I honestly never thought that I would live to see what has transpired in the last several years. Regardless of your political views there should be one thing that all Americans should be able to agree upon wholeheartedly: The American soldier should be protected, supplied and encouraged. Recently, many Americans have engaged in pure political intrigue and treachery at the expense of the American soldier. Any rational human being should be able to recognize that intelligence gathering is fundamental to military strategy. If a commander on the ground in the front lines does not have good and accurate information about where the enemy is, what they are planning, what the strength of force is and when they plan to attack, he can not intelligently plan for his units defense nor strategize a proper offense. This failure to properly prepare - KILLS AMERICAN SOLDIERS!!! More soldiers die and are wounded than need be if good intelligence is not at hand. More mothers get the knock on their door that their child has paid the ultimate price. Imagine her despair when she finds out that the reason for her son or daughters death is that her own country provided aid and comfort to the enemy!
In the past years there have been multiple stories on the front page of the New York Times and other papers discussing Top Secret programs or information that has been leaked by government bureaucrats. Members of Congress have stood on the floor of the House of Representatives and the Senate and proclaimed our defeat. Members of Congress have accused the American soldier of murder, accused them of being like Nazi's, accused them of randomly killing civilians for no good reason; all without any proof or firsthand knowledge. Imagine that you are the enemy and you see these things transpiring in the camp of your foe. What would your attitude be? "We are winning! They fight amongst themselves! We must keep the pressure on!" These actions provide comfort to the enemy, provide intel that can be used to train their soldiers and demoralize our own troops. All of this KILLS AMERICAN SOLDIERS!! Citizens of the United States that aid and comfort the enemy of the United States are traitors and deserve a traitors death! THEY KILL AMERICAN SOLDIERS!!
Definition of Treason: Any attempt to overthrow the government, or impair the well-being of a state to which one owes allegiance; the crime of giving aid and comfort to the enemies of one's government.
Dick Durban, John Murtha, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have all commited treason. They are not the only ones, but they are the most egregious. Whoever leaked Top Secret information to the New York Times has commited treason. While I vehemently despise the editor of the papers for printing this information, I feel their crimes do not rise to the level of treason. They have received information from a government official that is important, informative and shocking to some; therefore it is newsworthy. However, the individuals who leaked the information swore an oath not to do so. In doing so, they have put the lives of American soldiers at risk. They are traitors.
"The pacifist is as surely a traitor to his country and to humanity as is the most brutal wrongdoer." Theodore Roosevelt
"I have learned to hate all traitors, and there is no disease I spit on more than treachery." Aeschylus
"The liberties of our country, and the freedom of our civil constitution, are worth defending at all hazard; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks." Samuel Adams
"A nation can survive it's fools, even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within...for the traitor appears not to be a traitor...he rots the soul of a nation...he infects the body politic until it can no longer exist." Cicero
Traitors are the most despicable of all evil doers, for they subvert the very people who give them comfort to do so. They cause the death of the very people who defend them from an enemy that would as soon cut their head off as listen to their politically expedient drivel. Traitors deserve no more than a traitors death, hung by the nearest lamp post as a warning to all enemies foreign and domestic that this country will not abide by vermin who bring danger to the defenders of this great nation. God have mercy on their souls; and God...forgive me - for I cannot do likewise.
by: Keith D. Rodebush
Authors note: When our nation goes to war, having been given authority from Congress, having assisted in multiple resolutions at the United Nations intent on preventing war and having given fair warning to the enemy; this country should stand behind the effort publicly at all times. If you disagree with the war, vote the parties out. If you lose the vote, wait until the next election and try again. But never undermine the authority of the president as commander in chief. However, and this is most important. After the war is over, and our troops have come home to a heroes welcome; then all vigorous and vociferous debate should be had about how and why we went to war and how it was fought! This is our right as free men and our duty as citizens of this republic. But for the sake of our children, who are called upon to fight in our stead - wait until the conflict is over and they are safely home. To do otherwise - KILLS YOUR OWN!
August 28, 2009
August 27, 2009
Health Care Solutions for America
Are we not all Americans? We the people are united, not in political discourse, but by a much stronger and enduring bond. We are united by an innate belief in the undeniable rights of Man as articulated so brilliantly by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. No cynic or cunning strategist should be allowed to divide us on these basic truths. The rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were singled out as those most worthy of defending by Mr. Jefferson. While other rights may be considered such as the right to worship freely one may argue that they would be included in the pursuit of happiness. What is not included, and should not be included are necessities, i.e. food, shelter, health or companionship. Rights in this context are endowed by our Creator. Our Creator did not endow us with the right to food. He provided a planet populated with plants and animals for our use. He did not endow us with a right to shelter, He provided materials and a curiosity and intellect that allows us to provide our shelter as we see fit. And - he did not endow us with a right to health care. He gave us multitudes of medicinal plants; He gave us a superior brain that allows for innovation and invention; and He gave us the capacity of sympathy for our fellow Man.
For the sake of discussion let us consider the following as goals agreed upon by all Americans:
- All Americans should have access to quality health care
- Americans with unavoidable chronic illness should not be denied health care
- Truly needy Americans, incapable of self-reliance, should receive assistance from their fellow Americans
My previous post, A Case Against Government Health Care, is an intensive study of the folly of government programs designed to address the above goals. It is critical that you peruse that article before continuing. Any reasonable study of government run programs cannot conclude other than; they are inefficient, costly, encourage unwanted behavior in the citizenry, and through mandates, regulation and bureaucratic control infringe on the liberty of the people and deny the rights guaranteed in the X Amendment.
Therefore let us, within the framework of the U.S. Constitution and the principles of the free market, determine viable methods to reach the above stated goals, as Americans, as neighbors, as children of God. The following solutions are put forth with an understanding that current federal programs cannot and should not be capriciously ended and would necessarily need to be phased out with strict guarantees to all current participants.
