Mike Rowse A voice from New Mexico

21Jul/170

More proof we need to drain the swamp…

The Republicans have failed to accomplish much this year despite having the numbers that put them in control of the federal government. Now I am not including Pres. Trump in this criticism because he has done as much as any other president in the first six months of his time in office. Could he be a little more forceful in pushing the political elite to get something accomplished? Probably so but he has taken a step in that direction with his comments regarding letting Obama care in load if Congress can’t get a bill passed. But those are thoughts for another day and another column.

Despite what the liberals in the media, the political elite, or the general population will tell you, Pres. Trump was elected to drain the swamp in Washington DC. I think that is the one common denominator among all of the people who supported Donald Trump, in addition to not liking Hillary Clinton. I don’t know that there was any other one issue, whether it be building a wall, improving the economy, decreasing the size of federal government, or any other big issue that United supporters of Donald Trump more. We are tired of the way our elected officials and bureaucrats in the federal government treat us as serfs.

Clearly it was not going to be an easy job but I don’t think any of us thought that the pushback from the powerbrokers in Washington DC would be this vituperative. (You public school graduates can ask Siri what that means.) I think most of us knew that those on the left side of the aisle would push back as hard as they could against Pres. Trump, that includes those in the media, but the hatred they have shown has gone beyond anything we could have imagined. I don’t think any of us thought that the Republican leadership would fight this hard against Pres. Trump, to the point that they have abrogated their duties and once again failed to deliver upon their own campaign promises.

Every one of them has campaign for example making a promise to repeal Obama care. In fact Republicans voted seven times to pass legislation that would have repealed Obama care sending it to the president’s desk for his signature on a couple of occasions, where it was vetoed. Now that they have the opportunity to present that very same legislation again they don’t have the backbone to do so. It proves once again that it’s not about keeping promises to us but about retaining power and control over us.

But it also goes deeper than that. The media won’t cover this or want to discuss it, but many of us still support Pres. Trump and are really upset with our elected officials in Congress. In fact we are so upset with them that there will be primary challenges for them in 2018 and/or 2020. Many of them could lose those challenges. Or will they? There is no doubt in my mind that many constituents are flooding their elected officials offices with emails, letters, and phone calls expressing their dissatisfaction with the way they have acted over the last six months. But those elected officials are not scared of their constituents. If they were we would have health insurance reform and a tax cut already.

But clearly they are not afraid of being reelected or the wrath of those people they supposedly represent. Some of that could be due to the way the media is portraying us and the bubble in which those in Washington DC live. But I think there’s a bigger reason they are not afraid of being reelected or ousted in the next election. The money people, the lobbyists, the billionaires, corporations are the ones that are really in the years of our elected officials telling them not to listen to us. Those are the people that are pushing our elected officials to ignore their own campaign promises and the clear message we sent to Washington with the election of Donald Trump.

When Trump was elected I said that we had the duty as citizens to ensure that our elected officials adhered to the promises made during their campaigns and his. That we had to be vocal in our support of those promises made to us. There can be no greater example of why the swamp needs to be drained than what we have seen over the last six months. We must be vocal right now in letting our elected officials know we want things to change. But more importantly in 2018 we must elect new representatives who promised to return the power to the people and take it away from the morass that is Washington DC and our political process. The changing of the way things have been done for 40 years will not happen overnight but it will happen if we keep our focus and hold people accountable. Something we have not done in decades.

Filed under: Politics No Comments
28Jun/170

Quick hits

More liberal logic: California State Atty. Gen. has banned travel by government employees to several states such as Texas, that have policies regarding LGBT issues with which the California State Atty. Gen. does not agree. However they oppose Pres. Trump’s travel ban from countries where members of the LGBT community are put to death because of their lifestyles.

Talk about a swamp. The investigation into Michael Flynn has not turned up any credible evidence about collusion with the Russians. What it has turned up is the fact that the acting director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe, had sexual discrimination and harassment charges filed against him by a female special agent in 2014. Michael Flynn gave a statement supporting the agent’s claims. Guess who started the investigation into Michael Flynn? That’s right, Andrew McCabe. Doesn’t that seem like a conflict of interest at best and a political witch hunt at worst?

