Thoughts? Surprised?

UPDATE: As much fun as it is to dream that Doyle will leave Wisconsin, it appears it may not be true if one is to believe the Journal Sentinel.  They sure dug in fast on that one, I suppose they would be unhappy if Doyle left.

I disagreed with what Senator Feingold said in his form letter (below) so,  I went searching for his email address to respond to.  I’ll give you a hint, it’s not on his website (although there is a form you can enter information in to email it to him).  I found it here at Project Vote Smart.

Here is Senator Feingold’s response to my original opposition to the Democrat’s socialized healthcare plan and my follow up.

Senator Feingold (D-WI):

Message from Senator Russ Feingold – DO NOT REPLY

Dear Mr. Henak,

Thank you for contacting me regarding your concern with a public health insurance plan option. I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts with me.

It is far past time for Congress to ensure all Americans have guaranteed, affordable, high-quality health care. Too many Americans are forced to make basic decisions regarding their health based on cost rather than on medical reasons; too many delay seeking treatment and do not receive preventive care, which results in more costly, or even fatal, consequences down the line. Our country spends $5,670 per capita annually on health care – which is twice as much as any other industrialized nation – and 15.6 percent of our gross domestic product. Despite this spending, we are not healthier than those other countries, and we still have more than 46 million Americans – including eight million children – who do not have health insurance, and countless others who are underinsured.

As you know, these high and rising costs take a tremendous toll on American families and businesses. While inflation grew 9.7 percent, and wage growth was 12.3 percent, premiums for family insurance coverage rose 59 percent from 2000-2004 and show no sign of stabilizing. As a result, many employers are shifting much of their health care costs to employees, no longer providing health benefits, or eliminating positions.

Ensuring every American is guaranteed good health care coverage is my primary goal, and this task is made much more difficult by relying only on private insurers. While Americans should be able to retain their current coverage if they choose, providing a public option should keep health care costs down for all Americans.

The full Senate is expected to consider health care reform legislation soon. I look forward to Congress finally taking up this issue, and I will continue working to improve access to health care and make health care more affordable for the people of Wisconsin.

Thank you again for contacting me. While we may not always agree, I look forward to hearing from you in the future.

My follow up:

Dear Senator Feingold,

I agree that healthcare is expensive, we have the best in the world.  I think government-run healthcare will ruin our current system that rewards the risk takers who come out with the new medical innovations that set us apart from the rest of the world.  I don’t believe healthcare costs will go down if the government gets involved as an insurer, the only way to decrease costs is to create more competition and choice through employees and individuals choosing their plans with their own money (through tax credits).

Please vote for the responsible alternative to the bloated, expensive and ultimately ineffective healthcare plan your party has put forward.  Please support another brave Wisconsin politician, Rep. Paul Ryan, his plan will truly solve the problem and bring change rather than more of the same government waste and bureaucracy.

Thank you for your time,
Brandon Henak

My Uncle:
With all due respect Brandon, I probably pay quite a bit more in taxes than you do. It’s the cost of freedom (and civilization) for people like you and me who are not in the armed services.

A majority of businesses support a government health plan because they know it is more efficient and thus less costly than the mess that “free enterprise” has created now. Do you really think that we are not already paying for the 40 some million without health insurance? Every time someone without insurance is treated and is unable to pay, it forces up the costs of health care for all the rest of us, just like uninsured drivers increase the costs for the rest of us.

I much prefer a rational, single-payer system that pays for healthcare efficiently and not haphazardly like the current system. If someone wants to pay for additional insurance in the private market, they’re free to do it. The only argument I’ve heard from rightwing hardliners is that it is somehow unfair to have the government competing with private insurers because the government (and therefore taxpayers) don’t have to cover the cost of profits for the insurance companies. Arguing that taxpayers and consumers should pay more so insurance companies make more profits doesn’t really seem like a winning argument to me.

Brandon:
A. Of course you pay more taxes, you make more and we have a non-sensical progressive tax system. I agree with paying taxes for a limited amount of government services (and I agree that defense via the armed services is the highest priority among them). I just think that the government is far too big and has taken over far too many things that private industry does best.

B. Please cite any example of “the majority of businesses” supporting socialized Obama healthcare, there are none. Some have begrudgingly acquiesced due to the opportunity to pawn off their employee healthcare on an inferior government system but the vast majority of small to medium size businesses hate and oppose the idea (see any of the recent Chamber of Commerce and business association polls).

C. Single-payer systems are always less efficient, over budget, and cause rationing because the government (with it’s political tomfoolery on both sides of the isle) is a poor steward of any business (including healthcare). The only way businesses are run efficiently is when there is a profit motive. Warm fuzzies and decision-by-committee cause government run efforts to be inefficient and costly.

In the end, I believe government is too big and prone to corruption no matter who is in power so, we need to minimize our risk by reducing the size of the government to the smallest possible.

From the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s website (the organization the represents businesses big and small):

“Creation of a “public plan.”
A government-run plan would be an unfair competitor, with the government acting as both the team owner and the referee. Government programs shift costs to the private sector. The Lewin Group estimates 130 million people would move from private to public insurance – this would be a disaster. It’s a very short step to putting all Americans in a single-payer system.”

