Senate Democrats have “let the smoke out of the back room,” so to speak. New draft details of Senator Max Baucus’ health care reform bill (abbreviated to AHFA) have been made public, and there is little to like about the latest revisions. In this bill, the “public option” is disguised as something that states can “opt out of.”

We’re not sure who is being targeted in this latest push for public option acceptance, but it is unlikely to gain traction for the simplest reason: States will not be able to opt out because of what we like to call the dreaded “Stimulus Effect.”

Back in the winter, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act or ARRA (pronounced ERROR) disbursed billions of federal dollars to the states for pork projects galore. The states almost fell over one another to grab for this “Free” money. Only the governors of Texas and South Carolina threatened to refuse the grab-bag on grounds that complying with ARRA’s fine print was unconstitutional. But the state legislators crushed gubernatorial opposition to hop aboard the cash train.

Democrats expect much of the same panic-excitement seen during ARRA once Sen. Baucus’ AHFA is enacted. One need only ask the obvious question: What state in its right mind will “opt out” of a health plan paid for by the federal government? What legislature will bring themselves to say “no” to federal cash?

Several states have public option health plans, including Massachuestts and Vermont, while Connecticut has a limited plan. Will these struggling cash-strapped states retain their own tailored plans while the federal government dangles a “paid-for” plan of its own? Unlikely.

The other, more pragmatic reason no state will ever “opt out” is the legal maxim that federal law preempts state law except when state law is more stringent. This means, any state that wishes to “opt out” will have to enact a public option plan that offers more coverage than the federal law.

So, the Baucus bill with its heavily advertised “opt out” clause is a mirage. Its impossible on every political level. And its patently dishonest of the veteran incumbent Democrats to invoke the dreaded “Stimulus Effect” as a way of terrorizing states into accepting their plan.

While the Boaz ItsHaky Campaign crew was scattered across the globe this summer, visiting family, looking up old friends, and enjoying a little R&R, the 111th U.S. Congress fast-tracked Rep. John Dingell’s H.R. 2749, which we called the “Fear of Food Act.” It passed the House 283 to 142 (Roll Call no. 680) with a good number of Republicans joining on the third vote.

Now, Rep. Rosa DeLauro had warned us that “sometimes the dangers that threaten the safety and health of American families … lurk in our fridges and on our kitchen tables.” The Congresswoman adds, “And yet, for too long, the cornerstone of our food safety system – the FDA – has had only ancient tools and an outdated mandate at its disposal.”

By this, Rep. DeLauro means the FDA could not hand out higher fines, and didn’t have a mandate to target local family and organic farms. Until now. Because that’s who will be targeted by the newly empowered FDA inspectors. It’s typical Washington irony that Reps. DeLauro and Dingell proposed legislation in response to a deadly salmonella outbreak in a large food production facility, and yet the legislation effectively exempts largest producers by virtue of their ability to comply. (That’s not a misstatement, but the harsh reality of this legislation: it gives the big PAC donors a pass while putting the screws on the small operations.)

Anyway, its the opinion of some obvservers that FDA did have enough inspectors and tools to spot salmonella threats, but still failed to do so!

Much like the IRS, whose auditors famously target thousands of small businesses for every corporation, the FDA inspectors will go after the local and family-owned organic farms while strategically avoiding large production facilities and international agro-corporations. Its a matter of laziness: small targets rarely have a cadre of lawyers at hand like the large facilities. And yet, our fridges and dinner tables are likely to have products from the large corporate farms.

Worst of all, small family-owned farms and organic producers are expected to pay astronomical permits to pay for the FDA’s expansion, which will create fields of paperwork and auditing. For example, an annual registration fee of $500 is imposed on any “facility” that handles food. But for what? To pay for FDA paperwork handling? In addition, warrantless searches of business records, directives on farming methods, widespread quarantine powers, excessive penalties are all part of the new American farming experience.

Frankly, H.R. 2749 incorporates the very worst of Rep. DeLauro’s much-maligned H.R. 875. The only real difference between Rep. Dingell’s bill and Rep. DeLauro’s is that the Congresswoman’s splits the FDA, creating the Food Safety Administration to handle the excessive bureaucracy that will arise from the new regulations. No doubt, Rep. DeLauro will have to strip H.R. 875 of redundant passages should H.R. 2749 be signed into law.

For the sake of our farmers, let’s hope it doesn’t.

Its September. Another one of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s extended vacations is over. Another relaxing month at a gorgeous secluded villa is in the past. Time to go back to Washington and “do the peoples’ work.”

