Regardless of whether compliance with an NFPA standard is voluntary or mandatory, fire and rescue departments must consider the impact of “voluntary” standards on private litigation. In some states, a department may be liable for the negligent performance of their duties. Even in states that protect rescue workers under an immunity statute, most state laws do not protect fire or rescue departments for grossly negligent acts. Essentially, negligence involves the violation of a standard of care that results in injury or loss to some other individual or organization. In establishing the standard of care for rescue operations, the courts will frequently look to the “voluntary” standards issued by NFPA and other organizations. Although “voluntary” in name, these standards can become, in effect, the legally enforceable standard of care for fire or rescue department. Accordingly, fire and rescue departments should pay close attention to applicable standards.
Understaffing of fire departments is a nationwide problem. So much so in fact, that the ICMA, International City Managers Association, has conducted studies to determine the effectiveness of fire companies based on staffing. This information was published Managing Fire Services, 2nd edition. This international organization of city leaders recognizes the importance of a properly staffed fire department. This publication included this information:
1. Fire suppression operations have three basic functions: (1) RESCUE; (2) work involving ladder, forcible entry, and ventilation; and (3) the application of water. To raise ladders, ventilate, search, and RESCUE simultaneously takes quick action by at least FOUR and often EIGHT or more firefighters, each under the supervision of an officer.
2. If about SIXTEEN trained firefighters are not operating at the scene of a working fire within the critical time period, then DOLLAR LOSS and INJURIES are significantly INCREASED as is fire spread.
>Ridgewood Council will pay back remainder of parking garage bond Wednesday, January 13, 2010
The Ridgewood Village Council passed a resolution Tuesday night essentially canceling the balance on a bond ordinance and saving taxpayer money on interest payments. But officials said the ordinance itself is still active and could be used down the road to borrow the money again.
The unanimous vote authorizes the chief financial officer pay back $1.6 million left over from a $3 million bond ordinance. The bond was originally issued to begin work on a proposed parking garage at the North Walnut Street municipal parking lot and it was used to pay for environmental studies that revealed the presence of hydrocarbons at the site; the property had been home to many gas stations in past decades.
Some of the money was also used in an attempt to purchase the Town Garage property next to the municipal parking lot through eminent domain. That property was needed to build a proposed 360-space parking structure, which would have included nearly 40,000 square feet of retail.
Money was used to declare the North Walnut Street lot a “blighted area in need of redevelopment” based on the results of the environmental study. The project began with the previous council, but the current village council voted the project down, leaving the fate of the remaining bond up for debate for the past year.
According to figures provided by Village Manager Ken Gabbert to resident Boyd Loving, who spoke during the public comment portion of the meeting, giving back the leftover money will save Ridgewood taxpayers about $1,500 a month in interest payments.
“Every 30 days you are holding on to that money, taxpayers are spending $1,500 of interest for a yearly total of $18,000, according to the memo that Dr. Gabbert gave me,” Loving explained.
The council held the meeting on Tuesday night because an interest payment on the bond is due by Jan. 22.
The move to not cancel the actual bond ordinance will allow the council to borrow up to $1.6 million again if it decided to use the funds to remediate the contaminated North Walnut Street municipal parking lot or purchase the Town Garage property.
Mayor David Pfund mentioned “flipping” that money to a proposed parking deck at a Hudson Street municipal lot, but Gabbert informed him that doing so would require a new ordinance since the money was originally bonded for a project in the North Walnut Street Redevelopment District.
Councilwoman Anne Zusy asked how difficult it would be to borrow the money again if the council were to proceed with a project on North Walnut Street. Gabbert said that it would take at least two months to introduce and adopt another ordinance, not including the time it would take to negotiate a purchase price for the Town Garage property with its current owner, Ridgewood 120 LLC, should that be the route the council takes.
Pfund described the ordinance as an “unfunded authorization” that would allow the town to borrow the remaining $1.6 million to purchase the Town Garage property if it decided to move in that direction.
“You can cancel the ability to borrow under this bond by being in a position of revising or amending the ordinance, or canceling the ordinance that’s in existence. That’s a separate vote,” said Village Attorney Matt Rogers. “This is a resolution to specifically deal with the cancellation of the amount to reduce the bond to what we’ve used, basically.”
Deputy Mayor Keith Killion said that if there is support to purchase the Town Garage property, it “should be discussed in closed [session].”
