Nat'l Healthcare vs Common Sense and the Constitution

The draconian single-payer health care program the Administration is so fervently touting is, by any reasonable measure, unconstitutional. It is a power grab whose purpose is more to advance the President's socialist agenda than to either constructively address the healthcare needs of the mythical "46 million uninsured" or to responsibly reduce healthcare costs across the board. Worst of all, single-payer will be terribly costly, and will lead to rationing and a sharp diminishment in the quality of healthcare.

But, first, let's deconstruct that "46 million uninsured" figure which tugs at our collective heart strings and which provides the Administration's rationale, aka cover, for a punishing healthcare overhaul.

To keep it in perspective, this 46 million figure constitutes about 15% of the population. So, first off, why would anyone advocate undermining the healthcare of the 85% (255 million people) who, reportedly, are satisfied with their healthcare coverage?

Conservatively, of the 46 million without insurance...

...about 6 million are "medicaid undercounts" meaning that those who are on one or two gov't health insurance programs (Medicaid or S-Chip) but who mistakenly or intentionally tell census takers that they are uninsured. (Source: Dept. of Health & Human Services).

...about 6 million are eligible for free or heavily subsidized gov't health insurance (Medicaid or SCHIP) but have not yet signed up.

...about 10+ million are non-citizens of whom an estimated 2 million are legal immigrants and more than 8+ million are most likely illegal aliens.

...approx. 8 million uninsured earn between $50,000 and $75,000 a year, and another 8 million make more than $75,000 a year and opt not to purchase health insurance

Thus, about 10 million of the 46 million figure above are American citizens/legal immigrants who for whatever reasons are uninsured.

Interestingly, even the Kaiser Family Foundation, a liberal non-profit often quoted by the media, pegs the number of uninsured American citizens who do not qualify for government health care programs and who earn less than $50,000 year between 9 and 15 million--a FAR cry from the 46 million Americans who comprise the huddled domestic masses yearning for health care so fervently bandied about by the progressive elites.

By my liberally inflating the uninsured figure--NOT including illegal aliens--to 15,000,000, it would still be MUCH cheaper for the gov't to cut a $7,500 check for each family/individual in this group since the annual cost would be much less $100 billion/year. Costly, but a MUCH better deal than what single-payer promises. Better yet, wouldn't it be MUCH wiser if we sidelined ideology altogether and fashioned an efficient and affordable solution which would benefit all Americans? Probably too much to ask.

Obviously, misdiagnosing, whether intentionally or otherwise, the extent and the reasons for a person's being uninsured invites painful waste and needless ruin for the entire nation. To solve America's healthcare problems and concerns, elitists must put on the legislative breaks and embark on an honest, bipartisan, deliberate and objective analysis. Who among us would arrogantly deign to dispute that assertion. Single-minded progressives, of course.

Also, since the federal government, with printing presses in hand, will be both the referee and the 8000-lb healthcare gorilla in a single-payer system on that proverbial "level" playing field, there will be no consumer choice. The vast majority of Americans who are satisfied with their insurance will inevitably dump their coverage, and the private healthhcare industry will evaporate. So much for free enterprise and competition.

Clearly, there are better ways to effectively deal with the painful increases in healthcare costs without adversely affecting the quality of care. Newt Gingrich asserts that fully 1/3 of all health spending, or $800 billion of a $2.5 trillion system, is wasted on "defensive medicine, red tape and outright fraud" which could be successfully addressed if a bipartisan discussion and solution were seriously sought by the Administration. Like most Americans, he believes that championing real competition, choice and individual control over one's healthcare is the path to a more effective solution to healthcare costs. Gee, who would have guessed.

Specifically, Mr. Gingrich proposes four common-sense principles which should guide any serious health reform discussion: "1) improve health by incentivizing prevention, wellness and early health; 2) give doctors and hospitals incentives to deliver highest-quality care through fair and proper payments; 3) reform public programs like Medicare and Medicaid to root out fraud, reduce waste and reward quality; 4) empower individuals with the information and financial resources needed to be better, more-informed consumers." Much too sensible an approach which, I fear, will never work in a progressive-dominated Washington, DC.

Unfortunately, engaging in a bipartisan debate to reduce healthcare costs while protecting consumer choice and quality care is not the goal of the socialists currently in power in DC. These elitists simply want centralized c-o-n-t-r-o-l. Never mind that the model they are pushing has failed everywhere else in the Western World where it has been tried.

