It came to my attention while watching Neil Cavuto today that beginning in 2014, the Federal Government is going to require the electronic reporting of everyone’s BMI (body mass index) by all health care providers as part of Obamacare.

Sec 4103

(a) COVERAGE OF PERSONALIZED PREVENTION PLAN SERVICES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 1861(s)(2) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(s)(2)) is amended…

(b) PERSONALIZED PREVENTION PLAN SERVICES DEFINED.—Section
1861 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
‘‘Annual Wellness Visit
‘‘(hhh)(1) The term ‘personalized prevention plan services’
means the creation of a plan for an individual—
‘‘(A) that includes a health risk assessment (that meets
the guidelines established by the Secretary under paragraph
(4)(A)) of the individual that is completed prior to or as part
of the same visit with a health professional described in paragraph
(3); and
‘‘(B) that—
‘‘(i) takes into account the results of the health risk
assessment; and
‘‘(ii) may contain the elements described in paragraph
(2).
‘‘(2) Subject to paragraph (4)(H), the elements described in
this paragraph are the following:
‘‘(A) The establishment of, or an update to, the individual’s
medical and family history.
‘‘(B) A list of current providers and suppliers that are
regularly involved in providing medical care to the individual
(including a list of all prescribed medications).
H. R. 3590—436
‘‘(C) A measurement of height, weight, body mass index
(or waist circumference, if appropriate), blood pressure, and
other routine measurements.
‘‘(D) Detection of any cognitive impairment.
‘‘(E) The establishment of, or an update to, the following:
‘‘(i) A screening schedule for the next 5 to 10 years,
as appropriate, based on recommendations of the United
States Preventive Services Task Force and the Advisory
Committee on Immunization Practices, and the individual’s
health status, screening history, and age-appropriate
preventive services covered under this title.
‘‘(ii) A list of risk factors and conditions for which
primary, secondary, or tertiary prevention interventions
are recommended or are underway, including any mental
health conditions or any such risk factors or conditions
that have been identified through an initial preventive
physical examination (as described under subsection
(ww)(1)), and a list of treatment options and their associated
risks and benefits.
‘‘(F) The furnishing of personalized health advice and a
referral, as appropriate, to health education or preventive counseling
services or programs aimed at reducing identified risk
factors and improving self-management, or community-based
lifestyle interventions to reduce health risks and promote selfmanagement
and wellness, including weight loss, physical
activity, smoking cessation, fall prevention, and nutrition.
‘‘(G) Any other element determined appropriate by the
Secretary….
‘‘(4)(A) For purposes of paragraph (1)(A), the Secretary, not
later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this subsection,
shall establish publicly available guidelines for health risk assessments.
Such guidelines shall be developed in consultation with
relevant groups and entities and shall provide that a health risk
assessment—
‘‘(i) identify chronic diseases, injury risks, modifiable risk
factors, and urgent health needs of the individual; and
‘‘(ii) may be furnished—
‘‘(I) through an interactive telephonic or web-based
program that meets the standards established under
subparagraph (B);
‘‘(II) during an encounter with a health care professional;
‘‘(III) through community-based prevention programs;
or
‘‘(IV) through any other means the Secretary determines
appropriate to maximize accessibility and ease of
use by beneficiaries, while ensuring the privacy of such
beneficiaries.

I am not yet aware of what other health indicators have to be reported, but the BMI is one that could be used against you in seeking employment or a promotion, allowing you to purchase insurance, or even in deciding whether or not to retain you in a position. And given the need to Pay for Obamacare, there could even in the future be a panel that would decide you were not entitled to certain health care procedures, or could even be placed in a different tax bracket. While many of the things in your medical record do not lend themselves to such instant evaluation, BMI most decidedly does.

The information is guaranteed as well to not remain within even the privacy of a governmental office, much less your personal health record. A later provision in the Act provides for “community-based organizations” (such as ACORN- and Chris Dodd has already admitted they would qualify) to be given grants to establish independent “Wellness” counsels to monitor your records, provide health improvement plans, and monitor and report-on how you are complying with their plan.

Subtitle C—Creating Healthier
Communities
SEC. 4201. COMMUNITY TRANSFORMATION GRANTS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Health and Human Services
(referred to in this section as the ‘‘Secretary’’), acting through the
Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (referred
to in this section as the ‘‘Director’’), shall award competitive grants
to State and local governmental agencies and community-based
organizations for the implementation, evaluation, and dissemination
of evidence-based community preventive health activities in order
to reduce chronic disease rates, prevent the development of secondary
conditions, address health disparities, and develop a
stronger evidence-base of effective prevention programming.
(b) ELIGIBILITY.—To be eligible to receive a grant under subsection
(a), an entity shall—
(1) be—
(A) a State governmental agency;
(B) a local governmental agency;
(C) a national network of community-based organizations;
(D) a State or local non-profit organization; or
(E) an Indian tribe; and
(2) submit to the Director an application at such time,
in such a manner, and containing such information as the
Director may require, including a description of the program
to be carried out under the grant; and
(3) demonstrate a history or capacity, if funded, to develop
relationships necessary to engage key stakeholders from multiple
sectors within and beyond health care and across a
community, such as healthy futures corps and health care
providers.
(c) USE OF FUNDS.—
H. R. 3590—447
(1) IN GENERAL.—An eligible entity shall use amounts
received under a grant under this section to carry out programs
described in this subsection.
(2) COMMUNITY TRANSFORMATION PLAN.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—An eligible entity that receives a
grant under this section shall submit to the Director (for
approval) a detailed plan that includes the policy, environmental,
programmatic, and as appropriate infrastructure
changes needed to promote healthy living and reduce
disparities.
(B) ACTIVITIES.—Activities within the plan may focus
on (but not be limited to)—
(i) creating healthier school environments,
including increasing healthy food options, physical
activity opportunities, promotion of healthy lifestyle,
emotional wellness, and prevention curricula, and
activities to prevent chronic diseases;
(ii) creating the infrastructure to support active
living and access to nutritious foods in a safe environment;
(iii) developing and promoting programs targeting
a variety of age levels to increase access to nutrition,
physical activity and smoking cessation, improve social
and emotional wellness, enhance safety in a community,
or address any other chronic disease priority area
identified by the grantee;
(iv) assessing and implementing worksite wellness
programming and incentives;
(v) working to highlight healthy options at restaurants
and other food venues;
(vi) prioritizing strategies to reduce racial and
ethnic disparities, including social, economic, and
geographic determinants of health; and
(vii) addressing special populations needs,
including all age groups and individuals with disabilities,
and individuals in both urban and rural areas.
(3) COMMUNITY-BASED PREVENTION HEALTH ACTIVITIES.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—An eligible entity shall use amounts
received under a grant under this section to implement
a variety of programs, policies, and infrastructure improvements
to promote healthier lifestyles.
(B) ACTIVITIES.—An eligible entity shall implement
activities detailed in the community transformation plan
under paragraph (2).
(C) IN-KIND SUPPORT.—An eligible entity may provide
in-kind resources such as staff, equipment, or office space
in carrying out activities under this section.
(4) EVALUATION.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—An eligible entity shall use amounts
provided under a grant under this section to conduct activities
to measure changes in the prevalence of chronic disease
risk factors among community members participating in
preventive health activities
(B) TYPES OF MEASURES.—In carrying out subparagraph
(A), the eligible entity shall, with respect to residents
in the community, measure—
(i) changes in weight;
H. R. 3590—448
(ii) changes in proper nutrition;
(iii) changes in physical activity;
(iv) changes in tobacco use prevalence;
(v) changes in emotional well-being and overall
mental health;
(vi) other factors using community-specific data
from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey;
and
(vii) other factors as determined by the Secretary.
(C) REPORTING.—An eligible entity shall annually
submit to the Director a report containing an evaluation
of activities carried out under the grant.

I don’t feel the government, much less ACORN has a right to ANY of my health care records, or any part of my health care record, and mandating such reporting is a MAJOR infringement on my personal rights and personal freedom.

