Principles are the Missing Ingredient in the Health Care Debate

In a Guest Commentary in Sunday's Telegraph, Dr. James W. Squires lamented the failure of the 2009 Health Care “reform” effort due to a failure to engage in a meaningful dialogue free from language that he complained stifled discussion and debate.  He complained that a focus on the principles underlying the policy served only to end the policy discussion.

I would argue that the reason that the current Health Care bills passed by the House and Senate will never be reconciled is because we did not reach agreement on the principles upon which that policy would be built.

Imagine the discussion between two honest, principled people about what the Giants needed to do to reach the playoffs next year.  Without taking the time to agree upon the framework of that discussion what follows would be an incoherent, frustrated cross-talk which fails to find agreement.  One argues that the Giants need to work on their pitching and infield play and the other argues that they need to improve their secondary and pass rush.  Without an understanding of whether they were talking about the baseball Giants from San Francisco or the football Giants from New York, any attempts at collaboration and agreement of ideas would be frustratingly fruitless.

So it has been with the 2009 Health Care discussion.  We couldn’t have a meaningful, fruitful discussion about heath care reform without first agreeing on the core principles and morality upon which any policy would be built.

Every honest poll – and the recent Senatorial election in Massachusetts - shows that most Americans disapprove of the policy contained in the House and Senate health care bills.  For the sake of argument, even if we stipulate that the Democrat leadership is motivated only by the noble objectives that they share with the public, let’s agree that resistance to the current bills is not because of any disagreement with their noble goals. Let’s simply stipulate that we disagree with the means by which the bills would attempt (and ultimately fail) to achieve those noble goals because of the violation of the core principles held by most Americans.

One step that “reform” advocates could take to reduce the cross-talk would be to refrain from conflating the premise that most Americans are opposed to the current policy being negotiated with the conclusion that most Americans are against true health care reform.

The reason most Americans reject the current bills in the House and Senate is an unacceptable infringement upon our personal freedom.  “Freedom” is not an “incantation” designed to stifle discussion as Dr. Squires mentions in his commentary.  Quite the contrary.  Reasoned Americans seek to understand how any policy will impact their freedom. The problem the Democrat leadership has created with its 2009 Health Care “reform” is that it has not paid sufficient regard to the concern that most Americans feel regarding the risk to their freedom inherent in these bills.

Most Americans understand that the only power in the world that can strip Americans of their freedom is government.  For a people to enjoy hundreds of years of freedom as we have in America is a historical anomaly – an aberration in the normal march of human history.  Generations of Americans have willingly risked their lives and livelihoods to secure their freedom and the freedom of the next generation.  Most Americans view the policy contained in the two health care bills to be an unacceptable risk to that precious freedom.  Voters of all political leanings sent this message last Tuesday in Massachusetts.  They felt their cherished principle of freedom was under attack by the current health care bills.

We have seen the enormous capacity of Americans to solve any problem when we work together.  Health Care reform should be no different.  President Obama and the Democrat leadership can find their place in the annals of history by making a substantive, sustainable improvement to our Health Care system, but they must first spell-out the principles upon which this policy would be built such as:

•    The government has no moral authority to compel any American to buy an insurance policy involuntarily and with costly provisions he does not want.  The current bills would mandate all Americans to buy insurance or face a fine.

•    The government has no moral authority to intercede in a private, voluntary exchange of values between a patient and a doctor by limiting the amount the doctor may receive for providing a service to a patient.  The current bills would limit the amount that doctors and hospitals could receive for a given service.

•    The government has no moral authority to coerce young people to pay a higher insurance premium based on their lower-risk profile in order to subsidize the insurance cost of older people who are higher users of health care.  In order to gain the buy-in from insurance companies to provide insurance to people who have pre-existing conditions, the government promised to coerce every American to buy health insurance.

•    The government has no moral authority to tell any business, such as a health insurance company, with whom it must do business.  The current bills would require health insurance companies to issue policies to risks that would reasonably guarantee that the health insurance companies would lose money.

•    The free market, if unfettered by destructive government mandates, mis-incentives and other distortions, is better able to provide health care better than a government-run system.  The free market has shown that it is the best vehicle for increasing the availability and quality of products and services while reducing the cost to the consumer.  The fact that it hasn’t (yet) been used in the health care industry is due solely to government barriers.

•    Providing health care insurance is not the same as providing health care service.  Health care service is a product that must first be produced before it can be delivered.  A government-issued “coupon” for “universal foot protection”, for example,  does not, by itself, produce a single pair of shoes. Similarly, a government-sponsored “coupon” for health insurance does not produce health care service. 

•    If you pay doctors and hospitals less than it costs them to provide the service, you will have fewer doctors and hospitals providing that service. Setting a price-cap that each person who has a “universal foot protection” coupon must pay for a pair of shoes will not increase the number of shoes manufactured. Quite the contrary.  Price-controls will, theoretically and in historical practice, reduce the amount of a good or service whose price is artificially controlled.

•    If you have fewer doctors and hospitals producing health care service and we provide “free health care coupons” to every American, either costs will go up or delivery delays will be experienced and / or both.

If the Democrat leadership or any health care “reform” advocate could please address these reasoned and reasonable concerns, then we promise not to mention the corrupt methods (Louisiana Purchase, Cornhusker kickback, $60 billion union buy-off, no CSPAN, etc) by which these unprincipled bills have been crammed down our throats.

We are concerned by the over-reach of Democrats in this health care debate because of the violation to our principles this policy represents.  We are concerned that the Democratic leadership is indifferent to the core principles of Americans and that “might makes right”.  In Oct 2008, Hillary Clinton sent an email to her supporters that said, “Sixty is the magic number.  If we reach 60 Democrats in the Senate, then the days of Republican obstruction are over…there’s nothing we can’t accomplish.” Chilling.

Ayn Rand wrote, “Reason is not automatic.  Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it.  Do not count on them.  Leave them alone.”  Principled, independent Americans wish to have a reasoned discussion about health care policy with the leadership in Washington.  We are asking for a discussion based on objective reason.  We ask that they respect our principles and do not dismiss our concerns as those of unhelpful obstructionists.  A reasoned, principled policy will stand on its own merits and its virtues will be easy to discern and discuss.  A reasoned, principled policy will “sell-itself” when presented in the disinfecting light of day to reasonable Americans.  Expensive buy-offs of critical votes, as we have witnessed, would not be required if the bills aligned with the principles of Americans.  Americans will support any policy that they think will benefit them.  Let’s have that dialogue.

Diner Discussions – Week Ended 1/22/10

We at Hugh Akston’s Diner witnessed historic events this week that bode well for individual freedom.

Scott Brown elected to the US Senate in Massachusetts

The biggest news was the against-all-odds election, in the bluest-of-blue states Massachusetts, of Scott Brown to the US Senate.  With his election, Scott Brown has turned the political world on its head and stopped our Big Government enemies in their tracks.

The funniest explanation provided for the 31 point swing of independent voters in Massachusetts from the Democrat in 2008 (BHO) to the non-Democrat in 2010 was by Howard Dean, who appeared in the must-see 1/20 episode of “Hard Ball” with the distraught Chris Matthews.  Howard Dean said that the vote for Scott Brown was a “message” vote from independents that the Democrat platform in Massachusetts and in Washington was not liberal enough – that they want “real change”.  Even Chris Matthews had to ask Governor Dean what he was talking about.  This was a marvelously hilarious explanation for the election loss providing the lucky viewer an unambiguous view into the chaos and contradiction that is the liberal mind.

