As You See It: Oct. 8, 2009

It saddens me to read that the UCSC student protest, in which a graduate student center was occupied, ended in no apparent dialogue but plenty of garbage.

[south county resident]

Laura Bell, you have every right to pose this question, and you should. However, I do not agree with your suggestion to replace the Board, unless you have the answer to your question already. Have you investigated any cuts that may have been made to administration? Have you been to Board meetings to see for yourself? Have you asked a Trustee? I hope you have.

[Bobo]

Dear Bob Suhr,
Most public employees belong to PERS and don't get to collect social security. For those that do, there is a law called the "windfall" something that takes a HUGE bite out of the social security payout. Sorry if this disturbs your rant.

[the mountainboy]

Carli Stevens said, "Equal rights also includes the right to equal health coverage for all citizens."
No it doesn't. Whoever convinced you of that?
Do I have the same right to own the same kind of car my neighbor has. Yes, IF I can pay for it. I don't expect you, and other taxpayers, to help me pay for it.

[pers love]

Bobo wrote:

Dear Bob Suhr,
Most public employees belong to PERS and don't get to collect social security. For those that do, there is a law called the "windfall" something that takes a HUGE bite out of the social security payout. Sorry if this disturbs your rant.

I think a better response would be:

Dear Bob Suhr, your comments to the editor are always the same and folks have learned to just pass over what you write once they see your name. Do you really think you are making a difference?

[My2cents]

the mountainboy wrote:

Carli Stevens said, "Equal rights also includes the right to equal health coverage for all citizens."
No it doesn't. Whoever convinced you of that?
Do I have the same right to own the same kind of car my neighbor has. Yes, IF I can pay for it. I don't expect you, and other taxpayers, to help me pay for it.

Carli, you also have the equal right to leave America if you choose to, but the Canadians are also involved in Afghan/Iraqi wars. Good Luck with that!

[Ray in Santa Cruz]

Carli Stevens,
There is no right to equal health coverage for all citizens, a duty maybe, but not a right. The unfortunate thing about trying to give "equal health coverage for all" means some will lose coverage and raise cost through taxes to provide for those with less. Nonsense you say? Well have you or anyone who have fallen for the notion that a reduction in Medicare Advantage funding is not a reduction in the health coverage of the 10 million seniors? The truth of the matter is it will.

Do you know that Medicare Advantage plans have to take all regardless of health or pre-existing conditions? Well they do.

Do you find it interesting that Medicare Advantage does exactly what the government wants for all?

Why is the government, raiding the funds allocated to Medicare Advantage to fund their new health program.

Easy, in the eyes of some, equal means less, and while you may get more, it only comes at the cost to others.

Oh, by the way, wars have always been fought on borrowed money. Stop the war, stop the borrowing. A health care system built on borrowed money is unsustainable.

[disabuser]

Bobo wrote:

Dear Bob Suhr,
Most public employees belong to PERS and don't get to collect social security. For those that do, there is a law called the "windfall" something that takes a HUGE bite out of the social security payout. Sorry if this disturbs your rant.

Some government agencies are in Social Security and some aren't. Would you care to wager some substantive amount that Mr. Suhr is wrong about most county workers being in Social Security to back up your "rant"?

[Carl Bendix]

Carli Stevens said, "Equal rights also includes the right to equal health coverage for all citizens."

Using that logic we can continue on with equal housing, equal food, equal happiness, equal money in the bank, equal boob jobs, equal whatever.

I suggest that the original statement might go more like, "Equal rights also includes the right to obtain whatever health care coverage one desires as long as you can pay your fair share."

[disabuser]

Bob Suhr's years of warnings have proved prophetic, while the failure of the so-called journalist world in this regard was massive.

Whatever the county had to pay as a proportion of wage for its employees pensions, it's important to understand that not only was the actuarial contribution required to make the pension fund solvent avoided because of past "smoothing" rules, the PERS board voted to smooth the previous smoothing mechanism pushing costs into the future thereby increasing the amount the will be required. CalPers actuaries say a 50% increase in contributions is needed to make the fund solvent.

[Ray in Santa Cruz]

disabuser wrote:

<quoted text>
Some government agencies are in Social Security and some aren't. Would you care to wager some substantive amount that Mr. Suhr is wrong about most county workers being in Social Security to back up your "rant"?

Retired county workers enjoy the pension and Social Security benefits. I know, I am one, and I earned every penny of it putting up for years with the nonsense we call county government.

Oh, back to health care. Do you all realize that the federal health plan being considered will change tax laws, and Medicare benefit cuts immediately upon passage, but the actual program will not kick in until 2014? What that means is the cost of the program will have collected revenues for four years before spending a single meaningful dollar. This is not a sustainable proposal.

[Yep]

Carl Bendix wrote:

Carli Stevens said, "Equal rights also includes the right to equal health coverage for all citizens."
Using that logic we can continue on with equal housing, equal food, equal happiness, equal money in the bank, equal boob jobs, equal whatever.
I suggest that the original statement might go more like, "Equal rights also includes the right to obtain whatever health care coverage one desires as long as you can pay your fair share."

for the sake of semantics don't we already do that now. We give free or subsidized housing in premier areas like Santa Cruz to people who can't afford to live here on their own ability as if it were some kind of right. We give affirmative action to minorities and women regardless of their qualifications for a job and no one goes hungry in fact we have the first generation in history where the poor are very often obese. In so many ways we(this country) have created a state of entitlement that one would assume that it's a right to have anything otherwise you are denying them their happiness.

