The Elephant on the Wall

The Elephant on the Wall
Showing posts with label Health Care. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Health Care. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 5, 2009

1984, meet Atlas Shrugged

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.


When we thought it couldn't get worse, it actually does. Yesterday morning, a blog post on the official blog of the President, www.whitehouse.gov/blog, called for individuals to report any 'disinfomration' that they hear or receive regarding Obamacare.

And I'm not even making this up.

Under the title of "Facts are Stubborn Things," the author asks private citizens to send their reports to flag@whitehouse.gov. The White House wants you to report me for making 'fishy' statements. Who cares if the information that you've heard or read has been based solely off of the words in the health care legislation.

If members of Congress aren't required to read the bills and don't have to know what they contain, why can't we citizens talk about it in order to educate the masses? And what will the Obama administration do if someone is telling 'lies' about this Obamacare? Will they pull out the strong-arm tactics of Chicago politics? Pull us into alleyways as we walk to work and help us 'see the light?' Audit bloggers and prominent conservatives ad nauseum? Send letters of reprimand? Shut down our websites?

They have already begun to propose plans to tax the wealthy and and successful into oblivion. They will destroy industries with environmental regulations and taxes. They will slaughter the dwindling American job market because of corporate taxes. And now they want to turn American citizens against one another.

Its not enough that this President wants us to be as poor as the African nations his heritage comes from, but he wants us to be fighting, looting, and raping each other just as they do as well.

This is unacceptable. This must end. He must stop. They must be defeated. The United States cannot take tyranny in its Capital. Obama might as well break in (but I guess he has the keys, right?) to the National Archives and burn every copy we have of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

To think, the left went nuts when the Patriot Act 'read' their e-mails. Now you might be sent to the gulags for writing an e-mail. What is happening to this country.

This is what I believe. Report me. I dare you.

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

How the Lack of Term Limits Shall Save Us ...This Time

Few, I'm sure, would find it surprising that members of Congress have never voted to reduce their authority, power, or the expansion of both at any time in their history. Harder to, it seems, that they ever will. But the widely accepted practice in a whole variety of other elected positions - mayors, governors, and presidents - of term limits is an idea that will see you removed from any holiday card list or honored constituents roll if you dare utter it in the presence of legislators. Term limits encourage intergrity, truthfulness, character, respect and intelligence from our representatives to us and to their elected jobs. Funny how most members of Congress can't honestly include those adjectives in their wonderfully written campaign biographies.

When our nation adopted and ratified the Constitution as its ruling legal document, it did not include a limitation on any elected position, however, a standard was established by President Washington to serve only eight years, and the standard was followed by all his successors until Franklin Roosevelt. Elected four times to the office of President, FDR managed to appoint a majority of the Supreme Court justices by the time he died, socially re-engineered America's way of thinking about wealth and government sponsorship, and managed to establish a successful wartime economy after failing at a peaceful one for almost a decade. In 1951, the 22nd Amendment was ratified limiting presidents to no more than ten years in office, two of which must come from succeeding a prior president.

However, presidents rarely face easy reelection campaigns. An united, organized national party who have nominated another candidate always pose a strong threat to the incumbent, but in Congressional races, the only time a race can be guaranteed to be up for grabs is if it is vacant. As can be seen by reelection rates, the incumbent candidate is at a distinct advantage of being reelected. In only five election cycles since 1964 has the reelection rate for members of the House been below 90%, and the Senate is not much lower. This is due mainly to the name recognition and pork spending sent home by candidates. But this cycle of non-recycle is dangerous.

When preparing for the formation of the United States, the Continental Congress set a committee to research and propose various forms of governments. On behalf of the state of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson wrote a Resolution for Rotation which proposed term limits "to prevent every danger which might arise to American freedom by continuing too long in office..." and "...that in their future elections of delegates to the Continental Congress one half at least of the persons chosen be such as were not of the delegation next preceding." A contemporary of Jefferson, George Mason, stated that "...nothing is so essential to the preservation of a Republican government as a periodic rotation." Obviously, the principal of limiting government is not a new or novel idea, which brings us to the issue today.