Constitutional Free Market Solutions to Health Care:
1. The federal government shall embrace it's constitutional role in regulating interstate commerce and remove all barriers, including federal regulations, to the purchasing of health insurance.
2. All federal regulations regarding the access, provision, delivery, payment or cost of health care services shall be repealed.
3. A state Attorney General, I suggest Texas but I'm prejudicial, shall sue the federal government under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States for usurping the rights of states and the people, thereby creating a SCOTUS opinion that will permanently bar the federal government from interjecting itself into a private industry.
4. Pursuant to Article I section 8 of the Constitution the federal government will pass a law regulating all commerce related to the provision of health care amongst the states in regards to the peoples right to access to services without discrimination. This is the only constitutional power of the federal government in this issue.
5. Congress shall pass a law putting reasonable limits on the amount of damages that can be levied against a health care professional or institution who/which acts in good faith on behalf of their patients without regard to injury by tragic accident. Gross negligence being proven against an individual health care provider shall have no such restriction. Gross negligence being proven against an institution will result in limited damages in addition to penalties and censorship, with multiple offenses resulting in loss of privelege to provide medical services. Additionally, the right of the people to sue for discrimination will be protected. (I am not a lawyer, but this should include discrimination for age in the case of someone who carrys insurance for some period of time. In other words, insurance companies should not be allowed to drop someone's insurance because of an illness or an arbitrary age has been reached. While this will necessarily raise rates across the board, other provisions herein should result in a net decrease in insurance costs.)
6. The states, with discretion to their individual constitutions and in cooperation with county governments will pass laws establishing community health centers for the dispensing of basic health care services. These centers are to be not for profit entities subject to local inspection and control. Pricing for services will be based on known business & accounting standards on a cost + 2% basis. The 2% shall be kept in reserve under state control for emergency assistance during unforeseen circumstances such as an epidemic. (states would also be free to use some portion of this percentage for the indigent care proviso)
7. State government shall levy a tax to be used for indigent health care and care for persons with unavoidable chronic ailments. It would be preferrable for these taxes to expire every 6 years at which time the state legislature should review the program and reinstate the tax.
8. State and federal government should do everything possible within the constitution to encourage competition among the insurance and health care industries. Insurance companies or any other industry should not be allowed to collude in regards to pricing of goods and services. Personally, I am for banning national unions or associations. This falls under the federal governments constitutional mandate to regulate commerce among the states. Collusion for the purpose of setting rates and stifling competition is in direct opposition to the free market and should not be allowed.
9. State boards should be set up to review the cases of citizens with pre-existing conditions in regards to eligibility for indigent or chronic assistance. Criteria should be drafted with attention paid to the circumstances surrounding the loss of coverage. In other words, the case of an able bodied person who voluntarily quits working and subsequently cannot pay premiums and loses insurance should not be equal to the case of a person laid off during times of recession who subsequently cannot afford to keep insurance. Pre-existing conditions are the most difficult for insurance coverage. It is akin to wrecking your car and then asking the insurance company for a policy that will grandfather in the recent crash. No business practice could sustain itself with that policy. However, states should look to fold these citizens back into the insurance customer base after they can afford coverage, perhaps with tax breaks, grants or cooperatives.
I have purposely shied away from specifics such as the type of insurance that should be available. The free market should determine this with the federal government insuring free access enjoyed by all. Personally, I believe that educating the public to the reasonable approach to purchasing catastrophic coverage while maintaining a Health Savings Account, or simply using cash for day to day health care such as colds, cuts, broken bones etc. is the most prudent path for most families in America today. These choices need to be promoted and encouraged, but the final choice remains the individuals. If one prefers maximum coverage for a maximum rate then so be it. If one prefers no coverage at all, then so be it; just don't complain when illness assaults you. Regardless of our choices, good or bad, no person should be denied basic life saving care such as what is being provided in our emergency rooms today. This is NOT the same as treating sniffles and minor cuts and bruises in emergency rooms at your neighbors expense. This does not include long term world class care for fatal diseases such as cancer. If an individual freely decides to expose his/herself to risk, then they do not deserve extensive care. This is wasteful and unreasonable. They should, however, receive basic care and pain relief out of compassion, paying what they can afford, and relief of liability for the remainder.
One of the most important aspects of this plan is that the states are not mandated by federal law regarding their citizens health care. They are required to have equal access to care. The citizens of the country will vote with their feet. States with reasonable coverage and freedom will keep people and business. States with too much involvement will discourage business and have higher taxes. Their economy will suffer, prompting changes. States with too little coverage will lose taxpayers, again prompting changes. This is how the forefathers intended our country to work. They were very smart and intuitive and I challenge all of my fellow citizens to read their writings again and again until it soaks in just how deep their understanding of government and freedom was. They were voracious readers and they studied every government past and present before designing this wonderful republican government we have so far enjoyed. Let us be dutiful in passing these liberties to future generations. Libertas! God Bless America!
August 24, 2009
A Case Against Government Health Care
Politicians have always used fear to rule the people - always. The health care debate is no different. Propagation of fear has many Americans asking themselves a variety of questions. Is the government trying to incrementally take over the health care industry? Is government run health care efficient? Do politicians really have your best interest in mind? Is it compassionate to bankrupt my grandchildren and great-grandchildren for my care? Does it matter if government run health care is constitutional? If a politician or a party uses your fear of disease and dying to support their quest for power; deem them unworthy of your support; meriting only your contempt.
