Health Care Reform and the Constitution

by Kerby Anderson

While most of the current debate about health care reform has focused on its cost, some members of Congress are talking about whether these bills would be constitutional. Senator Orrin Hatch raises a number of important questions in a recent editorial.

He notes that for the first time, "the federal government would be ordering Americans to buy a particular product or service they had not chosen to purchase." He is talking about the requirement that individuals purchase health insurance. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service concluded that this is an unprecedented constitutional issue.

Another constitutional problem with this mandate is that the penalty for failing to purchase health insurance is not a tax but a penalty. The Senate Finance Committee bill says it is an excise tax, but it is really a fine assessed against those who do not buy insurance.

Senator Hatch says this matters "because the Constitution requires that a direct tax be apportioned among the states based on population." An analysis published in the BNA Tax Report confirms that the penalty imposed on people "who don't buy health insurance would be an unapportioned direct tax in violation of the Constitution."

And another provision in the Senate Finance bill would impose an excise tax on the sale of high-premium insurance plans and provide relief from that tax for insurers in certain states. Once again, this appears to be in violation of the Constitution since it requires that excise taxes be "uniform throughout the United States." This tax cannot be uniform if it varies from state to state and gives preference to those states that are fortunate to have senators who serve on the committee and can write exemptions for those states.

Senator Hatch concludes by pointing out that it is "tempting to brush the Constitution aside to pursue political objectives, to let the ends justify the means. But if politics trumps the Constitution, the Constitution cannot limit government and, therefore, cannot protect liberty."

The senator is raising important constitutional issues. Congress should listen. I'm Kerby Anderson, and that's my point of view.

President Obama and the Doctors

Did you see the photo op yesterday? President Obama had his staff hand-pick a number of doctors that agreed with his agenda for socialized medicine. If you ever believed Hollywood directors were not involved with our government, this might have given you pause to start believing (sarcasm). What a hoax.

They actually had someone walking around handing out these white lab coats to the doctors. How many doctors ever leave their office or the hospital wearing a lab coat? If they don't do it then, why would they dress this way in order to meet the President.

I saw a video today that parody's Hollywood's "expertise" in health care. Here's a great laugh:

Mr. Newt Gingrich on Democrats Using Third World Tactics in Politics

I hope Mr. Gingrich doesn't mind, but I had to share this. I also made comments here and there in ( )'s. You can find more great articles here: Human Events.com

Turning the Senate into the Chicago City Council

by Newt Gingrich

"Using the budget reconciliation process to pass health reform and climate change legislation…would violate the intent and spirit of the budget process, and do serious injury to the constitutional role of the Senate."

These are not the words of a Republican or a conservative activist.

This is a warning issued on April 2 of this year from the former Democratic Majority Leader in the Senate, Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.).

He was referring to a dangerous assault on American freedom as it is protected by the constitutional balance of power – an assault that is being considered by the Obama Administration right now.

"We Pour Legislation into the Senatorial Saucer to Cool It"

The Founding Fathers designed the Constitution and our government to guard against political power grabs by slowing down the process of making laws.

(Slow it down and read it, please!)

They insisted that the Senate had to be a deliberative body to slow down the passions of the House and stop mob rule from destroying freedom.

In a famous conversation between the two presidents, Thomas Jefferson is said to have asked George Washington why the Framers had agreed to a second chamber in Congress at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. "Why did you pour that coffee into your saucer?" Washington asked him. "To cool it," said Jefferson. "Even so," said Washington, "we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it."

(I just loved that quote)

The Founders Relied on the Senate to Carefully Consider Before They Commit Us to a New Law

One of the key means by which the Senate slows down the legislative process is through the filibuster.

Unlike in the House, in the Senate, even a small group of senators can hold up a bill by threatening to continuously debate it.

It takes the votes of three-fifths of the Senate, or 60 senators, to end a filibuster. This means that it effectively takes 60 votes to pass a controversial piece of legislation or nomination.

And again, this is for good reason. The Founders looked to the House to more directly reflect the will of the people. They relied on the Senate to take a step back and carefully consider a bill before they commit the American people and our resources to it.

A Revolutionary Act Worthy of a Third World Country

I have taken this brief tour of American constitutional history to make an important point: The Obama Administration clearly has concluded it cannot get a big government health plan through the Senate if they accept the traditional, historic requirement of a 60-vote majority.

It is also clear left-wing activists would cheerfully destroy the integrity of the Senate and the freedoms it protects if that is what it takes to get a government-run, bureaucratic health care system which would expand their power and increase the importance of Washington.

Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the Democratic majority leader, has warned that a failure to get 60 votes would lead him to try to force through a bill with 50 senators and Vice President Joe Biden breaking the tie.

(And they call the President's podium the "bully pulpit"?)

Changing one-sixth of the American economy with 50 senators voting yes would be a revolutionary act worthy of a third world country.

(Where are their heads in this? We as a nation are suffering and all they can think about is their ideology. Socialism run a muck!)

