!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The most important issue of our time is whether or not this nation will continue to be run as a constitutional republic. For this to be the case the People must have a reverence and respect for the U.S. Constitution as the law of the land. Yes, there will be times when the SCOTUS will rule in a way abhorrent to the Constitution, but if the People maintain their love and respect for it, they will elect leaders who will take on the courts and restore our constitutional rights. A growing trend in these times seems to be a complete disregard for the Constitution except in cases where it fits your agenda. This is a dangerous game that will always end in tyranny.
For the umpteenth time: Marco Rubio is ineligible to be President or Vice President of the United States of America according to the U.S. Constitution. Mr. Rubio is not a natural born citizen as defined by the SCOTUS in Minor v. Happersett. If we allow the GOP to continue to submit this man as a candidate for this office then we have no right whatsoever to criticize Barrack Hussein Obama for being himself ineligible for this office, which is an indisputable fact.
If Marco Rubio continues to bask in the limelight and will not address this issue then what we now know about him is that he is not who he pretends to be. He is in fact just another politician who will say anything, do anything and step on the U.S. Constitution if it furthers his own ambition and goals. The only thing worse than a snake is a snake that is camouflaged to look friendly when in fact it is poisonous. A politician who would subvert the Constitution for their own personal career ambition is poisonous.
How many T.E.A. party people do you see out there daily touting Marco Rubio for Vice President? It is indeed an indictment for just how far lost this nation is that the very crowd who takes to the streets waving the flag and the Constitution around, demanding that their leaders respect the Constitution; are themselves ignorant of that very document. How sad for America. How embarassing for the Patriot movement.
We don't get to pick and choose the moments that we adhere to the law of the land. We must follow it at all times, even when we find it difficult or an obstacle to our particular goals. The Founders put the eligibility clause into the Constitution because they did not ever want a Commander in Chief to have any other loyalties to any other nations but for the United States of America. If Barrack Hussein Obama running all over the world genuflecting in front of dictators and kings is not enough to prove their point then I don't know what it takes beyond utter treason. You cannot have the Rubio without the Obama. It is insufficient to spout that childish lament, "Well, they did it." If you love your country then you must love the document that makes it possible. You must protect and defend that document as if it is your very child, threatened by predators from many directions, even from within. Indeed your children and grandchildren will live under the tyranny you foist upon them by ignoring the Constitution. You cannot ignore one part without diminishing it in totum.
Please read your Constitution. Please read Minor v. Happersett. Please teach your children that sometimes it's hard to do the right thing, but do it you must. Please do not allow yourself to be brought down in the political gutter with your Democrat neighbors. Stand for something bigger than ourselves. Stand for the Constitution. Demand that Marco Rubio remove himself from the speculation for Vice President, loudly and often. If he refuses, then we will know who he really is; just another snake in the grass, lying to the People to promote himself.
UPDATE: I have had several responses from people who did not know or do not believe that Marco Rubio's parents were not citizens at his birth. For that reason I am providing this link:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/56489970/Naturalization-Petition-Filed-in-Sep-1975-for-Mario-Rubio-the-father-of-Senator-Marco-Rubio-born-May-1971
by: Keith D. Rodebush
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
April 24, 2012
April 8, 2012
On Trial: Failure of Leadership
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We are experiencing historical times in America. Now is not the moment when we should forget our history or allow others with an agenda to frame that history dishonestly. The Founders never intended for the SCOTUS to be an oligarchy that lords over the nation. Numerous courts have issued horribly unconstitutional rulings. Are we to accept their final judgment? Were previous courts’ rulings in favor of racism Constitutional? Ask yourself this, “Is killing an innocent child Constitutional?” Well, your magnanimous SCOTUS says it is. In fact they invented a ‘right to privacy’ out of whole cloth to do so. Is that how you want your Constitutional rights preserved? I think not. I prefer to depend on you, my fellow Americans. We must vote smart. We must educate ourselves and our children (do NOT rely on the government to educate your child!) We must hold ALL politicians accountable, particularly those in ‘our’ party. ObamaCare being decided by the SCOTUS results from the abject failure of the Republican House of Representatives to carry out the task for which they were sent to Washington D.C. We The People have decided that ObamaCare is unconstitutional. It is up to US to do something about it.
