With the way the country is, and the way Lincoln trampled the constitution (even call these united states “a nation” instead of looking at this as a union of independent states) we need not a right of cessation, but a right to expel. I’d like to put on the list Maryland, Mass., California (at least the southern part), New Jersey, Delaware, Illinois, Michigan and a hand-full of New England states.
Browsing Posts in Health Care
As I was sitting here this morning, I was wondering if Obamacare provided any coverage for “medical” marijuana, when this came up on my google search :
The National Institute on Drug Abuse is soliciting proposals from qualified organizations having the capability to (1) grow, harvest, analyze, store and distribute GMP grade cannabis (marijuana) on large and small scales; (2) extract cannabis to obtain purified phytocannabinoids including delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (delta-9-THC), analyze, and store; (3) prepare marijuana cigarettes and related products; and (4) distribute marijuana, marijuana cigarettes and cannabinoids, and other related products for research and other Government programs upon NIDA authorization.
The government getting into the business of large scale production of marijuana and distribution of joints ? Is the plan to deny medical care to granny and then keep her stoned for the remainder of her days ?
Guess George Soros is buying his way deeper and deeper into our culture…
Wow. I’ve heard of blatant “vote buying” but this takes the cake. In an article on unions wanting their own bailout (through strong arm tactics against companies and non-labor union employees, Ben Brubeck, a director with the Associated Builders and Contractors (a union group) is quoted as saying “This is incredible when you think about it, after all the promises that were made, we are coming off a pretty unsuccessful year for organized labor … After all the money they invested into electing Obama and the Democratic Congress, you would think they would get something”. While the guy is frustrated about what is happening, remember that unions got a deal with the health care reform bill. They are exempt from the “Cadillac” tax. And Obama just appointed Becker while congress was out.
I doubt the Obama administration will investigate themselves … they don’t go after anyone that helps their cause … there is no justice.
Remember November.
The national debt we see as a killer and rightfully so. People are all upset about it and we know it stinks. But it seems we lose sight of it the closer it comes to home.
The county has been financing capital projects with debt it for what seems like forever. Every single ballot item for bonds related to building schools has been passed every year I’ve been here. What does it cost us now? A whole lot more than the 30 million or so that is going to put 290+ people out of work because the county budget needs to be cut. (Plus much larger classroom sizes, and we already have students that won’t be able to take AP courses because we don’t offer them every year.) Why? If you ask me it is because we don’t know fiscal responsibility.
“It’s the economy, stupid” applies to nearly everyone. As a single income household, attempting to live on a teacher’s salary, I don’t have a choice of using credit to pay for things. Some of you might be thinking that means I have to use credit … NO! Just the opposite. I cannot afford to use credit to pay for things. If I used credit, then I wouldn’t be able to stay a teacher, I’d have to find another job. How many of the problems with the economy are from people defaulting on loans? Debt is a killer for people as well as the county.
What’s more, the debt that kills the people is the reason people think it is “okay” to contract debt for the county. (If people buy a $3000 TV with debt … really stupid idea, people … then why wouldn’t they think that a county with a couple of billion budget should contract a debt of a $100 million or so for a school?) Both lead to the same disastrous consequences; the entity that does this ends up spending more and more of the total income on debt than the things it needs to survive. Buy a TV on debt? Why not? Buy a school on debt? Of course!
That brings us to the country as a whole. Elect idiots that believe that the “entitlements” cannot be touched and that it is okay to have debt (financially irresponsible people like us) and what happens? We have a national debt that is so high that we are facing national bankruptcy if the interest rates go up by just a little. Remember when mortgages where 16% a year … what happens if the interest rates triple yet again?. The interest per year triples as well. Look at our current proposed county budget; it includes $151 million in debt service (notice they do NOT break out principle and interest, so we can easily see how much waste is included). Waste? What do we get for the interest? Nothing … spending money to have today rather than tomorrow is the most essential waste I can imagine. I want it, and I want it NOW! Wait a year and you can pay cash, or you pay three times as much. (In other words, how stupid is it to put appliances on a mortgage rather than pay cash? Why pay $4500 for a $1500 washer/drier?)