[Go Bob Go]

Bob Suhr has been providing carefully researched warnings on the money pit being dug by unsustainable government pensions for years, and the current mess is a clear indication that his past warnings have been both accurate and ignored. If those posters criticizing him aren't government workers or pensioners, I'll eat my keyboard.

[James Anderson Merritt]

From where I sit, Suhr has a better track record than most pundits, professional or no, and he signs his real name, putting his own reputation on the line. Snide, mean-spirited (and incidentally, inaccurate) quips from anonymous critics have less impact than nerf darts.

[James Anderson Merritt]

You don't have a right to health care: since other people must provide that care and the associated drugs and medical devices, a "right" to health care would mean that you have the right to enslave people, either to provide health care to you directly, or to pay for that care on your behalf.

Rather, you have the right not to have anyone stand in your way in making your own arrangements for health care -- a right that the government disrespects and violates routinely in many circumstances. You can only pick your doctor from a list of government-approved providers. That doctor can only prescribe drugs or treatments, which the government has approved for use, regardless of their effectiveness in addressing what ails you. In many cases, the doctor cannot advertise or post prices, either by law, or through "voluntary" agreements with health insurance companies -- the latter having power to dictate terms because of the favored position that government has given them in the health care process (via the tax code). Often, the doctor cannot experiment with innovative ways of structuring his or her business, because some government agency or another will not grant a necessary approval. For example, a doctor in NY state tried to offer unlimited access to a variety of core medical services on a subscription basis, just as Netflix offers full access to a variety of movies on DVD for a fixed monthly subscription fee. The State insurance commission decided that this was an "insurance plan" and shut the doctor down because he wasn't an approved insurance provider.

The list of government intrusions into and deformations of the health care industry goes on and on. Every one of those intrusions violates your right to acquire medical goods and engage medical services on your own terms. This is allegedly done for the good and protection of all. But the result has been unreasonably high cost of and unreasonably limited access to health care.

There are better mechanisms than government oversight, to ensure the availability of competent, effective health care for all, at affordable prices. These mechanisms are -- not surprisingly -- NOT included in government's plan to "reform" health care, and not discussed in "the national debate," in which all options are falsely said to be "on the table."

We can do much better than current "Reform" proposals, but we will need to disentangle government from health care to succeed. Whatever healthy, protective effect government participation may once have had in the health care field, it is now at the heart of what is wrong with health care, and routinely does more harm than good.

[Big Mike]

pers love wrote:

Dear Bob Suhr, your comments to the editor are always the same and folks have learned to just pass over what you write once they see your name. Do you really think you are making a difference?

Bob Suhr always makes a good point, using data that he can support. I don't know why you wouldn't want to be educated by him, even if you choose to disagree. Having an informed opinion makes it worth more.

[Big Mike]

James Anderson Merritt wrote:

a "right" to health care would mean that you have the right to enslave people, either to provide health care to you directly, or to pay for that care on your behalf.

Wonderful argument, James. Well said.

[pers love]

Go Bob Go wrote:

Bob Suhr has been providing carefully researched warnings on the money pit being dug by unsustainable government pensions for years, and the current mess is a clear indication that his past warnings have been both accurate and ignored. If those posters criticizing him aren't government workers or pensioners, I'll eat my keyboard.

Then why hasn't he done all the research and asked the question; when the counties and cities did not have to make contributions on behalf of their employees because the fund was flush for many years, where did those employee contributions go? Now that would be a "carefully researched article". But then again it would not allow people to write one sided articles and well, that would not sell papers.......

[Big Mike]

Carli Stevens wrote:

It is appalling to me that there are so many misstatements [to be polite] about what a public option could do for this nation.

So why continue them?

Carli Stevens wrote:

Equal rights also includes the right to equal health coverage for all citizens.

We also have a right to eat, but I do not have a right to force others to feed me. I also have a right to work, but I do not have a right to force others to hire me. I have a right to health care, but I do not have a right to force others to provide it.

Your misstatements aside, we can as a people alter policy and offer benefits that work for us as a society. It's arguable whether a single-payer system, or even a Canadian system would work as well as you suggest. That's why we're arguing the pros and cons of this. What good is a government funded health care system if it bankrupts the government? With baby boomers aging in a large group, how will the taxpayers of the future fund this health care? If we don't standardize insurance and the way we pay for it, how will we establish a fair standard of care? How do indigent people find needed health care? Why should we lose our insurance because we lose our jobs?

Answer these questions using facts and understanding, not an inappropriate delegation of rights that don't exist.

[JAM]

James Anderson Merritt states,
"There are better mechanisms than government oversight, to ensure the availability of competent, effective health care for all, at affordable prices. These mechanisms are -- not surprisingly -- NOT included in government's plan to "reform" health care, and not discussed in "the national debate," in which all options are falsely said to be "on the table."

I'm interested in what you think these "better mechanisms" are. This is genuine, not some lame attempt at topix sarcasm. Although I don't agree with all your ideas, I often find your posts to be well reasoned, articulate and informative. I'd appreciate more details on your abovej-stated opinion. Thanks.

[disabuser]

Ray in Santa Cruz wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you all realize that the federal health plan being considered will change tax laws, and Medicare benefit cuts immediately upon passage, but the actual program will not kick in until 2014? What that means is the cost of the program will have collected revenues for four years before spending a single meaningful dollar. This is not a sustainable proposal.

I've noted the implementation dates several times. CBO calculates over a 10 year period and legislation's true cost is often shifted into the out years to avoid budget scrutiny. But you can also get a sense by looking at the CBO cost reports that include a year by year breakdown of the estimates it makes. In Obama's address to Congress he asserted the the health legislation should not increase the deficit not only for the 10 year period but beyond that as well. Will the media subject the legislation to Obama's own standard?