I began this series on Constitutional authority with two previous posts. If you have not read those, you should before continuing. You can find the first here.
The second question I posted in the first article was, to paraphrase, “Do you want your rights in the hands of nine unelected justices who may have an agenda?” While some may be comfortable with that because of an unwarranted respect for all things law, I believe it is safe to assume that most rational people do not believe that is a good idea. And in fact, as I have shown in the first two articles, neither did the Founders.
By now, any reasonable person would be asking the author, “Okay, if the SCOTUS doesn’t have the final say, what are we supposed to do about bad law such as ObamaCare?” An excellent question and I have the answer.
In 2008 Barrack Hussein Obama was elected the 44th President of the United States. My feeling is that it is safe to say future unbiased historians will surmise that his campaign was a ruse. Perhaps all are, but his to a greater extent as he has turned out to be the most radical left wing Marxist ever elected to national office. After the election as the People became more and more aware of whom this man is and what he intended to do, they became very fearful for their country. The means with which President Obama and his Democrat partners in the Congress jammed ObamaCare through was a watershed moment. The recent rise of a ‘T.E.A. Party’ (Taxed-Enough-Already) began to swell exponentially. Consequently, the American People sent a resounding message in November of 2010. “STOP THIS MAN!”
This is exactly how the system is supposed to work. The Republican Party took over the House of Representatives in a landslide. The Founders set the House up with the shortest term, but the greatest power; the power of the purse. All spending legislation begins in the House of Representatives per Article I, section 7 of the U.S. Constitution. This was a vital part of the checks and balances on power that the Constitution established. In order to prevent a tyrannical leader from creating too much havoc before he/she could be removed from office, the Founders set up the House to be the Peoples’ House and to have the power to shut down wayward government by shutting off the funding.
The Republican Party leadership has failed its constituency. Speaker John Boehner should have halted all government funding except vital monies for national security, Social Security payments and Justice Department funding required to keep the justice system operating. They should have stood firm and demanded that the Senate pass the repeal of ObamaCare and the President sign the bill. This is what the American people wanted. This is why they were sent to Washington D.C. ObamaCare is in the hands of potentially one single Supreme Court justice, solely because of the despicable lack of courage of the House GOP.
This failure must be answered. If the People intend to keep their freedom, many of the House GOP members sent to Congress in 2010 must be removed in the primaries. This is how the system is intended to work. We the People, through the election process demand that our representatives abide by the Constitution. If we fail to do so, our fate is then thrust upon a judicial branch that in the end is toothless. The Supreme Court has no legislative authority and therefore, is impotent to enforce in any real way their rulings. The point is, judicial power is way too feeble to be solely relied upon to protect our Liberty!
As I began this series my intent was to educate folks on how the Constitution was intended to work according to the Founders themselves. Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Supreme Court justice William Johnson in 1823 stated:
“On every question of construction, we should carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
Judicial review as a final decision maker on Constitutionality is a myth. Furthermore, the widely accepted precedent for this being Marbury v. Madison is nothing less than revisionist history for those who want to shape legislation through the courts, both conservative and progressive. For my readers who are interested in the facts of that case, I provide a scholarly article here.
Judicial review is a natural purview of the courts; in the case before them and nothing else. Chief Justice Marshall was actually establishing the boundaries of the court, not expanding them. All three branches have authority to determine constitutionality of their particular duties. I began with the title, “Rejoice Not That SCOTUS Will Decide ObamaCare.” I did so because the fact that it has gotten to this point is evidence of the failure of our leadership in Congress and the failure of the American people to hold accountable said leadership. As I wrote in Broken People, it is not our system that is flawed. We do not need the courts to determine what is Constitutional in regards to legislation. All we need is for good people, virtuous and educated, to exercise their duty and privilege in electing representatives who will uphold our rights to Life, Liberty and Property in EVERY election. As I have stated before, this is not baseball. One strike, and you’re out!