The Congressional Budget Office has scored the Senate Republicans replacement for Obama care. First of all let’s be very clear that the Congressional Budget Office has never even come close when scoring bills like this. For example they thought 4 million small business owners would enroll in Obama cares small business program. To date, 230,000 businesses have enrolled. Their estimates of the amount of subsidies needed for the Obama care exchanges have been off by over 100% every year. That being the case, they anticipate that 22 million people will leave the exchanges between now and 2026 if the Senate’s plan is implemented. Of course you’ve heard that in the media and from the left wing in Washington. Approximately 15 million of those people will leave voluntarily, that’s the part that are not telling you. The bill gets rid of the individual mandate and many of those leaving the exchanges will likely purchase insurance in the private market again because several analyses of the bill find that premiums in the private market will decrease. In fact a couple of insurance companies have said they believe the premium reduction will be 30 to 40% and they will be able to offer plans with low deductibles and lower premiums. That doesn’t sound quite as bad doesn’t. Not to mention that with the elimination of the 30 hour work week requirement under Obama care, many more people will return to full-time work and should be able to afford their own insurance again.

Think about this; the telephone was invented in 1876 but it wasn’t until 1982 that you can actually take the phone out of the house. Four 106 years you were relegated to a 4 foot circle around your refrigerator while talking on the phone and now you’re ticked off because you can’t get coverage in the middle of the Gila Wilderness.

It is amazing what people will say to try and rationalize the outcome of the election. On Rachel Maddow’s show shortly after the Democrats lost the election in Georgia’s sixth Congressional District one of their analysts was saying that the rain, which was very heavy, negatively affected the Democrat turnout. So what he’s saying is the Democrats didn’t feel strongly enough about either voting for the Democrat candidate or against Pres. Trump or that they were afraid they would melt in the rain. Which isn’t a stretch given the fact that the liberals continually tell people that they can’t handle adversity themselves. The same analyst went on to say that more rain fell on the heavily Democrat populated portions of the district as compared to the Republican portions of the district. So you’re telling me that God or Mother Nature doesn’t like the Democrats?

The Democrats are also claiming all four losses in official elections they are claiming that the narrow margins of victory actually show that people are getting tired of Pres. Trump already. That doesn’t appear to be the case but let’s not forget a couple of key facts: first of all Pres. Trump’s margin of victory in Georgia for example was just over 1%, the Republican candidates victory was about 6% so that seems to be a move in the direction of the Republicans and Pres. Trump doesn’t it? Also, in Georgia’s congressional district, that district has been redrawn a couple of times since people like Mike Price and Newt Gingrich one by large margins so you are not comparing apples to apples..

27Jun/170

Let’s get real, John was right

With the left it is always about identity politics. They are the ones that continually put labels on someone and they are the ones who framed every discussion about some identity. The latest victim of the smear campaign is John McEnroe who is under fire by the left, at least some of the left, for saying that Serena Williams would be ranked number 700 in the world if she played the men’s tennis tour full-time.

Now let’s put this in context; McEnroe was appearing on an NPR show to promote his latest book. I believe the host’s name was Lulu Navarro Garcia. The topic turned to Serena Williams and her place in history. McEnroe said she is the greatest female tennis player ever, bar none. Navarro Garcia asked why he felt it necessary to qualify her as the greatest female player in the world and not just the greatest tennis player. McEnroe replied quite simply, she’s not the greatest tennis player in the world.

McEnroe said that he was not trying to take away from Serena and that on any given day she might be able to be some of the best men’s players in the world. However if she were to play the men’s circuit full time she might be ranked like number 700 and the world simply because it’s a different game. He went on to point out that no female in any sport could be consistently successful in the men’s version of that sport.

What the WNBA champion stand a chance against the Golden State Warriors? Not even close. With the Connecticut lady Huskies be able to compete against the University of Kentucky or Duke men’s teams? No not a chance. In fact the most dominant team in women’s college basketball over the last 15 years probably could not beat a good Division II team. The best female golfers of all time have tried to compete on the men’s tour with little or no success. They certainly couldn’t compete for the win.

This is not to denigrate women’s sports but to point out, as Michael Willbon put it, women physically are not yet capable of competing over the long haul against men. At least not at the elite levels found in college sports and the professional ranks. Certainly there are examples of female athletes at the high school or lower levels competing with the male counterparts but we know from biology that women tend to develop more quickly physically than teenage boys do.