The inevitable question is this: would you be comfortable with the federal government making your health care decisions for you? A preponderance of Americans have responded with a resounding NO! But, that won't stop the power elite in Washington. Why? Because "we the people" are pesky lowborns--annoyances unworthy of progressives' attention.

But, thanks to our insightful Founding Fathers and the mettle and courage of patriotic state legislators around the country, we may yet triumph.

Already, state legislatures are passing laws which would constitutionally nullify any federal or state law, rule or regulation which requires individuals or employers to participate in any health care system. In the forefront of this pushback is Arizona which plans to overrrule anything that prohibits the sale of private health insurance within that state's jurisdiction. Indiana, New Mexico, Minnesota, N. Dakota and Wyoming are weighing similar initiatives for their 2010 ballot.
But, is nullification constitutional? Co-authored by none other than Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 categorically asserts that states, as sovereign entities, can judge for themselves whether the federal government has overstepped its constitutional limitations. That may not sit well with the leftist thugs in DC, but the constitutional views of these Founding Fathers cannot be easily trifled with or dismissed by even the most ardent elitists among them. And it's up to us to make sure they don't.

And there's more constitutional pushback. Rep. Paul (R-TX) has introduced the Protect Patients" and Physicians" Privacy Act (HR2630) which allows "patients and physicians to opt out of any federally mandated, created, or funded electronic medical records system", would repeal sections of federal law estabishing a "unique health identifier" and would require patient consent before any electronic medical records could be released to a third party.

In addition, Rep. Paul is introducing the Not Health Care Act (HR 2629) which would prohibit the feds from compelling Americans to purchase health insurance or conditioning participation in any federal healthcare program.

These initiatives supplement 10th amendment resolutions and laws which many states have already passed or are in the process of passing which reassert state sovereignty in matters relating to Real ID legislation, medical marijuana laws, control of state militias, firearms control and, now, health care. So, the constitutional battle has only begun.

Federal healthcare reform, cap-and-tax and other unconstitutional federal encroachments have, at long last, struck some very raw nerves in the heartland. This federal intrusiveness is beginning to run up against heretofore inviolable constitutional firewalls, but only "we the people" can ensure those firewalls are not breached.

State and individual pushback across the country has begun in earnest--and none too soon. So long as we do not opt to apathetically sit it out on the sidelines, we can turn the counter-revolutionary progressive tide.

Let's solve this seriious problem intelligently and apolitically. Ideology should have no place at the table.

("All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." Thomas Jefferson)

("The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment." Robert M. Hutchins)

Cap-and-Trade: Ideology Trumps Science & Economics

If passed by Congress, the Waxman-Markey Bill, aka American Clean Energy & Security Act of 2009, will devastate our economy and way of life for decades to come.

Independent analysts predict the following consequences if this draconian act is passed:

1. By 2035, gasoline prices will increase by 58%, natural gas by 55%, home heating
oil by 56% and electricity by 90%.

2. Average family-of-four energy costs will rise by $2,979/yr; in 2035 alone, the cost
will rise by $4,609; the aggregate energy tax per family from 2012 - 2035 will climb
to a staggering $71,493.

3. Job losses will average 1.1 million/yr during this period; hardest hit will be manufacturers
who will be compelled to move their operations overseas.

4. Average GDP lost will be $393 billion/yr, culminating in a $662 billion loss in 2035 alone.
Total GDP lost from 2012 - 2035 will amt to an astonishing $9.4 trillion!

And the "scientific" rationale for this economic self-destruction? To reduce the unscientific threat of so-called man-made global warming by lowering temps by mere hundreths of a degree Celsius in 205o and by only two-tenths of a degree Celsius by 2200. This is either insanity or a very well-crafted plot to destroy the foundations of our free-enterprise republican form of government.

Since January 20th, the ruthless subversion of our country from within has been underway with a vengeance. The legislative blitzkrieg unleashed by the D.C. thugocracy upon a largely feckless and somnolent American public has gone essentially unchecked. Spineless patriots in D.C. have opted to accommodate this madness in a cynical and shortsighted attempt to curry favor and retain their political clout. Throughout this assault on common sense, the American people and the Constitution have been summarily ignored.

The light at the end of the tunnel is fast fading, folks. If we are to salvage our tattered Constitution and brutalized Republic, costly and destructive Cap-and-Trade, single-payor national health care, and other socialist and confiscatory legislation must be vigorously opposed at every level!

If peaceful protest marches and cathartic tea parties fail to stop these encroachments on our wealth, our freedom and our way of life, then much, MUCH more will clearly be needed to reign in this madness and tyranny. Though I pray it can be averted, rebellion and/or secession cannot be far off if these unremitting attacks on our liberties and our way of life continue.