It came as no surprise to patrons here at Hugh Akston’s Diner that the Democrat Machine underestimated the moral strength of Americans in general and the capability of Scott Brown, in particular, to serve as a lightning rod for that moral strength.  234 years ago, we put the king of England on written notice that we, Americans, would not suffer the evils of the British Crown any further.

For the nation to understand what the election of Scott Brown meant, they need go no further than the Declaration of Independence, for this historic election result was no less significant than that first shot fired at Lexington.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Americans aren’t simply angry, as BHO and his spinmeisters believe. Instead, Americans are expressing the principles penned so eloquently in 1776.

Americans are not throwing an emotional temper tantrum.  Quite the opposite, actually.  Americans are making a reasoned assessment and action plan given the evils that have been forced upon them by their current government. Americans of all parties are removing their consent to the brand of Big Government being peddled by the current administration and Congress.  Americans believe that this form of government is destructive to their rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

On Tuesday, Massachusetts voters, supported by freedom-loving Americans from all over the country, used the most powerful weapon in the world – a vote in a free election – to take the first step toward abolishing the policies of this destructive government.  Tuesday’s results were nothing more and nothing less than the expression of the most solemn principle of the proper role or government and its necessary subservience to the People.

Some links to some stories  / videos about the historic election of Scott Brown:


Scott Brown pulls off historic upset

Democrats seek back footing after epic Mass. loss

Democrats play blame game for Senate loss

President Obama’s priority in danger Vote a ‘protest’ on health-care reform

Keith Olbermann apologies for not attacking Brown harder

Chris Matthews Can't remember Scott Brown's name

The fallout: Democrats rethinking health care bill

Exclusive: President Obama: We Lost Touch with American People Last Year


Obama gets voters' message: It's jobs, jobs, jobs

Americans will not be Ruled

We Americans will suffer the offenses of government…we always have and likely always will…but there is a limit to the evils we will suffer.  As stated in our Declaration of Independence:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

On Tuesday (1/19/10), we saw the limits to the evils we Americans will suffer at the hands of our elected servants.  Massachusetts’s voters weren’t angry.  Their votes for Scott Brown weren’t protest votes against anything.  Their votes meant one thing that Big Government should hear (and fear):  “Americans will not be ruled.”

The principle embodied in our Declaration of Independence and in our Constitution that all men are created equal is at the core of being an American.  You will not rule me because you claim to be a divine monarch.  You will not rule me because your father ruled my father.  You will not rule me because you are wealthier than me.  You will not rule me because my skin is a different color than yours.  You will not rule me because of my religious beliefs.  You will not rule me because you believe you are smarter than me.  You will not rule me because I elected you to serve me.  You will not rule me…because I will not be ruled. I am an American.

For the past year, every day witnessed the break-neck pace of the liberal administration and Congress in its efforts to rule each of us:  to increase our taxes, thereby extending the number of weeks we work solely to pay the mandatory taxes confiscated from us; to coerce us buy a healthcare policy, whether we want to or not; to coerce us to buy a health care policy that has provisions that we don’t want; to pay a made-up tax on a made-up commodity (CO2 emissions) in a made-up market that will further reduce the amount of money that I am able to keep; to force the most productive among us to pay for the least productive and most corrupt; to enslave our children with a mountain of debt to pay for the corrupt spending spree unleashed on Americans. To attempt to shame me with your hollow, populist rhetoric that if I do not sacrifice more, then I am somehow not worry or am un-American.  Be off with such drivel!

Our servants in Washington would be wise to view any policy to which they attach their name in 2010 through the prism of the post-Kennedy world in which we find ourselves.  Sign-onto a bill that reduces our freedom and you will be gone in November.  The dynamic is no more complicated than that.

Scott Brown's Acceptance Speech (Transcript)

The Re-emergence of the Populist Obama

BHO, reckoning, apparently, along the same lines as the chaotic Governor Dean, that America is angry at George W. Bush and his "failed policies" went back on the populist trail.  BHO had his own, "let them eat cake" moment on 1/17 after Air Force One made an emergency landing at Logan to help with the rescue efforts of the anemic Coakley campaign that had had its hamstrings cut by the Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker kick-back and the union-exemption from "Cadillac Health Care plan" taxes.  During a stump speech in a partially filled auditorium at Northeastern University, with tie removed and the shuck and jive tone and "ya knows" and "yawlls" in full voice, BHO flippantly derided Scott Brown's brilliant use of his beat-up old truck with this Maria Antoinette-ism:
 

What's ironically amusing is that BHO has chosen the populist-approach to counter the momentum lost by Democrats with the Brown victory, under the mistaken assumption that Americans are motivated by anger and not by the reason of their minds.  A populist strategy attempts to appeal to the emotional motivations of voters as opposed to their reasoned conclusions. Charles Blow writes in an Op-Ed in today's New York Times:

 "Welcome to the mob: an angry, wounded electorate, riled by recession, careening across the political spectrum, still craving change, nursing a bloodlust."

Democrat Governor Deval Patrick, further articulating the view held by Liberals of rational, energetic Americans arguing who argue against Progressive policy, patronized clear-thinking voters with the following statement made this week: 

"Be angry - but channel it in a positive direction. It's easy to be against something. It takes tough-mindedness and political courage to be for something."

I sense that BHO feels the same way.  Americans are nothing more than a mob.  If only the mob can be channeled...if only we can focus that anger. With that, BHO picked up his teleprompter, took off his tie, dusted off his hip-hop syntax and got back on the populist stump and overnight created an enemy toward which he would channel the mobs anger - Wall Street.

Just as it became clear at the end of last week that Massachusetts was a lost cause for the Democrats, BHO began the assault on Wall Street, just as FDR had on the utilities.  It's a simple strategy from Chapter 1 of the Populist Progressive Playbook:  Step 1: Find an enemy of the people and create the appearance you are "fighting" for the People against this Enemy.  Step 2:  If there is no such enemy of the People (except those in government who are always the enemy of the People) then create an enemy. Step 3:  Assign the reason for every conceivable evil in the world onto this enemy.  Step 4:  Step and repeat.

So, on Thursday 1/14, the story was reported that BHO plans to announce a new fee on banks because "we want our money back."  BHO went on to say, with perfect populist progressive pitch:

"If these companies are in good enough shape to afford massive bonuses, they are surely in good enough shape to afford paying back every penny to taxpayers,"

Yea!  Thank you Mr. Progressive President.  And who, pray tell, do you think is really going to pay for those fees and taxes that you would slather all over the big bad banks?  Of course, all Americans will.  We will see higher ATM fees, check fees, overdraft fees, and so on.  The Progressive mind is congenitally incapable of understanding this simple fact of economics:  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TAX ON BUSINESS.  All taxes levied on businesses result in higher cost to their customers and reduced capital to fuel innovation,  growth and job creation.  A tax on business is about the stupidist thing any government can do if it is committed to creating an environment in which the private sector can create jobs faster.  Jobs are created by businesses so why in the world would anyone wish to retard the ability of a business to create jobs?