Even Serena agrees with John McEnroe. After hearing what McEnroe said in the interview Serena sent out a tweet asking McEnroe to leave her out of this. However a couple of years ago in an interview with David Letterman, Serena was asked if she could compete with or beat Andy Murray. Serena quickly answered, “no way.” She went on to say that it would last about 15 to 20 minutes and she would lose 6-0, 6-0. She did seem to infer that she might be able to beat a lower level player, maybe around number 100 or so, but she understood that even though she is a very strong, physical tennis player, the strong physical men’s players are bigger, faster, stronger and there are more of them.

Of course some of those in the femi-nazi crowd point to Billie Jean King beating Bobby Riggs back in the 1970s. Okay so she beat a 70-year-old man when she was the best women’s tennis player in the world. Could she have beaten John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors, or any of the other top-ranked men’s players at the time? No.

There will come a time and maybe not in the very distant future that certain female athletes will compete on the same level as their male counterparts. Maybe it will come in the running sports or possibly even golf. I think we are also about to see the first female player in the NFL, it will be a kicker and not a position player but I think it will happen.

The bottom line is this, no matter what your gender or other demographic characteristic if you earn the position through your skills and abilities, then you should be allowed to play at the highest levels of your sport. Maybe the more appropriate discussion to have about Serena is whether or not she is the most dominant player in her sport as compared to the best players in other sports. I think that puts her into the discussion with Tiger Woods, Babe Ruth, Wilt Chamberlain, and others who dominated in their field of endeavor. Saying you are the best in your sport is a huge compliment and saying that you are the best female player in your sport is not denigrating to most people, only those who play identity politics with every facet of our lives.

22Jun/170

It really is all about power…

I have said this about anyone who is entrenched in the power structure in Washington DC but it is more applicable to the liberals than anyone else: it is not about solving problems it is about controlling our lives. Our elected officials and bureaucrats in federal government want to power more than anything else and that does include solving problems. Look at every problem they have claimed to address from economic issues to societal any qualities to the deficit, it doesn't matter none of those problems have gotten better by their own admission. And since the election of Donald Trump we have seen those on the left side of the aisle including many Republicans fight the president tooth and nail to prevent him from draining the swamp.

Pres. Trump has held a large number of meetings with different constituencies. The common theme among all of those meetings is how impressed the attendees are with Pres. Trump. Even those who disagree with him philosophically have said that they believe he listened to them and took their advice to heart and that he truly wants to address the issues and solve the problems. So if you are a member of a group that is invited to the White House to speak to Donald Trump wouldn't you jump at the opportunity? Wouldn't you at least give him a chance based upon the experiences of everyone else to hear your concerns and listen to what you want? Apparently not if you are the Congressional Black Caucus.

Pres. Trump has invited the members of the caucus to come to the White House and address issues that are important to them and the people they represent. The caucus has refused and the reasons for their refusal show that they are grasping at straws. And it also proves that it is about power and perception rather than really solving problems. Because think about this, what is the worst thing that could happen? They have a productive meeting with Pres. Trump in which he hears their concerns and then he does nothing. At least you and I would think that's the worst thing that could happen. But for the Congressional Black Caucus they could then go back out to their constituents and say this president doesn't care about them. He heard what they had to say and he did nothing.

But really, the worst thing for the Congressional Black Caucus is that Pres. Trump listens to them and acts upon their concerns. And then horror of horrors, some of the problems facing the CBCs constituents are solved! If that were to happen Pres. Trump would be seen as a hero and the Congressional Black Caucus and the liberals just cannot have that. Despite what you see in the news, Pres. Trump has accomplished quite a bit in the first few months of his presidency and the members of the caucus know that. They cannot take the chance that Pres. Trump can be given any credit for any positive things happening in our lives.

Back to the reasons they are giving for not being able to meet with the president: the first one listed by many members of the caucus is that Pres. Trump's assistant, Omarosa Manigault, signed the invitation "Honorable Omarosa Manigault, a title they say she has not earned and that it was offensive to them. They also claim that the logistics of getting 50 members of the caucus together are difficult but don't they hold meetings regularly? I'm sure that not everyone can make all of their meetings that you would think that a meeting with the president to address grievances would be something that most of them could make room for on their calendar.

Other members have given excuses such as not wanting to pose for a photo with the president for fear that someone thinks they are supporting Pres. Trump and having been able to avoid that in past meetings, they think avoiding a picture in the Oval Office would be impossible. they are also upset that he is not done anything to address their concerns but if you haven't expressed them to him and giving him options to address those that what you expect him to do? Is he supposed to read about your concerns in the mainstream media because all he reads or hears in the press the vile things that you are saying about him.

