Vanishing Freedoms

It was a big campaign topic in the 2008 elections, “Healthcare Reform” was particularly a pushing point of the Democratic party as they pushed the “horrible truth” that 46,000,000 Americans are uninsured. The stories of families going bankrupt, people dying while waiting for treatment, and malpractice scare stories abounded. It made it seem that if we didn’t act immediately on healthcare, that we were evil, selfish people.

The Numbers…

Well, that would have been a decent argument had they have at least used factual information. First, let us look at the number 46,000,000:

1: Ten million of those “American’s” aren’t American’s at all, they are illegal aliens and non-citizens.
2: According to Census data, 8,300,000 American’s that are uninsured make between $50,000 and $74,999 a year, and can certainly afford to buy their own health insurance.
3: Also according to the Census data, 8,740,000 American’s that are uninsured make over $75,000 a year, yet choose to not have health insurance.

That leaves us with about 20,000,000 Americans that are uninsured, to which 60% said they were in excellent health, and certainly could be an indicator of why they didn’t have health insurance. So never mind the fact that 14,000,000 would most likely be eligible for pre-existing healthcare options such as Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

So, in the end we have roughly 6,000,000 out of 306,914,050, which equals 1.9549% of our current population is uninsured, unable to pay for their own insurance, and has no current government options for healthcare. So is 2% a crisis? Let’s say that it is, and that the current estimate of $1,000,000,000,000 dollar price tag, that is most assuredly going to inflate rapidly as all government projects do, is correct. That means that each of those 6,000,000 poor American’s healthcare will be $166,666.67 a year. Even if the projected cost goes out to a 10 year span, that is still $16,666.66 a year in health insurance. Does that sound like an accurate number for how much health insurance costs? Not at all, as a reasonable private offering can be had for around $2,400 a year.

Where is the government planning on getting this money from to pay for this plan? Well, they would start by cutting Medicaid by around $500,000,000,000 dollars a year. Then, they plan on filling in the rest of the $500,000,000,000 – $1,000,000,000,000 by raising taxes on the “rich.” Now, since when is $280,000 a year considered rich in this country? Especially when they already have the greatest tax burden of anyone in the country?

“By 2005, the most recent year data are available, our top 1 percent of filers were paying nearly 40 percent of the federal income tax bill, while those in the 2nd to 5th percentile paid another 20 percent. Every other group saw its share of the tax bill decline, sometimes substantially. Those taxpayers in the 26th to 50th percentile (that is, with an adjusted gross income roughly between $31,000 and $62,000) paid 11 percent of all federal income taxes, down from 20 percent back in 1980, while those in the 11th to 25th percentiles (earning between $62,000 and $104,000 today), paid 16 percent of the federal tax bill, down from 24 percent in 1980.” – Real Clear Markets

Now you decide if it is okay for Medicaid to be cut, and the rich to foot the bill for $6,000,000 uninsured Americans? Most people on Medicaid are living on fixed incomes due to being retired, and having already contributed a lifetime of work to taxes in this country. The “rich” are those that are our employers and provide funding for our venture capitalism, let alone the fact that more taxes may make them move their money and jobs outside of the country, hurting this country even more financially due to the loss in revenue both from their income, but their employees income. So tell me, does this make financial sense having this outrageously priced government program set in place? Well, if you say yes, I would encourage you to read further.

Here is a pie chart for you visual people about statistics in 2001 courtesy Rush:

What healthcare reform promises us…

What is proposed, is a government option for a health insurance plan. Sounds great right? That way it can be competitive and keep private health insurance companies honest with their premiums. Well, that would work if the laws of economics didn’t apply. Insurance companies work on charging premiums (your month to month cost) to fill their bank account with, to pay for expenses that anyone else (and you of course) will encounter while under their plan. The rates change on what risk you are to them. If you are a young, healthy individual that has little risk for diseases and accidents, you will pay a lower premium than someone who is older and has an existing heart condition, or a history of cancer. Why? Because the latter person will most likely require the insurance company to pay more money in doctor and medicine bills in their lifetime. Now, with the government plan, it won’t function like that. Why? Because the ones truly footing the bill for the healthcare will be the American taxpayer, regardless of whether or not they have their own insurance with another company or not. Thus, allowing the government to ALWAYS have a cheaper plan than the private industry.

So logically, as a consumer on a budget, you’d choose the government option so that you could have the spare money for that $200 a month cell phone bill that came with your new iPhone. What does that do to private insurance? Well, less customers means less revenue, meaning that premiums will have to be raised for current plan holders to make up the difference in their books. Sooner or later, private insurance companies would go out of business simply because they could not compete with the unfair, monopolistic practices of the government option.

Now, assuming you don’t want healthcare because you are young, in good health, and don’t believe that you need it, you should be able to choose to not have/pay for healthcare right? Well, in a truly free society that would be correct, but according to what the Democrats and Obama want, you’d have to pay for that “right.”

“Employers who don’t provide coverage would be hit with a penalty equal to 8 percent of workers’ wages with an exemption for small businesses. Individuals who decline an offer of affordable coverage would pay 2.5 percent of their incomes as a penalty, up to the average cost of a health insurance plan.” – KansasCity.com

So even if you don’t want the healthcare, you are going to pay for it in two ways; once on your taxes, and then as a fine. It is wonderful to live in a free society isn’t it?

