And, we're going to get 'change' if the Democrats have their way...and that seems likely.

Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) retained his seat in the senate yesterday so the Democrats will not have the magic number necessary to absolutely control the senate.  The outcome in Minnesota is still somewhat in question, but, at the rate that new votes for the Democrat candidate are being 'found', I suspect that he'll prevail.

The problem with Republicans in the senate has always been the number who have worked hard to earn the right to be called by that ugly name, "RINO"; "Republicans In Name Only".  Those people are still there and they are still beyond the ability of the Republican leadership to 'control'.  Even though the Democrats will technically be unable to override filibuster attempts, the RINOs will often tip the scales by bolting from the 'party line'.  Those three or four people tend to be more liberal in their thinking than conservative.

So, we are going to see the 'change' we voted for in November.  The only questions remaining, in my mind, are just what that 'change' will be, how quickly it will occur, and how much it will cost.

The magic "first 100 days" comes into play so far as answering the question of how quickly change will occur.

The Democrat leaders are busy shaping what they'll propose, developing the time lines for each, and determining whether or not they'll go for a few all-encompassing bills or take smaller bills up, pass those and bask in the victories during the course of those first 100 days.

The likely items include the vaunted "economic stimulus plan", a bill requiring electric utilities to be using renewable sources for at least 15% of their power by 2020, a big push on funding and hurdle-clearing for embryonic stem cell programs and increases in the funding and reach of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).

After the meeting between governors and the president-elect yesterday, I presume we'll also see some kind of state-directed stimulus programs proposed, possibly as part of the overall stimulus package.

Change is around the corner.  The Democrats understand that they will be gaged by what they accomplish in the coming two-year period, so far as the elections that hit two years down the road for the entire house of representatives and for one-third of the senate seats in Congress.

As always, these are interesting times in which we live.

The Center on Wisconsin Strategy and the Wisconsin Council on Children & Families, both found in Madison, have released a report that reaches the startling conclusion you see in the headline above.

Wow!  What a surprise!  Further into the article in today's Journal Sentinel that discussed this amazing statistic, we find out that Wisconsin actually ranks quite well so far as this measurement is concerned...but apparently not well enough to make these groups comfortable.  The report shows that the gap in Wisconsin is actually smaller than on average across the country.  The report found that Wisconsin actually ranks 11th out of the 50 states in this regard, and that means the gap between top and bottom fifths of the population are lesser.

But, there are the usual suggestions made to 'correct' this terrible situation:

• Increase the minimum wage and then index it to inflation.
• Improve worker skills and education.
• Expand subsidized childcare and health care for low-income workers.
• 'Update' unemployment insurance.
• Make taxes 'more progressive'.

This 'minimum wage' canard is so old and tiresome but it just keeps coming back.  There are positions in the workforce that do not command more than the current minimum wage.  Every time the minimum wage is increased, it displaces workers at the bottom end of society because the jobs simply go away. The majority of minimum wage jobs are held on a part-time basis by students and homemakers, and not be sole bread winners.

Improving worker skills and education is a noble undertaking, it is one that we are engaged in already, and it speaks to the need to get MPS working since it seems intent on not graduating 53% of its students thus relegating them to those minimum wage jobs and/or welfare programs (except that you have to read for many of those, so I guess that is out).

I don't know where the people have been who built this study, but every time we turn around, we are expanding childcare and health care for low-income workers.  Look at BadgerCare and BadgerCare Plus.  Listen to the radio commercials begging people to come in to sign up for welfare programs.

Apparently unemployment insurance should be 'updated' (read increased) so the people who are unable to hold jobs get more money until the benefit runs out.  Maybe a better tax climate in our wonderful state would prompt the creation of more jobs and remove the increasing need for the unemployment insurance program 'update'.

Finally, the ultimate liberal solution for every ill to be found in society:  let's take more money away (tax increases) from 'the rich' and give it to the poor.  This class warfare shot is being heard all too often in the current presidential campaign, and it fails to define just who the 'rich' are; be careful middle class; you may be rich.  We don't need to resort to the use of this class warfare tactic in Wisconsin.  In case the 'ruling class' hasn't figured it out, our taxes are already too progressive.

These studies drive me nuts (as is plainly seen from this Blog).  Lower our taxes as Texas has done for its citizens and employers, and watch what happens to unemployment, etc.

What a surprise.  The rich get richer faster than the poor.  The real surprise is that liberals have yet to figure out how cause and effect function in this equation!

