Senator Gregg: What if President Clinton can name enemy comabatants?

Senator Gregg,

I've been wanting to ask you for a while now about the expansion of Executive Power when a new president takes office in 2009. Would you be just as supportive of the use of warrantless wiretapping, the ability of the president to personally and without review name enemy combatants for imprisonment and the use of signing statements to essentially impose a "line item veto" of any bill the Congress has passes ir the last name of that president was Clinton or Obama or Edwards? You may believe that only a Republican will be elected to the Presidency and so somehow this would not be a problem. But what do you think? When one branch of our government is given power without oversight or enforcement of proper process then how that power is used becomes a function of the personality of that person occupying the Presidency. I understand that you are friends with President Bush and so you may believe that he will always use his powers wisely. But what about the next President or one in 20 years? Can you promise the same?

Paul Courtney

SCHIP and Senator Gregg, Take 2

I came across an article about some research done at University of Florida that looked at how sensitive lower income families are to premium increases and I had to make sure that Senator Gregg was made aware of this.

Senator Gregg,
I'm following up my previous email about SCHIP with some more information that is important to keep in mind when thinking about healthcare for lower income families. Please see the article at http://news.ufl.edu/2007/10/09/schip/ in which it is reported that "Raising monthly premiums by just $5 was enough to push many low-income families out of Florida’s State Health Insurance Program in 2003, placing thousands of children at risk for being uninsured". I realize that it is the general position of the President and you that it is important to use private insurance plans as the major part of healthcare financing in this country. However, this article points out that private insurance is not able to do the whole job. Giving people who are having trouble just making ends meet tax incentives for healthcare does not make sense. In fact, the financing of health care in this country is a very long epic story of how the benefits of more efficient delivery of healthcare is misaligned with respect to those who pay for that benefit. A perfect example is the stalling of the creation of a RHIO in Portland, OR. Overall, the RHIO would save the entire system ~$11 million per year, but that savings would accrue to patients and providers and would come out of the pockets of hospitals, who did not see the benefit, just the cost. The benefit was largely driven by reduction in duplication of tests, but the revenue stream at the hospitals had become dependent on this stream. Obviously this is not a good solution, but the entire system needs to shift in order for the costs and benefits to be appropriately shared.

Paul Courtney

I've been promised a response before and have not received one, so we'll see.