Councilman Paul Aronsohn went on record with his long-held position that he was not in favor of purchasing the Town Garage property, and he felt the bond ordinance should be canceled Tuesday night.
“I’ve been directed by the council to contact the other side [Ridgewood 120 LLC] to see if there was a way that we could negotiate a price for the property,” Rogers said. “That’s all my charge was, Paul. That’s all I was asked to do.”
Rogers also noted that in order to cancel the bond ordinance, a “super majority,” or four votes, would be required. A super majority is necessary for any action to take place regarding a bond ordinance, he said.
“With the issue of remediation still outstanding, and the issue of possibly purchasing Ridgewood 120 LLC, 120 Franklin Ave., unresolved, but under consideration, this is what I thought,” Rogers said.
Councilman Pat Mancuso discussed a Jan. 6 council meeting, during which a $1.75 million estimate was given in relation to constructing one level of parking at a Hudson Street lot.
“This is what I’ve wanted to achieve, spreading out the parking,” Mancuso said. “I am not for the big parking garage on Franklin, I am not for that at all. And I agree with Paul — let’s vote on it, get it out of the way and move forward.”
Killion added that a past parking committee recommended “six or seven years ago” to construct single levels of parking at a variety of municipal lots throughout the Central Business District. Zusy said the same thought was submitted as part of recommendations made by a more recent parking committee, of which she was a member.
Pfund almost ended the meeting without a vote, but Aronsohn and Killion pushed for a formal vote to pay back the remainder of the bond to avoid paying interest on money that the council is not going to use right now.
“So this vote is showing our approval and desire that the money gets paid back so there’s no interest,” Pfund said just before the vote was taken.
>Village Council to Consider Permanent Closure of West Glen Avenue Firehouse
It is being rumored that Village Council members will soon debate permanent closure of the West Glen Avenue firehouse. The firehouse is currently staffed 24/7/365 by nine career firefighters (three per shift/tour of duty), who respond to fire and medical emergencies throughout the Village.
As previously reported on The Ridgewood Blog, Village Council members are scheduled to vote this Wednesday, January 13th, on an ordinance that would permit Village Manager Dr. Kenneth A. Gabbert to reduce the career firefighting force by up to nine career firefighters.
Several former and current members of the Village Council view continued operation of a full time career firefighting organization as a luxury Ridgewoodites can no longer afford. The most frequently asked question at Village Hall nowadays seems to be: “If the Borough of Paramus can survive with a completely volunteer fire department, why can’t Ridgewood?”
Tough economic times and the projected loss of significant economic aid from the State of NJ may force Council members to close up the West Glen Avenue fire station prior to this year’s municipal election (scheduled to take place in May).
Is the Obama Administration going to side with school reformers, or will it reward state and local teachers union affiliates that defend the status quo? This is a question states are asking as they prepare their applications for $4.35 billion in Race to the Top competitive grants. Some guidance from Education Secretary Arne Duncan would be helpful.
Teachers unions in Minnesota and Florida are currently threatening to withhold support for their state Race to the Top applications, which are due later this month. So is the school boards association in Louisiana. This matters because the Administration has placed a premium on states garnering “local school district support” in order to win a grant. Not having union buy-in isn’t fatal, but it definitely hurts a state’s chances of getting federal funds.
States will be evaluated on a 500-point system, with the largest number of points (138) going to states that improve teacher effectiveness by using student performance to help rate instructors. States are awarded 45 additional points for getting “local education agencies” to sign off on their applications—about the same number of points they get for turning around failing schools.
Unions are mainly opposed to teacher accountability reforms. Both Florida and Minnesota want to implement or expand systems that tie teacher pay to student test scores. The irony is that both President Obama and Secretary Duncan have expressed support for such programs, yet Race to the Top is giving leverage to reform opponents who would eliminate or weaken these policies, and it punishes states that want to expand them over union objections.
Collective-bargaining agreements that protect bad teachers also harm children. Unions, which put the interests of their members above those of students, aren’t bothered by this. But state reformers who are trying to correct the problem don’t deserve to be penalized on their Race to the Top applications. They deserve some political cover from “the top,” meaning Mr. Duncan.
Race to the Top awards are supposed to go to states demonstrating “a coordinated and deep-seated commitment to reform.” Letting unions undermine state reform applications is a race to nowhere.