Then Obama raised the ante, by taking another swing at banks using his new-found Populist Progressive voice:

"We have to get this done.  If these folks want a fight, it's a fight I'm ready to have."

Investors responding by dropping the DJIA by 5% this week.  I wonder how many hard-working Americans (you know, the kind that BHO will always "fight for") saw their 401K's whacked this week because of the reckless populist blather of our President.   Or has BHO forgotten that the capital that is harnessed through our free markets is created through the hard-work and innovative spirit of that portion of Americans who actually produce?

It's Still the Fault of George W. Bush

The "It's Not My Fault" tour by the Administration was alive and well this week, as we start the second year of BHO's administration.

In his first interview of 2010 given to George Stephanopolous on ABC, BHO blamed GWB for Martha Coakley's humiliating defeat in Massachusetts:  “The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office” 

Paul Krugman wrote in a piece on 1/17 entitled What Didn't Happen,

The Obama administration’s troubles are the result not of excessive ambition, but of policy and political misjudgments. The stimulus was too small; policy toward the banks wasn’t tough enough; and Mr. Obama didn’t do what Ronald Reagan, who also faced a poor economy early in his administration, did — namely, shelter himself from criticism with a narrative that placed the blame on previous administrations...He could have pointed out, repeatedly, that the continuing troubles of America’s economy are the result of a financial crisis that developed under the Bush administration, and was at least in part the result of the Bush administration’s refusal to regulate the banks. But he didn’t...Whatever the reason, Mr. Obama has allowed the public to forget, with remarkable speed, that the economy’s troubles didn’t start on his watch.

Are you kidding?  BHO is physically unable to utter more than three words on ANY subject without blaming GWB for something.  As we read above, he blamed GWB for the Coakley loss.  But don't take my word for it...

After Obama Rally, Dems pin blame on Bush (Hotline on Call, 1/17/10)
Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), speaking with a gaggle of reporters after the event, said that while state Sen. Scott Brown (R) offers voters a quick fix, in reality, the problems created by "George Bush and his cronies" are not so easily solved.

Obama Blames Bush for Brown's Win in Massachusetts (Human Events.com 1/21/10)
 BHO : “Here's my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts but the mood around the country: The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry and they are frustrated. Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years but what's happened over the last eight years.”

Obama's New Tack: Blaming Bush President Points to Inherited Economy (The Washington Post, 3/14/09)  Over the past month, Obama has reminded the public at every turn that he is facing problems "inherited" from the Bush administration, using increasingly bracing language to describe the challenges his administration is up against. The "deepening economic crisis" that the president described six days after taking office became "a big mess" in remarks this month to graduating police cadets in Columbus, Ohio. "By any measure," he said during a March 4 event calling for government-contracting reform, "my administration has inherited a fiscal disaster." 





Obama Administration Blames Bush for Airport Secuity Failures (Examiner.com 12/28/09)
First she said "the system worked".  Now, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano admits the system failed miserably, but repeatedly points out it was a system put in place while George W. Bush was President.  White House spokesman Robert Gibbs made similar statements. The "Blame Bush" mantra helped get Obama elected and has been used as an excuse for his entire first 11 months as President.  Now they are using it as an excuse for allowing a Nigerian terrorist to almost blow up a U.S. bound plane on Christmas Day.

 Associated Press Analysis:  Obama's Buck-Stopping goes only so far (Associated Press 1/9/10) WASHINGTON – He says "the buck stops with me," but nearly a year into office, President Barack Obama is still blaming a lot of the nation's troubles — the economy, terrorism, health care — on George W. Bush... "I don't need to remind any of you about the situation we found ourselves in at the beginning of this year," Obama told people at a Home Depot stop last month.

 Yea, maybe BHO should be less subtle in his blame of Bush for everything.  :-)

Diners, remember.  When a house is on fire, regardless of the reason for the blaze in the first place, a fireman can do one of two things.  He can pick up a hose with water or he can pick up a hose with gasoline.  Yea, the house was on fire when BHO was sworn in a year ago, but since then he has done nothing but pour gasoline onto the fire with his recklessly Progressive policies.  We can argue in perpetuity as to the cause of the fire, but BHO's gasoline-like policies have only caused the inferno to burn hotter and to do more damage.  We may put this house fire out yet without sliding into a Depression, but that job has been all the more difficult by the BHO policies.

Some good readings for you below...enjoy.  See you soon under the sign of the $.

The New Political Rumbling  Massachusetts may signal an end to old ways of fighting  Peggy Noonan in The Wall Street Journal 1/23/10

Air America Radio closing, filing for bankruptcy... certainly a harbinger of things to come for the Progressive movement.  Air America, the heavily subsidized radio program spewing liberal blather, finally reached a level of financial bankruptcy to match the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the Progressive movement.

Obama's First Year:  By the Numbers... In his first year as president, BHO:
Speeches, comments, remarks: 411
Addresses or remarks dealing with the subject of health care: 52 ("The problem is we're not getting our message out on health care..."  Yea, right.  Your problem is that you ARE getting your message out!)
Trips to the Telepromter: 178
News Conferences:  42
Interviews: 158
Town Hall Meetings (including the two held with his constituents from France and China): 23
Domestic Trips: 46 out-of-town trips to 58 cities in 30 states
Foreign Travel: 10 foreign trips to 21 nations (a new record for the President in his first year)
Flights on Air Force 1:  160
Flights on Marine 1:  193
Political Fund Raisers:  28 (Bush did 6 his first year)
Campaign Rallies:  7 in NJ, VA and MA.  In each case, the Democrat lost.
Meetings with Foreign Leaders: 74 (GWB, ya know, the Cowboy who never worked to build consensus among world leaders, had only 115 such meetings in his first year.) 
National Debt:  Was $10.6 trillion when BHO was sworn in...one year later it has grown by $1.69 trillion to $12.32 trillion.

Some great YouTubes...

Scott Brown Acceptance Speech in Massachusetts (part I)

Scott Brown Acceptance Speech in Massachusetts (part II)

Ayla Brown sings "The Star-Spangled Banner" at Boston's Fourth of July celebration accompanied by the Boston Pops (originally aired 07/04/06).

Contact Key Senators to Vote "No" on Reid's Health Care Bill

There is still time...but not much... to remind key Senate Democrats that the will of the People should trump the corruption and deal making that history will characterize this awful bill.

Please take 10 minutes and contact these key Senators.  Do not provide your consent by remaining silent.  Let the John Galt within all of us find his voice.



Some other "must reading":

The Price of 'History'  Harry Reid delivers a bundle od special-interest favors
Harry Reid Turns Insurance Into a Public Utility, by Richard Epsteir

A "Right" To Health Care

Saturday December 19th, 2009 could someday be regarded as one of the most profound inflection points in American history.  Against a back-drop of an equally larger-than-life blizzard, the Senate Liberals basked in the hubris of the moment as the risk of a filibuster against the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act (PPACA) evaporated with the purchase of Senator Ben Nelson's consent.

The Rushmorian cabal of Reid, Dodd, Baucus and Harkins took to the microphone and started telling the history that they have so craved to read.  The comments by Christopher Dodd were particularly illustrative: "Today, we stand ready to pass into law a bill that finally makes access to quality health care a right for every American, not a privilege for the fortunate few."