We are experiencing historical times in America. Now is not the moment when we should forget our history or allow others with an agenda to frame that history dishonestly. The Founders never intended for the SCOTUS to be an oligarchy that lords over the nation. Numerous courts have issued horribly unconstitutional rulings. Are we to accept their final judgment? Were previous courts’ rulings in favor of racism Constitutional? Ask yourself this, “Is killing an innocent child Constitutional?” Well, your magnanimous SCOTUS says it is. In fact they invented a ‘right to privacy’ out of whole cloth to do so. Is that how you want your Constitutional rights preserved? I think not. I prefer to depend on you, my fellow Americans. We must vote smart. We must educate ourselves and our children (do NOT rely on the government to educate your child!) We must hold ALL politicians accountable, particularly those in ‘our’ party. ObamaCare being decided by the SCOTUS results from the abject failure of the Republican House of Representatives to carry out the task for which they were sent to Washington D.C. We The People have decided that ObamaCare is unconstitutional. It is up to US to do something about it.
by: Keith D. Rodebush
August 4, 2011
A Call to Perry, Palin et al to Save America
******************************************************
Every generation is a living chapter of history. Historical boredom marks many a generation. The history that piques the interest of the scholar, whether armchair or ivory tower, is that which takes place during extremely difficult times. History frowns upon the ill-prepared. Examine some of the problems facing America and the world and you begin to fathom the depth of this generation’s challenge:
• Spread of Violent Islamic Jihad and Sharia Law
• Unsecured Borders/Unenforced Immigration Laws
• Rampant Corruption in Government
• Marxist Infiltration/Indoctrination in all Aspects of Government and Education
• Economic Terrorism
• High Unemployment
• Assault on and Disregard for, Our Constitutional Republican Form of Government
• Assault on Free Market Capitalism
• Loss of Property Rights
• Intrusive Police State
• Divisive Class & Racial Politics
• Loss of Respect For Life
• Loss of Faith in Our Creator
• Science Corrupted by Ideology
• Educational & Intellectual Decline
• Yellow Journalism
• Rife Dishonesty
• Collapse of Justice System into Political Tool
• Profligate Spending & Taxation
• Excessive Regulations on Business
• Unholy Alliance of Corporations and Government
• Loss of Sovereignty
• Loss of American Identity & Culture
• Communist Chinese Military Build-Up
• Nuclear Proliferation Among Radical Dictators
• Decline of Western Civilization & Values
• Demographic Demise of Europe
The list is almost endless. The sloth and arrogance of the American people coupled with the onslaught of Marxist thought and incompetent & corrupt leadership have led this great nation to the precipice of destruction. Chaos, tyranny, violence, hunger and death will engulf the world if the People of America do not instigate a paradigm shift in the United States federal government. What is at stake is whether Mankind will have a bulwark against fascism, and whether Liberty will be defended on the international stage. If America does not stand for Freedom and the concept of individual worth and prosperity, what nation will do so?
The two-party political system in America, having served us well for some period of time, has devolved in the last century into co-equal oppressors. Recent hopes for the Republican Party to rise to the calling of the People for constitutional republicanism have been dashed following historic elections in 1994 and 2010. The frustration of the People is beyond the ability of language to quantify. Party leadership makes it ever so apparent to thinking Americans that the GOP has no real interest in dismantling centralized, unconstitutional government; only controlling it for their own personal power and prosperity at the expense of the rights of the Several States and the Liberty of the People.
