The Government Must Tell Us

Amidst the debate over the Supreme Court case that is challenging some provisions of the Affordable Healthcare Act, it seems that an interesting phenomenon has arisen. It's one I've seen other times, as well: this idea that the government has to tell us what to do, or else we will be completely incapable of, you know, being adults and taking care of ourselves.

Which is, obviously, why the government must tell us that we are required to buy health insurance. Because, naturally, we can't expect to make our own decisions about our healthcare and make the choices that are best for us. No, the government must come and tell us what to do, or else we will be physically and mentally incapable of taking care of our own business.

You have to love the Nanny State mentality, whether you partake in it or not. Whatever else you might say about it, it offers limitless opportunities for amusement.

According to this article, the Obama administration is claiming the interstate commerce clause as justification for the mandatory health insurance bit, once again proving that the government can fit anything under that label. So long as it requires monetary exchange, they can tax it and say that it's interstate commerce, so it's okay for them to get involved. Besides all that, of course, we must think of all those poor people who can't afford health insurance...

And must steal money from taxpayers in order to pay for them. O, having a government that is simultaneously extravagantly spendthrift and also practically bankrupt is sometimes very interesting.

Life Goes On

Even in the middle of evil terrorists being tried. Well, well. Four trials prosecuting terror suspects were held in the past two weeks.

I'm sure some would like to say that there was mass rioting and much badness happened as the evil terrorists spouted anti-American rhetoric and thousands fell under their sway via their evil Sith mind tricks...

Unfortunately, nothing like that happened. People nearby, in the city, outside the city...were just fine. They didn't even hardly notice. It was a normal day. Birds singing, people talking, cars honking...

And the best part? It didn't cost New York City billions of dollars in security or trial fees. It didn't cost any more than any regular trial on any other regular case. 'Magine that. (H/T to SunTzu for this story. :) )

In other news, a Michigan judge ruled the health care law Constitutional yesterday. Oh, the joys. The judge's argument? He used the Commerce Clause, which is an innocuous line in the first article of the Constitution. It reads: "[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." (Emphasis added)

How, exactly, that gives the federal government the leeway to mandate people must buy health insurance I don't know. You might be able to say that would justify the government making health insurance companies cooperate and like, let their policies carry on over state lines, because that's just smart and all. But not to demand that private citizens must carry some form of insurance.

Also, for those of you have been following the story of the soldiers who repeatedly staged combat deaths of multiple Afghanis for some strange, demented reason, court-martials have now been "recommended" for them. Really, now? You mean we might now want to court-martial them?

Meh. The military's inner workings will probably remain a mystery to me far into the future, and I really don't mind that. I don't want to know.

So, from terrorists...and back to terrorists. Peace.

Recent News

I'm just going to go over a few of the current issues that are making the rounds these days...been super busy, and I don't have enough of an opinion on a lot of it to actually make full blog posts. So, without further ado...

The Healthcare Bill

So I predicted it would pass. I also predicted Scott Brown would vote for it. That one didn't come to pass, unfortunately, because it would have been so much fun to say "I told you so" to all the "glory-be-hallelujah-Scott-Brown-got-elected" people. Ah well. Political face-saving wins again...

Having not actually read the healthcare bill itself, I'm not going to go into detail on what I think is wrong with it. I've heard plenty of alarmism and "this is going to take away all our liberty and institute a mark of the beast and make us all get chips in our foreheads and help, help, help!" But I haven't actually seen citations of that (of course, if somebody wants to provide me with some, feel free. :) )

To me, the primary reason this bill is messed up is 1) it takes way too much power away from the states, and their right to decide how things are run, and 2) it will increase our government's spending, and taxes on the citizen.

So yes. If anyone has any other points of concern you think I should know about, please share (with actual citations, if you would, to the actual bill). ;)

States Stepping up to Bat

This week Nebraska passed a law banning abortions after 20 weeks, based on fetal pain.

Well good for them. Is this unconstitutional as some people are claiming? Well to my mind...no. According to my understanding of Constitutional law, the Supreme Court making laws in the first place is unconstitutional, which would make Roe vs. Wade unconstitutional. Hence, the responsibility for abortion laws falls directly to the states, as this power is not granted the Congress.

I think abortion advocates should just get over it. This measure is constitutional: it keeps power where it should be, in the hands of the state. That isn't wrong, that is a very good thing. Furthermore, I do think we should take into account the baby's pain level, at least to some extent. If you want an abortion, get one early. It isn't rocket science.

Obama's Nuclear Summit

So I admit it, I laughed. Especially since it doesn't appear either North Korea nor Iran has signed this pact-thingymajigger, making it so that two of the "greatest threats to our safety"...still have nukes. Real smart.

Of course, Iran doesn't actually have nukes yet apparently...they're just enriching uranium and using the tough-guy approach to try to keep us from invading. Not that it'll work. Hussein tried it, too (well, he actually tried Pakistan's approach- ingratiate oneself and maybe we'll leave one alone. Nope).

So anyway...I do think Obama has good intentions at heart. Do I think those good intentions will reap much? Eh, probably not, considering how many other measures like this have failed in the past. People still have nukes, people are still developing nukes, and in the end, one can't really stop stupidity and pure cussedness.

