As the Democrats continue to push for health care, they continue to look for scapegoats:

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE56T4CZ20090730?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Insurance companies may be many things. But immoral? What’s immoral about saving people money when they have a surgery? Or reducing their co-pays to $25 when they visit the doctor? This is immoral?

What’s immoral is that the government requires insurance companies to cover so many procedures and then calls those same companies “villains” when the price of health insurance goes up.

To wrap up this series, here is what we need to really reform health care:

*Tax incentives for families and individuals to buy their own insurance;

*The ability for health plans to compete across state lines;

*Less regulations from the government.

Take those three steps and health care access and affordability will increase. But this plan probably makes too much sense for Washington to do it. Now that’s immoral.

As the president continues to sell his health care plan, the poll numbers continue to drop:

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/07/people_think_health_care_reform_will_hurt_them.php

It seems the more he talks about it, the less people like it. By now, most Americans have figured out that government-run health care means less coverage and more cost. The president’s plan is bad medicine.

But there is a better way. Here is an idea. Since World War II, health care purchased through your employer can be done using pre-tax dollars. Health care you purchased for yourself is done with after-tax dollars. Why not change that? Rather than give the tax benefit to the company, why not give it to families to help them buy their own insurance?

This one simple change in the tax code would increase coverage and keep costs relatively stable.

Now that’s change we can believe in.

As we continue to look at what real health care reform would look like, we find ourselves looking at the issue of government mandates:

http://www.seefirstblog.com/2009/07/14/when-politics-and-health-care-meet/

There are some 2000 individual mandates that govern health insurance plans. As the article notes, this reflects:

“the ability of particular groups to convince politicians to cover (or exclude from coverage) particular conditions or procedures. For example, some states mandate coverage for vitro fertilization, hospice care, HPV vaccine, acupuncture, while others do not. As you might expect, the combinations vary from state to state and there is no uniform model.”

So here’s how it works. Take acupuncture, for example. Lobbyists are hired by the acupuncture industry. The lobbyists help the legislators or regulators write mandates that any health insurance plan must cover acupuncture. Then the health insurance plan passes along the extra cost of this service to the customer in the form of higher premiums.

So the solution is not more government mandates, but more individual freedom. In car insurance, you can purchase a minimal plan that just gives you the basics. Why can’t we do the same thing in health insurance? I don’t need acupuncture. I just need something in case someone in our family needs to go to the doctor once in a while.

Real reform would begin with repealing these mandates and letting the customer shop around for a plan that fits him.

“>

Earlier this week, President Obama conducted a press conference to try and build support for his faltering health care reform plan:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Take-the-red-pill-Mr-President-51473502.html

One of the more interesting comments he made was that his plan would save money. “If there’s a blue pill and a red pill, and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half price for the thing that’s going to make you well?” he asked.

What makes this comment interesting is that it’s so absurd. Health care’s challenge isn’t shifting to blue pills. We already do that now. It’s called generic brand medicine.

No, health care’s problem is that there are too many regulations imposed by government. Depending on the state you live in, your health care plan has dozens and maybe hundreds of regulations imposed on it. One of my favorite examples is that in some states health plans are required to cover acupuncture!

These regulations may seem harmless. But each time a regulation is added onto a health plan, the cost of that plan goes up.

So what will happen when the new Obama plan adds new regulations? The price will go up again whether we use the blue pill or the red pill.

If President Obama were serious about health care reform, he could pursue a number of common sense approaches.

For example, the president says he’s worried about the “cost curve” of health care. Fine. As someone who pays the rising health care premiums for my family, I am too.

But rather than crowd out private insurance–as his plan is destined to do once it sets up government-run insurance–why not make insurance more affordable? For example, under current law, health care coverage can be paid for with pre-tax dollars only if it is provided by your employer. Why not give that same tax advantage to individuals and families?

Or how about this: one of the main reasons health care is so expensive is that you can’t shop plans across state lines. Why not change that? Let’s make plans in Texas compete with plans in Florida.

These are two simple steps that would have a profound impact. Instead, the president is marching inevitably toward a single payer system. And that’s going to be some bad medicine for our economy.