Senator Dodd has redefined the definition of a "right".

Thomas Jefferson and our Founders recognized rights as "unalienable".  Rights can not be taken away or given away by the possessor of those rights. Rights are NOT privileges that the government bestows upon the People.  However, Senator Dodd states that the health care legislation that the Senate is cramming down the throats of Americans, against the will of most Americans, bestows a "right" upon Americans that were not there before.

Senator Dodd believes that he and his Senate colleagues have created "rights" for Americans.  Given that our Declaration of Independence stated that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.", how does Senator Dodd reconcile his belief as to the origin of rights with that of our Founders?


In his 1954 book, The Income Tax:  The Root of all Evil, Frank Chodorov wrote, "The axiom of socialism is that the individual has no inherent rights. The privileges and prerogatives that the individual enjoys are grants from society, acting through its management committee, the government. That is the condition the individual must accept for the benefit of being a member of society. Hence, the socialists (including many who do not so name themselves) reject the statement of rights in the Declaration of Independence, calling it a fiction of the eighteenth century"

Given that the Liberal Senator from Connecticut presumes to be providing Americans a new "right" and that a "right", according to Jefferson, is endowed by one's Creator, what conclusion might one reasonably reach regarding Senator Dodd's opinion of himself?  Correct! He and his colleagues are on the same plane as our Creator... or that "rights" are to be bestowed by government upon the people (and not the other way around, as the Founders intended).

The madness of Dodd's assertion that the cost  to recover one's health is to be borne by another is a "right" is furthered by an understanding as to why our Founders documented the Bill of Rights.  Every right listed in the Bill of Rights was a defense of individual freedom against the abuse of power by the government.  Senator Dodd would have us believe that rogue health insurers are the villains in this story - a classic example of cynical projection.  The only risk to any person's freedom is the government. Our Founders had a much healthier fear of the risk to our freedoms by government than do Americans of the 21st century.  This is unfortunate and dangerous.

A "right" is not and never has been a legal claim on another person...until Senator Dodd so ordained it.  Senator Dodd says, "This bill frees Americans from the fear that if they lose their job, they’ll never find insurance coverage again. This bill frees Americans from the fear that if they get sick they won’t be able to afford the treatment they need. This bill frees Americans from the fear that one illness, one accident, could cost them everything – their home, their life savings, everything."

What he means is, Americans now have a right to claim the product / service produced by other Americans ...as much as often as one wants...regardless of the decisions that one makes that influence the cost of that product / service...and to have somebody else pay for it.  Dodd has redefined a "right" as a claim on another human being.

In this Dodd model, two people have their inalienable right to their pursuit of happiness impaired - the health care provider who will be paid less for his / her services than a free market would allow and the taxpayer who will now need to pay not for not only his / her own health insurance but for the health insurance  of someone who now has a "right" to it.  Upon what moral principle does Dodd make this unconscionable assertion?

None.  There is no moral principle underpinning the assertion by Senator Dodd that any human being has a right, enforceable by the unrestrained power of the government, to put a claim on the services of another.  Such a condition is rightfully to be regarded as the 21st century version of slavery.  Already, those of us who actually pay Federal Income taxes (a shrinking minority) labor until April - May of each year just in order to pay the menu of taxes thrust upon us.  With this new "right" we will work longer and longer into the year before we can claim that which we have earned.

It is illustrative to re-read the short essay by William Graham Sumner, The Forgotten Man, which was the basis of Amity Shales' best seller of the same name.

• The type and formula of most schemes of philanthropy or humanitarianism is this: A and B put their heads together to decide what C shall be made to do for D. The radical vice of all these schemes, from a sociological point of view, is that C is not allowed a voice in the matter, and his position, character, and interests, as well as the ultimate effects on society through C's interests, are entirely overlooked. I call C the Forgotten Man. 
• For once let us look him up and consider his case, for the characteristic of all social doctors is, that they fix their minds on some man or group of men whose case appeals to the sympathies and the imagination, and they plan remedies addressed to the particular trouble; they do not understand that all the parts of society hold together, and that forces which are set in action act and react throughout the whole organism, until an equilibrium is produced by a re-adjustment of all interests and rights. 
• They therefore ignore entirely the source from which they must draw all the energy which they employ in their remedies, and they ignore all the effects on other members of society than the ones they have in view. 
• They are always under the dominion of the superstition of government, and, forgetting that a government produces nothing at all, they leave out of sight the first fact to be remembered in all social discussion - that the State cannot get a cent for any man without taking it from some other man, and this latter must be a man who has produced and saved it. This latter is the Forgotten Man.

It is tragic that bad things happen to good people every single day in the world.  People lose their job, then their health insurance, then a medical calamity befalls them and they are ruined.  What heartless villian would stand in the way of remedying such a condition?

The fact is, at its root, this scenario is possible only because of the over-reach of government into our lives. Rationale people, operating in a free market, would never face the kind of disasters highlighted by the Democrats as the reason for further over-reach of the government. The intentions of government officials are often good, but government is utterly incapable of righting the ills of the world without creating greater ills by so doing.  Government has never understood the Law of Unintended Consequences.

• Why is health insurance tied to one's job?  Government policy dating back to WWII.  
• Why are health insurance premiums so expensive?  Because the government forbids the sale of health insurance across state lines and demands "cadillac" plans regardless of what the insured wishes to buy.  
• Why do doctors run so many tests that are now vilified by the Left as 'wasteful'?  Because doctors are afraid of being sued, due to inadequate tort laws.

The root of our health care problems in this nation IS the government.

Once we accept that "rights" are privileges to be bestowed by our public servants upon those whom our servants favor, then there is no limit to the risk to our freedom.


Links:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1BJMmRpsuY&feature=player_embedded
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Essays/Best/SumnerForgotten.htm
http://www.amazon.com/Forgotten-Man-History-Great-Depression/dp/0066211700
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0696e.asp
http://mises.org/etexts/rootofevil.asp
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/22/is-employer-based-health-insurance-worth-saving/

Nelson sells-out writ large

Just when Americans thought the political corruption attending the power grab by radical liberals, enabled by their useful idiots, could not become more blatant and offensive to our Founding principles following the Louisiana Purchase of Senator Mary Landrieu, Senator Harry Reid showed yesterday that there is no limit to the fraud that liberals will perpetrate to seize and hold power.

Reid bought off Senator Landrieu with a $300 million bribe on November 20th, enabling the Senate health care bill to stay alive.  Yesterday, he bought off, writ large, Senator Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska), in, perhaps, the most blatant and transparent display of public bribery.

Senator Nelson had made a presumably principled-stand against the liberal bill by refusing to provide his consent to a bill that provided federal funding for abortion.  Given his previous position in the highly-charged abortion issue, on the surface, this push-back appeared reasonable.  Unless the language in the bill was strengthened to prohibit federal funding for abortion, Senator Reid would not get the 60th vote he needed for cloture from Senator Nelson.  Or so the narrative read...

In reality, what was really happening was classic back-room corruption but on a level never seen before.  Harry Reid bought off Senator Nelson’s vote, not with the stronger language against federal funding of abortion that Senator Nelson claimed as the foundation of his principled opposition, but with a Medicaid bribe for the state of Nebraska that makes the $300 million bribery of Senator Landrieu look small-time.  In return for his nod, Senator Nelson will have taxpayers in every other state pay Nebraska's share of Medicaid expenses... forever. 

