The CDC and Walter Tell

by Tom Rhodes, 10/14/2014

The Feds are rethinking Ebola strategy. This is a truly egregious WTF moment. The Hill reports: .

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on Monday said it is starting to “rethink” its Ebola strategy after the first-ever US transmission of the virus put a "relatively large" number of healthcare workers at risk.

"We’re concerned, and unfortunately would not be surprised if we did see additional [Ebola] cases in healthcare workers who also provided care to the index patient," CDC Director Tom Frieden said.

A nurse at Texas Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas was diagnosed with Ebola over the weekend, raising questions about the procedures that were followed when treating Thomas Eric Duncan. The nurse’s infection “doesn’t change the fact that it's possible to take care of Ebola safely, but it does change, substantially, how we approach it,” Frieden said.

Consider that according to medical records his family provided to The Associated Press there were about 70 staff members at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital were involved in the care of Thomas Eric Duncan after he was hospitalized, including the now infected nurse, being treated for the same Ebola virus that killed the Liberian man who was visiting Dallas. Obvious the size of the medical team alone, shows the intensity of the efforts hospital put into trying to save Duncan's life. Where are we going to get enough health professionals to treat 10, or 100, or 10000 Duncan’s. And how are we going to treat the health care professionals once they get the disease.

Sharon Ekambaram the head of Doctors Without Borders in South Africa, noted at a press conference in Johannesburg Tuesday, that medical workers have received inadequate assistance from the international community. Doctors Without Borders reported that 9 of the 16 staff members infected with Ebola have died.

As a Libertarian I firmly stand on the belief that you have the right to travel where you wish. I also firmly believe that your right ends when it infringes upon the right of others. Your right to travel, can and should be curtailed if you are traveling from a known source of Ebola, your right to travel ended when it infringes upon my right to life. Your right to travel stops when you exercise that right in a manner that transmits deadly disease.

When the CDC says, "it's possible to take care of Ebola safely" what do they mean? Obviously the odds are currently very poor to actually do so. The CDC is playing the part of Hermann Gessler, demanding that US healthcare workers play the part of Walter Tell. Ever hear of Hermann Gessler, or Walter Tell? Reread the old Swiss legend of William Tell. Walter is William Tell’s son, and as the Swiss legend tells it had the apple shot off his head by dear old dad. Yes it is possible to shoot an apple off somebody’s head with a crossbow, but that doesn’t make it any less risky. Now imagine instead of William Tell, you have the same people who run the post office and the license bureau shooting the cross bow. Feel safer standing there with an apple on your head?

WTF are we doing letting anybody into the country who might have this deadly disease. The CDC is betting the life of every healthcare worker in the country and chancing an epidemic in the USA hoping that they might be able to treat Ebola safely. Their record indicates that they are not as good as William Tell. People are going to die, not in far off Africa, but right here in the USA. Because our government is too worried about being politically correct instead of protecting the life of the American People.

Secret to Being Health and Happy: Eat Meat

Another Study Confirms what casual observation has noted for decades; Vegans are nuts. Vegitarian Diet is not healthier.

Nutrition and Health – The Association between Eating Behavior and Various Health Parameters: A Matched Sample Study

The study concludes that "adults who consume a vegetarian diet are less healthy (in terms of cancer, allergies, and mental health disorders), have a lower quality of life, and also require more medical treatment."

Obamacare, Inspired by Loki

By Tom Rhodes, 6/14/2012



Free and open markets over time always produce the lowest prices for the best goods. From Computers to TVs; from Cars to Car Insurance, competition drives prices down and quality up. The undeniable truth is that he who pays determines what is purchased. Once individuals are no longer responsible and don’t pay for something, they lose the choice in that purchase; the choice of quantity, quality, style, etc. are all determined by the payer. A child may ask for, beg, cry, and demand a certain toy, or pair of shoes but it is ultimately the parent who makes the choice determines the purchase. This applies to our health care too.

Prove it to yourself, look at the cost of auto insurance in New Hampshire, and the wide variety of auto insurance available there. It is cheaper, and you have far more choices in the type and levels of insurance you can purchase than almost any other state in the country. Why??? Because it is not required, you do not have to have auto insurance in New Hampshire, to own and operate a car on the highways and byways of New Hampshire. Auto insurance in New Hampshire has true competition; it is a product that the people are free to purchase or not from a variety of sources. This is a model that can and does work for all insurance sales. Same goes for Homeowners insurance, and any other product and service. When a product or service is required by government regulation it always costs more for inferior quality.

Our current policy of having third parties pay for insurance and health care has caused out of control growth and decrease in choices for health care consumers. The big companies who form “groups” pay for and determine coverage, not the health care consumer. Most people are left with either what their employer offers or nothing. Corporatism, is not free enterprise and open markets. Our current system of employer paying had reduced not expanded health care choices, and once reduced to government not employer paying (single payer) it will get worse, because the person who pays determines the quality, quantity, and value of any product or service.

When you look at car insurance, you see lots and lots of choices, lots of companies selling a huge variety of services. This is because they have to deal with and take care of each individual, not a single HR rep who determines the service for thousands of employees. Because individuals can and do shop around and compare prices, service, quality, and then determine the level of service they can afford or are willing to pay for, they get the best product for the least. Once we accept the idea that government pays for health care, individual choice in what’s covered is gone. If you’re a single male why should you have to pay for coverage of pregnancy, etc. If you want your insurance to be real insurance and only cover true catastrophic health care events, and pay for your own check-ups, and routine care with a high $3000 deductable that should be your choice. But when you don’t pay for your insurance directly, that choice is determined by the guy who pays.

If we really wanted to address health care costs we’d do two things. 1) End third party paying of insurance and/or health care. This means that company’s don’t purchase your insurance, you purchase your insurance. Companies could then increase your pay by what they pay in insurance, and you could shop and compare and buy the insurance that you want not what your employer wants. 2) End the AMA and government monopoly on licensing health care providers. This licensing artificially keeps the supply of healthcare services low thus results in artificially high prices.

We know this model works in health care, Laser eye surgery to eliminate the need of glasses, has advanced dramatically and the cost has plummeted. This is because it is not covered by most insurance and is sold directly to individuals by the service provider who must compete with others in quality, comfort, and price. The results is clear, more people have more access to this health care service for lower cost and have a better service. The same can be said of plastic surgery etc. This should be the model for all health care not just “elective” health care.

Our current system big corporations and/or government decide what we get. As it has everywhere else in the world that it has been implemented, this will result in rationing, corruption, higher costs for poorer services. Once the government pays for health care, bureaucrats will decide who get’s paid how much, which will result in the smartest and brightest exiting the business and put their drive and talent to something that they not the government controls. Once the government pays for health care, bureaucrats will decide how long we wait for specific procedures, or even if some live saving procedures are available at all, or to whom. We will find that if your over a certain age, the decision isn’t between you, your family, and your doctor over exactly what efforts, and how much if any efforts are made to keep you alive, it will be the decision of unelected bureaucrats, who will weigh the value of your life to the cost of maintaining it. After a certain age you will be allowed die. It may be as subtle as simply “delaying” treatment or as overt as saying after age 65 the government’s health care your are not eligible for kidney dialysis.

We haven’t had a free market for medical services for a long time, we have a system with limited competition because of FDA and other government regulations. This non-free market system also has artificially stimulated demand because of tax laws that promote third party paying of both health care and health insurance.

Even with our limited free market for medical services, when completion is allowed pricing goes down. Look at the health insurance for schools in Wisconsin, where once school systems were allowed to shop for insurance instead of purchasing from a “sole provider” they were able to eliminate huge deficits and save millions. When allowed, free markets produce better service, lower costs, and more innovation than government controlled industries. This simple fact is not something those on the left, so-called progressives, hate to recognize, and they attack using emotional straw man arguments, because the facts support free markets not government control.