>Ridgewood schools can proceed with $48M expansion, renovation plans Friday, January 8, 2010 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY JANUARY 8, 2010, 8:05 PM BY PATRICIA ALEX THE RECORD STAFF WRITER
Ridgewood can proceed as planned with a $48 million expansion and renovation plan for its public schools after the state reiterated Friday that money promised for the project would be forthcoming.
The school district on Thursday posted a notice from Superintendent of Schools Daniel Fishbein on its Web site saying that the release of $10 million in state contributions to the project would be delayed pending review by the incoming Christie administration. The notice said Ridgewood would not begin work until the matter was resolved.
But Friday afternoon, a representative of the state agency that doles out the money said the funds approved in a recent referendum would be on their way.
“The press release issued by Ridgewood was unfortunately not accurate,” said Larry Hanover, spokesman for the Schools Development Authority. “We have been in dialogue with the district and have reassured them that &hellip grants that have passed local referendum will be processed in accordance with direction received from both the current administration and the incoming governor’s staff.”
Christie has vowed to review all further borrowing by the state, leading to some confusion in local school districts. Mike Yaple, spokesman for the New Jersey School Boards Association, said his group had gotten calls from one or two other districts that were worried about receipt of the state funds. “It was a concern,” said Yaple. “People weren’t sure how it was going to play out.”
Bob Hutton, vice president of the Ridgewood school board, said earlier conversations with the state led Ridgewood to believe the money was in jeopardy. “We were told point blank by the SDA that they weren’t signing anything,” Hutton said.
However, late Friday, after the SDA saw the Ridgewood release, the district received word that their project was a go, Hutton said. Work is slated to begin in the summer, he said.
The project will include improvements at nine schools and several athletic fields in the district. It was approved by a margin of 62 votes in December.
>It seems that Ms. Goodman is right to be cautious about whether Ridgewood will ever see the $10 million dollars in matching funds from the state of NJ for our turf fields. We have it from a good source that Governor Corzine has refused to sign off on any school referendums. Which means that Ridgewood’s recently passed $48 million dollar bond referendum is in limbo awaiting the approval of incoming Governor Christie. Who, by the way, has made it abundantly clear that he is going to cut state spending.
So, if Governor Christie doesn’t sigh off on the recent school referendums, they will have to be voted on again. What do you think the chances are that our BOE can muster the 62 vote margin needed to pass this boondoggle of a bond again? If I were a bettin’ man, I’d say slim to none considering we ain’t gettin’ the $10 mill in matchin’ grant money from the new governor.
Watch how optimism turns to pessimism as our BOE grapples with this issue and a cash shortfall of close to $3 million in this year’s operating budget.
As we have said all along, this group at Cottage Place is in over its head… in every capacity. Thank goodness we have great principals who run our schools in spite of the BOE and its bloated administration.
>SURVEY: New Jerseyans Can’t Afford to Escape! January 5, 2010
Atlas Van Lines just released their 2009 migration survey (click here to view the report). Unsurprisingly, New Jerseyans are still running for the exits in large numbers. 2009 saw a slightly lower percentage of state residents leave than in 2008, but Assemblyman Alex DeCroce (R) notes that that is more a sign of economic distress than sustained recovery.
From the Assembly Republican Office:
“Assembly Republican Leader Alex DeCroce says a new report that found more households move out of New Jersey in 2009 than moved in shows just how crucial it is for the Legislature to work with incoming Gov. Chris Christie to lower taxes and make the state an affordable place for more families to live. “The only encouraging news in the report released by Atlas Van Lines is that New Jersey is not number one for a change,” said DeCroce, R-Morris and Passaic. “Connecticut was the hardest hit by outward migration in the Northeast. But there’s not much solace in the fact that New Jersey ran a close second.
“People are continuing to leave New Jersey because of high taxes and high unemployment. We must work together to stop this exodus otherwise the future of this state and our ability to resolve its monumental financial problems is grim.” According to a report in today’s edition of The Star-Ledger of Newark, Atlas determined 2,356 households moved out of New Jersey last year while only 1,480 moved in. While the number of people exiting New Jersey dropped 11 percent from the 2008 level, DeCroce said this is no reason to be optimistic. Atlas attributed the drop in moves to the nation’s economic woes.
“Essentially, fewer people moved out because fewer people could afford to make the move,” DeCroce observed. “The only sensible way to keep people in New Jersey is to lower their tax burden and improve New Jersey’s business climate. What the people need are more jobs and more money in their pockets.”