I had the 'pleasure' of meeting with one of Congressman Obey's staff members, Paul Carver, on Super Tuesday in the Congressman's absence.  Obey is the Congressman who represents Wausau and the surrounding area, and who is the 'Big Dog' so far as appropriations go in the new world controlled by the Democrats.  Congressman Obey has the reputation of a 'pit bull' and it appears that he hires in his own image.  The staff person, Paul Carver, is a native of England and had an attitude that was apparent from the very moment he walked out of his area and stated that ours weren't the names he had been expecting.  We had the pleasure of Mr. Carver's presence since the House of Representatives isn't in session this week.  I have no idea if the Congressman would've been more hospitable, less hospitable or about the same.

We were representing the National Association of Health Underwriters, a well-respected association in Washington,D.C.  NAHU represents 20,000 insurance agents and brokers who collectively handle the health care insurance coverage for some 150 million citizens.  We wanted to discuss the legislation that we expect which will affect health insurance for every citizen of the United States.

Mr. Carver proceeded to rant about how great socialized medicine was, how rotten insurance companies were, and berated us when we said we hadn't watched the so-called 'documentary' Sicko that had been advanced by Michael Moore.  Then he decided it would be more fun if he elicited comments from us that he could flame.  As we each became aware that this man was all about bullying and had no interest in learning anything, since he obviously knew everything, we ended our meeting as graciously as was possible.

During the rant, however, he did say that he believed in socialized health care for the United States, just like that in his old home, England.  We tried to offer information for his consideration, but he had no interest.  It was as if he were saying, "Don't confuse me with facts because my mind is made up."  He based much of his argument on the Michael Moore 'documentary' "Sicko".  He 'knew' that Cuba had better health care than the U.S., as did England, the Netherlands, Canada and a few other countries that flew out in his diatribe too quickly to be noted.

This is but one example of the 'ruling elite' that populate our nation's capitol.  The concept of these people being employed by we voters is simply a concept so foreign as to be laughable from their perspectives.  In defense of most of the 'staffers', they are well-educated, courteous and only too happy to meet with any citizens.  Some, unfortunately, are like Paul Carver.  I hope he is a citizen, but I don't know that for sure.  It certainly seemed that he'd be much happier back in his homeland of England.

We went to Washington. D.C., the capitol of our country, to meet with and discuss health care with our elected representatives.  We were not well-received by Mr. Carver who represented Congressman Obey.  We were actually treated with a rudeness that I've not experienced since my encounter with a former Congressman from the South Side of Milwaukee whose name was Jerry.

These are the Democrats, the very officials who supposedly represent the 'underdog'.  They turn my stomach.  They don't represent, so much as they misrepresent, the down-trodden.  So long as they are able to maintain their personal positions of power, it seems they're very satisfied.  And, we electors seem so gullible that we continue to re-elect these elitists.

Wisconsin has had a program called BadgerCare in place for some time now.  It is the Wisconsin version of the federal SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Plan) program that was recently funded for another year+.  As we've discussed, somewhere between two-thirds and three-quarters of all premium dollars in that program in Wisconsin are spent on ADULTS.  Some 40,000 children who are eligible have never been enrolled.

Here comes BadgerCare Plus effective on and after February 1, 2008.  The goal is that this will assure that 98% of all children in Wisconsin will be covered.  That is a noble cause and no one disputes that.  I am troubled that those administering the current plan have been unable to reach out to the families of those 40,000 kids that have not been enrolled. I am wondering how we're going to be able to get to 98% with BadgerCare Plus if we were so unsuccessful with the current plan.  I take major exception with what this new program does cover, however.

It is available to all children regardless of the income of their parents.  Some parents with incomes too high to qualify for 'free' coverage will have to pay a monthly premium of as much as $68.00 for each child covered.  It has been established in the current program that for every two children enrolled in BadgerCare, one is dropped from private insurance coverage already being paid for by employers and/or parents.  Your tax dollars are actually causing people already covered to disenroll in order to get this better deal, and that is increasing the cost of these programs; a cycle that cannot go on forever.

BadgerCare Plus will cover all pregnant women with incomes of up to 300% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) or an amount equal to $51,510 for a family of three.  BadgerCare Plus will now be available to farmers and other self-employed people.  BadgerCare Plus will be available to parents and caretakers who earn up to 200% of FPL, or $34,340 for a family of three.