What makes the bribery of Senator Nelson so transparent is that the language regarding federal funding in the most recent bill is weaker than before Nelson made his “principled” stand.  The hypocrisy and vile corruption is so utterly transparent.



As House Minority Leader Boehner writes in a 12/19 posting,
"...the Senate democrats' health care bill would require a monthly abortion fee paid by all tax-paying Americans. "... there is no prohibition on abortion coverage in federally subsidized plans participating in the Exchange.  Instead the amendment includes layers of accounting gimmicks that demand that plans participating in the Exchange or the new government-run plan that will be managed by the Office of Personnel Management must establish “allocation accounts” when elective abortion is a covered benefit (p. 41).  Everyone enrolled in these plans must pay a monthly abortion premium (p. 41, lines 5-8), and these funds will be used to pay for the elective abortion services.  The Reid amendment directs insurance companies to assess the cost of elective abortion coverage (p. 43), and charge a minimum of $1 per enrollee per month (p. 43, lines 20-22).
In short, the Reid bill continues to defy the will of the American people and contradict longstanding federal policy by providing federal subsidies to private health plans that cover elective abortions.  The new language does include a “state opt-out” provision if a state passes a law to prohibit insurance coverage of abortion, but it’s a sham because it does nothing to prevent one state’s tax dollars from paying for elective abortions in other states.

President Obama has promised transparency.  We have it.  President Obama has promised that the Health Care reform he has pushed will not raise taxes on the middle class or increase the deficit by "one dime".  He is correct,  It will raise taxes on the middle class and increase the deficit by a gazillion dimes.

Letter to Congressman Paul Hodes

Dear Congressman Hodes,

Thank you very much for your e-mail wishing me, and my family, a Happy Thanksgiving.  I would like to extend the same wish to you and your family.

Many families across our Granite State are struggling this Thanksgiving.  As we sit with family and friends to give thanks for all of the good things in our lives and to remember the sacrifices of all of our countrymen serving our great nation, it is fitting that we reflect on the reasons for the suffering felt across New Hampshire and the country in general. More importantly, it is fitting that we reflect on what we can do, together, to reduce the damage being done to many American lives and livelihoods.

The policies pushed by the current administration (and those of the previous administration, too, in fairness) have done damage to America and I respectfully request you to consider your contribution to that damage.

We sent you to Washington, not to solve our problems, but to protect our freedoms.  Respectfully, in this regard you have failed the people of the Granite State’s 2nd District by supporting a radical agenda of government growth that threatens the very viability of our great nation.  More taxes means less freedom.  Government mandates mean less freedom. 

•    We have seen a $787 billion “stimulus” package that has not, cannot and will not create sustainable private-sector jobs because the “stimulus” is based on the flawed premise that the government can create jobs.  The Democrat leadership has vilified the proven strategy of trickle-down wealth creation and chosen a policy of trickle-up poverty by using the force of law to remove capital from our most productive Americans to give to our least productive Americans.  Such a policy of “wealth spreading” is not sustainable. 

•    We have seen an unemployment rate reach 10.2%.  We are suffering this waste of the productive brilliance of Americans because of the uncertainty that this government has created in the minds of our small business owners, who, we all know, are the engine of sustainable job growth.  Small business owners don’t know what the future holds because of the uncertainty caused by the government’s inexorably relentless crusade in social engineering (cap & trade taxes, health care taxes and mandates, expiring Bush tax rates, Cash for Clunkers, Homebuyers’ tax credit and on and on).  Until this uncertainty is reduced, businesses won’t risk hiring.  Ask your constituents, as they will tell you.

•    We have seen a Cap & Trade bill pass the House that would further erode America’s competitive position in the international marketplace for no apparent gain.  The revelation this past week of a system of corruption among the “scientists” pushing the radical climate change agenda should cause all rational thinkers to give pause to any legislation along these lines.

•    We have seen a president unhesitatingly apologize for America in front of world leaders only to return from Asia, scolded in disbelief by the Chinese who, appear to have a better understanding of capitalism and its virtues, than does our president.

Please, at this time of Thanksgiving, give pause to what you wish your legacy to be among your fellow Granite Staters.

I would ask that you advocate:

1.  Return of unspent “stimulus” money to the Treasury.  No more slush fund for pet projects.  That’s not how our government is supposed to work.

2.  Reject the current Health Care bills in all forms and incarnations and start over.  Frame the solution by the principles of a just and proper government (one that protects freedom) rather than the wealth-spreading colossus the deliberations upon which we Americans are watching in horror.  No one will blame you if you change your position.  No one will call you a “flip-flopper”.  Reject the current Health Care approach of Reid & Pelosi and your NH constituents will elect you year after year.

3.  Help create the environment for sustainable job growth by adding stability to the political landscape.  Stop tinkering.  Lower payroll taxes and personal income taxes and sit back and watch what unfettered Americans can do.

4.  Support an investigation into the fraudulent “data” that is the lynchpin of the climate change crusade and the self-destructive Cap & Trade bill.  Send an email to your constituents stating that in light of the new evidence, that you can no longer support Cap & Trade until a full investigation has been conducted. 

5.  Stop the spending.  Please.  For the sake of all Americans, please stop the spending, even if you think the cause is worthy.  Please. 

6.  Support the audit of the Federal Reserve.  The dollars you allow the Fed to print on a 24-7 basis aren’t real to politicians, but they are real to us.  A dollar used to represent a claim on the BEST that any of us could produce.  Currency was once our sacred bond to each other as a store of the value that we created through our hard work and risk taking.  Congress has devalued that sacred bond by turning the greenback into the laughingstock of the world.  No country has ever devalued its way to prosperity, yet this seems to be the course set by this Administration, the pathetic claims to the contrary by Secretary Geithner notwithstanding.

I understand your request that we all give of ourselves during this holiday season to help those in need.  But sir, respectfully, this government has already established the framework to take, at the point of a gun, a larger portion of what I have earned and give to whomever our public servants have deemed in “need” than ever before in modern history.  High taxes and government mandates are inconsistent with Freedom.  You’ll forgive me if reject your plea for further sacrificial offerings until such time as you address the concerns that I have presented to you.

Again, I wish you and your family a Happy Thanksgiving; I look forward to hearing from you soon. I would enjoy an opportunity to speak with you for a few minutes the next time you are in the Nashua area.

Best Regards,

Craig Powers
31 Cedar Street
Hudson, NH
03051

978.761.4014
time_space99@yahoo.com

President's Weekly Address (10/3/09) - Health Care and its Impact on Job Creation

President Obama's weekly address to the nation today focused on creating the link between reducing health care cost and growing jobs in small businesses.

"I hear about it from small business owners who want to grow their companies and hire more people, but they can't, because they can barely afford to insure the employees they have."

If this is the problem - that is, it's costing too much for small businesses to provide health insurance to their employees - then is not the solution the de-linking of health insurance from the employment process? I don't buy my auto insurance from my employer so why should I continue buying my health insurance from my employer? Why doesn't President Obama and the Democrat leadership come out and say, "Effective Jan 1, 2012, all tax breaks to companies based on the cost to ensure their employees will expire; States are forbidden to add any mandates to health insurance policies that infringe upon every American's right to buy the right health insurance, across all state lines, in accordance with Article I Section 8; Meaningful tort reform will be enacted."

