will make it worse. I recently talked to a small business owner who pays $800 a month for his premiums and has a $3500 deductible. If he hits that, he still would have co-pays and co-insurance. If he was less honest, it is a cash based business, he could lower his income and qualify for Mainecare. He would then have no premiums, no deductible, and no co-pays. What incentive is there to do the right thing? I have a similar issue as my deductible is $10,000, but my premiums are less and I put money into a Health Savings Account. I then make the decisions on my healthcare. Because I do so, I direct where my money goes and how it is spent and that will lead to lower costs for myself and the system. The only way to lower costs is to put more people in charge of their own money.

How does your bill lower cost? Not shift it, lower it. The Democrats are playing one giant shell game but eventually someone has to pay.

Being able to get quality health care should never be a question for any American. And it isn’t. Every American can go to the hospital and be treated. Most will have a better trained internist than they would have access to under socialized medicine assuming they could get a doctor. The bill we passed on November 7^th is a good step forward. Backward in my opinion. It will help make sure that no American goes broke because they get sick or is ever denied coverage. No, they will just be broke because they are un-employed, don’t save, and constantly have the government bailing them out. I look forward to continuing to work toward meaningful reform that is good for Maine.

The worst part of your support for this bill is that I am not sure which is worse, that you actually believe that this will work, or you are just lying to us. Either way, I will not be voting for you in 2010 and I will be using my blog, Facebook, and Twitter pages to convince others not to vote for you as well. We need people in Washington who believe in the spirit of America, who believe in the Constitution, who believe in the power in people instead of government. This apparently is not you.

Global Warming to Global Cooling to Climate Change

I have not touched much on the environment but with the Copenhagen conference up and running, I thought this might be a good time to write about it. I will refrain from mentioning (except in this sentence) the hypocrites who flew to Copenhagen in 140 private jets and then took 1200 limos to the actual conference. I couldn’t help myself. Since I broke my rule, I should also mention that many of these private plans will not be able to park in Copenhagen, so they will then fly to Norway or other countries to park and wait for the conference to end. This makes for good political fodder, but the truth is, that most climate change proponents are also some of it’s biggest violators. I guess it is do as I say and not as I do.

First I guess we have to define the problem. The theory is that the climate is changing here on earth and it is primarily because of human intervention and the release of CO2 gas into the atmosphere. At one time it was thought to be cooling the planet, then warming the planet, and now either way that the temperature goes is considered climate change and caused by man. I can’t and won’t debate the science as I am not a scientist and I have not studied any of the data. My one argument would be that it is not a “settled” science as most on the side of climate change would have you believe. For every report and computer model I have seen, there is another to refute it. The recent controversy of Climategate, which if you watch the main stream media, you have probably not heard about, at least proves that not all of the “data” can be 100% trusted. (If you are not familiar, Climategate refers to some e-mails that were hacked or retrieved through a Freedom of Information Act, from a leading climate research group in England, that showed some scientists trying to hide inconvenient data, attack non-believers to try and discredit them, and basically sell out science for the almighty buck.)

Again, just because some scientists maybe cooking or hiding data doesn’t mean all climate change research is a hoax and a fraud, but it should at least open us up to the opportunity that it is not set in stone. In my way of thinking, humans have only been on this planet a relatively short time in the history of the planet. We have been recording weather and climate data for an even shorter relative time, so I am not sure the “evidence” can be all that strong at this point. Is it not egotistical of us to think that we can kill a planet that we have been on for thousands of years that is million or billions of years old?

But, lets assume that they are right and the climate is changing, specifically getting warmer. There is some data to support this. 2009 will be stated as the 5th warmest year on record since 1850. From 1906 to 2005, the planet has risen 0.74 degrees Celsius by most calculations. Of course, I have my own empirical data of 197 inches of snow in 2007, 25 inches above the previous record set in 1954. Or, how about the 7 straight days, that is 168 hours, of -20 temperatures in January of 2009. The good news for climate change proponents, is that, temperature changes up or down can be proved by the science of climate change. I would have to say that is a very convenient truth. 

Lets also assume that human activity is the cause for this warming. Then the question needs to be asked, to what degree are humans a factor? Are they the entire cause, a minor cause, or no cause to environmental changes?  This is an important question, as our response should depend upon the answer. If we are a minor factor in climate change, then I think it is perfectly understandable to ask people to act differently and respect the planet, try to reduce their ”carbon footprint”. If humans are the major factor, then a different response may be needed.