The entire theory behind the Obamacare mandate, and the entire Obamacare law is that “We The People” cannot take care of ourselves, and that they leftists as superior beings know better than the masses, and that “We the People” should be thankful for their benevolent control of our actions, and accept that they not “the People” can and should determine how we live our lives. The attitude of the left towards health care reflects their belief that “We the People” would be better off and happier if we’d just give them control. The left act and sound more like Loki in the Avengers movie and the actions are clearly against the ideas which founded this country as expressed in The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and the accompanying Federalist Papers.

“It’s the unspoken truth of humanity that you crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes your life’s joy in a mad scramble for power. For identity. You were made to be ruled.” ~ Loki

This reflects the expressed beliefs of the left, specifically Obama. Like Loki, Obama and the left really don’t care about “We the People” they just want power. Obama doesn’t want individuals to achieve as much as they can, he wants to determine at what point “you’ve made enough money.” Obama hates self reliant individuals, but isn’t surprised that “they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion”, but wants all the people to just accept what he and others on the left have decided is in our best interest. He would treat those who stand up to him the way Loki treated the elder who stood against him in the Avengers. Obama actually believes that “We the People” want the government to take care of us and rule us. He doesn’t believe “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

He believes that he, the ruling elite, can and should determine what makes each individual happy, that he and the ruling elite, can and should determine what services and products you must purchase or are allowed to purchase. That he and the ruling elite, can and should determine what we eat, what we drive, where we live, how we use our private property, and even if we should be allowed to accumulate property. Obamacare is a reflection of Loki (Obama) not a reflection of the will of “We the People.” I’ll bet when Obama looks in the mirror he sees this:

Protecting Florida Sugar Industry Hurts Us All

Protectionist Laws for Florida’s Sugar Industry cost us both dollars and health. In the Journal of Clinical Investigation (May 2009), researchers at the University of California, reported that the widespread use of fructose may be directly responsible for some of the ongoing increase in rates of childhood diabetes and obesity. The protectionist laws for Florida’s Sugar industry (and those subsidies for corn growers in the mid west), have made fructose (corn syrup) a more economical sweetener than glucose (table sugar). The UC study showed that consuming fructose-sweetened, instead of glucose-sweetened, beverages increases abdominal fat and decreases insulin sensitivity in overweight/obese people. Worse yet the participants in the study who consumed fructose-sweetened food showed an increase of fat cells around major organs including their hearts and livers, and also underwent metabolic changes that are precursors to heart disease and diabetes.

Noted economist, Walter Williams, currently the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., in response to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius quote, "The U.S. government plans to increase funding to battle obesity and views healthcare reform as an opportunity to encourage better eating habits," professor Williams said, “Rather than spending money and attacking the food industry, the secretary and others concerned with the health of Americans ought to go after the U.S. Congress.”

Ever watch the TV commercial for Corn Syrup? The one where they ask what’s wrong with using high fructose corn syrup, implying that there is nothing wrong with it and it’s as safe and secure a sweetener as table sugar. Kimber Stanhope researcher at UC Davis found that "This is the first evidence we have that fructose increases diabetes and heart disease independently from causing simple weight gain. We didn't see any of these changes in the people eating glucose." Confirming this, Dr. Gerald Shulman and fellow researchers at Yale University School of Medicine have found that diets with significant high-fructose corn syrup lead to elevated risks of high triglycerides, fat buildup in the liver and insulin resistance.

The corn industry point to studies that show there is no difference between corn syrup and sugar. But we can easily trace the increase in the use of corn syrup and the increase in obesity, diabetes, and other health problems associated with high triglycerides. Concerning the Princeton study released in February of this year, researcher Nichole M. Avena says "Our findings lend support to the theory that the excessive consumption of high-fructose corn syrup found in many beverages may be an important factor in the obesity epidemic." The corn industry disputes these finding, but in the 40 years since the introduction of high-fructose corn syrup as a cost-effective sweetener in the American diet, rates of obesity in the U.S. have skyrocketed, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 1970, around 15 percent of the U.S. population met the definition for obesity; today, roughly one-third of the American adults are considered obese, the CDC reported.

Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) and the Florida Sugar Growers have given millions of dollars to politicians. The result is artificially high sugar prices and artificially low corn syrup prices. The cost of sugar is 25% to 35% less in Mexico than in the U.S.A. That with cheaper labor has resulted in US candy manufacturers moving to Mexico. But it’s not just the cost of labor that made them move. Life Saver’s candy, a namesake American product, is now made in Canada where labor costs are similar but they save $10million dollars per year.

Protectionism for Florida sugar and subsidies for Midwest corn are adding to the pockets of the corporations who have bought off your representative with political patronage. The results are predictable, you paying more for sugar, use more of a subsidized product, and worse yet, the use of artificially less expensive corn syrup in place of good old table sugar has resulted in measurable health problems. Walter Williams is correct we should be going after congress and the Florida legislature whose excessive rules and regulations hurt Floridians and all Americans.

$260 Million Florida Tax Dollars Wasted

The News-Press has reported that “Florida taxpayers and donors have committed $1.6 billion over the past decade to lure research firms - about $800,000 for every employee the companies will eventually hire.”

Those are good paying jobs at around $55K per year, so basically we the people of the state of Florida have paid for all the salaries for over a decade of each employee of the research firms we have tried to entice to come to Florida. Of course most of these jobs are not for local Floridians, but for people we will import into the state to fill the jobs.

This is stupidity and a primary example of too much government. Florida has attracted eight laboratories since 2003 with eight- and nine-figure incentives. These institutions, which recently became operational, have hired 883 of the 2,033 people they have pledged to employ over the next decade, according to their reports to the state. The government is trying to “manufacture” research clusters. The history of such clusters is dubious at best.

Vivek Wadhwa, a Duke University researcher who studies trends in technology enterprises, says most successful clusters grow naturally, not through government direction. "Nearly all such clusters worldwide have failed," Wadhwa said. "It takes years for this to become obvious and, by then, political leaders have moved on and real estate developers have reaped their bounties."

We do have a prime example of a “Cluster” in Florida that has naturally occurred and is very profitable. It happened not with donations by the Florida taxpayers but with limited government. It’s called Orlando Tourism, Disney, Universal, Sea World, I-Drive, and stretches down the I-4 corridor to Bush Gardens in Tampa. This is a prime example of a cluster that grew naturally, hired thousands of people, and didn’t cost the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars per job.

Cluster building is corporate welfare, and a waste of taxpayer money. Models for chasing business away and attracting business exist in the USA. California is hemorrhaging business they are moving away as fast as they can pack up. Texas is growing even in this bad economy. The difference is the size of government. In Texas they work actively at keeping government small, and allowing business to thrive or perish on their own. In California, they tax and regulate and subsidize business to death.

We don’t need to bribe business with tax dollars to get them to come to Florida, we need to create a long term environment where they are not so burdened that other places look better. Wasting tax dollars on business bribes (subsidies and incentives), makes all the citizens of Florida poorer, and provides incentives for graft and political favoritism. We especially need to not waste tax dollars trying to artificially create a technology cluster. Consider the actions of the California government, it didn’t create Silicon Valley. Silicon Valley naturally arouse from the people of that area, attracting the best and brightest minds in technology. Seeing profits and money poor in, the government took action which has resulted in Silicon Valley’s death. Additional government regulations, taxes, and laws have resulted in such huge decreases in profitability for all industries in that area they have and are moving off shore and to other states.

