Now that the House has passed health reform legislation, we have something to be more concerned about than the legislation itself. We know it was a bad bill! In listening to the debate in the House, many members criticized the legislation indicating that it was flawed, but said that they were going to vote for it anyway. The thinking that passing a bad bill is better than passing nothing at all is difficult to comprehend. This type of philosophy is even less valid when the entire House of Representatives had the opportunity to make the bill better before passage. During the House debate, many members of the minority party urged the other party to join with them in making the legislation better, but were ignored. I heard no one express opposition to health care reform.
The concern we now have is more serious than the flawed legislation. We have a polarized Congress that has lost the ability to produce quality work because of thier inability to cooperate with one another. Also of great concern is that Congress is ignoring the will of the citizens. It was made clear through many different sources that most Americans desired health care reform, but not the legislation that was passed by the House. I would venture to say that most Americans today feel that they are not represented, and that their voice does not matter. It was completely possible to return to the table and re-create a health bill that most Americans and Congress could support, but that did not happen. Congress gets a failing grade on this one. Therefore, no one, including the President, has a reason to celebrate victory! Failure to provide the best possible for the citizens of this country does not deserve any pats on the back!
The North Carolina State Grange is an advocate for transparency, fair play, and ethical behavior. If all members of Congress and the President had observed each of these important concepts, there is no doubt that that we would be celebrating the passage of a much better health bill than we now have.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Health Reform or Insurance Reform?
Based on polling information, it appears that most Americans oppose efforts by the President and Congress to reform healthcare. Why? Perhaps it is because most of us have health coverage that we are satisfied with. On the other hand, maybe Americans do not trust the President and Congress to do it right, for fear that they could make things worse rather than better.
A problem that I see in all of this is that the focus for reform is directed to the insurers. The health care industry encompasses a broad range of business and industry, all of which are making a profit. Yet, when the President and many members of Congress address the issue, they focus on insurance company profits. They leave the impression that it is okay for all entities tied in with the health industry to make a profit except for insurance companies. Increased costs among all of these health related entities can lead to more expensive medical claims for the insurance companies to pay. However, our leadership is trying to portray health insurers as the bad guys!
True health care reform should include all business entities associated with the health care industry, because they all contribute to the cost of health care. For example, in addition to insurance company scrutiny, perhaps Congress should also consider profits made by medical equipment manufacturers, hospitals, doctors, drug companies, and many others. Congress should also examine the profits that lawyers receive in addition to settlement amounts on malpractice lawsuits.
It has been implied that insurance company profits are excessive and their policies abusive.
In some cases this may be true, but probably not for the majority. Isn't it possible that there could be abuses in other parts of the industry?
It is okay for all of the businesses associated with health care to make a profit. It is not okay to focus on a single entity which in this case is insurance companies, and hold them accountable for the rest of the industry.
Americans are right to be skeptical and fearful of what Congress might do. While some health reform is needed, we would be better off for Congress to abandon the effort than to do it wrong!
A problem that I see in all of this is that the focus for reform is directed to the insurers. The health care industry encompasses a broad range of business and industry, all of which are making a profit. Yet, when the President and many members of Congress address the issue, they focus on insurance company profits. They leave the impression that it is okay for all entities tied in with the health industry to make a profit except for insurance companies. Increased costs among all of these health related entities can lead to more expensive medical claims for the insurance companies to pay. However, our leadership is trying to portray health insurers as the bad guys!
True health care reform should include all business entities associated with the health care industry, because they all contribute to the cost of health care. For example, in addition to insurance company scrutiny, perhaps Congress should also consider profits made by medical equipment manufacturers, hospitals, doctors, drug companies, and many others. Congress should also examine the profits that lawyers receive in addition to settlement amounts on malpractice lawsuits.
It has been implied that insurance company profits are excessive and their policies abusive.
In some cases this may be true, but probably not for the majority. Isn't it possible that there could be abuses in other parts of the industry?