("The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson)

("So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men." Voltaire)

POSTSCRIPT (7:25PM, June 26th). The House vote is in. This insidious energy tax bill narrowly passed 219 to 212, with 40 Democrats voting with Republicans and 8 Republicans defecting to the progressives. Tyranny is here. It's now up to "we the people" to take whatever action is appropriate to restore our republic. They have crossed the line. God save our Republic.

Sotomajor Nomination: Principle vs Accommodation

With so much chatter about the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, Supreme Court nominee, I have stayed away from commenting on the subject knowing that the subject is being adequately covered on the internet and by that sector of the media which still lays claim to veracity and objectivity.

But, given the serious nature of this subject, and the chastined GOP's reluctance to correctly and appropriately push back on this activist nomination, I felt compelled to at least address what the Republicans OUGHT to do despite their lingering cowardice and desire to accommodate their liberal antagonists.

The Chief Executive has announced to his liberal Senatorial brethren that he wants Sotomayor confirmed by August 7th, the day before a five-week break. So, what can the Republicans do to thwart the nomination and safeguard the Constitution?

For the Judiciary Committee to vet the nomination, minimum eight members must be present, two of whom must be members of the minority. Thus, if 6 of the 7 Republicans on the committee simply don't show up (sick, their legs fell off, nursing a hangover, whatever), the nomination cannot move forward. No gnashing of teeth, no heated arguments, no political posturing, and, most importantly, NO NOMINATION! For me, this approach has much to recommend it. Of course, the honorable Democratic leadership will be horrified to discover that a political party is willing to stoop to political tricks merely to achieve its legislative purposes, such tasteless tactics being so alien to their own lofty standards of conduct. But, womehow I think they would survive the trauma in fine shape.

Another "tactic" available to the minority party is the "committee filibuster". From the information I've seen, this is how such a filibuster would work: when a motion is made for a committee vote on the nomination, any member can invoke Rule IV which prevents a vote on the nomination until committee members first vote to end debate. To stop the filibuster, 10 of the 19 members (7 of whom are Republicans)--including one member of the minority--is required. THUS, if ALL 7 Republicans refuse to vote to end debate, the nomination cannot be reported out of committee and the nomination, for all practical purposes, is dead. Yes!

Problem: in the wake of Jim Jefford's defection to the Democrats in 2001 which rendered Republicans the minority party, an agreement reached by the parties at that time provided that even if a Supreme Court nominee were opposed by a majority of the committee that the nomination would still be submitted to the Senate.

So, the burning question is this: are Republicans on the committee willing to hang tough and true to their conservative values and beliefs despite their suicidal agreement with liberalism? Wallowing in self-doubt, hobbled by but a tepid allegiance to conservative principles, and, sadly, committed to political accommodation to ingratiate themselves to Hispanic voters, my guess is any unified GOP resistance will quickly evaporate, ushering in yet another "empathetic" liberal Supreme Court judge who will further weaken the court's Constitutional underpinnings. Just what we need to hasten our country's socialist transformation.

Someplace I read that one of the defining differences between a Democrat and a Republican--there being precious few differences these days--is that a Democrat goes down fighting, while a Republican goes down compromising. And so the GOP will yet again.

All we can do now is watch the kabuki theater play out, and pray that our Republic, under relentless assault from within as never before, can survive yet another affliction of liberal elitism and self-serving political expediency on both sides of the aisle.

Scared yet?

Single-Payer Health Care a Catastrophe in the Making

Published D&C 05/21/09

I have researched the issue of health care reform to the point of eye-bleed, and I can see no rational defense for a single-payer nationalized health care plan.

The current system clearly requires common-sense reform to bring down costs while maintaining patient-physician control, but nationalization is manifestly counterintuitive and self-destructive.

If government-run health care is such a spectacular idea, then we must demand that the president, Congress and all government bureaucrats be required to fully participate as well. No gold-plated exceptions whatsoever. No jumping ahead in line. No special treatment. If there is to be rationing and bureaucratic control over health services, then ALL Americans must be subject to the same limitations and "benefits". Remember "fairness", "leveling the playing field" and "equality"? Or are those just empty campaign rhetorical fluorishes for us simple-minded boobs?

Before we shortsightedsightedly ape the failed European model, let's first thoroughly and objectively explore a thoughtful, common-sense, free-market reform of the best health care system in the world today. Surely we're sufficiently innovative and savvy to apply American solutions to America's health care problems.

If we are determined not to learn from others' mistakes, then Americans deserve the single-pay er health care nightmare which awaits them.