Ergo, as a start to my personal protest of this intrusion into my privacy, I will no longer allow any health care provider to weigh me, do a pinch test, float test, or otherwise take any measurement that could be translated to BMI. I will begin this policy immediately, so that when the time comes to report it, they will HAVE to report “Unknown.”

My wife and family members are also going to begin this policy immediately, and I strongly urge everyone else to do the same. Your weight or BMI is not the issue, so it really doesn’t matter whether you are fat or skinny. Your freedom is the issue.

With any luck, Obamacare will be will be repealed before 2014, and we won’t have the issue in play. If not, I for one will fight them every step of the way with every possible way of screwing up their program I can come up with. I can’t speak to your doctor, but mine is fairly conservative, and when I explain why I am doing what I am doing, I’m sure he’ll have no objection to reporting, quite honestly, that he doesn’t know my weight or BMI.

On a daily basis anymore, and with ever more frequency as the elections approach, political discussion in every form of media is drifting toward one subject: What is it that is driving the renewed interest in politics? What, specifically, has brought Americans to their heightened state of political awareness, and how is that motivation going to play out in the coming elections? Is this specifically the Tea Party Movement, or is The Tea party Movement just one aspect of it?

Several explanations for the phenomenon have emerged, and where you started from in political outlook plays a large role in how you view the goings-on.

Democrats tended at first to view the Tea party Movement as manufactured by the Republicans, and those they viewed as the Republicans’ minions – Talk radio and Fox News. As it became increasingly obvious that the movement was growing, and was popularly based rather than manufactured, they fell back to viewing the movement as populist, but faddish…. something unlikely to last through a couple of years to the November 2010 elections. Denial still carried the day. As it became more obvious that the movement was, in fact grass-roots and not Astro-turf, the attempts by the left to vilify the movement increased in an attempt to get those considering joining the movement to reconsider. Because they truly did not understand the nature of the beast, that was exactly the wrong tactic, and it has continued to back-fire to this day. For every “Tea Bagger” we see, there are dozens who have not yet come out of the shadows, but truly feel what it is that actually is driving the movement, and though you don’t hear from them, when the votes are counted I believe folks will be staggered by the election results.

As the movement has continued to grow, and is giving every indication that it will do so at least until the elections, Democrats began putting hopes in the idea of the movement actually trying to form a third party, and in many instances, seemed to be doing what they could to promote that. They wanted to split the Republican vote.

Again, it shows only that they missed the point entirely. The vast majority of movement practitioners are not at all interested in forming a third party. Many Tea Partiers wish to remain Democrats, and most wish to remain Independent. Finally, as the Primaries and the previous special elections are showing, Democrats have settled into believing that it is primarily an anti-incumbency movement. In effect, it may be, but not in cause. More on that later.

Republicans, on the other hand, assumed from the beginning, that the TPM was first and foremost an anti-Democratic/ anti-leftist movement. It was natural to think so because the protests worked hand-in-hand with the Town Hall Meeting outbursts and were clearly and vocally dedicated to stopping the radical spending and political and social changes being crammed through by the now clearly leftist government. Because of this viewpoint, they generally assumed that the TPM was a natural ally, and that in the course of things it would morph into a large block of votes for Republicans everywhere.

It therefore came as something of a shock to them when the TPM came out in support of some non-Republican candidates, or chose to support Republican candidates who were not the incumbent, choosing rather to value what the candidates were touting, than just going for that ‘R’ after the name. In fact, by some polls, only about 23% of Tea Partiers claim to support the Republican Party. The term RINO (Republican In Name Only) has come into ever more and more popular use. A number of Republicans viewed this is indicating they needed to change their rhetoric to one far more to the right, while an equal number squealed that the Party needed to remain centrist to have a big enough tent to win in November, and this was touted by leftists as a rift in Republican politics that would divide the party to the Democrats’ benefit. The TPM, in fact, didn’t care. What the Republicans did within their party was, and remains, irrelevant to them. They felt if Republicans wanted their vote, then the Republican had to come to them. They were not going to the Republicans.

The TPM didn’t yield, and more and more Republicans began shifting to the right, or at least began saying they were. Only the TPM wasn’t fooled by those just shifting their rhetoric. When Mitch McConnell said he “Got the TPM message”, and then voted the next day for two million in earmarked pork for his home state to be added to a military appropriations bill, the TPM noticed, and has not forgotten and will not forget.

The next popular misconception about the TPM is that it is a movement primarily based in economics. A lot of analyzers feel it is mostly just about a desire to cut spending and to lower taxes. It is this view that caused Bill Maher and President Obama to make jokes about the TPM protesting taxes when they were among the lowest they have historically been for the majority of people. And while cutting spending, and not raising taxes are clearly TPM issues, they are still NOT the primary motivation of TPM adherents nor its sympathizers.

This misunderstanding of the TPM is also what is driving many in the Republican Party to the right, because they understand the “conservative view” to be based in smaller government, less spending, and lower taxes, and many are starting to see conservatism as the key motivating factor with the Tea Party element. They now feel that in moving to the right, they will draw TPM favor. In this they are probably right, but not because conservatism is actually the TPM’s central motivation. As stated in the title, conservatism is actually the Tea Party Movement’s fall-back position; the one most Tea Partiers will accept, because they ultimately won’t feel they can get what they really want.

Lastly, there is a large belief about that folks just want change. They just want something different from what they are getting (and many thought that was what Obama was promising, and were then chagrined to find out that the change he meant without stating it was a hard shift to the far left). Like anti-incumbency and conservatism, there are elements of a desire for change that apply, but also like those other two motivators, change is more an aspect or a face of the true motivation than the motivation itself.

So if the TPM, and its silent supporters is not primarily about conservatism, and not primarily about anti-incumbency, and not primarily about change per se, what then is the driving force behind it? Once you understand it, it becomes instantly clear why there is no chance of the movement evaporating or doing anything but growing, and it is simplicity itself.

The Tea party Movement is about freedom, first and foremost, and it is expressed in the frustration felt when citizens begin to feel that they are losing say in how their lives are to be lived. They feel they are losing say because their politicians don’t respond to them, don’t listen to them, cram unwanted debt and legislation down their throats, respond to genuine concerns with form letters, vote contrary to what their constituencies want, and support policies that undermine traditional American values and educate their children to despise what has made American Exceptionalism a viable contribution to human development.

They see their representatives as being out only for their own aggrandizement, wealth, and popularity and not responsive to the public at all. They see leftist policies being forced on them despite resistance. They see their children being taught things that are contrary to traditional American values. They see massive scams like Cap and Trade being perpetrated, know inherently that it is a scam, and feel helpless to do anything about it. They see ever-increasing loss of personal freedom looming with each passage of each new government enlarging bill, and are coming to grips with the encroachment of soft tyranny. They are tired of the continual abuses of power, rip-offs, corruption, vote-buying, vote-selling, and concern with everything other than what the politicians are supposed to be in office to do.

The vote that is coming this November, and now in the primaries, and in the special elections, is not just about anti-incumbency, nor is it just about a re-awakening of conservatism, nor is it just about change per se. The heart and soul of the Tea Party Movement is about personal freedom and how it is perceived by TPM adherents to be threatened.

That aspect of TPM supporters would be amply demonstrated if at the top of this November’s ballot was a third option to either the Democrats or the Republicans. That option would not be a third viable party. That option would be to automatically vote out every single running incumbent without exception with one stroke of the pen. If that were a viable option, instead of being forced to acknowledge that you had better vote for the lesser of two evils in each case and in each election because your opponent will do that, we would have this government removed in one fell swoop, and those coming in would indeed be responsive to the voters. A message would have been clearly delivered, with no ambiguity.

The reason that vote would carry is not because of anti-incumbency, but because of the heartfelt need to deliver a message; that we’re not going to put up with your bullsh*t anymore, whatever your party. We want the system restored. We want our country back.