Oh, and on the subject of the summit- dont'cha know that free press is just totally eighteenth century.

So yes, just a quick blurb on a few issues I found interesting. :)

Goodbye, Mr. Jefferson

By Sam J. Smeaton

"When we interpret the Constitution, let us go back and look at the spirit in which the clause was drafted, so that we may truly interpret correctly." -Thomas Jefferson

There is no argument of any merit whatsoever that the founders would have supported this Healthcare legislation. For any person in this country (much less an elected official, Pelosi!!!) to suggest that the founders envisioned a country where the federal government forces (by law!) private businesses and citizens to do what it says, or buy what it demands you buy, has no understanding of history and no respect for the principles of liberty.

Health Care is not a right, Madame Speaker. To say so suggests that, as individuals, we have the right to other people’s lives and property. This is not true, and is downright reprehensible. It is not a right. Period.

On this night I fear for my country. Not some abstract, over dramatic, Olbermannesque fear, but a legitimate concern for the greatest nation on earth. On this night we have passed into law the idea that we all have the right to one another's money and property. If there was even a thread connecting us to the political philosophy of the American founding, it may have been cut tonight.

The road to hell is paved with good intention. I have no doubt that many supporters of this bill genuinely want all people to be healthy. But they are fools, naive in historical and moral understanding if they think that more government will fix our problems. Government killed the markets. It killed Medicare and Medicaid. It killed true economic recovery. It sends our troops to die in needless military interventionism. Government kills things. It retards growth and it hampers market forces. History has shown this, time and again. Yet despite all this, supporters of this Health legislation insist on granting government the power to slam more mandates, more regulations, and more taxes on our country. Problems caused by a lack of market forces cannot be solved by interventionism. 80 years ago, the greatest Austrian economist of all, the brilliant Ludwig Von Mises himself, tried to warn us that government interventions are an endless circle because each intervention causes more problems, which will attempt to be solved by future interventions, which will cause more problems, etc. This has turned out to be totally true in the last century in America (The New Deal, Military meddling in the Middle east, government mandates on health and insurance and housing, need I go on?).

I believe the solution to the Health crisis is fundamental change, more competition, less regulation, and more individual freedom. At the bottom of this note I will supply a link to some great writings on free market solutions from the Austrian Economic thinkers. But the focus of this note lends itself to the over-arching philosophy behind tonight's bill.

Are we so far away from the Constitution that it is totally null and void? Article One Section 8?! Remember that? It is immoral for governments to mandate healthcare. It is an assault on your liberty. It is an assault on American political Philosophy, and it is an assault on the founders. This country has maintained its greatness because of the Jeffersonian ideals of religious freedom, free expression, states rights, less taxes, and weak government. America is made great by her people, not her government.

But we are losing that. Indeed, tonight, we may be bidding Jefferson and his ideas, farewell. For tonight, government expands to its fattest form yet, and thus drives another nail into the coffin of the ideals of liberty. If you're not outraged, there are only a few options.

1-You are ignorant of the contents of the bill.

2-You don't understand our economic and political history.

3-You have an immoral political philosophy, because you believe Health Care is a right.

Regardless of which it is, you are bidding farewell to American liberty.

Goodbye, Mr. Jefferson. We shall miss you more than you know.

http://mises.org/daily/3737

Who's Holding the Gun?

State of the Union, Part I

**I know, I know, I was supposed to do this last week. Shoot me. :P**

Well, I'm going to read over the transcript of President Obama's State of the Union address, and comment on a few of his comments...and politely applaud if I actually agree with him. :P And yes, it's late. Oh well. ^.^

First off, I'd like to rant about the many times applause interjected. It was quite annoying. Like really, really, really incredibly annoying.

Simply put, at least at first, President Obama's address seemed to be yet more of the hopey-changey mumbo jumbo we were subjected to during the campaign. Nothing much of consequence, no real solutions offered; just "moving forward" and hope. Yeah, sorry, but moving forward doesn't pay the bills.

"And if there's one thing that has unified Democrats and Republicans, and everybody in between, it's that we all hated the bank bailout. I hated it -- I hated it. You hated it. It was about as popular as a root canal."

He hated the bank bailouts? Well we sure didn't see that when he was pushing for them so hard, and when he quite eagerly crammed it into his budget, despite the economic ramifications that would almost certainly ensue (chief among them a higher debt and deficit, higher taxes, more spending on a federal level, but less on a state and individual level).

"Now, let me repeat: We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses."

He cut taxes on small businesses. Really? My dad owns his own business, as I think I've mentioned before. This year, he paid $12,000 in taxes. Twelve thousand dollars. My family is not rich; my dad's business is not rich. He has five employees, plus a CPA. This year, we couldn't even draw a profit check. Yet our capital gains taxes went up.

I'd also like to add that just because paper says a business made a 'profit' doesn't mean they have that money. On paper, my dad's electrical company made a profit. Yet we have no extra money in the business' bank account. **Pet Peeve Moment**

"The plan that has made all of this possible, from the tax cuts to the jobs, is the Recovery Act."

