Grim reaper photoshop credit: Manly Rash

I said yesterday in my Beltway Chainsaw Massacre column that the GOP needs to track the Obama jobs death toll and tell the victims’ stories far and wide.

But there’s no need to wait for the GOP. I’ll keep doing it right here.

The first story of the day comes from the Fort Worth Star Telegram in Texas, where a health insurer called Health Markets has laid off 70 workers and expects up to 180 more as it braces for the costs of Obamacare and other government mandates:

HealthMarkets, the North Richland Hills-based seller of health insurance, laid off 70 employees this month and expects to trim 180 more positions by the end of the first quarter of 2011, according to a recent federal filing.

In the Securities and Exchange Commission filing, HealthMarkets blamed the layoffs on “dropping enrollment levels experienced by the company’s insurance subsidiaries,” along with national healthcare reform and “related legislative developments.”

HealthMarkets provides insurance plans to the self-employed, individuals and small businesses.

The second story of the day comes from the Worcester Telegram in Massachusetts, where a local hospital will slash about 50 full-time jobs:

About 50 full-time jobs will be eliminated at the HealthAlliance Hospital — Leominster Campus, and one of two planned expansion projects may be cut back.

Mary Lourdes Burke, chief communications officer for the hospital, said yesterday the job cuts do not mean 50 layoffs, because some were vacant positions that will not be filled, and some were positions that had hours reduced. Also, she said, some union contracts required moving employees into other posts.

…Ms. Burke attributed the cuts to health care reform, with its reductions in Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements, along with cuts in private health insurance reimbursements and increasing co-payments for patients…David F. Duncan, hospital vice president for facilities, told the City Council earlier this year that the design may be scaled back because the new federal health reform law discourages emergency room visits.

…In addition, he said, health care reform is expected to result in the loss of $24 million in Medicare reimbursements, out of $170 million total, starting in five years. The state’s health insurance reform laws, on which the national model is based, have already resulted in at least that much in losses, Mr. Muldoon said.

Ho, ho, hey, hey. How many jobs did O destroy today?

Incoming search terms:

• healthmarkets bankruptcy
• medicare layoffs

Loathsome cowboys

How’s that Summer of Recovery working out for you? Continuing my series on the White House War on the West, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s attack on the economy, and the White House land lock-up (Part 1, Part 2) and ocean grab, here is the latest on Barack Obama’s deliberate job destruction policies.

According to the WSJ, the administration forged ahead with its junk science deepwater drilling ban despite knowing it would cost 23,000 jobs.

Senior Obama administration officials concluded the federal moratorium on deepwater oil drilling would cost roughly 23,000 jobs, but went ahead with the ban because they didn’t trust the industry’s safety equipment and the government’s own inspection process, according to previously undisclosed documents.

Marcia McNutt, an Obama administration science adviser, commented on the corporate culture of BP in a memo sent to Michael Bromwich, the administration’s new top offshore oil exploration regulator, on June 28.

Critics of the moratorium, including Gulf Coast political figures and oil-industry leaders, have said it is crippling the region’s economy, and some have called on the administration to make public its economic analysis. A federal judge who in June threw out an earlier six-month moratorium faulted the administration for playing down the economic effects…

Sound familiar?

Just last month, you’ll recall, the TARP inspector general reported on how the capricious Dealeragate mandates of Obama’s non-expert auto experts deliberately destroyed jobs in the name of “shared sacrifice” to appease Big Labor.

Then there are more and more Obamacare job-killing stories piling up like this one:

Assurant Health is eliminating 130 jobs at its offices in Milwaukee and Plymouth, Minn., by Oct. 1 as the health insurer prepares for changes under federal health care reform.

The company, which sells health insurance for individuals and small employers as well as short-term policies, faces an onslaught of new federal health care reform regulations, including the requirement that it spend 80% of premiums on medical care.

…The new regulations under federal health care reform are expected to remake the industry, particularly for insurance sold to individuals and families and to small employers, such as those with 100 or fewer workers.

State insurance commissioners are still working on the proposed rules for the percentage of premiums that must be spent on medical care. The requirement is expected to lower profit margins and to force some companies out of the market.

And then there’s the impending expiration of the Bush tax cuts. The Chamber of Commerce minces no words. Via The Hill:

U.S. Chamber of Commerce economist Martin Regalia on Monday said the tax increases advocated by President Obama would essentially kill any chance for an economic rebound.

“That’s what you’re suggesting, is a corporate bullet in the head,” Regalia said. “That is going to be a bullet in the head for an awful lot of people that are going to be laid off and an awful lot of people who are hoping to get their jobs back.”

Regalia made the comment at an American Petroleum Institute event on the tax increases proposed by the Obama administration. Much of the discussion focused on tax cuts enacted by President George W. Bush that are slated to expire at the end of the year.

Obama has suggested continuing the breaks that benefit the middle class and most small businesses while allowing tax cuts for wealthier entities to expire. Regalia said that plan will fail to boost economic demand.

“The thing [the administration] sees the least about the economy are the synergies,” he said. “Many of these small businesses sell into big business. … Saying ‘I’m going to stimulate the small part of the economy and not the big part of the economy’ is a fool’s error. It’s almost impossible to do.”

All this comes on top of last week’s news “showing jobless claims rose more than forecast and manufacturing in the Philadelphia region unexpectedly shrank.”

One shudders to think how many more jobs will be on the chopping block after the president finishes “recharging his batteries” on Martha’s Vineyard.

Okay, the Missouri Senator didn’t phrase it exactly that way, but that’s what she said.

On Tuesday, Missouri voters overwhelmingly rejected a federal mandate to purchase health insurance.

Naturally, that’s just because most voters didn’t understand the product and are incapable of wrapping their heads around the totally awesome creamy goodness that is Obamacare:

McCaskill said she understood what Missouri voters had been trying to say about the healthcare reform law for which she had voted in the Senate. But the centrist senator downplayed the vote as a result of heavy Republican primary turnout and a lack of education about the effects of the law.

“I certainly noticed the vote on Prop C, the healthcare law, and: message received,” she said Wednesday in a conference call with state reporters.

“I think there has been … a lot of noise about the mandate that people have gotten so focused on that they don’t realize that there’s going to be more access and affordability and more choices,” she said.

It’s too bad the Senator doesn’t understand that even us rubes, hicks, hayseeds, simpletons and peasants have asked ourselves a very simple question that answers itself: If everybody’s going to like it so much, why does it have to be mandated?

President Obama, once adored by the unwashed masses as The Omnipotent One, is now known as The Impotent One.

Things have gotten so bad for Obama that voters are no longer hesitant about challenging the president, even on his birthday which is August 4.

This year’s birthday message to Obama comes from the great state of Missouri where the people sent our fascist poser a message that roughly translates to, “Get stuffed—sir!”

At issue was ObamaCare, Democrats’ attempt to take health care out of the hands of individual citizens and deliver it as another part of life that is dictated by the government.

And why not? What with the great successes of the federal government in managing Social Security, Medicare, the federal deficit, unemployment, and other issues of great importance, why not include health care as an issue that government controls?

However, the people of Missouri beg to differ as reported at Yahoo.com, in part:

“WASHINGTON – Missouri voters’ overwhelming opposition to requiring nearly all Americans to buy health insurance puts one of the least popular parts of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul law back in the political crosshairs.

“Even if the vote sets no legally binding precedent, it will help mobilize foes of Obama’s agenda in the fall midterm elections, and that could make a difference in some states with close congressional races that could decide the balance of power in Washington.

“On Tuesday, Missouri voters cast 71 percent of their ballots in favor of a state measure to bar the government from requiring people to carry health insurance, and penalizing those who don’t.”

Seventy one percent, Mr. President!  Who would have imagined that there were that many right-wing racists in Missouri, sir?

In any event, Happy 49th!

The other day, it was Virginia and Colorado moving forward with their efforts to protect their citizens against Obamacare coercion.

Last night, Missouri voters voted with their feet, via the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Missouri voters on Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected a federal mandate to purchase health insurance, rebuking President Barack Obama’s administration and giving Republicans their first political victory in a national campaign to overturn the controversial health care law passed by Congress in March.

“The citizens of the Show-Me State don’t want Washington involved in their health care decisions,” said Sen. Jane Cunningham, R-Chesterfield, one of the sponsors of the legislation that put Proposition C on the August ballot. She credited a grass-roots campaign involving Tea Party and patriot groups with building support for the anti-Washington proposition.

With most of the vote counted, Proposition C was winning by a ratio of nearly 3 to 1. The measure, which seeks to exempt Missouri from the insurance mandate in the new health care law, includes a provision that would change how insurance companies that go out of business in Missouri liquidate their assets.

“I’ve never seen anything like it,” Cunningham said at a campaign gathering at a private home in Town and Country. “Citizens wanted their voices to be heard.”

Ed Morrissey reads the tea leaves:

Bear in mind that over 315,000 Democrats turned out to cast ballots in the primary that nominated Robin Carnahan, while over 577,000 Republicans hit the polls. That is about a 65/35 split — which means that a significant amount of Democrats either supported the ballot measure repudiating ObamaCare, or didn’t bother to cast a vote to defend the program. Actually, Prop C got more votes than the combined voting in both Senate primaries — which tells us something even more about the passion in the electorate.

Democrats may have to hit the panic button after seeing the results from this swing state. ObamaCare set fire to the electorate last year, and that may be an inferno for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in November.

Gateway Pundit Jim Hoft (welcome back!) has a round-up of the Prop C victory.

May it be the first of many.

Two items of note on the grass-roots revolt against the Obamacare power grab:

*A federal judge in Virginia has allowed the state’s lawsuit challenging the federal individual health care mandate to proceed:

A judge on Monday refused to dismiss the state of Virginia’s challenge to President Barack Obama’s landmark healthcare law, a setback that will force his administration to mount a lengthy legal defense of the overhaul effort.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson refused to dismiss the state’s lawsuit which argues the law’s requirement that its residents have health insurance was unconstitutional, allowing the challenge to go forward.

It’s good news for the Obamacare backlash by state attorneys general across the country — as well as for those sponsoring opt-out initiatives.

*Here in Colorado, Independence Institute president Jon Caldara has spearheaded a referendum to provide citizens here with health care choice. Petition signatures were turned in on Friday:

Coloradans may have the opportunity this fall to weigh in on the recent health care legislation passed by Congress. Roughly 130,000 signatures in support of the Right to Health Care Choice amendment to Colorado’s Constitution were turned into the Secretary of State’s office on Friday afternoon.
Advertisement

To qualify for the November ballot, 76,047 of those signatures need to be matched with registered Colorado voters.

The amendment would prevent Coloradans from being required to buy health insurance and to continue to allow medical personnel to take payments in cash for services.

“We want Colorado to be a sanctuary state for quality health care,” Jon Caldara, the initiative’s chief proponent, said. “This is not just to address the mandate in Obama-care, this is to make sure Colorado never becomes like Massachusetts where government puts a gun to your head and says you will buy a private product whether you want it or not.”

***

The 2,319 page financial regulation bill that just passed Congress is filled with vague, complicated language.

Some language will weaken our financial system and make it less efficient.

Other language appears to mandate racial and gender employment quotas in dozens of Federal agencies.

In the name of making sure that there is not another financial crisis, the bill does nothing to address what caused the mortgage problems created by government regulations that forced banks to make risky loans that they didn’t want to make.

It does nothing to rein in the $400 billion in losses created by government entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

What Democrats don’t understand is how everyone from farmers to small and large companies use derivatives to decrease their risks. When a farmer plants his crops in the spring he has to worry about what the price of his crops will be when they are harvested in the fall. If prices plummet before the harvest occurs, farmers face real financial peril. So farmers sell a portion of those crops even before they plant them. They know what price they will get and they greatly reduce their risk. That is what a derivative is.

The same thing happens when Southwest Airlines agrees to the price that it will pay for jet fuel months in advance.

Among the new rules is that these derivative transactions must be standardized and traded on exchanges.

Democrats claim that this will make deals more transparent. But what business is it of the government whether the farmer or Southwest Airlines makes that deal with another company or over an exchange?

If farmers and companies really benefit from using these exchanges, why does the government have to force them to make agreements that way?

What should be obvious is that the costs of trading derivatives will increase. The contracts traded over these exchanges will also not be as flexible as they are now.

Making derivatives more costly is simply another way of saying that the cost of farmers and companies buying insurance will rise. When some farmers stop buying this higher cost insurance will anyone seriously argue that really reduces their financial risks?

Regulations that restrict bank size ignore one critical question: why are the banks the size that they are now?

The most likely reason is that the most efficient banks grew, the ones that could offer customers the best services at the lowest costs attracted more customers.

Larger banks presumably could also offer services that smaller banks couldn’t.

So how does forcing banks to have higher costs and be less efficient make them less risky? Won’t that make them more likely to go out of business?

Proponents of regulating derivatives point to the losses from AIG or Goldman Sachs supposedly ripping off its customers. A simple solution for AIG would have been to let it go bankrupt and make shareholders bear that loss.

For Goldman Sachs, even if the questionable fraud charges are true, the fraud could presumably occur with any financial instrument, not just derivatives.

Just as President Obama is driving oil rigs out of American waters to other nations, he is going to drive some financial operations overseas.

He is going to raise company costs and make it costly for them to buy insurance.

We have yet another example of government financial regulations begetting more regulations. Regulations that force financial institutions to make risky mortgages remain in place.

Just when one thinks one has heard it all, a quick browse of the local paper reinforces the notion that sheer stupidity is an infinite commodity.

This is especially true in a Sanctuary City such as San Jose, California, where moon bats and lunatics with far too much idle time on their hands seek to interpret the law as an item of fickle, subject to the needs and wishes of the underrepresented, under served, and under intelligent.

As reported in the San Jose Mercury News, in part:

“Opponents of police vehicle impoundment practices are hitting the streets, intent on warning motorists of police checkpoints in Santa Rosa and Petaluma.

“Protesters holding signs in Spanish will continue to show up at checkpoints to protest 30-day impoundments of vehicles operated by drivers without valid licenses, said Alicia Roman, a Santa Rosa attorney who is a member of the Committee for Immigrant Rights.

“The cost of reclaiming an impounded auto, typically $2,000, places an “undue hardship” on low-income people, including Latino immigrants, she said.

“People are upset this is going on,” Roman said.”

An urgent message from Earth to Roman, NOT in Spanish:

People are also upset that drivers (Latinos included!) are breaking the law by driving while drunk, without a license, and without insurance. Citizens are also enraged that illegal aliens are even on our roadways, given the fact that they have no legal or moral basis for being in America!

The referenced report continues:

“Police officials, who have discussed the issue with Roman’s group and American Civil Liberties Union representatives, say the checkpoints are both legal and appropriate.

“I believe it is an effective strategy for making the streets safer,” said Santa Rosa Police Chief Tom Schwedhelm.

“There are consequences for not following the law,” he said, regarding the impoundments and cost of getting the car back.

“Petaluma Police Sgt. Ken Savano, who coordinates checkpoints, acknowledged that the protesters are exercising their First Amendment right of free speech and may do so as long as they do not obstruct sidewalks or get in a roadway.

“But he also suggested that the protests might enable alcohol-impaired drivers, “who could kill any one of us,” to evade the checkpoints.

“Roman said the checkpoint protests are intended to warn Spanish-speaking drivers, including illegal immigrants whose status prohibits them from obtaining California driver’s licenses.

“We are not out there to help drunk drivers,” she said.”

Urgent message 2 to moon bat Roman:

It may not be your intent to help drunken drivers, Ms. Roman, but that may, in fact, be the result of your actions.

Are you and your group prepared to accept liability for anyone killed or injured by a drunken driver that was warned off a check point by your reckless actions?

As one who alleges to be interested in advocating on behalf of the poor and immigrants, why do not act responsibly by advising your clients NOT to drive with out a license or insurance, or while under the influence?

With all due respect, Ms. Roman, the problem is with those who break the law, not with the law.

As a legal professional, you should be presenting a responsible message to your constituents, rather than shielding them from the law which will eventually catch up with even the cleverest of miscreants!

By the way, using Spanish signs in the manner described seems to be a type of racial profiling!

The fight to shape perceptions of President Obama’s health care overhaul is still in the early stages, but on Wednesday two Republican senators will fire a salvo when they release a 32-page report arguing that the legislation is only exacerbating skyrocketing prices and will cause nearly 100 million Americans to lose their employer-based insurance.

“The passage of the new law is a lost historic opportunity,” says the report, authored by staff for Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, and Sen. John Barrasso, Wyoming Republican.

The report, titled “Bad Medicine,” comes as the Obama administration is accelerating a public relations push to promote benefits in the law that are taking effect now or soon, in advance of this fall’s midterm elections. There have been improvements in public opinions about the law, though large numbers still oppose it.

One of the most startling assertions in the Coburn/Barrasso report – which was obtained ahead of its release by The Daily Caller – is that nearly 100 million Americans will lose their current form of health insurance and will be required to obtain more expensive plans. One of the president’s most constant refrains in selling his health bill was that if Americans liked what they had, they could keep it.

“The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recently released a regulation that limits the changes businesses can make to health plans and still be considered ‘grandfathered’ plans – exempt from many of the burdensome new mandates in the law,” the report says. “With this new rule, it looks like almost 90 million Americans could lose their current health plan and instead be stuck with more costly, government-­mandated health insurance.”

There are roughly 176 million Americans who currently have health insurance through their employer, the report says.

The White House did not directly contest these numbers, but said that the majority of the 133 million people receiving insurance through large employers will retain what they have because the benefits are similar to what will be required in the future, while those at smaller companies would simply be moving from less protective plans to insurance policies with more protection, such as a ban on lifetime caps.

Another central plank of the Coburn/Barrasso report is that the Obama health law will drive up health care costs due to a number of factors. Taxes and fees on pharmaceutical drugs, medical devices and providers will be passed on to consumers, the report says. The White House also contests that assertion.

The report also argues that insurance premiums will shoot up because large numbers of young and healthy Americans will avoid signing up for government-mandated insurance unless and until they need it, and will drop it again when they don’t. And the Internal Revenue Service, the report argues, can’t enforce the law requiring people to buy insurance because the new law deprives it of the powers it needs to do so.

“Relatively low-­cost penalties and anemic enforcement will create an incentive for millions of Americans to game the system and only buy health insurance when they are sick,” the report says. “Penalties for noncompliance will average about $1,000 apiece in 2016 while the cost of the insurance could be three or four times higher. This gaming of the system will skew the risk pool and increase premiums for other Americans with health insurance.”

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-OK, left, with Sen. John Barrasso, R-WY., right, during a news conference on healthcare with House GOP physicians on Capitol Hiill in Washington, Thursday, March 18, 2010.(AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

Of course, the discussion of a hamstrung IRS contradicts the specter of an army of heavily armed agents swarming into American homes, which was a common bogeyman among many on the right around the time of the bill’s passage.

The Obama administration says that a set open enrollment period for the new health law each year will keep the young and healthy from arbitrarily acquiring or dropping coverage.