The first serious foray into government provided health insurance was by the Progressive Party under Theodore Roosevelt (TR) in 1912. It is important to understand that this was in the context of an overall strategy by TR to gain control over what was perceived as a blight of runaway corporations who were engulfing the resources of the country and hoarding indefensible profits on the backs of the common worker. The industrial revolution was in full swing and the astronomical growth of the economy (a good thing) had caught government off guard. The inherent slowness of government to react reasonably (a bad thing) had resulted in a huge populuous movement to reign in the corporate powers and restore the riches of the country to it's 'rightful' owners, the people who produced it. If that sounds familiar, it should. Several liberal politicians of our age have echoed the same sentiment, though I propose, with much less sincerity than Mr. Roosevelt. There was a sense that balance needed to be restored between business, labor and consumers. While Woodrow Wilson proposed doing so by weakening business, Roosevelt believed in doing so by strengthening the other two. As part of this attempt, the Progressive party endorsed social insurance as part of the platform in an attempt to beat Wilson and Taft in the upcoming presidential election. Another important note to make here is that it was more political than altruistic. (TR The Last Romantic, H.W. Brands 1997. -- Timeline: History of Health Reform in the U.S., Kaiser Family Foundation 2009 [kff])
TR's cousin Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) would again take up the banner for universal health coverage during his terms as President of the United States. However, FDR was acutely aware that this could end up torpedoing his primary concern, the Social Security Act (1935). In the end, FDR abandoned the inclusion of universal health coverage in the Social Security Act in the interest of easing it's passage through both houses of Congress. Interestingly, this began a decades long give and take between the American Medical Association (AMA) and government, in which the AMA fights legislation in the beginning of the political process but then lobbies for access and control, quite successfully, towards the end of the process when legislation seems eminent. (Despite popular belief the AMA does not represent 'doctors'. Only 20% belong.)
One must not diminish the importance of this administration in the eventual takeover of private industry by government. FDR was much more liberal than his public persona, believing in "cradle to grave" protection, including health insurance for all Americans. He always believed that these programs would lead to an ever more dependant class needing ever more government assistance, from guess which party? Within the first hour of their meeting to determine her nomination for Secretary of Labor, Frances Perkins and FDR had agreed upon much of the social welfare system as it has existed since. To Ms. Perkins astute observation; that much of this government involvement would be considered unconstitutional; FDR stated that "...we can work something out when it comes." This of course, would lead to the famous Supreme Court packing incident that was the eventual demise of FDR's perpetual presidency. (FDR was the first and only president to break with George Washington's tradition of only serving two terms as President of the United States) Make no mistake about it, this again was about power and money, not charity to the American public. As the debate in Congress was going on about the New Deal proposals, FDR waivered back and forth as the political winds blew. Frances Perkins was ever frustrated at his lack of solid support. Another clue into the political as opposed to ethical aspect of these programs was the fact that negroes need not apply. Yes, that is correct, Social Security, unemployment insurance and minimum wage under FDR all had employer exemptions that allowed for discrimination against blacks. New Deal programs lead to the fundamental change of the federal government from one that was meant to protect a citizens rights and access to the means to 'pursue' happiness, to one that provided 'happiness' in the form of security. Politicians to this day are abusing this corruption of the Constitution to bring fear to elderly and poor citizens claiming their 'rights' will be taken away if they vote for the wrong party. (The Defining Moment-FDR's Hundred Days and the Triumph of Hope, Jonathan Alter 2007.)
Though FDR did not include health coverage in the Social Security Act (SSA), it in no way stopped the government infusion into this private industry. While politicians from Truman to Kennedy attempted to gain traction for universal health care a plethora of government programs, mandates and regulations began the long trek towards complete government takeover. These include but are not limited to:
The inclusion of grants for Maternal and Child Health in the SSA, essentially restoring the Sheppard-Towner Act.
The Interdepartmental Committee to Coordinate Health and Welfare Activities.
National Health Survey.
Department of Health and Human Services is established as Federal Security Agency.
Attempt to pass the Wagner-Murray-Dingell bill in 1943 for cradle to grave coverage.
FDR's economic 'Bill of Rights' 1944.
Social Security Boards call for compulsory national health insurance.
Hill-Burton Act 1946.
1949 SCOTUS affirms National Labor Relations Board rule that benefits may be part of collective bargaining, strengthening labor unions.
1950 National Conference on aging.
1951 Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Hospitals.
Federal Security Agency becomes the Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
In 1965, the Johnson administration pushed through the Social Security Act which included single payer health care for seniors (Medicare) and single payer coverage for the 'poor' (Medicaid). At the time opponents to the bill claimed that the predictions of costs were grossly understated. History has shown that even they had no idea how much of the federal budget would eventually be spent on these programs. Once again, the original intent was to have complete government control of healthcare, but once again they were willing to use an incremental strategy.
In 1995 Robert Ball (Social Security administrator under Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon), made the following astounding admission...30 years after the fact:
"For persons who are trying to understand what we were up to, the first broad point to keep in mind is that all of us who developed Medicare and fought for it...had been advocates of universal national health insurance. We all saw insurance for the elderly as a fallback position, which we advocated solely because it seemed to have the best chance politically. Although the public record contains some explicit denials, we expected Medicare to be a first step toward universal national health insurance, perhaps with "Kiddicare" as another step."
Robert M. Ball, "Perspectives on Medicare: What Medicare's Architects Had in Mind," Health Affairs (Winter 1995): 62-72
Think about this for just a second. Here is a top administration official, admitting that the entire administration was consistently lying to the public in order to achieve their utlimate goal. If your goal is simply helping people, why on earth would you have to lie? However, what if your goal was more sinister? What if your goal was centralized governmental power over the people? What if your goal was known to be completely unconstitutional? Now THAT is a reason to lie!