>The Ridgewood Health Department will offer H1N1 vaccines to all pre-registered Ridgewood residents on Tuesday, Jan. 19.
The vaccines will be available to all residents, regardless of age and precondition; however, preregistration is required. Those interested in receiving the vaccine should call 201-291-6090 before the clinic, which will be held from 4 to 6 p.m. at Ridgewood Village Hall.
>Secretary Janet Napolitano Department of Homeland Security U.S. Department of Homeland Security Washington, DC 20528
Dear Secretary Napolitano:
I’m writing to you today to express deep concerns with the direction of the nation’s homeland security response, especially in regards to the handling of terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallad in the months prior to – and days since – his Christmas Day attack on a Northwest Airlines Flight 253 landing in Detroit.
Based on the handling of this entire affair, I think it’s time for you to consider stepping down and making room for an individual with more law enforcement and counterterrorism experience to take the reins at the Office of Homeland Security.
The entire episode was handled poorly, from start to finish. Indications that Mr. Abdulmutallad may pose a danger to the nation’s security were not acted upon, despite the existence of intelligence suggesting that he may be dangerous, and working alongside Al-Quaeda operatives in Yemen. His name was put into a database with other suspected terrorists, but he was still allowed to fly freely and enter and exit the U.S. on a nonrevoked, multiple-entry U.S. visa.
After the Christmas Day near-miss, your public statements seemed more focused on public relations than closing the gaps in our nation’s security safety net that allowed a terrorist to board an international flight for the United States. You said on ABC’s “This Week” program on Sunday, “I think the important thing to recognize here is that once this incident occurred, everything happened that should have. We trained for this. We planned for this.” On CNN’s “State of the Union” program, you said, “One thing I’d like to point out is that the system worked.”
Public relations spin to the contrary, I believe there are 300 airline passengers who were onboard Flight 253 and would disagree with your assessment on how well the system “worked.” It was by sheer luck and mechanical malfunction of the bomber’s equipment that the United States was able to avoid tragedy, not through homeland security training and planning.
We live in dangerous times, when enemies foreign and domestic are planning attacks that will cost American lives. One mistake is too many, and while we were lucky to evade tragedy in this instance, without an experienced person in charge of the Office of Homeland Security, we may not be so lucky the next time.
While I recognize that you are a dedicated and well-meaning public servant, I believe that you simply do not have the proper law enforcement qualifications and counterterrorism background to head the nation’s very delicate homeland security operations. It’s time that the United States move away from political appointees and former governors, and put the Office of Homeland Security in the hands of individuals with real law-enforcement and counterterrorism experience.
I know you are committed to protecting Americans, and I hope that you will recognize that the responsible thing to do at this point would be to resign, in order to allow President Obama an opportunity to appoint a more qualified individual to the position of Secretary of Homeland Security. We cannot rely on dumb luck and mechanical malfunctions to keep our fellow Americans safe from terrorist threats and attempted attacks.
I thank you very much for your consideration.
Sincerely, Richard J. Codey New Jersey Acting Governor
CC: President Barack Obama The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500
Early this morning, The Fly observed ALL curbside placed recyclables (newspapers, high quality paper, bottles, cans, cardboard, etc.) in his neighborhood being dumped together into a Village sanitation vehicle that was not equipped with content dividers.
This prompts The Fly to ask a simple question: “Is Ridgewood’s recycling program for real, or is it just another Village Hall perpetuated sham?”
Can anyone at Village Hall explain to The Fly why taxpayers are mandated by ordinance to segregate recyclable materials for curbside pickup, only to have everything mixed together in the same refuse removal vehicle and taken to a landfill?
Mr. Frank Moritz, Director of Operations; are you asleep at the switch?
In the winter of 1776, General George Washington and his ragged army had experienced only defeat and despair. The War for Independence was going badly, with failure following failure. In the preceding months, Washington’s campaign in New York had not gone well; the Battle of Long Island ended in a loss when the British troops managed to out-maneuver the Continental Army. A series of defeats settled around Washington as he was forced to retreat across New Jersey to Pennsylvania on December 7th and 8th.
As the harsh Pennsylvania winter set in, the morale of the American troops was at an all time low. The soldiers were forced to deal with a lack of both food and warm clothing , while Washington watched his army shrink due to desertions and expiring enlistments. Now, more than ever, a victory was desperately needed.