The Coburn/Barrasso report also says that 16 million Americans will be moved on Medicaid, putting them in a system that is already going broke and in which many recipients of aid are already having trouble finding physicians to treat them because of the lower reimbursement rates inherent in Medicaid.

Under the new law, all states are required to enroll everyone under 133 percent of poverty ($14,403 per person, or $29,326 per a family of four) in Medicaid. But the report states that “40 percent of physicians do not accept Medicaid patients.”

States are also staggering under the load of expanded Medicaid populations. States typically pay about 43 percent of Medicaid costs, though the federal government will defray the cost for most of the recipients that are added by the requirement in the new law.

Finally, the report says that small businesses will face reporting requirements that cost them an average of $6,000 a year, due to a new portion of the law that requires companies to send the IRS a 1099 form “for every business-to-business transaction of $600 or more for both property and services.”

A White House official said the administration was focused on the benefits that are beginning to take effect from the bill.

“This week, more than 300,000 seniors will begin receiving $250 rebate checks to bring down the cost of their prescription drugs, but some Republicans are still spreading misinformation and arguing for a return to the status quo,” the White House official said, requesting that they not be identified.

“Under the Affordable Care Act, millions of Americans will gain affordable coverage, small businesses are receiving tax credits to make it easier to provide coverage and we’ve implemented a real patient’s bill of rights. We’re focused on delivering the benefits of reform to the American people.”

One of the more insidious aspects of the government takeover is how such takeovers are pitched as reforms. Of course reform traditionally applies to institutions reforming themselves or being reformed by their constituents or shareholders. The idea of government reforming the private sector smacks of unlimited authority, which is exactly what it is. And so a government that cannot reform itself, that cannot stop its out of control spending, its constant legislative corruption, its culture of pork and kickbacks, its compulsive need to appropriate power, sets out to instead take over every aspect of life within the country in the name of reform.

Can an alcoholic who can’t stop drinking, teach others to be teetotalers? Can a compulsive gambler who drops 10 grand a week in Vegas, regulate the gambling habits of others? Only as an example to others of how bad things can get. But though the government cannot regulate itself, it insists that it can regulate everything outside itself. The blind leading the blind is bad enough, but what are we to make of the blind leading those who can actually see. That’s what government regulation is.

But the reform pitch is part of the whole insidious premise that government is protecting the people from being exploited by acting as a referee on their behalf. It’s so insidious because it’s both deceptive and appealing. Most people have felt taken advantage of by corporations. And indeed we do have a legal system in order to avoid criminal exploitation. But what government refereeing does, is blur the line between the criminal and the unethical, and between the unethical and the profiteering, thereby creating a mandate to not only crackdown on criminal actions, but on acts that are unethical or just greedy.

For example, reformers may begin by exposing an insurance company forging documentation to avoid paying claims, an illegal act, to focusing on misleading claims made by insurance representatives, an unethical act, to campaigning for lower insurance rates, an area that is not illegal or unethical, but a question simply of profit. By exploiting this kind of slippery slope, entire industries have been heavily regulated, even in areas well outside of the government’s purview.

The scandal generated by exposing illegal activity is used by advocates for a government takeover to regulate unethical and profiteering behavior, which they all class together as proof of malfeasance. By doing so they define both legal and illegal behavior as illegal, because it is rooted in the desire for profit– an essentially socialist position. Going back to the muckrakers, socialists discovered that they could create an impetus for socialism by delegitimizing the profit motive, and the best way to do so was to begin by building their case around blatantly criminal activity and then move down the ladder to attacking the basic idea of capitalism itself.

The overall target was of course the free market, promising the people that government would act as their guardian, protecting them with regulation from the abuses of capitalism. The genuinely deceptive thing however, was that politicians were making the same offer to companies, promising to act as their referee to protect them from their rivals, their workers and their customers. What was actually happening was that government was inserting itself as the “referee”, promising to protect the different segments of the free market from each other.

So politicians “protect” consumers from companies by price controls, while protecting companies from their competitors by creating de-facto monopolies through legislative loopholes, and then protect companies from consumers by tightly regulating what products consumers can buy. ObamaCare, which both imposes price controls and forces consumers to buy health insurance, is a typical example, in which the government as referee screws over both sides, while giving them both some seeming advantage. In reality both sides are worse off than before, and only the politicians and their camp followers gain from the regulation.

And that is how it began. Retailers were promised protection from distributors. Distributors were promised protection from manufacturers. The public was promised protection from all them. Of course this called for reams and reams of legislation. And that legislation called for more legislation. And the politicians and officials in charge of the process naturally welcomed lobbyists from various trade and consumer groups to “explain” their positions them, said explanations usually accompanied by donations and pledges of political support.

By placing itself as the referee, government had a court in which cases went on forever, while collecting “fees” from all the litigants. In Dickens’ Bleak House, there is the case of Jarndyce and Jarndyce, a lawsuit involving an inheritance that has dragged on for generations, and eventually leaves nothing to the descendants who have been fighting for it, but is entirely absorbed by the judges, the lawyers and the assorted camp followers of the legal system. So too the American people are discovering that the “inheritance” of their economy is vanishing into the maw of the government that promised to get justice for them.

The fees are paid out in campaign contributions, in taxes collected to fund the expanding regulatory mechanisms and in the invisible toll added to all economic transactions by the regulations themselves. That is because any regulatory mechanism also becomes part of the system. Each regulation changes the way the free market works and the way that companies and consumers behave, as both continue to strive to gain maximum advantage for themselves. Since each regulation also adds more expenses to both sides and blocks areas of commercial competition, both sides become more creative and thus also more deceptive. But rather than making economic competition better, more regulation actually makes the competition worse. And this provides grist for the reformer’s mill, who pile on more regulations, which only makes the matter worse. The next step leads to the black market, with the most regulated economies, such as the USSR, also featuring a thriving black market. Because regulations don’t change human behavior, they just change the context in which it is expressed, and the strategies it employs.

By position itself as the referee, government has expanded well beyond its constitutional boundaries into socialism. And it has done so by playing on the fears of both customers and companies, promising an orderly and tightly controlled market, for the highest bidder of course. The government promises low prices and available products to customers. And then raises their taxes and gives multi-billion dollar grants to corporations, or just bails them out when those regulations help insure their failure. The result is a diminished availability of products, much higher prices when accounting for inflation, and a culture of entitlement among both companies and the public, in which both sides feel entitled to use the government to exploit the other. Which is exactly what the “referee” wants, because then it has them right where it wants them.

Socialism requires simply that the majority believe that they will be better off having government dispense the work of others to them, rather than working for themselves. And the “reformers” have convinced large numbers of Americans of just that. The results can be seen in an endless assortment of consumer groups that promise us the solution to all problems is to have the government regulate every single thing that companies do, and they can be seen in companies with CEO’s whose main strategies are to hire lobbyists, outsource the actual labor to China and then leave with a golden parachute on their least profitable quarter. This is what happens when people cease to believe in working for a living, and come to believe that the government is their best economic solution.

This week in the news, Senator Schumer has announced that he will investigate an airline’s carry on bag fee. While the first reaction of many people may be that such a fee is repugnant, have they considered how much they’ll be paying for the expanded government regulatory mechanisms. Or how much they’ll paying when that airline’s lobbyists agree to get rid of the fee and instead take home a bailout instead? Because there is no such thing as a free lunch. You can buy lunch or you can get it from the government. But government lunches cost about a hundred times as much. And though you may not be paying for it up front, you will pay. And your children. And their children after you.

In the wake of Arizona’s passage of its new immigration enforcement law, the inflamed, uninformed and irresponsible rhetoric coming from the open-borders crowd and supposedly respectable politicians who should know better seems to have grown by the day.

From the NY Times to the Washington Post to Barack Obama himself, there has been an avalanche of gross mischaracterizations of the law, inferring that it would allow police to simply stop anyone who “looks different” on the street and demand to “see their papers”.

The use of this phrase is no accident, but an intentional reference to authoritarian (and usually socialist) countries where the police have the right to stop anyone and demand, “Let me see your papers”.  It is at least somewhat comical, given that most of the people who are complaining the loudest about Arizona’s new law have recognizable tendencies towards socialism, the most high profile example being Obama himself.

Recently, while on yet another tour promoting the wonderful effects of the “stimulus” and ObamaCare, he suggested that “if you are a Hispanic American in Arizona…suddenly, if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed.”  Keep in mind that this is the same guy who just pushed through a law that will have 15,000 new IRS agents demanding to see “your insurance papers” every year, or else slap you with a fine and/or jail time for not having them.  And that applies to American citizens, not illegals.

In the case of Arizona’s new law, it only empowers police to use reasonable suspicion to request valid ID if the person in question has already been stopped or detained for some other offense.  In other words, it would only be a problem for someone who was breaking the law and was here illegally, as opposed to ObamaCare’s “no insurance papers” being a problem for several hundred million US citizens.

It should also be pointed out that since 1952, US federal law has required that legal aliens maintain their identification (such as a green card) on their person at all times.  But recognizing such facts makes it more difficult for hypocritical liberals to demagogue the issue.

Obama doesn’t mind being hypocritical however, because he has a clear agenda in mind.  The goal is to use the issue in hopes that Hispanics will replace the support Democrats have lost in the debates over bailouts, stimulus and ObamaCare.  Racial politics from our supposed “post-racial President”.

The liberal disingenuousness goes even further.  This past week, David Broder, dean of the Washington press corps, suggested that the fault for the current situation lies with those who fought against (and stopped) the 2007 bi-partisan efforts to pass “comprehensive immigration reform”.  Hogwash.  The “fault” lies with those who pushed the perverse bill to begin with.

Only in the upside down world of Washington, DC would the people who want the border enforced be seen as responsible for the continued flood of illegals.

First, as I always say, anytime you see the word “comprehensive” attached to any legislative effort, watch out, because that simply means that it will be so large and complex that it will contain numerous provisions that couldn’t possibly stand on their own.  The authors of such bills attach them like parasites to the other items that they know the public wants.  In terms of the 2007 legislation, it meant that they would agree to some of the border security the public desperately wants, but only if the public would support letting all illegals currently in the country to become legal.  Some deal.

In fact, that deal was overwhelmingly rejected by some 70-80% of the public on the grounds that it would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, not to mention the obvious moral implications of letting some fifteen to twenty million people break the law and jump ahead of millions of others who stand in line each year and play by the rules to come to our country legally.

In the case of Arizona, the plain and simple truth is that they have some very serious problems.  The state has an estimated half-million illegal aliens, has seen its citizens killed along the border and Phoenix has become the kidnapping capital of America.  The people of that state looked to their elected officials to do something and they responded – and over 70% of the people in that state approve.

That’s the way government is supposed to work.

If Washington politicians are going to sit on the sidelines and not do anything to address the problems people are concerned about – in a way that the public supports – then they should stay on the sidelines when state governments step up to do the job.

New Political Party. Not Democrat, Not Republican, Not Independent. It’s called the “PISSED OFF PARTY” (or POP). This party is dedicated to vote every incumbent out of office in the next elections.

If you’re Democrat, vote Democrat’s that believe in the constitution of America. Just don’t vote for the socialist incumbent. If you’re Republican, vote Republican’s that believe in the constitution of America. Just don’t vote for the socialist incumbent. We need to send a message to all politicians, that we’re tired of their B.S. If the country votes out all the incumbents, the new incoming politicians will get the message..

It’s pretty simple. Nobody needs to change parties and let’s face it, there’s plenty of blame to spread around. A few good politicians will lose their job but they probably have better retirement and insurance then 95% of the American public. You’ve had to struggle for the last 5 years. Some of you have lost your job and may be working in some other sector just to feed your family. I guarantee you, none of them will suffer like this country has.

If you like what’s going on and think this is a bad idea, just vote like you usually do. But if you’re fed up and think this is a good idea, then copy and paste and share this idea. If you really think this has legs, then a website and a blog could help get the word out.

To All 535 voting members of the Legislature; it is now official you are ALL corrupt morons:

a. The U.S. Post Service was established in 1775. You have had 234 years to get it right and it is broke.

b. Social Security was established in 1935. You have had 74 years to get it right and it is broke.

c. Fannie Mae was established in 1938. You have had 71 years to get it right and it is broke.

d. War on Poverty started in 1964. You have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is
confiscated each year and transferred to “the poor” and they only want more.

e. Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. You have had 44 years to get it right and they are broke.

f. Freddie Mac was established in 1970. You have had 39 years to get it right and it is broke.

g. The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before. You had 32 years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.

You have FAILED in every “government service” you have shoved down our throats while overspending our tax dollars.

AND YOU WANT AMERICANS TO BELIEVE YOU CAN BE TRUSTED WITH A GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM?
IT’S NOT ABOUT THE NEED FOR GOOD HEALTH CARE, IT’S ABOUT TRUSTING THE GOVERNMENT TO RUN IT!

Most of you who are regular readers of this column are aware that my hardworking editor Dee lives in the UK. Living in a socialist environment has given her a unique perspective on the ills of this failed and failing system. The same system (or worse) that the DeMarxists would see instituted here. Unfortunately for them they have run smack dab into the American people. We do not want your socialism. We will not permit you to take our country and freedoms from us.

What follows is Dee’s reply to a critic of the US, excerpted from a chat forum from the island of Guernsey, a British Crown Dependency off of the coast of France. I thought that it would prove instructional. I love the English people, but they have been so inculcated with leftist dogma and institutionalized welfare that all vestiges of independent thinking outside the socialist envelope is lacking along with the spirit of independence. Dee has taken them on and as a Brit she is in a unique position to tell it the way it is.

Forum post in reply to a critic of the USA, 05/19/10, whynotguernsey.com :

Let’s take your points in turn here. First, socialism. Socialism never has and never will work in any country. It’s been tried many times, always with the same result – financial and social disaster. A free economy is the only tried and trusted system. Ok, you get the propaganda a la Michael Moore and Cuba. Have you seen the everyday hospitals that the ordinary folks get treatment in? Socialism means greater state control and big government which swallows up the hard-earned money of the people through taxes.

It would be great to have a university education without the debt to repay….. uh, but who’s going to pay for it? The government I guess – that means us, the taxpayers. I can’t recall anything in the Bill of Rights about further education being a right given by God. If it was, and health care, then surely the three things that all humans need to survive should be free too? Who can survive without air, food and water? Only one of these is free (at the moment, although the left are trying to change this with cap and tax).

No one is refused emergency treatment in the US, insured or not. True, insurance is expensive. That’s the fault of the system which allows huge lawsuits by slip-and-fall lawyers. 60% of a physician’s overheads is legal insurance. The GOP has promised tort reform along with interstate insurance policies to cut these costs. Obama, instead, is dismantling the best medical services in the world in favor of a NHS style one-size-fits-all system. It would be a punishable offense not to purchase health cover from the government. Still sound so good?

Oh, that increasing US debt you mentioned is partly due to the staggering cost of his health reforms, I believe it was one trillion at the last count. Medicare, which provides a wonderful service for seniors, will be cut to help cover the cost of his new scheme. It’ll probably finish up like the UK, where a senior might not be worth the cost of treatment.

While the national debt is rising (naturally, under a socialist), the country can still afford to contribute 25% of the IMF fund, money now being used to bail out EU countries, and possibly Britain (again) soon. To say that the US is one of the poorest countries when it is still the world’s largest economy is a total contradiction.

To quote you: “Teaching something as fact, when it is not proven is wrong. It is ultimately brainwashing, and should be illegal.”
Do you agree, then, that global warming should not be taught in schools? It is certainly not proven, in fact the evidence gets flimsier as time goes on.

As for California, as much as I love it, it is a financial and social disaster, thanks to the liberals that have controlled it for so long. Again, it is a victim of socialist policies – unrestrained spending, high state taxes that have forced businesses to other states and too much regulation and bureaucracy in Sacramento. Is it any surprise that there is a backlash from the people?

The difference between the US and Britain is that the US was founded by the people, with government as their servants. This current administration is taking a route towards Euro-socialism, where they believe that rights are granted by government. That won’t wash in the US, as the current mid-term elections are proving. At least they have seen the danger before it sinks into the abyss completely.

When the US economy is rebounding, the UK will still be increasing everyone’s taxes to cover a failed health system, an ineffective police force (now that its teeth have been taken away completely) and development of cleaner, eco-friendly power sources. Well, that’s what the BP ad said, while they screwed up the entire Gulf coast.

She nearly tripped over her gown.

She called birth control a “controlled substance.”

She argued that contraceptives should be covered by health insurers because they are “expensive” — and then said you could get them for “free” from your OB/GYN’s office.

And now she is the new Miss USA:

Rima Fakih of Dearborn, Mich., won the pageant at the Planet Hollywood Resort & Casino on the Las Vegas Strip after swimsuit, evening gown and interview competitions. When asked how she felt about winning the crown, she said, “Ask me after I’ve had a pizza.”

Fakih nearly fell while finishing her walk in a long, strapless gown because of the length of its train, but she made it without a spill and went on to win.

During the interview portion, Fakih was asked whether she thought birth control should be paid for by health insurance, and she said she believed it should because it’s costly.

“I believe that birth control is just like every other medication even though it’s a controlled substance,” Fakih said.

Imagine if those words had come out of the mouth of Carrie Prejean or Sarah Palin.

Between the NYTimes, MSNBC, Jon Stewart, and the late night talkers, we wouldn’t hear the end of it.

Does this woman know what a “controlled substance” is?

More importantly: Does she even comprehend the concept of insurance? The purpose of insurance isn’t to cover every last medical expense. It’s supposed to cover events that are beyond your control. Should auto insurers now cover oil changes and satellite radio installations? I mean, hey, they’re “expensive,” too!

Fakih’s cheerleaders are too busy tooting the identity politics horn to care what comes out of her mouth:

Arab Americans across metro Detroit cheered as Rima Fakih of Dearborn was crowned Miss USA tonight in Las Vegas.

“This is unbelievable,” said Rami Haddad, 26 of Livonia, one of Fakih’s biggest supporters. “It’s a dream come true. I can’t express my feelings.”

Fakih, of Lebanese descent, is believed to be the first Arab American and Muslim to become Miss USA.

***

Meanwhile, Miss Oklahoma lost out after expressing support for Arizona’s immigration enforcement law and celebrating states’ rights:

Miss Oklahoma USA Morgan Elizabeth Woolard was named first runner-up after handling a question about Arizona’s new immigration law. Woolard said she supports the law, which requires police enforcing another law to verify a person’s immigration status if there’s “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the country illegally.

She said she’s against illegal immigration but is also against racial profiling.

“I’m a huge believer in states’ rights. I think that’s what’s so wonderful about America. So I think it’s perfectly fine for Arizona to create that law.

Looks like the Miss USA pageant didn’t want to risk the wrath of the open-borders mob.

Or of that ranting, conservative woman-bashing nutball and former Miss USA judge, Perez Hilton.

It’s not just the lies about climate change.