With a majority in the House of Representatives and a super-majority in the Senate (vacant Massachusetts seat notwithstanding), the veteran incumbent Democrats should have no problem enacting every single piece of legislation that falls in their lap.

So why the trouble over this health care reform? Why is the public being given a chance to speak its mind, to question the ruling party, to raise awareness of their fears? Why hasn’t the Democrat leadership solidified itself and pushed forward on the national healthcare plan (hr676.org says) everybody really wants?

Now, H.R. 676 is the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act. It proposes to widen the current Medicare system to cover everyone in the United States. There are 92 co-sponsors, all Democrats.

With a formidable list of supporters such as this, with a critical piece of legislation such as this, and a powerful mandate from the 2008 elections that gave the Democrats absolute legislative and executive authority, what’s holding them back? (A few town hall meetings that have gotten ugly?)

So, as the veteran incumbent Democrats file into the Capitol building to hear from the President of the United States on how important healthcare reform is, I’m dropping the gauntlet and making a challenge:

Vote on H.R. 676! Go on! If the Democrats really have a mandate from the people, if they really know what’s best for all of us, if they are truly convinced private insurance is broken and only the government can take care of us, then they must vote on the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act and pass it! They must do what they feel is right.

Shouldn’t they? Isn’t that why they think they were elected to office?

According to key Democrats, the town halls are an extension of right-wing talking heads, not representative of the true feelings of the people. There should be no difficulty dismissing rabble-rousers, paid demonstrators, and trouble-makers in order to pass real reform everybody wants.

Make no mistake. If nationalized healthcare was passed, it would be popular (at least to start). If its cheap, people will pick it up in an instant. There is little doubt that people would drop their expensive plans to adopt a cheap government alternative. That’s what happened in Hawaii when the childrens’ health plan was open to all. (Of course, the system went bankrupt in a matter of months. Some legislators did not consider that middle- and upper-class people might want free coverage for their children too.)

Only problem is, the government has never really been in the business of satisfying customers, Medicare included. Private sector insurance is notorious for fighting claims, but they have also designed plans with a view to satisfy their customer’s wishes regarding coverage and care. Otherwise, the customers might shift over to another carrier. (By contrast, H.R. 676 proposes WYSIWYG satisfaction: “What you see is what you get.”)

So, come on, incumbents! Find some backbone. Practice what you preach, and preach, and preach! Ignore your constituents and vote on Medicare for all!

I dare you.

Boaz ItsHaky

As reported in The Politico, Sen. John McCain said Wednesday night that the raucous town hall crowds opposing the Democratic push for a health care  overhaul are proof that the beginnings of a “revolution” are bubbling up. McCain told Fox News’s Sean Hannity during an interview that he has “never” seen anything like the “peaceful revolution taking place” in opposition to President Barack Obama’s push for health care reform.

“There is a grass-roots uprising the likes of which I have never seen,” he said. “There’s anger; there’s concern about the future. There’s concern about the generational theft that we’ve committed by running up unconscionable and unsustainable deficits.”

As an example, McCain pointed to a woman who told him during a recent town hall that the health care debate has left her “worried about my freedom.”

“What she was talking about was her right to choose what kind of health care she wants, what physician she wants to see, when she can see a doctor and when she can’t,” the former GOP presidential nominee said. “She epitomized, in many respects, the deep and abiding concern out here and a revolt against a government-run health system.”

McCain knocked Democrats for being “in denial that Americans are upset and concerned” and for not understanding “the depth of the passion that’s out there.”

“They dismissed the tea parties, they dismissed your freedom rallies, they dismissed the real, vocal opposition to this health care plan,” the Arizona senator said. “But I don’t think they’re going to be able to dismiss it for too much longer.”

Most likely, Rep. Rosa DeLauro and her fellow veteran incumbent Democrats will try to dismiss their constituents as long as possible, perhaps in order to collect more campaign money from the nation’s largest insurers, or perhaps blame opposition on some vast, right-wing conspiracy, as her colleague Rep. Courtney recently did.

Calls for Healthcare Reform have been intensified by the Democrat leadership, and have rightly been rankling the conservatives of America. There are many examples of socialized medicine in the world. And, if their templates are laid over the United States, none of them will serve our people.

There’s a simple reason for this: Demographics.

In poor communist countries of the east, low-quality service is preferable to no service. And, the elites have access to private clinics in most cases. In the more affluent socialist countries of the west, service is excellent and an in some cases, operates more cheaply than here.

In both cases, the spread of wealth among the people is homogeneous. That is, in places like Denmark and Sweden, most people are middle class, with small number of rich and poor. In Kyrgyzstan, virtually all are in poverty, including the physicians.