More and more individuals are lashing out on Congressional leaders for their actions over the past months regarding the expansion of government unseen in many years. While in the past both parties can be found guilty of toeing the line, and in some cases stepping right over it, the majority party today is going above and beyond any power granted to it by the Constitution. Today, the leading issues are involving cap and trade and health care reform. Congressmen are being chased out of town hall meetings, Senators are being asked to apologize on behalf of Congress for their actions, and other representatives have stopped meeting with constituents altogether. It's obvious the talking points and memos being passed around Democratic offices aren't hitting home like the administration anticipated. And that is what will stop Obamacare, and most likely Cap & Trade.

If Congress worked under term limits, and assuming a majority of Democrats were in Congress, there would be no difficulty passing this legislation. Every member who is in Washington will have run on a platform stating their position for or against Obamacare, for or against Cap & Trade, for or against state sovereignty, for or against individual liberties. If a majority of the Congress were Democrats who ran on the platform of supporting Obamacare, it would pass without a single stumbling block. As would Cap & Trade, and as would any leftist agenda point. Under term limits, politicians would be elected for who they really are and how they really believe. A majority of Americans would have to believe in the same hopes and ideals their elected officials believe in. See, term limits set a ceiling on the amount of power and personal satisfaction an elected official can attain, so he has no incentive to not vote his constituent's thoughts.

But we don't live in that world. And that will save us (literally, and figuratively).

Without term limits, the goal of any member of Congress is to be reelected. What does it take to be reelected? Send enough money back to the district in the form of pork spending, come home and speak at the American Legion and the opening of the Little League season, visit a couple of high school football games, and just make sure that you keep your face in the news with enough good press to keep the election campaign funds coming in and the voters to turn out on Election Day. With the anger we have seen around the country from the Tax Day Tea Parties to the influx of listeners to conservative talk radio to the protesting of Congressmembers town hall meetings, its safe to say that most Representatives and Senators do not have enough good press. And this is before they even vote on these nation-changing bills. Knowing that their reelection is on the line, what will they do? They have no choice but to buck against their party, against their leaders, against their mentality of 'government knows best,' and against the President to vote against the passage of health care reform and Cap & Trade, among others. They must realize that with this much ground support in opposition to their views, they cannot risk voting the wrong way.

Because we don't have term limits, Obamacare will fail, solely do to the fact that a majority of politicians are spineless. And as funny as it sounds, that, is a good thing.

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

A Growing Disconnect

It seems like every generation finds itself on the edge of an unstoppable threat to civilization, but with no offense towards the "Greatest Generation" of World War II, or those who survived the constant worry of the Cold War, we are now truly in a time of desperation, and it has nothing to do with military campaigns or standing armies.

It comes from a lack of care and understanding from the American people regarding the actions of Congress and the Executive Branch of the federal government, or even the Judiciary for that matter. We are in uncertain waters, my friends.

There is no public outrage at the lengths President Obama is going to to avoid the Constitutionally guaranteed checks and balances system by appointing self-titled "czars" to be the White House over-seers of everything from...well you know what, I'll just list all of them to illustrate the ridiculousness:

1. Afghanistan Czar (Richard Holbrooke)
2. AIDS Czar (Jeffrey Crowley)
3. Border Czar (Alan Bersin)
4. California Water Czar (David Hayes)
5. Car Czar (Ed Montgomery)
6. Climate Czar (Todd Stern)
7. Domestic Violence Czar (Lynn Rosenthal)
8. Drug Czar (Gil Kerlikowske)
9. Economic Czar (Paul Volcker)
10. Energy Czar (Carol Browner)
11. Faith-based Czar (Joshua DuBois)
12. Great Lakes Czar (Cameron Davis)
13. Green Jobs Czar (Van Jones)
14. Guantanamo Closure Czar (Danny Fried)
15. Health Czar (Nancy-Ann DeParle)
16. Information Czar (Vivek Kundra)
17. Intelligence Czar (Dennis Blair)
18. Mideast Peace Czar (George Mitchell)
19. Mideast Policy Czar (Dennis Ross)
20. Pay Czar (Kenneth Feinberg)
21. Regulatory Czar (Cass Sunstein)
22. Science Czar (John Holdren)
23. Stimulus Accountability Czar (Earl Devaney)
24. Sudan Czar (J. Scott Gration)
25. TARP Czar (Herb Allison)
26. TARP Oversight Czar (Elizabeth Warren)
27. Technology Czar (Aneesh Chopra)
28. Terrorism Czar (John Brennan)
29. Urban Affairs Czar (Adolfo Carrion, Jr.)
30. Weapons Czar (Ashton Carter)
31. Weapons of Mass Destruction Czar (Gary Samore)