Unfortunately, it’s not an option. Some of the people in Congress (though damned few) actually are responsive to their constituents’ cries. So people will, of course, support those folks (as they should) and the old practice of trying to choose the lesser of two evils will once again prevail. Because of that, conservatism is the fall-back option for anyone wanting to be elected, and Tea Party Movement members that think you are telling the truth about wanting to support conservative ideals will, for the most part, condescend to giving you their votes.

In short, Democrats feel they have to pass Obamacare because if they don’t, the Republican Health Care Reform proposals WILL ultimately pass, and they know they WILL work, and Republicans will get credit for it. Successful health care reform will go down in history as a Republican, not Democrat, success.

The bill the Dems have been working on for ‘sixty years’ will have failed, and the one the Reps have been working on for a year will have succeeded. And that means again that Progressivism will have failed, and Conservatism won…. not just in the short term… but in the long run.

Dems will not only lose the bill, they will lose their route into control of 1/6 of the American economy, and lose it PERMANENTLY. They see losses in November as acceptable by comparison.

The short version:

Target House Democrats much more than Senate Democrats in your anti-Obamacare campaigning, and do it NOW and do it hard.

The long version:

It’s going to be tough to be a Democrat up for election this year, and today, they may have outsmarted themselves and made it even tougher. I say this because today at the Health care Summit, they refused to exclude the nuclear option (reconciliation- the 51% , rather than filibuster-proof 60% Senate majority) in their attempts to force through Obamacare.

Reconciliation as a method of passing law is for what the name implies. It is a method of reconciling budget discrepancies resulting from the policy decisions and assumptions embraced in budget resolutions. Under the original design of the Budget Act, reconciliation had a fairly narrow purpose. It was expected to be used together with the second resolution adopted in the fall, and was to apply to a single fiscal year and be directed primarily at spending and revenue legislation acted on between the adoption of the first and second budget resolutions. With the adoption of the Byrd Rule of 1985, it was limited to applying to legislation affecting the budget that did not affect the budget or deficit more than ten years out. That was the reason the Bush tax cuts expired after ten years…. because they were passed using reconciliation. It was never intended to pass major legislation not specifically related to the budget. Of course, the Democrats now hold power, and should they collectively choose, can change the Byrd Rule and use it to enact Obamacare.

Since the election of Scott Brown, reconciliation is the only possible means of getting Obamacare through the Senate.

Even though a number of “moderate” House Democrats have significant issues with parts of the President’s plan (essentially the Senate plan – only more expensive because certain ‘sweetheart’ deals like the Louisiana Purchase and Nebraska Kickback were made universal rather than individual bribes to certain specific Senators), Democrats in general feel they have to do something, because they have stood on this issue as a matter of principle since the ’08 election.

They feel, in other words, that as bad as things look, they will be worse off if they don’t pass it, than they will if they do – even knowing the majority of Americans oppose it. In other words they evaluate their political chances as bad if they pass it, worse if they pass it using the nuclear option, but worst of all if they don’t pass it. Their best chances, as they see it, are to get the bill passed, without having to resort to reconciliation to do so. They see it thus because they feel that if they stick to their guns, a lot of people will come to accept it (as they have Social Security and Medicare) once it is in place.

They are wrong for two reasons. 1.) Only the penalties of increased government control of health care go into effect right away. The benefits don’t start for several years down the road. 2.) The American public is generally awake to the fact that we cannot afford another major entitlement program whatever the benefits.

Nonetheless, they are going to try.

If you want to defeat Obamacare in its current form (and cause them to start over and consider all options, including those presented by the Republicans), all you have to do is present them with a worse alternative as a fait accompli than any of the above. What is that? Simple. The worst possible position for Democrats to be in this fall is for them to have failed to pass the bill despite exercising the ‘nuclear option’. Under that scenario, they will be seen as political failures not only by the right, but by the far left, and the fact that they tried to use the nuclear option will irritate Independents as much as if they had succeeded by using it.

How do we set them up for that circumstance? Simple again. We need to now heavily target House Members regarding our opposition to the bill. If the Senate passes the bill using reconciliation, but the House doesn’t pass it, Democrats will be in the worst possible position this Fall. Knowing that, a heavy campaign to change the minds of ‘swing’ House Democrats (those from red states or districts, or those who already oppose certain aspects of the Senate plan – like those who oppose an abortion clause) is all it will take to keep the Democrats from even using the nuclear option. If they count the House votes and they can’t be sure of getting passage, they won’t bother to use reconciliation in the Senate, and without that the bills dies, once and for all.

A list of thirty ‘swing’ Representatives and their phone numbers can be found at: http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/

Call them, write them, fax them, email them, do anything you can to get their attention to the fact that Obamacare is not wanted. President Obama has said he plans to look over options for four to six weeks (i.e. he plans to do all the convincing of ‘swing’ House members he can) before pushing for an up/down vote on the issue (i.e. employing the nuclear option). The sooner we get on this particular horse the better. With enough pressure now, we are in the final stretch of functionally eliminating this monster as a real possibility in our near future.

In his State of the Union address last night, President Obama proposed a 3 year freeze on federal discretionary spending, as a means of starting to reduce the federal deficit. Pundits from all over the political spectrum had comments on the efficacy of such a proposal, most of them completing their thoughts by saying something to the effect of, “$250 billion in savings over ten years is not insignificant. $250 billion is $250 billion.” and, “while it may not seem like all that much compared to the total budget, at least it is a start.” It’s time for a little perspective.

To begin-with, let’s be clear on what is being proposed. The spending that President Obama is talking about freezing is a portion of discretionary funding present in the annual budget. While he’s projecting the savings from that freeze to be $250 billion over the next ten years (he’s doing so by counting on dramatically increased revenues over that period after the economy recovers), it really should be noted that he only proposed the freeze be in effect for three years. The $250 billion is a completely irrelevant (and in fact, just made up from whole cloth) number. The amount of money Obama claims to be “saving” in the first year of the freeze will be $15 billion. That 15 billion “Projected savings” was based on the fact that in 2009, Obama increased the discretionary spending limit by 24% (essentially from 40 billion to 55 billion). When he says he will save $15 the first year, what he is really saying is, with the freeze in effect, I won’t be increasing that portion of the budget by another 24% to $68.2 billion the first year of the freeze, and $84.568 billion the year after that, and $104.864 billion in the final year of the freeze.

The actual “savings” over the three year freeze would then be $92.632 billion – not $250 – given the numbers Obama is projecting. Okay, you say, $93 billion saved is still $93 billion saved. Now comes the perspective part…. then I’ll get to the bad news later in the screed. The $55 billion dollar discretionary expenditure will amount to 1.5 % of the annual budget for 2010.

To understand how that $55 billion dollar expenditure and the $93 billion “savings” fit into the federal budget, let’s do a comparison in numbers people can actually comprehend.

The annual federal budget for 2010 is roughly $3.55 trillion dollars. Projected revenues (taxes garnered) for that same year are anticipated to be around $2.25 trillion, increasing our debt for the year to the tune of about $1.3 trillion. Let’s put this on a family budget level, with a hypothetical family earning $50,000/ year (instead of $2.25 trillion) , and a credit card with essentially no limits. Let’s say the family uses that credit card for all their purchases. This would mean that in the first year examined, the family charges $76,000 on the credit card and pays off $50,000, leaving them $26,000 in debt at the end of the year. Of that $76,000 spent, $1140 was in discretionary funds. Let’s call that part the annual “movie” budget for the family. That means if the family freezes their current “movie” fund portion of their budget, they are agreeing to only go to $1140.00 worth of movies each year over the next three years. But they are not freezing the rest of their budget, which they are projecting to increase by 24 % each year.