More on this disturbing subject later.

Obama Ineligibility Concerns Hit the Billboards

Wearying of the irresponsible media blackout on the issue of Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be President as well as the reluctance of the political elites to soberly delve into the issue, a billboard blitz around the country is now underway.

The architect of this campaign, an entrepreneur named Joseph Farah, puts it this way: “As Obama transforms this country from [a] self-governing constitutional republic to one governed by a central ruling elite, the simple fact remains that no controlling legal authority has established that he is indeed a ‘natural born citizen’ as the Constitution requires. Obama’s promises of transparency have become a bad joke as he continues to hide simple, innocuous documents like his birth certificate and his student records.”

And since the media, the so-called “fourth estate”, has avoided coverage of the issue, Mr. Farah, with the help of public donations, is now taking on that watchdog role. (Donations for the billboard campaign are being sent to “WND, PO Box 1627, Medford, OR 97501".)

You will recall that Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution stipulates that “no Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

“We the People”, the de facto plaintiffs in numerous lawsuits going forward around the country intended to compel Obama to produce documentary evidence of his presidential eligibility, have been continually stonewalled by Obama’s legal team. Thus, in the absence of documentary proof to the contrary, the logical conclusion remains inescapable: Obama is manifestly ineligible and is, therefore, a usurper.

To my way of thinking, this is not a shortsighted, self-serving partisan issue. The continual legal delays and needless foot-dragging constitute an obscene breach of faith on the part of Obama and his legal team and, as such, their callous obstruction presents a serious threat to our national security. (You are invited to read my previous posts on the eligibility issue.)

“Where’s the Birth Certificate?” billboard space is being negotiated in Sacramento, Los Angeles, Houston, Dallas, San Francisco, New York, New Jersey, Des Moines, Seattle and other areas around the country. As Mr. Farah remarked, “[Obama] must be asked to produce [his birth certificate] at every turn.” And at nearly every turn, so he will, it seems.

For the sake of our country, this monumentally serious constitutional matter must be properly put behind us once and for all. But, for that to happen the Obama Team needs to be forthcoming with the evidence of his eligibility. A very simple matter, really. But, tragically for the country and the Constitution, all along that has clearly not been their intention. Public opinion now appears to be the only possible remedy.

States Finally Resisting Federal Domination

What appears to be the beginning of a tectonic shift away from suffocating federal power is underway. At least that's my fervent hope.

Finally, the "silent majority" seems to have had enough. In the face of creeping federal usurpation, the political survival instincts of the States and of the People themselves have finally been awakened. Their natural instinct to protect themselves against odious federal encroachments on their liberties has finally taken hold, and none too soon.

The plethora of tea parties in April--with more planned for the future--has served to draw attention to the tyrannical overreaching of the federal government in our lives and has, in turn, sharpened a grassroots demand for a return to limited and responsible government.

As of May 7th, it has been reported that 28 states have passed state sovereignty resolutions whose purpose it is to put the feds on notice that their overreaching and loathesome profligacy will no longer be so routinely permitted.

It is well that we all recall that Article 2, Section 8 enumerates the specific powers of the federal government, while the 10th Amendment of the Constitution reserves all those powers to the states which have not been specifically delegated to the federal government. To wit, the 10th Amendment, a cornerstone of our separation of powers doctrine, stipulates that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People." Although for the past 80 or so years, the feds have all but ignored constitutional restraints on their power, it more clearly appears than ever before that such will no longer be tolerated. They've clearly stepped over the line in the sand.

Joining South Dakota, the first to successfully pass such a resolution, are Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and South Carolina. Resolutions have also been introduced in Texas and Arizona and 23 other state legislatures as well, so the movement is anything but a flashpan affair. "We the People" and the States finally mean business. Our clear mandate to the federal government is to return to responsible constitutional governance as it was intended by our founders.

On the local front, there is also the Project 2010 and the Primary Challenge movements whose respective goals are to return NYS to fiscal responsibility and accountability and to convene a State Constitutional Convention to constitutionally remedy what afflicts the state. And, of course, there's the 912Coalition chapter which remains strongly attached to its mission of restoring sanity and responsibility to government. Thankfully, such restorative movements are multiplying at the local, state and national levels everywhere. Federal overreaching has, to coin a well-known Japanese Admiral's words, "awakened a sleeping giant".