Senator Byrd: "Reconciliation was Intended to Adjust Revenue and Spending Levels in Order to Reduce Deficits"

The Obama Administration and Sen. Reid are considering getting around the 60-vote majority rule in the Senate by using a process called "reconciliation." Under reconciliation, just 51 votes are required to pass a bill.

(Maybe they should call it "decapitation" because they are going to decapitate our economy)

Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd, whom I quoted at the beginning of this message, has unique authority on reconciliation. Not only is he the author of a remarkable history of the Senate (four volumes published between 1989 and 1995), he was, as he wrote, "one of the authors of the reconciliation process," which was created in 1985.

Here is what he said about using reconciliation to pass things like health care reform: "I can tell you that the ironclad parliamentary procedures it authorizes were never intended for this purpose. Reconciliation was intended to adjust revenue and spending levels in order to reduce deficits."

(I have criticized Mr. Byrd in the past but he is quickly winning me over to his brief moment of wisdom)

Sen. Byrd concluded with this warning: "The Senate cannot perform its constitutional role if senators forego debate and amendments. I urge senators to jealously guard their individual rights to represent their constituents on such critical matters."

(Right on)

For 20 Years, I Was Told to Be Patient When Conservatives Couldn't Muster 60 Votes

For 20 years as a member of the House, I was told to be patient when conservative reforms could not muster 60 votes or a conservative nomination could not get 60 votes.

For the last decade I was told to be patient when reforms conservatives wanted and personnel conservatives wanted were blocked by the lack of 60 votes in the Senate.

Now after a lifetime of sustaining the constitutional role of the Senate, we find that the left wants to suspend the normal constitutional process so they can ram through a gigantic government run health program immediately.

(And they are rushing why? Couldn't be that their time is running out? Or are they afraid the polar caps will melt too quickly, and they want aliens to find that they passed this bill as an "effort to save mankind")

Every American Who Cherishes the Institutions That Have Preserved Our Liberty Will Tell Their Senators to Fight

We are being told the Obama agenda is so important we should destroy the Senate and make it more like the House of Representatives.

(Mr. Gingrich is right on here)

This radical action may make sense to President Obama, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and senior strategist David Axelrod, all of whom come from Chicago and are used to seeing the Chicago City Council muscled by a strong mayor on behalf of a machine.

However, every American who cherishes freedom and appreciates the institutions that have preserved us from tyranny will be telling their senators to preserve the integrity of the Senate and preserve the protections of American liberty.

This fight over process may turn out to be even more important than the fight over the substance of the big government, big bureaucracy, high-tax health bill they want.

When both process and policy are wrong there is something very bad going on.

(Thanks Mr. Gingrich - Here's more from Human Events.com)

The 9/12 March on Washington

Women's Suffrage March (March 3, 1913) - 5,000

Martin Luther King Jr.'s March for Freedom (August 28, 1963) - 250,000

Million Man March (October 16, 1995) - 400,000

Countless marches by demonstrators for various reasons with some as large as one million and some as little as a few hundred.

All had major news coverage.

September 12, 2009 - people March on Washington (the largest such march by conservatives ever according to Wikipedia). How many really showed up?

Fox coverage:



I like this man: Rev. C.L. Bryant:





CNN Coverage:



MSNBC coverage (good interview):



Thanks to Freedom Works where I found these videos.

Another Take on Healthcare Reform

Here is a letter from a radio show I enjoy from time to time about the President's address to Congress. I found it to be quite informative, especially the "bi-partisan" quote by President Obama.

From Point of View:

In his speech to a joint session of congress, President Obama charged that his healthcare plan had been attacked with "bogus claims," "misinformation" and that it had been the victim of "misunderstanding."

As he went through the list of these "key controversies," he included a number of things we have said, both on the air and in previous emails. His rebuttals included many half-truths and, according to at least one congressman, outright lies. Now it is our turn to "set the record straight:"

Death Panels

"The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple."

President Obama proposed the creation of the Institute for Comparative Effectiveness and it was funded to the tune of $1.1 billion through the stimulus bill. The purpose of ICE is to evaluate the clinical effectiveness as well as the cost-effectiveness of medicines and medical treatments. While such an organization is good in theory (i.e. giving doctors and medical professionals better information about what treatments work) in practice it has been anything but.

The clearest example of where this is headed is the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in Great Britain. This bureaucracy determines what drugs and treatments are allowed and in what circumstances for the national healthcare system in Great Britain. In many instances, NICE has disallowed the usage of lifesaving treatments or medications on the basis of cost, condemning individuals to an otherwise avoidable death earning them the title of "death panels."

Under the public option health plan proposed by the president there will be a limitation of resources and it will fall to ICE or a similar agency of the government to determine how those resources are allocated. President Obama himself stated earlier this year that only people who will get "healthier" should get treatment. Where does that leave the elderly, the disabled and those with degenerative diseases?

Ezekiel Emmanuel, Health Policy Advisor, Office of Management and Budget (and brother to Obama's chief of staff) has written, "Savings will require changing how doctors think about their patients. Doctors take the Hippocratic oath too seriously, as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others." His perspective is, there are limited healthcare resources and before a doctor prescribes a test or treatment for one of his patients he should consider if those resources would be better spent on someone else.