Which brings us to the federal budget as well. How much do we spend on interest? What have we done electing people that think nothing of increasing our debt instead of paying it off? We are electing people that are as stupid as we are. WAKE UP! If Loudoun had never borrowed to finance building, we would not have the tax rate we do today, let alone the need to lay off 290+ LCPS employees (not that there isn’t waste in the school system as well … I’m not saying anything about that.) Wake up! If we want the future to be anything near reasonable, pay off the debt. I’d rather see a tax increase and a mandated unbalanced budget (i.e., a mandate for a surplus every year) than have the tax remain the same and not pay down the debt. $150 million is more than enough to lower taxes *and* provide full funding for the LCPS budget. If we had been paying as we go, it would have saved enough to build every school in the county we have now (even at the insanely small size we build schools). For the federal government, it may have taken longer, but the situation is exactly the same.
It is insane to borrow money except for an emergency, or something that is a one-time expense which is greater than the yearly income an entity generates. It is also insane not to pay off that debt as quickly as possible. Otherwise, we have a situation in which we are paying interest (total waste of funds) for what gets us nothing in return. If the freezer breaks down with $500 of food in it, it makes sense to buy a new freezer to save the $500 in food, but pay it off! It does not make sense to carry debt. In fact, it makes sense to save money so when an emergency happens (as it always does) you have the money to pay for the fix. If we have six months of income in the bank, there are few emergencies that would force us to borrow money. That is true for the county, the state, the federal government, or even individuals.
I loved this, and I hope Cafferty is right about remembering at mid-term elections …
“You Lie” Wilson seems to have been right. Again in the state of the union, Obama lying about the SCOTUS in overturning McCain-Feingold in Citizen United is yet another example. How can you tell that Obama is lying? His lips are moving doesn’t seem to cover all the times this guy can lie.
Pick any section of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, then go the Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, and explain exactly which of those enumerated powers, such as “To establish Post Offices and Post Roads,” or “To provide and maintain a Navy,” pertains to the chosen section of the new law.
by jacob
The Democrat party is a criminal enterprise masquerading as a political party. These people will do anything to win. The founders had it ever so correct, “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” Wake up America.
Call a blue dog Democrat. Call a republican who has been silent on this issue. Voting no is not enough. There will be a rally tomorrow at noon in DC. Be there.
An open letter to congress
We won’t forget it.
Regardless of what you might want to think, or hope, the people of this country are not as stupid as you might want to think. Sure, they are gullible at times, but they won’t easily forget what you do if the entire country has spoken. Remember Scott Brown. If you don’t, you too will find out what it is like having those whom you would have vote one way (for you) vote another way. Polish up your resume, or vote against the health care bill.
Brian Withnell
(Sorry about not signing it before, I forgot that the new software does auto sign.)
by jacob
When it comes to health care the public option is not the only option. There are many other ways to cut costs in health care. Part of the equation is that lack of Health Insurance does not equal lack of Health Care. This equivocation is a lie that has been perpetrated on the American public. Hospitals are required to treat patients. While emergency rooms are an inefficient vector for delivering health care, government takeover is even more inefficient means of delivery.
There are many other ways of reducing costs. First of all reduce the price of the insurance. How? First, start by allowing competition across state lines. The trouble with health care is that there is already too much government control and spending in this sector of the economy. Any solution that increases public sector influence in this segment of the economy will only lead to greater cost. What is needed here instead is a freer market. People should be allowed to shop anywhere for their medical health insurance. If people can find their own car, home and life insurance — they are also capable of choosing/finding health insurance — preferably in a free market.
Part of the current trouble is that the Federal and State Governments have not allowed for a free market. Dictating that insurance companies include given services in health care contracts does not provide choice; it instead has the opposite effect. A healthy 25 year old does not need the same type of coverage as the middle aged. The insurance companies should be left to provide a wider range of services. An example of the this kind problem is that men in their 20’s are forced to buy into health care insurance packages that include gynecological services. Services that are targeted toward various demographics will allow consumer choice and will encourage greater participation.