Imagine that glorious day when we are unfettered in our ability to buy the health insurance that is right for each of us; to take it with us as we change jobs; to be an active participant in the market-based process for reducing cost; for seeing billions and billions of our tax dollars returned to us as we shrink the Health and Human Services department; when we realize that we are free, in this one important part of our lives, from the meddling and corruption of government; when we taste freedom again.

Unless WE THE PEOPLE demand the de-linking of health insurance from the terms of employment we will never get this millstone of rising health costs from around our necks. However, liberal democrats don't want to touch the third rail of employer-provided health care because union members typically have the best health insurance in the country.

Employers don't want to lose this tax break because more of the compensation they provide to their employees will be in direct pay as opposed to indirect health care (fringe) benefits. Because future pension payments at many companies are based on direct compensation, businesses would face higher pension costs if they were forced to stop providing tax-deductible health insurance to their employees. Also, businesses know that employees are willing to suffer more in a dead-end job that has health insurance than make the jump to a new venture that may not have health insurance. In this way, many people feel trapped in their current jobs and employers would just as soon not see a higher turn-over rate at their companies.

So, who wins if we move to transportable, individual-purchased, "right sized", boundary-less health insurance? Well, WE THE PEOPLE, do.

We will get government out of our lives; we will be able to buy a policy that fits where we are in our lives; we won't be chained to a dead-end job for fear of losing our health insurance; we will eliminate a raging river of corruption by getting government bureaucrats out of the health care delivery system; we will regain our sovereignty.

Below is the letter I wrote to President Obama asking him to consider an alternative solution to the problems he discussed in this week's address:

Dear President Obama,

I listened to your weekly address today (10/3) and share your concern about the impact of rising health insurance cost to the prime generator of jobs in this country - our small businesses.

The solution to the problems that you so clearly articulated is right before us, if we are willing to compromise with a spirit of civility and seriousness of purpose.

If the cost to small businesses is too high to ensure their employees' health, then de-link health insurance from business and make the purchase of health insurance similar to the purchase of auto insurance or home owners insurance.

Eliminate all federal laws that give business tax breaks to ensure their employees and establish, instead, an environment in which all Americans can buy the health insurance policy that is best for them.

Encourage Congress to employee the Commerce clause to rid the process of purchasing health insurance by individuals of cost-driving mandates that vary state-by-state. Just as our Founders recognized the benefits of having interstate commerce unfettered by the whims of the several States, we see clearly that the local mandates have made the purchase of health insurance far more difficult and costly than it needs to be.

Establish an environment in which a young, healthy American is not required to pay for ridiculous coverage that he /she does not want. Establish an environment in which a person’s health insurance is as transportable as their auto insurance as people change jobs and pursue their entrepreneurial dreams. Create an environment in which small businesses can focus on growing their business and not shopping for health insurance in the arcane labyrinth that our government has created with simple health insurance.

This vision can be realized and your place in history as one of our greatest presidents can be guaranteed if only you see this obvious solution - to de-link health insurance from businesses - and act with the boldness and passion that is within you. De-linking health insurance from business, implementing meaningful tort reform and creating a safety net for those among us who can’t pay for the maintenance of their own health – simple acts, really, will guarantee you re-election in 2012.

Allow Americans the choice - without government mandates or even "nudges" - and marvel at our ability to create wealth for the benefit of all Americans. However, should you cling to the notion that a bigger government involvement in health insurance will unleash America's great capacity, then you are, respectfully, quite mistaken and the damage in Nov 2010 and Nov 2012 will be monumental. I fear you will be regarded by history as the victim of the tyranny of circumstances.

We have given you the power to lead America, but not to ruin us. Please, reflect on my words in the civil manner in which they are presented. I look forward to hearing from you.

Best Regards -

Craig Powers
Hudson, New Hampshire

PS – Thomas Jefferson suffered the same “tyranny of circumstances” that you face now. He rose to the challenges of the office, set aside the bitter acrimony of the partisanship that characterized the election of 1800, and laid the foundation of America’s future greatness. Please, President Obama, put aside the partisan jabs at those of us who see a different solution to our common problem and listen to us as you have asked us to listen to you.

NewsBusters

I stumbled onto this website that I found entertaining. Enjoy!

March on DC...still haven't made up your mind to join us?

Watch the video below if you need some more encouragement.

Freedom-loving Americans March on DC 9/12/09

Well, I'm gearing-up for the historic march on DC on Saturday 9/12 by hundreds of thousands of freedom loving Americans. We are going to show our public servants that they have abused the power that we, the Sovereign People, have loaned them, and that we intend to recall that power. We intend to concentrate an overwhelming force of informed, educated Americans on the front lawn of our amazing nation and let those rogue servants who sit upon the hill and arrogantly gaze down upon us that their time is up.

I implore all informed patriots to put aside the events of the day - moving the lawn, going to Becky's soccer game, doing the grocery shopping.... and get in your car and drive. Drive to Washington and be part of history.

I am leaving Hudson, NH around 8:00 pm on 9/11 and will drive all night, park my car at the Largo Town Center station on the Metro line Blue Line and will be on the mall by 7:45 am.

Honestly, for one day, is there anything more important than our freedom and that of our children? If you don't think that our very freedom is in the dock right now, put away the iPod, tune out American Idol and wake up.

By the way for a GREAT read, pick-up The Forgotten Man - A New History of he Great Depression by Amity Shlaes. That is, if you want to see how the current Obama movie will end... or will it?

Join our NH contingent today. Just do it.

09.12.09 March on Washington - The Team Party Movement Goes to Capital Hill

Ronald Reagan's Wisdom

The prescience and wisdom of President Ronald Reagan unfolds anew in our current time of self-inflicted crisis. What I would give to see Obama and his clan sitting at the dinner table with the vibrant Ronald Reagan as seen and heard below taking them to task. "America is Freedom..."



This is a "must listen" from Ronald Reagan back in 1961...

Hypocrite's Corner

Liars, Thugs and Brutes

What else do you need to hear from Obama to know that he and his clan are lying to Americans about health care. Just remember, a National Health Care plan is a means, not an end in Obama's mind. His goal is to use the weapon of health care to further emasculate this good country's producers and make all of us wards of the state, grateful for the table scraps that our "servants" toss our way.

Only in the twisted, immoral mind of a socialist does any of this make sense...

Odds N Ends

Sunday 7/26/09


The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 29% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -11. That’s the first time his ratings have reached double digits in negative territory (see trends).

By a two-to-one margin, voters trust their own economic judgment more than the President’s. That, too, is little changed over the past month. However, in February, just 49% trusted their own economic judgment more than the president’s.

Interesting.... 29% of voters strongly approve of the way that President Obama is performing his role as President and, coincidentally, 29% of voters trust President Obama's judgement on economic issues more than their own. Imagine that - 29% of voters trust big Government more regarding economic issues than they do their own judgement. However alarming as these numbers are, the good news for freedom-loving Americans is that this trend is moving inexorably against Obama. 10% of voters changed there mind since February and now trust their own economic judgement more than that of Obama.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington’s got another bright idea that most Americans don’t like.