If you still do not believe in the incremental approach to full governmental control of health care, peruse the following list of additions to Medicare/Medicaid since 1965:
1967-Social Security amendments broaden Medicaid coverage and add Early and Periodic Screening and Diagnostic Testing (EPSDT) benefits
1972-Medicare benefits are extended to persons under 65 with disabilities (the definition of which will change over the years) and persons with End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD)
1974-Health Planning Resources Development Act mandates state programs for health planning
1977-Health Care Financing Administration established under the Department of Health, Education and Welfare
1980-Home Health benefit under Medicare broadened. Medi-gap supplemental insurance brought under federal control
1981-Federal Budget Reconciliation (OBRA 81) puts additional mandates on states regarding pay and coverage of Medicare services.
1982-States allowed to expand Medicaid coverage to certain children with disabilities. HMO's are added as an option to garner more plan participation. Hospice benefits are added.
1983-Federal employees are required to participate in Medicare
1985-Medicare mandatory for newly hired state and local government employees
1986-Federal Budget Reconciliation (OBRA 86) loosens qualifications for coverage for the poor
1987-National Medical Expenditure Survey collects information on households from medical and insurance providers
1988-Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act greatly expands Medicare coverage. Though the act is repealed the next years, some elements are maintained such as state mandates for paying premiums for poor.
1989-Federal Budget Reconciliation (OBRA 89) mandates coverage for pregnant women and children under 6 at 133% of the poverty line
1990-Federal Budget Reconciliation (OBRA 90) mandates coverage of children 6-18 under poverty line
1993-Hospital Insurance (HI) payroll tax applied to all wages rather than the lower capped SS amount. States required to expand coverage and benefits. Clinton Administration attempts complete health care takeover by the government but fails amid stiff resistance.
1997-Balanced Budget Act mandates extensive changes in Medicare and Medicaid. Some intended to cut administrative costs, others to expand coverage and benefits including Medicare+Choice (optional managed care plan). Interestingly, payments must be reduced to providers to maintain solvency of HI which began only 4 years previous. State Childrens Health Insurance Program is adopted with block grants to states to cover federal mandates. States are allowed to cover working disabled up to 250% of poverty line.
2000-Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment and Prevention Act allows Medicaid coverage for breast and cervical cancer treatment regardless of income or resources
2003-Medicare Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act creates a voluntary prescription drug benefit under Medicare. Benefits provided under private plans and Medicare Advantage (formerly Medicare+Choice). Interestingly, many seniors opt for this plan without knowing their benefits actually decrease and they pay for services previously covered under Medicare (field observation by RN).
Legislation allows for Health Savings Accounts (HSA's) in conjunction with high deductible insurance plans.
2005-Deficit Reduction Act makes broad changes in premiums, cost sharing, benefits and asset transfers
2007-Many legislative attempts are made to expand or limit Medicare coverage, change tax exemptions and deductions, or extend S-CHIPS. All fail to be passed by Congress and/or signed by the president. Political divide on government provided health care widens with democrat Congress and republican President.
(kff, -- "Medicare, a profile, Celebrating 35 Medicare, Chronology of Legislative Activity" 1990)
This list is thorough but not comprehensive. Regardless of the obvious good intentions or seemingly charitable outcome, the stunning reality is that once government becomes involved in any industry, the tendency is to become ever more restrictive in that industries day to day operations. If you care to read any of the above legislation pay particular note to the use of the words: allow, mandate, require, regulate, fine, tax and fee.
Medicare and Medicaid costs, as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product has tripled since 1970. If left alone, Medicare/Medicaid spending could be as much as 19% of GDP by 2082. Government spending on health care now makes up approximately 45% of all health care expenditures in the United States. In the meantime, out of pocket expenses for recipients has gone down from 33% to 15% with projections of 13% by 2015. 25% of the beneficiaries account for 85% of expenditures. (Congressional Budget Office)
Social security, Medicare and Medicaid were over $1,000,000,000,000.00 in the fy 2006 federal budget. Despite popular belief, Medicare spending is only 53% funded by payroll tax. The rest comes from the general fund. (U.S. federal budget fy 2008 - Mandatory spending)
Now, put your thinking cap on. What happens when you give something to people, then you constantly expand what they can get while lessening their personal burden? Exponential growth, increased demand for benefits, ever expanding sense of entitlement. One thing that politicians will always rely on is the old adage that you can't prove a negative. In other words, no one can say what the condition of our health care system would be today if government had stayed out of it. Some historical data shows that the best way to increase medical care is to increase economic standards for all people. Our economy has grown by a factor of 20 in the last 40 years. How can anyone assert what the rate of uninsured would be if government regulation and control of almost 50% of our healthcare system did not exist? How can one know what the effect on the cost of health care would be if the government did not take out the needed revenue from everyones paycheck? How can one know how much more the economy would have expanded if government expenditures did not include government run health care? How can one know what the effect on the value of the U.S. dollar would be if the federal government was not so deep in debt? Very simply you can not. What one can do is to empirically prove what happens when government does control a large portion of health care. Costs go up, use expands exponentially, personal responsibility plummets, freedom is incrementally reduced, government mandates and regulations expand, free market solutions are stifled, doctors become disillusioned, etc. etc. etc. And the most tragic is that society tends to look only to government for solutions when in fact government is what is wrong.
All of the above is irrelevant. Yes, that's what I said, irrelevant. The reason is that everything that government has done, from Social Security to the GM bailout is unconstitutional. These things do not provide for the 'general welfare' of the U.S., they provide for the 'specific welfare' of individuals and businesses. The Constitution gives the federal government the power to 'regulate' interstate commerce. In the context of this clause, regulate means to 'keep regular' or to keep states from impeding each others ability to conduct business within these United States. A perfect example would be the ability to purchase insurance from another state. This is an area that the government should be involved in to the extent that it should remove barriers preventing this interstate commerce from occurring. The sad truth is that the exact opposite is being done. Government regulation now prevents such purchases! Nothing in the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to take over industries such as health care, insurance, banking or car manufacturing. And yet, they do, and are even arrogant about it to the extent that any critics of this oppression are laughed off as extremists or out of touch. This arrogance and condescension is precisely why our founding fathers warned against too much control being afforded a central government. Never forget that power corrupts.