It’s not just the lies about renewable, wind and solar, energy.

It’s not just the lies about so-called endangered species.

It’s not just that the Obama administration refuses to name Islam as the source of the terrorist attacks on America.

It’s not just the government takeover of auto manufacturers or insurance companies.

It’s not just a Federal Reserve that is not subject to audit, nor its purchase from banks (at 100 cents on the dollar) of billions in “toxic assets”, nor the fact that it is free to flood the economy with currency with shockingly little congressional oversight.

It’s not just that a new oil refinery has not been built since the 1970s, nor that new nuclear plants are not being built here while elsewhere around the world they are being constructed with growing rapidity.

It’s not just that federally sponsored entities like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae own the vast bulk of all the mortgages in America or that they are primarily responsible for the financial crisis the nation suffered.

It’s not just that banks and mortgage firms were required to make loans to people who clearly could not repay them.

It’s not just that the latest nominee to the Supreme Court has been selected exclusively on the basis of her socialist viewpoint or lacks a record of judicial experience.

It’s not just that the nation’s educational system is entirely controlled by teacher’s unions, the result of which produces students who cannot compete academically with those in other nations or that the federal government insists on a failed one-size-fits-all testing formula.

It’s not just that the federal government, responsible for the protection of our borders, has totally failed to do so while our southern border has become a virtual war zone.

It’s not just the U.S. cannot afford to help “bail out” Greece with billions of taxpayer’s money while our national debt soars to historical new heights.

It is not just that Democrats, the majority party, are using their political power to impose laws opposed by the vast majority of Americans, endangering future generations with massive debt while nationalizing one-sixth of the nation’s economy.

And it is not just that the credentials and standing of the President of the United States are subject to legitimate inquiry and challenge that is being stalled in the nation’s courts.

It is a combination of these and other factors that are based on a contagion of lies told to Americans by their own government.

Treason is generally defined as the offense of attempting to overthrow the government of one’s country or of assisting its enemies in war. Benedict Arnold burned his name into U.S. history by conspiring with the British to turn over West Point to them. When his plot failed, he fled to England.

Having all formerly been traitors to the Crown, the framers of the Constitution defined treason narrowly. Historians tell us this was to lessen the possibility that those in power might falsely or loosely charge their political opponents with treason.

Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution says “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”

Let it be said that probably all presidents have been called treasonous by their political opponents.

A growing body of popular opinion, however, is beginning to regard the actions of Barack Obama as treason because they coalesce into a pattern that suggests a deliberate effort to undermine national security and the economy. The liberties we take for granted, privacy, freedom of speech, and others are seen to be in jeopardy.

What is troubling to many was the way Obamacare was foisted on a nation that clearly opposed the takeover of one sixth of the economy. The political process by which passage was achieved was ugly, but it was not treason.

Now the Cap-and-Trade Act is being ushered hastily into the Senate for a vote despite widespread opposition to the fact that it is based on a total fraud, “climate change”, otherwise known as “global warming.” Can a law based on a lie be lawful? Is passing such a law treasonous?

The President’s displeasure with the Arizona law that mirrors almost word for word the federal law regarding illegal aliens presages a likely effort to grant amnesty to millions here illegally; a measure that is also widely opposed by the majority of Americans.

The hasty passage of any or all of these laws, now that the midterm elections loom in November, is completely legal, but they all represent a refusal to acknowledge the will of those in whom the Constitution posits ultimate power, the People.

The Tea Party movement, taking its name from an act of insurrection against the Crown, is ample evidence of the unrest among many Americans. The effort to smear members as racists or violent suggests the seriousness with which the White House takes the movement.

Given the virtual free hand any president has to determine foreign policy, he has consistently offended our allies and raised questions among them as to his judgment. That is not treason, but it is harmful when the U.S. needs to call upon them for support.

His actions regarding Iran have been a green light to continue their quest for nuclear weapons. His actions toward Israel are nothing less than astonishing given the long record of cooperation and mutual support that has existed since its founding.

Surrounding himself with White House staff, one of whom was an admitted communist, another who praised Mao Tse Sung, and still others whose views reflect bizarre “scientific” theories or proposals, raise questions and legitimate concerns regarding his true political philosophy, but it is not treason.

The takeover of General Motors, his firing of the company’s CEO, the disgraceful treatment of investors and creditors should have raised serious constitutional questions. When Harry Truman tried to take over the nation’s steel manufacturers, he was rebuffed by the Supreme Court. The U.S. retains an ownership position with AIG, the insurance company.

Obama’s attacks on insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, even physicians, then migrated to attacks on Wall Street despite the fact that banks receiving TARP funds swiftly repaid the loans. There is at this point no aspect of life in America that has not been sharply criticized by the President.

None of this can be called treason under the strict and narrow definition of the Constitution, but taken together it is a pattern of acts that pose what many are coming to see as a clear and present danger to the nation.

The midterm elections in November represent the only constitutional means to rebuke the passage of legislation that has saddled the nation with greater debt than all previous administrations, with the takeover of key elements of the economy, and the prospect of the further erosion of our national security and sovereignty.

Everything that President Obama and the Democrat leaders in Congress have done has the sanction of law, but not the approval of the people whose lives will be affected by it.

It is not treason, but it has the look, the feel, and the smell of treason.

I saw this comparison in a comment and thought it really makes a point.  The person commenting said pass it on, so here it is.

Arizona is so on track to enforce an existing Federal Law that the current administration turns a blind eye on for the votes!

Please Read to the End

JOE LEGAL vs. JOSE ILLEGAL

You have two families: “Joe Legal” and “Jose Illegal”.
Both families have two parents, two children, and live in California .

Joe Legal works in construction, has a Social Security Number and makes $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted.

Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash “under the table”.

Ready? Now pay attention…

Joe Legal: $25.00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week, or $52,000.00 per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax; Joe Legal now has $31,231.00.

Jose Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week, or $31,200.00 per year. Jose Illegal pays no taxes. Jose Illegal now has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $24,031.00.

Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or welfare. Joe Legal pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $18,031.00.

Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps and welfare. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $9,631.00.

Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month federal rent subsidy. Jose Illegal pays out that $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $ 31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for insurance. Joe Legal now has $7,231.00.

Jose Illegal says, “We don’t need no stinkin’ insurance!” and still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, etc.

Jose Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month.

Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.

Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.

Joe Legal’s and Jose Illegal’s children both attend the same school. Joe Legal pays for his children’s lunches while Jose Illegal’s children get a government sponsored lunch. Jose Illegal’s children have an after school ESL program. Joe Legal’s children go home.

Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.

Do you get it, now?

If you vote for or support any politician that supports illegal aliens…

You are part of the problem!

It’s way PAST time to take a stand for America and Americans!

What are you waiting for? Pass it on.

Jan Brewer signed into law SB1070, the law making it illegal to be illegal in Arizona.  We commend her for standing up for what is right for Arizona.  What the bill actually does is expand upon immigration laws already on the books in Arizona in cooperation with federal laws and gives law enforcement the ability to ask for immigration status if they suspect someone is illegal when they encounter them in the course of doing their job.  It also puts harsher penalties and restrictions on employers who hire illegal immigrants and those who transport illegals.  It grants more security and opens up opportunity for citizens and legal immigrants and penalizes those who have chosen to break the law.  So what’s all the fuss?

Some contend that the bill is racist and will result in racial profiling.  It doesn’t matter what your background, if you come in to Arizona illegally then you will be subject to the consequences of the law.  Why, since Obama became president, has every issue become a racial attack?  It isn’t!  It is about upholding the laws and the constitution of this country.  It’s about protecting the citizens.  It shows the frustration and anger the citizens have with the Federal government in not upholding their responsibility to the citizens of the United States.

If you are in the United States legally, then you have nothing to worry about.  Just be polite and cooperate with law enforcement if you have been stopped, show them proper documentation and be on your way with whatever warning, ticket or fine you were stopped for.  If you start with the name-calling, claim they are racist and refuse to cooperate expect to be further detained.  Your behavior will greatly influence the outcome.

Some have commented that I wouldn’t know because they assume I am white and wouldn’t be put into this situation.  Well I beg to differ.  I have been asked if I am Canadian, Hispanic and Native American.  So just based on my own appearance I could face the same racial profiling those against the bill are claiming.  Am I concerned – absolutely not.

What those opposing the bill don’t seem to understand is this is about entering the country illegally.  While they are using the stories of the poor families coming to the U.S., they fail to recognize the lack of border security and enforcement of immigration laws also allows criminals, drug dealers and terrorists the same privilege.  Why would the federal government also have laws on the books making it illegal to enter the country illegally?  It is to ensure the safety to the citizens and prevent the government from being attacked from invasion.

There are a number of government representatives, including Obama, who have expressed opposition to this new Arizona law.  So I pose to you the following questions.

Why was it okay to create new legislation making it mandatory for citizens to purchase health care insurance and allow the government to gain access to personal financial information as well as provide proof of insurance or face a penalty, yet you now claim it is unconstitutional for law enforcement to ask potentially illegal immigrants for verification of immigration status enforcing a law already on the books?

You have taken an oath to defend and protect the constitution and the United States of America and have been put into office to represent the people who elected you – the legal citizens of the United States.  Your opposition to this bill could lead one to the conclusion that you are more concerned about the illegal population, whom you have not taken an oath to protect, and are disregarding the country and people you have an obligation to protect.  At what point have you crossed the line and are working against the United States instead of for it?

Before you have spoken out against the Arizona law, have you even read it?  Oops, I forgot, you don’t actually read the bills you pass, so why would you have read the one in Arizona.

For all those in the other 49 states protesting against the bill I ask you this – which of your states is willing to take in 460,000 illegal immigrants today?  Are you willing and able to give them immediate employment, free health care, education – including special classes in the public school system for teaching English and having bilingual teachers, and the financial ability to put them on your welfare systems, all on your taxpayer dollars?  If so, speak up now.  They will be on the way shortly.

Incoming search terms:

• arizona immigration law basics
• arizonas immigration law basics

No.  It’s a very simple word and every child learns at a very early age what is means.  Mom and dad tell them no, and they mean it.  It is used to keep children safe.  It’s used to stop someone from doing something that may cause harm.  It’s used to tell someone not to take that action.  Apparently, many members of the House, Senate and the President failed to learn what the word NO means.

The majority of the American people are telling them no, we do not want this health care.  Yet they continue to push the 2700 page bill upon us.  Some responsible members of the House are reconsidering their support of the bill and have started listening to their constituents.  After all, they have been elected to represent these people, and elections are coming soon.  But Pelosi and the thuds in power are using every strong-arm tactic in the books to force, coerce and bribe members to get their vote.  Is this truly the American government we want?

Since they cannot get the votes to support the bill according to the constitution, the Democrats are now devising ways to “get around” the system.  They are trying to pass a version of the Senate bill through the House with the promise of “fixing” it later in reconciliation.  Look at the track record of any Senate.  Look at the promises already broken.  Why should any intelligent person suddenly trust the Senate to fix anything later?  It doesn’t work that way.  Once the bill becomes law good luck trying to fix anything.  Why insist on passing a bill they know is already broken?

To further destroy the democratic system, they are now looking at instigating what is referred to as the Slaughter Rule.  This end run would allow them to vote in the House on a Rule, which in turn would deem the Senate bill passed without the House actually voting on the bill.  Then during the re-election campaigns House members could claim they never voted for the bill, hoping to hang on to their seats.  Do they really think the American people are that stupid?  A vote for the Rule is a clear message that they are voting for the bill.  If it isn’t, then the bill was never voted on in the House and could not become law.

In the final abuse to the system, the White House now tells us once the bill is signed by the President it doesn’t really become law until the reconciliation has been passed.  Really!  Apparently the White House doesn’t understand how our government works.

Unfortunately people still don’t understand the consequences of the bill.  They are under the impression that once the bill passes they will be provided with health care insurance.  The bill does not provide you with insurance, but does mandate that you must purchase insurance or be fined and possibly jailed for failing to do so.  If you are one of the people who cannot afford insurance now, there is no guarantee that you will be able to afford insurance after the bill.  You might be eligible for government assistance, but if you are not then you will be required to purchase insurance.  The government will not care what your personal financial obligations are, just that you must get insurance.  What are you going to give up to buy health care insurance?

Health care aside, is this the way we want our government to work?  This would set up a precedent that could be used later to pass other unpopular legislation because it was done once.  Regardless of what side of the issue you are on, imagine the other party being in charge taking these same steps.  You certainly wouldn’t stand for it then, so why is it okay now?  Before we destroy our country these dishonest tactics need to stop.

If you want to stop this corruption in government, if you want to stop this government take over our health care system, please contact your representatives and tell them so.  Time is running out.  Health care reform is necessary, but it must be done responsibly and with the American people’s wishes in mind.  It cannot be done with backroom deals, bypassing the constitution and ignoring the American people.  It’s time they understand the word no.

Did the Senate forget they are supposed to be representing the American people and are not on the TV game show “Let’s Make a Deal”?  The health care bill has serious, life-threatening consequences and they are putting their votes up for auction – going to the highest bidder.  Are the rest of the Senators wishing they held out for what was behind door number 3?

It is one thing to hold out to negotiate for a change or addition to a bill that will equally impact all people.  It is quite another to hold out and gain an advantage for only your state.  This bill is loaded with special considerations for a number of states and people.  Nebraska and Louisiana received special funding for their votes.  The tax on Cadillac insurance policies no longer applies equally to all policies; if you are in a certain field of business you will be exempt.  These are only a few.  I’m just not quite understanding the new bill writing system of applying only parts of the bill to some states or some people, while others are exempt, and yet others get special advantages.  Special interests are blaring obvious in this bill.

This got me to thinking of days long ago around this time of year when salesmen used to give gifts to the businessmen who had supported their companies.  Simple gifts, such as fruit baskets, a bottle of alcohol, or tickets to a sporting event.  These were all considered thank you gifts.  But alas, the days quickly ended when these “gifts” became a controversial issue and were then viewed as bribes or kickbacks.  Could one be sure the contract given to company A wasn’t because they gave a fruit basket to some manager who could influence that decision?  The gift giving and acceptance quickly ended with reputable companies for fear of being fired or having criminal charges brought upon them for participating in bribes and kickbacks.  Many scandals resulted from these gift exchanges.

So what makes the deals currently being made in the Senate any less criminal?  Didn’t Senator Ben Nelson actually take a bribe or kickback in exchange for his vote?  He negotiated and accepted a deal that gave a monetary advantage to his state, at the expense of the American taxpayer.  Should we not start holding these people accountable and charging them with the criminal activity they are so blatantly participating in?  The persons offering the bribe/kickback, as well as the person accepting the bribe/kickback, should both be criminally charged for their actions.

If I stood outside a polling place and offered to pay for people to vote a certain way, I am sure I would be quickly stopped, arrested and charged with a crime.  Are the Senators not doing the same thing?  Like I said before, it is one thing to negotiate a provision that will equally affect all.  It is quite another to sell your vote.  It’s time to hold them personally responsible.

What we can expect from the government takeover of our health care is already starting to reveal its deadly intensions.

The H1N1 vaccine, purchased by and controlled by the government, was a promise that couldn’t be kept.  There was supposed to be enough vaccine available for all those who were at risk as well as it sounding like for anyone else that wanted the vaccine.  Since early this year the government was telling the public how much of an epidemic the H1N1 flu was going to be and was encouraging everyone to get vaccinated.  But when the time came to pay up the government fell far short of their promises.

The H1N1 is a separate vaccination from the regular annual flu vaccinations.  The regular flu vaccination is controlled by private industry.  Those vaccinations have been produced, distributed and are available at your doctor’s office or clinic for anyone requesting it.  In fact, my family doctor asked at my annual exam if I wanted to receive the vaccination.

However, the H1N1 is a different story.  The vaccine was purchased and distribution is being controlled by the government.  While they promised to have enough to go around they fell far short.  The government is controlling all quantities of this vaccine, including where the vaccines are to be sent and how much.  It is only being distributed to government sponsored agencies, so your doctor probably didn’t even receive the vaccine.  In order to obtain the vaccination you have to go to a vaccination clinic.  Even then, if you are not considered high risk you may be denied the vaccination.  So by the end of this year’s flu season only 25% of the H1N1 vaccine will have been distributed.  The rationing has already begun.

Then this week I read an article from the New York Times about a government task force deciding mammograms for women are no longer necessary until age 50, and then only every other year.  They further decided that self-breast exams didn’t do any good and should be discontinued.  Their recommendation was between 50-75 mammograms should be done every other year and after the age of 75 they haven’t yet decided.  Could this be because they are embracing the ideas of the Obama Czars – that anyone over 75 isn’t worth the cost of medical treatment because they have served their usefulness in society already?

How many people know of at least one woman who is alive today because of early detection and treatment of breast cancer?  How many others hear of the terrible tragedy other women face when the breast cancer was diagnosed in a much later stage and it had spread to lymph nodes or other parts of the body.  Sure, they may not have died from breast cancer, but they died from cancer initially caused from the spreading of the breast cancer.

The American Cancer Society came out against the task forces finding.  Does the government task force know more about cancer that the American Cancer Society?  Shouldn’t this decision be between the woman and her doctor?  No, this is all about money.  The task force says that testing 1300 women to save one life is worth it, but testing 1900 to save one life isn’t.  This is the government playing God.  I’m sure if that life that could be saved were yours or a close family member or friend anyone would agree it was worth it.  What price do you put on a life?  What right does the government have to establish that price?

Rationing and denial of services is what we all have to look forward to if the government takes over control of our health by the proposed health care reform bill passed by the House and under consideration in the Senate.  This is only a sample of what we have to look forward to in the future.  Having health insurance is one thing – getting the actual care of your health is another.  The government is only promising the insurance  – BUYERS BEWARE!

A real case of government healthcare…

One of my daughters became pregnant and found to everyone’s surprise she was going to have identical twins.  The news came with mixed emotions as well as difficult decisions.  This was not her first child and she, like many in the family, believes in natural childbirth without medication.  Only her first child was born in a hospital while all the others were born at home with a midwife.

She initially started seeing her midwife for prenatal visits, but when they discovered she was expecting twins the reality of government interference took hold.  The state of Arizona does not allow midwives to knowingly delivery twins, so they had to find a doctor.  They are on the state insurance, which poses it’s own challenges.  However, trying to find a doctor that not only would accept the state insurance but would also deliver twins and accept a patient at 10 weeks became almost an impossible task.  It took her a month to even obtain the booklet of doctors she requested from the state to start her search.  She went through the book and was more often turned down because the doctors no longer accepted the state insurance.  With the help of her midwife and fortunately a state employee willing to help, she was able to obtain the services of a high-risk OB team.