The Standard Plan is the same as the current coverage and features copayments from $0.50 to $3.00 based upon the services provided.  Those amounts are insufficient to cause anyone to think about the need before presenting for services.  That drives the overall costs higher and higher. 

A new Benchmark Plan is going to be available.  That will feature copayments of from $5.00 for prescriptions to $100 for in-patient stays.  Again, these copayments are insufficient to cause anyone to think about need.  Emergency cases are the exception, of course.  The Benchmark plan is available to families with higher incomes as well as to self-employed families.  The list goes on.

BadgerCare Plus is but another example of the incremental movement by those who think government is the answer to everything.  A program called the "Childrens Health Insurance" plan is being used to cover more and more adults.  It is being used even though disenrollment from private insurance coverage is being caused.  It is being expanded to cover more and more people.  The Federal Poverty Level number is being very conveniently multiplied by 2 or 3 times in order to be made available to more people with every iteration.

This is pure, unvarnished "Universal Health Care" in the early stages.  Surely we remember the parable of the frog and the increasing temperature of the water, don't we?  The frog eventually was boiled to death but made no attempt to leave the kettle.  While we citizens anguished over the failed 'Healthy Wisconsin' plan (which is coming back for another run), BadgerCare Plus was brought into existence with barely a whisper!  Our state officials proposed the relaxation of rules to the federal administrators, who love to be all important to everybody; the rules were relaxed for Wisconsin; and, BadgerCare Plus results.  And now the liberals who watched this happen are touting Wisconsin as the newest 'shining beacon' for healthcare.

That is what incrementalism is all about.  It has worked down through the centuries.  People eventually become accustomed to one level of entitlement, and then the next level gradually appears.  People get used to that level, and another is brought into being...until the frog is boiled to death.

That was the title of an article by Jeffrey Schmidt that appeared in the American Thinker publication on November 27th discussing the funding debates that are taking place in Washington over the Medicare program.  Then, today's Boston Globe carried an article that discusses the problems in the Massachusetts Connector healthcare program.  Both articles should chill you to the bone...and they should convince you that politically-driven healthcare is simply a bad idea.

The Medicare funding process gives us keen insight into what happens once politicians get to decide how much and what sort of healthcare participants receive.  There is some $390 billion available for coverage of the 40 million seniors and other beneficiaries of the Medicare programs.  The discussion involves everything from possible changes (reimbursement reductions) to the very successful Medicare Advantage programs, to reducing physician's fees to reimbursement amounts for various treatments and therapies, etc.

What has been absent in all this debate is this:  the process has not been about the best healthcare for Medicare recipients. 

It has been about the political process with political ends uppermost in the minds of the participants.  The politicans directly involved are worrying more about currying favor with some special interests, placating other special interests and punishing, yes punishing, other others.

Now, the other example:  the Massachusetts Connector healthcare program.  This program is run by the state politicians (they appointed the Board that actually holds the meetings, but we all understand that appointed boards are political organs).  It requires that every citizen, save a few, must have healthcare coverage by December 31st or risk penalties that include confiscating their tax return dollars.  Among other things, this mandate overwhelmed the system established by the state, truly a surprise :)

During the initial set-up of plans, the Connector board had to go back and browbeat the insurers to extract artifical premium reductions.  That hen has come back to roost.  The Connector staff has estimated that premiums for the several plans they designed will go up from 4% to 14% based on actuarial reviews given the costs that insurers have seen during this year.

However, the Connector can't afford this for fear it'll cause the program to fail.  So what to do, what to do?  They have an idea; let's go back and mandate premium increases of no more than 5%.  What'll this do?  Well, for starters, it is going to prove to the insurers that they were right all along, and that maybe they should think seriously about getting out of Massachusetts.  Golly, if we can't mandate more losses for the insurers, then we can either increase premiums (since no tax money is currently involved) or we can reduce benefits.  Can you spell R-A-T-I-O-N-I-N-G? 

These are two classic examples of what happens when we entrust our healthcare to politicians.  These are two excellent examples of what we can expect when "Healthy Wisconsin" is brought back to life next year as has been promised by the Democrats.  These plans simply invite trouble for us participants.  How is it that we can still insist on repeating the mistakes from which we should have learned our lessons?

Because the politicians see in this that which might well be the ultimate political control tool.  There are too many politicians who believe they are the solution to everything when, in fact, they're more often the problem.

Will we remember the lesson, or will the promise of universal healthcare win us over?  Will we trust the politicians with our healthcare future?   I hope the answer to that question is NO.