Ah. So the fact that the American people are just resilient has nothing to do with it. It has nothing to do with the fact that the market is doing its job, at least in part. Oh no. It was all the doing of the Almighty Government.

I'd also like to point out that...um...well, most of that money hasn't even been spent. So unless they managed to (through some conniving on the part of the Fed, no doubt) stretch each dollar by several hundred thousand, I don't see how that much good came out of the little they actually spent. (The rest is, apparently, still sitting in a treasury somewhere. Or currently coming off the presses in the Federal Reserve mint.)

"And to encourage these and other businesses to stay within our borders, it is time to finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas and give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs right here in the United States of America."

Excellent idea. I mean, like imagine that- companies leave because they have to pay high taxes!

But just giving them tax breaks isn't enough. One of the most basic rules of economics is that people will not do things unless there is an incentive to do them. If there is no incentive (money) for companies to hire people here, they won't- and I don't think miniscule tax breaks will do much to add said incentives.

We need to make it easier for companies to keep workers, especially smaller businesses. They can't, not because there aren't enough tax breaks, but because they have to a) pay so much to their workers, b) pay so much in benefits to their workers, and c) they have to pay so many taxes for their workers.

Yes, yes, we all feel sorry for the poor laborers of America who unjustly toil while their evil bosses, the ones who really benefit from capitalism, drive them unmercifully hard. But then again, that picture isn't real. So it's really a nonissue.

Workers in America don't need to be paid so much. There's something messed up when a person can get paid $7.50 an hour at Walmart for putting my bleach and apples together. Pay should be by merit, not by what the government says employers have to pay. This is simple- if someone does a good job, they get more money. If they do a crappy job, they don't get money. Too bad for them. Maybe they'll grow up and see that "Hey, I need to do a better job!"

Something I just noticed- Obama likes setting Goals. Perhaps we should give him a button- Honorary Goal Setter of the United States of America.

"Still, in this economy, a high school diploma no longer guarantees a good job."

What constitutes "a good job"? Sorry, but not everybody can have a job that pays $100,000 a year. We have to have garbage men and plumbers and electricians and sewer scrubbers and all sorts of other people. Those are still good jobs. We need people who can flip burgers and stock shelves and sew shirts and do nails. Those are still good jobs.

Someone has to do them. And if everybody has a college degree, there will be no one to flip burgers or take out the garbage or clean out our blocked sewers or fix our lights. Then your college degree is pretty much worthless. I'm not saying people shouldn't be able to pursue their dreams...but people shouldn't be pushed to do something they cannot feasibly do, whether because of money, time, or other constraints. That is just as wrong. (And besides, I've met a few people whose highest goal is to be a garbage man or a plumber.)

"And let's tell another 1 million students that, when they graduate, they will be required to pay only 10 percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after 20 years, and forgiven after 10 years if they choose a career in public service..."

...Wow. No. This isn't how debt works. If people get into debt so they can go to college, that's their problem. Too bad for them. If they knew they wouldn't be able to pay for it, they shouldn't have gone, or they should have made better money choices.

Secondly, I don't think we should be telling college students the taxpayer will foot the bill for them. My goal is to be able to either work or pay my way through college. Yeah, it might be difficult. It probably will be. But I'm not going to steal from others, or chain myself to a huge debt because I couldn't plan ahead and manage my money.

Of course, I do think college tuition could go down. Significantly. How much they charge for the privilege of going to college is nuts, and I'm pretty sure those deans and board members aren't exactly hurting for money. They could lower rates. (But they won't, because they know their education can only be gotten in certain places, they're some of those places, and people will pay whatever it takes.)

"I didn't choose to tackle this issue to get some legislative victory under my belt. And by now, it should be fairly obvious that I didn't take on health care because it was good politics."

Nevertheless, it is good politics, and I haven't seen anything but rhetoric that says otherwise. The political reality is this- if he doesn't get this passed ASAP, he's going to be in big trouble with his base.

It still amazes me how much Obama throws into the Federal government's court. Sorry, but ensuring everyone has affordable coverage is not the Federal government's job. You might- might- be able to swing it through state governments. But not the Federal government. It is so unconstitutional on so many levels. That is the job of the free markets and (my, here's a concept!) the people. If people wouldn't blindly follow the insurance companies and their elected officials (*coughRepublicanscough*) we would be in a lot smaller mess.

"By -- by the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program."

This I can agree with. Bush did do a lot of bad things, and a lot of it left us a lot deeper in debt. But that doesn't mean Obama has to continue the process. I thought the point of "Change" was to change the past administration's bad policies and find good ones...not just continue the old bad ones.

"I'm absolutely convinced that was the right thing to do, but families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same."

Agreed. Like oh, cutting back on spending. And to be quite frank, adding trillions to the debt heap with a healthcare bill that won't do a thing isn't going to help us dig out of said debt heap. Believe me.

"To help working families, we'll extend our middle-class tax cuts. But at a time of record deficits, we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, for investment fund managers, and for those making over $250,000 a year. We just can't afford it."