The challenges facing this nation are much too great for any one person to properly engage. While true leadership has been lacking in recent decades we are blessed to have in the political realm a handful of charismatic, energetic, patriotic, honest and intelligent individuals who have risen to the forefront to fight for a return to the Founding principles. The recent Tea Party movement contains a vast cross section of hard-working American People longing for a return to our traditional values & principles. It is within this context that I hereby request a coalition of individuals to combine their efforts in the cause of Liberty. It is with the full measure of spiritual muster that I call upon:
Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Sarah Palin, Rand Paul, Rick Perry, Marco Rubio and Allen West…
Rise above your personal ambition. Give flight to your patriotic fervor. Embrace the yearning American People and carry the torch of Liberty for a Second Revolution. A revolution of peace brought forth through the very construct of our Founding Fathers, the U.S. Constitution. Launch the ship of redemption for the Great Experiment and lead a third party, The Tea Party to a historic victory in the coming election of 2012. There are many who will follow and lead, but your popularity and resonance will solidify our efforts. I truly believe that, We the People of the United States of America would feverishly support such a movement to the extent that a historical shift in the political landscape will ensue. Upon seeing the popularity and spirit of such a movement, GOP candidates nationwide will abandon the old guard establishment and join this effort at haste. Democrats and Independents who have been locked in a political nightmare having truly been abandoned by their party years ago will also join. I have worked hard all of my life, prayed hard and been loyal to my country. I am a proud man not prone to begging but I beg each and every one of you; look into your hearts, pray; and help us save this, the greatest nation known to Mankind.
History is made by those with the courage to make it. Do not allow the waning flame of Liberty to be vanquished from the Earth. Deep within your hearts you know that current political parties will never allow the dismantling of centralized powerful government. This can only be done by an outside force, emboldened by the will of the People and blessed by Providence. Time may be unkind to procrastinated action. The fate of the world desperately awaits your decision. I urge you with all dispatch, lead us to victory!
Respectfully,
In Liberty,
Yours,
Besieged American
Every generation is a living chapter of history. Historical boredom marks many a generation. The history that piques the interest of the scholar, whether armchair or ivory tower, is that which takes place during extremely difficult times. History frowns upon the ill-prepared. Examine some of the problems facing America and the world and you begin to fathom the depth of this generation’s challenge:
• Spread of Violent Islamic Jihad and Sharia Law
• Unsecured Borders/Unenforced Immigration Laws
• Rampant Corruption in Government
• Marxist Infiltration/Indoctrination in all Aspects of Government and Education
• Economic Terrorism
• High Unemployment
• Assault on and Disregard for, Our Constitutional Republican Form of Government
• Assault on Free Market Capitalism
• Loss of Property Rights
• Intrusive Police State
• Divisive Class & Racial Politics
• Loss of Respect For Life
• Loss of Faith in Our Creator
• Science Corrupted by Ideology
• Educational & Intellectual Decline
• Yellow Journalism
• Rife Dishonesty
• Collapse of Justice System into Political Tool
• Profligate Spending & Taxation
• Excessive Regulations on Business
• Unholy Alliance of Corporations and Government
• Loss of Sovereignty
• Loss of American Identity & Culture
• Communist Chinese Military Build-Up
• Nuclear Proliferation Among Radical Dictators
• Decline of Western Civilization & Values
• Demographic Demise of Europe
The list is almost endless. The sloth and arrogance of the American people coupled with the onslaught of Marxist thought and incompetent & corrupt leadership have led this great nation to the precipice of destruction. Chaos, tyranny, violence, hunger and death will engulf the world if the People of America do not instigate a paradigm shift in the United States federal government. What is at stake is whether Mankind will have a bulwark against fascism, and whether Liberty will be defended on the international stage. If America does not stand for Freedom and the concept of individual worth and prosperity, what nation will do so?