It is okay for all of the businesses associated with health care to make a profit. It is not okay to focus on a single entity which in this case is insurance companies, and hold them accountable for the rest of the industry.
Americans are right to be skeptical and fearful of what Congress might do. While some health reform is needed, we would be better off for Congress to abandon the effort than to do it wrong!
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
An environmental group associated with a town in the northeastern part of the country has developed a document proposing actions that the town government should take to address in their words the "climate emergency". Some of the proposals are logical and well-thought out. On the other hand, they are asking the local government to institute "environmental disincentives against ...beef, pork, and lamb." Fortunately, they are leaving poultry and seafood alone! The report further recommends an increased emphasis on "vegetarian and organic foods in government-run programs", such as school lunch programs, and set limits on meats included in these programs. They would like for the government to mandate that schools and restaurants conduct "Meatless or Vegan Mondays" in an effort to "reduce reliance on meat, dairy and eggs..."
So, we are seeing another group that would like to destroy a segment of agricultural production that is not only important for feeding the population, but also an industry that provides healthy contributions to our economy. Also of great concern is the effort to involve government in manipulating private markets. While there is nothing wrong with vegetarianism or consumption of organic foods, there is also nothing wrong with producing beef, pork, and lamb in this country!
Expecting government to control markets by banning the consumption of meat products is wrong! Markets are best controlled by the choices that consumers make. This is America. If we want to purchase and consume any meat product on any day of the week, we have the right to do so. Those who wish to purchase vegetables and/or organic foods have that right as well.
The same group is also recommending that City Council meals be meatless, with limited dairy products. I wonder if members of this council are happy about that?
So, we are seeing another group that would like to destroy a segment of agricultural production that is not only important for feeding the population, but also an industry that provides healthy contributions to our economy. Also of great concern is the effort to involve government in manipulating private markets. While there is nothing wrong with vegetarianism or consumption of organic foods, there is also nothing wrong with producing beef, pork, and lamb in this country!
Expecting government to control markets by banning the consumption of meat products is wrong! Markets are best controlled by the choices that consumers make. This is America. If we want to purchase and consume any meat product on any day of the week, we have the right to do so. Those who wish to purchase vegetables and/or organic foods have that right as well.
The same group is also recommending that City Council meals be meatless, with limited dairy products. I wonder if members of this council are happy about that?
Monday, February 15, 2010
Farmland Losses are Dangerous
North Carolina is losing farmland at an alarming rate! For the last several years, our state has been a leader in the acreage of farm and forest land lost to development, at the rate of approximately 100,000 acres per year. North Carolina is not alone in this problem as productive farm land is being lost throughout the United States.
What does this mean for agriculture? The answer is simple! Fewer acres means less food production while the population is growing. Less land will lead to higher purchase prices and/or higer rental rates for farmers. Competition will also increase among farmers as they search for available land. Farms will be forced out of business because of increased expenses combined with the inability to obtain adequate acreage to maintain a viable business.
What does this mean for citizens? Food prices will increase, and domestically grown food will become less available. America will become more dependent upon foriegn countries to feed our growing populaition. It is estimated that by 2050, world food production will need to increase by 70% in order to feed people. Advances in agricultural technology will likely increase yields. However, yield increases may not sufficiently provide for food demands because of large farmland losses.
We are short-sighted! Even though agriculture is the largest industry in North Carolina, government leaders continue to see a manufacturing plant sitting on a former farm as better for the tax base. The same applies to housing developments placed where farms once existed. If this trend continues, generations to come will suffer from the short-sighted practices that are now in place. Failure to reverse the trend of farmland loss will lead to a crisis point in the years ahead. Is this the kind of legacy we want to leave for the generations behind us?
What does this mean for agriculture? The answer is simple! Fewer acres means less food production while the population is growing. Less land will lead to higher purchase prices and/or higer rental rates for farmers. Competition will also increase among farmers as they search for available land. Farms will be forced out of business because of increased expenses combined with the inability to obtain adequate acreage to maintain a viable business.