Quite simply this is not about solving problems this is about them having power over our lives plain and simple. It's also about being shortsighted and petty; but what would you expect from a group of liberals?

25May/170

Kids are going to die!

Of course the rhetoric will begin. Children are going to die. People will suffer and starve. Spending is being slashed to the point to that we will not recognize anything that the government can do or that the deficit will spiral out of control. Pres. Trump and the Republicans want you to die. It is typical but still as I’ve said before unbelievable the way opponents of Pres. Trump and conservatives twist the facts. There are no cuts in overall spending in the budget proposed by Pres. Trump. If you hear anybody say anything different they are lying lying lying. There is no other way to put it. There are cuts in the growth rate of spending which means quite simply we will be spending more on the federal government this year than we did last year. Two years from now will be spending more than we did next year. Over the 10 years of the budget proposal would will spend $50 billion more than we do this year. Are some programs being cut? Yes. Like the $700,000 to fund a play that promotes the idea man is causing climate change. Those types of things are being cut. But Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, CHIP, and similar transfer payment programs are not being cut. They are getting more money every year under the budget.

But you also need to understand is that this budget will balance the federal budget and reduce the deficit, eliminating it in 10 years, if we achieve a 3% rate of growth. Anybody to says we cannot grow at 3% per year does not know history and does not believe in the ability of the American people. If the government gets out of our way this economy can grow four or 5%. And if that gives us the ability to pay the deficit down will grow even faster.

If the economy grows even 1 to 2%, that means more people will be working and fewer people will need the benefit programs such as Medicaid and welfare. So those programs will not need as much money as they do right now. People will be able to purchase their own health care with their own money, if Congress does its job and gets the hell out of the way on the health insurance side of the equation.

Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi said that this budget is unimaginative, shows disdain for the millions of Americans were struggling to make ends meet and throws them out to the wolves. Those comments should prove to you once and for all what we have been telling you all along: the liberals believe you cannot do it for yourself and you have to have the government teat to suckle from in order to succeed. How’s that been working out for the last four decades?

Nancy Pelosi said that Medicare and Medicaid will wither on the vine. That is not true but she goes on to say that if the American people knew what was in the budget they would not support it. In fact they would call for everyone who did support it, including those who voted for speaker Ryan’s budget which she claims to be identical, to be thrown out of office. So we need to read the budget before its past? We need to read the law before its past to find out what’s in it? When did we have to start doing that?!

The Democrats are saying that the budget if it is passed and implemented would be an albatross around the neck of the Republicans in 2018 and would return control of the government to the Democrats. If that is true why don’t they vote for it? They want to be back in control and they see this as a way to get control back then they should be out there pushing John McCain and the other liberal Republicans to get behind it and vote for it. Then they can go back to doing things the way they been doing for the last 40 years.

The simple fact is this: the budget continues to grow in almost every major program or department that the federal government operates. There is some training of the fat but not enough. But if anybody tells you that there are real cuts in any department’s budget you should turn around and walk away because that person is either willfully ignorant or willfully lying to you. And you don’t need that kind of negativity in your life.

Filed under: Politics No Comments
22May/170

Diversity of opinion? Really?

It never ends. Democrats on the Senate finance committee were hearing testimony about tax reform proposals and thought there were some very good ideas from the five people who testified. However every one of them said that was not enough ethnic diversity among the five witnesses. One senator said there were not enough African-Americans, Asians, Latinos, or women on the witness list. The same senator said that he thought there were some very good ideas spanning some broad viewpoints. But then immediately said that because of the lack of diversity in the ethnic and gender areas of the witness list that there really was not true diversity of opinion.

So once again the liberals are showing you what they truly believe as opposed to what they say. Those senators believe that if you have a certain skin color or gender that you must agree on every issue. They don’t really want a diversity of opinion they just want to look at the panel and say there are people that look different so there must be diversity. Never mind that Maxine Waters and Condoleezza Rice, both African-American females, hold philosophically diverse opinions on almost every issue. Never mind that George Soros and Arthur Laffer hold significantly different viewpoints on economic issues. Yet both are white men. Apparently words don’t mean anything it’s only the demographic characteristic that’s important.

Here are a couple of facts about this situation: the Democrats had equal input into the witness list and who could be called to give testimony. If they had truly wanted to see ethnic or gender diversity, they could have provided it. However once again they manipulated the situation so they could grandstand during their opportunities to speak. This was organized prior to the hearing by the Democrats to try and embarrass the Republican majority.