While the amount of additional money owing on that credit card (after they pay off their annual $50k) is $31,000 the first year following the freeze, it is $36,000 the second year, and another $43,400 the third year. That means that after they pay off all their income towards the debt, they still owe $110,400 additional on that credit card after the three year freeze. Oh… and since that debt is, in fact, borrowed money, they have to pay interest in the amounts not redeemed. Let’s say this is an extremely generous credit card company, only charging 2% annual interest. The debt after three years is about $112,000 (rounded off)… BUT, remember, they only spent $1140/ year on movies while this debt was accumulating! My, aren’t they doing well!

Now let’s REALLY put it in perspective. That $112,000 debt the family accumulated during the freeze isn’t what the family really owes. You see, the $112,000 was only the amount accumulated during the time of the “movie budget spending freeze”. Prior to embarking on that freeze, the family already owed $3,100,000 in debts that it had previously accumulated. Their actual debt after the three year freeze is $3.212 million dollars. The head of the family proudly notes, however, that by freezing the movie budget at current levels, he will have saved the family $942 !!

Of course, that $3.212 million debt is only what is currently owed, not what the family could have to cover. You see, the US has a current unfunded liability (monies not actually owing at the moment, but that could potentially come due if certain other funds or debtors go bankrupt – like social security, Medicaid, Medicare, Fanny Mae, Freddy Mac) in excess of $80 trillion. That would be the equivalent of our family having co-signed loans for a bunch of other people equaling $17.9 million dollars. Let’s sure hope those guys pay their debts like they said they would! This could really get serious if one of them went bankrupt (say Medicare or Social Security by comparison). And since Medicare is currently scheduled to go bankrupt in 2017, and social security in 2026, these would be the equivalent of the family suddenly finding itself owing another say….. $8 million dollars. Jeez – let’s hope Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac stay solvent!

Let’s also keep in mind that none of these figures for annual budget as currently projected include monies that may have to be borrowed to cover Obamacare, Cap and Tax, and any other emergency funds that have to be allocated (say in the event of another 9/11 or in aiding an earthquake disaster somewhere – e.g. Haiti). And it generally doesn’t include monies spent in support of the military in the War on Terror. These kinds of funds are all kept on a completely separate set of books from the annul federal budget. It might be the annual equivalent of the family buying a new SUV every year and not bothering to make any payments on it or even really count it in its budgeting. We’ll just add it in to the total owing sometime down the road.

Now the bad news. None of even these numbers are even relevant. President Obama has not proposed a spending freeze on the discretionary budget beginning now, he has proposed one beginning in 2011. This means that the projected savings are only valid if he, in fact, freezes spending this year. Since he didn’t propose that, one really has to assume that by the time the freeze goes into effect, there may well have been (and in all likelihood will have been) yet another increase in the discretionary spending, making all these figures moot. They will all have to be recalculated based on what the actual discretionary budget is when the freeze goes into effect a year from now.

Of course, if Obama increases the discretionary spending between now and then dramatically, he will be able to claim much, much, much, larger savings for the American taxpayer! Aint economics wonderful?

The election of Scott Brown was remarkable in many ways, but one of the most important was in a way little discussed in political circles. It was just this: The election of Scott Brown caused all the pundits and about half the politicians to formulate and express an opinion as to why it happened. In this way, we got a wide view into the national understanding of what occurred, and why.

What it told me, as a National Tea Party Movement endorser, is that most, on both the Democratic and Republican sides of the aisle still don’t get it, and are not even close.

Though it is clear the Democrats are in panic mode, and that a number of them are starting to make overtures to what they feel is a resurgent right, every one that I’ve heard express an opinion of what happened has missed it by a mile. The Republicans that have addressed the issue have been little better. The MSNBC crowd are not even in the same city, much less ball park, as the real reason for Brown’s election.  Even Fox News pundits like O’Reilly and Dick Morris are hitting shy of the mark.

The more moderate Democrats are saying in essence that the Democratic Party tried to do too much, too fast, and that they need to ‘tack’ closer the middle of the political spectrum. They think the issues that turned the election were jobs and health care reform, with its huge size, back-room-deals, and lack of transparency. Many think they weren’t good enough at getting the message out about what they were trying to accomplish, and that is what has upset the American public.

Republicans are likewise saying the Democrats need to tack more to the center, and though the Republicans are collectively becoming more and more like the party of Reagan on a daily basis, what they don’t understand is they could be that party and we could still vote them out.

Most Republicans now think if they once again become the bastion of conservatism, they will sweep the elections in 2010 by pulling the Tea Party members into their fold, though there is still a sizable “Country Club” Republican group of moderates who don’t feel that such a tent will be big enough.

Most Democrats fall into one of two camps: The far left thinks the Tea Party movement is irrelevant. They want to continue pushing the Democratic Party (the natural home of the left) to further wealth redistribution, Nanny State policies, and expanded government. The Democratic Center thinks that by ramping back the pace of their governmental expansion, they can pull disenchanted people back in, much like Clinton did with his right shift following the ‘94 elections. They think if the unemployment rate comes down a bit, they will be okay. They won’t.

Both the Republicans and Democrats are wrong. Each is looking at the issue from their party perspective, and that is the completely wrong perspective.

What the Tea Party Movement (which, by the way, is only going to expand between now and the 2010 elections) is all about (from the perspective of an NTP supporter– one who regularly discusses these things with other Tea Party Movement supporters) is simply a desire for a return to Jeffersonian Democracy. It is not an issue of Democrat or Republican. It is not really even an issue even of right verses left, liberal vs. conservative (though conservatives are much closer to the mark than liberals). It is an issue of wanting citizens representing us in Washington – not professional politicians. It is an issue of wanting Congress to have the same obligations and be subject to the same laws and restrictions as all other citizens in matters not directly related to the functioning of Congress. It is the desire for the members of government to be financially impacted by the laws it enacts in exactly the same way as all other citizens, and for them to be accorded no special privileges.

The heart of the Tea Party Movement is this: We see the whole and entire purpose of government, and the only justification for even the existence of government, as being the protection of each and every person’s individual rights. That means protecting us from foreign intrusion, domestic criminality, and intrusion by the government itself into our lives. We see our government as having been the first, and in practical terms, the only government ever created for that purpose and no other, and we see that fact as being at the center of the American exceptionalism that has saved the world several times in the past century, raised the standard of living not just for us but for much of the rest of the world, and provided Americans with the overall happiest of lives of any society that has ever existed.

We see the right to free speech, the right to practice the religion of our choice (or no religion if that is our choice), the right to privacy protections, the right to self defense, the right to a fair trial, the right to own property and enjoy the fruits of our labor, and all the other rights listed in the Constitution as rights that are inherent in all men, everywhere that men exist, but that are specifically guaranteed by this government for Americans…. This government was created by the people specifically for that purpose and no other! It was created to protect us and our rights, not to “govern” us.

We are sick and tired of Congress deciding it can do what it wants, the Constitution notwithstanding. We are sick and tired of government deciding it can impose its will on us. As Obama has said, all the “rights” in the Constitution are negative rights. They all exist to protect us as individuals, including from, and especially from the government. There are no positive rights in the Constitution giving the government the right to choose to do things for its citizens, and we do not recognize the Congress’ or the President’s authority to do anything we don’t specifically approve-of.

We are sick and tired of Congress and the President ignoring us. When we collectively say, “Stop spending”, we don’t mean spend like thieves anyway, and pass along some platitude to us in an attempt to placate us. We don’t mean go ahead and spend as long as the money is allocated back to our district. We mean stop spending!

We are sick and tired of Congress deciding it can take the fruits of our labor, and use it to buy votes. Take your “wealth redistribution” elsewhere. Most of the countries in the world will be happy to have you do it. This is the one society on the planet where the Constitution protects us specifically against that, and it is what has led to our unmatched prosperity, and we damned well want it adhered-to.

If you want to appease the Tea Party Movement, here is what you are going to have to do. 1.) Dramatically reduce taxes. You should not be allowed to have anything more than the absolute minimum needed to operate the government and provide for emergency services and defense. Nothing more. 2.) Dramatically reduce the size of government. It should be less than half the size it is now. 3.) Open the books on where our money is being spent, and how our economy is operating. The Federal Reserve needs as a minimum to be heavily audited, and should probably be eliminated. 4.) America first! The U.N. should be a means of interacting with the world to protect American interests and nothing more. There should absolutely be no U.N. influence allowed in how our country is governed. 5.) Listen to the voters. There is a rather large segment of the Tea Party Movement (probably as much as half of them) that wants to throw everyone out of office, whatever their political persuasion, simply because it would instantly take away the arrogance of those who remain in office after the dismissal. 6.) Protect out borders. 7.) Stop spending our money! It’s our money, not the government’s. Would you reach into the pocket of the man next to you on the subway to get money to buy a paper? Don’t you see this is no different? If we don’t want you spending our money, you have NO RIGHT TO DO SO! We are far more offended by the notion that you think you have the right to do so than by the act itself. You are self-justified in your thievery, and it is that that torques our nut, even more than the theft itself.

We’re also sick and tired of a left-leaning press, that doesn’t understand their job is to report the news, not to shape it. That calamity will be taken care-of by the market, which is already well along the road to doing so. Left-wing papers are going out of business daily, and Air America had its last (thank God) broadcast yesterday. Please people. Go get jobs in Argentina. Hugo Chavez will welcome you!

If you don’t care about the Tea Party Movement, you do so at your own political risk. The elections in New Jersey, Virginia, and Massachusetts were very much the result of the Tea party sentiment coursing through our society, as a result of Obama pursuing policies that are in direct opposition to Tea Party Movement sentiments. The “change” people hoped for in the 2008 elections was a change from the big, non-responsive government, open borders, and heretofore unparalleled spending (Bush started it, Obama just doubled down on his policies). Not a change to even more spending, even larger and less-responsive government, wealth redistribution, and a defacto march to socialism and reduction of American sovereignty.

If you want to get swept into office in 2010, look to the Tea Party Movement’s principles. If you want to get swept out, ignore them. We outnumber all of the rest of you, and we are pissed!

We made statements in Virginia, New Jersey, and especially in Massachusetts. It’s really good that we were able to make such statements, because the Tea Party Movement supporters are fed up, angry, and aroused to action. Had the opportunity to make such statements not been available, had the current government not been given pause, it would have continued on its destructive course, completely unabated. And from what I have heard many of my fellow Tea Party Movement supporters say about it, a hostile march on Washington was not all that far removed from possibility. I have heard that discussed openly on many an occasion. Never before in my 60 years have I seen people afraid for their country the way people are today, and never before have I seen them decide with such conviction to do something about it. The people are completely fed up!

When Bill Oreilly asked Dick Morris the other day where the power went that Obama had apparently lost after the Brown election, Morris replied, “Obviously to the Republicans.” He could not have been more wrong. The power that Obama lost was taken back by the people.

Let us all pray for the President, with particular reference to Psalm 109:8

An ongoing topic regarding the Obama administration is the obvious and upcoming increase in taxes to the middle class…. despite Obama’s campaign promises to the contrary.  Taxes are, after all, the primary way government acquires the revenues it spends, and this administration has completely blown away all previous spending records.  Since the money wasn’t sitting in an account waiting to be spent, Obama and Congress had to borrow it …ultimately against future taxes.  After only ten months of existence, this administration now owes more money than all previous administrations in our entire history have spent collectively.

Whether or not any entity has even the right to tax, and if so, to what degree it has the right to tax, and whether or not it has the right to tax future generations (who will obviously have no say in its current distribution) is a legitimate question.

Despotisms claim the right to tax and impose it by force. Democracies may also impose a tax by use of force, but in theory it is limited to enforcing tax laws that are agreed-to jointly by the body politic.

Presumably, the concept of fairness comes into play, as only a tax deemed fair would be agreed-to by the taxed. Also, when a tax is considered for imposition, it is not only the method and criteria that are considered, but the use of the proceeds as well. Democratic government does not have free reign to spend tax receipts in just any fashion deemed desirous by those holding office at the time the receipts are garnered or borrowed against. There are limits imposed by law, custom, tradition, and morality.

The same principle applies, though one step removed from the voting public in a representative republic. The tax and its use must in essence be agreed-to by the body politic. Taxes, in representative governments therefore, are generally approved for a common good, cumulative necessity, and to advance a national interest.

In a redistributive scenario, a portion of the taxes obtained are being used not for a common good, or cumulative necessity, or to advance a national interest, but rather to enrich one group or special interest at the expense of another. Where those being taxed don’t, on the whole, agree, the redistribution is tantamount to theft, plain and simple, and the government practices despotism in enforcing it. Governmental theft is still theft, and the fact that it is being carried out by the government doesn’t mitigate its moral or ethical vaccuousnes….. It enhances it.

All of this presumes that some entity has a right to tax at all. Despotisms claim the right to tax and impose it by force. Democracies may also impose a tax by use of force, but in theory it is limited to enforcing tax laws that are agreed-to jointly by the body politic.

Presumably, the concept of fairness comes into play, as only a tax deemed fair would be agreed-to by the taxed. Also, when a tax is considered for imposition, it is not only the method and criteria that are considered, but the use of the proceeds as well. Democratic government does not have free reign to spend tax receipts in just any fashion deemed desirous by those holding office at the time the receipts are garnered or borrowed against. There are limits imposed by law, custom, tradition, and morality.

The same principle applies, though one step removed from the voting public in a representative republic. The tax and its use must in essence be agreed-to by the body politic. Taxes, in representative governments therefore, are generally approved for a common good, cumulative necessity, and to advance a national interest.

In a redistributive scenario, a portion of the taxes obtained are being used not for a common good, or cumulative necessity, or to advance a national interest, but rather to enrich one group or special interest at the expense of another. Where those being taxed don’t, on the whole, agree, the redistribution is tantamount to theft, plain and simple, and the government practices despotism in enforcing it. Governmental theft is still theft, and the fact that it is being carried out by the government doesn’t mitigate its moral or ethical vaccuousness…. It enhances it.

Add to that fact, that when a future generation is taxed, especially for monies that are being spent today, it is clearly for them taxation without representation, a basic tenet of the cause for revolt that launched this country in the first place.  It was so, because in essence taxation without representation is is the theft of personal property, which when sufficiently great (and it quickly becomes so) is the theft of a person’s life, efforts, desires, aspirations, beauty, potential for greatness….. in short… their freedom.

When we allow that to occur, we are condemning our progeny to a life of despotism unless they are able to throw of the shackles that WE have placed on them through our recalcitrance in controlling our elected officials.  And throwing off shackles only gets harder over time as they are allowed to exist.  I fear our grandchildren may one day curse our names.

General McChrystal has been asking for a substantial troop increase in Afghanistan for some weeks now, and the White House has been up ’til now unresponsive. Ostensibly the reason for the delay has been to give the President and his ‘“foreign policy expert” Vice President Joe Biden, time to mull over alternatives and come up with a really good plan, rather than to just jump in willy-nilly and risk failure, having not given the problem due consideration.

We now have a plan percolating to the surface that appears to be founded in the VP’s foreign policy expertise.

According to a New Republic article from September 24, 2009:

“When Obama’s national security team first considered a troop increase for Afghanistan in March, Biden circulated a document that outlined alternatives to a major escalation. Although the White House won’t provide precise details, aides acknowledge that Biden urged the president to consider a narrow counterterrorism mission, heavy on Special Forces and Predator drone strikes, which would require far less manpower than the military was seeking.”

This approach to the War in Afghanistan has recently been widely circulated as a viable approach, and one the White House is heavily contemplating:

Refocusing on the Threat from al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan

Following an intensive 60-day interagency review, on March 27, 2009, the President announced a new strategy with a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. The strategy is comprehensive and flexible and will need to be fully resourced. In addition to the new troops the President has chosen to deploy, the strategy calls for significantly more resources to the civilian effort and frequent evaluations of our progress.