Abortion

In response to the assertion by many pro-family groups that abortion would be covered by the national healthcare plan and paid for with our tax dollars Obama said, "And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place."

At times like these I remember Bill Clinton's statement, "It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is' is." It has been argued that the Hyde amendment would prevent federal funds from being used to pay for abortions under the healthcare plan. There is also the amendment Rep. Capps has offered to specifically say that the healthcare plan cannot use federal dollars to fund abortions.

However, this is a distinction without a difference. The proposed health insurance exchange will be funded by the federal government as well as premiums paid by individuals and employers. It can pay for abortions and claim it only used the funds that came from individuals and employers, not the federal government.

This is the defense that Planned Parenthood has used for years to defend their federal funding. It is basically the same as telling us that the government will use federal funds to pay for abortions but will only use tax dollars that come from pro-abortion individuals.

As to the assertion that "federal conscience laws will remain in place," we have never said the healthcare bill would remove these protections. The protections were created primarily by an executive order, not legislation. The Obama administration made it known earlier in the year that they planned to rescind that executive order, removing those protections for healthcare workers.

Because of the outrage this announcement generated, the administration has yet to move forward with their plans. This could be done at any time literally with the stroke of the president's pen giving no opportunity for discussion or debate.

Coverage for Illegal Immigrants

Then there is the statement that caused Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst, "You lie!" President Obama stated, "There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally."

While the bill making its way through congress doesn't specifically say it will fund healthcare for illegal immigrants, the bill does nothing to prevent it and so far any attempt to remedy that problem has been defeated by the Democrats.

As the bill now stands, if someone who is in the country illegally applies for coverage under the public option there is no requirement to show proof of citizenship so the application could not be refused for that reason.

You Can Keep Your Plan

"Nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have."

Because the majority of Americans have their health insurance through their employer, they may lose their plan if their employer chooses to switch to the public plan to save costs. Independent experts all agree that the legislation proposed would result in millions of Americans losing the coverage they have—the Congressional Budget Office believes several million, the Urban Institute up to 47 million, and the Lewin Group as many as 114 million.

Increasing the Deficit

"I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits—either now or in the future. Period."

According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, H.R. 3200 would increase deficits by $239 billion over ten years and the legislation "would probably generate substantial increases in federal budget deficits" thereafter. The Peter G. Peterson Foundation released a study today, which found that in its second decade, H.R. 3200 would increase federal deficits by more than $1 trillion.

Medicare

"Not a dollar of the Medicare trust fund will be used to pay for this plan."

"Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan. Much of the rest would be paid for with revenues from the very same drug and insurance companies that stand to benefit from tens of millions of new customers."

The two statements seem contradictory and if H.R. 3200 is enacted it would severely damage Medicare. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the cuts to Medicare Advantage plans included in the current legislation would result in millions of seniors losing their current plan. So much for "nothing in this plan requires you to change what you have."

Cost

"Add it all up, and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over ten years."

The Congressional Budget Office review of H.R. 3200 as introduced, found that the legislation would spend approximately $1.6 trillion over ten years, but what's $700 billion among friends?

Bi-Partisan

"Well the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed. Now is the season for action. Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together, and show the American people that we can still do what we were sent here to do.

"I will continue to seek common ground in the weeks ahead. If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen. My door is always open."

Perhaps it slipped the president's mind that on May 13, House Republican leaders all wrote the President a letter reading in part: "We write to you today to express our sincere desire to work with you and find common ground on the issue of health care reform….We respectfully request a meeting with you to discuss areas for potential common ground on health care reform." Nearly four months later, that meeting has yet to take place.

Moving Quickly

"We will do this by creating a new insurance exchange a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices. . . This exchange will take effect in four years, which will give us time to do it right."

Four years? Isn't that just after your campaign to be re-elected ends? Why is it you don't want the American people to see what this plan will really do to their healthcare until AFTER you ask them to give you a second term?

The debate over healthcare reform is moving forward quickly and your congressional representatives will come under increasing pressure to support the president's plan. Please contact your congressman and senators right away to let them know where you stand on healthcare reform.

Warren Kelley, President
Point of View Ministries

What President Obama Did Say on Health Care

Okay, we all know that Mr. Obama is a good speaker, even though he gives me whip lash as he swings back and forth looking from one prompter to the next while looking as if he is watching a tennis match.

But what about substance last night? I must be honest; I went to church. I caught the end and the snippets last night and this morning. Which brings me to ask, why did he wait to give this speech on a night that is traditionally set aside for church services? Could it be that conservatives would be at church and not watching the speech?

Enough drama.