In the United States, however, there is no homogeneity. America is blessed with the world’s largest upper class by percentage, but also contains a very large lower class. In between is an embattled middle class.

The challenge of healthcare policy is to offer service that middle and upper class is used to receiving while also offering high quality service to a needy lower class. The goal is to make it all affordable.

In order to reduce waste, redundancy, and abuse (which alone accounts for more than one-third of Medicare’s costs), the healthcare system of the United States must be redesigned from the top down. Continuing with Congress’ messy method of layering entitlement programs on one another is only making the system more bloated, more expensive.

Frightful as radical reform may seem to conservatives, its the best way to bring down costs. The simple truth about America’s healthcare is that there is no free market involved. Medicare, Medicaid, the V.A., and Federal employee insurance programs are socialized medicine. They account for more than one-quarter of all healthcare in the United States.

When taking into account state programs, mandated benefits, HIPAA, COBRA, and all of the other rules and regulations, limitations and liabilities, the other 75 percent of America’s healthcare is firmly under the government’s thumb. That’s why costs are skyrocketing without an increase in quality.

That is why Boaz ItsHaky continues to support the Republican healthcare initiative called the Patient’s Choice Act (PCA).  The PCA rejects a single federal solution and empowers the states to form policy and promote state-based health exchanges, where consumers can access a real health care market, with protections for lower-income Americans. The system is state-based rather than a federal program because the needs of each state differ so greatly. In addition:

• PCA emphasizes prevention and wellness, with increased accountability for federal programs, incentives that reward results, and educational outreach driven by sound science.
• PCA modernizes Medicaid, putting it on a sound financial path, removing the stigma from Medicaid, giving Medicaid patients real choice for the first time, and roughly doubling the number of providers which needy families on Medicaid can access.
• PCA gives states options for health courts and expert review panels to reduce medical liability junk lawsuits and reduce the need for “defensive medicine”
• PCA creates a new public/private enterprise which will give all patients, consumers, and researchers substantially increased transparency on price and quality.
• Americans who like their employer-sponsored health benefits will be able to keep what they have. But individuals should make that decision, instead of being victims of arbitrary tax rules or staying in a job only because they can’t afford to lose their insurance.

“If there’s any good that can come from this tragic [salmonella] outbreak, it is long-overdue changes that can help protect the American public from the food supply.” So said Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), concerned that food is dangerous for America’s health.

Nobody in Congress is more terrified of food than Rep. Rosa DeLauro, who introduced HR 875, the Food Safety Modernization Act, to give the FDA unprecedented powers over the food supply. And, like the intrusive and overbearing H.R. 4040, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, this bill also promises to target small producers: family-owned farms, organic farms, and your home garden. From the Federal Times:

The Food and Drug Administration is asking Congress to give it more power to regulate the nation’s food supply in the wake of another deadly salmonella outbreak. Agency officials told lawmakers they want hundreds of millions of dollars more in the coming years to hire new staff and improve food testing facilities, and the power to register food producers and to order recalls of dangerous products. The agency was embarrassed by several recent outbreaks of foodborne illness, most recently a salmonella outbreak linked to products from Peanut Corp. of America (PCA). FDA has acknowledged that it inspected the company’s Blakely, Ga., facility only sporadically: once in 2001, and then again this year. And it never learned about 10 salmonella tests, conducted by private labs, that found the toxin in PCA’s products.

Rep. DeLauro has introduced this bill before, and it died in committee. However, the new Administration is far more receptive, especially in the wake of the peanut butter salmonella outbreak. Basically, the bill would:

1. Require food companies to implement preventive plans and meet performance standards for food contaminants.
2. Create a system for certifying the safety of imported foods.
3. Establish a strong risk-based inspection regime for food companies.
4. Grant the government explicit authority over all food-production facilities.
5. Enable enforcement tools: Mandatory recalls, civil penalties

As usual, nobody can argue that food safety is unimportant. What can be argued, however, is how H.R. 875’s broad regulations will strain, crimp, and ultimately shut down small businesses that are unable to meet its rigorous requirements. Just like the Consumer Product Safety Act, even the smallest producer is required to comply. So far, roadside vegetable stands, hot dog sellers, and children’s lemonade stands have slipped through the FDA’s grip, until now.

DeLauro’s bill would also mean a big reorganization at the Health and Human Services Department: It removes food safety functions from FDA and places them in a new agency within HHS. FDA would still handle drug and medical device inspections. The new Food Safety Administration would also absorb part of the Commerce Department’s National Marine Fisheries Service, which runs a seafood inspection program. That change might prove controversial: GAO recently dropped its recommendation that food safety functions be consolidated under a single regulator.