Congress represents the people?

Was Obamacare for the people?

Still watching the Goldman testimony, and I can't get over how often members of Congress are asking Goldman witnesses whom they represent, Goldman or their clients?

Fair enough question. So, let's pose the same question to Congress.

Whom did Congress represent when they passed healthcare reform?

If the majority polled were continually against the reform as packaged, whom did Congress represent when they went against the will of "we the people".

Is health care about "controlling the people"? Is that bad?

Obamacare according to John Dingell

I've not been a big fan of the health care reform package that has just been signed by the President. First, anytime $1 trillion worth of legislation is passed completely upon partisan lines, the political machines are in need of check, at least in my humble opinion. Second, even the President has stated that nothing will save the US health care system until America's diet and end of life health care spending is far better controlled.

Well, it seems that healthcare reform is the first step towards controlling the diet and lifestyle of Americans, at least according to Michigan Democrat, John Dingell.

Is that bad? Should healthcare be implemented in a way that forces Americans to except a more healthy diet and lifestyle - a diet that both lengthens life and saves the US economy? Or, despite the good intentions, is individual freedom more important than the state?

Regardless, if this is the ultimate direction of healthcare, the fact that there is no bipartisan support suggests to me that it is STILL time to vote against the incumbents, regardless of party.

Obama health care obsession killing America?

Another crisis now "inevitable"

Health care is going to bankrupt America?

Perhaps, if things don't change significantly in the coming years and decades, but we might not have to worry if the President and Congress stay on their current path.

Without more stringent financial system reforms, "another crisis – a bigger crisis that weakens both our financial sector and our larger economy – is more than predictable, it is inevitable," claims a Report commissioned by the nonpartisan Roosevelt Institute.

While Congress is set to vote on regulatory reform proposals essentially crafted by Democrats, a plethora of bipartisan experts are warning that the current bill "must be beefed up to prevent banks from continuing to engage in high-risk investing that precipitated the near-collapse of the U.S. economy in 2008."

Instead, health care and Toyotagate have controlled the attention of Congress and the President. Assuredly, both are serious issues, but are they the most serious issues facing America right now? Even worse, when Democrats have focused on financial reform, their focus has mostly been limited to consumer protections.

Yet, Today's Investor's Business Daily, for instance, claims that consumer protections had nothing to do with the previous crisis. That might not mean much coming from a pro-business publication on its own, however, the Roosevelt Institute report strongly confirms much of IBD's contention. Ultimately, it's not necessarily that consumer protection laws aren't worthy of reform, although IBD does make that assertion, it's that such reforms will do little - if anything - to prevent the financial system from causing an even greater crisis now that there are fewer banks.

"Risk-taking at banks," LOUDLY warns the Roosevelt Report, "will soon be larger than ever."

As ABC paraphrases, "The report warns that the country is now immersed in a "doomsday cycle" wherein banks use borrowed money to take massive risks in an attempt to pay big dividends to shareholders and big bonuses to management – and when the risks go wrong, the banks receive taxpayer bailouts from the government."

Yet, Congress has done and is doing little to prevent this problem.

Obviously, health care is an important topic that must be addressed, but now is not the time to make health care the Administration's central focus. Besides, with so much low-hanging, bi-partisan fruit on the health care tree, why not just pick it? Let's just get health care reform rolling. Even a baby step can quickly turn into a sprint.

For now, let's just make sure that the loopholes in our financial system don't destroy the American economy long before any health care reforms can lead to any financial gains.

Health care reform to create 4 million jobs? Is Pelosi nuts?

400,000 jobs immediately

OK. Maybe I'm the moron, but I'm beginning to wonder about the competence of Nancy Pelosi. The other day Nancy claimed that the current health care reform package will create 4 million new jobs, 400,000 of them almost immediately.

While many of the new jobs would be in health care, according to Pelosi, others would be in private industry - both related and unrelated to health care, I can only assume, because I only have a fraction of her full comments.

Regardless, I have to ask, seriously?

First, let's start with the health care jobs. Today, one might argue our health care system is filled with too many jobs in the form of redundancy and compartmentalized bureaucracy. That's one reason why the idea of a single health payer system is an appealing idea. Such a system, in theory, could help reduce this redundancy and over-lapping bureaucracy with a simpler more efficient system.