From what I am able to ascertain from this speech last night, President Obama did

• give more general specifics that he would like to see in the bill (good)
  
• stress and not stress the necessity of the government option (though now government optional co-ops are becoming all the new rage) and left it up to Congress as to whether to keep it or not (sticking to his proposal)
  
• offer Tort reform as a handout but he did not get overly specific (showed leadership here)
• call Republicans and talk show radio hosts and other liars (okay not a great idea, because everyone cannot be lumped into this boat)
  
• threaten to call out Republicans who disagreed with him (while ignoring the Democrats that are listening to their constituents)
• invoke a tone of frustration (what I like to call the "I'm your Daddy" tone; being a father I use it often)
  

What he did not say:

• That this bill should be broken up in order to start getting elements of the bill passed and working so people can get relief
• That the $600 Billion dollars he wants to save in Medicare waste could have gone back to the people or into paying off our debt. He would rather keep the debt and deficit spending high and use the money to "help" pay for this extremely expensive government intervention
• Why government doesn't go ahead and fix the wasted $600 Billion dollars anyway (because the federal government likes keeping our money)
  

Overall grade: C+. President Obama is sticking to his guns, which I can respect. He is also showing that he is listening to some extent. He did not do the one thing I would hope he would have had done: break the bill up. Sorry to repeat myself, but it needs to be said again and again.

Of course, he will be making further comments this morning. Does that mean he does not think he made his point last night? We shall see.

What President Obama Needs To Say

Tonight, President Obama is going to give one of the most important speeches of his administration. Why? This speech will show if he is truly ready to stand up and be a leader.

This entire debate now falls upon leadership, and I will be looking as to whether he falls into step with his party or not. If he does, we will see this plan fall to pieces, because he refuses to be the leader he was elected to be.

There are many points of contention in this plan:

• It is too long and too much for one bill. It needs to be broken down and dealt with topic by topic. If the president agrees to this, he will be showing leadership.
• The government option (call it what it is!) is a boiling point. The liberals want it, and the American public does not. To drop it will lose votes, and to keep it will lose votes. Here is a major point of leadership. He has already said in the past that this is his one goal - a single payer system. Where will he stand tonight?
• The cost of the various options being "submitted" (because if you are not a Democrat you are not allowed to have your plans heard), are astronomical. He wants this plan to be revenue neutral. To pay for it, you have to make major cuts somewhere. Where is he going to stand on this?
• Also on costs, the current mountains of pages hide costs in various places. Some plans push a bulk of the costs onto states which are already in the hole economically. Other options hide costs by calling for "non-budgeted" expenditures which are totalling in the billions. Will he address this?
• What about tort reform? The democrats will not touch it with a ten thousand foot pole because they are heavily funded in their campaigns by these lawyers (case in point, the former Senator, wife cheating, ambulance chasing lawyer named Edwards). The Republicans want reform. A real leader will make some kind of move towards fixing this problem which would save doctors billions, that in turn would cut costs for patients.
• The people do not want the IRS having more power (we want it abolished anyway, but that is another debate). To suggest that the IRS should be allowed to fine people without health coverage goes far beyond the scope of this under-controlled institution. Also, health records do not need to be sent to the feds for better record keeping. That is too much government and too close to home. We want a federal government that is a whole lot less cozy with us. President Obama needs to address this issue.
  

There are also points to agree on:

• People with pre-existing conditions (such as myself) need hope that they can find good care in the future.
• People who lose their jobs need hope that they can carry their insurance until they get a new job and either get new insurance or be allowed keep what they have.
• There needs to be more competition instead of one or two insurance companies dominating a state. The federal government could fix this easily with interstate commerce adjustments.
• Costs need to be clear. Patients need to be able to shop the costs.

To see a good framework for such a plan look here: Empowering Patients

These pillars, in the Empowering Patients Act, were framed by doctors, who are now representatives in Congress, and can be subdivided for separate debate. That what we really want.

So Mr. President, again, if you are listening. Do not shove this enormous bill down our throats. It is too much to swallow and way too much for legitimate debate. If you really want to get it right, break it up in pieces. Then we can get to the real debate and real changes for those who need it. Thanks for listening, if you are. I guess we will find out tonight.

Presidential Misinformation on Health Care

The president is speaking to the AFL-CIO today. He sounds like he is running for president not being the president. His speech is a campaign speech not a presidential one until he gets to his story about Greenwood. Then he went back into the campaign speech. I'll bet he is a great person to be around. I would love to meet him one day. Today, however, I must chastise him a little.

In his speech, he says that those who oppose the health care legislation being presented by the Democrats do not have an answer. How untrue can one get? That is a flat out lie. Now, Mr. President, please stop telling such lies, because it is not befitting to your position.

Here is the answer to your question if you are listening:

EMPOWERING PATIENTS FIRST ACT

A Solution for Access to Affordable, Quality Health Care for All Americans

Pillar #1: Access to Coverage for All Americans

Makes the purchase of health care financially feasible for all – Extends the income tax deduction (above the line) on health care premiums to those who purchase coverage in the non-group / individual market. And, there is an advanceable, refundable tax credit (on a sliding scale) for low-income individuals to purchase coverage in the non-group / individual market.

Covers pre-existing conditions – Grants states incentives to establish high-risk / reinsurance pools. Federal block grants for qualified pools are expanded.