Through the ultrasounds they discovered the babies were identical twins, had separate bags of water but shared one placenta.  This put her in a higher risk category.  At one point during the pregnancy they determined she was experiencing twin-to-twin transfer and was then referred to a specialist.  Because of this the doctors wanted to see her 3 times a week and she underwent regular ultrasounds and non-stress tests.  During her third trimester an ultrasound indicated she actually had two placentas; that there was a division in the placenta that had not previously been noticed; the twins may not be identical.  At that time it was also revealed that she had not actual experienced twin-to-twin transfer, it was only borderline.  With only 4 weeks remaining until her due date the doctor told her she needed to find another doctor because she was now no longer considered high risk!

She took childbirth classes at the hospital she was to deliver at.  She is also a childbirth instructor so these classes were quite unnecessary from a childbirth aspect, but with this unusual pregnancy she wanted to be informed about the hospital, their procedures, as well as the special considerations in delivering twins.

During her regular doctor visits they discussed the expectations of delivery.  This resulted in a difference of opinion from the doctors and expectant parents.  The doctors believed in a medicated birth with a likely outcome of an induced labor as well as a cesarean delivery.  The parents believed in an unmedicated birth, as natural as possible, and only in an emergency to save the mother and/or babies did they want a cesarean.  They created their birth plan and the doctors made their modifications.  They were able to “negotiate” delaying an induction until 38 weeks.

She went in to labor naturally and the first baby came quickly.  They never made it to the hospital.  Labor never stopped and what seemed like a very short time later the second baby was delivered; he was a breech delivery.  Both babies were well and of good size, especially for twins (7 lbs. 14 oz. and 6 lbs. 9 oz.) with the mother and father cooperating during delivery; no one else was present.  This was a Sunday and at this point they did not want to go to the hospital because there was no need.  So they contacted one of their midwifes who came over to make sure mother and babies were okay – everyone was fine.  It also turns out the twins are identical, sharing only one placenta – the latest ultrasounds were wrong!

On Monday morning they contacted the OB doctors and told them the babies were delivered.  The parents asked if they should come in to be seen by the doctors and were told by the doctor’s office that they should come in 2 weeks.  The parents questioned this and the doctors decided they should make an appointment for that Thursday.  Everything seemed fine.

However, the parents received a call from the referring midwife indicating the doctor had issued a 911 call and told her to see the mother and babies immediately.  This second midwife came over Monday and checked everyone out – everyone was fine.

They kept their appointment on Thursday with the doctors, and again everyone was fine – or so they thought.  They expected to return to the doctor for her 6-week visit.

However, about a week later they were contacted by CPS (Child Protective Services) who was going to come out to the house on an investigation.  They had received a complaint because the twins were delivered at home.  They complied and the investigator came out for her visit.

During this visit they learned the doctors had filed the complaint with CPS sighting negligence.  Their complaint also included an objection to a delivery without heavy medication.  It further stated that my daughter cannot read a clock.  She happens to be dyslexic and CAN read a clock, but needs to have things read to her verbally – especially legal or medical documents – to be sure she fully understands them before giving informed consent.  Apparently a learning disability makes you unable to deliver a baby without heavy medication, at least according to the doctors.  Fortunately the CPS investigator was knowledgeable and unbiased, learned from both sides of the complaint, and found the complaint was invalid and determined the doctors should not have filed the complaint.

This is only a start in what we all might expect in a government controlled health care system like the ones being considered in both the House and Senate.  Government control leads to limited or no choice by the patient, with total doctor and government control.  If you do not comply, CPS or possibly legal action could be a real consequence.  Your rights mean nothing to a system like this – they are in control and they will tell you what you can and cannot do, what medical treatment you will obtain, must obtain and will not obtain.

If you are one with views from a more natural approach to medicine, you could quickly find yourself in a battle between the health care you desire and believe you should have the right to choose, and one with the government telling you that it is not acceptable care and demand you receive government approved treatment.  Parents concerned about the number and types of vaccinations required for their children could face another government battle, with the government dictating even more vaccinations and tests of newborns and children, regardless of parental preferences.  Everyone could face mandatory flu vaccinations.

Since when it is “illegal” to deliver a baby at home?  Why should it be a “requirement” to be heavily medicated during childbirth?  What happened to parent’s rights?  I thought these issues had been addressed back in the 1970’s when I delivered my first child and had similar battles.  Childbirth is a natural process done by women throughout the ages without access to modern medicine.  Granted, in some circumstances modern medicine has decreased infant and mother mortality rates, but that interference is not required in most cases.  How does one “trust” their doctors when they turn around and report patients to CPS (or what other government agencies)?

CPS investigators aren’t always unbiased as the one my daughter had, often instilling their own morals and values upon the parents in question.  With the healthcare bill including home health services for post-partum mothers and infants one can only imagine what government interference a new parent may face.

Government health care does not have your best interests in mind.  It is an attempt by the government to take control of your life.  It is all about control – control by the government.  What my daughter faced is only the start of what we can all expect if the government takes over.

The latest version of the Pelosi/House health care reform is more of the same, and worse.  It includes the same problems of HR3200 including the public option, the health care exchange, mandates requiring everyone to buy insurance, mandates requiring employers to provide insurance, penalties if you don’t purchase insurance, penalties on companies for not providing insurance, government real-time access to your bank accounts…more and more of the same.

I briefly reviewed the 1990 page bill and found some additional measures that were equally disturbing.

The bill is supposed to help those who have pre-existing conditions as well as those with chronic illnesses that may not otherwise be able to obtain affordable health care insurance.  The bill does mandate that insurance companies accept everyone, regardless of their medical history.  However, in a transition period, the government has allocated a specific budget to cover these people and this must not result in a deficit.  If the expenditures are expected to exceed the budget there are three options available to solve this problem:  (1) deny services, (2) increase premiums, and (3) put people on a waiting list.  So those with current insurance issues may find themselves no better off once this plan goes into affect since the bill gives the government the right to ration or deny services and increase the cost of your premiums.

There are over 360 pages in the bill that directly relate to medical treatment in the Native American populations.  This amounts to additional studies, addressing alcoholism issues and a number of other issues.  However, the bill also allows the government to take Indian reservation lands for the purpose of medicine.  The government will make those decisions and it did not appear as if the Native American population would have any control over what lands they chose to take, or if the medical facilities is even necessary for this population.  How far does this abuse of power run?

I recently read articles on the Pelosi/House reform and found that it creates 111 new bureaucratic departments and/or programs…more expansion of government.  The cost of this bill is estimated at approximately $1.2 trillion for 10 years.

Likewise, just as disturbing is those people who truly believe that this type of government takeover of the insurance industry is the only way they will be able to obtain health insurance.  They don’t want to even consider any other options that may allow them to be covered but not destroy the health care coverage 83% of the population currently has and likes.  They further expect this coverage, because of the public option, to be FREE; they are not expecting to contribute anything to their health insurance costs.  Nothing is free – you will be paying for insurance premiums, co-sharing costs as well as an increase in your income taxes.  If you don’t wake up now you could find yourself facing a huge medical/insurance bill you will be required to pay.

Behind the scenes in the real world anticipation over the new bills has already made an impact on the insurance industry.  A health insurance agent was at a recent party we attended and she is all for this new mandate, her mouth watering at the prospect of making lots of money from all the policies she will be selling.  As long as the private market can compete with the public option she will make a fortune, as she gets a commission not only when she sells a policy, but will continue receiving that commission as long as you renew your policy – and she may not have to do a thing.  This bill will make her a rich woman.  On the other hand, her ex voiced his opinion at her enthusiasm and stated that all this was at what expense to us.  He understood the consequences.

Another tip of the hand came when it was open enrollment time for my daughter.  Her options had been greatly diminished in health insurance coverage.  Option A would give her a set office visit cost of $30/visit, a $750 deductible and she would be responsible for 40% of her medical bills.  Option B would have given her a set office visit cost of $35/visit, a $1500 deductible and again she would be responsible for 40% of her medical bills.  For this reduction in coverage she would enjoy a minor increase in premiums.  Yes, she can say she is “covered” by health insurance but with the deductibles and cost-sharing responsibilities she cannot afford medical care or treatment!  This is from a very large insurance company, so one has to ask if this is the direction we can expect the government plans to be heading.  Is this the type of coverage that may be offered in a basic insurance plan?  If so, then although the government could claim more people would be insured, it would not necessarily mean people would be able to obtain medical care or treatment because they may not be able to afford it.

While the House healthcare bill does little or nothing to decrease medical costs and is anticipated to actually increase insurance premiums, one has to wonder what the real motives are behind the bill.  Is this just a bill to grant the government more control over our lives and denying us personal freedoms…with more government expansion?  With insurance agents waiting in the wings to jump at the vast money making opportunities, whose interests – or special interests – were really in mind?  Does being insured actually make medical care and treatment affordable…or will the cost of the insurance policy and cost-sharing expenses make it even more unaffordable?

Time is running out.  The House is expected to start debate on this issue this week.  The people spoke this summer at Town Hall meetings.  Did Congress get the messages?  It is time we remind them.  Call, write, fax and email your representatives before it’s too late.  The life you save may not only be yours but the country.

John Shadegg pic

So Nancy Pelosi and President Obama are adamant that Congress pass their health care bill.  They’ve dismissed the August protesters and are pushing for passage as soon as possible.  But, what does this mean for the average American, we’ll call her Mary Smith, a single mother of two struggling to get by in a down economy.

She hears terms like “individual mandate,” “employer mandate,” and “CBO score.”  But none of this helps her understand what health care reform means for her.

Mary wants to help the uninsured, but why is Congress talking about changing her plan?  And, why does every report now indicate her premiums and her taxes will go up–and her employer could be fined or forced out of business?  President Obama said his plan would control cost.  She worries about losing the health plan she has and the doctors her children know.  And, what about her job?  What if her employer can’t continue to afford coverage?  Will decisions about her family’s coverage and medical care be made by her or someone in Washington?  Will it be a radical change that rations care?

Unfortunately, Washington politicians are ignoring the concerns of average Americans.  Her family’s health care is about to change dramatically.

Mary gets her insurance through her employer.  She has a plan that suits her needs, and has a great relationship with her doctors.  She’d like more personal say in her plan, but like 83% of Americans, she’s basically happy with her care.  Why don’t the politicians just fix what’s broken—cover those without care and people with pre-existing conditions?  Instead, they are forcing her to change her plan.  H.R. 3200, the House bill, changes every plan in America.  Some are outlawed sooner, but virtually all are disqualified in five years.

Mary’s parents also lose the coverage they know, understand, and like.  They have Medicare Advantage, which provides benefits they like over and above regular Medicare.  Under Nancy Pelosi’s proposal and the Senate bill, that program will disappear.

What’s worse: when Mary goes shopping for a new plan, it will have been designed by a government bureaucracy, even if the so-called “public plan” isn’t adopted.  These new, “government-approved” plans will make her pay for services she doesn’t need, and can’t afford, like alcohol and drug counseling, even if these aren’t health care concerns for Mary or her family.  She’ll be forced to buy services she doesn’t want because it will be illegal to buy just what she needs.  It’s like being forced to buy a multipack of cereal boxes when you know you’re only going to eat the corn flakes.

The government will dictate coverage requirements, reimbursement rates, prices—even “approved” marketing practices and “free” wellness coverage.  “Free” wellness coverage?  Who’s kidding who?  She knows nothing is free.  Of course costs will go up.

Like it or not, Mary’s family will lose the plan they have and maybe the doctors they like and trust.  And, the government is serious about making that happen.  If Mary doesn’t comply and purchase a “government-approved” plan, she’ll be fined.  If her conduct is willful, she’ll be guilty of a misdemeanor.  When did health care “reform” become about punishing people instead of controlling costs and helping the uninsured?

With thousands of pages creating 53 new boards and bureaucracies, Mary will lose the freedom to make her own health care decisions.  Washington politicians are seizing the power to control health care for their political gain.

Instead they should be giving Mary and millions of American families the ability to make their own choices, imposing discipline on health insurers and providers to control cost.

Mary won’t even be able to keep her Health Savings Account (HSA).  For years, she has been putting money away tax-free to help cover future medical expenses.  Why is Congress outlawing HSAs through the fine print of a 1,502 page bill?

Even her 22-year-old daughter, who is looking for her first job after college, will be hurt.  She’ll be compelled to buy insurance at rates that subsidize the elderly.  That’s right: the “government-approved” plans set the rates for the youngest and oldest, and Mary’s daughter’s policy will cost far more than the actual cost to insure a 22-year-old.  Because the bills also compel all employers to provide coverage, the cost of hiring employees will go up and hurt her daughter’s chance of finding a job.

For their own political gain, career politicians are rushing this legislation through so fast the Congressional Budget Office doesn’t have time to evaluate it.  The most recent score politicians are touting counted only seven years of expenditures against ten of revenue.  Even Mary’s family budget would look good if she could “score” it that way!  House Democrats are being told to vote for this massive, new, untested health care regime—or else.  Those who are worried about Mary risk career-ending retribution if they even think about opposing their leadership.

Mary started listening to the health care debate because she was worried about the rising cost of care.  It sounded like reform would make her care more affordable.  It doesn’t sound like that any more.  Now, as Mary balances her checkbook, she has to worry not just about cost, but about her job, and her ability to make choices, and now, how it will hurt her daughter.  But, the politicians will look good.

If you think it was bad in August with the possibility of facing fines for not buying health insurance, it has gotten worse. Now we find out if you don’t buy health insurance you could be fined an additional $25,000 and face a year in jail. Jail time for not purchasing something because the government tells you it’s required! This is outrageous. You will notice Congress and government employees are immune from this system.

Here is John Shadegg explaining this new twist to the bill.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=shSPMhwDCmQ

Did I miss something in the new health care reform proposals?  When did the democrats’ proposals provide free office visits, free medications and free medical procedures to everyone?

I recently had a conversation with a friend that has a pre-existing medical condition and is very concerned about being able to obtain affordable health insurance.  He is currently insured and is paying what I would consider a very reasonable price for his monthly premiums (less than $200/month).  He must also take medications that run about $2000 per year.  Understandably he is concerned about health care issues.  He indicated a friend of his is on some government insurance plan (he didn’t specify which one) and that this friend is able to obtain all of his medical and dental treatments and medications at no cost to him.

It seems that some people in favor of the democrats government run proposals are assuming that this health care is somehow not going to cost them anything, other than maybe a monthly insurance premium.  They assume the cost of office visits, medical treatments, medications and dental services are going to be provided free of charge.

I read H.R. 3200 and have heard the reviews on the Baucus bill.  Nowhere would I interpret these bills as providing free medical and dental treatments for all, with the only obligation being a monthly insurance premium.  People with certain income levels could qualify for government assistance in paying for the monthly premiums and co-pays, but it certainly did not come with a free price tag.  In fact, I read some reviews on the Baucus bill indicating the co-pays and other costs the consumers would have to pay would actually make health care less affordable to middle-class Americans.

Until the health care reform became an issue, I assumed that once someone retired and was on Medicare that those medical premiums would also be free.  I found out otherwise when talking to my parents.  When on Medicare after you retire you pay a monthly insurance premium, which is taken out of your Social Security check to cover your Medicare health insurance.  Further, you continue have out-of-pocket expenses, like cost-sharing, for medical treatments received.  If you are on the government medication system you also continue paying a portion of the medication.  My grandmother was paying out of her own pocket $1200 a year for her medication and she was on Medicare and had a secondary medical insurance policy.

So you have to wonder if those in favor of the government health care actually understand the consequences of the program.  The government program would not be a free system – you will be paying for premiums, co-pays, and cost-sharing.  You will further be paying to supplement those who cannot afford insurance and the cost of medical treatment.  If you think your premiums and cost today are high, they will only go higher with government controlled plans.  As a bonus to the higher costs you will have no choice but purchase these plans because now it becomes a law that you must have insurance.  If you don’t, you will be penalized by the IRS, and may also face imprisonment.

So, before jumping on the government control bandwagon, look at the other proposals being offered.  Every plan wants those with pre-existing conditions to be covered at costs within reasonable limits of a regular policy.  Every plan wants to provide insurance coverage to all that don’t have it.  No plan offers free insurance, free medical, free dental or free medicine to all.  Do you want the government controlling your medical treatment and care, along with mandatory requirements, higher premiums and higher taxes?  Or do you want patient choice?

I urge everyone to really understand the bills being proposed – read them!  The concerns out there are very real.  This is your future – your life!  Nothing the government provides is free, and the health care reform is no exception.

The democrats’ approach to reforming the health care system makes about as much sense as amputating an arm because someone broke a finger.  Instead of addressing the problems in smaller doses they are going to turn the entire system upside down.  I don’t know if they have been listening, but the United States has the best health care in the world.  Why would you want to destroy that?  They want to model it after systems like Canada, but have they listened to the complaints and problems Canada has?  People from Canada come to the United States for treatment because they can’t get it in their own country!  Canadians also have to carry secondary insurance because the government insurance isn’t good enough.  They also pay a HUGE percentage of their income (and not just the “rich”) to pay for these programs.  Is this really what we want?

Even in our own country the state of Massachusetts has their own version of universal health care.  Just recently they reported a cut in coverage to certain groups of people because they don’t have the money to keep the system running.  People who once had good coverage are complaining because they now have to wait to see a doctor or get treatment.  Sure, they may brag that they have the lowest uninsured population, but having the insurance and obtaining care are not the same thing.  The Massachusetts system has started failing in 3 years!

So I ask again – are the democrats listening?  Repackage, renaming or doing whatever creative means to disguise the same bill is still an attempt at passing the same bill.  We are getting tired of the democrats and president trying to sell the same used car with a different paint job.

Reform should start with the very basics and address the problems of the system.  Take it a step at a time, making changes to address the critical problems first, and then continue to monitor the system to see how much more is needed.  Treat the system like a patient – don’t do radical surgery when medication or a change of diet may solve the problem.

The uninsured is one of the current issue.  There are a good percentage of uninsured that have chosen to be uninsured.  They are people who are making a decent living and have made a personal choice not to obtain insurance.  Perhaps they are young and don’t feel the need for it.  They may be a family who does not have the children covered but the parents are.  Whatever the reason, it is their choice.  The government should not force them to purchase insurance.  However, if they have chosen not to obtain insurance then taxpayers should also not have to foot the bill for their medical issues.

The government has caused one of the problems in the system today by passing a law stating everyone has access to health care through the hospitals whether they can afford to pay for it or not.  This law allows anyone, including illegal immigrants, to visit their local hospital and obtain care for anything.  Many of these visits are for something that should be taken care of in a doctor’s office or clinic, but because they don’t have insurance they visit the hospital.  If insurance reform is made, then this law should be revised to only include life threatening illnesses or injuries only to citizens or legal immigrants.  Any minor health issues would be seen as long as the person could pay for the services, or should be referred to a clinic or doctor – which also would require payment.  So, if the person makes the choice not to purchase health insurance then they would have to deal with the financial consequences – not the taxpayers and not the hospital.

I am not talking about the citizens who simply cannot afford insurance.  Part of any reform should include government subsidies to help those people obtain insurance.  Many are now eligible for Medicaid or a state health care system, so they are not without coverage.  If they have not applied for that coverage you cannot blame the system; you have to hold the individual responsible at some point.  These services should continue, but should be limited to citizens or legal immigrants only.

The second group of uninsured are those with pre-existing conditions or chronic illnesses who cannot afford coverage or have had coverage cancelled or been declined coverage.  Congress has already passed a bill that allows states to set up high risk pools to provide insurance for these individuals.  The system has already been established, but many states have failed to create that system.  Some states have done a great job, others have struggled.  You have to start holding states responsible.  Take those states that have created the system that works and make it mandatory for all states to create a system that models the ones proven to work.

Another group of uninsured are those whose employer does not offer health insurance or the small business owner.  There are some policies offered to cover these individuals, but in my own search for a policy I found it difficult to find, more expensive with less coverage.  There is no reason creating new pooling systems to provide insurance policies to these people cannot be done.  The insurance companies need to be responsive to the need and demand for these policies and they need to be allowed the opportunity to create such pools.  The policies should be equivalent to those offered to large corporations at similar rates.  Further, anyone that pays for their own insurance policy should be given some sort of tax advantage, similar to what employees receive when they purchase insurance through their employer.

Insurance policies should also be customizable to individual needs.  Your basic insurance plan needs to be established to cover all the basic medical needs anyone may encounter.  The individual should then be able to determine and purchase additional options to customize their care.  If you are a single male or a female beyond childbearing age or have had a hysterectomy, then you would not need to “add” maternity coverage to your policy.  If you don’t smoke or drink alcohol then you wouldn’t need to add coverage to address those issues.  You may want to “add” chiropractic services to your plan, maybe naturopathic medicine, children’s well care checkups, hair replacement treatments, or any number of other options that would meet your needs and personal beliefs to address your health issues.  Other options would include what deductibles you want to set, co-pays for office visits or other services, and the percentage you want to be responsible for.  In this manner people would be paying only for the services they want and need instead of some inflated policy covering medical issues they will never use.  These policies should be made affordable and each individual would have control over their costs.  If they can only afford the basic coverage, then that would be their choice.  If they really want cosmetic surgery covered, then maybe that is an option they could add that they would also pay an additional premium fee for.  The choice should be up to the customer – not the insurance company or employer.

The insurance billing practices also needs to be addressed.  Have you ever tried getting the cost of a procedure before it is done?  Other than your typical office visit co-pay, it becomes very difficult to get the fees being charged.  If you ask your insurance company they will tell you it depends on the procedure and how it is billed.  If you ask the medical provider they will tell you they don’t know what your insurance company will allow.  You cannot obtain fee information!  This practice needs to stop.  The fees should be published and available to everyone.  Depending on your insurance coverage you should be able to determine your percentage of the cost.  Why are medical providers charging the insurance company $1000 for a procedure, to have a $600 reduction in the cost made by the insurance company, and then you pay 20% of the $400 balance?  Granted, the medical providers make contract agreements with the insurance companies, but why?  This type of billing practice only hurts those without insurance since they will pay an inflated fee.  You would never go into the grocery store, fill your cart, and not know how much you are paying for anything until you check out, only to have the cashier ask for your grocery card to determine if you will pay $2 for that gallon of milk or $3 for that same gallon depending on your “grocery” coverage.  If we wouldn’t put up with this type of pricing scheme in our retail or any other market, then why should we continue to tolerate it in the health insurance market?  Prices should be posted, consistent and the only factor should be what percentage YOU CHOSE to contribute based on your insurance policy purchase.

The prescription drug industry definitely needs reform.  Why does a drug cost $90 in the United States and $5 for the same drug in another country?  Why does the drug industry need to advertise their product to the public on television, radio and other media?  This should be a doctor/patient decision, not one driven by advertising.  Do we really need to be sold on a disease because someone has discovered a drug for it?  I know I’ve been recently “diagnosed” with a disease and when I looked it up it was recently “discovered” by the WHO and the drug industry.  Fortunately my doctor doesn’t believe prescription drugs are the answer to everything, so I will not partake in their current propaganda.  Why can’t an individual obtain the drug their doctor prescribes instead of a generic the insurance company or drug industry decides will work the same – they aren’t always equal.  So the drug industry really needs to be reformed.  Just like the tobacco industry, their advertising should be banned from the public media.  We do not need to instill in our youth that the solution to all problems is one drug or another.  We already have an illegal drug problem – are we supporting this by pushing legal drugs on the television?  Advertising costs money, let’s save those funds and reduce the cost of the drugs to the patients.  Bring the drug costs in line!

So instead of turning the whole system upside down, do it one step at a time.  It doesn’t need a government takeover.  By addressing the problems instead of the symptoms, real reform may take place.  One might even discover taking such actions benefits everyone.

How can the government force you to purchase something?  Many have been comparing the proposal of making health insurance a requirement to that of requiring auto insurance.  This is an unfair comparison.  If I don’t want to purchase car insurance then I have the option not to own a vehicle or not even have a driver’s license, and therefore wouldn’t need insurance.  You can’t opt out of health care insurance in that same manner.  If you choose not to purchase health insurance then the government will penalize you.  That is the government forcing you to purchase something.

In my first blog I brought up the question “Is the proposed healthcare reform constitutional?”  I submitted this question to a number of television and radio celebrities and one has finally addressed this question.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=othG8SbNQR0

It appears as if I am not the only one asking the question.  Bill O’Reilly states in this interview that he doesn’t believe it is constitutional.  I’ve also read about a number of others, including lawyers, who do not believe Obamacare is constitutional and are already preparing for a court battle.  So while the writers and supporters of the bill state this will not be an increase in taxes, then the bill itself would be unconstitutional.

 

Congressmen John Shadegg (R-Ariz.)

“President Obama has embraced some of the worst ideas I have seen in all my years in Congress. Rather than reject a new government-run plan that will eviscerate health care choice, the President embraced a new Washington-driven health care program. Rather than reject the desire of insurance companies to force individuals to buy expensive coverage, President Obama has called for the IRS to punish American families who choose to go without a government-approved plan. And rather than reject new regulations and rules that will outlaw the plans millions of Americans enjoy today, the President said his proposal wouldn’t technically force Americans and their employers to change their plans. This cynical sleight of hand will give little comfort to Americans that are afraid the government will eliminate their health care coverage in the fine print of a thousand-page bill.

“The President claims he believes in choice and competition in health care and will consider any serious reform proposals. Along with dozens of my Republican colleagues, I have put forth plans to expand patient choice, repeal the penalty on purchasing your own coverage, help the uninsured, and protect those with pre-existing conditions from crushing medical costs. We can do all of this with no new mandates, taxes, penalties, rules, commissions, agencies, or czars.

“It’s time for Washington to listen to the people. Give Americans choice and competition, get government out of the way, stop expanding government control, and stop wasting the people’s money!”

John Shadegg on Obama Speech

The health care industry has problems, just like the auto industry.  But using government funds to bail out and take over another industry is not the answer.  The government has already failed in running Social Security and Medicare, with both programs going broke.  With a history of failure, why would another government run health care program succeed?  It wouldn’t.

The government program may provide INSURANCE for everyone, but having insurance does not necessarily mean you have access to care, nor does it guarantee the quality of care you get.  The government program by many speculations will result in rationing of care due to an insufficient number of doctors, nurses and other medical professionals.  It will also result in longer waiting times to get an appointment.  In many cases that could mean the difference of life or death, of treatment that saves money in the long term, of preventing permanent disabilities or surgeries.  Being able to obtain quality care in a timely manner is of utmost importance.  We cannot sacrifice that care for a government system.

People talk about the disparity of health care.  If H.R 3200 or a similar program is passed, the disparity will only increase.  The 15% of people who are currently uninsured may become insured, but projections are there will still remain a majority of these people who will be uninsured.  There will be a greater number of people whose current coverage and care will actually decrease in quality.  As companies determine if the 8% penalty outweighs the cost they contribute to employer-based health care policies, they may opt to pay the penalty and leave the employees to fend for themselves.  Smaller companies may still not be able to afford the health care coverage or the penalty and may close down, leaving those employees unemployed and looking for work in a grave economy.  For anyone who has been a small business owner (and I have), unless you have many financial resources, just paying the daily bills is a challenge, often with the owner living off what little is left.  Small business in America could quickly disappear with more government mandates.  One can only speculate how the business world will react and the consequences this will play for health insurance for the employees.

A small group of people won’t be affected by the program either way.  These are the people with money.  They will have their insurance plans, but most important, they will also have the resources to pay for care out of their own pocket.  They will have the ability to go where they want to receive care because they will have the resources to pay for it.  Granted, they have that option now.  But with the prospect of rationing, having the cash to pay for service may be a determining factor in actually receiving quality care in a timely manner.

The answer is not forcing the people on plans they don’t want, especially when 85% of the people are happy with their current coverage.  Why is 15% of the population going to destroy it for the rest?  Penalties and taxes is not the way to fix the problem.  The PEOPLE are not the problem – the insurance companies, medical system and drug industry is the problem.  The reform should start with them, evaluating what changes can be made with those industries without hurting the people.  Don’t punish the people when the industry is corrupt.

How many more strings do the democrats need to pull to try pushing through a health care plan that isn’t going to solve the problems but create more?  They talk of compromise and throw out alternatives to the public option.  The entire bill is needs to be scrapped!

Removing the public option only addresses a small portion of the bill.  The exchange program itself is a large part of the problem.  The exchange program is the government takeover of the health care system. It is through the exchange program that the government will take control over what policies will be sold, will establish the benefits and will set pricing standards for the policies.  Setting up the exchange alone costs billions of dollars, expands government, and creates a whole new government entity to control the insurance industry.  It is through this exchange program that people will end up losing their current coverage.  If all insurance policies within the next 5 years have to go through the exchange then in 5 years the government will have control over all insurance policies whether the public option is part of the program or not.  The exchange program is the government brokering insurance policies!  Why should the government go into the business of insurance brokerage?  The fact is – they SHOULDN’T.  The government needs to leave this to private industry.

Private industry needs to be given the parameters to address the current insurance needs and concerns, and there are a number of alternative bills that address these issues.  None of these bills call for a government takeover of insurance.  None of these alternative bills create a government exchange program to broker policies.  None of these bills penalize individuals for not purchasing insurance.

What the alternatives do is give responsibility to each individual to determine their insurance needs, not the government.  It allows them to choose the policy they feel meets their needs and make adjustments so they may afford the policy.  If individuals are responsible for their insurance needs then maybe they will make better choices when it comes to purchasing a policy and the utilization of the medical care under those policies.  The alternatives give a tax credit to individuals and families to apply toward the purchase of these insurance policies if they are not otherwise covered under an employment-based plan.  It also gives the individual options, so if the employer makes the choice to decrease coverage or chooses a plan that doesn’t meet the needs of the individual, then that employee could purchase a plan outside of the employer and receive the tax credit to help offset the cost.  These alternatives keep the employee from staying in a job just because of insurance, and if they become unemployed an outside insurance policy would come with them, making the expensive Cobra payments a thing of the past.

The alternatives allow the insurance companies to create new pooling mechanisms, providing new opportunities to offer policies.  They would require the insurance companies to provide affordable insurance plans to people with pre-existing conditions, at only a slightly higher premium cost.  Some alternative plans would even permit the sale of insurance across state lines.

Equally important, the alternatives do not take away care for our seniors.  The problems with the Medicare system need to be addressed separately.  You cannot take money away from the senior population to provide insurance for the uninsured.  That doesn’t solve any problems and only creates new ones.

Likewise, the pork or earmarks in the House bill are not in the alternatives.  There is over $88 billion in earmarks in H.R. 3200 that further expand the role of government, support illegal immigrants and support labor unions!

Obama promised not to sign any bill that would increase the deficit of the country.  If he intends to keep that promise then there is no way H.R. 3200 should be signed because it will not only increase the deficit but will increase the cost of insurance policies, create penalties for individuals as well as companies, and will increase taxes for everyone.  There is no magical way to pay for a $1 trillion program – the bottom line is the taxpayers will be footing the bill.  Disguising the taxes as penalties, employment costs, increases in Social Security withholdings or other creative ways is still an increase and taxes and an increase in cost to taxpayers.

Health care is a personal issue, and the government should not be making those decisions for you.  This isn’t a campaign for office that can be voted out in four years.  This is a change that will affect everyone in this country!  Any bill that creates a government run exchange program is a plan that grants a government take over of the insurance industry.  Once an exchange program is established, it will only be a matter of time before the public option is added if not initially included, and soon after the whole system is converted to a one-payer plan.  This needs to be stopped now!

How much will the H.R. 3200 cost?  Historically, the cost estimates of every medical program implemented by government has cost more, often significantly more.  Massachusetts passed a universal-coverage plan in 2006, which required all residents to have health coverage and gave subsidies for lower-income uninsured families.  Sounds like the plan the government wants to pass for the country.  The plan was estimated at $472 million for 2008, yet the actual figures for that year were $628 million.  They made some assumptions that proved incorrect.  They assumed that as more people joined the system the premiums would go down across the board.  They further assumed that as more people became insured the number of people visiting the emergency room would drop dramatically.  They assumed this would save them money.  It backfired!  None of these things happened and the health care reform that was supposed to save money has cost more money than expected!

Similar budgetary problems have been seen in Federally run programs.

When Medicare, Part A was established in 1965, covering the hospital insurance portion of the program, the cost was estimated at $9 billion annually by 1990.  The actual spending in 1990 for Part A was $67 billion.

In 1967 the new Medicare program was estimated at $12 billion for 1990.  The actual Medicare spending for the program in 1990 was $110 billion.

A universal entitlement to kidney dialysis was enacted in 1972 at a cost of $100 million for 1974 and actual spending was $229 million for that year.

The DSH program established in 1987 which states use to provide relief to hospitals serving large numbers of Medicaid and uninsured patients was estimated at a cost of less than $1 billion in 1992.  The actual cost for that year was $17 billion.

When Medicare’s home care benefit was changed in 1988 the projected cost for 1993 was $4 billion.  The actual cost in 1993 was $10 billion.

In 1988 a catastrophic coverage benefit was added to Medicare to become effective in 1990.  The cost estimates for this program were initially $5.7 billion and then raised to $11.8 billion, and even the revised number they estimated might be too low.  The program was repealed before it could take effect, largely due to the cost estimates.

The State Children’s Insurance Program in 1997 appropriated $40 billion to states over 10 years, with estimates of $5 billion a year once it was implemented.  By 2006 all unspent reserves were nearly exhausted and Congress appropriated an additional $283 million in 2006 and $650 million in 2007.

Bill H.R. 3200 is estimated at a cost of $1 trillion over the first 10 years and $2.4 trillion over the first 10 years of full implementation.  With the track record of the government grossly underestimating the cost of medical programs, one can only guess what the actual cost will be.  The country already has serious financial problems with spending in the first 8 months of this administration greater than all presidents combined.  The country just cannot afford to invest that amount of money on a program that has been proven in one state not to obtain the desired results at a significant increase in cost.

Information for this article was obtained from the Joint Economic Committee Report dated July 31, 2009.

The Congressional Research Service has issued their report regarding the treatment of noncitizens in H.R. 3200. There has been a lot of debate over this topic, with the president and democrats saying illegals are not covered, while those opposed to the bill saying they are. A number of loopholes in the bill, including no provisions for checking immigrations status, prove illegal immigrants can and will be covered by the bill, at the taxpayers’ expense.  The Summary of the report is include below.  If you would like to read the entire report, please click on CRS Report.

August 25, 2009
Treatment of Noncitizens in H.R. 3200
Congressional Research Service

Summary

This report outlines the treatment of noncitizens (aliens) under H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. In particular, the report analyzes specific provisions in H.R. 3200, and whether there are eligibility requirements for noncitizens in the provisions. Within the bill, noncitizens are treated differently in several provisions. In 2008, there were approximately 37.3 million foreign-born persons in the United States. The foreign-born population was comprised of approximately 15.1 million naturalized U.S. citizens and 22.2 million noncitizens.

H.R. 3200 includes an individual mandate to have health insurance, with tax penalties for noncompliance. Individuals who do not maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for themselves and their children would be required to pay an additional tax. Some individuals, including nonresident aliens, would be exempt from the individual mandate. “Nonresident alien” is a term under tax but not immigration law. For federal tax purposes, alien individuals are classified as resident or nonresident aliens. In general, an individual is a nonresident alien unless he or she meets the qualifications under a residency test. Thus, legal permanent residents, and noncitizens and unauthorized aliens who qualify as resident aliens (i.e., meet the substantial presence test), would be required under H.R. 3200 to have health insurance.

In addition, under H.R. 3200, a “Health Insurance Exchange” would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside a public option. The Exchange would provide eligible individuals and small businesses with access to insurers’ plans, including the public option, in a comparable way. Individuals would only be eligible to enroll in an Exchange plan if they were not enrolled in other acceptable coverage (for example, from an employer, Medicare and generally Medicaid). H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens participating in the Exchange – whether the noncitizens are legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently. Nonetheless, only aliens who could be classified as resident aliens would be required under the bill to have health insurance.

In 2013, under H.R. 3200, some individuals would be eligible for premium credits (i.e., subsidies based on income) toward their required purchase of health insurance. To be eligible for the premium credits under H.R. 3200, individuals must be lawfully present in a state in the United States, excluding most nonimmigrants (i.e., those in the United States for a specific purpose and a specific period of time). The exceptions for nonimmigrants who could obtain premium credits under H.R. 3200 would be trafficking victims, crime victims, fiancées of U.S. citizens, and those who have had applications for legal permanent residence (LPR) status pending for three years. It is expected that almost all aliens in these excepted nonimmigrant categories will become LPRs (i.e., immigrants) and remain in the United States permanently. Furthermore, unauthorized aliens would be barred from receiving the premium credit.

H.R. 3200 as reported from the House Energy and Commerce Committee (E&C) would extend Medicaid eligibility up to 133 1/3% of poverty for populations that previously were not covered (e.g., childless adults and many parents). This extension of benefits could mean an increase in the number of noncitizens who already meet the immigration status requirements for Medicaid eligibility who would be eligible for Medicaid. Also, H.R. 3200 as reported by E & C would make eligible for full Medicaid noncitizens who lawfully reside in the United States in accordance with the Compacts of Free Association between the Government of the United States and the Governments of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau, and are otherwise eligible for such assistance. This report will be updated.

John McCain’s Town Hall Meeting – August 26, 2009

John McCain's Town Hall Meeting - Aug 26, 2009

A very passionate crowed attended John McCain’s town hall meeting held at the North Phoenix Baptist Church.  Even while waiting for the doors to open for seating, people became engaged in discussion with others about the bill and other political concerns facing the US today.

The pastor of the church welcomed everyone and said a prayer for all.  Betsy Bayless, CEO of Maricopa Integrated Health System gave a brief speech and introduced Senator John McCain, who received a standing welcome.  After giving his thank you’s and covering the etiquette of town hall meetings, he started his introduction into the health care issue when a woman in the crowd started yelling out comments and Senator McCain politely asked her to be quiet or leave.  She was escorted out while the crowd applauded.  I was sitting only a few seats from her and couldn’t understand a word she said, so other than creating a public display, she did nothing to further her personal cause.