The original plan called for the three divisions to cross the river under the cover of darkness. The boats to be used for the crossing were gathered earlier in the month in compliance with General Washington’s orders, primarily as a defensive measure. Various types of boats were collected; most notable were the large, heavy Durham boats used to carry pig iron down the Delaware.
Fully expecting to be supported by two divisions south of Trenton, Washington assembled his own troops near McConkey’s Ferry in preparation for the crossing. By 6 PM. 2,400 troops had begun crossing the ice-choked river. The operation was slow and difficult due to the condition of the river. There was an abrupt change in the weather forcing the men to fight their way through sleet and a blinding snowstorm. These obstacles proved to be too much for the supporting divisions led by Generals Cadwalader and Ewing, ultimately preventing their crossing at southern points along the Delaware.
Against all odds, Washington and his men successfully completed the crossing and marched into Trenton on the morning of December 26, achieving a resounding victory over the Hessians.
By moving ahead with his bold and daring plan, General George Washington re-ignited the cause of freedom and gave new life to the American Revolution.
Washington Crossing Historic Park was founded in 1917 to perpetuate and preserve the site from which the Continental Army crossed the Delaware River. This purpose is achieved by interpreting the historical significance of this site for thousands of Park visitors each year through tours, exhibits and various special events. The spirit of the 1776 Crossing is recreated every year on Christmas Day when the annual reenactment of Washington Crossing the Delaware takes place on December 25. In this annual reenactment the visitor can see reenactors in Continental military dress cross the river in the replica Durham boats.
But that isn’t all! Washington Crossing Historic Park also preserves and interprets the early 19th century history of Taylorsville, the area in which the crossing of the Delaware occurred. This small ferry crossing of the 18th century developed into a quintessential village of the next era, reflecting progress, American ideals and the new industrial age. As the Delaware Canal came through, a fully fleshed out community bravely looked to the future while remembering its past.
The celebration of Festivus begins with Airing of Grievances, which takes place immediately after the Festivus dinner has been served. It consists of lashing out at others and the world about how one has been disappointed in the past year. Every household has its own traditions; in one house, the Airing of Grievances consisted of writing the grievances on the fridge in marker.
add your Grievances in the comment section of this post!
>Rep. Scott Garrett : Who Received Special Deals in the Senate Bill?
Washington, Dec 22 –
Yes we need a little Christmas, right this very minute, candles in the window, payoffs in the Senate…
Just when you thought secret deals with the industry, closed-door meetings and Chicago-style backroom politics couldn’t get any worse… they did. According to Reid, “A number of states are treated differently than other states. That’s what legislation’s all about: compromise.” Really? Rather than thoughtful policy, H.R. 3590 is the result of Democrat desperation and includes countless political handouts. In an effort to meet an artificial holiday deadline, the bill itself has come to look like a Christmas tree with goodies for all Democrat holdouts.
While over 10 states receive special deals, Senators from neglected states should be appalled, as their home state constituents will wind up paying for those “sweetheart deals” in other states, resulting in higher costs for their already-strapped Medicaid programs.
Below are highlights of the new special deals or earmarks bartered away to win Senate votes:
The bill contains unfunded mandates to states through the expansion of Medicaid but this time with new special treatment for the states of Nebraska, Vermont, and Massachusetts. These states will receive Federal Matching Assistance Percentages (FMAP) bonuses such that:
Nebraska will receive 100% FMAP for newly eligibles indefinitely, making it the only state where the federal government will pay for all new enrollees. CBO estimated the cost to the federal government (additional funds to Nebraska) would be $100 million, which may look small compared to the other deals negotiated, yet over the long-term will cost far more, since funding continues indefinitely.
Vermont will receive a 2.2% FMAP increase for 6 years for their entire program, thus receiving an additional $600 million over ten years.
Massachusetts will receive a 0.5% FMAP increase for three years for the entire program, thus receiving an additional $500 million over ten years.
Despite $120 billion in Medicare Advantage cuts, the Manager’s Amendment found a way for Florida residents, as well as some individuals in Pennsylvania and New York, and potentially Oregon, to be grandfathered out of receiving the cuts.
Dorgan and Conrad’s “protections for frontier states” provision would, starting in 2011, establish a 1.0 hospital wage index and geographic practice expense floors for hospitals and physicians located in states where at least 50% of the counties in the state are “frontier”. Not surprisingly, states that qualify and benefit from this increase in Medicare payments to hospitals and doctors are Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.