If allowed to continue, and there is little chance it won't, the federal government will indeed, one day control the entire health care industry. What this means for the average American is that almost every aspect of your daily lives will become a line item to the bureaucracy. Holding down costs will be their constant mantra, because without personal responsibility and with coverage for all and coverage for everything, the cycle begun by Medicare/Medicaid will only be exacerbated. That means that if you ride a motorcycle, you are at a greater risk to require medical care. If you don't exercise properly you will be more likely to need heart medication. If you swim, boat or participate in any sport your risks of injury will be higher. All of this will be studied, numbers will be crunched, recommendations will be made, regulations will be made, mandates will flourish and taxes will rise constantly. The government will allow some activities while discouraging others. Once medical care is completely provided by government, then all activities that may lead to medical care; in other words living your life day to day; will become a point of interest to the bureaucrats in Washington D.C. whose mission it will be to constantly work to lower health care expenditures and increase tax contributions. If left alone as is, Medicare/Medicaid will consume the federal budget before the end of this century. That level of spending is unsustainable. Cuts will have to be made and revenues will have to be increased.
The indisputable evidence is that the federal government has caused more problems in the health care industry than it has solved. It has taken responsibility out of the health care equation. It has caused costs to increase with regulation and mandates. It has corrupted the political process by collusion with certain industries and unions. It has spread it's power and authority without regard to it's Constitutional mandate. It has encouraged future constitutional abuses. It has methodically forced dependency on a large portion of the population. And, most despicably, it has bankrupted future generations for it's own short term power trip and called it compassion.
Ladies and Gentlemen, it is about power and money. It has always been about power and money. It will always be about power and money. Our forefathers knew this. That is why they constantly admonished that all government by it's very nature is corrupt. The only way to minimize the effect on the liberty of the people is to diminish governments role in daily life as much as possible. It's not about the details, it's never about the details. It's about the philosophy. Big government=less freedom. Small government=more freedom. Freedom promotes ingenuity, invention and production. Government diminishes all three. The title of this blog is ignarus semino dominatus, ignorance breeds tyranny. The acceptance by a large portion of the populous of these States United, of Social Security and government health care are perfect examples of the truthfulness of this old idiom.
What is the solution? My next blog post Health Care Solutions for American will solve these problems constitutionally if we, the American voters, have the character and resolve to implement it.
by: Keith D. Rodebush
Charts for reference:
The first serious foray into government provided health insurance was by the Progressive Party under Theodore Roosevelt (TR) in 1912. It is important to understand that this was in the context of an overall strategy by TR to gain control over what was perceived as a blight of runaway corporations who were engulfing the resources of the country and hoarding indefensible profits on the backs of the common worker. The industrial revolution was in full swing and the astronomical growth of the economy (a good thing) had caught government off guard. The inherent slowness of government to react reasonably (a bad thing) had resulted in a huge populuous movement to reign in the corporate powers and restore the riches of the country to it's 'rightful' owners, the people who produced it. If that sounds familiar, it should. Several liberal politicians of our age have echoed the same sentiment, though I propose, with much less sincerity than Mr. Roosevelt. There was a sense that balance needed to be restored between business, labor and consumers. While Woodrow Wilson proposed doing so by weakening business, Roosevelt believed in doing so by strengthening the other two. As part of this attempt, the Progressive party endorsed social insurance as part of the platform in an attempt to beat Wilson and Taft in the upcoming presidential election. Another important note to make here is that it was more political than altruistic. (TR The Last Romantic, H.W. Brands 1997. -- Timeline: History of Health Reform in the U.S., Kaiser Family Foundation 2009 [kff])
TR's cousin Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) would again take up the banner for universal health coverage during his terms as President of the United States. However, FDR was acutely aware that this could end up torpedoing his primary concern, the Social Security Act (1935). In the end, FDR abandoned the inclusion of universal health coverage in the Social Security Act in the interest of easing it's passage through both houses of Congress. Interestingly, this began a decades long give and take between the American Medical Association (AMA) and government, in which the AMA fights legislation in the beginning of the political process but then lobbies for access and control, quite successfully, towards the end of the process when legislation seems eminent. (Despite popular belief the AMA does not represent 'doctors'. Only 20% belong.)
One must not diminish the importance of this administration in the eventual takeover of private industry by government. FDR was much more liberal than his public persona, believing in "cradle to grave" protection, including health insurance for all Americans. He always believed that these programs would lead to an ever more dependant class needing ever more government assistance, from guess which party? Within the first hour of their meeting to determine her nomination for Secretary of Labor, Frances Perkins and FDR had agreed upon much of the social welfare system as it has existed since. To Ms. Perkins astute observation; that much of this government involvement would be considered unconstitutional; FDR stated that "...we can work something out when it comes." This of course, would lead to the famous Supreme Court packing incident that was the eventual demise of FDR's perpetual presidency. (FDR was the first and only president to break with George Washington's tradition of only serving two terms as President of the United States) Make no mistake about it, this again was about power and money, not charity to the American public. As the debate in Congress was going on about the New Deal proposals, FDR waivered back and forth as the political winds blew. Frances Perkins was ever frustrated at his lack of solid support. Another clue into the political as opposed to ethical aspect of these programs was the fact that negroes need not apply. Yes, that is correct, Social Security, unemployment insurance and minimum wage under FDR all had employer exemptions that allowed for discrimination against blacks. New Deal programs lead to the fundamental change of the federal government from one that was meant to protect a citizens rights and access to the means to 'pursue' happiness, to one that provided 'happiness' in the form of security. Politicians to this day are abusing this corruption of the Constitution to bring fear to elderly and poor citizens claiming their 'rights' will be taken away if they vote for the wrong party. (The Defining Moment-FDR's Hundred Days and the Triumph of Hope, Jonathan Alter 2007.)