Biotech clusters like the research triangle at Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill resulted from the natural growth around universities, medical schools, and supporting corporations moving to where people and environment are conducive to growth. Florida’s latest effort is the proposed $260 million state and local cash incentive for Maine-based Jackson Laboratory to come to eastern Collier County. There is no university/medical school/engineering environment in Collier County like there is around FAU or UCF. Jackson Lab plans to hire up to 244 people over the next decade. Mike Hyde, Jackson Lab vice president for advancement, estimated that about a third of total employees may be hired from the state or region. Does anybody besides me see the stupidity in spending $260 million tax dollars to get 81 Floridian jobs? We could give those 81 local people $321,000 a year for 10 years or we could give 500 people over $50K per year for 10 years.

Suppose you buy into the idea that those 244 jobs will create a trickledown effect and benefit the economy of Collier County and Florida in excess of the $260,000,000 tax dollar investment. That the temporary construction jobs, and auxiliary spending will be a good investment of Florida tax dollars. That doesn’t make Jackson Laboratory a good investment. Jackson Laboratory Florida will study human disease, the effect of the human genome on such diseases and how to develop “personalized” medical treatments and diagnoses based on these factors. “Personalized” medical treatments and diagnoses is very expensive, in a free market those who could afford Cadillac insurance, would be able to afford such treatment. With the passage of Obama Care, and the recess appointment of Dr. Donald Berwick, we are about to enter into European style socialism. “Obama made the recess appointment because a public confirmation hearing in the Senate would have made Berwick -- who has openly advocated the redistribution of wealth as part of a health care plan -- “unconfirmable,” said Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.).

In a June 2009 interview with Biotechnology Healthcare, Dr. Donald Berwick said: “We can make a sensible social decision and say, 'Well, at this point, to have access to a particular additional benefit [new drug or medical intervention] is so expensive that our taxpayers have better use for those funds.' We make those decisions all the time. The decision is not whether or not we will ration care--the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open."

Like Britain health care will be managed (rationed) based upon the worth of a person to society. Do you think that expensive “personalized” medical treatments and diagnoses of Jackson Laboratory will fit into Obamacare? If Collier County is such a good place to build a biotech lab, then Jackson Laboratory would do it without huge cash incentives. The research in Collier will largely be computer analysis of genetic information, according to lab officials. With current technology, this type of work is not necessarily location specific, the question to ask is without the cash incentives would Jackson Laboratory be expanding and doing this work collier county? Investing $260Million of cash incentives, without even stock ownership, in a company whose product may not be viable because of promised government rationing, seems to be a very stupid use of Florida tax dollars.

Why should the people of Florida subsidize Jackson Laboratory, to create a “cluster”, when virtually all such clusters worldwide have failed, and the passed and promised regulations of Obamacare will severely curtail the use of Jackson Laboratories services?

Why Govt. trys to create Rights from Needs

Monday the SCOTUS confirmed our natural right to self defense, including the right to use a hand gun for that self defense. The court did not grant us a right, it merely recognized the natural right and that the government is prohibited from usurping that right.

Libertarian ideology is based on natural law or unalienable rights. The two basic principles to libertarian thought are property rights and non-aggression; Property rights being based on the foundation principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This means that you own yourself, and the product of your activities, and as such can use yourself and your property as you see fit, providing that use does not infringe upon the rights of another. Non-aggression ideology meaning nobody should be permitted to use force against another except to protect their rights.

The key point is no right ever confers an obligation on another. You have a right to freedom of religion; this does not obligate someone else to build you a church. You have a right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press, this does not obligate another to broadcast, print, read or listen to your speech. You have an individual right to keep and bear arms, this does not obligate another to provide you with a gun.

Everyone needs food; this need does not give you the right to take food from another nor to require another to provide you with food. Everyone needs shelter and clothing, this need does not give you the right to take those from another, nor to require another to provide you with shelter and clothing. Without a doubt the single most life prolonging and health benefitting technology is modern plumbing. The clean safe delivery of water and fast efficient removal and disposal of human waste that modern plumbing has provided has done more to prolong and benefit everybody’s lives than anything in history. Everyone needs water and sewage services, you do not have a right to water provided by others. If you don’t pay your water bill and it can and will be turned off regardless of your individual need. Your need for water does not obligate another individual or the government to provide it to you.

Many totalitarian governments (and the UN) confuse needs and rights. Totalitarians want to classify individual needs as rights. They do this because in a society it is the government’s job to protect the rights of its citizens. If everybody has a right to something, the government tries to insure that the right is administered justly. So if you have a right to food, it is the governments job to ensure that everybody gets and equal share of all the food and no one person receives more or less than another. This gives the government control of all food its production and distribution. By making a need a right the government can justify taking liberty and giving more power to itself.

You have a right to your own property. Theft is the violation of that right. You therefore have the right to defend your property; this right does not obligate anybody else, or even the government, to protect your property. The SCOTUS as repeatedly ruled that the government is under no obligation nor responsible to protect any individual citizen or their property. You cannot sue the police for failing to protect you or your property.

Your right to life, does not and cannot obligate anybody else to provide for your life’s needs. The right to life means that your life is your own, and you are free to do with it as you see fit so long as you don’t infringe on another person’s rights. At times in your life you may need the services of a doctor, nurse, ambulance, etc. Your need for these services does not obligate somebody else to provide you with them. The only reason to change health care from a need to a right is to give the government control of 1/6th of the world’s most productive economy.

More Government Based on Lies

BMI – Body Mass Index, quite possibly the most useless health measurement ever devised. It determines if you’re obese, overweight, or normal. It is an old standard that most doctors agree is not very accurate, or useful. The government is now trying to pass a law requiring all doctors to collect the BMI number and give it to the government. Why? What concern of the federal government is it if the population is skinny or fat? It’s a power grab, they have passed healthcare laws, and will now use that law to determine what people can eat, etc.

The Federal government doesn’t believe what you choose to eat should be your choice. According to the Obama Justice Department you do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food you wish. The government, not you, can and will determine what you should eat.

The Government as usual is wrong, and not only is it infringing on the constitution, but on your rights as a person. It comes down to property rights, do you own yourself or does the government own you? If the government owns you then it can determine what you should eat, how and where you should live, how much money you should be able to earn. Obviously Obama believes the people of this country are slaves to the government. To quote Obama, "at some point, you have made enough money."

Politicians with the power to determine each citizen's income and each citizen’s food choice are no longer public servants. They are public masters. If what you are allowed to keep of your own labor, if what you are allowed to keep of your own property, and what you are allowed to eat is determined by some master, by any reasonable definition that makes you a slave.

The stupidity of the BMI can be best expressed by an experience I had with my son. My son was a swimmer and wrestler in high school and can knock out a 100 pushups without breaking a sweat. As a wrestler, the school requires a special physical, because many wrestlers cut weight and reduce their body fat to un-healthy levels. To protect the health of student athletes, they are required to go to a doctor and have their percentage of body fat calculated. Based on those results they are told if they are allowed reduce weight to lower weight classes.

Based on my son’s 7% body fat that the school hired doctor measured, I received a letter from the school informing me that could not cut any weight, and would not be allowed to wrestle in any weight class less than 135 pounds. At the same time the school measured every student’s weight and height and calculated their BMI. Two days after receiving the official school letter saying my son was not allowed to cut any weight, I received a letter telling me my son was overweight and at risk of being obese, and offered diet and exercise suggestions, and “counseling.”

I called the school and asked to talk to the counselor about my son’s weight “problem.” We talked about his caloric intake, he was eating around 6000 Calories a day (trust me dual sport high school athletes cost a fortune to feed), and she was not surprised at his being overweight and suggested we reduce his food to less than 2000 Calories until he lost some weight, and asked how we could encourage him to get at least another hour of exercise every day. I said he’s in the pool with the swim team at 5am, and swims about a mile and a half before coming to class, and after school is in the weight room and wrestling room from 3 to 6 pm, and was running several miles every weekend morning to “maintain” as he put it, so I asked why the 5+ hours of exercise he got everyday wasn’t enough, and what should I do with the other letter her department sent me saying he wasn’t allowed to lose any weight because his body fat was low. She said well the BMI was only a guide, and obviously my son was health and this didn’t pertain to him. I asked if he was still going to be reported as overweight and in danger of being obese, and she said yes because his BMI was high, but that we shouldn’t worry about it, it was just for government reporting purposes.

At his high school between football, soccer, volleyball, tennis, baseball, track, cross country, swimming, wrestling, weight lifting, rowing, softball, and intramural sports, at least a quarter of the students are athletes, it is a big joke among them that almost all of them are classified as overweight or obese. These kids know it’s a lie to say that they are overweight.

Student athletes are generally the higher performing students in a school; they work harder, and statistically perform better and are more productive citizens after they graduate. How does the government expect productive young people to take the government seriously and trust what the government has to say when they are obviously being lied to? The blatant false claims by our government do nothing but undermine the faith our children have in it. If you know your government is willing to lie to you to get you to justify taking away your rights, then by the governments own example, it must be acceptable to lie to the government to get what you want. How can lying to the government about your taxes be wrong, if the government can lie to you? The lesson our children are getting is that the government lies (or worse is totally inept), and cannot be trusted. The consequences will be a citizenry who do not support the government, think it is acceptable to cheat the government, and in general a cynical attitude to anything the government does. The real world example of this is Greece.

Yes there are some fat kids in school, but claiming that 30% of our children are overweight, as reported in some studies, is crap. This is based on the BMI, which doesn’t take into consideration athletes, or active kids, or people in excellent shape but heavy on the muscle side. The government knowingly reports students who are in prime physical condition as overweight. If you were conspiratorial you’d think that the government is trying to make a crisis where one doesn’t exist, just so they can fix it.

Is there really a problem with overweight kids? The news and Mrs. Obama are saying it’s a “public health crisis.” She said child obesity, "It's threatening our children, it's threatening our families and, more importantly, it's threatening the future of this nation." The reality according to the CDC;
• Percent of adolescents age 12-19 years who are overweight: 18%
• Percent of children age 6-11 years who are overweight: 15%
• Percent of children age 2-5 years who are overweight: 11%

I’m sorry but those numbers don’t look like a crisis, considering a significant number of student athletes will fall into that overweight category those numbers look more like a normal distribution of people over a large population where some are skinny some are normal and some are overweight, and hardly something the federal government should be able to use as an excuse to determine what kind of food you can eat. If you’re listening to Michelle Obama about a crisis of overweight kids, it’s a lie! It’s just another nanny state lie, perpetrated to take more control over the everyday lives of “We the People.” It’s a lie to slowly turn sovereign citizens into virtual slaves.

Oh, my swimmer/wrestler son is two years out of high school and in the military; he’s still obsessed with eating right and staying in shape but not about his weight. This photo is about 3 months old, taken just before he shipped out to the Middle East. In it he’s gained around 20 pounds since high school, so according to the government he is obese. The rules (laws) our government now proposes are based on lies. Just remember that when the government gives you numbers saying we have an obesity crisis, that this is an image of what the government counts as obese.

To Be or Not to Be (an Organ Donor)

I’ll start by saying I’m an organ donor, and have been since I got my Drivers License over 30 years ago. I ride motorcycles, so both the chance of me needing an organ, and being able to donate an organ is a little higher than most. This is a choice I made concerning my body. The question is do I own my body or is it the States?

The State of New York is losing productive citizens by the thousands who are moving to states with less taxes and regulations. Fundamentally the newly proposed law by Assemblyman Brodsky, is the heart of why people are leaving NY and in general why the left doesn’t appreciate middle American values. Assemblyman Brodsky introduced a bill that would give state the right to decide if you are an organ donor or not. The law would make everybody an organ donor unless they opted out. Right now hospitals and the State have a hard time keeping track of those who voluntarily donate their organs. If this law passes they can assume you are, harvest your organs, even if you’ve opted out, and say it was a screw up later (how is your family going to get them back once transplanted?) Brodsky believes that because enough people don’t volunteer to be organ donors that the State has a right to your body parts, but should offer individuals a way to opt out.

This is typical liberal thought, if people don’t make the choices that liberals think then use government to force people to make the “right” choice. The FDA’s war on salt is typical. The FDA without direction or law passed by congress is proposing rules that would force food manufacturers to cut salt from processed foods. Voluntary reduction in salt has not been as successful as the government would have hoped. The problem is when people are given a choice between saltier foods and less salty foods they vote with their wallets for food that tastes good (salty). The FDA (hence the government) feels that they must dictate to people what they can and cannot eat. This is a fundamental shift in thinking. By what right does the federal government have in dictating what a person can and cannot eat?

If you believe that it is the purpose of government to take care of the sick, the poor, the needy, and decide what’s best for the people then you are very wrong, and may want to find another country to live in. The purpose of our government is clearly not to provide for its citizens needs but protect their rights. Again I will call on you to examine the purpose of our government as so clearly stated in our founding document the Declaration of Independence; “ We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Now obviously NY isn’t the federal government, but how a law that assumes the State has a right to people’s body parts unless they actively protest meets the purpose of government is beyond me.

Notice how because they powers that be in the Obama administration cannot get the laws they want passed through congress, are dictating rules (which carry the weight of law) through bureaucratic agencies like the FDA. Clearly rules that dictate the salt content of food do not serve the stated purpose of our government, and worse yet, because it is enacted and enforced by unelected bureaucrats who are not accountable to the people, the proposed salt rules are not at the consent of the governed. Laws like Obamacare, clearly enacted against the will of the people; the placement of unelected Czars, who are not approved by the senate, the dissolution of the rule of law for political purposes are all the actions of despotic rule, not a republic, and are typical of Obama’s first year in office. This kind of arbitrary tyranny, over a few decades is exactly what lead to the Revolutionary War. Since history, specifically the reasons and actions of a tyrannical government which did not want or accept the wishes of the governed, are no longer taught in our public schools, we may be forced to repeat history again. Where the people threw off the yoke of tyranny from a government that was destructive to the purpose for which it was established. In fact when a government’s actions are destructive to the purpose for which it was established it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.

Our long and established government should not be changed for light and transient causes; experience has shown that we are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which we are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is our right, our duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for our future security.

I sincerely hope that: a dramatic change will be seen in our next election; That the oligarchy that is our “two party” system will the thrown out; That the tea party voters will put principled temporary citizen leaders into office like Libertarian Senate Candidate Alex Snitker; and That the despotic statist actions of the past few years can be turned back. I fear that if the despotic statists remain in power and continue to ignore the will of the people, the Russian analysts who’ve predicted the breakup of this great nation may be right, and because the socialist overcrowded urban areas of this country cannot survive without the productive minority of flyover country it may get ugly.

It’s your body not the states and nobody has the right to it, not even its parts when you die. Since it is your body not the governments, what you choose to put into it is your business not the theirs. I urge you to eat healthy because it’s good for you, but I also urge you to be vocal and fight against any government actions which try to control what you put into your body, which is your ultimate property. Please become an organ donor, because it is a good thing to do for your fellow man, but be vocal and fight against any government actions that tries to force you to do so.

Biggest Evil of Obamacare

The biggest evil of the recently passed Obamacare has absolutely nothing to do with health care or insurance. Embedded in Obamacare is a total government takeover of student loans. This is a recipe for the destruction of our secondary education similar to the government’s destruction of primary education.

Why does the government seek a monopoly on college loans? Or to put it more bluntly, what moral or rational reasoning does the government have in not allowing private entities to loan money to others for education?