So that leads us to the next question. If the planet is warming and humans are causing it, will the result be catastrophic? Many movies and computer models are now showing the oceans swallowing up cities and general mass destruction of the planet. The doomsayers are banging the drum that something must be done or we are all done for.  Are the tsunamis, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. causes of this climate change? I doubt that can be proven and it is my belief that the Earth will continue to have these events regardless of what we change. Just maybe this is the way that Earth defends itself and it will continue to get more violent if needed. I would argue that the greater threat to the planet is the economic threat of a complete collapse of the system. Ironically, this would potentially help the planet since a large percentage of the population would most likely not survive the destruction of our economic system. Less people, less production, less cars, etc. means less man-made climate change activity.

Bottom line, is that we are all living on borrowed time. The Earth has had about 20 glaciations in the last 2 million years. These usually last about 100,000 years and then there is a period of 10,000 years of relative warming in between them. The last glaciation period ended just about 11,000 years ago so we are due for another glaciation period any time now. Maybe all this CO2 gas and warming is actually heading off the greater threat of another glaciation period.

So if we are to assume all of the above. What can we do about it? Can the UN hold a fancy conference, come up with a solid plan, and get everyone to sign on to it? If it can, will we actually be able to affect the climate or is it too late? What effect will this have on the world economy?

Since the science of the problem is not settled, the science of the solution is even less clear and therefore I would highly doubt that the UN or any other government or international body could come up with a plan. Even if they could, the plan would have to be too punitive to industry and business and therefore would take a huge toll on our global economy and quite frankly our way of life, especially here in the US. Of course some developing countries, like India and China, will not support anything (rightly so) that denies them the ability to catch up to the rest of the industrialized world. They have paid their dues and aren’t about to slow down production, because the very polluters of the planet, are now saying they have to stop polluting the planet.  Without 100% participation globally, no plan will have any real impact on our planet as CO2 emissions will just shift to these other nations. In fact, there is very evidence that if all nations did get on board and CO2 emissions were reduced according to the “plan”, the temperature of the earth would only drop .50 degrees Celsius by 2050.  

So two questions we need to ask. Is addressing this issue of climate change by radically changing the way we live and do business the way to go? And is it even possible to make a difference? The answer is no to both.

Of course, as is the model with our current administration, that won’t prevent them from trying. The House has already passed a version of climate change legislation, called Cap and Trade or Cap and Tax. The Senate is working on theirs as I write this. These are built upon the failed model of some European nations who have already tried this. What does it entail? Well, you will be shocked to know that it raises taxes and fines companies money to those who produce too much CO2 and gives it to those who produce less of it, after the government cut of course. It gives government agencies like the EPA (who conveniently released a report yesterday damning CO2 gases) enormous power to regulate and fine businesses and individuals who are not carbon friendly. I wonder if the EPA’s budget would be increased?

The outcomes of such legislation? More jobs, particularly in manufacturing moving overseas, higher energy costs for businesses and individuals, and more government involvement in our lives. This would mean worsening economy, higher unemployment, and general decline in quality of life. You see, if they can’t convince you that it is a good thing to turn off  lights in rooms that you are no longer in, they can raise your electricity rates so that you can’t afford to leave lights on anymore. Except then, the government (who is so caring) will help you by supplying you money to help with the costs. Where will that money come from? From the taxes of owners of the factories and businesses that were forced to move overseas or close up shop. Oops, I guess they don’t have that part all figured out yet. Oh, well they can always just print more money.

Wow! We better hope for some change.

It has been a few very interesting weeks in politics and in particular for the Obama administration. As his public approval dips below 50% and the mistakes keep piling up, I thought it would be nice to give a little report card of the Presidents first 10 months. In no particular order:

1. The “Stimulus”

No doubt the biggest legislative ”achievement” of his Presidency, the $787 billion (over a trillion when you add in interest) passed with almost zero Republican support and with claims that it would put America back to work. How has it worked so far?

Well, it was promised that if passed, the unemployment number would not go up over 8%, yet is has been over 8% for the last 5 months and now sits at 10.2%. It is even higher if you consider part timers looking for full-time work.