Let’s not forget that tax reform will benefit all of us, regardless of the color of our skin, or sexual orientation, or gender. I have not seen anyone put forth a tax reform bill that provides benefits only to certain that is that these or other demographic groups. It’s all based upon income without regard for any demographic characteristic.

While we are at it, let’s talk about this whole identity politics movement. We as a country and a society have made a great deal of progress in civil rights over the past 50 years fighting primarily against the Democrat party who have tried to stall the march towards equality. Remember it was them who put in place all of the Jim Crow laws and other laws that promoted and allowed segregation and racism. Why aren’t the people pushing for a quality celebrating how far we have come as opposed to continuing with this victim mentality?

And if we really have not made progress as they claim, we have been following their tactics and their plan to achieve racial equality for three or more decades. If it’s not working then let’s try something new to improve the status of race relations and the standing of minorities in America. Once again it just shows you that it’s more about having power as opposed to achieving a true goal.

22May/170

John Kennedy has some really good ideas

Sen. John Kennedy from Louisiana as a couple of great ideas that are gaining traction. First the big complaint about Dodd Frank is the onerous regulations placed upon all banks which have really prohibited smaller banks from being able to loan money. This hurts middle income and lower income wage earners in America. Because often they don’t meet the strict criteria, being able to check off a box or put a number in the right place, that big impersonal banks have. Small local banks have more flexibility in loaning money; or at least they use to.

The stated purpose of the Dodd Frank was to rein in the big banks so Sen. Kennedy has proposed a solution, since it seems that there isn’t the political will to completely repeal the law. All you have to do is exempt the medium and small sized banks from the regulations put in place by the Bell. His proposal is that if you have less than $10 billion in capitalization you do not have to comply with Dodd Frank. Doesn’t that seem really simple and straightforward? Which probably means it doesn’t have much of a shot.

Secondly, he has offered a new bill that would require you to go to work if you are receiving Medicaid. Simply, if you are between the ages of 18 and 55, are not disabled; do not have kids; then you must go to work in order to continue to receive Medicaid benefits. The bill he has authored would require you to get a part-time job of at least 20 hours a week, in the alternative you can do 20 hours of community service, or you could enroll in a college degree program for the equivalent of 20 hours a week.

These are the kind of simple straightforward solutions that people will oppose, the media and the political elite will say it’s not that simple but it is. If our politicians really want to help the middle class they would give the smaller banks the exemption they need to begin loaning money again. This would stimulate the economy through increased housing purchases or construction; loans to people who want to start a small business; and so much more. And requiring Medicaid beneficiaries to work will be called and bigoted but the rest of us have to work to get what we need or want so why shouldn’t someone receiving benefits from the government, which is our tax money after work also?

26Apr/170

The First Amendment is under assault, again

26Apr/170

This discussion about tax reform isn’t about us; it’s about retaining power.

As we have watched the “debate” about tax reform over the last few weeks, it’s become apparent that changing things in Washington DC is going to be more difficult than anyone thought. There are many reasons for this but of course the underlying theme is that it’s all about power and control. We here in the mainstream media which parents the liberal mantra is that we can’t cut taxes because that will increase the deficit. For that the poor, the elderly or some other subgroup of Americans will be devastated because of the increased deficit and possibility that spending would be cut. Then there’s the old saw about giving tax breaks to the rich. The other consistent theme to this whole argument and discussion is that our political elite with their friends in the media ignore history.

We’re told that tax reform is complicated because people make decisions based upon the current tax laws and tax treatment of certain situations. They act like as if no alternative plans have ever been tried or proposed. Certainly people do make decisions based upon tax policy but a large majority of these deductions or so-called loopholes affect a small percentage of the population. A few years ago the Republicans put forth again a very simple and straightforward solution. It was basically a tax filing form that fit on a large postcard. This applied to individual income taxes. Basically you filled in a few boxes that included your gross income, then a lot of deductions for mortgage interest, child tax credit, charitable contributions, college tuition tax credit, and the earned income tax credit. Little bit of simple math and you either owed taxes or got a refund. Not only is that simple but it covers the vast majority of common deductions that people currently take. It would also reduce the size of the IRS saving hundreds of millions of dollars a year potentially.