We could if we'd start scaling back programs that are already bankrupt and have fundamental flaws. Like Medicare. Instead of adding more bandaids to the huge gash in it, let's just let it go down. Or welfare. Too many people are dependent on it. Wean them off. Or the Department of Education. Guzzles money, and our literacy rates are declining. Let's rethink that one, make it so that it works better, for less money.

Or Social Security. Good idea, bad results. Too many people get it, too much taxes get taken to pay for it. DHS, TSA...yeah, those could go and I don't think anyone would cry bucket loads of tears. The wars. And our foreign bases. Excess foreign aid. All those things could go, and there are other things I'm sure I'm missing...or rather, it would take much too long to list them all. Like the Administration on Aging. Or the Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Interagency Coordinating Committee (Seriously, it's a real committee).

Endless Programs, Endless Possibilities for Fund Reduction.

"And when the vote comes tomorrow, the Senate should restore the pay-as-you-go law that was a big reason for why we had record surpluses in the 1990s."

Something that would really help us- either bribing the Federal Reserve, or getting rid of it. It has a past history of artificially inflating our currency, then letting it plummet back- or the other way around. Either way, it isn't good. Now, I see no problem with a pay-as-you-go policy. It's actually quite a wise way to do things. But um, well, I don't think it'll help much when the Senators keep raising their incomes. And sending money to special interests. Nope nope nope.

"From some on the right, I expect we'll hear a different argument, that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts, including those for the wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away.

The problem is, that's what we did for eight years."

Actually, that's really not what we did for eight years. What we did for eight years is Regulate, Spend Some More, Start A War, Make A Gaffe, Distract the Pesky People, Start Another War, Regulate, Spend Some More...

Not exactly a recipe for success, or debt reduction.

Part II soon to come.

Current Events

Yes, yet another combined-issue post. I've been pretty busy lately, trying to raise funds for a missions trip to Africa I'm taking this summer. But I thought I'd just go over a few recent issues, and give my take.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abdulmutallab too

The Obama admin caved. They're not going to hold Mohammed's trial in NYC anymore, which really shows yet another incredible lack of political backbone. But I digress. Apparently, too many people found it unpalatable for him to be tried in NYC, which for myself I see as a very proper venue. It would show that we're not afraid to face our past demons.

(And of course, any event like this can't go without its mention of the most recent big, bad, scary terror plot- this time in the form of the "Underwear Bomber". Dianne Feinstein, a senator from California, stated-
"Without getting into classified details, I believe we should view the attempted Christmas Day plot as a continuation, not an end, of plots to strike the United States by al-Qaeda and its affiliates," (!!!!) "Moreover, New York City has been a high-priority target since at least the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. The trial of the most significant terrorist in custody would add to the threat."

I find it quite hilarious that people actually think this kid who couldn't even light the bomb right was actually part of al Qaeda. We're talking about the organization that managed to coordinate attacks on some of the most famous landmarks in the US, not to mention plan and execute simultaneous attacks on embassies thousands of miles apart. And this kid, who had a bomb that wouldn't even take out his own seat, is representative of their organization?! Yeah, sure.)

Anyway, back to Mohammed. A bunch of people have been protesting trying Mohammed in NYC- or anywhere on US soil. Why? Well, you never know- it just might be that American values might forever be undermined if we were to take this incredibly drastic step.

Of course, this move is not without precedent. Bush also tried al Qaeda and other terror suspects- in civilian courts. 87 terror suspects, in fact. And (just an interesting little tidbit), Bill O'Reilly (one of the most outspoken voices against trying Mohammed on US soil) vigorously defended Bush's decision to allow these trials to move forward!

Healthcare and Scott Brown

Scott Brown the Republican Liberal won Massachusets, and thereby ensured that a watered-down version of healthcare reform will get through. I say watered down because he does want socialized healthcare, but just doesn't think the current plan will adequately fix things.

I happen to agree with him on the latter point. But I also happen to think we don't need another plan. I think his idea that individual states should take care of healthcare (though he seems to only half-heartedly believe in that, at best) is a good one, not to mention Constitutional.

'Course, Obama has already decided his healthcare bill ain't doing so hot, and has switched to other issues, probably in an attempt to dispel murmurs against him in the Democratic phalanx. (I think his time could be better spent trying to get DOMA or the PATRIOT act repealed, like he promised.

Middle Eastern Issues

So we're toughening sanctions on Iran (and planning to launch missiles at them), Karzai is reaching out to the Taliban, an imam got shot by American troops in Kabul, and the Brits are doing investigations into Tony Blair's (Former Prime Minister of the UK) conduct concerning Iraq.

To start with Iran- I have to wonder what morality we're appealing to that gives us the right to impose sanctions on anyone, especially someone who is innocent. And Iran, to all appearances, is innocent. Ahmadinejad has repeatedly stated that they don't have nukes, have never had nukes, and have no intention of having nukes anytime in the near future.

And, lets face it, sanctions do very little except make third-world countries even worse off. Cuba, a country that has had sanctions against it for years (while we simultaneously do business with them) is no closer to getting rid of Communism now than it was ten years ago. The people are starving, but our lofty goals of ridding the world of evil...mm, well not much progress. That is all sanctions do, in any case- rid the average people of food and supplies they need to survive.