Worse we are now getting numerous reports from around the country of fraud and entities, some being told to, reporting fictitious jobs created or saved. The $18 million website (a worthless stimulus project) is a total joke and at one time highlighted that 30,000 jobs had been created. With the amount spent so far, that would be about $500,000 per job. What a deal! Obama himself, has now had to say that the website was not successful, but that it is a side issue. What isn’t a side issue, is the failure of the stimulus. The one good thing to come out of this very well could be the death of Keynesian Theory. The next time the government wants to try and spend its way out of recession, we’ll be watching.

Grade: D

2. Foreign policy

Obama has visited more countries than any other President in this amount of time. He has also bowed to more foreign leaders than any President as well. I guess with things being so good on the home front, why not? Although, our President is warmly received with almost rock star status, his message has been crystal clear. He is not George W. Bush, and America is ashamed of its behavior, not just in the last 8 years, but throughout its history and HE is sorry. The apology tour has continued throughout the year and the international situation is about the same, except:

We abandoned our missile defense system and our allies in Eastern Europe at the request of the Russians. In return, we got nothing. We supported a Marxist dictator in Honduras, instead of the people who were following the democratic process. At the same time, we ignored the “rebellion” in Iran and decided that it was not our place to meddle in the affairs of those searching freedom, the very notion that we stand for.

Of course, we gave firm warnings to the North Koreans, who continued to test missiles and nuclear sites anyway. We did get two journalists back by caving into the demands of the tiny lunatic. Our President gave numerous speeches including one at the UN, that minimized our role in our alliance with Israel, essentially casting them as the aggressors and at fault party. We did execute a daring rescue by shooting a few pirates and rescuing a ship captain, but then we left and the pirates have just stepped up their actions.

Iraq has been rather quiet, although oddly our troops are still there, something Obama promised wouldn’t be the case. Afghanistan is quite frankly a mess. Obama campaigned that Afghanistan was the war of necessity, the right war. In April he changed tactics and appointed his hand-picked general to win the fight. A few months later the general came back with his assessment and requested an additional 40,000 troops so that he could win the war. It has been over 90 days, and Obama has met with him once, for 30 minutes, and with his war council numerous times. Meanwhile American troops continue to get killed. No decision has been made, but Obama has a prime time (his 4th) announcement scheduled for next week to let us know his decision. What makes me think, it will be the wrong one?

Grade F.

Oh, wait Obama did win the Nobel Peace prize!

Grade F.

3. War on Terrorism

I mean the Overseas Contingency Operation. Well, he wanted Gitmo closed in a year, that won’t happen, but somehow I think that date may pass silently. Worse, his Attorney General, with Obama’s full approval (let’s not kid ourselves), will try 9/11 terrorists in civilian court, in the heart of New York City!

What a huge mess and mistake this will be. One, they have already admitted their guilt to a military court and are anxious to meet their 72 virgins. We should make that happen for them ASAP. Second, they will use this as a propaganda tool to show the evils of America’s way. Third they will require intelligence gathering techniques and information to be exposed. Fourth, the whole thing is a sham anyway, Obama and Holder have already stated that they will be found guilty and if not, will not go free. What’s the point of the trial then? Fifth, they have now set a precedent that it is better to attack civilians, then the military. Does anyone remember that a military installation was attacked that day as well. This could be the most idiotic decision in the history of this government.  Worse, we will have to watch scumbag lawyers like this for the next year:

In addition, all of his pandering to the Muslims of the world has done nothing to quell their hatred for us, as more and more plots are uncovered everyday. One that was missed, for what appears to be PC reasons (can’t call out a Muslim for hate speech), lead to the death of 13 people. Of course the President was quickly on TV to make sure he told us all to not jump to conclusions, unlike when he did with the incident in Cambridge. This can’t be called terrorism because that shows how HE has failed to protect us. But the more details that come out about Major Hasan, the more obvious it is that this was a terrorist act. I wonder where he will be tried?

Grade F. 

4. Healthcare

Enough has been said by me on this, but if this passes, it very well could be the end of the United States.  Everything they do in the bill will not drive down costs, in fact, it will most likely raise costs in the long run. If there is no cost savings, then the issue will not go away. This “reform” is all about destroying the system so that the only way to “fix” it is to go to a government single payer system.  The disingenuous attacks on “evil” insurance companies, the lies to the American people, and the budget tricks are enough to make you sick.  For the record, insurance companies made $8 billion in profits vs $50 billion lost to fraud in Medicare. Which is the bigger issue?