Here is the Cliff’s Notes version of the Obama health care plan:

1) Create a government-run health insurance program that would “compete” with private sector plans;

2) Fine businesses that don’t offer health insurance to their employees.

At first, these may seem like two separate strategies. But look closer. Many businesses will drop health insurance for their employees since paying the fine will be cheaper than paying for insurance. This will then create a mass of people looking for insurance. And where will they get it? From the new government-run health insurance program.

This is brilliant politics: create a demand for nationalized health care. But it’s terrible policy: do you want your health insurance to come from the same people who run the post office and who did the Katrina recovery efforts?

No thanks, I like my health insurance the way it is now.

This week we are beginning our new series on health care reform. And already there is some disturbing news for President Obama:

http://www.gantdaily.com/news/35/ARTICLE/57277/2009-07-20.html

Yes, the American people are already turning against his plan. Why? Because his plan costs too much, expands government too much and does too little to actually improve health care.

Perhaps the worst thing about the Democratic plan is that there is no way to pay for it. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the Democratic health care reform would create a net increase in federal budget deficits of about $1 trillion.

Who is going to pay for this? You and I are and our children and grandchildren are going to.

But cost is just one of the reasons this plan is a bad idea.

Tomorrow we’ll look at how the plan threatens you and your health insurance.

“>

As we conclude our series on the NCAA investigation of ACU athletics and launch our new ebook, here is the link to the official NCAA report:

NCAA report on ACU

For the past two weeks, we’ve talked about the NCAA’s investigation of ACU and the ACU response. By now, we’ve established that the penalties were too severe and the response was too passive.

So today, let’s end the series by looking at what ACU could have and should have said. Here is what I believe either President Money or Athletic Director Mosley might have been better off saying:

“We accept that rules were broken. But we do not accept that we did anything wrong.

As a Christian university, we have a higher calling to a higher power than the NCAA. And our code of conduct is a little different than the NCAA version. The NCAA version leads that organization to slap big guys on the wrist, like when OU alums were paying Rhett Bomar to not work at a car dealership. But that same NCAA code of conduct allows them to go after little guys like ACU with a vengeance.

Our code of conduct takes precedence: it’s the Bible. And in it, we are instructed to love our neighbors as ourselves.

And so when a track athlete with an infected foot needs treatment, we provide it.

When a player needs a computer to take a correspondence course, we supply it.

And when athletes from other countries want to come to our Christmas parties, we embrace them.

That is not just what we do…that is who we are. We don’t talk about kindness; we live it.

And so while we accept responsibility, we don’t apologize. And when given the opportunity again, we will continue to do the right thing, whether the NCAA thinks its the legal thing or not.

In 2nd Thessalonians, the Apostle Paul instructs us to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught….” That is what we did…and what we will continue to do.

We can hold our heads high at the end of this investigation. Too bad the officials at the NCAA can’t say the same thing.”

When ACU announced it was appealing some of the NCAA sanctions in February, here is what athletic director Jared Mosley said:

“We were surprised by the penalty in football that asked us to vacate the 2007 wins and associated records there. We had a chance the last couple of weeks to look into that a little deeper and feel that it’s going to be worth our time and effort to put in the work and then look at case precedent and file our own appeal of those penalties they outlined for us.”

The problem with this approach is that by challenging some of the sanctions, ACU implied that other sanctions were legitimate.

For example, by not challenging the track sanctions, the school suggested that it agreed with a ludicrous penalty leveled because the Hillcrest Church of Christ hosted a Christmas party that some track athletes attended.

By picking and choosing which sanctions to appeal, ACU inadvertently undermined its best argument: that the entire NCAA investigation was absurd.

Tomorrow, we’ll close out our series on the NCAA sanctions against ACU by looking at what could have been said and how it might have made a difference.

When the NCAA announced its findings on the ACU athletic department in February 2009, ACU President Royce Money responded:

“To be clear, we maintain that these infractions do not include intentional violations. While we had systems in place at the time of the infractions, this investigation has led us to strengthen our compliance education.”