Karzai, our lovely puppet-President in Afghanistan is opening peace/"moving forward" talks. At least he's trying. In fact, the Taliban (with the interesting stipulation that they must be "moderate" Taliban) is invited to said talks.

And the Brits are investigating Tony Blair, their former Prime Minister. Why? Because of Iraq, and his ardent support of it (and his friend, Bushie). I applaud the Brits for their ability to do so. I think we ought to do the same thing to Bush, but that might just be me. Of course, we lack the British capability to detach ourselves from our emotional turmoil. It might not work here.

Corporate Campaign Contributions?

As most of you probably know, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a 2001 ban (Feingold-McCain) on corporate campaign contributions. I agree. Sort of, and let me explain.

I see nothing wrong with corporations exercising the first amendment right to free speech, which includes using money as leverage in a political campaign. But I also think that voters should be informed enough to watch where their prospective elected officials are getting their money.

Hence, if prospective Senator Ronald McDonald has gotten $200,000 in campaign donations from McDonalds, it might be wise for voters to wonder if there is some sort of ulterior connection between said Ronald McDonald and McDonalds, and decide their vote accordingly.

***

I can't help thinking there was something else I needed to cover. Oh well. I'm going to be doing a post on the President's State of the Union sometime this week...a week after he gave the speech. But it should be up here soon. :)

The 'Healthcare' Plan

“Obama’s health care plan will be written by a committee whose head says he doesn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn’t read it and whose members will be exempt from it, signed by a president who smokes, funded by a treasury chief who did not pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that is broke. What could possibly go wrong?”

(Unquiet Voice)

Current Events

Sorry I haven't posted lately- NaNoWriMo (National Novel Writing Month) '09 started, and I've been busy boosting my word count. ;)

I thought I'd just post and say- or type- a few words about some of the current events, as well as...well, a few rants I've been forced to hold in over the past few weeks.

Fort Hood Shooting

It's been all over the news. Such a crisis warrants all of us pulling together. But there's one thing that bothers me: the huge controversy over why the guy did it.

Hassan is, obviously, a Muslim. So what? Is that reason, like I heard some say, to completely ban Muslims from being in the armed forces. Uh...no. That's completely unconstitutional. Neither is this proof that his actions were jihadist.

From what I understand, Hassan was upset because he did not want to be deployed. He disagreed with the wars. So he was upset. He was angry. People have done much stupider things because they were angry. I do not think, with the current information I have, that Hassan's actions were motivated by religion. They were motivated by his own feelings of frustration and anger.

Healthcare

The 'healthcare' bill passed the House. They snuck it through at midnight. (Shows what cowards they are, if you ask me.)

Anyway- I have stated before that this bill is not about healthcare. It is about insurance, and giving a boost to them. The insurance companies will receive a boost because of this. That is why they are the No. 1 promoters of these bills.

Probably the one single reason I do not agree with this bill is because it will not fix a thing. It will only apply another temporary fix to the problem. Anything we do, at this point, would only add a temporary fix. We need to completely rethink our system- release ourselves from the narrow constraints of the insurance system, coupled with the medicare system, and fend for ourselves. Stop relying on third parties to do our work for us.

It will never cease to amaze how conservatives gripe about how the government is going to 'dictate care'- but they fail to realize that the insurance companies do just that. Insurance providers tie doctors and patients' hands, and keep them, in some cases, from getting care they should get.

And yet that is a better system? Give me a break!

The Constitutionalist in me does not want a universal system. But we need a fix, not a bandaid. I do not know if a universal system would fix things or not. But hey, it might be worth a try.

Healthcare- or Insurance?

It seems to be the prevailing notion among nearly everyone that the 'healthcare' bill currently in the Congress will institute some sort of 'universal system'.

Not quite. Of course, I'd have quite a bit more respect for Congress if they'd just go all the way if they absolutely must pass some sort of healthcare bill and just give us a universal system. It's not as if they listen to their constituency in any case.

The bill(s) currently being proposed will not create any kind of system at all; they will merely give more power to what we already have in place. The bills will mandate health insurance coverage for every man, woman, and child, in the US, and create a radically expanded Medicare-like program for those who cannot afford private health insurance (my family would be one of these families).

However, I do not believe this will solve the problem. The insurance companies are the problem, not the lack of government involvement. Insurance companies are corrupt from the bottom up. They deny coverage to many on a regular basis, sometimes for the most idiotic reasons. They jack rates on those who are 'at risk', and people still go bankrupt.

The current bills will only cause that corruption to spread wider, and will put yet more people at the mercy of the insurance companies. Furthermore, I believe some people will simply not get coverage, as they do now, because the fines imposed for the lack of insurance will be much less than getting the actual insurance.

So these bills will not be creating a 'universal system', and will not truly solve anything.

States & Medicare

Well, big surprise- the states aren't so hot on the idea of Medicare being 'reformed'. Just for the record 'reformed' is code for 'expanded'.

From the page-
"Under the Senate bill and a similar House proposal, a patchwork state-federal insurance program targeted mainly at children, pregnant women and disabled people would effectively become a Medicare for the poor, a health-care safety net for all people with an annual income below $14,404."