Thanks to Taxpayers for Common Sense for the sizable list.

Besides the fact that all of these czars have salaries, and staffs, and research funds, and who knows how much more tax money being allocated to them, they are in no way responsible to the citizens of the United States. These individuals are appointed solely by the President and confirmed by no one. They answer only to the President and have no check on their abundance or influence.

Albeit, some of these positions are complete inventions by the Obama administration, past presidents had advisers in these roles, though they were assigned under Cabinet secretaries, who were approved by the Senate and whose offices were created at the behest of Congress. Even Senator Robert Byrd, who has been serving in the U.S. Senate longer than Barack Obama has been alive, no matter where he was born, is criticizing the President over his unconstitutional power grab with his appointment of these czars.

It's odd that only Fox News is mentioning this on TV, when even Senator Byrd is calling the President out on this.

Let me ask you, do you care?

Our representatives are getting out of touch with reality, and American citizens, too. Recently, the senator from California, Barbara Boxer was questioning a military officer during a committee hearing.

She asks BRIGADIER GENERAL Michael Walsh a question, and then interrupts him with this statement, "Could you say senator instead of Ma'am? It's just a thing, I worked so hard to get that title, so I'd appreciate it, thank you." Word for word, and if you don't believe me, click the link and watch the video. Who does she think she is? California, excuse me, but she represents you? I know at Berkley they would have no respect for this man, but an average citizen knowledgeable about the great deeds our military has done for us? Could you ever imagine saying that to a career military officer, no matter what your title?

I could go on and address anything that Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) says, but that's like stealing candy from a baby, but this next video clip shows not only the ineptitude of members of Congress, but their complete lack of respect for their constituents.

A major complaint regarding the stimulus package, cap & trade, and now the Obama-care fiasco is that Congress is not giving anyone, anywhere time to read the bills before they decide to vote on them and pass on years of debt to our nation. Here, Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee is addressing the National Press Club, and let's everyone know what he thinks about reading very important legislation.

We must get away from this reliance on government and blind trust we put in to it. This government is created of us, by us and for us, and we need to stop accepting mediocrity from our representatives. We need and must demand only the utmost from our officials, and if they can't come to the plate for us, we must show them the door.

This is what I believe.

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

The Government and Medicine

Today, let us talk about the growing movement to nationalize, or should I say "standardize" the medical field. The Obama Administration has laid out plans to spend at least $634 billion (page 67) over the next ten years to expand health care in the nation. In it's budget, half of the "down payment" will come from raised taxes and revoked tax write-offs from those earning $250,000 or more a year.

Before I get started, however, we'll go over a few facts. Obama claims that 45 million people in this nation don't have health insurance. In other words, 85% of us do, and 15% don't. When the numbers are put that way, it doesn't sound like such a crisis, huh? Of those 45 million, 18 million make $50,000 or more a year, 10 million of those are at atleast $75,000 a year. 10 million more aren't even U.S. citizens. Finally, of those remaining not already covered, 14 million qualify for Medicare/Medicaid/SCHIP, but simply aren't signed up. But that's ok, American's should have to sacrifice for those too lazy or cheap to get around to providing for themselves.