What does this mean for citizens? Food prices will increase, and domestically grown food will become less available. America will become more dependent upon foriegn countries to feed our growing populaition. It is estimated that by 2050, world food production will need to increase by 70% in order to feed people. Advances in agricultural technology will likely increase yields. However, yield increases may not sufficiently provide for food demands because of large farmland losses.
We are short-sighted! Even though agriculture is the largest industry in North Carolina, government leaders continue to see a manufacturing plant sitting on a former farm as better for the tax base. The same applies to housing developments placed where farms once existed. If this trend continues, generations to come will suffer from the short-sighted practices that are now in place. Failure to reverse the trend of farmland loss will lead to a crisis point in the years ahead. Is this the kind of legacy we want to leave for the generations behind us?
Monday, January 11, 2010
Cap & Trade - Food Production vs. Forestry
The American Clean Energy and Security Act, already passed by the House of Representatives creates a number of concerns for agriculture as well as rural citizens. This bill, which includes cap and trade provisions, will increase energy costs across the nation. The Obama administration estimates that this legislation could cost households an additional $1761.00 per year. An additional study conducted by the Heritage Foundation indicates that energy costs will increase by more than $1500.00 per year by 2035.
In terms of agriculture, an analysis produced by the USDA indicates that farming will benefit from this legislation. However, we are seeing evidence that this may not be the case. Input costs for farmers will increase, along with energy costs. Granted, some producers may actually benefit from cap and trade, but it is quite possible that the majority will not.
The offsets that will be offered through cap and trade legislation will favor forestry, and this incentive could lead to the removal of millions of acres from food production as farmland is converted to forests. This creates a dilemma for us because the Grange very much supports Forestry as an agricultural enterprise. However, if large numbers of acres are converted to forests, it will lead to less food being produced in the United States. This loss of available acreage combined with the losses that are already occuring as land is being converted to development, will impact all of us in a very undesirable way in the years ahead. Less land means lower production, which will lead to higher food prices, lower exports, and higher imports. Our ability to feed ourselves will diminish. We will be come more dependent upon foreign countries for food. Farmers are already competing for land, and with less land available in the future for production, rental rates will increase. It will become more difficult for agricultural producers to remain in business, which will also impact the supporting agribusiness industry.
Based on the information we have gathered, it appears that this legislation will be detrimental to agriculture. In addition, households will suffer from higher costs. The State Grange is opposing this legislation, and we encourage our members to contact our two Senators and express your opposition to this bill.
In terms of agriculture, an analysis produced by the USDA indicates that farming will benefit from this legislation. However, we are seeing evidence that this may not be the case. Input costs for farmers will increase, along with energy costs. Granted, some producers may actually benefit from cap and trade, but it is quite possible that the majority will not.
The offsets that will be offered through cap and trade legislation will favor forestry, and this incentive could lead to the removal of millions of acres from food production as farmland is converted to forests. This creates a dilemma for us because the Grange very much supports Forestry as an agricultural enterprise. However, if large numbers of acres are converted to forests, it will lead to less food being produced in the United States. This loss of available acreage combined with the losses that are already occuring as land is being converted to development, will impact all of us in a very undesirable way in the years ahead. Less land means lower production, which will lead to higher food prices, lower exports, and higher imports. Our ability to feed ourselves will diminish. We will be come more dependent upon foreign countries for food. Farmers are already competing for land, and with less land available in the future for production, rental rates will increase. It will become more difficult for agricultural producers to remain in business, which will also impact the supporting agribusiness industry.
Based on the information we have gathered, it appears that this legislation will be detrimental to agriculture. In addition, households will suffer from higher costs. The State Grange is opposing this legislation, and we encourage our members to contact our two Senators and express your opposition to this bill.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Will The Health Care Negotiations Be Democratic?