The next part of the equation is the fact that we, as a people have frankly ridiculous expectations when it comes to health care. We all have car insurance. Do we expect Geico to pay for tune ups, new tires and oil changes? No. Of course not. If automobile insurance did pay for such maintenance then we would be paying $8K to $10K per year for our car insurance. We have home insurance, do we expect insurance to pay for home maintenance? If we could buy insurance that did not cover a check up or a “Johnny has the sniffles” sick visit we would see our health care premiums slashed by some 30% to 40%.
Then there is the tremendous cost to the public caused be medical malpractice law suites. There are three culprits in this issue. The doctors, the lawyers and the public at large.
The Medical profession has historically refused to truly police itself. When doctors in the past proved themselves to be incompetent or negligent, the medical board would typically close ranks and protect one of their own. This is white equivalent of the blue wall of silence. This in turn lead to the second problem — lawyers.
The second culprit are the trial lawyers cum ambulance chasers. When satisfaction could not be found due to the AMA’s intransigence, the law was the only recourse for the public at large. The trouble here is that this profession has also jumped the shark and now we have lawyers trolling for cases through the media with lines like “If you even THINK you MAY have been wronged …” Which plays on the weaknesses of the third party in this dance. The public.
Many people think they will get rich suing their doctor. This is typically false. Especially in class action lawsuits. The only people who make out in class action suits are the lawyers. The thousands who are represented get a token check. The medical insurance company pays out millions. The lawyers get rich. The people paying for health insurance get stuck with the bill. Tort reform should concentrate on this issue first and foremost.
The end result is where we are today — doctors paying medical malpractice insurance premiums to the tune of $150K-$250K per year, per doctor. That is a burden of some $45B to $75B per year just to service malpractice insurance premiums. A burden that is passed on to the public at large. This does not include the costs of defensive medicine, whose impact on the price of medicine is even larger, and even harder to determine.
A possible solution is one where doctors who are repeatedly found negligent would see their licenses revoked. This would benefit the public on two fronts. First of all the medical profession would improve. Secondly, if the bottom 10% of the profession is gone, or improving then the number of lawsuits would drop. As the profession becomes a better risk, then the price of medical services will drop because the overhead from malpractice insurance will drop.
Health Care and Health Care Insurance are not the same thing. Emergency rooms are unfortunately the most expensive means of delivering medical treatment. An alternative are Health Care clinics with extended hours for the uninsured to handle sniffles, ear infections, or some minor trauma. Such clinics could deliver quality health care at a price that is far less than than sending people to the emergency room. Out of pocket expenses could be kept further down as the paperwork caused by insurance is out of the picture. People spend $75 for a plumber, or $30 for an oil change. Why is it too much to expect someone to pay $50 to $100 for the treatment of a simple medical problem?
For more complex issues, such as the uninsured with cancer, the current solution has its troubles, but the government single payer solution is worse. If the insurance industry were allow to provide plans that target catastrophic issues only, such plans would cost far less than the ‘Cadillac’ plans typically provided today. The numbers of the uninsured would certainly drop because cheaper is more accessible.
More than likely some will not be covered. No solution will bring us to Utopia. The trouble with the 3000 page mess we are being threatened with is that Utopia would not even be on the horizon. Currently we have some 10M to 30M who are not covered today. We can reduce this number by reducing the price of insurance with greater market based choices. A medical profession that vigorously polices itself, coupled with some sort of tort reform, will reduce the price of insurance further. The alternative proposed by the left is the government taking control over what should be our own personal business.
While I might want to have a Republican win the senate seats for Virginia as they come up for election, I also want to stop the health care “reform” that is currently the goal of the liberal politicians.
A simple letter sent to all my representatives:
A Republican elected in Mass. Did you get the message, or do you want to brush up your resume?
Stop health care “reform” now.
I think it might be effective if enough people send something that short and “sweet” to their congressmen. What do you think?
Please note, I’m not saying that I don’t want to change the people, I’m saying this can be used as leverage to stop what could be a true disaster in the meantime.