Protects employer-sponsored insurance – Individuals can be automatically enrolled in an employer-sponsored plan. Small businesses are given tax incentives for adoption of auto-enrollment.

Shines sunlight on health plans – Establishes health plan and provider portals in each state, and these portals act to supply greater information rather than acting as a purchasing mechanism.

Pillar #2: Coverage is Truly Owned by the Patient

Grants greater choice and portability – Gives patients the power to own and control their own health care coverage by allowing for a defined contribution in employer-sponsored plans. This also gives employers more flexibility in the benefits offered.

Expands the individual market – Creates pooling mechanisms such as association health plans and individual membership accounts. Individuals are also allowed to shop for health insurance across state lines.

Reforms the safety net – Medicaid and SCHIP beneficiaries are given the option of a voucher to purchase private insurance. And states must cover 90% of those below 200% of the federal poverty level before they can expand eligibility levels under Medicaid and SCHIP.

Pillar #3: Improve the Health Care Delivery Structure

Institutes doctor-led quality measures – Nothing suggested by the Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research can be finalized unless done in consultation with and approved by medical specialty societies. It also establishes performance-based quality measures endorsed by the Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement (PCPI) and physician specialty organizations.

Reimburses physicians to ensure continuity of care – Rebases the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) and establishes two separate conversion factors (baskets) for primary care and all other services.

Promotes healthier lifestyles – Allows for employers to offer discounts for healthy habits through wellness and prevention programs.

Pillar #4: Rein in Out-of-Control Costs

Reforms the medical liability system – Establishes administrative health care tribunals, also known as health courts, in each state, and adds affirmative defense through provider established best practice measures. It also encourages the speedy resolution of claims and caps non-economic damages.

Pays for the plan – The cost of the plan is completely offset through decreasing defensive medicine, savings from health care efficiencies (reduce DSH payments), ferreting out waste, fraud and abuse, plus an annual one-percent non-defense discretionary spending step down.

Two for One Health Care

The leaders of the democrats are shaking. The people are speaking up and out, and they do not like it. So instead of listening any longer, the White House and Congressional leaders have taken it upon themselves to begin plans to force feed all Americans by passing this corrupt bill in two parts.

They continue to insist that no one else is offering up a better plan! Watching Nancy Pelosi and her lies is getting on my nerves. Her latest interview proves she does not want to listen to any other plan except what she is offering. She is so drunk on power that she could never compromise on this or anything because she is so afraid of what history will say about her (though that is already written in stone for the Astro-Smurf). Her only desire is to ignore the uproar, and those with real alternatives, and hope they will go away. Yes and the ocean's will dry up tomorrow.

I am growing angrier and angrier about this topic. Maybe that is why I decided to take a break yesterday.

According to President Obama, the ink is already dry on his signature. The bill to be passed is a sure thing, according to them. I watched part of his "conservative" interview for the radio yesterday. I read a brief on the plea to religious organizations to help help get the word out. He is grasping at straws and finding nothing.

So here we are. Instead of real reform we are getting hogwash from career politicians who do not have any clue about their plan.

Again and again the same questions are being asked by concerned citizens, and not being answered.

• If Medicare and Medicaid are broken, why not fix them first and make sure they are sustainable?
• If the federal government program is that good, and all federal employees like it, why give the public that plus the government option? How would the government option make a great plan any better?
• If we are to keep insurance companies from dropping those who reach their limits or prevent them from denying coverage to those with preexisting conditions, then why not deal with that? Besides that, explain how my rates will not go up due to their accepting thousands who are in that condition?
• Explain to me how private insurance will be able to compete with a government option that will inevitably run costs so low because they can run in the negative due to the unlimited sources of public income that will feed it.
• Why not pass laws that allow the commerce department to regulate interstate purchasing and selling of of insurance? We already do it with educational savings plans!
  

I could go on and on, but my one main questions still goes unanswered, why does the federal government have to have control? Why do they have to be the central clearing house?

Do not be fooled by the foolishness coming out of the feds. They say that they do not want to have complete control now, but give them an inch and they will take us increasingly into a socialized form of health care.

Morally, we need to do something. Ethically, this is not it!

Evil-Mongers, AstroTurf and Mobs, Oh My

Harry Reid calls us evil-mongers. Nancy Pelosi calls us astro-turf, and the White house calls us a mob.

I guess they are hearing it. They are so frightened that name calling continues to be ratcheted to higher levels.

What would they say if I called Harry Reid an witch hunter (one who seeks to demonize anyone who opposes them)? What if I called Nacy Pelosi an Astro-Smurf (someone who is fake and ultra-liberal)? What if I called the White House mob bosses (wait, I already do that)? I had to define each of those for the small mindedness of these leaders.

George W. Bush called the despots of this world evil. As William McGurn so handily points out, Ronald Reagan called the Soviet empire evil.

But when have we ever seen a politician call Americans evil?

First, let's look at the definition of this term (sorry, today is definition day). A monger in this since is person promoting something undesirable or discreditable.