A major concern that I have for the negotiations between the House and Senate on Health Care reform is how the process is conducted. Because the legislation to this point has been dominated by one party, there is concern that the continued negotiations will be a one party process. One would usually expect a conference committee to work out an agreement. However, there is already discussion about avoiding the use of a conference committee composed of members from both parties, and instead having the leadership of the Democratic party to work out the differences. If this happens, it will exclude any possibility of the health legislation becoming a bi-partisan effort. Closed door meetings are already being held, and it appears that there will be no transparency as work continues on the legislation. The rush also continues in an effort to piece together a bill in time for the President to announce it during his State of the Union Address.
This is unfortunate! We know that taking the time to carefully consider all facets of the bill rather than rushing it through will provide America with better legislation. Additionally, there is no doubt that a bi-partisan effort will also lead to a higher quality bill. Republicans are complaining, and Democrats are even admitting that the legislation is not perfect, yet they push onward.
We elected our members of congress to represent us! We did not elect them to represent only Democrats nor only Republicans. They were elected to represent everyone, and to do the best job possible. If they possess the leadership abilities that were portrayed to us during their campaigns, then one would expect them to possess the knowledge and skills necessary to work out the differences in a bi-partisan effort, and make the legislation the best that it can be. This will not happen in closed door meetings with a few members of one party. High quality health care reform is important for all of us, but unfortunately, the process for achieving this is going to let us down!
This is unfortunate! We know that taking the time to carefully consider all facets of the bill rather than rushing it through will provide America with better legislation. Additionally, there is no doubt that a bi-partisan effort will also lead to a higher quality bill. Republicans are complaining, and Democrats are even admitting that the legislation is not perfect, yet they push onward.
We elected our members of congress to represent us! We did not elect them to represent only Democrats nor only Republicans. They were elected to represent everyone, and to do the best job possible. If they possess the leadership abilities that were portrayed to us during their campaigns, then one would expect them to possess the knowledge and skills necessary to work out the differences in a bi-partisan effort, and make the legislation the best that it can be. This will not happen in closed door meetings with a few members of one party. High quality health care reform is important for all of us, but unfortunately, the process for achieving this is going to let us down!
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
What Kind of Health Care Revisions Will We See?
Now that both the House and Senate have rushed through their versions of health care reform, we wonder what the final result will be if the two legislative bodies reach an agreement. There continue to be more negatives associated with the legislation than positives. It appears that more people will be able to get coverage, but neither bill provides coverage for all who may need the protection. The House bill calls for a public option, but the Senate version does not. We will have to wait and see if this becomes a contentious issue as they negotiate. Both versions require employers to provide health insurance or pay a penalty if they refuse. Furthermore, individuals not covered under employee plans will be required to purchase health insurance or face a penalty. The details of these mandates will have to be worked out.
Another contentious issue will be the question of government funded abortions. The House version does not allow for taxpayer funding of abortions but the Senate plan allows this to happen.
Further concerns include the fact that Tort Reform was left out of both bills. We also remain very skeptical in regards to Federal control over state based health insurance companies.
It is extremely disappointing that we watched ethical standards erode as negotiations took place, especially in the Senate. In order to reach the required 60 votes needed to pass the legislation, certain states were promised benefits that no other states will receive. An example was the state of Nebraska being offered an exemption from this state's share of Medicaid expansion, which is equivalent to $100 million. While some Senators were okay with this, others referred to it as corruption. The lesson to be learned from all of this is that Senators have a chance of getting something extra for their state if they will hold out on their vote!
Another contentious issue will be the question of government funded abortions. The House version does not allow for taxpayer funding of abortions but the Senate plan allows this to happen.
Further concerns include the fact that Tort Reform was left out of both bills. We also remain very skeptical in regards to Federal control over state based health insurance companies.
It is extremely disappointing that we watched ethical standards erode as negotiations took place, especially in the Senate. In order to reach the required 60 votes needed to pass the legislation, certain states were promised benefits that no other states will receive. An example was the state of Nebraska being offered an exemption from this state's share of Medicaid expansion, which is equivalent to $100 million. While some Senators were okay with this, others referred to it as corruption. The lesson to be learned from all of this is that Senators have a chance of getting something extra for their state if they will hold out on their vote!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)