Of the many problems with these “sweetheart” deals, is the door it leaves wide open for more federal involvement and financing of state-based entitlement programs. Sen. Harkin said it best when he stated “In 2017, as you know, when we have to start phasing back from 100%, and going down to 98%, they are going to say, ’Wait, there is one state that stays at 100?’ And every governor in the country is going to say, ‘Why doesn’t our state stay there?’…When you look at it, I thought well, god, good, it is going to be the impetus for all the states to stay at 100%. So he [Nelson] might have done all of us a favor.”
Changes for Sen. Ben Nelson (Nebraska):
Nelson secured more than just 100% federal funding for Nebraska’s Medicaid expansion, the list of “sweeteners” (also called the “Cornhusker kickback” by Senate Republicans) includes:
An exemption from the insurance tax for Nebraska non-profit insurers, with language written in a way that only applies to Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company and Blue Cross Blue Shield Plans (BCBS) of Nebraska (and Michigan). According to news reports, Nelson’s office states that BCBS “would pay between $15 million and $20 million less in fees under the Senate bill than it would have without a change.”
An exemption from taxes for Medicare supplemental (“Medigap”) insurance providers. Specifically, Mutual of Omaha, will not have to pay taxes on Medigap insurance, while reports also indicate that this tax break will be extended to other companies.
Some changes requested by Nelson would benefit people across the country, such as the inflation adjustment to the $2,500 cap on tax-exempt contributions to Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs) and exemptions for nearly 55 physician-owned hospitals that have a provider agreement to participate in Medicare by August 1, 2010 (pushed back from February 1, 2010).
Changes for Sen. Levin (Michigan):
According to reports, Like Nelson, Levin sought an exemption from the $6 billion annual fee for non-profits, as non-profit insurers make up 76% of industry profits, but drew opposition from liberals. Ultimately, Levin got an exemption from the insurance tax for Michigan non-profit insurers, with language written in a way that applies to Blue Cross Blue Shield Plans (BCBS) of Michigan (and Nebraska).
Furthermore, the amendment changes the extension of section 508 hospital provisions so that hospitals in Michigan (as well as Connecticut) have the option to benefit under them if it means higher payments.
Changes for Sen. Landrieu (Louisiana): Landrieu was one of the first Senators to secure a sweetheart deal, aptly nicknamed the “Louisiana Purchase”; she traded her support for bringing the bill to the floor for a $300 million increase in Medicaid funding for Louisiana. The underlying bill was cryptically written to increase federal Medicaid subsidies for “certain states recovering from a major disaster” during the past 7 years that have been declared a “major disaster area” — and is meant to replenish the decrease in federal money resulting from an “abnormally inflated” per capita income in Louisiana following Hurricane Katrina. This was due to an influx of insurance dollars, federal grants and increased labor wages.
Changes for Sen. Sanders (Vermont): In addition the Vermont FMAP increase, the amendment includes a provision pushed by Sanders to provide an additional $10 billion in funding for community health centers and the National Health Services Corps which he argues would provide primary care to 25 million more people.
Changes for Sen. Bill Nelson (Florida): As noted above, Nelson was able to secure a deal to keep Medicare Advantage plans enrollees in Florida grandfathered in. Notably, when McCain tried to offer an amendment to allow all enrollees to be grandfathered in, 57 Democrats voted against it.
Changes for Hawaii: The Manager’s Amendment singles out Hawaii as the only state to receive a Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) extension.
Changes for Sen. Lieberman (Connecticut): It amends the extension of section 508 hospital provisions so that hospitals in Connecticut (as well as Michigan) have the option to benefit under them if it means higher payments.
Changes for Sen. Dodd (Connecticut): It was a mystery until just revealed that Chris Dodd’s state will benefit from a cryptically awarded $100 million for a “Health Care Facility” at a public research university that contains a state’s sole public academic medical and dental school—criteria designed to apply to the University of Connecticut.
Changes for Sen. Baucus (Montana): Baucus secured a pilot program in the amendment to “provide innovative approaches to furnishing comprehensive, coordinated, and cost-effective care” to certain qualified individuals. A qualified individual “is an environmental exposure affected individual…who resides in or around the geographic area subject to an emergency declaration made as of June 17, 2009.” And who might these select few individuals be? Well, according to EPA, “On June 17, 2009, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson issued a Public Health Emergency (PHE) finding at the Libby Asbestos Superfund site in northwest Montana.” This provision would help residents of Libby by allowing them to sign up for Medicare benefits.