The two-party political system in America, having served us well for some period of time, has devolved in the last century into co-equal oppressors. Recent hopes for the Republican Party to rise to the calling of the People for constitutional republicanism have been dashed following historic elections in 1994 and 2010. The frustration of the People is beyond the ability of language to quantify. Party leadership makes it ever so apparent to thinking Americans that the GOP has no real interest in dismantling centralized, unconstitutional government; only controlling it for their own personal power and prosperity at the expense of the rights of the Several States and the Liberty of the People.
The challenges facing this nation are much too great for any one person to properly engage. While true leadership has been lacking in recent decades we are blessed to have in the political realm a handful of charismatic, energetic, patriotic, honest and intelligent individuals who have risen to the forefront to fight for a return to the Founding principles. The recent Tea Party movement contains a vast cross section of hard-working American People longing for a return to our traditional values & principles. It is within this context that I hereby request a coalition of individuals to combine their efforts in the cause of Liberty. It is with the full measure of spiritual muster that I call upon:
Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Sarah Palin, Rand Paul, Rick Perry, Marco Rubio and Allen West…
Rise above your personal ambition. Give flight to your patriotic fervor. Embrace the yearning American People and carry the torch of Liberty for a Second Revolution. A revolution of peace brought forth through the very construct of our Founding Fathers, the U.S. Constitution. Launch the ship of redemption for the Great Experiment and lead a third party, The Tea Party to a historic victory in the coming election of 2012. There are many who will follow and lead, but your popularity and resonance will solidify our efforts. I truly believe that, We the People of the United States of America would feverishly support such a movement to the extent that a historical shift in the political landscape will ensue. Upon seeing the popularity and spirit of such a movement, GOP candidates nationwide will abandon the old guard establishment and join this effort at haste. Democrats and Independents who have been locked in a political nightmare having truly been abandoned by their party years ago will also join. I have worked hard all of my life, prayed hard and been loyal to my country. I am a proud man not prone to begging but I beg each and every one of you; look into your hearts, pray; and help us save this, the greatest nation known to Mankind.
History is made by those with the courage to make it. Do not allow the waning flame of Liberty to be vanquished from the Earth. Deep within your hearts you know that current political parties will never allow the dismantling of centralized powerful government. This can only be done by an outside force, emboldened by the will of the People and blessed by Providence. Time may be unkind to procrastinated action. The fate of the world desperately awaits your decision. I urge you with all dispatch, lead us to victory!
Respectfully,
In Liberty,
Yours,
Besieged American
June 16, 2011
Supporting Sophism Supplants Constitution
__________________________________________
One of the most difficult things to do in the modern political environment is to be ideologically pure. Political correctness has so thoroughly permeated the discourse that nothing deemed intolerant will be tolerated. Let us look closely for a moment though. If you are not pure in your ideas, do you have any basis for those ideas? I remember an exchange between a conservative woman and a libertarian conservative over the issue of prostitution. At some point he asked her if she would do it for a million dollars. She struggled to answer saying that a million dollars was a lot of money, but ultimately admitted that she probably would. He then asked if she would do it for $1. She got very flustered and asked him, "What do you think I am?" to which he replied, "What you are Madam, has been established, it's now just a matter of price." The point is that if you allow an exception to a belief then you have no belief. The only hope remaining for this nation is to apply principle to every vote for every politician. One strike and you're out.
So called conservatives these days are constantly guilty of this perversion of their 'principles'. Take the balanced budget amendment that so many tout as a way to reign in government spending. On the face of it you may think this is a good idea but it is a horrible idea for two reasons. One, it is an excuse to raise taxes. Two, it is an admission that spending at this level is necessary and must continue. Neither of these things is good for America and in the case of the spending, most of it is unconstitutional. The principled stand is that the federal government must discontinue unconstitutional programs, lower taxes and return prosperity and power to the people and the several States as intended by the Founders of this nation. The balanced budget amendment is capitulation by an inadequate and vacuous bunch of cowardly legislators.