Then there's Montana which recently passed HB 246 which lawfully asserts that clearly marked guns and ammunition manufactured for intrastate distribution and use cannot be regulated by the federal government--clearly, a justifiable assertion of state power which could dramatically alter how the feds exercise their power over interstate commerce in America. With both the 2nd and 10th Amendment solidly on Montana's side, the feds will be hardpressed to nullify or to otherwise successfully challenge this law. (After the law takes effect in October, can you imagine federal agents being arrested by Montana police for trying to enforce unconstitutional federal gun regulations in the state? Certainly within the state's rights to do so, but what then would the feds do to reassert their misplaced authority? Let's hope common sense and the rule of law prevail. Definitely worth watching developments there.) Alaska and Texas are also forging similar gun legislation, two more direct challenges to federal encroachments on state power.

On the whole, then, I'd say we've much about which to be hopeful. If States' rights, our last line of defense, cannot be restored and upheld, then what? Rebellion? I don't think even this haughty administration would risk that, but I can no longer believe the feds are above any manner of mischief and recklessness. While we should always strive to be civil and reasonable, we must also remain on guard and deeply committed to a restoration of responsible republican governance.

In my life, I've not seen this level of invigorating and wholesome grassroots involvement in the political process. Once again the specter of tyranny is energizing patriotic pushback. Finally!

Power to the People!

FCC Undaunted: Silencing Talk Radio Number One Priority

As you know, earlier this year GOP attempts to legislatively proscribe the reinstatement of the so-called Fairness Doctrine (aka Censorship Doctrine) was quashed by Democrats in both the House and Senate. Clearly, the fight to block liberal reimposition of any insidious form of the Censorship Doctrine is not over. To be sure, liberal attempts to reimpose the doctrine in another guise, e.g. "diversity ownership" and "localism", are well underway with a vengeance.

With the vocal support and clandestine encouragement of the likes of Dick Durbin, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the usual parade of other left wing nuts such as Chuck Schumer, Jeff Bingaman, John Kerry and Diane Feinstein, among other ignominious elites on the me-first left, the FCC's Henry Rivera, a strong proponent of the Censorship Doctrine, is meeting with the FCC's newly-formed Advisory Committee On Diversity For Communications on May 7th. (Forewarned is forearmed. If you value free expression on the air waves, keep your eyes on these unsettling developments, and push back fervently and frequently.)

Reportedly, participants in this advisory committee include no less than 12 left wing grievance organizations and but a sparse sprinkling of TV and radio companies. (So much for diversity when it doesn't serve the interest of the power elite, huh?) Participants who represent conservative defenders of the first amendment are, as might be expected, precious few and far between.

Under the rubric of the innocuous principle of "localism", the FCC's new purpose is to facilitate diverse ownership of/minority control over local broadcast stations. Relying upon "diversity" as its lofty rationale, Obama's FCC will expect broadcasters to better ensure that women and minorities are properly represented in broadcast media on the local level. (Gee, I wonder what mischief Obamaniacal community organizers might have in store for local broadcasters and their listeners?)

Of abiding concern to liberals is, as always, conservative domination of free market-driven talk radio. For the liberal elite, freedom of expression is tolerable, so long as the exercise of that freedom doesn't jeopardize their own political power. If eliminating competing viewpoints in the free market of ideas serves to promote their power, then freedom of expression will be ruthlessly, albeit stealthily, silenced. Make no mistake, folks: diversity of political opinions is anathema to the liberal elite, and, to them, conservative and Christian broadcasting are inimicable to their longer term goal of political domination.

For the most part, the printed media has been effectively co-opted by the left, rendering the media's credibility as objective dispensers of balanced information and reporting deeply flawed. No longer willing to speak truth to power and to act as responsible purveyors of the truth, the printed media is no longer a threat to the liberal elite, but broadcast radio remains a painful and annoying thorn in their side.

The last holdout for the free, open and diverse exchange and expression of opinion is unregulated conservative and Christian talk radio. It is now manifestly obvious that silencing opposing viewpoints remains a central objective of the progressive tyranny. If you want a free expression and exchange of ideas, you'll have to fight for them.

Conservative and Christian talk radio is now all we have left in our democratic arsenal to oppose the expanding tyranny. I urge everyone to continue to email/telephone their representatives and the FCC itself to keep government's intrusive hands off what remains of America's free press and free speech. If the leftist tyranny is able to silence talk radio, America is absolutely finished as a republic. Unsettling though the prospect may be, will secession be our only recourse to restoring a constitutional republic? I, for one, will NOT abide living under anyone's tyranny, whether it comes from the left or the right. None of us should tolerate the intolerable. We do so at our own peril.

("The security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure." Thomas Jefferson, 1823)

("The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter..." Thomas Jefferson, 1787)