Since evil is used as an adjective, let's explore that word according to dictionary.com:

1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2. harmful; injurious: evil laws.
3. characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
4. due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
5. marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.

So, if you put it together, an evil monger is a liberal democrat, no, no: is a person who with malice and discontent seeks to bring harm to those weaker than themselves in hopes to promote their undesirable goods or services.

A monger was originally a peddler of goods. So as an evil monger, a person who disagrees with the leaders of the democratic party is selling a load of junk. Isn't that why Americans are mad?

Aren't we angry because of the load junk being forced on us by our current leaders? Socialism, the global warming farce, the wasted stimulus, and more are all pouring out of the mouths of those who say they are taking a higher moral ground.

Now, the president is going to spin his ideas again but this time he plans on playing on the emotions of people. The White House has turned to psychological warfare in order to win at all costs. And if that doesn't work, the democrats are threatening (along with the White House) to throw a tantrum by forcing us to swallow the goods they are peddling.

The real mongers are those who are trying to force this bad legislation through without the support of the citizens of this great country. The definition of evil says it is marked by anger and irritability. The response of the citizens isn't a mark of anger because we are not the ones trying to peddle junk. The reaction of the leaders, however, to how negatively people are responding to their peddling turns the table on Mr. Reid. Spin it anyway you want but you are still left with a bad piece of legislation.

For a better plan look here (and you can even read it in one sitting): Empowering Patients / Facebook page

Democrat Hides Behind Union

Florida Democrat Alan Grayson held his town hall meeting yesterday. Guess where? The title gave it away. He held it in a union meeting hall. Guess who filled 95 out of 120 seats? Your good - union members!

Government for the union, by the union, and forget everyone else....

The Answer To Rationing

That's right. I just read a story about how they are diagnosing people over the phone in England.

What a great idea. Staff hundreds of phone lines with people who needs jobs and give them the health symptom chart similar to those used for diagnosing computer problems at call centers in India (better still ship the jobs to India so no one can understand the diagnosis).

Don't believe this is happening? Read here.

A 16 year old girl died because of this only weeks after another young girl died. The first girl was diagnosed with H1N1 as was this girl. The first actually had meningitis. This girl, Charlotte Hartey, had tonsillitis!

Yes, government controlled health care is perfect for everyone.

Of course, the news of the day is how the White House is deciding that the "public option" is not a necessary part of the health care plan. As if that was the only problem with the bills being proposed? They still do not have a clue. There are thousands of pages being offered for consideration and hundreds of those pages have problems which restrict personal freedoms, hinder proper care, and misappropriate tax dollars while increasing the tax burden on all of us.

On top of this, the Washington Times has a commentary piece that shows how adding a simple word can actually cost the government health care plan billions. How? By changing the the methods of how doctors judge the necessity of care. The government wants to add "or medically appropriate" to the diagnosis process which means that not only will medically necessary tests be paid, but so will any test or procedure deemed appropriate. Read it for yourself.

Obama Supporters Being Paid to Show Up At Town Halls and Be Loud

Just returned from fishing with my little boy. Or should I say, just returned from feeding the fish. Little fish kept eating our bait. Glad something liked the nightcrawlers we used.

Anyway, I just came across this interesting tidbit in the LA Times. The Fund for the Public Interest is promising $400 to $600 a week to volunteers for helping to get people to show up at town hall events.

It seems that Mr Obama cannot garner up enough support to have people show up on their own free will. Instead, his supporters have to pay people to show up. Seems to me that if someone likes an idea enough then they will show up without having to be paid. Maybe this is a sign that people really do not like it.

ACORN and the SEIU are also getting into the act, Just yesterday, they bused in people from another district to counteract the overwhelmingly large crowd that showed up at an Arlen Specter meeting in opposition to the plan.

Here is the video. Pay attention to a couple of things:

• Read the sign of one of the SEIU people yelling that says, "Yelling is counter productive"
• Take notice of all the red ACORN shirts, the bus loads of people wearing ACORN buttons, and the few people who dared to wear their blue union shirts.
  

How Do You Pay For It, Mr. President?

Nothing like a night of karate to get rid of aggravation and clear the mind. So my mind begins to stir, and I begin to wonder about children and how they need to be led and reassured and chastised.

Then it happened. I had an epiphany. The White House leadership believes we cannot think for ourselves and should not be allowed to do so. They want to do the thinking for us. This is why today's town hall meeting with the president was again very docile. He opened with a speech that told us why he thinks we need what he is proposing.

Not once did he say, "I have listened to what you want and have put together a team to work out a plan that will be best for all of America based on your concerns and your input." No. He sugar coated everything, then told us what he was going to do.

Unfortunately, he cannot bring himself to really listen to us. This is why 90% of the talking was done by him as he fielded what, 9 questions? He cannot bring himself to listen to us because he has already decided what he wants. Why? He seems to have programmed his mind to accept only one outcome for government - a "Americanized" form of socialism. He has spent years bouncing his ideas off of who? Socialists, Marxists, self-proclaimed "freedom fighters" (I mean a local terrorist), and a minister who spent a large amount of his time criticizing America.

