About two years ago, when my then-health insurance carrier wrote me announcing yet another rate increase significantly above the rate of of inflation, I called to complain and asked why I couldn’t get a discount for my good health and physical fitness.  They told me the company was prevented by law from offering such discounts.

To that end, in his one-page summary of sensible health-care reform, Jeffrey Anderson offers a simple cost-free solution to make health insurance more competition:

Allow lower premiums for healthier lifestyles. Existing federal regulations ban private companies from offering more than a 20 percent discount to those who eat and drink in moderation, exercise, or don’t smoke. Such regulations handcuff private efforts to reward healthier lifestyles and to thereby cut health costs — and they should be eliminated.

Via Jennifer Rubin.  Not only would this allow health insurance companies to offer more policies, but it would also promote healthier lifestyles and discourage obesity without nanny-state style regulations (e.g., limiting the types of foods restaurants can offer).  If there’s a financial incentive to staying in shape (as in lower insurance costs for fit people), more people might slim down to save a dime.

While the George Soros-funded HCAN runs TV ads says that a government (AKA public) plan is necessary to increase competition, actually the opposite is true.  Less government involvement in the health care market would allow companies to offer more choices, thus increasing competition.  And likely lowering costs as well.

Even a New York Times article about a Colorado woman who “was denied insurance by one company because she had had a Caesarean birth” shows how this is so: (more…)

From Instapundit:

SAVE THE PLANET: Eat A Dog? “The eco-pawprint of a pet dog is twice that of a 4.6-litre Land Cruiser driven 10,000 kilometres a year, researchers have found. Victoria University professors Brenda and Robert Vale, architects who specialise in sustainable living, say pet owners should swap cats and dogs for creatures they can eat, such as chickens or rabbits, in their provocative new book Time to Eat the Dog.”

Ever met a guy who complained about his ex- for months after they broke up?  Or a woman who, years after she took leave of an abusive, unresponsive or jut plain imperfect spouse, keeps complaining about his imperfections?

Such folks seem to have a lot in common with those people who just can’t let go of their animus for the immediate past President of the United States.  I wouldn’t worry about this phenomenon so much if not for the concentration of such folk working in an around 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C.

This quote from a book I’m reading for my dissertation, is particularly relevant to the debate on gay marriage:

A serious sex education begins by emphasizing the reasons why female sexuality is dramatically unlike male sexuality; it explains the natural reasons for female vulnerability.  It explains to women why they like to be courted and how their sexual restraint can encourage a courting culture.  It makes possible an education that does much more to rein in male sexuality.

The more serious studies of sex differences I read, the more ambivalent I become about gay marriage.

GOProud’s chairman Chris Barron co-authored a piece on healthcare reform with US Senator Tom Coburn for The Advocate.  I want to open with this commenter at The Advocate, which is typical of the closeminded vitriol of most gay activists:

Seriously? Republicans concerned over GLBTs who have HIV/AIDS and who are scared? I’ve never heard of such a thing. In fact, the last things I remember are GWB slashing funding for HIV/AIDS care and that Nazi Reagan ignoring our community while we died. Republicans, bite me. I’ll never listen to you.

Few people know that Sen. Coburn was personally responsible for re-inserting HIV/AIDS funding into the Federal Budget when Bill Clinton zeroed-it out throughout his Presidency.  Inconvenient truths.

But back to the topic at hand:  the dangers of government run healthcare for those with HIV/AIDS.  Read the whole thing from Coburn & Barron, but here are few excerpts:

The federal government will spend $15 billion on AIDS treatment alone this year, yet due to the inefficiencies of the public-run program, thousands will not receive appropriate care. In recent years, two patients in West Virginia and five in Kentucky died while awaiting care on waiting lists for the RWCA AIDS Drug Assistance Program. Today there are 247 Americans on waiting lists for livesaving AIDS drugs in eight states. The number is expected to reach 500 by Christmas. Those on the ADAP waiting lists are disproportionately minorities and residents of rural areas.

Sadly, the waiting lists do not tell the whole story of how care is being rationed under this program. Many other ADAP patients, while receiving care, are being denied the best treatment. Fuzeon, the AIDS drug of last resort that has been successful in treating patients who no longer benefit from other drugs, for example, has been denied to ADAP patients in our nation’s capital.

