The Price of Universal Coverage

The passage of Obamacare has created the largest expansion of the Federal government in over four decades. All the budgetary gimmicks in the world (like counting 10 years of revenue for 6 years of spending) cannot obscure the probable cost of this new middle class entitlement--in the trillions of dollars.

In the coming months there will be great debate over the costs of implementing the new program. Some will argue it will be revenue neutral -a laudable claim. Others will tout the boon to the economy, similarly ridiculous. The discussion will likely boil down to rationalizing some unimaginable sum and ascribe to it some sort of value benefit analysis in defense of this gargantuan expansion of federal control. Irrelevant.

Simply put, the fiscal cost is a secondary matter. Even if Americans did not need to contribute a single dime to Universal Health care, the cost of it would still be too high. What is it that we cede to the government in exchange for Universal Coverage? We surrender liberty and freedom of choice in exchange for the promise of a compassionate government. We are being asked to place our futures in the hands of an unseen bureaucrat. We are asked to accept that the warm embrace of the federal noose wrapped around our necks will save us in our fall from the tree of liberty.

For my part, I say that you may keep your Universal Coverage as I prefer liberty. Let my cries for liberty resonate against the cacophonous advance of the bloated Progressive agenda. There is nothing that they can offer me in exchange for my liberty. Freedom is far too precious to be traded away for a handful of empty promises.

Health Care Criminals

Earlier this month, HR 3962 "The Affordable Health Care Act" narrowly passed in the House by a vote of 220 -215. By a slim margin of five votes, the United States Congress moved one step closer to passing a sweeping national health care law. In this bill, maintaining health insurance coverage is compulsory. Failure to comply may result in fine and imprisonment.

Sounds incredible? Agreed. Yet it's true. A letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation, JCT, confirmed that failure to comply with the personal mandate to purchase health insurance may result in an all expenses paid stay at a Federal facility; i.e., prison.

Review a copy of the letter here.

Essentially, the proposed law requires individuals to carry "acceptable" insurance or face an increased tax liability of 2.5% of their annual income. This new liability is added to your income tax bill. If you fail to have personal insurance, you must pay the fine. You do not have the right to opt out of paying for your own insurance. If you decide to pay the fine instead of carrying personal insurance, you are paying the government for insurance without the benefits of receiving the coverage. In fact, proponents of this tax justify it as a means to pay for those who remain uninsured. The only way that an individual can opt out of this government mandate, is by choosing not to pay the additional fine at the end of the year.

Admittedly, there is no provision that states if you do not have health insurance you will go to jail. However, you cannot opt out of the mandate unless you fail to pay the additional taxes. The United States tax code is quite clear on the issue of tax evasion. According to the letter from the JCT:

"If the Government determines the taxpayer's unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties may apply"

Section 7203 -misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment for up to one year.

Section 7201- felony willful evasion to pay is punishable by a fine up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment up to 5 years.

So, if you do not carry acceptable health care coverage, you must pay a fine. This fine, is in effect, a premium for the government health care. Either way you will be purchasing health insurance unless you opt out of paying the additional tax added to you income tax liability. If you don't pay your full tax liability you face civil and criminal penalties.

Does this mean that if you don't have health care coverage you will go to jail? Of course not. However, it does mean that if you do not have acceptable coverage you will be coerced to pay for coverage or you face the specter of fine and imprisonment. HR 3962 as Amended, makes it a the right of the federal government to imprison a citizen for not buying insurance.

The bottom line is, if you don't carry a federally approved form of insurance, the government has many options to nudge you into compliance, not the least of which a stint in a federal prison.

Joe Wilson Formally Rebuked By House

In a rare resolution of disapproval, the House of Representatives voted to formally rebuke Rep. Joe Wilson (R) SC for his outburst of "you lie" during President Obama's address last week. In a vote largely along party lines, the historic vote cast Wilson as the first Congressman in history to be admonished for his criticism of the President from within the House Chambers.

I would be the first to agree that Rep. Wilson broke decorum by speaking out during the President's speech. I believe that the Office of the President should be respected no matter who resides in the Oval Office. Wilson telephoned the White House and apologized for his outburst the day after the address.

In an effort to bring some civility back to the legislative process, Chairwoman Louise M. Slaughter of the House Rules Committee has published an updated set of rules governing the proper manner in which the President may be addressed.