Reforming corporate and business taxes would not be much more difficult. Certainly there are a lot more deductions for expenses that could be allowed. It’s not uncommon for most businesses to have capital expenditures for example or even research and development expenses. But limiting a lot of other specialty deductions that don’t apply to a majority of the corporate and business filers would be easy to do although politically difficult and of course that’s what this is all about.

Ignoring history is also part and parcel of the political elites modus operandi. Every time our government has cut taxes, revenue has grown. Whether it was Dwight Eisenhower, John F Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, or Bill Clinton, revenue has grown every time. Lowering the tax rate on businesses and individuals has stimulated the economy which not only means there are more sales and revenues to tax, but more people are in the workforce which means there are more individual taxpayers. And many of these corporations will repatriate money that has been sitting in foreign bank accounts because they don’t want to pay double taxes on that income.

When Ronald Reagan first took office the highest tax rate was 75%. He cut the top tax rate to 28% and everything else below that was similarly reduced. Revenues to the federal government double. Now I know some of you will say that the deficit grew under Ronald Reagan and it did. But that’s because Tip O’Neill and the rest of Congress went back on their promise to cut spending or even keep spending level. Once they saw the extra money coming in they spent it rather than using it to pay down the deficit.

The simple fact is this if you want to grow revenue to the federal government, or any government for that matter, cut spending. And get rid of baseline budgeting which is just as big of a culprit in growing the size of government and the deficit is anything else.

If this 'discussion' truly was about us and the taxes we pay or growing the economy or reducing the deficit, then it would be easy for Congress to come up with a plan and take action. But because this discussion is more about retaining power in Washington D.C., it's complicated; the politicians and bureaucrats are trying to figure out a way to pull the wool over our eyes once again and not do the job we said we wanted done with our votes in the last election.

19Apr/170

U.S. regulations increase costs exponentially

I was watching a segment of 60 Minutes Sunday night, yes I do watch left wing news programs, unlike our counterparts on the other side of the aisle who rarely watch anything with which they disagree or might disagree. But that’s a topic that we’ve covered before and not what I want to talk about today. This was a really nice feel-good story about two doctors helping blind people in poor areas of Asia. It’s also a story about how overregulation makes healthcare unattainable for some in America.

These two doctors, one from Asia and one from Utah, are eye surgeons. Apparently a huge problem in southern Asia is blindness caused by cataracts. For a few years now these two surgeons have been donating their time to give people back their eyesight. They have also trained other doctors in these countries to perform the same surgery and it is estimated that a total of 4 million surgical procedures have been performed either by these doctors or the people they have trained. That is amazing, 4 million people now have their site back and it’s not just older people but very young people as well.

It’s a fantastic story but the underlying theme, we could almost call it the elephant in the room, was the cost of providing these surgeries in Asia as compared to America. First we need to understand that these two doctors perform on average 500 operations in a 10 hour day. There are rarely any complications and it is even more rare that the surgery does not work. In fact they couldn’t remember the last time there was a negative result.

The two doctors have perfected a technique of making one incision to remove the cataract and install a lens. This allows them to perform that many surgeries and do so with very few complications. It also makes it much easier to train other doctors to perform this procedure. The total cost of the surgery is $20. That’s all. Think about that and compare it to what this doctor charges in America. The hospital where he performs the surgeries charges $2000. Sorry left wing nuts, it is not purely greed that sets the price in America.

But before we get to some of the discussion about why there is such a difference, you also need to know that the doctors built a small factory in Burma that manufactures the lenses. You would not know the difference between that factory and one in America. It’s the same equipment the same standard of production. That factory sells the lens for four dollars apiece. In America that same lens costs $200. Can you imagine how many more people in America would be able to afford this surgery if it cost only 20 or $25?

The doctor from Utah made a comment about why such a difference in costs. The simple answer is the regulations placed upon the manufacturer, the doctor, and the hospital with regards to safety and other requirements. All of the documentation that has to be done, all of the casting in the time to get the procedure and or the product approved by the FDA or other regulatory bodies. And let’s not get started about the malpractice insurance.

No no one is saying that we want to give up safety but at some point the regulatory process becomes so onerous that the costs increased to a point that the average person not only can’t afford the procedure but can’t afford insurance that could pay for it. America has been beyond that point for a long time. Pres. Trump has promised to cut some of those regulations all across government. If you truly want to help out the average American you will support that effort because we can still have the level of safety we expect and bring the cost down.

Filed under: Politics No Comments