What was it that the most liked member of the Kennedy dynasty said? "[S]o, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country." Too bad that idea was flushed out to sea with Johnson's Great Society, bringing entitlement programs to many and a "couldn't care less" inclination to most.

1986 can be looked at as a year in which Congress openly invited illegal aliens to flock to our giving nation. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act guarantees anyone, no matter their legal status, funding - anything - access to medical care, even with foreknowledge that payment cannot or will not ever be paid. Free emergency health care.

Wait, what about the Hippocratic Oath; doctors would never deny a person in immediate need, right? On one hand, no. If treatment was pertinent and necessary, doctors are held to a moral standard to save lives, but this law required them to perform any emergency task without even the chance of being remunerated.

Welcome, citizens of Mexico, who snaked your way through Arizona backcountry with a child who broke his leg on the way through; we'll pay your bill to fix him. Welcome, Mr. Canadian, who could no longer wait the weeks to get a doctor's appointment in your own country because of nationalized healthcare, but instead crossed in to Minnesota to back up our emergency rooms even more. Welcome, unemployed high school diploma holder, who instead of going to college, decided to provide for yourself by stealing and reselling copper wiring and sheeting from construction sites and lacerated your arm jumping over the barbed wire fencing around your crime scene; we'll stitch you right up and send you out the door, no cost to you.

Now, do we feel sorry for these people or for the doctors and hospitals losing their profits? Neither, the hospitals pass on the lost income to those who do pay: the patients with health insurance, the patients with the capability to pay their way. Thanks, Congress.

So far, we've seen how the federal government involving itself has done nothing but clog our health system and consequently indangered our health and safety, but that's the past. We now have to look forward for CHANGE.

Even with all the Fed interventions, we have seen our life expectancies climb up to near 80 years. Also, because the government has been blocked out of the research and development of drugs and medicine, private companies have been able to venture, investigate, and experiment with a huge variety of sciences in attempts to increase the overall health of the nation to even higher grounds.

Now, we have government intervention. And it is only beginning. $634 billion in a down payment. $634 billion over the next ten years of the government intruding in to the private sector. That doesn't even count the billions included in the stimulus bill just passed going to the computerizing medical records. The most difficult thing about this, is that Obama refuses to even say where the money is truly going and how "universal health care" will be dealt with.

1. For those of us with our own insurance, do we lose everything we've paid in to it and are forced to join some government program? If so, are medical records (now conveniently available on a computer network) going to be reviewed by government employees tasked with sending certain patients to certain doctors at certain times? Do we lose any privacy we once had with doctor/patient confidentiality?
2. Those without insurance, are they going to be the ones who have to buy in to the government program? If so, we the taxpayers are paying their way, correct? If that's the case, then we, as the guarantor, should have the ability to regulate the actions of the guarantee, i.e. you can't smoke, you can't drink, you can't engage in risky behavior, you can't be sexually promiscuous. With that, those individuals right's have been compromised because they are limited. So therefore, restrictions cannot be placed on individuals buying in to the government's universal health care. Since that can't happen, there will be no responsibility on the guarantee's part to maintain a healthy lifestyle and the guarantor will be giving away his income to pay for the irresponsible actions of others.

It is a long held belief that $1 in an individuals hand will be spent more efficiently and effectively than $1 in the government's hand. As such, if the government wants better health care for all, it should reform malpractice laws, which will lower doctor's overheads, which will then through the competition of the market, lower health costs, and finally lower insurance premiums, allowing more individuals - if they so choose - to buy in to health insurance. All this without the government really needing tax dollars.

If it truly wants to use it's might, perhaps revamping Medicare into a competitive market between a variety of companies and allowing seniors to purchase in at a rate of their choosing, i.e. more or less coverage, the "government" will be providing health care, saving senior citizens money, the taxpayers money, and encouraging economic growth by increasing health plan companies interaction in this growing market.

There are many more facets of concern facing the Obama Administration and its plan to change the American medical field. It's one thing to fix a broken system, but when the system represents the most productive, efficient, and profitable system in the world, government tinkering should be kept to a minimum.

  © Blogger template 'Minimalist E' by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP