Health Care Bill Outlaws Private Insurance

One of the concerns of those who oppose government run health care is that this will drive private health insurers out of business. After all, as of 2006, 89% of Americans were satisfied with their health care. But don’t worry, honest Obama is here to reassure the public, “First of all, if you’ve got health insurance, you like your doctors, you like your plan, you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan. Nobody is talking about taking that away from you.” In an interview with Diane Sawyer Obama clarified, “I can't pass a law that says, 'I'm sorry, employers, you can never make changes to the health care plans that you provide your employees.' What I can say is that the government is not going to force you to, your employer or you to join a government plan, for example. If you're happy with it, and your employer's happy with it, keep it."

I was actually pleased to hear Obama say that he “can’t pass a law” about something, this is the first sign of his presidency that shows that he believes there is some limit to his power. But the reality is that a public option will drive private insurance companies out of business and it won’t be long before there is a government monopoly over health care. But the liberals in Congress are not taking any chances. Critics of government health care were concerned about the public option driving private insurance companies out of business, they did not think that government health care would actually outlaw private insurance. Investor’s Business Daily found this gem in the health care bill, "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 the year the legislation becomes law.

Yes, you can keep your health care if you already have private health insurance. But if you don’t have private health insurance you won’t be allowed to get it. If you already have private health insurance you will not be allowed the freedom to purchase health insurance from a different company. You can read it for yourself here. It’s found on page 15, and continues onto 16, the section of the bill is titled, “Protecting the Choice to Keep Current Coverage.” The section would be more accurately labeled, “Destroying the Option to Choose Your Coverage.” Investor’s Business Daily writes, “Washington does not have the constitutional or moral authority to outlaw private markets in which parties voluntarily participate. It shouldn't be killing business opportunities, or limiting choices, or legislating major changes in Americans' lives.” Obama says the government will not force you to get a government plan, but it seems that forbidding you from buying private insurance is kind of the same thing.

Universal Abortion Coverage

Senator Mikulski, a democrat from Maryland, has added an amendment to the health care bill that would force insurance companies to pay for abortion. Not sure in the Constitution where it gives Congress the authority to force it's citizens to pay for abortions. As if there wasn't enough reasons already to oppose this crappy government health care bill. If Obama has his way then we can be sure that the government will make sure that every mother will have the right to kill her baby whether before or after birth.

Sotomayor Testifies On Tape

Quote of the day by Sony Sotomayor during her opening statement. “In the past month, many Senators have asked me about my judicial philosophy. It is simple: fidelity to the law. The task of a judge is not to make the law – it is to apply the law.”

Here is a video of her in 2005 saying that laws are made in the courts, then she says that she shouldn’t say that because she is on tape. Then she tells the “we don’t make laws” joke to much laughter.



Is she lying now or then? Could it be that she realizes she is on tape this time? Or did she finally learn what the role of a judge is since 2005. I think that there is probably a judge in the country who learned what a judge’s job is before he was fifty years old. Maybe it would be a good idea to pick a name randomly out of the phone book, odds are that the name chosen would know that judges don’t make laws.

Mumbai Terror Attack Documentary

Below is a video of an excellent documentary on the Mumbai terrorist attacks. I found this at the Infidel Blogger's Alliance. They got it from Vlad Tepes Blog. They got it from the British channel 4. It's really good, but pretty long, I would recommend finding time to watch it.

Link:

The 14th Amendment

Matt and I were at the Tea Party on the 4th of July that was held at the Capitol. When I arrived, there was a young man speaking at the microphone who is one of the many Republicans trying to win the Senate Seat currently held by Bob Bennett.

At one point in his speech, some guy in the crowd was not happy with speaker guy's explanation that the Constitution provides citizenship for those born in the United States. He said something about jurisdiction. Matt then purchased a Constitution for a quarter, because I didn't have mine with me. We looked at the language of the 14th amendment and after a brief discussion, came to the conclusion that speaker guy was right, and crowd guy was wrong.

Upon reading Mark Levin's Liberty and Tyranny (again, a great book for those who think the government should actually act within the bounds of our founding documents.) I came across the following passage that sheds some light on crowd guy's arguments, and will be the source of reflection for the next few months. On page 154 it reads: "But does the Fourteenth Amendment grant automatic citizenship to the children of illegal aliens? The relevant part of the amendment reads that 'all persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United states.' This language requires more than birth within the United States. The amendment's purpose was to grant citizenship to the emancipated slaves, who were born in the United States and owed sole allegiance to it. Native Americans who were also subject to tribal jurisdiction were excluded from citizenship. There is no legislative history supporting the absurd proposition that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to empower illegal alien parents to confer American citizenship on their own babies merely as a result of their birth in the United States. Foreign visitors and diplomats are not subject to American jurisdiction. Illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of their home country, as are their children, whether they are born in their home country or the United States."

I thought that was a pretty good explanation. As I've said before, Conservatives are interested in the words and context of the Constitution. The context of the 14th amendment granting citizenship to the emancipated slaves, but not the Native Americans, makes me think that the writers didn't intend for any child to become a citizen by virtue of being born here.