Fair enough. But what was missing from this statement was an explanation of why these “major” infractions took place and how many of them were consistent with ACU’s values.

Crisis communications experts often talk about how its important to focus on results, not process. The statement ACU gave in response to the NCAA findings tended to focus on process. “We had systems in place,” Dr. Money said.

In retrospect, wouldn’t it have been better to say something like: “We have a values system in place”?  And then go onto to describe the church Christmas party as an example of Christians simply showing some Christian charity to the student-athletes?

I think ACU missed an opportunity to describe to the nation why it is different than any other college in the country.

This week, we continue our series about the NCAA sanctions against ACU called “No Good Deed Goes Unpunished.”

Last week, we focused on the allegations and the heavy-handed response the NCAA handed down. Most of the ACU sins were minor and usually involved Christians trying to love their neighbors who just happened to be athletes. And the NCAA punishment simply did not fit the crime.

But this week, we’re going to shift our focus and talk about ACU’s role. Not in committing these offenses–even ACU admits they did these things. Rather, I want to focus on ACU’s response…or lack thereof.

This could have been a great moment when a Christian school had the attention of the national media and used it to talk about how absurd it is that a church can’t give out a Christmas gift to an athlete. This could have been a great teaching moment for the whole nation. We could have shown America that we are “no ordinary university.”

So tune in the rest of the week as we talk about the missed opportunities in ACU’s response.

So how did the NCAA get so much information about ACU’s athletic department?

Sources close to ACU tell me the NCAA had an inside source. A compliance officer at the school kept a running tally of all the “major” violations. Those same sources say that the compliance officer was supposed to take the infractions first to ACU. In this case, the officer did no such thing. Instead, she built up her case against her employer and then right over ACU’s head to the NCAA.

But according to sources, the ACU compliance officer did talk to the student-athletes. She was directed by the NCAA to interview all the student-athletes and compile a list of gifts given by church members, with no regard to whether it was used socks or paying for much needed medical treatments. She then went to Wal-Mart and priced all items as if new and informed the athletes that they would have to repay the amount of the gifts to a charity in order to be eligible to participate in the National Championships. The athletes scrambled to find some way to pay the fines levied by their own compliance officer with less than two weeks until Nationals.

The real scandal in this scandal is how the NCAA handled the investigation. This is a sordid business. The NCAA should have known better. And ACU should have gotten better.

But next week, we’ll talk more about the ACU response–or lack thereof–and why the school could have and should have done more.

Today we continue our series on the NCAA sanctions against ACU’s athletic department. And let me be clear: ACU is guilty of these charges. I just don’t think these charges are worthy of the punishments.

Or, to put it another way, what ACU did might have been illegal, but it wasn’t immoral.

Take the case of the church Christmas party. This party was going to be held whether the athletes came or not. Since they also attended the church, why shouldn’t they have gone? Just like when I was in college, my professor, Dr. John Willis, hosted a meal at his house every Sunday night than any student could attend. What’s wrong with that? I talked to a person who was at the Christmas party who said the athletes talked about how far they were from home and what Christmas was like in their home countries. He said it was one of the most moving experiences of his life.

Or take the case of the track athlete who got medical treatment paid for by a friend at church.

At the Indoor Nationals, the athlete got a massive blister that covered the entire ball of his foot.  It was cleaned and treated at the meet. The large flap of skin was laid back and the bare raw area was treated by the training staff. Once back in Texas the injury became worse and medical help was needed…and fast. With no one  turn to–athletic trainers were gone due to Spring Break–a Christian sprinted to the rescue and took him to the urgent care center and paid for his treatment. This is not out of the ordinary for any student at “No Ordinary University”.

Like I’ve said before, this would all be funny if it weren’t so sad.

And how did the NCAA become so obsessed with all these minor infractions at a little school like ACU?

It turns out they had an inside source. We’ll talk more about that tomorrow.

And the hits just keep on coming…

Here are some more of the “major violations” that the ACU athletic department committed, according to the NCAA:

“During the summer of 2007, two members of the football coaching staff assisted prospects 3 and 4 with their correspondence coursework.”