Of course, the insurance industry could also agree on standards, with the help of the government, to reduce this redundancy with intelligent, web-enabled standards.

So, the question becomes, who typically does a better job: big bureaucracy or big business?

To be honest, I'm not sure. In fact, I'm not sure either ever really does a great job. However, perhaps an analogy can shed some light on my confusion. I know many teachers. Most of them believe in the insurance reform package and a government run health care system. Yet, ironically, they hate the bureaucracy of the completely government-funded LA School District. But won't government run health care lead to a similar kind of bureaucracy that these teachers hate so much?

But, back to the jobs. Is the reform bill really creating new health care jobs, or simply replacing old insurance jobs with new government (and better paying I'd bet) jobs? Likewise, in the interim, who is paying the salaries of these new jobs? The government? With what? More treasury bonds that we'll practically have to beg China to buy?

Perhaps, eventually, these 400,000 jobs will reduce redundancy and costs, yet how much will they cost in the interim? 400,000 x $60,000 x 5 years certainly isn't chump change, and that's probably a very conservative estimate. Still, are they really new jobs, or just new jobs replacing old jobs? How much bang for the buck are we really getting? Then again, maybe a few hundred billion spent on health care jobs is nothing compared to wasted health care costs.

Nonetheless, what happens after these people have been on the dole for a few years, reducing redundancy, and they realize the sooner they end redundancy, the sooner they no longer have such a great paying job and such great benefits?

Second, Pelosi also goes on about how reducing health care costs will create a more dynamic economy and a more dynamic entrepreneurial environment. In essence, I agree, the idea seems to have some merit. However, won't health care reform, minimally, lead to more economic hardship in the short term in the form of more national debt and more taxes, particularly in the short term, without any real gains for many years? That's been my understanding of the CBO's work on the matter thus far.

Thus, at least in the interim, won't we simply be replacing one hardship with another? Moreover, can really create a dynamic entrepreneurial business environment with increased corporate taxes?

Sure you can say we'll keep taxes low on small businesses, until they become successful. Then we'll tax the crap out of them. Well, then why would any business want to be too successful? Better yet, why not develop new forms of ownership that enable successful companies to be broken up into smaller companies so that they don't become too successful in the eyes of the tax man?

Isn't Congress infamous for such loopholes?

Ultimately, it seems to me that Congress should listen to the polls. There are reforms that can be passed today, they just can't be passed as part of some huge health care bill. We the people simply do not believe that Congress knows everything and acts solely for the benefit of the people. Besides, anytime Congress has rushed industry-changing reform they've always included massive pork and ridiculous loopholes.

Yes, America needs health care reform, but when there is so much distrust, that reform must be slowly rolled out, especially initially. And, honestly, fixing the health care system will be no easy fix. Honestly, most of the costs are driven by our fear of death and our poor health habits. Can nationalization or a single-payer system really cure those ailments? I'm pretty sure even President Obama has expressed the same sentiment.

Isn't it time for an honest conversation about health care and its problems?

Best health care still in the US?

What's the real deal in America?

There is no doubt that there is a problem with the health care system in the US. In my opinion, the main problem, however, is not necessarily the system itself, but rather the incredibly unhealthy habits of a majority of Americans.

Unfortunately, neither national health care nor more competition, etc. is going to change that fact. Nonetheless, health care is a problem that America must address.

Still, the first rule of thumb should be: do no harm. The second rule of thumb should be: accept that the system isn't completely broken.

The fact is America provides some of the best health care in the world. When the rich and famous of the world get sick, such as the Premier of Canada, they don't rely on the hospitals in their national health care systems, they come to America. In the end, America offers the best health care money can buy. Unfortunately, most American just don't have enough money.

Ultimately, fixing the health care system will not be easy and there will be NO easy fixes. More important, fixing the system will take time, probably a lot of time. Moreover, fixing the health care system will take bipartisanship, something the last several sessions of Congress - some led by Republicans, some led by Democrats - have been completely incapable of achieving.

Thus, it's time to clean house, on BOTH sides of the political aisle. We can't just continue to vote for the other party every time Congress fails America. It's time to vote against the power structure, against the political structure of America.

It's time to vote against the incumbents.