According to an NYT article from September 22:

“Among the alternatives being presented to Mr. Obama is Mr. Biden’s suggestion to revamp the strategy altogether. Instead of increasing troops, officials said, Mr. Biden proposed scaling back the overall American military presence. Rather than trying to protect the Afghan population from the Taliban, American forces would concentrate on strikes against Qaeda cells, primarily in Pakistan, using special forces, Predator missile attacks and other surgical tactics.”

Biden is supposed to be a foreign policy expert. Actually, he is more accurately described as a foreign policy weather vane. Whatever Joe Biden opines on foreign policy has inevitably and repeatedly, without exception I can think of, turned out to be exactly, totally, WRONG. In fact, his record for being wrong in foreign policy issues has been so absolutely amazingly consistent he should be in the Guiness Book of records.

* In 1979, he shared Jimmy Carter’s starry-eyed belief that the fall of the Shah of Iran and the takeover by Ayatollah Khomeini represented progress for human rights. Throughout the hostage crisis, as US diplomats were daily paraded blindfolded in front of television cameras and threatened with execution, Biden opposed strong action against the terrorist mullahs and preached dialog.

* Throughout the 1980s. Biden opposed President Ronald Reagan’s proactive policy against the Soviet Union. Biden was all for détente – which, in practice, meant Western subsidies would have enabled the moribund USSR to cling to life and continue doing mischief.

* In 1990, Biden found it difficult to support President George Bush’s decision to use force to kick Saddam Hussein’s army of occupation out of Kuwait.

* A decade-plus later, the senator did vote for the liberation of Iraq from Saddam’s tyranny. But as soon as terrorists started challenging the new democratic system in Iraq, he switched sides and became a critic of the whole war effort.

* Biden opposed The Surge, and openly stated that he felt the only way to achieve peace or victory in Iraq was to partition the country into thirds.

* For more than a decade, Biden has adopted an ambivalent attitude towards the Islamic Republic in Tehran, now emerging as the chief challenger to US interests in the Middle East. Biden’s links with pro-Tehran lobbies in the US and his support for “unconditional dialogue” with the mullahs echo Obama’s own wrong-headed promise to circumvent the current multilateral efforts by seeking direct US-Iran talks, excluding the Europeans as well as Russia and China.

So if Biden wants to cut back forces and concentrate solely on Al Quida using small unit tactics, it is without any doubt in my mind time to radically expand our force structure.

Okay.

President Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize, and , of course, Americans should feel proud of our fearless leader.  But why stop there?

Go to this link and we can vote for him as a write-in candidate for the Heisman Trophy.  He certainly deserves that every bit as much as the Nobel Peace Prize, and we, his constituents, can help with the selection process.  And even if he doesn’t actually get it, I think it would make a great news story if it could be reported that he placed well in the voting!

One of the truly great accomplishments of the founding fathers (and indeed, the foundational accomplishment) was the acknowledgment of human rights, and the attendant verbalizing, and eventual codifying of certain human rights in the first Ten Amendments, commonly called the Bill of Rights.

At the time of the ratification of the Constitution, there were opponents to ratification whose opposition was based on the fact that the proposed Constitution defined how government should be run, but did nothing to guarantee individual liberty.  In this opposition was the concept of Constitutionally guaranteed ‘rights’ (as opposed to merely ‘understood’ rights) born, and in answer to this opposition Madison proposed the Bill of Rights to enumerate those held to be most important at the time of conception.  The amendment process, of course, left open the door for inclusion of other ‘rights’ should they become evident in the future.

There are certain things that each of the first Ten have in common, and these are things that are inherent in all ‘rights’ in general. For example, each of these rights ascribes to individuals, rather than to the body politic. In fact each right ascribes STRICTLY to the individual, so that nothing can be considered a right for one person if the exercise of that right requires a duty or obligation by another. Also, these rights are what President Obama has referred-to as ‘negative rights’. By this term he correctly meant that the right prevented the government from doing certain things, rather than allowing or requiring the government to do things.

The argument that certain rights should be enumerated has proven a boon to our society, for the Bill of Rights is so clear in its purpose and unambiguous in its specific language that it has only needed to be questioned in circumstances where someone in the government was indeed trying to impose some rule of law that would result in a depravation of the right in question. It has acted as a shield against tyranny, though like a shield it must be raised in each instance where insult is hurled if it is to be effective.

“Health Care should be a right” is now a manta of the Left. Correct they may well be! However, as is often the case with the Left, they are not saying what they mean. What they mean is, “My health care at someone else’s expense should be a right.” Clearly, this whole concept is self-contradictory. It cannot be a ‘right’ if the exercise of the right requires a duty or obligation by another. Your ‘right’ cannot be a right if it imposes a duty on me. You don’t have a right to it if I have to pay for it.

As an example, the Second Amendment grants us each the right to keep and bear arms, yet imposes no duty on any other citizen (nor on the government as the aegis of the citizenry) to provide any of us with a weapon. Likewise, while a ‘Right to Health Care Amendment’ should allow each us to obtain Health Care in any manner we deem fitting (or not at all if that is our choice), there should be no duty on any other citizen (or the government) to provide the Health Care we desire.

The amendment granting health care the status of a right should read something like this: “Except as to provide for the medical needs of the federal military, Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of a health care system, nor interfere with any citizen in the free pursuit of such provision for health care as the citizen deems warranted.”

In this way could health care indeed become a ‘right’, and changes to the law of the land so as to reduce health care costs would be limited such things as tort reform, insurance and interstate commerce reform, and tax reform to increase competition and help in making health care more affordable. These are the kinds of things that actually could potentially reduce health care costs, improve health care efficiency, and continually improve standard of care, without increasing the national debt or raising taxes to pay for it.

This argument will of course be viewed by many as being simplistic (for example, what would become of Medicare if such an amendment were passed), and it is admittedly so. But what the heck….. a fella can dream, can’t he?

I have of late, been finding in my mailbox copies of folks’ AARP resignation letters. Some of them are quite entertaining. They all bear the common theme (as would be expected) that those resigned to resign feel AARP has in effect become a bunch of toadies for the Democratic machine with little interest in representing their members.  With claims of special treatment, kickbacks, and massive financial incentives being accorded-to or proposed-for The AARP by sitting Democrats, some members have been feeling there just MIGHT be a conflict of interest in The AARP’s representation.

Since July , The AARP was claiming to have lost about 60,000 members specifically to health care reform issues, while gaining or retaining 1.9 million members in the same period.

It’s quite clear that the AARP members who are resigning are confused about the role AARP should be playing in their lives. They paid dues to a group that they expected to represent their best interests. Where they err, is that they think ‘representing their best interests’ has something to do with them.

The AARP clearly feels that the interests of seniors are far better represented when The AARP does better financially. And while it is true that many of the resigning members feel that The AARP should be opposing any Obamacare program that cuts Senior Advantage (a program that allows Medicare recipients to choose to have their coverage administered by a private firm, pay a little more, but receive better coverage with more choice), AARP feels differently. The AARP feels it is working to seniors’ benefit by supporting cuts to Senior Advantage.  In fact, the more and deeper the cuts, the better!

“Why?” You ask. Good question! The answer is simple. While The AARP supports legislation that will cut Senior Advantage, it is perfectly willing to sell its members insurance policies that will make up the difference in supplementing regular Medicare.

So you, as a senior and a member of The AARP, will get the best of both worlds!  You get health care reform AND The AARP is willing to sell you supplemental insurance to make up for what you lost!

In 2008, The AARP generated 562.7 million in revenues, (over 60% of its total revenues) by selling ‘gap’ insurance policies to cover what standard Medicare won’t. Bullets noted at GOP Policy News in a recent article on The AARP:

• A review of its financial statements finds that in 2008, AARP received more than half a billion dollars in revenue from selling products like Medigap supplemental insurance policies-$652.7 million in direct “royalties and fees,” and an increase of more than 31 percent from the $497.6 million in similar revenue AARP generated in 2007.