Under section 370 of the House Rules and Manual it has been held that a Member could:

• refer to the government as “something hated, something oppressive.”
• refer to the President as “using legislative or judicial pork.”
• refer to a Presidential message as a “disgrace to the country.”
• refer to unnamed officials as “our half-baked nitwits handling foreign affairs.”

Likewise, it has been held that a member could not:

• call the President a “liar.”
• call the President a “hypocrite.”
• describe the President’s veto of a bill as “cowardly.”
• charge that the President has been “intellectually dishonest.”
• refer to the President as “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.”
• refer to alleged “sexual misconduct on the President’s part.”

Absolutely extraordinary. During floor debate to override Bush's veto of the SCHIP (Children's Health Insurance) legislation, Rep. Pete Stark (D) CA did more than utter the mere two words that Rep. Joe Wilson has been excoriated over. Where was the universal cry for civility and decorum? Republicans sought to censure Stark over those remarks. The resolution failed.

I enjoy a lively debate. I think that decorum should always be used in civil discourse and that passionate speech be vigorously encouraged. The new updated rules of discourse, in light of the inaction taken against Rep. Stark (D) CA, calls into the question whether or not the House is ushering in an Orwellian concept of free speech: Freedom of speech is upheld so long as such speech freely agrees with our enlightened point of view. Instead of issuing a new standard delineating what exact words can be uttered on the floor of the House in order to refine debate and discourse, our fine Representatives need to look no further than the following:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Quite simple. If only more of our representatives actually understood the Constitution.

Disinformation and Distortion in the Health Care Debate

In his address last night to the the nation on the need for health care reform, President Obama sought to dispel the myriad of myth and distortion swirling around in the morass of vitriolic debate simmering throughout the land. He addressed the criticisms and categorically denied the validity of the bogus claims being made to kill the reform at all costs.

In his first point, Obama clearly and categorically refuted one of the primary claims that the proposed reform is a trojan horse for Universal Single Payer Coverage.

• "Here are the details that every American needs to know about this plan. First, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, or Medicare, or Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. (Applause.) Let me repeat this: Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have."

Unfortunately, there is language in the plan that precisely alters the type coverage and ultimately the doctor that you will be permitted to use. In HR 3200 Section 102, titled Protecting the Choice To Keep Current Coverage it states:

• (1) Limitation of New Enrollment (A) Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.
• (2) Limitation On Changes and Terms in Conditions Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.

Essentially, Section 102 Paragraph 1 says that no new private insurance policies will be allowed to be written after the effective date of the legislation. Let me repeat this: no new policies will be written. So if you don't yet have coverage, then you will not be able to opt for private insurance, instead you will be required to join the Government Option.

Secondly, Section 102 Paragraph 2 says that there can be no changes to existing policies. In other words, you cannot switch to a new job and keep your employer provided private insurance. A new job means that you will go onto the government system. Also, the insurance company cannot raise or lower premiums on your policy because this would trigger your enrollment in the Government Option.

Let's recap. Section 102 states that there can be no new policies written and that there can be no changes to existing policies. Insurance companies will be required to function with built-in price controls against a government system that is not only subsidized by the taxpayer but will never have to run profitably to stay in business. If no new policies can be written, there is no incentive for insurance companies to stay in business when faced with a relentless reduction in market share.

HR 3200 is specifically designed to asphyxiate the private insurance industry making it impossible to provide coverage in order to drive Americans onto the government system. So when President Obama said that "nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have," what he means to say is that "nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have, for now".

http://thomas.loc.gov/

Presidential Address on Health Care Reform

Tonight, the President gave a much anticipated address to a joint session of Congress laying out his case for Health Care Reform. I listened to him carefully and came away with a renewed sense of optimism in the American political process. He outlined the main tenets of his reforms. He wants to insure the uninsured. He wants to stabilize the insurance for those that already have coverage by guaranteeing that individuals cannot be dropped or denied coverage for prior medical conditions. He intends to lower costs by allowing the public insurance option to compete with private insurance companies through a Health Care Exchange. He vows to protect Medicare and Medicaid by reducing costs and making the system more efficient. These are all ideas that have great merit.

The President projected the cost for this health reform program to be $900 Billion over the next ten years. Let's assume that this figure is accurate. The President contends that the entire cost of this new program can be mostly funded through the savings derived from eliminating the waste and fraud from Medicare, Medicaid and the V.A. Therefore, in order to fund the President's Health Care Reform as projected, approximately $90 Billion must be generated annually as a result of simultaneously reforming existing government medical programs.