Let us consider that government control of K - 12 education has accomplished in the last 50 years. As a society c an you honestly say we are more educated, more well-informed, brighter, self-reliant and self-governing society as a result of the government’s near-monopoly on schooling. Are we more civilized, are we more caring are we better people than before the massive government control. No child left behind is a prime example, it translates into no child gets ahead; to the elimination or scaling down of higher level classes, and vocational classes in favor of ESE classes, and remediation. No longer are there Valedictorians, or competition for the best grades. Teachers are not allowed to post class rankings, as it might make those who don’t perform the best feel less happy about themselves. Gone is the shame of getting a low grade, and gone is the reward for excellence.

Now if the government controls the money for all student loans, it can then dictate college curriculum, dictate what classes are required, and what must be taught. The government can dictate what are acceptable lines of research,; acceptable courses of study, and even dictate how many students can be in what majors. If the government thinks that a school has too many English majors and thinks that it needs more accountants, it can simply deny loans for students with English majors and offer better rates for loans to accounting majors. The government uses money and how it doles it out to control the States, business, and individuals (they can’t mandate drinking age of 21, but they do deny highway funds to states that have a drinking age less than 21, hence the legal drinking age is 21). Taking over all college loans is about control and power not making student loans better for students.

How can a college or university peruse academic excellence, independent of the federal government? Simple, just refuse to accept federal dollars, including student loans with federal strings attached. There are a few colleges and universities in the country that do this, like Grove City College in Pennsylvania. What will happen to Grove City College, and the few other truly independent schools now that the government forces students to become indebted to the federal government? Will the few independent schools be able to remain free from Washington’s intrusion? Obviously this is a way to cripple schools which are free of the federal governments strings.

I’m trying to find some semblance of constitutionality that makes it illegal for any private institution to lend money to college students who need help. It's incredibly daring, and frighteningly unconstitutional. The effect of the government intrusion into education is devastating. It will make in nearly impossible to prepare free men and women to be self-reliant free independent citizens.

The ruling elite of the US want the most advance effective military in the world, it has it. The ruling elite of the US want to be unhindered by constitutional restrictions, it looks like they almost have it. They are working on creating a populace that will not hold them constitutionally accountable. The government is working to try and control what and how every person is educated; their stated goal is usually preparing students for the workplace – mass-producing cogs for society's cogwheels. Obviously the government doesn’t want free thinking, innovative, self-reliant, self-governing, and independent citizens. If it did want those results wouldn’t we have seen them, nobody or even group can be as totally inept as the government has proven to be in education. They have gotten the results they desired, inner city schools more like prisons, and a poorly educated unthinking dependent population. They are working to achieve the same thing in the suburbs and rural America. Look to our government doing like Germany and making homeschooling illegal, and determining what must be taught in private schools. On average home schooled children score higher on every standardized test, do better in college, are independent self starters, and self reliant. The examples are everywhere, voucher programs are successful, charter schools are successful, but the government ends these programs because it doesn’t have control. Total Government control of student loans a power grab, to control universities and colleges, and to control graduates after the fact.

How much more control are you going to give the government?

A Beginning or and End?

"That's what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are." ~ President, B. H. Obama

Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised that this Democratic Congress would be: "The most honest, the most open and the most ethical Congress in history." ~ Speaker of the House, N. Pelosi

In light of how Obamacare was passed, the 13 State attorney generals who have filed suit against Obamacare on constitutional grounds, and the 39 states that have passed or proposed legislation exempting their citizens from mandated Obamacare, can anybody explain to me how Obama, Pelosi can be trusted to ever tell the truth?

Obama said that because of the passing of Obamacare that immediately children would not be denied coverage because of preexisting conditions. We soon found out that that is a lie, and that they can be denied just like adults until 2014. Even in victory he cannot tell the truth.

According to the polls a super majority (over 60%) of the people opposed Obamacare. Not oppose health care reform, but Obamacare, because it does nothing to curb healthcare costs, and only serves to put the government in control of the single largest and fastest growing segment of our economy, and does nothing to “reform” healthcare. Obama and crew have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that regardless of the will of the people that they will say or do anything to gain more control and power. The Federal Government now runs itself based on lies, fraud, bribes, and deceit.

The socialist policies of G.W. Bush lost the support that the Republican Party had of conservatives and libertarians. Under Republican control, the legislature adopted anti-competition, anti-free market, anti-liberty policies. They spent and acted exactly like liberals. By Putting up the anti-free speech pro-establishment socialist, J. McCain, as presidential candidate the Republicans insured that they would lose the last election.

Unfortunately (maybe fortunately) the majority of people in this country who just want the rule of law, and to be left alone to succeed or fail on their own, have finally woke up. The Tea Party movements, the anger expressed in Town Hall meetings, the huge number of demonstrators against more socialism, are all evidence. The government and socialists in both the Democrat and Republican parties vastly underestimates the resolve and anger of the people. For decades the people, have tried to ignore the government, as long as taxes were reasonable, and they didn’t mess too much with the economy, and left us alone, we tried to work and live without need or support of the government. The government has made it clear, it will not leave us alone, it will not honor the contract (the Constitution) that we established with it. On Tuesday, March 23rd, 2010, the Federal Government of the United States, declared war on liberty, you are no longer free to choose how to live your life, you are no longer free to choose what is best for yourself and your family. You are not even free to use your accumulated wealth, to prolong or improve your life in old age. Obama’s solution is that rather than get the operation that will improve your life, is to take a pain pill, and remain drugged up and out of touch till you die, that the government, not you, will determine what is best. Obamacare is the current highpoint of Marxism/Socialism in America.


Maybe the Russian Strategists that suggested the US will breakup into smaller nations was right, and what we are seeing it the beginning of the end of what was once the freest most prosperous and successful nation in the world. Even Pravda notes American capitalism gone with a whimper. If we see signs that the Federal government is trying to squelch opposing viewpoints by adding regulations to internet and/or radio, or signs that they are trying register and/or limit firearm sales to citizens (probably through UN treaties not US laws), or break their promises and increase taxes on the middle class, we may unfortunately see the start of the destruction of this once great country.

The Federal government both Democrat and Republican, have rejected liberty if favor of Statism and is willing to use force to make each and every one of us capitulate. Maybe the States lawsuits will prevail and the constitution up held, and these remedies for all liberty minded people should be sought and perused with vigor. But if (when) the tyranny that the Federal Government now exerts on the people is not stopped through normal legal channels, we must remember that We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

The Stuff of Legends

What do Odysseus, Nixon, and Obama have in common?

The American people have spoken clearly, via polls, ballots, rallies, direct meetings, emails, phone calls, and faxes. The signals to our legislators have been less than subtle. The American people want smaller government, the people DO NOT want Obamacare, and are not happy with what's going on in Washington.

The Democrat leaders not only know this they have asked for their lesser Democrat counterparts to fall on their swords and sacrifice their political careers to pass Obamacare. They recognize their own hubris.

Hubris being the excessive pride and ambition that usually leads to the downfall of a hero in classical tragedy. It would take Shakespeare to adequately tell of depth of hubris demonstrated by the current Democrat leadership.

The arrogance of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid has lead them to believe that they are smarter, and more capable of living the lives of the American citizen than the people are themselves. They believe that only they know what's best. Obama infamously stated during last summer’s town hall meetings, that the constitution was a problem to his plans. They think that they are smarter than our founding fathers and that they should not have to work within the restrictions that the people of this country have put on them. They do not believe that they govern at the consent of the people but that they are elite rulers destined to lead the masses.

The hubris of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid is bordering on legendary. Others with such legendary hubris, from Odysseus to Nixon have had the similar fates; they were “cursed” by their own words and deeds. They tell the people not to believe what they see and hear with their own eyes and ears, but to trust the words of their ruling Elite. The government has taken over a significant portion of health care, it’s called Medicare and Medicaid. History has shown that these government programs cost vastly more than projected, and are virtually bankrupt. We look at places where the “progressive” policies of Democrats have been put in place and see the results (Detroit is a prime example, once the fastest growing industrial profit center in the world and now a virtual ghost town compared to what it was).