• Royalty revenues now comprise more than half-60.3 percent-of all AARP revenues; a Bloomberg news analysis published in December found that in 1999, royalties comprised only 11 percent of the organization’s total revenues.

Should any Obamacare plan that cuts Senior Advantage go into effect, watch for those number to dramatically increase.

In addition, bills currently being crafted are being crafted in such a way that, according to Philip Klein (reporter for the American Spectator) would create what amounts to a continuous flow of ‘kickbacks’ to AARP.

“If the House Democrats health care bill becomes law, the report argues, it would be a boon to AARP, because while Medicare Advantage plans will be required to pay out 85 percent of the money collected in premiums to claims made by policy holders, the requirement would only be 65 percent for the kind of Medigap policies sold by AARP.

“In other words, under the Democrat bill, seniors could pay as much as 20 cents more out of every premium dollar to fund ‘kickbacks’ to AARP-sponsored Medigap plans than Medicare Advantage plans.”

And, of course, most of us here are familiar with the gag order that Congress has placed on Humana (and any other Senior Advantage provider), prohibiting them from telling their customers that their health plans are in jeopardy. That in itself demands another whole screed decrying the 1^st Amendment intrusion by Congress, that I will leave to others for the time being. What most folks are NOT aware of, is that the AARP has apparently been exempted from the gag order.

According to the Spectator:

“Earlier this month insurer Humana Inc. sent customers who enrolled in the company’s Medicare Advantage plan a letter warning them that their benefits would be in danger if the Democratic health care legislation passed. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus complained to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which not only ordered Humana to stop sending the letters to its customers, but prohibited any other private insurers from doing the same. Except, that is, AARP — which sponsors a Medicare Advantage program in addition to the Medigap policies it offers, but was exempt from the Obama administration’s gag order.

So the AARP is in the unique position of not only being able to offer coverages to its members, but to get them (they are ‘members’ after all) kickbacks from congress if Obamacare is adopted, AND to be able while all this is being decided to keep their members informed on what is best for them.

Why would anybody want to leave?

It seem like every time the Democrats bring up the subject of Health Care Reform, tort reform, as a possibility, is given short shrift. In fact, it has been a consistent mainstay of Republican reform suggestions throughout the debates. You know… those Republican suggestions that the Democrats continually say the Republicans aren’t making.

In fact, Republicans have been advancing a number of ideas, each of which has potential to reduce costs, and which together comprise what amounts to a total system reform that would dramatically reduce costs.

These include: Tort reform, Allowing interstate commerce among health insurance carriers, reform of intrastate insurance laws to allow customers to cherry-pick the coverages they want (so men don’t for example, have to be covered against pregnancy as is the case in some states where mandates are that everyone have exactly the same coverage), and Increase the viability of MSAs (medical savings accounts).

Among these, tort reform seems to hold the most promise, as it cuts not only malpractice insurance premiums, but it significantly reduces the need for defensive medicine. And we don’t have to speculate on the potential outcomes of tort reform based solely on logic. We have laboratories.

Texas, 1995: Governor Bush enacts the first stage of Texas Tort Reform (Reference Texas Medical Blog, “The Doctor is In”) by accomplishing the following:
* Limited punitive damages
* Reformed joint and several liability
* Restricted venue shopping
* Restored the Deceptive Trade Practices Act to its original purpose of protecting consumers in ordinary consumer transactions
* Enacted a half dozen other reforms to curtail specific lawsuit abuses

In 2003, Governor Perry followed up with the following:
* Enacted comprehensive reforms governing medical liability litigation, including a $750,000 limit on non-economic damages
* Initiated product liability reforms
* Made the burden of proving punitive damages similar to criminal law, requiring a unanimous jury verdict
* Comprehensively reformed the statutes governing joint and several liability and class action lawsuits
* Imposed limits on appeal bonds, enabling defendants to appeal their lawsuits and not be forced into settlements (this is what pushed Texaco into bankruptcy in its famous lawsuit against Pennzoil)
* Further limited the filing of lawsuits that should have been brought in other states or countries

The changes to medical liability in 2003 were extraordinary, and had a very substantial impact, including:
1. In August 2004, the Texas Hospital Association reported a 70% reduction in the number of lawsuits filed against the state’s hospitals.
2. Medical liability insurance rates declined. Many doctors saw average rate reductions of over 21%, with some doctors seeing almost 50% decreases. (Recent information provided to The Perryman Group – a Texas Economic and Financial Analysis Think Tank - during the course of this study suggests that premiums are declining even further in 2008.)
3. Beginning in 2003, physicians started returning to Texas. The Texas Medical Board reports licensing 10,878 new physicians since 2003, up from 8,391 in the prior four years. Perryman has determined that at least 1,887 of those physicians are specifically the result of lawsuit reform.
4. In May 2006, the American Medical Association removed Texas from its list of states experiencing a liability crisis, marking the first time it has removed any state from the list. A recent survey by the Texas Medical Association also found a dramatic increase in physicians’ willingness to resume certain procedures they had stopped performing, including obstetrics, neurosurgical, radiation and oncological procedures.
Last year, TLR commissioned a study by The Perryman Group to figure out the impact of these reforms (the above are excerpted from that report). Here are the economic impact findings of that study:
$112.5 billion increase in annual spending
$51.2 billion increase in annual output – goods and services produced in Texas
$2.6 billion increase in annual state tax revenue
$468.9 million in annual benefits from safer products
$15.2 billion in annual net benefits of enhanced innovation
499,000 permanent jobs
430,000 additional Texans have health insurance today as a result of the medical liability reforms

In Mississippi, reforms instigated by Governor Haley Barbour have been just as dramatic. In June of 2004, Barbour signed into law a tort reform bill that included the following: a $500,000 limit on pain-and-suffering awards in medical malpractice cases, and $1 million in other cases; punitive damage caps; venue reform; joint and several liability limitation; relief of premises owners from liability to contractors’ employees for hazards known to the contractor; and product liability relief for “innocent sellers”

The Canadian Free Press reports that since passing tort reform in 2004, Mississippi has seen the number of medical malpractice claims plummet by 91 percent from its peak. The state’s largest medical liability insurer dropped its premiums by 42 percent, and has offered an additional 20 percent rebate each year since tort reform went into effect.

In addition, Barbour was on Cavuto this afternoon making the points not only of the statistics quoted in the CFP article, but pointing out that Obama had himself stated the possibility of instituting tort reform on a limited basis in one or two states to experientially evaluate the results. HELLO MR. PRESIDENT! THE WORK HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE!

As to allowing companies to sell insurance across state lines, there is no definitive amount of money to be saved that I can find. Arguments go both ways. When the arguments are viewed closely, however, they seem to come down to one side arguing that market competition always results in improved product quality at reduced costs, with the other side stating that capitalists need government controls or they will steal from the poor and uninformed.

Axelrod looked like an idiot (make that smarmy idiot) when the point was being pushed by Wolf Blitzer during a recent interview.

In truth, there are wide discrepancies between costs in different states. In Tennessee, for example the annual cost of Individual Market Single care is $2,221.00. In New York, the same is $4,734.00 according to the AHIP (America’s health Insurance Plans). Part of the reason for the discrepancy is that New York requires certain coverages that Tennessee does not, and a truly competitive marketplace would allow coverages to be tailored to the individual. Probably most men, for example, would fell pretty secure in opting out of pregnancy coverage, and most people really would not want to pay for gender identity disorder coverage given the choice.

As to Medical Savings Accounts, the amounts and ways that these could be used to reduce health care costs is practically endless. The Singapore health care system, for example, mandates them (like our social security), makes them usable within families instead of just individuals, they are inheritable, and they are tax free. Singapore essentially requires that these accounts be used for certain medical procedures, and mandates that the citizens pay out of pocket for routine things. Though the Singapore plan incorporates a system of public option as well as private insurance, all care prices are published by law and the citizen is required to pay 20% (minimum) of any medical bill. This encourages shopping around and competition. The 20% cost is covered generally by MSAs, and the balance through additional health insurance. Catastrophic insurance is available, as is a means-tested safety net for those too indigent to be covered otherwise. The net result is that Singapore spends about 5% of its GDP on health care (compared to 15-17% for the US), while the coverages are rumored to be just as good. The key lies in the system being geared to encourage competition among providers.

