Mr. Stupak was either disingenuous from the beginning or sacrificed his principles under pressure. If the former, he is worthy of contempt. If the latter, he might be worthy of pity, even though he valued his office more than his principles. His attempt to justify his surrender based on the good he thinks will come from the health care bill was pathetic. Pro-life voters in his district should not be deceived, and pro-choice voters will hardly find him heroic. It’s time for Mr. Stupak to be retired from the Congress.
Author Archives: SEH
The crazies are in charge — let’s make it temporary
The Democrats appear poised to approve their health care agenda despite opposition by a well-informed public, including, incredibly, losing the late Senator Kennedy’s seat. This could be the most arrogant exercise of raw political power in the country’s history.
Representative Devin Nunes (D, Cal.) has aptly pointed out that “the crazies are in charge.” The health care bill is bad, but what it shows about the Democrat leadership’s view of legitimate governance is worse.
The crazies are in charge, and the United States is in deep trouble. Forty-three percent of U.S. “tax filers” now pay no or negative income taxes.  Core Democrat voters represent at least 40 percent of people who vote. Neither number is likely to go down.
There is no assurance that economic growth will rescue us and our children from the fiscal mess we have created. It’s time for people who pay income taxes and reject increasing government control of the economy to recognize the big picture, and that there is little room for error. The American Dream is at stake.
American voters made a disastrous mistake in 2008. They have a chance to start correcting that mistake in 2010. The path forward is clear: (1) elect people who believe in limited government in 2010, (2) repeal key features of the healthcare legislation and enact market-oriented reforms in 2011, and (3) defeat Mr. Obama in 2012.
People in the center and right of center who are not engaged in the political process need to wake up and recognize what’s at stake. Those who are awake need to contribute money and time, vote, and energize friends and neighbors to do likewise. If not, the future will not be pretty.
More ignorant and misleading reporting on health insurance
I’ve written earlier about misleading or incorrect statements about health insurance policy rescissions (see Fact-Checking the President on Health Insurance). The misreporting on this issue continues.
In a March 18 story, Murray Waas of Reuters tells an interesting tale concerning a health insurance policy rescission in South Carolina that produced a multimillion dollar judgment against the insurer, Insurer Targeted HIV Patients to Drop Coverage, quoting extensively from judges’ opinions. Regardless of the merits of the particular case (most of the court documents are sealed), the article is factually inaccurate on at least one major point.
Wass writes:
But an investigation last summer by the House Energy and Commerce Committee as well as earlier ones by state regulators in California, New York and Connecticut, found that thousands of vulnerable and seriously ill policyholders have had their coverage canceled by many of the nation’s largest insurance companies without any legal basis.[emphasis added by me]
I have not read the documents from Connecticut, New York, or California, but I have read the written materials from the House Energy and Commerce Committee hearings. The hearings found no such thing — there was no evidence of widespread illegal behavior.
In general, the evidence indicates that the vast majority of health insurance policy rescissions are legal, including at least half of the dozen or so worst cases of rescission “abuse” highlighted by the Committee.
In a market with hundreds of thousands of transactions, many people fail to disclose or misstate facts about their health or health history when applying for insurance. In most states, that failure is grounds for the insurer to rescind the contract and refund the premiums if the correct information would have caused it to deny coverage, charge a higher premium, or otherwise change the terms of the coverage offered. The insurer does not have to prove fraud or intent to deceive. This legal framework helps produce lower premiums for people who disclose accurately (as I explained in Fact-Checking op-ed).
If reporters or other people don’t like the law, they should say so and advocate a change in the law. But they should get their facts straight and stop spreading false and/or exaggerated claims about illegal behavior.