“Minimum coverage.
Proposing a huge Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP)-like minimum coverage package will bankrupt employers and workers. Cadillac, gold-plated coverage like this will not appeal to the young. The minimum level of coverage should be more akin to a high-deductible health plan with coverage of preventative services.”

You can send a letter opposing socialized healthcare to your Senator and Representative here.

And what a day it was. It began with a symposium on the state of conservatism, sponsored by the Hudson Institute’s Bradley Center for Civic Renewal. Wisconsin’s own Rep. Paul Ryan led off with an address expounding on the moral case for capitalism.

Whenever Republicans lose an election, a factional dispute arises about “economic issues” versus “moral or social issues.” “Traditionalists” and “libertarians” blame each other, each claiming Republicans would do better without the other. … Why anyone would think a minority party can grow into a majority by splitting itself in half is a political and a mathematical mystery to me.

Thanks to the work of Michael Novak and the good folks at the Acton Institute (often building on JP2), there is a significant recent literature making the moral/Biblical case for democratic capitalism. I hope in the future we also see focus on the importance of traditional social structures to a successful economy. First, well functioning families and communities lead to a better work force, instilling the values of hard work and honesty in the rising generation of workers. Second, well functioning families and communities reduce social pathologies that would otherwise require tax-funded government services.

After Rep. Ryan, we heard from Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana, Yuval Levin of EPPC, and Rich Lowry from National Review, on a panel capably moderated by Arthur Brooks from AEI. Gov. Daniels gets credit for the line of the day: he quoted Chesterton’s famous phrase that conservative’s respect for tradition leads us to “a democracy of the dead” – but in Indiana, all the dead vote for Democrats!

That evening, many of the same characters convened again for the Bradley Foundation’s sixth annual Bradley Prizes celebration, held at the Kennedy Center. Many of the conservative movement’s leading luminaries (Charles Krauthammer, Karl Rove, George Will) and several friendly faces from Wisconsin (Rep. Paul Ryan, Speaker Jensen, Dean Kearney) gathered for a wonderful evening of entertainment, speeches, and finger food! The four Bradley Prizes this year were conferred upon Bill Kristol from the Weekly Standard, historian Sir Martin Gilbert, economist Prof. Arnold Harberger, and the founders and leaders of The Federalist Society (the good people who employ me!).

Herb London from the Hudson Institute, writing recently in the Washington Times, highlights the importance of these prizes:

The recipients understand and appreciate that there is much reason to rejoice in our national past and that the past can serve as a guide to our future. The land of the free and home of the brave can only remain so if we recognize those scholars who put into words and deeds what this nation stands for. In conferring the Bradley Prizes, this foundation in Milwaukee has performed a national service that all Americans should admire.

As the day drew to a close, I was reminded again how blessed we are that one of the nation’s most important philanthropies makes its home in, and focuses its investments in, Wisconsin. Thank you, Bradley Foundation!

Wisconsinites celebrating their Second Amendmend Rights.

“Open Carry Picnic Facts

213 people signed in.

99 people carried holstered firearms.

100 burgers, 100 brats and 50 hot dogs were served.

$830.85 was raised by participants for Wisconsin Badger Camp.”

HT: Boots and Sabers

“Republicans are trying to pass legislation in the next few weeks to kick off the commemoration of the 100th anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s birth, and the only hurdle appears to be Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), who is refusing to let the Senate vote on the bill.”

“Each of these programs was delivering good value for the money.”

Boiled down to business terms, the author and many of my friends, believe the government should be run on ROI or Return on Investment.  Many people who were pulling for Obama’s ridiculous bailout said we could actually earn money by bailing businesses like Chrysler (who has recently gone out of business and taken our billions of dollars with it… oops) because they treated it like an investment and these businesses or programs that we now had stock in could go up/succeed and earn us money.

I appreciate anyone considering the possibility of economic gain but, ROI can mean different things for different people.  Value for me may not be value for you so, the return on investment for me may be nothing while it’s alot for you, despite the fact that you are using taxpayer money on the investment and many taxpayers are getting no return. In addition, the government has a long history of being a poor investor with taxpayer dollars, spending more and providing less of a return than private industry.

Here is my proposal: think not only about ROI but, about SGDI or Should Government Do It?  We live in a country that is lead by Democrats (House, Senate and Obama) who never even consider what the government should or shouldn’t do.  To them the answer to every SGDI answer is YES! More government!  More programs!  Millions of new government jobs!

As conservatives, we believe we should take a step back and think.  More often then not, we consider SGDI and come to the conclusion that even if a small, short-term ROI can be gained by government interaction,  private industry and charities are by far the most efficient way to gain ROI over the long term.  As conservatives, our SGDI analysis is more often than not, no.  This is because we believe America will be a better place with a smaller government.  Our government is not what makes us great, it is our people and the businesses and charities they run.

Of course, if we had asked “Should government do it?” more often, we wouldn’t have to cut programs because they would have been left in the hands of private industry and charities from the beginning.