• Health costs. From the outset, the White House’s core claim was that reform would reduce health costs for individuals and businesses, and they’re sticking to that story. “Anyone who says otherwise simply hasn’t read the bills,” Mr. Obama said over the weekend. This is so utterly disingenuous that we doubt the President really believes it.
The best and most rigorous cost analysis was recently released by the insurer WellPoint, which mined its actuarial data in various regional markets to model the Senate bill. WellPoint found that a healthy 25-year-old in Milwaukee buying coverage on the individual market will see his costs rise by 178%. A small business based in Richmond with eight employees in average health will see a 23% increase. Insurance costs for a 40-year-old family with two kids living in Indianapolis will pay 106% more. And on and on.
These increases are solely the result of ObamaCare—above and far beyond the status quo—because its strict restrictions on underwriting and risk-pooling would distort insurance markets. All but a handful of states have rejected regulations like “community rating” because they encourage younger and healthier buyers to wait until they need expensive care, increasing costs for everyone. Benefits and pricing will now be determined by politics.
As for the White House’s line about cutting costs by eliminating supposed “waste,” even Victor Fuchs, an eminent economist generally supportive of ObamaCare, warned last week that these political theories are overly simplistic. “The oft-heard promise ‘we will find out what works and what does not’ scarcely does justice to the complexity of medical practice,” the Stanford professor wrote.
• Steep declines in choice and quality. This is all of a piece with the hubris of an Administration that thinks it can substitute government planning for market forces in determining where the $33 trillion the U.S. will spend on medicine over the next decade should go.
This centralized system means above all fewer choices; what works for the political class must work for everyone. With formerly private insurers converted into public utilities, for instance, they’ll inevitably be banned from selling products like health savings accounts that encourage more cost-conscious decisions.
Unnoticed by the press corps, the Congressional Budget Office argued recently that the Senate bill would so “substantially reduce flexibility in terms of the types, prices, and number of private sellers of health insurance” that companies like WellPoint might need to “be considered part of the federal budget.”
With so large a chunk of the economy and medical practice itself in Washington’s hands, quality will decline. Ultimately, “our capacity to innovate and develop new therapies would suffer most of all,” as Harvard Medical School Dean Jeffrey Flier recently wrote in our pages. Take the $2 billion annual tax—rising to $3 billion in 2018—that will be leveled against medical device makers, among the most innovative U.S. industries. Democrats believe that more advanced health technologies like MRI machines and drug-coated stents are driving costs too high, though patients and their physicians might disagree.
“The Senate isn’t hearing those of us who are closest to the patient and work in the system every day,” Brent Eastman, the chairman of the American College of Surgeons, said in a statement for his organization and 18 other speciality societies opposing ObamaCare. For no other reason than ideological animus, doctor-owned hospitals will face harsh new limits on their growth and who they’re allowed to treat. Physician Hospitals of America says that ObamaCare will “destroy over 200 of America’s best and safest hospitals.”
• Blowing up the federal fisc. Even though Medicare’s unfunded liabilities are already about 2.6 times larger than the entire U.S. economy in 2008, Democrats are crowing that ObamaCare will cost “only” $871 billion over the next decade while fantastically reducing the deficit by $132 billion, according to CBO.
Yet some 98% of the total cost comes after 2014—remind us why there must absolutely be a vote this week—and most of the taxes start in 2010. That includes the payroll tax increase for individuals earning more than $200,000 that rose to 0.9 from 0.5 percentage points in Mr. Reid’s final machinations. Job creation, here we come.
Other deceptions include a new entitlement for long-term care that starts collecting premiums tomorrow but doesn’t start paying benefits until late in the decade. But the worst is not accounting for a formula that automatically slashes Medicare payments to doctors by 21.5% next year and deeper after that. Everyone knows the payment cuts won’t happen but they remain in the bill to make the cost look lower. The American Medical Association’s priority was eliminating this “sustainable growth rate” but all they got in return for their year of ObamaCare cheerleading was a two-month patch snuck into the defense bill that passed over the weekend.