Just 18% of adults think it’s the government’s job to tell Americans what kind of light bulb they use, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Seventy-two percent (72%) say it’s none of the government’s business, and 10% are not sure. [Read that again...18% think it is the government's business to tell Americans what kind of light bulbs to use and 10% aren't sure if light bulb selection and regulation is a proper role of government...28%... hmmm...another trend]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Kedrosky reported on 7/24 "According to the latest data, the number of vacant U.S. homes touched 18.7-million in the second quarter. That is a daunting figure, of course, but it is more fun to put it in context. Assuming four people per household, the U.S. currently has enough surplus housing to put the entire population of the U.K., with room left over for Israel."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, do YOU know what's in H.R. 3200?

No wonder Obama is apoplectic these days.

The day after our Orator-in-Chief took to the teleprompter to address America in prime time, presumably to convince Americans, with the use of nothing more than broad-brush, campaign-stump, class-warfare-based generalities, that we NEED to push forward his radical change to our health care delivery system, the Senate Majority leader announced that the Senate would not vote on a health care bill prior to the August Congressional recess, the arbitrary date set by Obama.

The coalition of House Blue Dog Democrats, not Republicans, is standing in the way of Pelosi's effort to cram through H.R. 3200 before the break. Democrats standing in the way of Democrats. Republicans are saying, "So you don't want our help crafting an acceptable bill? OK, then put your idea to a vote. Democrats own a 79 seat advantage in the House, right?"

Advertised as one of three-pillars (Education, Energy and Health Care) of his liberal agenda, reducing the cost of health care was a "must win" for the Obamaniacs. Unfortunately for the liberals, when the non-Kool-Aid drinking adult supervision of the CBO was asked to report to the American people what the cost impact of H.R. 3200 would be, well, let's just say the result was a little deflating for Team Socialism.



As Peggy Noonan stated in her "Common Sense May Sink Obama Care" piece in the Wall Street Journal on Saturday, "Resistance to the Democrat health-care plans is in the air, showing up more on YouTube than in the polls, but it will be in the polls soon enough." Obama cares mightily about his polls numbers...no wonder he's cramming every piece of the Liberal agenda from the last 30 years through Congress during his honey-moon period. When his numbers at the polls begin to tank (which is already happening) his political capital will vaporize before his eyes.

Supposedly our post-racial President is anything but that and he knows this week that he is being called on that claim by the American people. During the press conference on Wednesday, Obama stated, "Well, I should say at the outset that 'Skip' Gates is a friend so I may be a little biased here. I don't know all the facts....Now, I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that, but I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge Police acted stupidly...number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionally." The fall-out has been deliciously direct and unambiguous from the American people. We're not buying it the racial BS. When the audio tapes are released showing how disrespectful and disruptive Mr. Gates was to the public servants who were trying to do nothing but protect him and his property, Obama's comments are going to be seen as those of a complete racist jack-ass, the "beer-summit" notwithstanding.

So. now, Our Blessed Leader finds himself with a terrible Health Care Bill found in the toxic waste dump called H.R. 3200 and everyday common Americans (unlike Congressmen) are putting aside the other demands of the day to read this awful and dangerous bill to measure the chains that we will all wear should this bill be passed site-unseen (like the $787 billion second stimulus package in February)

If you view this bill on OpenCongress, you'll see the bill has been viewed 18,995 times (and counting fast) with 90% of people "casting a vote" on this bill voting "thumbs down". The message here is that people who take the time to read the bill hate it. But this is as we would expect. Liberals view the world as they would have it and don't bother reading the bill. Conservatives view the world as it is and pore over ever word. Liberals cannot be bothered with details when they prefer platitudes. Conservatives view ANY 1,017 page bill as a potential risk to our freedom.
---------------------------------------------------------
So, what can you find in this bill?

While tort reform is soooo desperately needed, if the goal is, truly, to drive cost out of the health care delivery system, the words "tort" and "lawyer" appear nowhere in the 1,017 page bill. In fact, the word "malpractice" appears as often (once - page 263) as does the phrase "mentally retarded" (page 389). [Note: The term "mentally retarded" has not been in used in serious health care discussion in a generation. Care to guess how old the working papers are from which the monstrosity called H.R. 3200 are?]

The word "minority" appears on 11 different pages, like on pages 883 - 884, where we read "In awarding grants and contracts... the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of training...individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds..." Yup. H.R. 3200 perpetuates the picking and choosing of winners and losers based on race.

The words "insure" or "insurance" appear on 146 pages. Under Title I "Protections and Standards for Qualified Health Benefits Plans" (starts on page 14), we read "On or after the first day of Y1, a health benefits plan shall not be a qualified health benefits plan under this division unless the plan meets the applicable requirements of the following subtitles for the type of plan and plan year involved..." On page 19 we read, "A qualified health benefits plan may not impose any pre-existing condition exclusion or otherwise impose any limit or condition on the coverage under the plan with respect to an individual or dependent based on any health status related factors..."

So, if you like the health care package you have, then you can keep it? Right? Wrong. If your current health care package doesn't meet the new standards to be set by H.R. 3200 then that policy will no longer be adequate. The government will continue to ratchet-up the requirements for private health insurance coverage so as to drive private health insurance from the market. Furthermore, the price that a health care insurer charges for premiums must be the same for a 40-year old, overweight, smoker and drinker as it is for a 25 year old healthy person. On its face, does this make sense? Who do you think picks up the difference? The government's moral standard here is to punish people who make good decisions about their health.

The word "regulation" appears on 71 pages. For example, on page 651 we read, "Effective on January 1, 20011...the provisions of this section shall preempt any law or regulation of a State..."

The words "freedom" and "liberty" appear nowhere in the bill.

On page 936, we read "The Secretary, acting through the Director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, shall establish a permanent task force to be known as the Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services". Among the far reaching power of this unelected Task Force include "review the scientific evidence related to the benefits, effectiveness, appropriateness, and costs of clinical preventative services identified...for the purpose of developing, updating, publishing, and disseminating evidence-based recommendations on the use of such services."

Among the many chilling aspects of this Bill, the creation of this Task Force, scares me the most. Our personal health history information will be shared with the government through this board and this data will serve as the Potemkin village when the government implements its utilitarian, eugenics-based policy of "cost reduction".

Not surprisingly, the word "abortion" appears on no page of H.R. 3200. However, just as the U.S. Constitution never mentioned the word "slavery", the context of H.R. 3200 is as supportive of abortion as the Constitution was of slavery while neither ever mentions the unspeakable by name. The National Right to Life, in a piece published July 16, 2009, states:

1. H.R. 3200 will result in federally mandated coverage of abortion on demand in virtually all of America's health plans.
2. Abortion advocacy groups and Barack Obama view "basic" health care as including abortion, and the health care reform bill as the vehicle for expanding access to abortion.