Another example is oil subsidies. Congressmen right and left will argue this is necessary for development of our resources while the government does a plethora of other things to diminish same. The truth is that it is simply a bone thrown to a private sector that offsets another bone thrown to another sector, i.e. ethanol subsidies. Every time a so called conservative argues for oil subsidies to continue he/she by default argues for other subsidies to continue. The federal government has no standing constitutionally or morally subsidizing any business. The very bedrock of free enterprise capitalism is that industry should stand on it's own, driven by a free market to determine what is best for the citizenry. If a product is necessary, efficient and priced properly it will excel in the market. If not, it will and should fail and make room for something more adequate.
Thirdly, and I will get in big trouble here, abortion is one of the most egregious of the cases of unprincipled exception. Being such an emotional issue it is rife with instances of otherwise good conservative folks willing to vote for bad laws simply to reduce the slaughter. You will find no more pro life person than I. I believe that Roe v. Wade is completely erroneous and has zero basis in the U.S. Constitution. I believe that the fetus should have a doctor and that no government entity should be able to come between the fetus and his/her doctor. I believe that a doctor that knowingly exterminates the life of a child is guilty of murder with the mother being at the least accessory to the crime. That being said; recently Texas passed a law that would force women to see an ultra-sound of their fetus before an abortion could be done. Again, on the face of it, you may think that's a great idea. In fact, it may save a few babies short term. Indeed the bill was watered down with amendments to the point that no woman actually has to view it, but that is not the point. The point is this; if you vote for a law to allow the government to come between you and your doctor, even for a noble purpose, then you open the door legally for another law to be made for nefarious purposes. This is how law works. Once you set a precedent, then future advocates for other intrusions into your health care can point to it and say, "See, the government can and does intervene in medical care. Now we want to intervene also." This is the basis for socialized medicine which will cause untold pain and suffering if ever fully implemented. In fact more abortions would be approved, less care for elderly and even euthanasia for terminal patients or special needs children. In other words, far down the road, the precedent you set with a bad law, can result in exponentially more damage than you prevented. Again, the principled stance is that all abortions are wrong and should be illegal with only one exception, the life of the mother. Even then it should only be done with the explicit approval of the mother. There are some mothers who will choose to die to let their child live and that choice should be respected. But in the case where one must die, it is unfortunate but logical that the more viable developed life should survive to possibly reproduce again. This is the cruelty of nature. A hard, but necessary choice. We must be willing to take this stand and remain vigilant. The minute we allow any other exception we immediately lose the argument and will never prevail, causing even more babies to be murdered. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
The facts are clear to those willing to see. Compromise is for the weak and unprincipled. One should stand morally and ethically ensconced in ones beliefs and let them prevail or fail based on the merits alone. If we fail, we come back to fight again with more fervor and clearer communication. In the end right will win. However, once you compromise even once, you cannot again take a stance on principle for your enemies clearly see that you have none. This means that your presence in the debate is in fact detrimental to your stated cause. Even Ronald Reagan, my favorite president of the last century, famously stated that 85% was better than nothing. Well, he went on to compromise with liberals and the increase in revenues from his tax policy was eventually dwarfed by the continued out of control spending on unconstitutional programs. Later liberals would use his compromises as ammunition to argue for further compromise. It just goes on. Now we are on the brink of bankruptcy, not from Obama's spending, bad as that is, but from unconstitutional entitlement programs that have been voted for in various forms by both parties for over 100 years. The entire entitlement structure owes its life to unprincipled conservatives who caved, compromised and compounded the problem leaving future generations bankrupt and stripped of their right to inherit constitutional government and Liberty. Once again the devastation that will be wrought on children and grandchildren, worldwide, dwarfs the perceived gain in the short term of our lives. How despicable must be the view of our generation by future historians when the true cost of our selfishness and lack of honor or principle will be known.