I applaud wanting to make sure poor people are able to get good healthcare. I know that sometimes I seem to be some sort of cold, calloused jerk who only cares about her money. That might be true, to a limited extent- I love money as much as the next person.

But it is wrong that states are being required to spend more money, even as they are going as bankrupt as our federal government.

State governments have been cutting spending anywhere they can. That's a good idea- it's something our federal government should have done long ago. As I've said before- it's not smart to spend trillions of dollars when you're trillions of dollars in the hole.

When you've dug yourself into a hole over your head, stop digging.

We have to be making compromises here. What do we want more- healthcare or education? Money or bankruptcy? Because sad to say, that's the point we're at. We cannot have the best of both worlds. It will no longer work.

Smoking Bans

Let me name you one thing that's absolutely ludicrous- smoking bans.

"But smoking is dangerous! Haven't you ever heard of the dangers of second-hand smoking?! It can give you lung cancer!"

Yeah. And that asphalt truck driving five miles an hour down the road in front of me won't do a thing to harm my lungs. That diesel-guzzling, exhaust-belching truck won't do a single thing to my lungs.

Okay. I see the logic we're operating on now.

Alice in Wonderland logic. Ain't it fun?

Lots of people operate on this logic. Like the New York City health committee, seeking to ban smoking. Outdoors.

Okay.

Heaven help us if some smoke were to get into the atmosphere. I mean, it might tip the delicate balance between global warming and global alrightness and global cooling, sending us into a catastrophe of unknown proportions, making the world hotter than even we can send it at an astronomically high rate, even higher than now, even though the effects right now are really negligible, but besides that, we might get lung cancer cuz dont'cha know only SHS gives you lung cancer, and it's not at all due to the smell coming off that tar over there!!

Okay. I see how this works.

The 10th and Baloney

Two things for this wonderful, discerning gentleman:

Number one- The argument of 'general welfare' is viable, but doesn't hold up. It says 'general welfare', not 'individual welfare'. Things like social security, medicare, and universal healthcare are not for general welfare, they are for individual welfare.

Number two- He ignores the rest of article one. It does not give the power to give universal healthcare to the nation to Congress anywhere. Sorry.

One more thing- in the words of my mother- "Baloney?! You're a bunch of baloney, you dweeb!"

(You gotta love my mom... :P Or at least, I do. )

The Executive Powers

With the recent things going on, I thought it would be worth it to take a peek at the powers the executive branch holds.

From the US Constitution-
Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

In light of this, some of the things going are recently are pretty interesting. Like President Obama's speech lately, outlining policy for Congress, vs. the 'recommendation' that is provided for in the Constitution.

Or setting rules for Wall Street.

Or the 'Obama Stimulus Plan'.

Or his 'preventive detention' plan.

Or the plethora of other things that Obama has said and done. You only have to read his book to see that he has an overinflated idea of his own power.

The Obama administration doesn't measure up. (Or should that be 'down'?)

Healthcare Article

Has anyone else read this article by Michael Connelly? It is a well-written article, if a bit lacking in citation for his allegations against the disputed healthcare reform bill. Some of his conclusions are also a bit lacking, in my opinion.

"This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures."

That was taken care of quite well by the PATRIOT act- which was some eight years ago during the reign of Bush. There is nothing here that has not already been violated, years ago. Also, this charge lacks citation. This may be broadly implied throughout the bill, but if some such thing as a database for our personal information (which is already contained in an insurance building, if you have ins., and at the government, if you use Medicaid, anyway) exists, there will be a section one could cite.

I will agree that this bill, no matter its individual points, has much too broad a power grab focus by Congress. It inordinately adds to the power given to that body and to the executive branch.

But we must face the fact that we have a problem with our healthcare system. No amount of ignoring this will make it go away. At least our lawmakers are attempting to fix the problem. The way to get them to change it differently is not to resort to outright fabrication. It is to approach them in a credible manner and give them your ideas. Make it clear that your vote depends on their reception of your ideas.

Resorting to supposition and fabrication does not make our cause look credible. It makes it look worse. It makes us look like desperate nobodies who are insisting on making Obama look bad, no matter what he does. That is not a good thing. The kind of rabid hate that I see filling talk shows like The Savage Nation and Hannity & Colmes is astounding. And it is all aimed towards Obama. Why? He is a democrat, and has Communist leanings. Both are true, but do not justify the acrimony I see.

That is not the way to accomplish our goals. The way to accomplish our goals is through earnest, sincere, truthful debate and discussion, not through mindless vitriol and accusations.

This has turned into a rant against the entirety of the anti-healthcare crowd. :P

Anyway, back to our subject- I would more than happy to believe anything bad about this bill. But I cannot when the only thing I have heard posed against it are baseless, unverified rumors. I cannot take someone's word for it. I must see for myself. It is perhaps a failing of mine, but it is important to me that I be able to verify what I am told. (It's the same reason I read The Audacity of Hope, in case you were wondering. ;) )

If anyone could point me towards the individual parts of HR 3200 that carry out some of the accusations against it, it would be greatly appreciated.