Now that I have criticized him, let me build him up. President Obama can become the hero in all of this if, as a leader, he will take the lead and offer reform that the people can trust. Compromise is not bad thing. At least, he is trying to get something done (he just needs to remember that he represents us, not rules us).

We need health care reform but not at the extent he is proposing from the federal government. We do not need more federal intervention. We want less government, not more.

• Besides, if we need a public option so bad, then why not use medicaid as that option? Is it that bad?
• If they know that Medicare and Medicaid are losing money because of waste, then why not start there. Cut the waste and use it to strengthen those two programs.
• Next, use medicaid to cover those who are losing insurance for three reason: loss of job, pre-existing conditions, and dropped coverage. And let these conditions be the only conditions other than the normal threshold of Medicaids current coverage.
  
• Finally, make it easier for insurance companies to sell across state lines - this is what the commerce clause are for in our Constitution, right?

So how do we pay for it?

Just by cutting off the waste, says our President, we can pay for 2/3's of the plan. Then by magically changing the withholdings allowed for those who make $250,000 or more, we can pay for the other 1/3. Is he for real?

Why not do better?

Why not use the Empowering Patients First Act (printable copy)

Pillar #1: Access to Coverage for All Americans

• Makes the purchase of health care financially feasible for all – Extends the income tax deduction (above the line) on health care premiums to those who purchase coverage in the non-group / individual market. And, there is an advanceable, refundable tax credit (on a sliding scale) for low-income individuals to purchase coverage in the non-group / individual market.
• Covers pre-existing conditions – Grants states incentives to establish high-risk / reinsurance pools. Federal block grants for qualified pools are expanded.
• Protects employer-sponsored insurance – Individuals can be automatically enrolled in an employer-sponsored plan. Small businesses are given tax incentives for adoption of auto-enrollment.
• Shines sunlight on health plans – Establishes health plan and provider portals in each state, and these portals act to supply greater information rather than acting as a purchasing mechanism.
  

Pillar #2: Coverage is Truly Owned by the Patient

• Grants greater choice and portability – Gives patients the power to own and control their own health care coverage by allowing for a defined contribution in employer-sponsored plans. This also gives employers more flexibility in the benefits offered.
• Expands the individual market – Creates pooling mechanisms such as association health plans and individual membership accounts. Individuals are also allowed to shop for health insurance across state lines.
• Reforms the safety net – Medicaid and SCHIP beneficiaries are given the option of a voucher to purchase private insurance. And states must cover 90% of those below 200% of the federal poverty level before they can expand eligibility levels under Medicaid and SCHIP.
  

Pillar #3: Improve the Health Care Delivery Structure

• Institutes doctor-led quality measures – Nothing suggested by the Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research can be finalized unless done in consultation with and approved by medical specialty societies. It also establishes performance-based quality measures endorsed by the Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement (PCPI) and physician specialty organizations.
• Reimburses physicians to ensure continuity of care – Rebases the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) and establishes two separate conversion factors (baskets) for primary care and all other services.
• Promotes healthier lifestyles – Allows for employers to offer discounts for healthy habits through wellness and prevention programs.
  

Pillar #4: Rein in Out-of-Control Costs

• Reforms the medical liability system – Establishes administrative health care tribunals, also known as health courts, in each state, and adds affirmative defense through provider established best practice measures. It also encourages the speedy resolution of claims and caps non-economic damages.
• Pays for the plan – The cost of the plan is completely offset through decreasing defensive medicine, savings from health care efficiencies (reduce DSH payments), ferreting out waste, fraud and abuse, plus an annual one-percent non-defense discretionary spending step down.

America's Health Care Town Hall

As a supporter of Karen Handel, I wanted to let those of you in Georgia who read this blog know that she will be at the Centennial Olympic Park in Atlanta from 1-4 PM for America's Health Care Town Hall. If you want to volunteer for Karen, go here: volunteer

To learn more about this fantastic event, check it out here: Town Hall
They have a great line up of speakers. Enjoy your Saturday!

Wrong Health Care Questions Being Asked to the President

I just watched the most docile town hall I have seen over the past few weeks. President Obama was asked overwhelmingly positive questions about the proposal. Then as a way to be diplomatic he said, "I have time for two more questions, and those two question should be from people who disagree with me."

I must say that I am very happy that the federal government is thinking about creating an insurance pool that will be similar to that of the Congress and their employees.

I am very disappointed that a public option will be on the table. He never answered who will pay for that plan. He even directed some shots at the past administration (distract and hit to keep people off guard).

The questions that so needed to be ask, however, was never asked. So I will ask it here:

Why does the federal government have to be the central clearing house for insurance?

President Obama says he wants to create large pools for competition, but why does it have to start and end with the federal government? Why not give the states the ability to create these pools? Better yet, why not give local government or private institutions this option? Why not let my church denomination open the doors to all its members so that we can create our own large pool?

Get rid of the public option and let private co-ops have a whack at it.