Though FDR did not include health coverage in the Social Security Act (SSA), it in no way stopped the government infusion into this private industry. While politicians from Truman to Kennedy attempted to gain traction for universal health care a plethora of government programs, mandates and regulations began the long trek towards complete government takeover. These include but are not limited to:
The inclusion of grants for Maternal and Child Health in the SSA, essentially restoring the Sheppard-Towner Act.
The Interdepartmental Committee to Coordinate Health and Welfare Activities.
National Health Survey.
Department of Health and Human Services is established as Federal Security Agency.
Attempt to pass the Wagner-Murray-Dingell bill in 1943 for cradle to grave coverage.
FDR's economic 'Bill of Rights' 1944.
Social Security Boards call for compulsory national health insurance.
Hill-Burton Act 1946.
1949 SCOTUS affirms National Labor Relations Board rule that benefits may be part of collective bargaining, strengthening labor unions.
1950 National Conference on aging.
1951 Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Hospitals.
Federal Security Agency becomes the Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
In 1965, the Johnson administration pushed through the Social Security Act which included single payer health care for seniors (Medicare) and single payer coverage for the 'poor' (Medicaid). At the time opponents to the bill claimed that the predictions of costs were grossly understated. History has shown that even they had no idea how much of the federal budget would eventually be spent on these programs. Once again, the original intent was to have complete government control of healthcare, but once again they were willing to use an incremental strategy.
In 1995 Robert Ball (Social Security administrator under Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon), made the following astounding admission...30 years after the fact:
"For persons who are trying to understand what we were up to, the first broad point to keep in mind is that all of us who developed Medicare and fought for it...had been advocates of universal national health insurance. We all saw insurance for the elderly as a fallback position, which we advocated solely because it seemed to have the best chance politically. Although the public record contains some explicit denials, we expected Medicare to be a first step toward universal national health insurance, perhaps with "Kiddicare" as another step."
Robert M. Ball, "Perspectives on Medicare: What Medicare's Architects Had in Mind," Health Affairs (Winter 1995): 62-72
Think about this for just a second. Here is a top administration official, admitting that the entire administration was consistently lying to the public in order to achieve their utlimate goal. If your goal is simply helping people, why on earth would you have to lie? However, what if your goal was more sinister? What if your goal was centralized governmental power over the people? What if your goal was known to be completely unconstitutional? Now THAT is a reason to lie!
If you still do not believe in the incremental approach to full governmental control of health care, peruse the following list of additions to Medicare/Medicaid since 1965:
1967-Social Security amendments broaden Medicaid coverage and add Early and Periodic Screening and Diagnostic Testing (EPSDT) benefits
1972-Medicare benefits are extended to persons under 65 with disabilities (the definition of which will change over the years) and persons with End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD)
1974-Health Planning Resources Development Act mandates state programs for health planning
1977-Health Care Financing Administration established under the Department of Health, Education and Welfare
1980-Home Health benefit under Medicare broadened. Medi-gap supplemental insurance brought under federal control
1981-Federal Budget Reconciliation (OBRA 81) puts additional mandates on states regarding pay and coverage of Medicare services.
1982-States allowed to expand Medicaid coverage to certain children with disabilities. HMO's are added as an option to garner more plan participation. Hospice benefits are added.
1983-Federal employees are required to participate in Medicare
1985-Medicare mandatory for newly hired state and local government employees
1986-Federal Budget Reconciliation (OBRA 86) loosens qualifications for coverage for the poor
1987-National Medical Expenditure Survey collects information on households from medical and insurance providers
1988-Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act greatly expands Medicare coverage. Though the act is repealed the next years, some elements are maintained such as state mandates for paying premiums for poor.
1989-Federal Budget Reconciliation (OBRA 89) mandates coverage for pregnant women and children under 6 at 133% of the poverty line
1990-Federal Budget Reconciliation (OBRA 90) mandates coverage of children 6-18 under poverty line
1993-Hospital Insurance (HI) payroll tax applied to all wages rather than the lower capped SS amount. States required to expand coverage and benefits. Clinton Administration attempts complete health care takeover by the government but fails amid stiff resistance.
1997-Balanced Budget Act mandates extensive changes in Medicare and Medicaid. Some intended to cut administrative costs, others to expand coverage and benefits including Medicare+Choice (optional managed care plan). Interestingly, payments must be reduced to providers to maintain solvency of HI which began only 4 years previous. State Childrens Health Insurance Program is adopted with block grants to states to cover federal mandates. States are allowed to cover working disabled up to 250% of poverty line.
2000-Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment and Prevention Act allows Medicaid coverage for breast and cervical cancer treatment regardless of income or resources
2003-Medicare Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act creates a voluntary prescription drug benefit under Medicare. Benefits provided under private plans and Medicare Advantage (formerly Medicare+Choice). Interestingly, many seniors opt for this plan without knowing their benefits actually decrease and they pay for services previously covered under Medicare (field observation by RN).
Legislation allows for Health Savings Accounts (HSA's) in conjunction with high deductible insurance plans.
2005-Deficit Reduction Act makes broad changes in premiums, cost sharing, benefits and asset transfers
2007-Many legislative attempts are made to expand or limit Medicare coverage, change tax exemptions and deductions, or extend S-CHIPS. All fail to be passed by Congress and/or signed by the president. Political divide on government provided health care widens with democrat Congress and republican President.