---------------------------------
Summary:

1. H.R. 3200 is a terrible bill based on a moral standard offensive to most Americans.
2. Health care is a commodity that first needs to be produced and then delivered. H.R. 3200 pre-supposes an adequate supply of this commodity, though it presumably increases the demand for this commodity by 18% (47 million increase on a base of 253 million people currently covered). Rather than stimulating the creation of this commodity, H.R. 3200, by its overt policy of price-fixing and service refusal, will reduce the quantity of this commodity as current and future doctors and nurses remove their consent to this extortion by exiting the field, refusing to provide care in exchange for anything but cash, or never entering the field to begin with.
3. "Universal healthcare coverage" does not create access to healthcare as the Liberals would have you believe. Think of the lines at the most popular rides at an amusement park. What would happen to those lines if the amusement park did not charge an admission fee? Now, to add to the analogy, what if the park reduced the time that the ride was operating, to simulate the reduction in the number of qualified doctors and nurses that government-mandated price-fixing will create, by shutting down the ride for 10 minutes every hour? The only way to reduce lines, given the premise of universal access (i.e no admission price to get into the park) is either to deny access to the ride (only people between the ages of 20 and 40 can ride) , reduce the quality of the service (shorten the ride) or ban the ride entirely. Common sense shows that for the reasons universal access doesn't work in amusement parks it won't work in health care.
   
4. The government will, under the Trojan Horse of "efficiency", have an unprecedented access to personal medical history of all Americans with or without their permission. Nowhere in the Constitution is such power granted. A law requiring the mandatory disclosure of private medical information to the US Government is inconsistent with the "necessary and proper" clause of Article I Section 8. As such, H.R. 3200 is unconstitutional and should be rejected by Congress, the President and / or the Supreme Court.
5. Our taxpayers will be required to fund abortions, a condition that is morally unacceptable to a large percentage of Americans. This element of H.R 3200 is so offensive and unforgivable to such a large percentage of voters, that when this aspect of the bill is picked-up in the media and in town halls across the country, every representative voting for this bill will be thrown-out of office in 2010.
   

H.R.3200 "America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 " (Yea, right)

For those of you looking for a summer thriller, I encourage you to grab your favorite beach chair, some SP30, a case of Bud and the 1,017 pages of H.R. 3200 which drew its first breath on 7/14/2009 and will hopefully expire before the only permanent damage done is to Obama and his thugs.

Call your Congressman today and tell him / her that, while we need to make some improvements to our health insurance system - improvements that provide less government involvement and more free choice - H.R. 3200 will be the most destructive policy ever enacted in the history of this country...and those that vote for its passage will face a hurricane of opposition in the 2010 elections. It will be an "eye for an aye" in no uncertain terms. Americans from across the country will organize and act and throw-out every representative who chooses to do the bidding of Obama and Pelosi rather than that of the men and woman who sent them to Washington to serve them.

This weekend we will break down Obama's press conference from 7/22 into a "What he said" and "What he meant" analysis... should be fun!

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Abraham Lincoln

More Pelosi

Here's a lovely piece from San Fran Nan from January of this year... the face and sound of the inherent contradiction in the liberal mind. She blames deficits during the Bush years on the 2003 tax cuts... I guess she forgot to look at the data (what liberal ever does? It just gets in the way of their perception of the world as they would have it.)

Deficits are created when spending exceeds income (slow me down if this is too much "Inside Baseball" stuff). So, when Congress goes on a spending spree during the Bush years, the reason for the deficit has NOTHING to do with spending, soooo, it must have been those Bad Bush Tax Cuts.

But what kind of "take" did the Feds grab in terms of taxes following the Bush tax cuts? Well, according to the IRS' "SOI Tax Stats - Internal Revenue Collections and Refunds...Table I" between 2003 and 2007, Federal receipts (corporate income taxes, individual income taxes, employment taxes [OASDHI, FICA, SEICA, etc], Estate and gift taxes and excise taxes) increased by 45% from a post-9/11 low of $1.65 trillion in FY03 to $2.40 trillion in FY07.

So, imagine in 2003 you found yourself making $85K... four years later, you were making $124K...but were up to your arse in debt. Income problem or a spending problem? Exactly. Put the credit card away and start minding your ass(ets).

The deficit problem, Madame Speaker, finds its root in the amount of spending, not in the amount of tax revenue. But because this inconvenient truth contradicts the liberals view of a world that doesn't respond to incentives, liberals spin TBL ("the Big Lie") and blame tax cuts for the deficit wracked up during the 2003 - 2007 Bush years. (As an aside, don't the Bush deficits look, well, bush league, compared to a REAL spending, uhm, "investing" machine like Pelosi, Reid and Obama?)

By the way, for those of you keeping score, if you really, really, really want to soak the rich and get "them" to pay even MORE money in taxes (by creating wealth, creating jobs from which employment taxes can be generated, and growing the economy) then Washington (and states) should lower tax rates, including capital gains taxes, and make a promise not to mess with the tax code for the next two years... and then watch the gusher of cash generated as tax receipts as we grow our country out of this socialist swamp in which we have been dumped...All we ask from our government is to get the hell out of our way and stay out of our way.

Enjoy the twisted, tortured, contradiction-laced lunacy of the women two heart beats from the presidency...

Americans: Be careful what you ask for for...

"You have heard it said that this is an age of moral crisis. You have said it yourself, half in fear, half in hope that the words had no meaning. You have cried that man's sins are destroying the world and you have cursed human nature for its unwillingness to practice the virtues you demanded.

"Since virtue, to you, consists of sacrifice, you have demanded more sacrifices at every successive disaster. In the name of a return to morality, you have sacrificed all those evils which you held as the cause of your plight. You have sacrificed justice to mercy. You have sacrificed independence to unity. You have sacrificed reason to faith. You have sacrificed wealth to need. You have sacrificed self-esteem to self-denial. You have sacrificed happiness to duty.

"You have destroyed all that which you held to be evil and achieved all that which you held to be good. Why, then, do you shrink in horror from the sight of the world around you? That world is not the product of your sins, it is the product and the image of your virtues. It is your moral ideal brought into reality in its full and final perfection. You have fought for it, you have dreamed of it, and you wished it..."

-- John Galt in Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand

While many of us warned before the 2008 election that our very way of life would come under an irresistible attack should Obama win with control of the Congress, few of us every imagined the sheer audacity of his power grab. As many of us slog our way through the dog days of summer, wondering if the 7.3% run-up in the DJIA this week is a harbinger of good times to come, Obama looks to slice the hamstrings of America with his Health Care Evisceration Act. Should enough Americans fail to act; should enough Americans sit on the sidelines blissfully ignorant of the peril we face; should enough Americans cede the liberty of themselves and their posterity to a smooth-talking liar and to his thugs; should enough Americans not care enough to make a phone call or write a letter or stand in the streets, then no one should shrink in horror at the site that will be America in 2010. It will be nothing more than that which we allowed the Great Charlatan to steal from us.

The American Form of Government: Democracy vs Republic

I found this great video from The Gulch Dispatch. It should come as no surprise that Obama is waging class warfare and will increase the rhetoric of class warfare as his policies fail, as any sane, rational person knows they will. He will blame the "greedy rich" (aka "producers") for all of the ills that his socialist policies have unleashed on Americans. A dispassionate analysis of Obama's policies can only reach the conclusion that Obama is working 24/7 to create a voting majority that pays no taxes, has "no skin in the game", becomes increasing dependent on government hand-outs and is willing to carry the torch and bricks to hurl into the "shop window" of America.