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.

Imperial Presidency

Over the past few months I have noticed an interesting trend in President Obama's political rhetoric. Whenever his administration tries to push through a contentious piece of legislation, or begins to run up against any opposition, Obama tries to sweep away all discourse by invoking the November elections as a mandate for his policies. It is almost as if he means to say that after his election, there is no further need for discussion or debate.

The way I see it, the debate is never over. The First Amendment to the Constitution exists to protect contentious speech. Not polite speech or politically correct speech, but the very speech that is irritating and offensive to those with a divergent point of view.

The election of Barack Obama as President allows him to bring his policies and viewpoint to the forefront for debate and discussion. So that as Americans, we can look at his agenda and decide, on each issue, whether or not we agree with the policy.

The November election results does not give the President carte blanche to proceed unchecked and unchallenged. He is the President of the United States. He should keep that in mind every time he says that "he is bringing the change that Americans voted for". Mr. President, keep in mind that what we voted for was for a fresh point of view, for a new point of departure for discussion on each and every issue that lies ahead. Last year we elected the 44th President of the United States, not it's first emperor.

The Spark of Politics

Politics. Most of you know that I am a conservative thinker. No matter which side of the political spectrum that you hail from, I always insist that there must be an honest expression of ideas and arguments. I always appreciate a vigorous discussion. We may not always agree, but I will defend my position openly and fairly. The open exchange of countervailing points of view is the crux of a democratic republic.

I openly admit that I oppose HR 3200 America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. I do so for a host of reasons that I will reserve for a latter time. However, my primary motive for writing is to expose the deceitful tactics of the Obama Administration in trying to pass HR 3200.

This deceit can be best expressed by the administration's own attempts to refute that HR 3200 is a Trojan Horse for a Single Payer System. Click on the link below for the three minute rebuttal from the White House Health Reform Communications Office. In this video, http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things , Linda Douglas explains her task of controlling the disinformation swirling around HR 3200.

However, her rebuttal is a response to a video shown on breitbart.tv, which was allegedly cobbled together, taken out of context to distort the President's views on Universal Health Care. Here is that video : http://www.breitbart.tv/uncovered-video-obama-explains-how-his-health-care-plan-will-eliminate-private-insurance/

Here is an uncut, unedited 45 second video of President Obama giving a speech at an AFL-CIO Union conference:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE&feature=related

Having seen these three videos, you can decide for yourself whether or not Obama supports a Single Payer System. You can also decide whether or not the administration is waging a campaign of disinformation.

A distorted argument predicated on bias and deceit is untenable. The truth does not need a majority to triumph. Demand an honest debate about HR 3200 from your representatives. Please call and let em know what you think.

The Quiet Radical. Part 1

During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama presented himself a moderate centrist to the American people. He courted the middle class sounding very much like a financial conservative, promising tax cuts for 95% of the electorate. Many took him prima facie. In fact, a few well-known conservative pundits applauded Obama’s intellect and ensured that he would govern as a centrist. That was 9 months ago.

Lately, there has been a rising tide of critics asserting that the Obama Administration’s policies are fundamentally rooted in Socialism. The President is endeavoring to remake America into something not yet fully disclosed or realized. The President’s actions have led to the most unprecedented expansion of federal power in the history of the United States. The U.S. government is now the primary stockholder in General Motors. It has a minority stock position in Chrysler as well. After infusing $6.6 Billion into Chrysler’s bankruptcy proceedings, the government awarded 55% of the stock to the Retired Autoworkers Union. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, both Government Sponsored Enterprises, own the majority of home mortgages in the United States. In a few short months, we have nationalized the banking, mortgage and automotive industries. The government’s control into the private financial sector is growing at an alarming rate.

There are many Americans who believe that there is something more sinister at play than just politics as usual. You can see the discontent manifesting itself at town hall meetings all across the land. Americans are demanding to be heard and their opposition to socialized universal health care is nothing less than the defense of individual liberty and freedom.

In the United States, the vast majority of the electorate unilaterally rejects the politics of Marxism and Socialism. The American people have been conditioned to react negatively to the notion that a centrally controlled economy can create social and economic justice for all its citizens through the redistribution of wealth. Marxism defines the struggles of class warfare and seeks to remedy the inequities of circumstance through governmental policies and institution. The Marxist notion of a socialist government can be surmised with the well-known phrase, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”. Socialism has been proven on the world stage to be a dismal failure. As such, Marxism must be disguised.

By it’s very definition, Marxism is diametrically opposed to Capitalism. In his book, Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinky wrote:

A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage -- the political paradise of communism.

For most Americans, a Marxist is a radical with an extreme agenda whose aim is to dismantle and destroy the capitalist system and displace it with a centrally controlled economy. The American people reject this radicalism and rightfully so. Is Barack Obama really a Marxist?

Barack Obama is articulate, personable and very intelligent. He is engaging, thoughtful and compassionate. These are hardly the qualities of a radical Marxist whose aim is too destroy the fundamental underpinnings of American society. Obama, after all, loves the country and is simply too mainstream America to be a radical Marxist.

Still the charges persist in the never-ending onslaught of accusations and criticisms from conservatives and independents alike. They berate Obama’s past as a community organizer in Chicago. What exactly is a community organizer and what is his purpose? To answer this question, we refer to Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals where he writes, “From the moment the organizer enters a community he lives, dreams... only one thing and that is to build the mass power base of what he calls the army.”

Alinsky goes on to describe the function of the organizer, “The first step in community organization is community disorganization. An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent… agitate to the point of conflict”. By it’s very definition, a community organizer seeks to dismantle and destroy their communities to make room for the new organization of the society.