California’s governor Schwarzenegger’s State of the state address includes the following:
Californians carry also a special burden since we are a border state. The federal government alone controls immigration policy, it alone controls border security. While acknowledging its responsibility, the federal government is not even funding a 50-50 split of the costs of undocumented immigrants.
We no longer can ignore what is owed to us or what we are forced to spend on federal mandates. We are currently owed billions of dollars by the federal government for various different programs. We need to work with the feds so that we can fix the flawed formula that demands that the states spend money that we do not have.
And now Congress is about to pile billions more onto California with the new health care bill. Now, as you know, while I enthusiastically supported health care reform, it is not reform to push more costs onto states that are already struggling while other states are getting sweetheart deals. Health care reform, which started as noble and needed legislation, has become a trough of bribes, deals and loopholes. Yet you’ve heard of the bridge to nowhere. Well, this is health care to nowhere.
California’s congressional delegation should either vote against this bill that is a disaster for California or get in there and fight for the same sweetheart deal that Senator Nelson of Nebraska got for the Cornhusker State. (Applause) Because that senator got for the Cornhusker State the corn and we got the husk. (Laughter)
Of course he is commenting on the federal government. The former is more an issue for California than any other state, but the later, health care, is important to everyone in the country. Here you have the governor of California telling the delegation of that state they should oppose the health care bill based on the sweetheart deals being made. What is really sad, is that this should be the response even of the people of Nebraska. No person within this country ought to be satisfied with any bill that is passed through such deals. There are very few people that will look at something that is to their benefit, and say “no, it isn’t right”.
We are seeing the destruction of democracy … when the people think of themselves before they think of the whole, democracy cannot work. If everyone asked themselves “what if everyone did this” before they do anything, it would go a long way toward making things better.
This is the face of the true enemy of freedom in this country.
The Democrats have decided that any semblance of debate regarding the facts of any topic is too much trouble. Instead rank name calling is the order of the day. There was a time when this sort of thing was done by activists in order to rabble rouse. Now the party is cutting out the middleman, and Democrat Senators are engaging in empty, banal, name calling — on the floor of the senate.
If you are against the government take over of 1/6th of the economy, you are a racist. Really? If you are against a 2000 page bill getting voted on w/o anyone taking the time to understand what is involved, you are a member of the Aryans? The second worst thing that can happen to the Democrats is failure to pass this bill. The worst thing is them succeeding in this kleptocratic effort. This mess is that bad.
The bill is unconstitutional. The federal government does not have the power to force people to buy a product. The 14th amendment demands that federal laws apply equally to all individuals. That means the amendment to the H.C .bill where Nebraska is exempt from paying in perpetuity its share of the Federal Health care is unconstitutional on its face. Noting the blatant illegality of this bill, and the fraud it is perpetrating on the American people will no doubt be called racist, homophobic, bigoted, fattening and will cause the polar ice caps to melt. The correct answer to this level of debate is, “I know you are, but what am I?!”
The best part of this is that we now have it in the congressional record that the Democrats have crafted a bill to kill the insurance industry. They denied it at first, and wrapped their rhetoric in business model talk — cost savings, consumer choice etc. Lying through their teeth they claimed this is a market based solution. How can that be if you are killing the market? Oh! Is that question racist?
Put in a notice to Jim Webb and Mark Warner not to vote for cloture on this Health Care Reform bill. I doubt they care anymore, but it’s worth a shot.
The U.S. Government is reported to have spent $6 billion to get H1N1 vaccinations out to citizens. Is is also reported that U.S. investment may grow by yet another billion or two. Canada is reported to have spent $1.5 billion on H1N1 vaccines.
On November 16, Canada’s chief public health officer said H1N1 is turning out to be much less deadly than seasonal flu, reporting that H1N1 fatalities are significantly less than seasonal flue.
Closer to home, studies here are beginning to confirm what Canada has previously reported :
The theoretical worst case scenarios associated with this year’s H1N1 pandemic taught us not to take influenza for granted. However, a new study suggests the worst case scenario for H1N1 may be only slightly more deadly than a typical outbreak of seasonal flu — and, in a best case scenario, much less.