Obamacare is about power and control, the American people recognize this. The hubris of current Democrat leadership will be their downfall.

Results of Single Payer Health Care

When you hear a politician, like Obama, promote the virtues of single payer health care like they have in Canada, they are deceiving to you.

Consider the Canadian premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, Danny Williams. He is a popular 59 year old politician, who is in need of heart surgery. He is getting that surgery in the good ol’ USA not Canada. You see the procedure he needs simply isn't available in Newfoundland. He’s not on a waiting list, the procedure just isn’t available. Even if he wanted to pay for it, in Canada he can't, they don’t allow the procedure, it’s a expensive service that the system cannot support. So Canadians have two choices; to travel to the USA and pay for it themselves or die.

That’s one hell of a way to save money isn’t it? I can’t wait for US to have a system like Canada, can you?

Why don't Liberals Think?

You’ll have to forgive me I’m making a generalization, I should have titled this “Why Don’t Democrats Think”, but I have trouble telling the difference between Liberals and Democrats, and there are too many RINOs that are liberal to exclude. Then again, maybe I should have titled this “Liberals are Like Helicopter Parents.”

To a liberal, if it sounds good do it, don’t think about what the consequences. They want to sweep away all the obstacles that keep everybody in the country from having the best health care in the available, they don’t think about the cost. As politicians they don’t have to, they don’t suffer the costs or take any risks because they exempt themselves from their mandates, so it’s even easier for them to not think about what they are doing.

Liberals tend to act like mommies; they want to make sure everybody is safe and happy, and make sure everything is “fair”. They don’t want to see their children (or any other child) suffer, or feel uncomfortable, even from the consequences of their own choices. Not to be sexist, since there are a lot of liberal men, it would be fairer to compare them to helicopter parents than mommies. It doesn’t matter that the kid didn’t do the work, give a helicopter parent’s kid a bad grade, or take away his cell phone for texting in class, and the helicopter parent is at the school ranting and raving that it’s un-fair, yada yada yada. Liberals, like helicopter parents don’t think. They want results for their kid and don’t care if the kid didn’t earn them, or if their kid caused the problem; they won’t tolerate their kid suffering for any reason, even his own actions. They weasel their way into every part of their child’s life seeking to remove all obstacles from their child’s path, and are risk averse to the extreme. Like Helicopter parents liberals want to constantly supervise their “children.” They have extreme risk aversion and a disproportionate paranoia about risks; such as allowing corporations to buy political ads. The “Nanny-ism” that is liberal thought, has lead to the stupidity we now see in government.

If you choose to have a baby without a partner to help you support and raise that baby, the associated cost is paying for child support; the associated risk is a possible lower standard of living for both you and the baby. If you choose not to take advantage of all the education you can, the associated cost is less employment opportunities, and the associated risk is having lower wages or unemployment. All our choices have risks and costs associated with them. If you choose to not exercise, the cost is poor health and you risk increased medical bills. If you choose not to purchase health insurance, the cost is paying all of your personal medical bills and risk being denied medical services you cannot afford. Liberals like most mommies don’t want their “children” to have choices that may put them at risk, so seek to take away choices because their “children” might choose something that has a higher risk. Go Wiki “Helicopter Parent” and see if it doesn’t describe liberals.

Consider health care, and the President’s attack on the insurance companies. The liberals attack insurance companies as outlandish profiteers making "immoral" and "obscene" returns while "the bodies pile up." On Wednesday, July 22nd, 2009 Obama said Health insurance companies are "making record profits, right now." The problem is they make around 2.2% profit, hardly immoral or obscene profits. In fact 2.2% profit is kind of anemic compared to other industries. Coke-a-Cola makes around 28% nobody is attacking them as outlandish profiteers.

Liberals also claim that if the government runs health care they won't heartlessly reject claims the way private insurance companies reject them. The problem is that the government has a history of doing just that. The American Medical Association found that that Medicare's claim denial rate is higher than that of any other private insurer, and almost 70% higher overall than the private insurers' average denial rate.

Now let’s actually think about this. Why aren't insurance companies currently covering the conditions and people that the government wants to force them to cover? Answer: Costs, what the government wants to do will mean additional costs. At 2.2% profit insurance companies can’t absorb those additional costs so will be force to pass those costs on to customers. Insurance companies don't think we are willing to pay for those particular additional costs for those particular conditions. If insurance companies choose to cover everybody, and not exclude certain pre-existing conditions the cost would be higher premiums and the risk would be less customers willing to purchase their service. They are not willing to take this risk, and risk assessment is their business. They are correct, if we as consumers were willing to pay for additional coverages then the insurance companies would be selling them to us. In a free society individuals have a right to pick and choose with whom they do business and what services they purchase, and assume the costs and risks associated with our choices.

Costs associated with choices are a problem. They are our problem not Obama’s or any politician’s problem. It doesn’t cost anything for a politician to mandate more insurance coverage for more people. Those costs exist, they don’t go away, and aren’t magically absorbed by somebody else, they must be paid. When a politician mandates some insurance coverage it forces both the companies that sell insurance and the consumers of insurance to pay, whether they want to or not, whether it benefits them or not. The shinny eloquent words of Obama or any liberal politician leave out the dirty little secret of cost. They don’t expect people to think, because they are liberals, and they don’t think.

Liberals they don’t think about the costs to liberty the policies they want to force upon everybody to mitigate perceived risk. Freedom and liberty are not in the thoughts of liberals.

Obama's biggest Lie

OK let's watch and listen to Obama say the same thing over and over again.

---

---

Obviously he wanted us to believe that his ideas were better and that if publicly debated the people would follow and support him.

Why isn't he now calling for minimally the conference committee meeting between the two secretly created house and senate bills be televised.

As it stands he is now supporting, locking the Republicans out of the debate.

I guess if the people don't follow and support him, then he is willing to force us to do what he wants anyway.

Why isn't the main stream press calling for public debate?

Why isn't the main stream press calling out Obama for not even trying to keep his most repeated and biggest promise to the American People?

Obama doesn't run the legislature, they can and do make their own rules, but not even asking them publicly to have their meetings made public on health care, confirms that he is just a lying power hungry elitist.

Moral Imperative

Social security was created because it was a moral imperative that every senior citizen is provided for, at least at a minimum level. Every working person pays social security first, they may be exempt from income taxes but not from social security. Because it was considered a moral imperative, every working person pays into social security, with the only exception being clergy who may choose to opt out. This moral imperative is so great, that we insist that everybody make a sacrifice so that the old and infirm don’t suffer.

The solutions liberals offer to pay for universal health care are; to tax those who earn more than $500K per year, a Cadillac tax on those who purchase good health insurance, and/or borrow the money and let our grand children figure out how to pay for it. Liberals insist that universal health care be paid for by "the rich", instead of being borne by everybody equally. If universal health care is a moral imperative, shouldn't the payment of universal health care be borne by everybody equally, just like social security?

Summary of Health Care Bill

Eric Allie sums up passage of Health Care Bill

Arbitrary Power, Dictatorship, and Health Care

Arbitrary Power, Dictatorship, and Health Care

Posted By John David Lewis On December 22, 2009 at Pajamasmedia.com


The essence of a dictator's method is not to write harsh laws and enforce them rigidly. The world's most destructive thugs have wanted something different. They have wanted to impose their wills on a compliant populace using arbitrary power -- power not limited by laws or constitution, but power that was open-ended, ill-defined, and could be expanded based on the whims of the moment.