Despite the overwhelming evidence, many Americans dismiss the claim that Barack Obama is an avowed leftist bent on radical, sweeping change. Classified as cable chatter, the critics’ revelation of Obama’s far left ideology is often met with indignant surprise. A denial fueled by the belief that it is simply impossible for Obama to be as radical as it is claimed. Yet, his entire economic policy is predicated on the acceptance of the inherent inequity of the capitalist system. The wealthiest Americans should pay more because they have more. The poor should be given more, in the forms of tax credits and programs, because they have less. Even those that do not earn enough to actually pay taxes should be given a tax rebate in the name of fairness. That is compassion. That is social justice. What can be more American? It is clear that the basis of Obama’s economic theories have their roots in the prime axiom of Marxism: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

Obama is an exceptionally gifted politician. He seeks to elevate political discourse and society to new heights, promising to end divisiveness. Yet, when we listen to his own words on taxes, he tells us that 95% of the American people will receive tax cuts; thus, leaving the remaining 5% to shoulder their fair share of the burden. How can anyone possibly argue that this tax policy is radical? Consider this. Even if taken at face value, that only 5% of the wealthiest Americans would be required to pay more taxes under his plan, this is an obvious attempt to pit one economic class against another. Class envy and warfare are primary concerns of Marxist ideology.

The Quiet Radical. Part 2

While a state senator in Illinois, Barack Obama gave an interview to a local radio station in which he defined the responsibilities of government. He said, “Generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you. It says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the state government or the federal government must do on your behalf.” In his view, the role of government is to provide fairness of opportunity for the American people through an institutionalized redress of grievances.

Furthermore, he lamented that “The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth…and more basic issues of political and economic justice in the society.” Here Obama suggests that the Supreme Court should engage in making policy on behalf of the American people. Considering that Obama is a Constitutional scholar, it seems odd that he would ignore the Supreme Court’s specifically defined role as the judiciary branch of the government. In essence, this is a radical re-interpretation of the separation of powers favoring a legislative role for the high court.

Deceit has always been the spark of politics. Radical change, by its very nature, is far too unsavory and extreme to be embraced publicly. How then, does Marxism wrest power from the people and consolidate control over liberty? How do you move an electorate against its own best interest towards a system of government that has enslaved hundreds of millions of people? Deceit.

If you believe that Barack Obama is a moderate and by definition incapable of being a Marxist, consider that radicalism must always disguise its true nature. The father of modern American radicalism, Saul Alinsky, authored the definitive manifesto instructing radicals how to make their views more palpable to the electorate. He taught that “True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within”.

Barack Obama is articulate, personable and very intelligent. He is engaging, thoughtful and compassionate. These are hardly the qualities of a radical Marxist whose aim is too destroy the fundamental underpinnings of American society.

Barack Obama is a student of the Alinsky Method. In fact, Obama taught the Alinsky Method in workshops for community organizers and activists.

"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage." When Obama mocks the assertion he is a socialist, he ridicules the possibility to marginalize his critics and relegate the very notion to absurdity.

When Obama rails against the failed economic policies of the last eight years as the tired ideology of the past, he really wants you to focus on economic recession of the present. When Obama says that he wants to find “people who have life experience and they understand, what it means to be on the outside…” to populate the Supreme Court, he is advocating a fundamental change in the structure of government. He wants to reshape the separation of powers by expanding the Supreme Court’s authority into policy making on issues of social and economic justice.

Examine the rules as set forth by Saul Alinsky for radical change. Then consider the meteoric rise to power of Barack Obama. Consider his worldview, his training and education. Consider his experience as a community organizer as defined by Obama himself. Consider the careful expression of class warfare in the well-crafted rhetoric of his speeches.

In his book, Audacity of Hope, Obama wrote that he sought out the company of Marxist professors. Consider the people that have shaped his worldview. Consider Reverend Wright’s fiery Black Liberation theology with its origins in Marxism and obvious hatred for the current social construct. Consider William Ayers, a professed Communist and former terrorist, who recently celebrated Venezuelan Dictator Hugo Chavez’ anti-capitalist education reforms. Ayers, who works tirelessly to undermine capitalism and promote communist theory in academia, served with Obama on the Annenberg Foundation board to reform elementary and secondary school systems. Consider Bernadine Dohrn, one of the founding members of the domestic terrorist group, the Weather Underground, who was the principal signatory of a declaration of war against the United States government in 1970. Dohrn clearly supported communist ideology when she wrote: “ We are building a communist organization to be part of the forces which build a revolutionary communist party to lead the working class to seize power and build socialism”. Dohrn is a known associate of Obama who along with her husband, William Ayers, helped launch his political career in Chicago.

“True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within”. –Saul Alinsky.

The story of Barack Obama is a bit older than you might think. You can find his tale in one of Aesop’s better known fables:

A Wolf found great difficulty in getting at the sheep owing to the vigilance of the shepherd and his dogs. But one day it found the skin of a sheep that had been flayed and thrown aside, so it put it on over its own pelt and strolled down among the sheep. The Lamb that belonged to the sheep, whose skin the Wolf was wearing, began to follow the Wolf in the Sheep's clothing; so, leading the Lamb a little apart, he soon made a meal off her, and for some time he succeeded in deceiving the sheep, and enjoying hearty meals.

Barack Obama is articulate, personable and very intelligent. He is engaging, thoughtful and compassionate. These are hardly the qualities of a radical Marxist whose aim is too destroy the fundamental underpinnings of American society. Obama, after all, loves the country and is simply too mainstream America to be a radical Marxist. Precisely.