Message from the Chairman:

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire

During his recent address to Congress, President Obama said he will "call out" anyone who "misrepresents" his health care plan.  Fair enough. But the reverse should also be true when Obama Care supporters misrepresent their proposals.  Unfortunately the health care discussion often descends into name calling.  It is a little like a school yard, when the taunt "Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire" seemed like a clever retort.  

Part of the frustration, though, is that no one single proposal exists to evaluate.  The President, as a result, can say he supports provisions not in any of the bills under to consideration in Congress. He claims, for example, that he will not sign into law any plan that adds "one dime to the national debt."  Yet every proposal being considered at the time increased the deficit.

It is tempting to use the L word, but you have to resist the urge.  As Detective Joe Friday on the television show Dragnet used to caution people: "Just the facts, Ma'am, just the facts."  Even given the exasperatingly illusive nature of the of the Obama Plan specifics, that is good advice.  

Democratic hard-liners are now promising to move a bill on a party-line vote as part of the 2010 budget process.  The lack of a single specific proposal is deeply disturbing less than two weeks before the start of the new fiscal year on October 1.  Certainly legislating involves last minute give and take.  However given the conflicting proposals being considered, trying to reconcile these different ideas into a single package in so short a time is a high risk endeavor.

On as basic a point as whether the bill will contain a "public option," the President's speech to Congress was as clear as, well, mud.  We know he wants a public option, but it is not essential, but then again....

The President and his supporters claim that no one who wants to remain in their current health plan will be "required" to switch to the public option.  How can this be true if your employer drops health insurance?   Various independent estimates suggest that as many half of those with private health insurance could see their employer decide to drop private coverage, sending employees to the "public option."

Some Obama Care supporters suggest that US business needs their plan in order to be more competitive internationally with countries with nationalized health care.  Unless they anticipate employers dropping health care coverage for their employees, where will these savings come from?     

Obama claims that only "waste, fraud and insurance company profits" will be affected by the Medicare cuts being used to partly fund his plan. Since the Medicare program has 50 million participants, the over $500 billion cut works out to $1,000 a year per person for ten years. 

Put these cuts in context. Earlier this year the President told his Cabinet to come up with budget cuts.  The result was $267 million in savings.  That is "m" for million, not "b" for billion.   Medicare recipients are to give up $10,000 each, but the Cabinet's cuts for the overall budget represents an average of less than a dollar in savings divided among everyone in the country.  

Some of these Medicare are supposed to come from having high-cost Medicare areas "learn" from other communities.  Maryland's cost per Medicare beneficiary is one of the highest in the country.  If our reimbursements rates are equalized with the rest of the country, won't Maryland Medicare beneficiaries be impacted more than those in other states?  

It seems hard to believe that Medicare's quality of care will not be impacted by these significant cuts.  But again, while it is tempting to use the "L" word, fight the urge.  Making an argument more loudly does note not make it more convincing.

Follow Joe Friday's advice with "Just the facts, Ma'am, just the facts."   Obama Care is a high stakes gamble with both individual American's health and with our economy.  Obama Care is a gamble not worth taking.

Montgomery County Republican Warns the County Board of Elections to Follow the Law in Choosing Early Voting Sites

The Montgomery County Board of Elections is currently considering which five "early voting" sites will be chosen among ten potential sites. 

The sites under consideration are:

• Bauer Community Center in Rockville
• Board of Elections in Gaithersburg
• Damascus Community Center
• Germantown Community Center
• Coffield Community Center in Silver Spring
• Lawton Community Center in Chevy Chase
• Long Branch Community Center in Silver Spring
• Praisner Community Center in Silver Spring
• Potomac Community Center
• Upper County Community Center in Gaithersburg

The state's early voting law requires that 80% of the registered voters live within 5 miles of one of the early voting centers. 

None of the ten proposed sites are within five miles of voters in the northwest of the county and only the Damascus site would be meet the requirement for voters in the northeast.

Three out of ten sites being considered are in Silver Spring.  Yet only one in twelve county residents lives in Silver Spring and the community represents only 2% of the county's total geography. We believe that no more than one early voting sites should be located in any community.

Finally the Republican Party also believes that the Board of Elections headquarters in Gaithersburg should be one of the sites chosen.  We believe that many voters would naturally assume that the Board would be one of the sites.  Not choosing the Board's main office would be a source of considerable confusion for voters.

These sites will take effect in 2010.  Comments on the proposed sites will be received by the County Board of Elections.  Comments were to  be sent to the Board by September 18, 2009 for the Board meeting scheduled for September 29th at 2:30pm.

Submission of written comments may be sent via e-mail to: elections@montgomerycountymd.gov or mailed to Montgomery County Board of Elections, PO Box 4333, Rockville MD 20849-4333.