The truth is that no one really knows how much ObamaCare will cost because its assumptions on paper are so unrealistic. To hide the cost increases created by other parts of the bill and transfer them onto the federal balance sheet, the Senate sets up government-run “exchanges” that will subsidize insurance for those earning up to 400% of the poverty level, or $96,000 for a family of four in 2016. Supposedly they would only be offered to those whose employers don’t provide insurance or work for small businesses.
As Eugene Steuerle of the left-leaning Urban Institute points out, this system would treat two workers with the same total compensation—whatever the mix of cash wages and benefits—very differently. Under the Senate bill, someone who earned $42,000 would get $5,749 from the current tax exclusion for employer-sponsored coverage but $12,750 in the exchange. A worker making $60,000 would get $8,310 in the exchanges but only $3,758 in the current system.
For this reason Mr. Steuerle concludes that the Senate bill is not just a new health system but also “a new welfare and tax system” that will warp the labor market. Given the incentives of these two-tier subsidies, employers with large numbers of lower-wage workers like Wal-Mart may well convert them into “contractors” or do more outsourcing. As more and more people flood into “free” health care, taxpayer costs will explode.
• Political intimidation. The experts who have pointed out such complications have been ignored or dismissed as “ideologues” by the White House. Those parts of the health-care industry that couldn’t be bribed outright, like Big Pharma, were coerced into acceding to this agenda. The White House was able to, er, persuade the likes of the AMA and the hospital lobbies because the federal government will control 55% of total U.S. health spending under ObamaCare, according to the Administration’s own Medicare actuaries.
Others got hush money, namely Nebraska’s Ben Nelson. Even liberal Governors have been howling for months about ObamaCare’s unfunded spending mandates: Other budget priorities like education will be crowded out when about 21% of the U.S. population is on Medicaid, the joint state-federal program intended for the poor. Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman calculates that ObamaCare will result in $2.5 billion in new costs for his state that “will be passed on to citizens through direct or indirect taxes and fees,” as he put it in a letter to his state’s junior Senator.
So in addition to abortion restrictions, Mr. Nelson won the concession that Congress will pay for 100% of Nebraska Medicaid expansions into perpetuity. His capitulation ought to cost him his political career, but more to the point, what about the other states that don’t have a Senator who’s the 60th vote for ObamaCare?
*** “After a nearly century-long struggle we are on the cusp of making health-care reform a reality in the United States of America,” Mr. Obama said on Saturday. He’s forced to claim the mandate of “history” because he can’t claim the mandate of voters. Some 51% of the public is now opposed, according to National Journal’s composite of all health polling. The more people know about ObamaCare, the more unpopular it becomes.
The tragedy is that Mr. Obama inherited a consensus that the health-care status quo needs serious reform, and a popular President might have crafted a durable compromise that blended the best ideas from both parties. A more honest and more thoughtful approach might have even done some good. But as Mr. Obama suggested, the Democratic old guard sees this plan as the culmination of 20th-century liberalism.
So instead we have this vast expansion of federal control. Never in our memory has so unpopular a bill been on the verge of passing Congress, never has social and economic legislation of this magnitude been forced through on a purely partisan vote, and never has a party exhibited more sheer political willfulness that is reckless even for Washington or had more warning about the consequences of its actions.
These 60 Democrats are creating a future of epic increases in spending, taxes and command-and-control regulation, in which bureaucracy trumps innovation and transfer payments are more important than private investment and individual decisions. In short, the Obama Democrats have chosen change nobody believes in—outside of themselves—and when it passes America will be paying for it for decades to come.
>There have been a number of comments lately about how “Ridgewood” (read, the Village Counci) is unfriendly to business. Some have suggested that this is a contributing factor to why so many businesses have left Ridgewood in the last 18 months. Personally, I don’t think the parking rate increase is as much of a problem as some have claimed. No doubt the economic recession has accelerated the exodus of business from Ridgewood. But, if we are really honest, that trend was well established years before the recession was ever upon us or before the VC raised parking rates.
The real impediment to business in Ridgewood is the unrealistically high rent rates. Go back and read blogs from two or three years ago that complain about the proliferation of banks and restaurants, because they are the only ones who can afford to locate in Ridgewood. The lack of easy parking is also a significant issue, if we want to attract the nationally known, high end retailers. Of course, we can only blame ourselves for blocking progress on a suitable parking garage. Perhaps we should be focusing our attention on these issues, rather complaining about a 15 cent meter increase or suggesting that Mayor Pfund, perhaps the most consistent and responsible council member, is to blame for Ridgewood’s problems.