Well-written laws are the enemy of the dictator. As philosopher Ayn Rand put it, “When men are united by ideas, i.e., by explicit principles, there is no room for favors, whims, or arbitrary power: the principles serve as an objective criterion for determining actions and for judging men, whether leaders or members.” Laws, properly formulated, are based on principles, and serve to translate those principles into firm criteria for judging particular cases. What a dictator wants is to be free of such principles and to use his power as he wishes.

This provides a good basis for judging legislation today. Does a law or a bill constrain the power of officials -- both elected and appointed -- by the principles of the law? Or does it empower the officials to define the meaning of the law as they wish, to apply it in an open-ended manner, and to write regulations in order to expand their power?

Consider one example today: H.R. 3962, the ‘‘Affordable Health Care for America Act” recently passed by the House of Representatives. Even a summary perusal of its 1,990 pages shows an enormous scope for arbitrary definitions, applications, and regulations according to the decisions of unelected administrators. Here are a few passages to illustrate:

To determine what constitutes the “satisfaction of health care coverage participation requirements” under the 1974 ERISA rules, “the secretary may promulgate any interim final rules as the secretary determines are appropriate to carry out this part-- (Sec. 421). Readers of the bill who try to discover what constitutes an “interim final rule” will find that this is up to the secretary -- i.e., the bureaucrats -- to determine.

With respect to the so-called “temporary high-risk pool program,” a program to be run until the so-called health care exchanges are established: “If the secretary estimates for any fiscal year that the aggregate amounts available for payment of expenses of the high-risk pool will be less than the amount of the expenses, the secretary shall make such adjustments as are necessary to eliminate such deficit, including reducing benefits, increasing premiums, or establishing waiting lists” (Sec. 101). Who gets care, and what it will cost, will be up to the secretary.

Officials may gather whatever taxpayer information they decide is necessary. “The secretary shall collect such data as may be required to establish premiums and payment rates for the public health insurance option and for other purposes under this subtitle -- (Sec. 321). Section 412 requires employers to submit “such information as the commissioner may require” to multiple federal agencies.

The bill institutionalizes such coercions by establishing over one hundred new commissioners, boards, committees, and programs, each with its own area of control. (For a list, see here.)

America is not a dictatorship. These bills are available for us to read, and we are able to discuss them openly, to agree or to disagree, and to speak and write about them in forums both public and private. But we will not be free to escape either the regulations which a faceless bureaucracy will write in order to enforce its edicts, or the decisions made by such bureaucrats over our lives.

If you are an employer, you will not escape punishment if a bureaucrat decides that your health plan is not “acceptable” and that you must be fined for your failure to meet his decision. If you are an individual who does not want to purchase full-coverage health insurance, but would rather buy catastrophic insurance that covers hospitalization only, your decision will not be “acceptable” and you may face a government audit and a new tax.

Do you have a serious disease? Does your doctor wish to readmit you to the hospital? A bureaucrat will decide whether or not you get treatment, based on a statistical analysis of the number of such readmissions by the bureaucrats: “excess readmissions shall not include readmissions for an applicable condition for which there are fewer than a minimum number (as determined by the secretary) of discharges for such applicable condition for the applicable period and such hospital” (Sec. 1151).

The scope of power here extends to the very definitions of terms within the law. This leaves the meaning of the law fluid and subject to the will of the bureaucrats. Section 1151 continues: “The term ‘applicable condition’ means, subject to subparagraph (B), a condition or procedure selected by the secretary among conditions and procedures for which (i) readmissions (as defined in subparagraph (E)) that represent conditions or procedures that are high volume or high expenditures under this title (or other criteria specified by the secretary).”

No, America is not yet a dictatorship. But we can ask ourselves whether the essence of such a dictatorship -- and its institutional foundations -- are not being built into federal law now. The scope of action available to federal administrators is widening today at a blinding speed. No proper reform of health care -- or any other area of life -- can be accomplished by the progressive, open-ended empowerment of government officials against defenseless American citizens.

Dr. John David Lewis is Visiting Associate Professor in the Philosophy, Politics and Economics Program at Duke University. His most recent book is Nothing Less than Victory: Decisive Wars and the Lessons of History (Princeton, 2010). His website is johndavidlewis.com

[Blogger's Note] Interesting way to look at it.

The Pretense of Knowledge

Walter Williams does it again, this article fully and simply explains why having the government not individuals make decisions like healthcare for everybody is a bad idea.

When elites make our decisions for us
Posted: December 01, 2009
By Walter E. Williams, Ph.D.

The ultimate constraint we all face is knowledge – what we know and don't know. The knowledge problem is pervasive and by no means trivial as hinted at by just a few examples. You've purchased a house. Was it the best deal you could have gotten? Was there some other house you could have purchased that 10 years later would not have needed extensive repairs or was in a community with more likable neighbors and a better environment for your children? What about the person you married? Was there another person who would have made for a more pleasing spouse? Though these are important questions, the most intelligent answer you can give to all of them is: "I don't know."

Since you don't know the answers, who do you think, here on Earth, is likely to know and whom would you like to make these decisions for you – Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, George Bush, a czar appointed by Obama or a committee of Washington bureaucrats? I bet that if these people were to forcibly make housing or marital decisions for us, most would deem it tyranny.

You say, "Williams, Congress is not making such monumental decisions that affect my life." Try this. You are a 22-year-old healthy person. Instead of spending $3,000 or $4,000 a year for health insurance, you'd prefer investing that money in equipment to start a landscaping business. Which is the best use of that $3,000 or $4,000 a year – purchasing health insurance or starting up a landscaping business – and who should decide that question: Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, George Bush, a czar appointed by Obama or a committee of Washington bureaucrats? How can they possibly know what's the best use of your earnings, particularly in light of the fact that they have no idea who you are?

Neither you nor the U.S. Congress has the complete knowledge to know exactly what's best for you. The difference is that when individuals make their own trade-offs, say between purchasing health insurance or investing in a business, they make wiser decisions because it is they who personally bear the costs and benefits of those decisions. You say, "Hold it, Williams, we've got you now! What if that person gets really sick and doesn't have health insurance? Society suffers the burden of taking care of him." To the extent that is a problem, it is not a problem of liberty; it's a problem of congressionally mandated socialism. Let's look at it.

It is not society that bears the burden; it is some flesh-and-blood American worker who finds his earnings taken by Congress to finance the health needs of another person. There is absolutely no moral case, much less constitutional case, for Congress forcibly using one American to serve the purposes of another American, a practice that differs only in degree from slavery, which we all should find morally offensive.

Whether it is health care, education, employment or most other areas of our lives, I ask you: Who has the capacity to master all the complexity to make choices on behalf of others? Each of us possesses only a tiny percentage of the knowledge that would be necessary to make totally informed decisions in our own lives, much less the lives of others. There is only one reason for the forcible transference of decision-making authority over important areas of our private lives to elite decision-makers in Congress and government bureaucracies. Doing so confers control, power, wealth and revenue to society's elite. What's in the best interests of individual members of society, such as a person who'd rather launch a landscaping business than purchase a health insurance policy, ranks low on the elite's list of priorities.

Walter E. Williams, Ph.D., is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va.

What Does It All Mean?

We live in a constitutional republic, created by men who believed that the government was and could be the biggest source of oppression to the people. They made it difficult to change, and severely restricted it. Specifically they only granted the government enumerated powers.

The enumerated powers are a list of specific responsibilities found in Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution, which iterates the authority granted to the United States Congress. Congress may exercise only those powers that are granted to it by the Constitution, limited by the Bill of Rights and the other protections found in the Constitutional text.
Thee classical statement of a government of enumerated powers is that by Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland:

“This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it, would seem too apparent, to have required to be enforced by all those arguments, which its enlightened friends, while it was depending before the people, found it necessary to urge; that principle is now universally admitted.”