The meeting continued, with no further outbreaks, no riots, not even one picket sign that I could see.  Individuals were allowed to speak, often with the crowds’ applause.  Depending on which side of the fence they spoke on, they might also have faced a mixed response with applause and booing, but all remained civil. One young lady voiced her concerns on government spending and how it will affect her grandchildren, and told Senator McCain to give her 10 minutes of his time and she could tell him how to fix it.  She was about 10 years old and you have to give her a lot of credit for speaking up.  Maybe a political career is in her future!

Senator McCain showed the Senate bill, the equivalent of House bill.  He did not go into many details about the bill, but did state there are earmarks in the bill, one of which covers union pensions.  He said we have the highest quality health care in the world and we need to preserve it and make it affordable.  He stated the spending going on in the government today is generational theft and we cannot continue to expand without the ability to pay for it.

He shared the Congressional Budget Office reports which indicated the president and democrat’s bill expands government, does nothing to decrease medical costs, and will in fact increase costs over time instead of decrease them.  He indicated the Mayo Clinic also spoke out against the bill indicating it misses the opportunity and does the opposite of what was intended.  He also stated the drug companies made a deal with the White House.

Like the House, the Senate has some alternative bills, which resemble a similar philosophy to those by the House.  They include keeping patient choice, providing tax incentives for individuals and families who purchase insurance outside an employer-based plan, would create new risk pools to insure the high risk population (pre-existing conditions or chronic illness), would make health savings accounts more affordable, would support wellness and fitness programs and would allow the sale of insurance policies to cross state lines.

Whether you agree with the bill, or disagree with it, some very strong emotions and concerns are surfacing.  After the meeting adjourned, there was a heated debate in the hallway, with the man opposing the bill asking the man for the bill if he had read it.  The answer was no.

After attending several of these town hall meetings I have noticed some consistencies.  Those who are speaking up in opposition of the bill are usually older (meaning over 40), in the military, or currently have insurance with a health issue and are afraid of losing their coverage.  Those who are speaking up for the bill are usually younger, without insurance or with a pre-existing or chronic illness and no coverage; they believe a government option is the only way for them to obtain insurance.  There is one glaring difference – many who oppose the bill have read the bill – those for the bill have not.  If you are for the bill and haven’t read the bill, then you are no better than those members of Congress who pass bills without actually reading what is in them.

John Shadegg’s 2^nd Town Hall onAugust 25, 2009

Rep. John Shadegg - Phoenix Town Hall, Aug 25, 2009

AZ-Rep. John Shadegg held his 2^nd of 3 Town Hall meetings last night in Phoenix, Arizona.  There was a good turn out, not quite filling the high school auditorium with people from all ages and backgrounds, including some from other districts because their representatives were not holding town hall meetings.  Everyone was welcome and encouraged to speak freely, but maintain the respect of others.  There were no protestors, not even one picket sign from any point of view.  Two state representatives, Carl Seel and Sam Crump, also made an appearance at the meeting.

Unlike Shadegg’s first town hall meeting, many of the attendees seemed to already be familiar with H.R. 3200 as there were few questions directly relating to specifics in the bill.  Rep. Shadegg introduced his alternative bill, H.R. 3218, which I have previously covered.

One of the concerns expressed was; “Is H.R. 3200 constitutional?” – that is still questionable.  Tom Coburn of Oklahoma has introduced a bill, Enumerated Powers Act (Introduced in Senate) S 1319, which would require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws.  Some Congressmen, including Rep. Shadegg, are asking that question – what authority under the US Constitution allows for the enactment of this bill?

A small number of people expressed their support of a public option, and most of those individuals either had no insurance or a pre-existing condition or chronic illness.  They felt the only way for them to get insurance coverage was through a government option.  They were not concerned how this bill might affect anyone else, they were just thinking about their own situation.  Even though other options were explained to them, they seemed to want what they considered an easy solution in the form of a government option and remained clueless or didn’t comprehend the alternatives.  They just didn’t seem to want to take responsibility for their own health care.

There was a concern voiced about the possible involvement of the insurance industry’s role in the creation of the bill, as it expands the restrictions of ERISA.  ERISA applies to all group insurance policies and limits the responsibility of the insurance company even if they willfully deny coverage that results in death.  The case of Corkran v United Health Care was the case sited, in which the Corkran family lost their baby at birth due to United Health Care’s refusal to authorize treatment prescribed by Mrs. Corkran’s doctor.  Through discovery it was found that United Health Care’s doctor agreed with Mrs. Corkran’s doctor, but treatment had still been denied.  The Corkran’s could collection nothing for their loss.  Did the insurance companies agree to cover pre-existing conditions and chronic illnesses in exchange for this protection?  How will ERISA affect your treatment or ability to receive proper treatment?

Discussion and questions took place on the alternative bill, H.R. 3218, which provides insurance to all Americans through the enrollment of their choice with no government takeover.  Through new pooling mechanisms and tax credits, individuals would be able to make their own decisions and choices on health insurance policies.  If you like your company-offered plan you can keep it.  If you don’t, or are not insured, then you would be given tax credits to purchase a plan for you and your family.

One clarification on the H.R. 3218 plan that had not been previously addressed was covering the person who didn’t purchase a plan.  People are known.  If you have ever had a social security number the government knows you exist.  If an individual failed to respond and did not purchase insurance then money equivalent to the credit would be deposited into a fund.  If one of these individuals visited an emergency room or doctors office, information could be obtained from a national data bank and determine if they were one of these individuals.  If so, treatment would be made under this fund and they would be offered the option of enrolling in a plan of their choice.

Rep. Shadegg also stated he has previously submitted a “Patients Bill of Rights” as well as an amendment enacted in 2006, the “State High Risk Pool Funding Extension Act of 2006.”  This act allows states, with the use of federal funds, to create state high risk pools.  Some states never responded.

People voiced their concerns and frustrations over the government in general, with one gentleman stating that those in Congress should live in the real world to really see what it is like.  Another stated that these bills should be written in language that anyone could understand, including bullet points, and if Congress couldn’t do it he would do it for them.  One person questioned the role of Congressmen, asking how they could even be in office if they were not representing the voice of the people.  Comments like these from citizens, as well as military or ex-military, were voiced because of the government’s lack of concern for the citizens of this nation.

Two people expressed genuine concern over the N1H1 vaccine.  Although many may feel they are way out on the right, they have every right to speak out and were allowed to do so.  They are concerned about the safety of the vaccine itself, and if everyone will be forced to receive the vaccine, even against their will.  The disturbing part was that there was no answer to guarantee this would not happen.

This bill affects everyone.  This country has the highest survival rates for cancer compared to countries who already have government health care.  Why would anyone want to lose that quality of care in favor of a system that has proven in many countries to provide less?  Why do so many come to this country for their treatment?  Could it be they can’t get it, or have to wait too long in theirs?  Why would anyone want to give up their own voice in the control of their own medical care in favor of government control?

So in the end do you want a government run plan with the government making the decisions between you and your doctor?  Or do you want a plan with you in control of choices?  If the government can take over health care decisions, where does it stop?  Do they start selling mandatory auto insurance or homeowners insurance?  Personally, I want choice – keep the government out!

For those who claim there are no additional “taxes” imposed by this bill, they should refer to Title IV, Amendments to Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in which you will find “Sec. 401 Tax on Individuals Without Acceptable Health Care Coverage” as the first item to be added.  This bill not only increases government spending but it WILL INCREASE TAXES in more than one way.  Unfortunately, this section constantly refers to the Internal Revenue Code, so without actually looking at that code it is impossible to tell exactly what is being change.  Many of the references include “strike this and add…” and many times this is an increase in percentages or wording changes, so you would have to refer to the IRS code to determine what affect this has.

There are a number of business related changes to the IRS Code, many of which I could not interpret.  So if you are a business owner, especially a small business owner, I would recommend you read this section to see how it would apply to you.  This whole section reads like Greek, and if you have ever tried to read and interpret the IRS manuals this section of the bill is written in the same manner.  Consult your representative or tax accountant for clarification.  Because of this, I have included only portions of the tax code changes that apply to individuals and some general requirements as they apply to businesses.

The first tax is one imposed on individuals who do not have acceptable health care coverage.  This tax is 2.5 percent of the excess of the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income (adjusted gross income increased by the amount of interest received or accrued which is exempt from tax) for the year over the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1).  (I could not locate the reference in the bill to section 6012, so this may be an IRS code reference.)  This tax cannot exceed the national average premium for the taxable year as determined by the Secretary of Health & Human Services, under a basic plan offered in the Health Insurance Exchange.  If an individual resides outside the US they must get coverage, as well as anyone residing in possessions of the US.

This tax shall not apply to any individual who is a non-resident alien.

Acceptable coverage is (a) Qualified health benefits plan, (b) Grandfathered health insurance coverage, coverage under grandfathered employment-based health plan, (c) Medicare Part A, (d) Medicaid, (e) Members of the armed forces and dependents, including Tricare, (f) VA, and (g) Other coverage recognized by the Secretary in coordination with the Commissioner.

There are requirements for anyone who provides acceptable coverage, including a return that contains the name, address and TIN of the primary insured and the name of each individual obtaining coverage under the policy, the period each individual was provided coverage, and other information the Secretary may require.  If the insurance is provided by a governmental unit or agency, then the officer or employee who enters into the agreement to provide the coverage shall make the returns.  There is a penalty for failure to file, which amends sections of the IRS code and without referring to that code you cannot tell what is being amended.

If an employer fails (during any period) to satisfy the health coverage participation requirements a tax of $100 is imposed for each day in the period until the failure is corrected.  If a civil penalty is imposed, then this tax will be reduced by the amount of the civil penalty.

If an employer elects not to provide health benefits, in addition to other taxes imposed, an excise tax equal to 8 percent of the wages paid by him with respect to employment (defined in another section) will be imposed.  Small employers will be charged varied percentages from 0-6 as long as the annual payroll does not exceed $400,000.

There are some clauses with regard to the Small Business Employee Health Coverage Credit, which will not allow credit to highly compensated employees – any employee paid over $80,000 a year.

A surcharge on high income individuals is also being imposed, in addition to any other taxes imposed.  This surcharge is a tax equal to 1 percent of the modified adjusted gross income that exceed $350,000 but under $500,000; 1.5 percent of income over $500,000 but under $1,000,000 and 5.4 percent of income that exceeds $1,000,000.

The disclosure of tax return information of any taxpayer whose income is relevant in determining any affordability credit is permitted.  This information can be released to officers and employees of the Health Choices Administration or state-based health insurance exchange.  This information includes the taxpayer identity information, filing status, modified adjusted gross income, number of dependents, and other information as prescribed by the Secretary that might indicate whether the taxpayer is eligible for affordability credits.

The bill does provide for a religious conscience exemption.  An application for exemption must be filed with the Secretary in a time, form and manner as the Secretary may prescribe.  Any exemption granted by the Secretary shall be effective for such period as the Secretary determines appropriate.  Unless someone would change religions, there should be no reason for this exemption not to remain in effect for the life of the individual.  Also, one would hope the forms required for this exemption are much clearer than the Cash for Clunkers program in which auto dealers’ reimbursements were denied and returned because a form wasn’t filled out accurately.

Bill H.R. 3200 requires everyone to have insurance and every business to offer insurance.  If an individual does not obtain insurance they will be taxed 2.5% of their adjusted gross income – unless you are in illegal alien, then it doesn’t apply.  If a business does not offer insurance they will be taxed 8% of the salaries in addition to $100 per day penalties and potential civil charges and penalties.  Surcharges are also being imposed in addition to the other taxes on anyone making over $350,000 a year.  Even though these individuals may be following all the requirements of the bill, they will be required to pay additional sums just based on their income levels.  That is the government demanding charity!

So anyone that claims this bill does not increase taxes obviously hasn’t read the bill.

I am truly amazed as I continue to read through the bill how anyone could interpret this bill as one that would not increase medical costs, insurance premiums and taxes.  Each section only adds more responsibility to the government, which falls again upon the taxpayer.  This section alone creates a whole new welfare system intended to not only support people requesting assistance, but the bill actually calls for the government to recruit (by identification methods) people to in order to assist them, even when they have not asked for it!

Employers must offer health insurance to all employees, full and part-time, or face penalties, often for actions out of their control.  The pressure on employers could cause adverse consequences in the workplace.  Does the employer start basing hiring decisions on the likelihood that a candidate may or may not participate in the company offered insurance plan?  Will part-time employees now become less of an asset to employers since they too will require benefits?  How does this impact the job market and availability of jobs when the country already has high unemployment?  What appeared to be fairly straightforward (what was I thinking!) turned into many “what if “scenarios.  I’m sure you will develop your own.  If you have any questions regarding the bill, please contact your representatives.

This portion of the bill covers how individuals who cannot afford health insurance coverage or their portion of cost-sharing (co-pays, deductibles) will receive medical insurance and care.  Ultimately these costs have to be absorbed by someone.  The government is going to expand the medical welfare system and pay for premiums, as well as any out of pockets expenses for medical treatment, in the form of affordability credits.  Since it is a known fact that people who have insurance will use medical services more often, then one might expect an increase in medical treatment for newly insured individuals covered by the taxpayer – financed by increased premiums for those who can purchase insurance and higher taxes.

The bill will give eligible individuals affordability credits consisting of affordability premium credits to be applied toward the cost of insurance premiums purchased through the Health Insurance Exchange, and affordability cost-sharing credits to reduce the cost-sharing responsibility of these individuals.

Individuals can apply to the Commissioner for these credits through the Health Insurance Exchange.  The Commissioner can further deem individuals eligible on the basis on information otherwise obtained.  It doesn’t specify what information or how it will be obtain, but somehow the Commissioner is going to get information on individuals without their application or consent, to determine if they may also qualify for affordability credits.  The Commissioner must also establish effective methods that ensure individuals with limited English proficiency are able to apply for affordability credits.  Interpreted by many as a means of providing health insurance and related costs to illegal immigrants or amnesty immigrants – all at the taxpayers expense.

The Commissioner may also determine that a State Medicaid agency has the ability of determining eligibility for affordability premiums and credits, and if that agency does so they will be reimbursed for the costs in conducting those determinations.  So now the intrusion into our private lives is being expanded, not only to the Federal government,. but the state government; and guess who is paying the bill – the taxpayers.

If it is determined the individual is eligible for Medicaid, they will be enrolled under the State Medicaid plan.  No option.  I thought Medicare and Medicaid were already having financial problems, so now the government will add how many more to a failing system?

For the first two years of the plan the affordability premium credits may only be used for the basic plan.  But, beginning in year three the Commissioner will establish a process allowing affordability credits to be used to purchase enhanced or premium plans, but the individual is responsible for any difference in premiums.  So under this new plan we (the taxpayer) will be giving money in the form of affordability credits so these uninsured individuals can purchase a plan through the exchange.  If these individuals decide the basic plan just isn’t good enough for them, they can then use their own money to upgrade their plan to a better one – while the rest of us subsidizing these plans may only be able to afford the basic plan.  Excuse me, but if you can afford to upgrade your plan, then you can afford to pay for the basic plan out of your own pocket.  Why should taxpayers pay for these people to upgrade to a BMW when they are driving a Ford?

The bill describes an Affordable Credit Eligible Individual as one who is lawfully present in the US (other than as a nonimmigrant), enrolled under an Exchange-participating plan and not enrolled under another plan through an employer, with a family income below 400% of the Federal poverty level for the size of the family involved and who is not a Medicaid eligible individual.  So when Obama grants amnesty to 12 million illegal immigrants they then become eligible for all the benefits of this program covered by the taxpayers.

If you are a full-time employee and your employer offers employee coverage (for the employee and dependents) then you may not qualify as an affordable credit eligible individual.  Exceptions can be made in cases of divorce or separated individuals.  But, beginning in year two, if the cost in obtaining coverage under that employer-based plan exceeds 11 percent of your current family income, then that is considered unaffordable employer coverage.  This has the potential of expanding the current problem and government spending, resulting again in the increase in premiums and taxes.  If a family or individual currently has insurance and is paying for those premiums now, regardless of the cost, under this exception, those premiums could be determined as unaffordable employer coverage and then the government (taxpayer) would also subsidize this coverage!

Affordability Cost-Sharing Credits will also be distributed.  Eligibility is based on the income for the most recent tax year, verified by information requested from the Secretary of the Treasury.  The Federal poverty level will be applied for determining eligibility.  There are some requirements in cases where the family income is significantly different from the income used.  It also requires the reporting of significant changes in income.

There is the clause stating, “nothing in this subtitle shall allow federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the US.”  However, there is nothing to enforce this clause and does not exclude immigrants if an amnesty law is passed.  Again, with the intention of Obama granting amnesty to 12 million illegal immigrants, they will be eligible for coverage AND affordability credits under the new law.

Employers will have the responsibility to offer health insurance coverage to all employees, including individual and family coverage, under a qualified benefits plan (which currently includes employer-based plans until year 5 when all plans must go through the Health Insurance Exchange).  The employer must make contributions toward that coverage.  If an EMPLOYEE declines the coverage offered, the EMPLOYER must make contributions to the Health Insurance Exchange for this employee anyway (unless the employee declined because they are a spouse or dependent of a primary insured with another policy).  This penalizes the employer even though they may be doing everything required just because an employee declines benefits.  It also does not clarify the employer’s responsibility if the employee is holding two jobs and declines coverage with one employer because he/she is covered with another employer.

The employer is required to make premium contributions for employees equal to 72.5 percent for individuals and 65 percent for family coverage.  These percentages are based on the LOWEST plan offered by the employer.  Families may be the hardest hit by these changes, especially if employers opt for the minimum responsibility available.  So the possibility is very real that with a low cost basic plan and these percentage rates, especially for a family, the insurance offered by an employer could be classified as unaffordable employer coverage as stated above, making them eligible for affordability credits for insurance premiums – expanding the cost of health care to the taxpayers.

Part-time employees must also be covered under this new bill with employers having to contribute.  The employer share is based on a formula.

Employers will automatically enroll employees into the employment-based health plan for individual coverage at the lowest premium level unless the employee specifically opts out.

Employers must pay an amount equal to 8 percent of the average wages paid by the employer for any employee that does not accept the employer-based insurance plan.  While the employer is being penalized for an employee not enrolling, the employee also does not receive any benefit from this penalty, as it cannot be applied to any premiums the employee may already be receiving from the Health Insurance Exchange.  Special rules apply to small employers as they have adjusted penalty rates ranging from 0% if their annual payroll is under $250,000 to 6%.  Any employer who has an annual payroll of over $400,000 will have to comply with the 8% penalty.  This is just an abuse of the system, taking money from both ends (employer penalties and employee premiums).  This could result in serious employment consequences, from not hiring part-time employees, to hiring employees that will participate in the employer-based plan.