9/9/09 Healthcare Speech

As many of you know, President Obama gave a speech concerning the proposed healthcare reform. Besides the many flaws I see in the actual bill, there were also a couple of interesting things in the speech.

Right off the bat, I see some things I don't like about Obama's conclusions. Need I say this again? It is not the government's job to make sure companies can get credit and capital. I see nothing about that in the Constitution. I do see something about how Congress is supposed to regulate the value of our money, but other than that, not much- and it is certainly not the President's job to do so!! This proposed healthcare plan- and what Obama summarily proposed in his speech- is so outside the bounds of Presidential and Congressional power, that it's not even funny.

I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure we're still quite a bit aways from the 'brink'- and we're on the wrong side of things. I know, I know- "Obama can't fix eight years of damage in six months!" Why not? He promised he would. I merely want him to stand up for what he said. Is that so terrible? People are still losing jobs at a fantastic rate. Our unemployment rate hit 9.6 in August. That's up significantly from what it was in 2008! (Before the bailouts started, by the way.)

The problem is not, I think, with a lack of governmental oversight. The problem is that the insurance companies are messing the people of America over, and driving costs up, and the people are more than happy to let them. The solution is not governmental power-grabbing, but education of the American people.

"We are the only democracy -- the only advanced democracy on Earth -- the only wealthy nation -- that allows such hardship for millions of its people."

Firstly- we're not a democracy. We're a Constitutional Republic. The only Constitutional Republic, might I add, on the face of the planet. Hence, we are the only one that supposedly lets that happen. Which we don't. Like I said before, the problem is not lack of governmental oversight; it is a lack of objective thinking and education by the American people.

I think one of the reasons healthcare costs, collectively, are so high in the US is because people here go into the doctor for the smallest things, and then get the worst-case scenario treatment for it. People go into the doctor because they have a simple stopped-up nose, or a fever, and get high-falutin' medication for it. The costs for this kind of thing go into the averages, and drive it up.

I'll tell you a major reason people can't start a business, and I'll give you a hint- it doesn't have a single thing to do with the insurance companies. It has to do with the insanity of the government regulations that are imposed on people that want to start up a business. Business owners have to pay hundreds of dollars simply to hire an employee. They have to pay yet more to get licensed, then to keep on going. It's crazy, and that is the reason they are going under, not because healthcare costs so much. I love how Obama professes to want to help small business when in fact, the regulations he is proposing will do more to stop small business than to help it grow. The only thing these regulations help is the government's pocketbook.

Obama did make an ardent effort in his speech to smooth out some of the misconceptions about the bill, including the so-called 'death panels', the allegation that the bill will provide for illegal immigrants, and that people will be forced to change insurance.

A little 'side-note' here- why is healthcare considered a right? I thought it was one of those things that if you want it, you've got to foot the bill. So why is it considered a right?

At this point in the speech, one of the Congressmen called out "You lie!" to President Obama as he was talking about whether or no illegals would get coverage. (They will not, for the record. Page 143, section 246 of HR 3200.) I personally think this was waayyy over the top- President Obama is still our President, no matter your personal feelings on the subject, and should be afforded the proper amount of respect due that position. (President Obama handled this with quite a bit of grace, which was quite exemplary on his part.) For the record, Rep. Wilson did apologize to President Obama (quite properly), and the President accepted the apology with a great deal of tact.

Now then. Obama got into the financial side of this plan a little later on. It was, needless to say, rather interesting. I quote in the interest of accuracy.
"And here's what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits -- either now or in the future."
"And they'd be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won't be."

Oh okay. I see now- we don't want any more of those nasty deficits hanging over our heads. It's so wonderful you thought of that before the stimulus plan.

And if the taxpayer is not going to be paying for this, then who is? We're going to be using governmental funds to pay for the public option. If not the taxpayer, then who? I wasn't aware the government could pluck money out of thin air. No matter where you get the money- from individuals, from companies, you're still getting it from taxpayers, and you're still taking away money that rightfully belongs to someone else.

Period.

All in all, a nice speech. If he weren't trying to force his policy on Congress. The President is not the policy maker, that would be Congress. Constitutionally, the President can suggest things he wants Congress to do; he cannot tell them what to do.
"He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient"

'Home Visits'- for Vaccines

Title III, subtitle C of the Senate healthcare reform bill summary talks about immunizations. And this is what it says.

Immunizations: Under this program, CDC will provide grants to states to improve immunization coverage of children, adolescents, and adults through the use of evidence-based interventions. States may use funds to implement interventions that are recommended by the Community Preventive Services Task Force, such as reminders or recalls for patients or providers, or home visits. Reauthorizes the Immunization Program in Section 317 of the Public Health Service Act. [§ 324]

Nice.

So, what exactly will these 'home visits' consist of? Pressuring people to 'improve coverage' of their children by pumping yet more harmful chemicals into their little bodies?

Healthcare Reform '09

Don't you just love the epic-sounding title?!

This is probably going to be short. I am just going to present what I think of what I have heard about the healthcare plan that is currently being foisted on the American people by an overeager president and his cronies.