With our neighbors in need, no one should question that we have an obligation to help those who lack access to quality, affordable medical care. But how?

The best solution is to prohibit insurance companies from discriminating against patients who are sick or who have preexisting conditions. These are some of the very reasons why we have insurance. Then we should give all Americans the same choices of health care coverage enjoyed by members of Congress, who can select from more than 10 different private health care plans. S. 1099, the Patients’ Choice Act, would guarantee that all Americans would be able to choose the health care coverage that best meets their individual needs with creating a new government program. The Patients’ Choice Act will put you, not insurance companies, bureaucrats, or politicians, in charge of your own health care decisions.

We can and should work to make sure that every man, woman, and child in this country has access to quality, affordable health care. No one should be denied access to health care that would improve or extend their life. The good news is that we can do this. We can do it without creating an inefficient and expensive government program and we can do it in such a way that empowers individuals to take control of their own health care.

RELATED STORY: D.C. officials to scrutinize spending by AIDS groups – Washington Post

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Glenn Reynolds reports:  “THE HILL: Blue Dogs getting spending fatigue; wary of new economic fixes.”   In a similar vein, Michael Barone reports Senate Democrats wary of health care deficit spending.

They seem finally to understand that Obama’s campaign promises notwithstanding, that under his leadership, that for “every domestic difficulty, great or small, [his party] favors increased government spending or regulation.”

With word that “Barack Obama’s White House has declared war on the largest lobbying organization in the country, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,” we have yet another example of a White House determined to demonize those who dare criticize its policies (or to air said criticism on its news network).  He’s now added the Chamber to the Obama enemies’ list.  According to the Washington Examiner‘s Timothy P. Carney:

Chamber lobbyist Bruce Josten told me that White House is picking a high-profile fight with his group because, given Democratic supermajorities, Obama “needs an enemy” to blame for the difficulty he’s having in getting his policies approved.

But there’s another reason Obama is running low on enemies: He’s already bought off many of the most powerful industries and businesses.

Look at health care, where Obama has brought the name-brand drug makers on board to his reform with promises of subsidies and pledges not to attack the industry’s special favors. Look at cigarettes, where Obama signed a tobacco regulation bill with the firm backing of Philip Morris.

This White House does seem to have a need to make enemies.  Administration officials attack insurance companies, FoxNews and now the U.S. Chamber Commerce.  Who will be the next target of Obama’s animus?

This animus stands to distinct contrast to candidate Obama’s rhetoric about “disagreeing without being disagreeable,” and “moving beyond bitterness and pettiness and politics of division” (via Jim Geraghty).  Indeed, as Michael Barone notes, this contrasts with what the President said back in February:

I don’t always get my most favorable coverage on Fox, but I think that’s part of how democracy is supposed to work. You know, we’re not supposed to all be in lockstep here.

Instead of “moving beyond bitterness and pettiness,” the President, Barone asserts, responds to disagreement “with classic Chicago brass knuckles,” an assertion Charles Krauthammer echoes in this must-watch video:

Via GatewayPundit.

In short is the difference between Rahm Emanuel’s tactics and candidate Obama’s campaign rhetoric which defines the hypocrisy at the heart of this Administration.

I’m assuming that’s a net loss, so it would factor in the 2,260 jobs gained due to the “stimulus.”

Yes, the Golden State’s junior Senator, Ma’am Barbara Boxer urged swift action, promising us 400,000 jobs created.  Nows, let’s just say (for argument’s sake) that she was promising us 400,000 jobs over a four-year period.  (Her release doessn’t provide a timeline.)  That means, 100,000 new jobs a year.  The “stimulus passed eight months ago or tw0-thirds of one year (twelve months).  Two-thirds of 100,000 is 66,667.

Since the “stimulus” passed, employers in the Golden State have shed 336,400 jobs.   That means, we’re approximately 400,000 jobs behind the number Mrs. Boxer anticipated (presuming her job creation estimate was for four years).  And she wants us to reelect her for another six years!

If the business world, if you make an error of this magnitude, they give you that proverbial pink piece of paper.   Time to give one of those to this self-righteous Democrat.