The Commission has the authority to set standards determining whether employers or insurers are taking any actions that may affect the risk pool within the Health Insurance Exchange by inducing individuals to decline coverage under a qualified plan offered by the employer and instead enrolling in an Exchange-participating plan.  If all plans have to go through the Exchange, then what benefit would an employer have in not enrolling employees, especially since they would have to pay the 8% penalty for those who didn’t purchase the employer plan?  Does this not also encourage employers to force employees to join the plan so they aren’t accused of such actions rather than giving the employees a true choice?

Amendments to ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) of 1974 are being made, including civil penalties against employers of $100 for each day in the period in which they fail to satisfy health coverage participation to any employee.

This portion of the bill is no different than the previous two.  It calls for expanded government, creates a new welfare system to support the health care industry, and will cost taxpayers more money.

Not only can individuals apply for affordability credits, but the Commissioner is also supposed to identify people by other means to get them affordability credits.  How does increasing the government’s responsibility, and therefore the taxpayers’ burden, by covering insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs decrease cost overall and not result in higher taxes?  Why would a government actively recruit people to give them credits?  What information is the Commissioner obtaining and by what means to carry out this task?  We’ve already had the White House sending out emails from email addresses obtained in a questionable manner.  We need to expand this type of activity to the health care industry – one that is supposed to be protected under HIPAA.

Although Obama and the democrats are claiming this bill does not cover illegal immigrants, there are no provisions to ensure they don’t participate.  They also fail to disclose that once they also pass the amnesty bill for these illegals, they then become eligible and the American people are again burdened with supporting them.

I have not yet seen any projected costs related to the affordability credits for insurance premiums and cost-sharing, so this huge outlay of money will be a surprise to the American public when the bills start rolling in!  These costs have to be covered somehow; which can only result in higher premiums for those who pay for coverage in addition to higher taxes.  At the rate this bill is going, NO ONE will be able to afford health insurance premiums!  Oh, was that the intent – to create the one-payer system that everyone participates in, under total government control, with substandard care, long lines, and denied services – can we say “rationing.”

As I initially read and took notes throughout this section I really didn’t grasp the absurdity of the program.  When I started writing this column I was overwhelmed by the stupidity of the thought that someone would actually think this was health care reform and not just a government take over of the health industry.  The public option is based on the same business model (if you could actually call it that) of the Medicare system – the system that is currently failing and going bankrupt today!  So why would one think that applying the same standards of a failing business to another model is going to create success.  Did any of the members participating in the creation of this bill have any business background?  Failure x 2 does not equal success.  With that said, I will continue on my quest at reporting on bill H.R. 3200.

The Public Health option is the portion of the bill allowing the government to sell insurance.  The Public Option is basically a Medicare type program offered to those who do not quality for Medicare, operating concurrently and competing against the private plans offered in the Health Insurance Exchange.  The government controls the Health Insurance Exchange, controls the policies offered within the exchange, and would now be able to sell government policies.  Try side stepping this all you want, but this is a government take over of health care.

Some of the bill’s BS (sorry) just could not be reworded or interpreted, so I had to quote the bill so you could fully understand the vague references and enthusiastic goals of the Public Option.

The Magic Wand of Health Care

The bill establishes the administration of a Public Health Insurance Option, an exchange qualified plan, which is supposed to “ensure choice, competition and stability of affordable, high quality coverage.”  The Secretary of Health & Human Services is responsible to create a “low-cost plan without compromising quality or access to care.”  WOW!  Apparently the magic formula has been discovered to have low-cost insurance premiums that will give accessible and quality care, and if you listen to Obama’s promises, this will not raise taxes.  Since this is similar to Medicare, one would have to wonder why this magic wand hasn’t already been applied to Medicare to ensure the same quality of care without bankrupting the system.

The Public Option will only be made available through the Health Insurance Exchange, so if you cannot obtain insurance through the exchange for whatever reason, you will also not be able to obtain the Public Option insurance either.  (For further information, please visit article H.R. 3200 – The Health Insurance Exchange.)

The Public Option must comply with the requirements that apply to an exchange plan, including benefits, benefit levels, provider networks, notices, consumer protections and cost-sharing.  Different levels of plans will also be offered.  The Secretary enters into the contracts for the public option.  This is similar to that of the Commissioner on the Health Insurance Exchange.

The Secretary sets the premiums for the public option and may allow for geographic adjustments.  The rates must be set at a level sufficient to fully finance the cost of the health benefits provided by the public options and all administrative costs related to operating the public option.

The Secretary will determine the payment rates for services and providers based on similar services and providers under Parts A and B of Medicare.  Since this public option includes services typically not provided under Medicare (such as well-child visits) the Secretary has the ability to modify payment rates to accommodate these services.  The same goes for prescription drugs not typically covered under Medicare Part A or B.

An incentive is offered to get providers to participate, allowing rates 5% greater for the first three years.  Anyone on Medicare knows how difficult it is to find a doctor that will accept patients under Medicare – they just don’t want to get involved with the government program.  So to try to get doctors to even participate in this new Public Option plan, they will allow them to charge more for services just to get them to sign up.  The catch – but only if they participate in both Medicare and the Public Option.  Pediatricians and other practitioners who typically do not participate in Medicare would also be eligible for increased payment rates.

Beginning in the fourth year the Secretary will continue to use an administrative process to set the rates to ensure access to providers, promote affordability and the efficient delivery of medical care, but not increase overall medical costs.  Again, that magic wand formula that hasn’t worked for Medicare will be applied here.

Any medical providers currently under Medicare will become part of the Public Option unless they opt out.  Preferred physicians in the public option plan must agree to accept the payment rate without regard to cost-sharing as the full payment.  Providers excluded from participation in a Federal health care program of the Social Security Act will also be excluded from the Public Option.

There shall be no administrative or judicial review of a payment rate or methodology established for this section.  Since I am not a lawyer I can’t interpret this, but not allowing a review seems like a problem waiting to happen.  One of the major problems in health care today is the medical providers and insurance billing practices and we are going to expand this problem into the public option by not allowing for a review.  How does this reduce medical costs?

The Secretary may utilize “innovative payment mechanisms and policies to determine payment for items and services, including patient-center medical home and other care management payments, accountable care organizations, value-based purchasing, bundling of services, differential payment rates, performance or utilization based payments, partial capitation, and direct contracting with providers.”  Non-uniformity is permitted; the Secretary can vary payments based on different payment structure models for different geographic areas.  So, if I understand this correctly, if you purchase insurance through the Health Insurance Exchange through a private option you will be subject to the regular insurance billing and payment policies.  But if you have a policy under the public option, the Secretary can be creative in determining how payments can be reduced or increased, including contracting with the provider directly and bypassing the entire system.  Does this not create a “you have to play by these rules, but I get to play by a different set of rules” scenario?

These innovative payment mechanisms only further cause confusion to a billing system already screwed up.  You get caught up now in the billing maze just trying to find out what services cost and what your financial responsibility will be.  This extends the maze, allowing for creativity in bill practices.  No wonder so many claims are denied and payments take forever!

An account will be set up in the Treasury for receipt and disbursements covering the operation of the public option.  Start up funds will be necessary, with the initial funding of $2 billion, PLUS additional funds from the treasury will be appropriated to cover 90 days worth of claims on projected enrollment.  Our taxpayer dollars at work.  Keep in mind this is only the Public Option.  The majority of the Exchange startup costs were defined in the Health Insurance Exchange part of the bill.

The additional office of the Ombudsman for the Public Option is established, with duties similar to those of the Medicare Beneficiary Ombudsman.  Without looking at the Medicare laws I don’t know how this differs in relation to the responsibilities of the Health Insurance Exchange Ombudsman.  But now we have not one, but three Ombudsman positions just to take care of health care!

Remember, the majority of the Health Insurance Exchange is established under the private option section, which the public option will also be part of.  So the government has created one option (public option) to sell insurance under another government agency (Health Insurance Exchange), which will also broker insurance policies offered under the private option, also controlled by the government.  Expanded government and government control.  How does all of this get covered without raising taxes while keeping insurance affordable?

Under this Public Option, medical providers, which are reluctant to participate under Medicare, are going to flock to this new government run Public Option.  As a benefit for joining this plan they will have their rates set by the government, based on the same rates as Medicare.  Since these rates are obviously set low, as most medical providers resist taking on Medicare patients, you could say they would be underpaid for services.  Since they also need to cover overhead and administrative costs, they will have to recoup these costs elsewhere in order to stay in business.  Does that indicate their services under other plans would then have to be negotiated at higher rates to compensate for the low government rates?  Is this not part of the problem that has helped create this medical disaster in the first place?  Without the ability of free enterprise you really don’t have competition to establish pricing standards and you certainly take away the initiative to participate in a field in which the government sets all of your fees.  If this pricing scheme has worked so well for Medicare, and Medicare is going broke, why would the same application in another government medical program not produce the same results as Medicare?

I guess they are applying the saying, “if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.”  The bottom line – this is the same old government program, given a new title and spin, expanded to serve a new demographic.  Government costs, government control, government history of failure.

The Health Insurance Exchange that would be established under bill H.R. 3200 is basically a brokerage exchange.  The government is going to decide which insurance companies and policies will be offered to individuals and companies through this exchange.  Currently, your employer makes the decision as to which company and policies they will offer you.  If this bill passes, the government will be making those decisions, limiting what companies may have to choose from.  If you are an individual purchasing insurance for yourself, then these would be the options open to you.

Nothing in the bill indicates how many or what type of policies will be included in the exchange.  One of the problems with our current system is that individuals and small companies cannot offer the same type of insurance as large companies because the policies are not out there, and what they can get is expensive.  I could not find anywhere in the bill where this problem is addressed.  The only thing for sure is that the government will be determining what can be made available.  No matter how you spin it, the Health Insurance Exchange portion of the bill is still government controlling your health care choices.  This is not the public option – they consider this the private option.

A transition period is being established, so not every individual or company can participate in the Health Insurance Exchange program at it’s inception.  Only individuals not covered by another policy (and not full-time employees under a group health plan) and companies with 10 or less employees will be allowed to participate the first year.  The second year it expands to companies with 20 or less employees.  The third year it is finally opened to large companies.  There are many aspects regarding current insurance policies that remain sketchy during the transition period.  If your current plan does not get grandfathered in then you must participate in one of the government options immediately.  If you receive your insurance through your employer then it will be up to the employer and the government.

It limits new enrollment on existing policies so if you didn’t enroll before the bill then you can’t enroll in the policy afterward – you will be required to then go through the Health Insurance Exchange.  If your current policy makes changes to any terms or conditions (which includes premium or co-pay changes) then it does not remain effective.  So the promise of being able to keep your current policy could diminish quickly under these terms, as I don’t know any plan that stays exactly the same year after year.  All policies within 5 years must comply with the national standards.  So eventually ALL policies will become part of the Health Insurance Exchange and therefore under government control.

It further stipulates that a report is to be developed within 18 months of the start of the program to ensure the law doesn’t provide incentives for small and mid-size employers to self-insure.  They want to make sure these groups have to go through the Health Insurance Exchange to receive coverage.  Again, government control.

It gives everyone access to coverage through the Health Insurance Exchange UNLESS YOU ARE ENROLLED in another qualified plan or have acceptable insurance.  Acceptable coverage includes grandfathered insurance plans, coverage under a current group health plan, Medicare Part A, Medicaid, members of the armed forces and dependents (including Tricare), VA, or other coverage (such as state health benefits) determined by the Commissioner.  So, for example, if you already have Medicare because you are retired you CANNOT obtain a secondary insurance coverage because you do not have access to the Health Insurance Exchange because you are already insured.  Most seniors I know do not feel Medicare adequately takes care of their health, so they also purchase a secondary plan (or may be part of a company plan) to make sure they are adequately covered.  If they are lucky enough to keep the plan from their company then they will have secondary insurance. If not, this bill will make it impossible to obtain secondary coverage. (Since this was an extremely unaccepted consequence, I called and verified this information through my Representative’s office.)  So seniors and anyone that may have secondary insurance need to be very aware of this clause!  You have a right to be concerned.  What right does the government have to say that you CANNOT purchase something?  Seniors pay Medicare premiums AND in many cases also pay to contribute to secondary policies.  Some seniors were fortunate enough in their retirement packages to have the company continue to cover them under the company health care insurance plans.  If these companies choose to drop these seniors then they are out in the cold with only Medicare to cover them and the government is going to DENY THEM ACCESS to be able to purchase a secondary plan.  TOTAL GOVERNMENT CONTROL!

Up to four levels of benefits may be offered, including the Basic Plan, and many of the pricing standards and employer responsibilities are based on the Basic Plan only.  This has the potential of increasing your portion of insurance premiums immediately.  It sets annual limitations at $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family, which can be increased by the Consumer Price Index yearly.  For my family, these new limits immediately create a substantial out-of-pocket increase.  How many families do you know can keep a $10,000 bank balance to cover medical costs (in addition to the cost of premiums)?

In order to run this Health Insurance Exchange several new committees and offices of the government will be established, ultimately covered by the taxpayers.  They include:

Health Benefits Advisory Committee, which will recommend benefits and plans to the Commissioner.  This committee is made up of the Surgeon General, 9 non-federal employees appointed by the president, 9 non-federal employees appointed by the Comptroller General and up to 8 federal employees appointed by the president.  So this 27-panel committee is made up of appointed members, 17 of them appointed by ONE PERSON – the president.  None of these appointments are confirmed by the Senate.  They define this group’s composition as reflecting providers, consumer representatives, employers, labor, health insurance issuers, experts in health care financing and delivery, experts in racial and ethnic disparities, experts in caring for those with disabilities, representatives of relevant governmental agencies and at least one practicing physician or other health professional and an expert on children’s health.  The group that will recommend the benefits and plans that will be offered to you includes only one physician and the rest all represent some relevant and some not so relevant special interest groups, each having their own agenda in mind when determining your health care.

In order to run this monstrosity, the bill establishes the Health Choices Administration, under the direction of the Commissioner.  The Commissioner is appointed by the president, with consent of the Senate.  The Commissioner will set the standards for accepting bids and solicit those bids, will review the bids, then negotiate and enter into contracts with qualifying insurance entities and conducts the activities of the Health Insurance Exchange program.  The Commissioner also specifies the benefits to be made available under the Exchange each year.  The Commissioner establishes the permissible range of cost-sharing for each plan.  The Commissioner can also terminate contracts and policies.  This ONE PERSON is being given a lot of power with regards to health care that directly affects you.

Someone has to conduct, supervise and coordinate audits of this new government program, so yet another new office is created – the office of the Special Inspector General for the Health Insurance Exchange, which is headed by the Special Inspector General, appointed by the president with Senate consent.  This position terminates after 5 years and there are no provisions on how the audit process will continue after that time.

Since we also have to anticipate complaints and grievances, the position of the Health Insurance Ombudsman is established.  This person is appointed by the Commissioner and is responsible for receiving complaints, grievances and requests of information and to provide assistance with those issues.

In order to assist individuals, toll-free hotlines must be established to support this bill.  It also requires the maintenance of a website for various activities.  This is another cost of the program, either absorbed through higher premium rates or additional taxes.

The bill also establishes a number of funds with appropriations made from the Treasury.  Yes, more of our tax dollars being spent on another government program.  In this section of the bill it creates the Retiree Reserve Trust Fund at $10 billion.

The Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund is established with appropriated or credited funds.  The Commissioner decides what amounts are necessary to pay the Exchange.  This also includes the taxes on individuals not obtaining insurance, employment taxes on business that do not provide insurance, excise taxes on failures to meet certain health coverage requirements, and appropriations to cover government contributions.

The government will set the insurance rating and rules and allows for rates for plans to be adjusted by age (up to twice that of the other policies), area and family enrollment.

To pay for your services it enables the real-time (or near real-time) determination of an individual’s financial responsibility at the point of service, including whether the individual is eligible for a specific service, with a specific physician at a specific location, and may include using a machine-readable health plan beneficiary identification card.  This is one of the sections of the bill that has created a lot of controversy and alarm.  I have two issues with this section.

First, how do you determine, real-time, if someone can pay for his or her service without some access to personal financial information?  Currently, probably most of us pay by debit or credit card.  Is that enough of a real-time determination?  What if the procedure or service is one in which the total charges and responsibility of the patient is not known at the time of service?  Does this mandate that before you can receive medical service or treatment that your financial ability to pay for that service will be determined prior to receiving it?  What if you cannot pay for it up front – will you be denied service for the inability to pay?  Many people negotiate a payment plan with the doctor or hospital if they can’t pay all the charges up front.  Is this still going to be possible?  No further specifics are given in this section, so interpretation is up to you.  It does create a real concern as to what financial information will be required to obtain service.

The second issue is that of a health plan beneficiary identification card and the services connected to it.  One could assume it is similar to your current insurance card, which would be logical.  However, the restrictions on service appear to be far more reaching than my current insurance card.  With a swipe of a card they will be able to tell you if you can get the service you need, using the doctor you are visiting and if that location is covered?  Since I’ve recently had to deal with obtaining medical treatment, I have quickly found information does not come that easy, or accurately.  The location I was referred to wasn’t on my insurance company’s list of providers, yet under the umbrella of the corporate account, it was.  This required me being on the phone with the insurance company as well as the medical provider just to sort it out!  The problem – this was a new location and information had not yet been updated.  A swipe of the “magic” card is going to be able to determine all of this, real-time.  Doubtful.  If the coverage information is that readily available now then why isn’t it being used now?  The other concern is, how restrictive are these policies going to be?  Will it not only restrict your doctors, but also which office you may be able to see that doctor?  The wording in the bill reads as written above, so when one restriction links to the next, how restrictive does this become?  These are questions I cannot answer based on what I could find in the bill.

Anyone who has applied and is eligible for affordability credits and has not chosen to opt out, will automatically be enrolled in the Exchange plan by the government.  If your insurance plan has been terminated, then you will automatically be enrolled in an Exchange plan determined by the government.  There is no provision in a terminated plan for individuals to make a choice of their own – the government is going to decide.  Newborns, born in the US not covered under another plan, will automatically be enrolled in Medicaid.  However, the Commissioner is going to notify each state in the first year if the exchange can support the enrollment of these children.

The bill also states that FAR is not applicable – the provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation shall not apply to contracts between the Commissioner and a qualified health benefits provider.  Any bill that has to make another law not applicable sounds off many alarms.  I am not familiar with the FAR provisions so I cannot comment any further, however it does raise concerns.

This is just ONE section of the bill, establishing only the Health Insurance Exchange.  It expands the government and thus government spending.  In this section alone it adds one committee and three new government positions, as well as support departments.  You must also factor in the overhead and administrative costs in support of these new positions.  Those costs have to be recovered somehow either in the form of higher taxes or included in the cost of insurance premiums offered.  I don’t know how spending more produces lower costs.  Since insurance policies are currently brokered in the true private sector, why would it now require the creation of a government agency to do the same thing?  If this isn’t a government takeover then why not leave it in the hands of the private sector without government interference and provide a means of expanding it there?