Then President Obama criticized the waste by medicare and the medicare prescription plan. Well if it is broke, it is a government run plan - FIX IT! Don't say you will take the savings and spend it elsewhere. Take the savings and give it back to Americans as tax breaks for those who pay for their insurance or use it as a supplement to those who live at or below the poverty level for their health care.

So, Mr. President, what say you?

I do have to say, I saw Senator Spector and part of Senator McCaskill's forum. They do not even compare to the comfortable event the President faced. I am very impressed with how well McCaskill has been handling the debate.

If we want a real debate on this issue, then I propose putting the president on stage with someone who can give an intelligent rebuttal to his rhetoric!

Congressman John Fleming Empowering Patients First

If you haven't seen the petition for this, you are missing a great opportunity to get Congress to sign up for this health care debacle they are creating.

Rep. Fleming has introduced a bill that basically asks Congress to put their money where there mouth is. Visit his site and sign the petition and look at his ideas for health care.

By the way, he actually knows what he is talking about since he has been a physician for about 30 years.

EMPOWERING PATIENTS FIRST ACT

Rep. David Scott's Full Tantrum

Notice how the assistant to Congressman Scott addresses the man BY NAME because he had already been calling for an appointment but was consistently blown off by his own representative! WXIA also did a follow-up to this and proved that the doctor was from Scott's district!

David Scott loses his temper during the open question time of the meeting - that, yes, was organized for a highway project but also with the understanding that the end would be open for other questions.

(editing note: I just heard an interview with David Scott that says the end of the meeting was only open to further questions about the event the community had sponsored. In all fairness, I wanted to update this post and mention this. If people showed up for no other reason than to protest the health care bills, then they should have waited for the town hall forum he is sponsoring on August 15th. - See I am fair)

Here seems to be clear evidence that the liberal Democrats have stopped listening to the people they represent and are fully committed to this disastrous health care plan.

Now Nancy Pelosi has taken it upon herself to call anyone who opposes the bill - un-American!

These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades.

Then Steny Hoyer and she try to blow smoke as usual by saying that the majority of Americans are behind them on this! Do you want to know what poll she is reading (no, not tea leaves)? She is still holding to the fact that the Democrats have a majority in the House. She is saying that is her proof that Americans are behind her! That's her mythical majority! Listen to her crap:

Now — with Americans strongly supporting health insurance reform, with Congress reaching consensus on a plan, and with a president who ran and won on this specific promise of change — America is closer than ever to this century-deferred goal.

The Democrats in power stopped listening once they gained control and are basing everything they are doing on their numbers in the House not on what the people are saying. They no longer believe in representation but only in totalitarian rule. The great cry of the founding fathers was the unfair use of "taxation without representation". This health care package is taxation without true representation!

Pelosi is in utter and complete denial that anyone could be against anything this Congress would propose. What is the goal? They don't have any idea, because they have not read the bill. Or have they?

Georgia Town Halls

Rep. Hank Johnson will be holding a town hall meeting in Clarkston on Monday.

Rep. John Lewis is holding a telephone conference with constituents.

David Scott will be at Mundy's Mill High School at 10:00 AM on 08/15/2009.

Some representatives, like Tom Price and Jack Kingston, have already held their meetings.

So far these are the only ones I can track down. If you want to find out if a town hall meeting is being held in your area, Tea Party Patriots has a list for Democrats and Republicans. Get involved and have your voice heard.

But, be respectful, courteous, and follow the rules of your meeting. Voices cannot be heard in the midst raucous debate. Be firm, and come with answers as well as questions. Let them know what you expect and let them know why you are against or for this proposal. Use wisdom.

If you know of other meetings, please feel free to list them here.

You Know You Are Astroturf and a Nazi When

You know you are well-dressed AstroTurf and a Nazi, when you actually believe in our government and want to see less government interference into our daily lives. Or so say Speaker Pelosi and "Senator" Boxer.



So the liberal Democrats can't fight truth with truth so they resort to name calling.

Barbara Boxer's fantasy world of well-dressed people may be the next step towards the loony bin. Oops, name calling sorry, Ma'am.

I am very insulted by the Speaker though. How dare she compare me to Nazis? I am one of those she calls Nazi AstroTurf, yet I am not paid by anyone nor have I been pushed towards standing up for my rights. She is a bag of hot air, who honestly thinks she is something way more than she is.

As it is, the White House is now trying to squash the freedom of speech by trying to get neighbors to tattle on neighbors. What? They want you to send them the name and email addresses and "possible" suspected bad words of people that may have said something negative or controversial about the President. Sounds like the Illinois Mafia bosses in the White House are trying to squelch free speech and the right against warrantless search and seizure. Are they moving from socialism to communism?

It is getting pretty touchy with the Democrats. Maybe we should resort to name calling also, since being well-dressed and concerned is a crime in their minds. They seem to believe that demonizing normal people will make them look less idiotic and more intelligent. Those poopyheads.



The preceding was paid for by me in the manner of time and concern for the United States as a nation of free people who desire to be involved with their political processes. Isn't that what these liberal hippies preached against about the "man" back when they were younger? Tirade over.