And what is the evidence the NCAA cites to back up this claim?

“Because assistant coach C knew prospect 3 needed to be pushed in his school work, he phoned the young man regularly to urge him to study.”

Oh, the horror of it! A college coach actually encouraging an athlete to study. Come on. Isn’t this what all coaches should be doing? Not just coaching on the field but encouraging academic pursuits off the field, too?

Here is another “major violation” according to the NCAA:

“The scope and nature of the violations detailed in Findings B-1, B-2 and B-3 demonstrate that the head coach failed to maintain an atmosphere of compliance within the men’s and women’s track and field program and failed to monitor certain aspects of the program to ensure compliance with NCAA legislation.”

And the evidence?

The track coach “gave each of the young men, who had expressed a desire to compete on his team, a pair of running shoes.”

Tell me again how a pair of running shoes is a “major violation” of the rules?

I do know this NCAA report is a major joke. When you consider that many major colleges pay athletes (remember Rhett Bomar’s “job” and how OU got a slap on the wrist?) then the ACU violations don’t seem very major at all.

How absurd are the NCAA sanctions against Abilene Christian University’s athletic department?

Consider the case of the church party. Let me quote directly from the NCAA report:

“Many members of the institution’s track and field teams are international student-athletes who are unable to travel to their home countries during the Christmas holidays. During the holiday seasons in both 2006 and 2007, “pot luck” suppers organized by a local church [Hillcrest Church of Christ] were held for some of the international students at the home of an assistant track coach (”assistant coach A”). During those parties 15 student-athletes (”student-athletes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,13, 14 and 15,” respectively) were provided impermissible benefits including small appliances, DVD’s, CD’s, food items, gift cards, personal items, clothing items and cash. The items were donated by members of the church.”

Are you kidding me? ACU is being punished because a local church gave out some CD’s and gift cards at a Christmas party? Is this a joke?

But it gets more absurd. Also from the NCAA report:

“Once prospect 3 finished his assignments, assistant coach C mailed the completed correspondence course work to the institution through which the course was offered so that it could be graded. Assistant coach C paid the postage fee to send the assignments. Prospect 3 passed the class and competed for the institution.”

I thought coaches were supposed to support the academic pursuits of athletes. How is mailing in the correspondence work a major violation?

Tomorrow, we’ll go through some more of the greatest hits of this absurd report. Be prepared to be shocked at how silly the violations were and how heavy-handed the NCAA’s response was.

This week we are kicking off a new blog series entitled: “No good deed goes unpunished.”

This is the story of how ACU’s athletic department got into trouble. Not for paying recruits. Not for fixing grades. But for basic human kindness.

Do you think a track athlete from Africa should be allowed to get a Christmas gift from a local church? I do, too. But the NCAA doesn’t.

In this series, we’ll show you how the NCAA treated jaywalking like it were first-degree murder.

And, we’ll show you how ACU’s response was not nearly strong enough. By not standing up for itself, ACU set the stage to get attacked again…and for other small colleges to get attacked, too.

So be sure and check out our series all this week!

Today we conclude our five-part series on cap-and-trade. And we do so by looking at the political gamesmanship that went into writing this bill.

Want to know how insincere the authors of this bill were? Insincere enough that they wrote in key exceptions, usually timed to coince with elections:

“Consider also that electoral politics are practically written into the bill. The first year of cap and trade would be the presidential election year of 2012, when emissions would be limited to 97 percent of 2005 levels. So, not overly draconian while Barack Obama faces re-election.

“Democrats have also actually scheduled emissions increases in 2014, just in time for mid-term elections, and in 2016. Clearly, they are trying to limit cap and trade’s effect on the next few elections.”

http://www.ajc.com/services/content/printedition/2009/07/02/wingfielded0702.html

My question is: if cap-and-trade is such a great answer to global warming, then why don’t these Washington lawmakers have the courage of their convictions and implement these regulations even during election cycles?

Of course, that question answers itself.

The sooner we get past cap-and-trade and get onto alternative energy like biomass, solar and wind, the better off we will all be.