America, I implore you to take a stand for principled constitutional government and nothing else from this day to your death. To do otherwise is to put yourself into the long, sad, and pernicious line of evil that is destroying the greatest nation in the history of mankind.
by: Keith D. Rodebush
One of the most difficult things to do in the modern political environment is to be ideologically pure. Political correctness has so thoroughly permeated the discourse that nothing deemed intolerant will be tolerated. Let us look closely for a moment though. If you are not pure in your ideas, do you have any basis for those ideas? I remember an exchange between a conservative woman and a libertarian conservative over the issue of prostitution. At some point he asked her if she would do it for a million dollars. She struggled to answer saying that a million dollars was a lot of money, but ultimately admitted that she probably would. He then asked if she would do it for $1. She got very flustered and asked him, "What do you think I am?" to which he replied, "What you are Madam, has been established, it's now just a matter of price." The point is that if you allow an exception to a belief then you have no belief. The only hope remaining for this nation is to apply principle to every vote for every politician. One strike and you're out.
So called conservatives these days are constantly guilty of this perversion of their 'principles'. Take the balanced budget amendment that so many tout as a way to reign in government spending. On the face of it you may think this is a good idea but it is a horrible idea for two reasons. One, it is an excuse to raise taxes. Two, it is an admission that spending at this level is necessary and must continue. Neither of these things is good for America and in the case of the spending, most of it is unconstitutional. The principled stand is that the federal government must discontinue unconstitutional programs, lower taxes and return prosperity and power to the people and the several States as intended by the Founders of this nation. The balanced budget amendment is capitulation by an inadequate and vacuous bunch of cowardly legislators.
Another example is oil subsidies. Congressmen right and left will argue this is necessary for development of our resources while the government does a plethora of other things to diminish same. The truth is that it is simply a bone thrown to a private sector that offsets another bone thrown to another sector, i.e. ethanol subsidies. Every time a so called conservative argues for oil subsidies to continue he/she by default argues for other subsidies to continue. The federal government has no standing constitutionally or morally subsidizing any business. The very bedrock of free enterprise capitalism is that industry should stand on it's own, driven by a free market to determine what is best for the citizenry. If a product is necessary, efficient and priced properly it will excel in the market. If not, it will and should fail and make room for something more adequate.
Thirdly, and I will get in big trouble here, abortion is one of the most egregious of the cases of unprincipled exception. Being such an emotional issue it is rife with instances of otherwise good conservative folks willing to vote for bad laws simply to reduce the slaughter. You will find no more pro life person than I. I believe that Roe v. Wade is completely erroneous and has zero basis in the U.S. Constitution. I believe that the fetus should have a doctor and that no government entity should be able to come between the fetus and his/her doctor. I believe that a doctor that knowingly exterminates the life of a child is guilty of murder with the mother being at the least accessory to the crime. That being said; recently Texas passed a law that would force women to see an ultra-sound of their fetus before an abortion could be done. Again, on the face of it, you may think that's a great idea. In fact, it may save a few babies short term. Indeed the bill was watered down with amendments to the point that no woman actually has to view it, but that is not the point. The point is this; if you vote for a law to allow the government to come between you and your doctor, even for a noble purpose, then you open the door legally for another law to be made for nefarious purposes. This is how law works. Once you set a precedent, then future advocates for other intrusions into your health care can point to it and say, "See, the government can and does intervene in medical care. Now we want to intervene also." This is the basis for socialized medicine which will cause untold pain and suffering if ever fully implemented. In fact more abortions would be approved, less care for elderly and even euthanasia for terminal patients or special needs children. In other words, far down the road, the precedent you set with a bad law, can result in exponentially more damage than you prevented. Again, the principled stance is that all abortions are wrong and should be illegal with only one exception, the life of the mother. Even then it should only be done with the explicit approval of the mother. There are some mothers who will choose to die to let their child live and that choice should be respected. But in the case where one must die, it is unfortunate but logical that the more viable developed life should survive to possibly reproduce again. This is the cruelty of nature. A hard, but necessary choice. We must be willing to take this stand and remain vigilant. The minute we allow any other exception we immediately lose the argument and will never prevail, causing even more babies to be murdered. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