A further advantage to the use of MSAs is that without the billing costs and hassles, medical offices could afford to provide services at a reduced rate. Cash talks, and the doctors accepting cash know what they are selling and for how much, and they don’t have to worry about Medicare or Medicaid discounting them into oblivion.

Here in the US, if we just made MSAs, tax-deductible, inheritable, and usable within families, and combined them with available Interstate catastrophic insurance, we would go a long way toward reducing medical costs further through competition.

WASHINGTON, DC –September 25th

There will be a national prayer gathering of Muslims on the west front of the U.S. Capitol Building. They are expecting at least 50,000 to attend from mosques all across America. They will gather to pray from 4:00 AM until 7:00 PM. The gathering will take place by the site where U.S. Presidents have been inaugurated since 1981. The organizers say that it was Obama’s inauguration speech in January and his speech broadcast from EGYPT in June that gave them the idea for this prayer gathering on Capitol Hill.

Given that the permits have already been issued, it’s kind of interesting that nobody in the press (at least that I’ve been able to find) is telling anyone about this up-coming event. They cover Code Pink when they show up 10 strong, but not a public prayer meeting where 50,000 people are scheduled to show up.

The interesting part to me is the ‘why’ of it not being mentioned. After all, they ignored 9/12 until it was forced upon them, then they dismissed it as substantially irrelevant, and as a result they were burned pretty badly. You’d think they might at least take a minor interest.

Are they afraid there will be associations made between the Muslims and Obama? They certainly have no fear of crying ‘racism’ at any possible potential opportunity, so one has to wonder why they are not jumping at the chance to get out front with this story so they can start the accusations of rabid Islamophobia if anybody even notices.

I guess the bottom line is…. If it doesn’t serve the specific purpose of advancing the Obama agenda of the moment…. It is just not really news.

I’m looking at the pictures on Fox news right now of over 60,000 people gathered at the capital, specifically to protest and address Obama’s assorted policies and attempts to remake our form of governance.  Some say over 100,000.  Where’s our president?  Cowering in Minnesota.  He knew this was coming, and he felt the need to find an excuse to get out of town, from where he can later deny any relevance to the gathering.  He didn’t even have the guts that even Barney Frank and Benedict Arlen showed in facing hostile town hall meetings.

OUR PRESIDENT IS A COWARD!

I was driving down the freeway with my wife the other day, when I noticed a large group of men by the roadside wearing orange jump suits and stuffing roadside litter into orange plastic bags.

We had just been discussing all the “green jobs” that the stimulus package and Obama’s budget were likely to produce, and wondering when we would start seeing the creations of the government largess being spread about in this “futuristic” area of investment. I realized then that the “green jobs” were already beginning to be filled! Here were about a dozen men working diligently at a green job in my very presence. At least these folks wouldn’t have to worry about losing their homes for lack of being able to make a mortgage payment!

I started thinking about all the roadsides across the country, and all the people that must be being employed to keep them relatively litter free, and asked myself, “Why isn’t the major media covering this? This something people ought to know about!”

Anyway, the noticing of the green jobs has for me, come at a propitious time. I just found out I’m about to be laid off over at Chrysler, and I could sure use one of those green jobs (I think I could handle that roadside thing) that Obama just created.

Can anyone tell me where I go to apply?

Secretary Janet Napolitano

U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC 20528

April 13, 2009

Dear Secretary Napolitano:

I am a regularly-retired police supervisor with over twenty-five years law enforcement experience. I am also an honorably-discharged Viet Nam era veteran (a Special Forces medic to be exact), who later joined the National Guard.

As it happens, I am opposed to abortion on principal, as well as illegal immigration. In both my military and
police careers, I swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. The government required it of me, but I was happy to oblige.

The Constitution includes (in case you are not familiar with it) what we citizens like to refer-to as “The
Bill of Rights”. There are Ten Amendments in the “Bill of Rights”, and each of them is a gosh-darned real part of the actual Constitution. Even number Ten, which limits the power of the Federal Government pretty-much to certain things that are specifically enumerated in the regular part of the Constitution, and
grants all other rights to the states or the people. You ought to read it sometime. It’s really pretty neat! Even though it’s not followed much these days, I still think it has some real merit.

From what I have heard of your recent DHS warning about “right wing extremism”, I guess I qualify as a right-wing extremist sufficiently for the police to be warned about me on at least four counts: abortion, illegal immigrants, believing in the Constitution, and, of course, being a veteran. ( Oh… and since I was in the National Guard following my original enlistment, I was required to swear to uphold and defend the CA state Constitution too. I guess that kind of works against me by implication as well).

Anyway, as I really am a concerned citizen as well as being a four (or five) count “right wing
extremist”, I was hoping you could clarify for me the specific point at which I become dangerous, or a domestic terrorist, or… you get the idea. I ask this because it really is not my intention to ever cross that line… so I’d like to know where you feel it is.

Let me close by saying that you probably need to be aware that of those Police and Sheriff’ Departments that you sent out your warning to on April 9, (and I can tell you this with reasonable certainty) about 95% of the actual working cops feel pretty-much the same way about those kinds of things listed above as I do, and a good 10% of them are veterans as well. And they have access to assault rifles and shotguns. I sure hope you didn’t make a big mistake in letting them know you are on to them.

Yours truly,

Devon M. Stavrowsky

How come I haven’t heard much about this?  I’m beginning to think the press might be biased in Obama’s favor.

By executive order, President Barack Obama has ordered the expenditure of $20.3 million in migration assistance to the Palestinian refugees and conflict victims in Gaza. The “presidential determination” which allows hundreds of thousands of Palestinians with ties to Hamas to resettle in the United States was signed on January 27 and appeared in the Federal Register on February 4.  President Obama’s decision, according to the Register, was necessitated by “the urgent refugee and migration needs” of the “victims.”

Few on Capitol Hill took note that the order provides a free ticket replete with housing and food allowances to individuals who have displayed their overwhelming support of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) in the parliamentary election of January 2006.

Obama’s actions VSV the Midddle East have thus far included:

* His first call to any head of state as president was to Mahmoud Abbas, leader of Fatah party in the Palestinian territory.

* His first one on one interview with any news organization was with Al Arabia television.

* He ordered Guantanamo Bay closed and all military trials of detainees halted..

* He ordered all overseas CIA interrogation centers closed.

* He withdrew all charges against the masterminds behind the USS Cole and 9/11..

* Today we learn that he is allowing hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refuges to move to and live in the US at American taxpayer expense.

SEE TEXT FROM FEDERAL REGISTER BELOW:
Presidential Determination No. 2009-15 of January 27,
2009

Unexpected Urgent Refugee and Migration Needs
Related To Gaza

Memorandum for the Secretary of State

By the authority vested in me by the Constitution and
the laws of the United States, including section
2(c)(1) of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of
1962 (the “Act”), as amended (22 U.S.C. 2601), I
hereby determine, pursuant to section 2(c)(1) of the
Act, that it is important to the national interest to
furnish assistance under the Act in an amount not to
exceed $20.3 million from the United States Emergency
Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund for the purpose
of meeting unexpected and urgent refugee and migration
needs, including by contributions to international,
governmental, and nongovernmental organizations and
payment of administrative expenses of Bureau of
Population, Refugees, and Migration of the Department
of State, related to humanitarian needs of Palestinian
refugees and conflict victims in Gaza.

You are authorized and directed to publish this
memorandum in the Federal Register.

(Presidential Sig.)

THE WHITE HOUSE,

Washington, January 27, 2009