1) I do not think our situation is as dire as many people would like us to believe. The frantic "46,000,000 people without healthcare" isn't as bad as Mrs. Clinton likes it to sound. Because, after all, the 46,000,000 are just people without insurance. Counted in that 46,000,000 are illegal immigrants, the rich, and those that just don't need it. Just because one does not have insurance does not mean that one cannot get healthcare- you can, and you will if you need it.

2) I do not think we need coverage for everyday visits. A well visit? No coverage needed. A checkup? No coverage needed. An MRI? Coverage needed. Brain surgery? Coverage needed. It should be subjective to the case. But simple, everyday visits do not need coverage.


3) I do, however, think alternative medicines should be covered. For instance, a midwife should be covered in the same way an OB is covered. A chiropractor should be covered in the same way an intensive therapist is covered. There are many people who like alternative medicine, and they should be covered.

4) The government should have no control over my healthcare. I have no desire to have treatment denied for my foot because I smoke.

I admit that our current system is broken. I concede that the insurance companies are corrupt, and something needs to be done about it. But that something is not that the government get involved yet more. What is needed is that the American people wake up and stop being duped.

Current News

So, since there are so many issues I could cover today, I'm going to just go down the list, and deal with all of them. First up is... *drumroll*

The Swine Flu *scary music*

Yes, the swine flu- that scary pandemic that is sweeping the globe! Or, at least...parts of it.

The swine flu, which hundreds of people are dying from!! Or, nine people.

But, it will reach truly epidemic dimensions in mere weeks!!

Uh-huh. More scare tactics and diversionary politics on your plate, anyone? It's ridiculous. Yes, only nine people have died, eight of them in Mexico, and one in Texas. There have only been 265 confirmed cases all over the globe, 159 of them in Mexico. 3,964 are suspected to have it.

That out of, what, 6 and a half billion people in the world?

Yeah, this is a mass epidemic! Panic and mayhem! We can't treat the flu!! You must get vaccines! Let's forget the fact that the 'swine flu' behaves just like regular flu, and can be treated with two drugs: oseltamivir and zanamivir.

So what are we all worried about? Keep your hands washed, and eventually this 'epidemic' will go away, just like the others.

Terror and Torture *yet more scary music*

Yeah, cuz dontcha' know that those poor terrorists might get heebie-jeebies if we put a caterpillar in their confinement box?! And these brutal interrogation techniques are outlined in graphic, horrifying detail in a series of memos!! Help us!

Yeah. Okay. Let's forget the fact that what we constitute as 'torture'...the terrorists probably do just for the fun of it.

Here is a taste of the 'torture' techniques the CIA has been applying:

1. Walling, in which the terrorist is slammed into a flexible wall that rebounds. A hood or towel is rolled up and placed around his neck to prevent whiplash. The wall doesn't hurt him, simply induces a loud noise that might startle him.
2. The 'facial hold' is simple- the interrogator puts a hand on either side of the person's head, and holds their head immobile.
3. Facial slap, or insult slap. The interrogator lightly slaps the person's face with slightly spread fingers on their cheek. What is the outcome of this? The interrogator 'invades the individual's personal space'.
4. Confinement- usually in a small box of varying size. One allows the restrained person to stand up/sit down at will, the other allows only for sitting. The Justice Department lawyers wouldn't let the interrogators put a caterpillar in the box.
5. Wall standing- the individual is made to stand four or five feet from the wall, with his fingers resting on the wall.
6. Different stress positions, including sitting down flat on their bottom with their arms in the air, and on knees, leaning back at a 45 degree angle.
7. Sleep deprivation.
8. Waterboarding. A very popular sport amongst thrill seeking teenagers (according to my research), the person is bound securely to a bench or table. They're blindfolded. Water is put on the cloth, and they inch it down until it's over the nose/mouth. They continue to pour water on it for 20-40 seconds, inducing a feeling of drowning.
9. Might I add that during all of these, a doctor and medical staff was always ready to intervene should something really serious happen to the 'patient'.

And those things are torture? Wow. Let me deal with these one by one.

1. Walling sounds kind of fun, actually. Sort of like one of those weird rides at Six Flags. And much gentler, by the way.
2. My mom does that to us all the time. Oh no! Help! She's torturing meeee!!!
3. This is one of those hysterical laughing moments. Seriously. A slap that doesn't even induce pain is 'torture'? Give me a break.
4. Confinement box...well, at least it isn't like the Iron Maiden. Or one of those boxes Russians used to torture Christians. That is torture.
5. Oh no!! The caterpillar is going to get meeee!!
6. Wall standing? Hmm...monotonous, certainly, and might make your muscles sore.Stress positions? Ha. My sensei makes us do harder things. You try to stay in a split for two minutes.
7. Sleep deprivation? I have a nice, natural way they could do that- just give them a newborn baby. Bwahaha.
8. Waterboarding- while certainly not pleasant- isn't exactly the worst thing you can do to somebody. Believe me.

Here is a link to the memos themselves. Have fun. :)

Chrysler Bankruptcy

Yes, that's right. Despite the money our Spender-In-Chief has pumped into Detroit, Chrysler is declaring bankruptcy.

Ever the optomist, Obama is pumping more money into them.

I could scream.