The facts are clear to those willing to see. Compromise is for the weak and unprincipled. One should stand morally and ethically ensconced in ones beliefs and let them prevail or fail based on the merits alone. If we fail, we come back to fight again with more fervor and clearer communication. In the end right will win. However, once you compromise even once, you cannot again take a stance on principle for your enemies clearly see that you have none. This means that your presence in the debate is in fact detrimental to your stated cause. Even Ronald Reagan, my favorite president of the last century, famously stated that 85% was better than nothing. Well, he went on to compromise with liberals and the increase in revenues from his tax policy was eventually dwarfed by the continued out of control spending on unconstitutional programs. Later liberals would use his compromises as ammunition to argue for further compromise. It just goes on. Now we are on the brink of bankruptcy, not from Obama's spending, bad as that is, but from unconstitutional entitlement programs that have been voted for in various forms by both parties for over 100 years. The entire entitlement structure owes its life to unprincipled conservatives who caved, compromised and compounded the problem leaving future generations bankrupt and stripped of their right to inherit constitutional government and Liberty. Once again the devastation that will be wrought on children and grandchildren, worldwide, dwarfs the perceived gain in the short term of our lives. How despicable must be the view of our generation by future historians when the true cost of our selfishness and lack of honor or principle will be known.
America, I implore you to take a stand for principled constitutional government and nothing else from this day to your death. To do otherwise is to put yourself into the long, sad, and pernicious line of evil that is destroying the greatest nation in the history of mankind.
by: Keith D. Rodebush
September 15, 2010
Sword of Liberty!
..............................................................................
Dreams of the Fathers, whisper softly in my mind.
While modern Pretenders, only seek to redefine.
'Tis exactly as they feared, as we depend upon the State.
Our Liberty is lost, Tyranny our fate.
Among the kindest souls, exists the fertile ground.
From which the socialistic seeds of slavery abound.
Success, excess, apathy much like a locust swarm.
Consume the once proud nations soul, portends the coming storm.
The peak of all the self made crisis, excites the Ruling Class.
The over zealous Tyrant sees, the world within his grasp.
One last time the people try the government solution.
Yet corruption and incompetence ensures the revolution.
The unlikely band of Patriots, dare bite the Masters hand.
The New Sons of Liberty arise across the land.
History for those who know, has always been replete,
With stories of a nations fall, as blood runs through the streets.
America has found a better way, to change Her institutions.
The sword with which we smite our foe, is the U.S. Constitution!
Our Founding Fathers gave us armor, Our children need not fear.
We can vote the bastards out, every other year.
May Providence bless future Man, with overwhelming clarity,
The greatest way to live our lives, is with freedom and prosperity.
by: Keith D. Rodebush
Dreams of the Fathers, whisper softly in my mind.
While modern Pretenders, only seek to redefine.
'Tis exactly as they feared, as we depend upon the State.
Our Liberty is lost, Tyranny our fate.
Among the kindest souls, exists the fertile ground.
From which the socialistic seeds of slavery abound.
Success, excess, apathy much like a locust swarm.
Consume the once proud nations soul, portends the coming storm.
The peak of all the self made crisis, excites the Ruling Class.
The over zealous Tyrant sees, the world within his grasp.
One last time the people try the government solution.
Yet corruption and incompetence ensures the revolution.
The unlikely band of Patriots, dare bite the Masters hand.
The New Sons of Liberty arise across the land.
History for those who know, has always been replete,
With stories of a nations fall, as blood runs through the streets.
America has found a better way, to change Her institutions.
The sword with which we smite our foe, is the U.S. Constitution!
Our Founding Fathers gave us armor, Our children need not fear.
We can vote the bastards out, every other year.
May Providence bless future Man, with overwhelming clarity,
The greatest way to live our lives, is with freedom and prosperity.
by: Keith D. Rodebush
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:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