(kff, -- "Medicare, a profile, Celebrating 35 Medicare, Chronology of Legislative Activity" 1990)
This list is thorough but not comprehensive. Regardless of the obvious good intentions or seemingly charitable outcome, the stunning reality is that once government becomes involved in any industry, the tendency is to become ever more restrictive in that industries day to day operations. If you care to read any of the above legislation pay particular note to the use of the words: allow, mandate, require, regulate, fine, tax and fee.
Medicare and Medicaid costs, as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product has tripled since 1970. If left alone, Medicare/Medicaid spending could be as much as 19% of GDP by 2082. Government spending on health care now makes up approximately 45% of all health care expenditures in the United States. In the meantime, out of pocket expenses for recipients has gone down from 33% to 15% with projections of 13% by 2015. 25% of the beneficiaries account for 85% of expenditures. (Congressional Budget Office)
Social security, Medicare and Medicaid were over $1,000,000,000,000.00 in the fy 2006 federal budget. Despite popular belief, Medicare spending is only 53% funded by payroll tax. The rest comes from the general fund. (U.S. federal budget fy 2008 - Mandatory spending)
Now, put your thinking cap on. What happens when you give something to people, then you constantly expand what they can get while lessening their personal burden? Exponential growth, increased demand for benefits, ever expanding sense of entitlement. One thing that politicians will always rely on is the old adage that you can't prove a negative. In other words, no one can say what the condition of our health care system would be today if government had stayed out of it. Some historical data shows that the best way to increase medical care is to increase economic standards for all people. Our economy has grown by a factor of 20 in the last 40 years. How can anyone assert what the rate of uninsured would be if government regulation and control of almost 50% of our healthcare system did not exist? How can one know what the effect on the cost of health care would be if the government did not take out the needed revenue from everyones paycheck? How can one know how much more the economy would have expanded if government expenditures did not include government run health care? How can one know what the effect on the value of the U.S. dollar would be if the federal government was not so deep in debt? Very simply you can not. What one can do is to empirically prove what happens when government does control a large portion of health care. Costs go up, use expands exponentially, personal responsibility plummets, freedom is incrementally reduced, government mandates and regulations expand, free market solutions are stifled, doctors become disillusioned, etc. etc. etc. And the most tragic is that society tends to look only to government for solutions when in fact government is what is wrong.
All of the above is irrelevant. Yes, that's what I said, irrelevant. The reason is that everything that government has done, from Social Security to the GM bailout is unconstitutional. These things do not provide for the 'general welfare' of the U.S., they provide for the 'specific welfare' of individuals and businesses. The Constitution gives the federal government the power to 'regulate' interstate commerce. In the context of this clause, regulate means to 'keep regular' or to keep states from impeding each others ability to conduct business within these United States. A perfect example would be the ability to purchase insurance from another state. This is an area that the government should be involved in to the extent that it should remove barriers preventing this interstate commerce from occurring. The sad truth is that the exact opposite is being done. Government regulation now prevents such purchases! Nothing in the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to take over industries such as health care, insurance, banking or car manufacturing. And yet, they do, and are even arrogant about it to the extent that any critics of this oppression are laughed off as extremists or out of touch. This arrogance and condescension is precisely why our founding fathers warned against too much control being afforded a central government. Never forget that power corrupts.
If allowed to continue, and there is little chance it won't, the federal government will indeed, one day control the entire health care industry. What this means for the average American is that almost every aspect of your daily lives will become a line item to the bureaucracy. Holding down costs will be their constant mantra, because without personal responsibility and with coverage for all and coverage for everything, the cycle begun by Medicare/Medicaid will only be exacerbated. That means that if you ride a motorcycle, you are at a greater risk to require medical care. If you don't exercise properly you will be more likely to need heart medication. If you swim, boat or participate in any sport your risks of injury will be higher. All of this will be studied, numbers will be crunched, recommendations will be made, regulations will be made, mandates will flourish and taxes will rise constantly. The government will allow some activities while discouraging others. Once medical care is completely provided by government, then all activities that may lead to medical care; in other words living your life day to day; will become a point of interest to the bureaucrats in Washington D.C. whose mission it will be to constantly work to lower health care expenditures and increase tax contributions. If left alone as is, Medicare/Medicaid will consume the federal budget before the end of this century. That level of spending is unsustainable. Cuts will have to be made and revenues will have to be increased.
The indisputable evidence is that the federal government has caused more problems in the health care industry than it has solved. It has taken responsibility out of the health care equation. It has caused costs to increase with regulation and mandates. It has corrupted the political process by collusion with certain industries and unions. It has spread it's power and authority without regard to it's Constitutional mandate. It has encouraged future constitutional abuses. It has methodically forced dependency on a large portion of the population. And, most despicably, it has bankrupted future generations for it's own short term power trip and called it compassion.
Ladies and Gentlemen, it is about power and money. It has always been about power and money. It will always be about power and money. Our forefathers knew this. That is why they constantly admonished that all government by it's very nature is corrupt. The only way to minimize the effect on the liberty of the people is to diminish governments role in daily life as much as possible. It's not about the details, it's never about the details. It's about the philosophy. Big government=less freedom. Small government=more freedom. Freedom promotes ingenuity, invention and production. Government diminishes all three. The title of this blog is ignarus semino dominatus, ignorance breeds tyranny. The acceptance by a large portion of the populous of these States United, of Social Security and government health care are perfect examples of the truthfulness of this old idiom.