Grade F

5. Political/Social Environment

No President, including our last one, has so divided the nation on almost every issue.  Calling white cops stupid before admittedly having the facts, completely cutting out all conservative and Republican ideas, surrounding yourself with known communists and socialists, flying to Denmark to pitch the Olympics, but not to Berlin to celebrate the end of the cold war, attacking legitimate news organizations and protestors, lying about health care reform, increasing the deficits, trying to force Cap and Trade down our throats, lying about the effects of the stimulus, continually highlighting yourself and your so-called achievements, and on and on.

I am consistently amazed at how the same people hated the arrogance of Bush, still love this egotistical man-child we have in office now.

Grade F

This President promised change, what we got was back alley Chicago style politics, and politics as usual in Washington. This President promised hope, what he has delivered is despair. 

If he’s not careful, he is on his way to being the worst President in the history of this nation. Here’s hoping there is a learning curve. Heres hoping that he can change.

Afghanistan. What does Obama really want?

It has been over 90 days since Obama’s top general in Afghanistan has requested 40,000 more troops to get the job done, whatever that job may be. Obama has attended 25 fund-raisers (all unsuccessful as Virginia and New Jersey went to the GOP), flown to Copenhagen to make a pitch for the Olympics, and played, God knows, how many rounds of golf, even snubbing the French president so he could fly back and get in a quick 9 holes.

Months have passed since Obama committed more troops to the front and implemented his new strategy. Yet, he continues to ask for more time. He wants to get this right.

As I see it, there are two things he can do. Follow the advice of his military and hand-picked general and send the additional troops or start the withdrawal of all troops from Afghanistan. He has painted himself in the corner. My firm belief is that he wants out, and I would be willing to accept that. It looks more and more like our generation’s Vietnam and maybe enough is enough. Abandoning the mission has its political downsides. One, he talked tough about it in the campaign (video attached), two, he scolded Bush and McCain and the Republicans will not let the people forget it in 2010 or 2012, and it will make him look even weaker to the international community and to this country as well. And of course, if there is a future attack from foreign terrorists, he and the Democrats will get murdered for not finishing the fight.

The political upside is that he can appease the far left part of his party, which quite frankly he is going to need to get health care reform pushed through, cap-and-trade (tax) through, and to get re-elected.   

Option 2 is to give the troops requested, put trust in the military, and hope things turn out the way the military says it will. If it doesn’t, he can always say he was following the advice of his military leaders and then pull out. He could put time tables or build a more concrete exit strategy, but he would need the additional 40,000 troops.

Option 3, which is the worst of the bunch and therefore the one he appears to be choosing, is to do something in the middle. Give some additional troops, put some false time tables for the Afghan army and government to take over the fight, and risk more lives because of an incomplete strategy.

None of these options are good for Obama, but Presidents have to make tough decisions and he needs to make one and he needs to make one now! Then he and the American people will have to live with consequences of those actions. Americans are ready to do so, regardless of the decision. He wanted to be President, he said this was the defining war in the war on terror, and unfortunately for him, he cannot vote present on this one.

 

AARP and Health Care Reform

Yesterday, President Obama announced that the AARP was supporting the House health care bill.

This was a big deal for the Obama administration and he quickly came out to announce it. Since this bill is essentially the same bill that was around in August that the AARP said that they weren’t endorsing, why are they now. What did they get.

AARP Senior Policy Adviser John Rother said the group favors the House bill because it closes the coverage gap in Medicare prescription benefits, puts strict limits on what health insurers can charge older workers too young for Medicare and creates a voluntary, long-term care insurance program.

“The bill does improve quality, and it improves access,” said Rother. “When people hear this message from us, it will have impact.” AARP will reach out to its state and local chapters ahead of the House vote, particularly in districts with a large numbers of older people and a lawmaker who’s undecided.

1. They like that is closes the so-called ”donut hole” in Medicare Part D. This rule really is a stupid bit of government attempt to lower cost to a program that is already out of control. I have long said that only the government could come up with something as convoluted as the coverage gap. But, it was put in place to try and keep costs down. Closing it will increase cost to this entitlement program. That might be good for seniors but it is a short-term solution and not one that will really fix the healthcare crisis in America.

2. They like strict limits on what insurance companies can charge to older Americans not yet eligible for Medicare. Again maybe good for seniors but where does that cost go. Thomas Sowell says it best, ” What we are willing to pay has nothing to do with what something costs.” I might be will ing to pay $20,000 but if the truck costs $30,000, it is still $30,000. But in healthcare, we can apparently limit what people have to pay but what they can afford to pay. The cost goes somewhere.