“ This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated powers.”
—Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland

“ We start with first principles. The Constitution creates a Federal Government of enumerated powers.”
—Chief Justice William Rehnquist in United States v. Lopez

US constitution, Ninth amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

US constitution, Tenth amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So we have a government with limited powers, and we have rights that are reserved to the people or the states not the federal government, and requirements that all men be given equal protection of the laws.

What do we call a ruler or government that works without restrictions, and the state of being where power of government is exercised with disregard to its enumerated powers?

ty•rant n. An absolute ruler who governs without restrictions.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved November 24, 2009, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tyrant

tyr•an•ny n. 1. arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power
Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved November 24, 2009, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tyranny

Since by law I am not allowed to purchase health insurance from beyond my states borders, my purchase of Health insurance cannot affect Interstate Commerce. Since whether or not I purchase insurance within my state cannot affect commerce between the states, by what other enumerated power can the federal government tell me or my insurance provider what my insurance must or must not cover. As a single man, I really don’t need insurance that covers pregnancies and mammograms, and should be allowed to purchase insurance which doesn’t cover these conditions. It would be like my wanting to purchase a pickup truck. I need a light duty truck for occasional hauling like a Ford Ranger, but the government says it knows better what I need and insists I purchase a truck with minimal features like being able to carry a ton, and tow a 7000 pound trailer, and I’m not allowed to purchase anything less than a SuperDuty F250, going so far as to legislate that Ford not sell any trucks that can’t tow less than 7000 pounds. It doesn’t matter that I don’t have a trailer that big, and never plan on having one, I have to purchase a truck than can tow one.

If I choose to self insure, instead of purchasing insurance I should be able to do that. What specific enumerated power grants the federal government the right to force citizens to purchase a service as a condition of living in the USA. This has never before happened in the history of this country. This is not only, not an enumerated power, it is the unrestrained exercise of power. By definition Tyranny.

Florida Health Care Freedom Act says any "law or rule shall not compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system," and specifies people and employers can’t be fined for not buying insurance. When Florida passes this law, which then specifically prohibits the federal government from the power to force people to buy insurance, what will the feds do?

If the 2000 page monstrosity of “health care reform” passes the senate and becomes law, then we are no better than Cuba, the USSR, or North Korea, where ruling juntas determine what the people can and cannot do without restrictions. We will be living in a state of Tyranny.

Economics 101

Obama ’s idea is to provide more health care to more people and have it cost less.

At its core Health care is a service, it depends directly on labor of doctors, nurses, lab techs, clerks, administrators, and so on. To provide it at less cost you must either service more people in the same time, or pay the labor less. Insurance companies make between 2 and 5% so they are not taking huge parts of health care money as profits.

If we pay doctors and nurses any less they will (and do) leave the profession. The stress and work to dollar ratio is such that you cannot get quality doctors and nurses for any less money. They are also already seeing more patients per hour than they should. Lab techs, LPNs, Nurses aids, and other less skilled labor at hospitals are already paid so little cutting their wages makes no sense, having them process more paperwork/hr or samples/hr etc. is going to take either capital investment in faster better tools for them to use, or somehow getting them to be more productive. Good luck getting them to do more work for what they get paid.

Clerks, now here is an interesting place to save money. We have and need a large number of clerks in the medical field, not just transposing doctor’s orders but processing insurance company and government mandated paper work. When I was a kid the doctor we went to had 2 nurses, our insurance didn't pay for routine visits it only kicked in if you needed surgery etc, one of the nurses took care of scheduling and colleting office visit fees. Last week I took my kid to the doctor there are 2 nurses, and at least 6 people running around doing paperwork, and when you look into the office area 3 or 4 are always on the phone to insurance/government offices doing or fixing paperwork. I asked about this to the young lady taking my co-pay ($25). She loved the new computer system as it now only took around 15 min to process all the paper work associated with a patients visit. I only saw the doctor and nurse for a little less than 10 min. (he sees an average of 6 people per hour). Since I've been seeing him for a while I asked him about this, and he said that for every hour seeing a patient there is a little over two hours of paperwork, of which 90 min is for government and insurance paperwork and 30 min doing charting. He said if he didn't have to do all the government paperwork and insurance paperwork for routine visits he could charge the $35 a visit, and would only need 1 office person instead of 6. He said he could also provide better service as the rules insurance and government force him to do unnecessary tests, and don't allow him the flexibility to treat people, he has to treat symptoms. He didn't let his son become a doctor, because engineering can provide a higher quality of life.

So how is having more government going to reduce the cost of health care? If they force lower wages (reduce what they pay doctors and hospitals) they will lose doctors and we will have service shortages (long lines and wait times like in UK and Canada). What has the same government who's been known to buy $1000 toilet seats and $600 hammers, done to be trusted with doing the impossible? The only way they can provide health care to more people at lower cost is to not allow people to reduce services. Your 80 years old and need a new hip, today if you have the insurance or the cash, you get a new hip. Under the government, in order to reduce overall costs, they will say, too bad, the cost/benefit to offering this service to somebody of your age isn't there, here's a wheelchair and some pain meds. This is what is going to happen, restrictions on available services for specific groups/classes of people. The rich will still be able to pay cash for what they want, but regular people depending on insurance will have their services limited. It will be in the details of the health care bill, how else do you explain the government exempting itself for the law, and not allowing the people to see what they are doing until after it’s already passed.

You cannot cut $500 billion from Medicare spending over the next 10 years without anyone getting less of anything. If there is that much “fraud, waste, and abuse” in the system then a lot of civil servants should be going to jail, that much “fraud, waste, and abuse” cannot be an accident. That big a cut will have to result in reduction of services.

The reasoning for having the government takeover of health care is a lie in the first place. Right now, uninsured can and do walk into any emergency room and get care, no they don't get the best oncology treatment if they don't have insurance but they don't go without basic health care. The cost of this is passed on to the rest of us; it's not that much and doesn't add significantly to our current health care costs. George Mason University economist Jack Hadley and three co-authors, in a 2008 Health Affairs article calculated that "uncompensated care represents 2.2 percent of health spending in 2008." Why would we want a total restructuring of health care to save a mere 2.2% to cover the uncompensated expenses?

If you look at the health care "crisis" critically it's clearly a government caused crisis. They don't allow insurance companies to sell across state lines (limiting competition and protecting big business). They add large amounts of admin costs thru huge amounts of regulation to both insurance and health providers (again because of economy of scale this protects big business). The government doesn't allow health providers to advertise prices except is small niche markets like eye care (again protecting established businesses and making it harder for competition). They know tort reform will reduce health care costs, but because most politicians are lawyers, who make their living from law suits, they continue the stupid system which has caused malpractice insurance and health care costs to skyrocket. Here’s an easy fix that won’t cost taxpayers a dime, get rid of regulations for licensing and prescription drugs they add layers of un-necessary doctors visits, paperwork, and artificially reduce the labor pool adding to health care costs.

I can't think of anything that doesn't get worse and cost more with additional government involvement. Cars are a great example, In India for around $2500 you can buy a car that gets 60mpg. That car will never be available in the USA as configured at that cost; it cannot meet our regulatory requirements. They are trying to make it meet our regulations but expect it to cost an additional $1500 if they can modify the car enough (and it will less than 50mpg configured for US). Shouldn’t individuals be able to judge safety, comfort, economy, quality for themselves and purchase what they think is best for their circumstances, and exactly how does the purchase of a car for private transport effect interstate commerce.

Massachusetts has already done what the president and congress are now proposing. Since 2006 it has mandatory insurance requirements, resulting in their health care rising disproportionately to the rest of the country. We have a model of what the Obama is trying to force everybody to do, Massachusetts; it does exactly the opposite of what he claims it will accomplish. Simple observation and understanding basic economics shows that more government involvement always leads to higher costs. There is not one regulatory requirement that doesn't add to the cost of what is being regulated.