I have a unique proposal. Instead of reforming the entire US health care system at once, prove the efficiency of the proposed reforms by first addressing Medicare, Medicaid and the V.A. Reforming these existing programs should generate $90 Billion per year, as per the President's projections. Why not use these as pilot program and over a four period prove that you can save $360 Billion? That sort of extraordinary reform would place a down payment not only on the proposed health care reform costs but also serve to hedge against the credibility deficit faced by this administration.

Presidential adddress to the Children

The political motivation behind the President’s address to the school children is frightening. No less than a full fledged attempt to dislodge the parents as the ultimate authority in the home, the Obama administration is following a well worn strategy. Capture the youth and the future is at hand:

“When an opponent declares, “I will not come over to your side,” I calmly say, “Your child belongs to us already… What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.”

Words spoken by a more infamous Socialist, Adolf Hitler.

Remember Honduras

In late June a military coup ousted President Manuel Zelaya of Honduras and installed an interim government. Your first reaction might be to chalk this up to yet another banana republic run amok swapping one colonel with shinny glasses for another two-bit dictator dressed in the drab green uniform. You would be wrong to do so.

President Obama came to the defense of the ousted Honduran President and hoped to offer support for Zelaya's return to power. In a July 7, 2009 article on ABC News Jake Tapper reported on Obama's explanation for his support of Zelaya.

“America supports now the restoration of the democratically-elected President of Honduras, even though he has strongly opposed American policies,” the president told graduate students at the commencement ceremony of Moscow’s New Economic School. “We do so not because we agree with him. We do so because we respect the universal principle that people should choose their own leaders, whether they are leaders we agree with or not. " -President Obama

Jake Tapper went on to clarify the circumstances surrounding Zelaya's removal.

"The military removal of Zelaya as president – and the appointment of Roberto Micheletti as interim President by the Honduran legislature – came after Zelaya attempted to rewrite his nation’s constitution to end term limits to continue his rule, despite the fact that term limits in the constitution is one of eight “firm articles” that cannot be changed. -Jake Tapper

After the Honduran Legislature refused to call a constitutional convention to rewrite the constitution, Zelaya called for a referendum to do so, which the Honduran Supreme Court and Attorney General declared unconstitutional. Zelaya, allied with leftist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez , fired top military commander Romeo Vásquez Velásquez for refusing to carry out the referendum. Every branch of government sided against Zelaya and Congress began discussing impeachment proceedings. Acting on orders from the Honduran Supreme Court, soldiers arrested Zelaya on June 28 and sent him into exile in Costa Rica." -Jake Tapper

So let's parse Obama's statement of support for the ousted Zelaya in the light of the facts.

“America supports now the restoration of the democratically-elected President of Honduras, even though he has strongly opposed American policies,”-President Obama. What Obama really seems to be saying is that once a person is democratically elected, he or she is forever entitled to hold that office. The legislature, Supreme Court and the Military of Honduras rejected Zelaya's bid to extend his rule by altering that nation's constitution. In essence, Zelaya sought to change the mechanics of the system to suit his political ambitions. It should be noted that when the mechanisms for changing the constitution failed Zelaya, he partnered with the Communist dictator Hugo Chavez of Venezuela to conduct a referendum that the Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional. Clearly, Zelaya has no legitimacy. So why would Obama support an ousted president bent on assuming tyrannical control of Honduras?

Simple. I believe Barack Obama to be a Marxist. I think that he supports the restoration of Manuel Zelaya not only because they share the same ideology, but also a philosophical aversion for the constitutional restrictions on executive authority. Manuel Zelaya has worked against his own constitution, going so far as enlisting the foreign interference of the government of Hugo Chavez to ensconce himself in power in defiance of the rule of law. President Obama has great disdain for the US Constitution. There is little doubt that this imperious President will seek to bend our Constitution until it is configured into something more pliable and forgiving to his aspirations. Obama wants to legitimize Zelaya's grab for power as a precursor to his own gambit against the Constitution he holds in such disregard. He will invoke the true "will of the people" and claim moral legitimacy through his electoral victory of once upon a time. If we are not careful and ever vigilant, we might be entering the sort of people's democracy that shapes the political landscape of Venezuela and Cuba, where presidents are re-elected to office for life.