In the study, published in the Public Library of Science journal, “PLoS Medicine,” researchers analyzed extensive data from outbreaks in Milwaukee and New York from April to July to get a more accurate picture of the risks associated with the virus.
Read Story
It seems that Washington has hosed taxpayers yet again. Given the season, I am looking at this news as the Ghost of Christmas Future, and will assume a pre-telling of further hosings by those officials in Washington as they march toward “Health Care Reform”.
Is a federal mandate to purchase health insurance Constitutional? Ruth Marcus says it is.
Marcus’ argument rests on two powers given to Congress: the power to tax, and the power to regulate interstate commerce. Looking first at the Commerce Clause, which has been stretched beyond all recognition, she relies on the Wickard v. Filburn case, in which Mr. Filburn was a farmer who had an 11.1 acre allotment for growing wheat, but harvested twice that amount. The excess, he said, was for his own use, not for sale. In this case, it is clear that, had Filburn not grown that extra wheat to feed his livestock, he would have either purchased that wheat, or not sold his 11.1 acre allotment. Thus his growing that extra wheat did impact the market for wheat, and if a significant number of farmers had emulated his actions, the national wheat market would have been significantly impacted.
Now, let’s examine the situation Marcus describes:
Spending on health care consumes 16 percent — and growing — of gross domestic product. There is hardly an individual activity with greater effect on commerce than the consumption of health care.
If you arrive uninsured at an emergency room, that has ripple effects through the national economy — driving up costs and premiums for everyone. If you go without insurance, that limits the size of the pool of insured individuals and — assuming you are young and healthy — drives up premium costs.
16 percent? So what? The housing industry claims a similar percentage of GDP, and everyone needs a place to live, right? Doesn’t being homeless impact the economy, considering all the expenses that the government spends on the homeless? Why then, should we not require people to by housing insurance, so that, if they lose their jobs, their insurance will cover the costs? Would that not have saved our economy from this recent recession?
As for the emergency room scenario, the answer is, “No, it only impacts the broader economy if someone else is required to pay for my care.” The problem is that people are not required to pay for their own care. If you show up without insurance or the means to pay, the hospital is forced to treat you. Everyone needs to eat, too. If you show up at a grocery store with no money, are they forced to feed you? No. Everyone needs shelter, too. If you show up at a hotel with no money, are they forced to give you a room? No.
It is the government mandate that hospitals provide care that creates the artificial impact of the uninsured on our economy. The government creates the problem with one mandate, and will solve it with another?
Marcus’ second argument lies in Congress’ power to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises”:
The individual mandate is to be administered through the tax code: On their forms, taxpayers will have to submit evidence of adequate insurance or, unless they qualify for a hardship exemption, pay a penalty.
Yale Law School professor Jack Balkin likens this to Congress raising money for environmental programs by taxing polluters. “Congress is entitled to raise revenues from persons whose actions specifically contribute to a social problem that Congress seeks to remedy through new government programs,” he concludes.
Balkin cites a 1950 Supreme Court case upholding a tax on marijuana distributors. “It is beyond serious question that a tax does not cease to be valid merely because it regulates, discourages, or even definitely deters the activities taxed,” the court said. “The principle applies even though the revenue obtained is obviously negligible, or the revenue purpose of the tax may be secondary.”
Again, the government created the “problem” by imposing a mandate on hospitals to provide care for those who will not pay for it. Furthermore, the mandate does not impose a tax on an activity, but upon inactivity. Essentially, the idea is that the government can impose a penalty on you for not doing something the government wants you to do.
As noted earlier, the housing industry accounts for about the same percentage of GDP as the health care industry does. Everyone needs shelter. Thus, according to Marcus’ statist logic, the government can require you to buy a house when you leave school (and that house must be of a prescribed size and have the prescribed accommodations, of course), so long as the penalty for not doing so is in the tax code, not the criminal code.
Now, explain how it makes any difference whether the penalty is assessed through the tax code or the criminal code? There is none. Pay or go to jail.