What is the solution? My next blog post Health Care Solutions for American will solve these problems constitutionally if we, the American voters, have the character and resolve to implement it.
by: Keith D. Rodebush
Charts for reference:
August 10, 2009
Health Care Takeover Protest. Austin, TX 8/9/09
Here are a few pictures from a Health Care Takeover protest at the Capitol building in Austin Texas on Sunday August 9, 2009. The word was that the democrats were going to put on a rally in support of the bill. The word got around by email and twitter and hundreds of patriots showed up to protest this takeover of a private American industry. Some came from as far as San Antonio to show their disgust with the direction of this country. Only a handful, less than 10 with signs, showed up in support of the Obama administration's attempted takeover of health care. Everyone there was respectful, kind and courteous but extremely worried about the ever growing federal government and the resulting loss of liberty associated with it. There were independents and republicans alike. There may have been a few democrats on our side but they were too ashamed to admit it as far as I know. The local news to this point, 9:00 a.m. 8/10/09 has not covered this at all. Not a peep. It is possible that this was a bait and switch and that a rally for the bill may have been held at the city hall instead, but I have not confirmed that as of this writing. The diversity of the people and the originality of all of the hand written signs is a testament to the truly grass roots character of this protest. There was a whole other section of people in the shade behind the photographer here. (Sorry, these are cell phone pics) Speakers not only bashed the Obama spending spree but equally bashed the Bush administration for it's excessive spending. At one point a cadence call was started saying, "No RINO's! No RINO's! No RINO's!" As you can clearly see, there are no swastikas, Brookes Bro's suits or GOP organizers. Just normal folks who are sick and tired of this country's leap to the left. Freedom over tyranny!! All liberals and left leaning Republicans should beware. We are coming for you at the next primary! You haven't seen riots till you see the working people riot!
This is exactly why my local group is starting a coalition of groups that will deal with wayward politicians one at a time in a very focused and direct way. We intend to defeat RINO's in the primaries. If anyone is interested in assisting in this effort please email me. My address is in the column on the left of this blog. Thank you all and God Bless America and free speech.
by: Keith D. Rodebush
August 5, 2009
New Columns for Hubpages
The Potential of the Free, http://hubpages.com/t/b1319
An intellectual exercise in the innate nature of freedom and liberty in the soul of Man.
The Great Divide http://hubpages.com/hub/GreatDivide
A somber look at the state of our nation.
Musings of Keith D. Rodebush.
An intellectual exercise in the innate nature of freedom and liberty in the soul of Man.
The Great Divide http://hubpages.com/hub/GreatDivide
A somber look at the state of our nation.
Musings of Keith D. Rodebush.
August 4, 2009
Are You Ready to DO Something?
The primary reason that politicians today are so corrupt is because they believe that by election time, most will have forgotten their dirty deeds. They believe that the money they get from lobbyists will override any opposition by the public. They believe that YOU won't really act on your contempt. Well, I intend to prove them wrong!
I have received preliminary approval by the board of my local Republican group to initiate a plan to create a coalition of groups that will monitor the votes of legislators on critical constitutional issues. We will warn the politicians not to vote against their principles or the Constitution on a specific issue, i.e. Cap and Trade or Bail Out/Control of private industry . If they ignore the warning, the coalition will work to defeat them in the next primary. We will support their opponent, fund raise for advertisement to remind their constituency of how they voted and use email and internet to expose them to their voters at the critical time of the primary. We will focus on one at a time, thereby exponentially expanding our power to extract a pound of flesh. It's a ONE strike and you're OUT program!
This coalition of groups will be loosely organized so that each maintains autonomy, but we all come together for focused efforts on individual actions. In this way, when a letter is sent to a legislator, it will not be signed by John Doe, it will be signed by hundreds or thousands. All of whom will pledge to actively work to defeat them in the next primary if they don't respect their principles and the U.S. Constitution. Because of the scope we will be unable to hold all accountable but instead we will pick specific instances to focus on. We will use them as examples for the purpose of warning others. If we can get one politician defeated, then others will pay closer attention when their letter of warning arrives! We really don't even have to defeat them, just make it close and scare them.
This can only work if like minded Americans finally decide that they want to DO something instead of just being disgusted at the corruption and tyranny that our Congress has come to be so well known for. Are YOU ready to DO something? If you would be interested in actually holding elected officials accountable, please email me and I will give you more details.
calfcreek_2"at"hotmail"dot"com
Collectively we need to let the government know that the Lion has been awakened! We will not go quietly into the night!! It is time for the silent majority to ROAR!!!
God Bless the United States of America!
by: Keith D. Rodebush
I have received preliminary approval by the board of my local Republican group to initiate a plan to create a coalition of groups that will monitor the votes of legislators on critical constitutional issues. We will warn the politicians not to vote against their principles or the Constitution on a specific issue, i.e. Cap and Trade or Bail Out/Control of private industry . If they ignore the warning, the coalition will work to defeat them in the next primary. We will support their opponent, fund raise for advertisement to remind their constituency of how they voted and use email and internet to expose them to their voters at the critical time of the primary. We will focus on one at a time, thereby exponentially expanding our power to extract a pound of flesh. It's a ONE strike and you're OUT program!
This coalition of groups will be loosely organized so that each maintains autonomy, but we all come together for focused efforts on individual actions. In this way, when a letter is sent to a legislator, it will not be signed by John Doe, it will be signed by hundreds or thousands. All of whom will pledge to actively work to defeat them in the next primary if they don't respect their principles and the U.S. Constitution. Because of the scope we will be unable to hold all accountable but instead we will pick specific instances to focus on. We will use them as examples for the purpose of warning others. If we can get one politician defeated, then others will pay closer attention when their letter of warning arrives! We really don't even have to defeat them, just make it close and scare them.
This can only work if like minded Americans finally decide that they want to DO something instead of just being disgusted at the corruption and tyranny that our Congress has come to be so well known for. Are YOU ready to DO something? If you would be interested in actually holding elected officials accountable, please email me and I will give you more details.
calfcreek_2"at"hotmail"dot"com
Collectively we need to let the government know that the Lion has been awakened! We will not go quietly into the night!! It is time for the silent majority to ROAR!!!
God Bless the United States of America!
by: Keith D. Rodebush
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)