So while the democratic, mainstream media is claiming misinformation about those opposed to the bill, I would absolutely disagree.  There are so many aspects to this bill and nothing is crystal clear, many interpretations can be made – and will be.  Obama and his supporters have stated they want a one-payer system; then they turn out and claim they don’t.  Although this bill does not state it is a one-payer system, what many citizens, as well as some that represent us in the government, are concerned about is the government competing in the insurance industry and ultimately wiping out the competition, leading to a one-payer system.  The government will make the rules and determine your choices by a committee of appointed members.  Total government control.  Again you have to ask, if this is such a great plan then why has our government refused to include themselves in this option?

Incoming search terms:

• undefined

I do not usually watch mainstream television and therefore may not ever see the propaganda being pushed in the ads for Obamacare, but I’ve heard about them. So I watched it on the internet. On the surface it all sounds wonderful, the utopia everyone is looking for. EVERYONE will be covered by insurance, NO ONE will be denied, EVERYONE will have access to health care. LOWER out-of-pockets costs. But at what cost?

They claim everyone will be covered by insurance. Not true. This legislation is estimated at only adding 16 million to the ranks of the insured, leaving another 29 million still uninsured. The rest will be insured, not by choice, but because it will become law. How many people still drive a car without auto insurance? Yet everyone will purchase health care insurance – very doubtful. If you do not obtain acceptable coverage then you will be taxed 2.5% for failing to do so. That tax still doesn’t insure those people, it just imposes a penalty for not getting insurance. Illegal immigrants fair even better because the 2.5% tax cannot be imposed on them. They still remain uninsured with no penalties.

Insurance coverage costs money. That is why many people don’t obtain it now! By adding the uninsured to the mix, the cost of insurance will increase, not decrease. Many of these people will be receiving affordability credits from the government – meaning the taxpayers get to foot the bill in the form of higher premiums and additional taxes – free services to one group means someone else has to pay for it. Still, millions of people will remain uninsured, at the taxpayers’ expense, continuing to drive up health care premiums and medical costs.

What if the plan required everyone to obtain health care insurance and the government would not subsidize a dime? Would it still look as good as advertised?

No one can be denied. How can you deny someone from obtaining insurance when you make it a law to have it? If you are one of the people with a pre-existing condition then you may feel this is the only option open to you. Think again. Other bills are being developed that will also make sure you can obtain insurance coverage without the government raping the system.

Everyone will have access to health care. Sure you may have access but will you be able to get in. What will that care be once you do get to see a medical professional? Access does not equal quality. If the government has a fixed amount of money to spend (and in many parts of the bill that is a fact) and the cost of providing service to the people wanting or needing care exceeds that amount, how do, or do you, cover those expenses? It will result in increased premiums and taxes the following year – it states that in the bill. If the service is in one of the areas that cannot go over budget, then there is only one option – either deny service or reduce care to those in need of it. So to treat your condition your medical professional might recommend one procedure, but because of budgetary reasons you may be given something else, less affective, because it costs less. That’s not quality care – that’s rationing of care.

Lower out-of-pocket costs are promised. Well that depends on if you are insured now and what your current coverage is. The bill does set annuals limits – 4 times what my current annual limits are. That’s not lower costs – that’s HIGHER. Once you reach the new government limits, then what happens? Will you continue to receive care or will that care be “postponed” until the following year when you get to start paying out again? Treatments get delayed for all sorts of reasons. When the government mandates and rewards “efficient” care, keeping you in check with low cost options until you can pay in again might become a real medical standard.

Look at who is behind the push in sponsoring these new ads. One major contributor is the drug companies – they have everything to gain and nothing to lose. People who have health insurance typically spend more money on drugs than those who don’t. Guess who’s going to benefit – the drug company! Just look in Wikipedia at one of the major pharmacy and brokerage companies. Of course they’d back this legislation, look at their track record!

So while it may look like a pretty package, beware! Before you drink the Kool-Aid and enter the land of utopia, look at the ingredients. There’s a snake in there just waiting to bite.

There has been recent talk about alternatives to the public option in H.R.3200. Don’t jump on the band wagon! Although some of the alternatives may prove viable, as long as anything is part of H.R.3200 it is not acceptable.

Only the first 166 pages address the Health Insurance Exchange and Public Option as part of that Exchange program. The Health Insurance Exchange is STILL a government take over of insurance. A government committee appointed by the president, along with the Commissioner, will determine what benefits will be covered and insurance plans that may be offered. The Commissioner is basically a form of a Health Care Czar WITH all the authority to make decisions that impact our lives. The Commissioner will take bids and decide which policies will be offered to individuals and employers. Anyone with half a brain knows how bidding with the government goes. Will Americans receive choices with only their best interests in mind? Absolutely NOT! Special interest groups are definitely involved, not only in deals with the government but they are on the committee that makes these decisions.

That is only the beginning. Amending the public option would not remove the additional taxes imposed, would not restore what would be taken away from Medicare and continues to decrease Seniors coverage. It also leaves all the pork in the give away programs, grants, studies, etc. It still would not address the problem of illegal immigrants obtaining free care at the taxpayers’ expense. One of the great concerns is that it does not eliminate the denial of obtaining secondary insurance. These are some of the consequences that would remain if an attempt at amending H.R.3200 is made rather than scrapping the entire bill.

I read an article stating that 45 million people in America are uninsured, yet bill H.R.3200 is only going to add 16 million to the ranks of the insured. The cost of the bill and the estimated benefit is not a good indictor of a program worth investing in. The increase in insured population by these estimates is less than 35%. Would any program in the private business world consider those results as successful? The result is a government take over of the health care program, regardless of how the package is decorated. If it smells fishy and you haven’t gotten rid of the fish, then it still smells fishy.

After reading more and more of H.R.3200, it is becoming very apparent that this is not health care reform at all and would be better title “The National Health Care Welfare Expansion Program.” This bill should be burned and ANY attempt at true health care reform should start with a fresh slate. It creates a new health care system running concurrently with the Medicare program with expanded services to cover those areas typically not covered by Medicare. In creating this system it permitted an expansion of the welfare system, an invasion into the Internal Revenue Service, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid programs and personal lives of everyone. In order to fully understand the implications of the bill, you not only have to read H.R.3200 and the amendments, but also must reference the Internal Revenue Tax Code, the Social Security Act, Medicare and Medicaid laws and the Public Health Service Act. Throughout these sections obscure references are made to amend those bills, so unless you are reading the affected sections you are not getting the true ramifications of the bill.

The bill is like a cancer that is spreading through our government, out of control. An attempt at amending the bill would be like doing surgery on one tumor but leaving thousands of others still at bay to do their damage. There is NO WAY to save this patient, and taking the lead from the bill itself “the value of the bill to the American public is not worth the money required to try to save it.” Take the policies you are trying to shove at the rest of us and apply them to your own bill. LET IT DIE!

This bill is being advertised as a means to make sure everyone is insured. Yet they left open one of the biggest drains on our health care system – the illegal immigrants. There is reported to be 12 million illegals in this country at a cost of $11 million dollars a year for medical care. If you do the math we obviously have a revolving door policy of illegals coming into the country, receiving free medical care, and then a good number of them returning to their own country. NO where in the bill are there provisions to stop this abuse of our medical system.

While reading through the bill here is what was uncovered.

Although I could not find anything related directly to the purchase of a policy on the National Exchange, I did find a reference under Affordability Credits, Section 246 No federal payment for undocumented aliens, states that “Nothing in this subtitle shall allow federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.” (Page 143 of the bill.) But under Subtitle C for Individual Affordability Credits it states “Commissioner shall establish effective methods that ensure that individuals with limited English proficiency are able to apply for affordability credits.” (Pages 129-130 of the bill.)

The bill requires all individuals to purchase health care insurance or be penalized. Section 593 Tax on Individuals Without Acceptable Health Care Coverage states “(a) Tax Imposed – In the case of an individual who dos not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of…” (page 167 of the bill.) Further in this section it states “(2) Nonresident Aliens – subsection (a) shall not apply to any individual who is a non-resident alien.” (Page 170 of the bill.)

So, although it states individuals who are not lawfully in the United States should not receive affordability credits, there was nothing I could find to ensure they do not get them. No additional safeguards are in place to verify their legal status, so we would continue on the same path we are on granting handouts to illegals. Further, it requires citizens to obtain insurance or pay a penalty, but non-resident aliens are not subjected to the same penalty. Then NO WHERE in the bill could I find that care could be withheld if one did not obtain insurance. So illegals could continue to visit our emergency rooms without insurance and obtain free service as they are today. Nothing is in the bill to stop that, and they would not have to pay the tax penalties for not having insurance. This leaves an open door for anyone to enter this country illegally, obtain medical services at the taxpayers’ expense, and have no monetary responsibility. How does this solve one of the major problems of the increasing cost of health care?

Sec 2511 establishes a school-based health clinic program awarding grants supporting the operation of these programs. It gives preference to areas with a high percentage of children and adolescents who are uninsured, underinsured or eligible for medical assistance under Federal or State programs. Under this bill, in theory, since it is a requirement of everyone to obtain health insurance then no child or adolescent should be uninsured. Further, since the government sets the standards for coverage for insurance plans then no child or adolescent should be underinsured, unless the government is approving policy standards that are not adequately providing medical coverage. So one could conclude that these programs are implemented to serve those who are eligible to receive service under the Federal or State programs and ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS – they are the only ones who do not have to purchase health care insurance.

Throughout the bill there are references to Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services and Communications, reducing health disparities (including racial, ethnic and other disparities) and individuals with limited English proficiency.

The bill amends the Social Security Act making it a requirement to provide interpreters for patients who do not speak English, free of charge to the patient. It also appears to penalize providers under Medicare if they fail to substantially provide language services to limited English proficient beneficiaries enrolled in the plan.

Section 1222 of the bill provides no fewer than 24 3-year grants to Medicare service providers specifically to address populations with language barriers.

Sec 2251 establishes a cultural and linguistic competency training program for health care professionals consisting of grant money. It encourages placing these health professionals in regions along the US-Mexico border.

Does this not imply that the government is continuing to support illegal immigration at the expense of the taxpayer? When does the immigrant take responsibility for living in this country and learn the language of the people – ENGLISH!

My great-grandparents came to this country and did not speak English. My great-grandfather learned English so he could obtain a job and support the family. My great-grandmother did not learn English and lived in a community of like people so she could communicate with local family and friends. However, when she needed to obtain medical services or communicate with others outside the small community she took the responsibility of obtaining a translator to go with her so she could conduct business. She did not depend on the government to provide that service, nor did these immigrants DEMAND or expect that the United States communicate with them in their native language.

This bill not only does not solve the issues of illegal immigrants obtaining medical service at the taxpayers expense, it further INCREASES costs related to those services in governmental requirements mandating Americans learn Spanish (by references to US-Mexican border) in order to serve these individuals.

Accusations are being thrown everywhere about H.R.3200. Town Hall meetings are overflowing with citizens rightly concerned about their health care and how this bill will affect them. Both sides are issuing statements in support of their position on the bill.

So instead of just taking the opinion of one side or the other, I made a commitment to actually read through the bill and report on areas I found to be of concern, informing other concerned citizens so they could read those sections of the bill, ask questions of their Congressmen, and come to their own conclusion on how it may or may not affect their lives.

I am not a lawyer, so my interpretation is not from a legal standpoint and should not be taken as such. I am just an ordinary citizen concerned about the government’s involvement in health care.

Currently I have read, word for word, page by page, about the first 200 pages of H.R.3200. I have skimmed the rest and have briefly read the last 275 pages. I am taking notes as I read, forming my own questions. Future articles will be written on specific aspects of the bill. To start, here is my summary of what I have read.

The bill, H.R.3200, provides for two systems of offering insurance to individuals, one through the National Health Insurance Exchange and the other through a Public Health Insurance Option. All insurance plans sold will have to conform to the standards set by the government to participate in the National Exchange program. The policy standards and pricing mechanisms for the National Exchange are set by the government.

The Public Option is the government’s option. It is a direct competitor to the National Exchange. It must also adhere to the same standards of the National Exchange, except that it offers incentives to doctors to participate in this program by means of allowing them increased fees for services. It basically runs under the same standards as Medicare.

There are laws requiring individuals to purchase insurance as well as employers to provide insurance. Penalties in the form of individual, employment and excise taxes are being imposed for those who do not comply.

The bill also includes the pork. Numerous special interest programs are included in the bill, covered at the taxpayers’ expense. Some of these programs include taxpayers paying for college educations for underserved individuals who go into the medical field. Others include mandating medical professionals to become literate in alternative languages so they can communicate with patients, giving additional funds to those states along the Mexican border. Yet another program is only available to individuals who belong to a labor union. These programs amount to billions of dollars. I have not seen or heard much about these programs and have to wonder why.

This bill is going to cost taxpayers billions, if not trillions, of dollars to implement and run. It calls for the expansion of government in all aspects, both federal and state. It encourages discrimination, giving preferences based on racial and ethnic criteria. It calls for government control over the plans and coverage available to you. It further includes mandates for penalties in the form of taxes for those who do not comply. Economically everyone will be hit with the affects of the bill, including higher insurance premiums and taxes. There is no magic wand that can create a program to this extent and be funded without affecting the public and unfortunately middle class America.

Even though supporters claim it gives people the freedom of choice, it gives the government plan an advantage. The government sets the standards and pricing for the private plans. The government also sets the standards for it’s own plans, and then further takes advantage by providing incentives for doctors to choose their plan. Does this provide an unfair advantage and conflict – ABSOLUTELY! I don’t know ANY business that could survive if their competition could set their business standards and pricing. So, anyone that understands business and economics knows that the government run plan will eventually win out to a private option just based on it’s own unfair advantage.

You be the judge. Read the bill. I am and I will report details about each section in upcoming articles.

A Government Owned Health Care System

The great debate over health care reform is over a government run system vs. one run by private industry. I’ve read and heard many references to the positive aspects of having a government run system. I’ve also heard officials compare a government run insurance system with Medicare and the postal service. Let’s take a look.

Social Security and Medicare are government run programs, both of which are going bankrupt. Not a positive selling point for a new system. If I were an investor, would I want to invest in a venture in a company that already had two products in place on the verge of bankruptcy? Of course not. Oh wait, the taxpayers ARE the investors!

Ask anyone currently on Medicare about some of his or her experiences in obtaining health care. They can’t find doctors because Medicare payments are too slow in coming and doctors won’t accept Medicare patients. So many of the doctors they need or would like to visit are denied to them because they are on the government plan. Often times the best treatment, and often the lower cost overall treatment, is denied to them because of government restrictions. Does it make any financial sense, much less medical sense, to opt for the MORE EXPENSIVE treatment because the alternative may produce better results for the patient, costs less, but is a newer procedure?

Many Medicare seniors also carry a SECONDARY insurance to cover everything Medicare doesn’t. The government plan does not provide the medical care they need so they have to enroll in another plan to subsidize Medicare. Guess who pays for this – THEY DO! As a bonus to this Medicare plan, when they receive their monthly social security check, guess what is deducted from that payment – you guessed it – Medicare insurance premiums! So they are not only paying for the Medicare insurance they have but many are also paying for a secondary insurance plan. Why? Because they want good insurance.

The postal service is another example of a government run business. Some contend that UPS, Fed-X and others are able to compete with the postal service and still remain in business. However, does UPS, Fed-X or any other shipping service have to be part of a “Postal and Shipping National Exchange” where the government sets their shipping costs? NO! They are part of a free-market enterprise system where they set their own rates. If we don’t like those rates we can use someone else’s services.

Is there some hidden secret whereby if you are at an economical disadvantage that the government will subsidize your postal needs and give you free stamps and shipping charges on the letters and packages you need to send? If it’s there I want to know about it!

The last I checked postal rates are continuing to rise. Budget cuts have further affected service and there were proposals to actually cut back service to some areas and only make deliveries 5 days a week, instead of 6. Not a good financial statement to make in favor of a government run business. (Wouldn’t you like to arrive at your local emergency room only to find it was closed due to budget cuts!)

Many people have such confidence in the postal service that they are now receiving their mail electronically to make sure they actual receive their mail. They also pay their bills on line to make sure the payment is actually received. Not a good trend for a business that claims to be efficient. I know when I need to make a decision on how to ship a package, the postal service is my last resort. When I do have to go to the post office I stand in line, often for ½ hour or more, for a 2-minute transaction. Imagine the line you will be waiting in when health care mirrors this model.

Then we have the recent purchase of the auto industry in the form of a bailout. Again, why would we, the investors (taxpayers) want to invest in a company that has declared it is bankrupt? That aside, let’s look at the advantages this ownership now holds.

The purchase of the auto industry also bought us access to the union. The union, who in the very beginnings actually looked out for the interests of the employees, is now unleashed on some of those very same employees and the general public to impose threats and cause disruption to Americans who speak out against the government takeover of health care. The government bought their services in the auto industry bailout, so why not use those resources to bully citizens into yet another government takeover.  As an additional reward, some of the pork in the bill includes taxpayer dollars to help fund the education of our nurses, but ONLY IF they belong to a labor union.  (There’s no conflict of interest there – is there!)

Then, in order to try to boost sales, the government spends yet more of our tax dollars, to pay us to promote their newly acquired product, in the form of “incentives” to trade in our perfectly good automobiles (in many cases) to purchase a new automobile. We ultimately foot the bill. Why not just LOWER THE COST of these automobiles $5,000 and let everyone save money! Not only would people have saved money on the cost of the vehicle, we also wouldn’t be paying for on the other side by increased taxes. So instead of spending $4 million in taxpayers’ money, they could have given the consumer a break by cutting the cost of vehicle and not cost the taxpayers a dime!

This was done under the pretense of saving greenhouse gas emissions. Until we actually have an alternative fuel vehicle we aren’t really saving anything. Then these perfectly good trade-ins have to be destroyed. While we could have used the parts to repair vehicles still on the market and RECYCLE perfectly good parts, instead we turn everything into to scrap (adding pollution to the environment) as well as additional waste to our landfills.

Now we are supposed to support the idea that a government run health care system is the only answer. Medicare has proven to be a failure in terms of financial stability and will be cut back in this new plan further endangering the care of our seniors, so how does that support financial stability and equal health care for all in a new government program. The postal service is also experiencing financial and budgetary issues, thereby raising prices and cutting services. Take a number, wait in line, is not health care service. If that isn’t enough, the abuse of the recent bailout of the auto industry should be your wake up call on how a government takeover will work. If you believe you will be able to keep your current health care plan – think again. Ask the right questions, read THE BILL.

We are the investors – and we say NO!

It would be difficult to find anyone in the United States who does not believe health care reform is needed. Costs have skyrocketed and many people cannot afford health insurance or have been denied coverage.

We also need to acknowledge that the US has the best health care in the world. Survival rates from bre