3. They also like the new “entitlement” of long-term care coverage. Essentially you will automatically be enrolled in this program unless you opt out. I haven’t seen what the premium will be for such a program, but in true government fashion, I am sure it will not be enough to cover the costs. Seniors already have this available to them through the private market and many choose not to buy it. I guess the government can do it better and at least it will compete on fair terms, forcing people to opt out instead of in, and having tax subsidized lower premiums.

So all of the first 3 may be positive for seniors in this nation but looking at the big picture, they do nothing to lower the cost of healthcare and actually put more of a burden on the rest of non-seniors. I guess the AARP better hope that their current members live forever because they don’t seem to care about bankrupting their future members.

Of course there is one more big reason why AARP is supporting the Democrats heath care reform bill. The bill calls for cuts to the Medicare Advantage program. Medicare advantage is a fairly low premium plan (usually around $50 or less per month) sometimes including Part D offered through private insurers, including some non-profits, that helps seniors get medical care through Medicare. Currently 11 million seniors are on Medicare Advantage and their satisfaction rates are much higher than those in traditional Medicare. Medicare has to pay these private companies to take over the servicing of these patients and that is what this bill wants to cut. In typical government fashion, they want to take away something that people like, is working, so that they can completely cut the private companies out.

Now, AARP offers a Medicare Advantage plan which will be cut or benefits reduced. I quick check on their website shows that it is offered in very few places around the country. But they also offer a Medicare Supplement plan. A Medicare Supplement plan is a much more premium heavy plan that AARP offers through United HealthCare. They also offer a Part D plan. These two plans combined cost anywhere between $125 and $225 per month. These conveniently are offered in areas where AARP does not offer a Medicare Advantage plan. Is it just possible that AARP will make more money on Supplement plans than Advantage plans and that without Advantage plans, AARP stands to make a lot more money?

 

Cell phones for the poor!

As a poor person in this country, you have a number of benefits available to you, (See number 1 below) but the government has decided that you may need one more, a free cell phone and airtime. God knows when you might have an emergency and need a cell phone so we will get you one. It is almost like people have never lived without a cell phone. I wonder how we could survive. Oh wait I was alive when there were no cell phones, it was only about 20 years ago, and I had to use things like pay phones, the help of strangers, or better planning, GASP!

But todays friendlier government wants you to have it all, even if you can’t pay for it. What is next, free cable so that you can watch CNN? I already saw free cars for welfare recipients in Massachusetts so that they can get to work. It included the car, insurance, registration, and even gas and maintenence. What else can we start giving the poor?

Well, in some areas of the country you can get a free cell phone and all you need to qualify is to already be on the government dole or at least eligible to leach off of the system. According to the website, https://www.safelinkwireless.com/EnrollmentPublic/home.aspx, you qualify for Lifeline Service in your area if…

1. You already participate in one of the following assistance programs:
   • Federal Public Housing Assistance / Section 8
   • Food Stamps
   • Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
   • Medicaid
   • National School Lunch Program (NSL)
   • Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
   • Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF)

   OR

2. Your total household income is at or below 135% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines (FPG). The table below provides the maximum income you can have to be eligible for service.
   

   Number Persons in Household	Annual Income	Monthly Income
   1	$14,621	$1,218
   2	$19,670	$1,639
   3	$24,719	$2,060
   4	$29,768	$2,481
   5	$34,817	$2,901
   6	$39,866	$3,322
   7	$44,915	$3,743
   8	$49,964	$4,164
   For each additional person, add…	$5,049	$421

   AND

3. No one in your household currently receives Lifeline Assistance through another phone carrier. If someone in your household is receiving Lifeline Assistance you must cancel the service before applying for Lifeline Service through SafeLink Wireless.
4. You have a valid United States Postal Address. In order for us to ship you your FREE phone you must live at a residence that can receive mail from the US Post Office. Sorry, but P.O. Boxes cannot be accepted.

Please note that if you elect to qualify via income you will need to prove your eligibility by sending us a copy of a document that proves your income level. The following are examples of documents that are accepted:

• 4 months of consecutive pay stubs
• Letter from your employer
• Last year’s income tax return
• Employer W-2 form

This is just great. It just keeps getting better and better for our nation’s poor. If this is really an issue, wouldn’t it be better to give all poor people or all people a phone with just one button for 911 so that we are all covered in case of an emergency? I guess we will never know. But I do wonder what their texting plan looks like.