However, since I believe in the rule of law, unlike many liberals, I'll have to go with the Supreme Court's interpretation. I haven't done enough homework to know if there is an interpretation or not, I'm assuming that the high court has ruled that anyone born in the United States is a citizen. I think it would serve our country better, however, if we modified that amendment. I don't think someone should have citizenship just because mommy was able to get across the border before giving birth.

When In Doubt, Side With the Dictator

It's taken a while, but I finally have figured out how Obama thinks.

After the fraudulent Iranian election, thousands of Iranians took to the streets to protest. Several were killed or injured. Obama didn't say anything to condemn the tyranny going on over there until the domestic pressure got to be too much for even him to control. It was only then that he was "appalled" at what was going on. He said he didn't want to meddle but...

Manuel Zelaya was removed from his post of president of Honduras for essentially ignoring their Constitution and Supreme Court. He is a dictator that fancies himself as a Hugo Chavez type. Ol' Hugo even provided him with the ballots he wanted to use for his unconstitutional referendum. (I really do have an ax to grind with Chavez. I was there when he tried to overthrow the Venezuelan government the first time in 1992, and I've watched as he's taken a once semi free people, and subjected them to an oppressive tyranny. I really feel bad for those I knew over there who have to deal with this kind of non sense.) How would the average American react if he discovered that his president had not only blatantly gone against the Constitution, but then defied the Supreme Court? They would want him gone from office. That is what happened in Honduras with Zelaya. Obama decided it was time to "meddle". Through the State Department, he called it an “attempted coup,” and demanded that Mr. Zelaya be returned to power in order to facilitate the “restoration of democratic order.” There is a good article about both of these loser dictators here.

So what's next? Is he going to sit in on a speech where Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, another dictator, blasts the US for 50 minutes? Is he going to accept an anti-American book from Chavez? Either way, when presented with a choice between siding with people who want freedom, and those who would oppress, Obama has been siding with the latter.

I guess all those shady associations that we weren't supposed to pay attention to during the election did mean something after all. Better luck next time, America.

Universal Healthcare

Do you want the government running your health care Canada style? This year may be your last chance for a while. Obama "warned" that if it doesn't get done this year it might not get done.

That explains his inviting ABC to the White House to do a little health care infomercial last week. One of the Democrat's favorite numbers is that 46 million (the number always changes) or so people in this country don't have health care. And that somehow justifies the government taking control of the whole health care industry.

"Obamacare" doesn't help all the uninsured
Even taking them at there word that there are 46 million or so uninsured. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the Obama Health care plan would still leave 37 million or so uninsured, while adding more than a trillion dollars to our national debt. The full report from the CBO is embedded at the bottom of this post.

The number of uninsured quoted all the time is inaccurate
But the 46 million uninsured figure is misleading.* About 9.5 million are not US citizens. 17 million or so live in households with incomes exceeding $50,000 a year, which is enough to purchase insurance. About 18 million are between the ages of 18 and 34, most are in good health and don't need to purchase insurance. (BTW, Obama has said that it wouldn't be fair for healthy people to not have insurance, because that drives up costs. He is considering compelling all to have some form of insurance... something he criticised Clinton for in the primaries.) Finally, only 30% of those who lost insurance in a given year remained uninsured a year later.

Obviously, there is some overlap from the above numbers, but the 46 or 50 or whatever million of uninsured people the Democrats throw out there is inaccurate.

Is state run health care better?
The Brits have provided pretty strong evidence that the government delivers worse, not better health care. In Great Britain, patients wait between one and two years** to receive hip and knee replacements. The reason for the wait is a cost cutting measure. In addition to paying fewer doctors to do the surgery, there's always a chance that people will die waiting for their surgery. Meanwhile, patients, who think they don't have to pay for this kind of health care, end up paying a huge price in unnecessary pain, lost productivity and anything else that would be inconvenient about needing a hip or knee surgery, but not being able to get it.

Hillary had some story about heartless private insurance companies that caused the death of a woman. The story was later proven false.

But what about Barbara Wagner? She had cancer, and her doctor recommended a certain drug. Unfortunately, she lives in Oregon, and is part of the state run Oregon Health Plan. The state refused to let her have the drug, because it does not cover drugs that are meant to prolong the life of people with advanced cancer... Barbara was sent a letter with a different option. Oregon has legalized assisted suicide, and she was told that the state run insurance would cover the costs of a Doctor to help her kill herself.

Are you willing to exchange some of your freedom for this this sort of "security"? Does this sort of thing sound like compassion to you?

Norman Thomas, six time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party said the following in 1948. "The American People will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without knowing how it happened."

Is there a better idea out there? Of course there is, it involves the free market and giving people the freedom to choose. I'll post on that sometime in the next couple of weeks.
CBO's Preliminary Analysis on Sen. Kennedy's Health-Care Plan

*Most of what I've written comes from Mark Levin's book "Liberty and Tyranny". It is a very easy to understand book. It articulates baseline conservative principles very well. I highly recommend the book. Conservatives will be able to use facts when talking to Liberals, and Liberals, who read the book without prejudice, will realize that they are really conservatives.

**Celia Hall, "Patients Wait Year for Hip Surgery," Daily Telegraph Dec. 21, 2006