Now, you may argue that Canada has had wonderful government run health insurance, so is that why they have wait times from 4-22 hours in their Emergency Rooms? Sounds like our system is much more efficient doesn’t it?

So why do we want to ruin the best medical system in the world?

There are more issues at hand… Such as the rationing of healthcare, which this package would no doubt lead to as it has in Europe and Canada where the healthcare systems for the most part have been taken over by the government. What is rationing? It is when the government decides who gets the limited amount of drugs or doctors based on their worth to society. Don’t believe me? Here is an eye-opening editorial on what the elderly can expect under the Obamacare system. And this article poses a great start for the idea that if the government pays for our healthcare, won’t that give them the right to dictate what we eat, drink and do because it will in some way or another, directly impact what they will pay for us in healthcare costs? How would you like G-men coming into your house to see what was in your fridge? We already have them in line to come into your house and survey your electronics and home to make sure it will be “green enough” with the Cap and Trade bill that is going through the Senate, do you really want them monitoring what you eat and do as well now?

People come from all over the world for advanced treatments and procedures that we do here. The rest of the world uses our advancements in drugs and medical devices to extend life expectancies and cure diseases. Do we really want to further hobble a system that is the best out of any nation on the planet, and responsible for saving lives world wide? The reform we need isn’t in government intervention, it is in deregulation. Why forbid a drug that has to potential to alleviate the pain and suffering of a terminal cancer patient if the side affect could possibly be death? Doesn’t that patient sign a waiver anyway saying that they may die? Why not give them the option to live pain free longer? Why do we allow such frivolous lawsuits against doctors raising their malpractice costs?

“Dr. Paul Tudder figures he’s delivered about 4,000 babies in 21 years, and in that time, he’s never been sued.

Yet, as CBS News Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports, his malpractice insurance has gone through the roof. His premium was $23,000 in 2002. Then it jumped to $47,000. This year, he got a quote for $84,000.”

Instead, why don’t we work on ways to make the healthcare profession more efficient to work in? Lowering testing costs by getting rid of some of the most ridiculous FDA regulations, protecting doctors from frivolous malpractice lawsuits, and giving tax incentives to insurance companies to take on higher risk patients?

As President Reagan said that we are “a shining city on a hill,” so is our healthcare system to the rest of the world. Let’s not destroy it, when it affects far more than the people in this country.

*UPDATE*
Arizona is yet another step closer to putting a stop to this Healthcare Reform package from destroying their state’s healthcare! HCR2014 Nullifies the Federal bill in the State of Arizona.

Now, we’ve all heard of Sonia Sotomayor, and some of her highly controversial remarks, but should those controversial remarks hold her from being confirmed?

Let’s first look at what her job would be. According to Wikipedia (which is sometimes useful):

“A supreme court, also called a court of last resort or instance, court of final appeal or high court, is in some jurisdictions the highest judicial body within that jurisdiction’s court system, whose rulings are not subject to further review by another court. The designations for such courts differ among jurisdictions. Courts of last resort typically function primarily as appellate courts, hearing appeals from the lower trial courts or intermediate-level appellate courts.”

Note, that nowhere in that does it say that the court has anything to do with policy making, or law making decisions does it? Now, without getting into the dry, and long winded explanation from our founders as to what the Courts are for, let me sum it up in this: “The Court system is the 3^rd power in a check and balance system. It is to interpret the law regarding whatever case is in front of it.” Certainly, if we had 3 bodies in our government that could create policy and law, our system would be off balance. Thus, it is only Congress’s job to create policy.

I would think understanding your job, and the responsibilities of your job, would be critical to being hired; especially for such a powerful position. However, as shown in this video clip (and on YouTube) she obviously believes that it is her job to create policy. Now, this would be fine in some other country, but this isn’t how America is run. Obviously, she doesn’t understand her job.

You would think, that if you were interviewing someone for the highest court in this Nation, that you would want answers to crucial questions that she may face as a Supreme Court Judge. Yet when asked things that we, the America public, find to be hot topics, she avoids answering the questions. Now some may think that this is a minor issue, but would you hire someone who wouldn’t answer your question about whether or not they were a felon? Or had stolen from an employer? Or if they even supported the widgets that you produced and sold? Obviously she fears that her opinion will be out of step with what a majority of the American public believes, so she chooses to keep dynamite topics out of reach. She can’t risk a loud public outcry to stop her confirmation.

We’ve heard all these amazing stories about her past, how she grew up, her gender, and her ethnicity, yet do any of these answer the questions as to who she is and how she will rule on cases? No, they don’t. We hear about how she considers herself a “wise Latina,” yet why doesn’t even she say that she is a wise American? She wasn’t born in Puerto Rico, she was born in the Continental United States. She’s a citizen. She’s an American. So why the race card? Why the gender card? Why should we care what color/sex/height/weight she is and not just care that she is an American?

It is where she stands on issues, and what her character is that is most important, and I would have to assume that intelligent people on both sides of the aisle would agree with me on that. So why would we want to support someone who obviously believes that the law should FORCE all men to be equal based on race? Our country and government isn’t here to make all people equal, it is to treat them all as equals. What that individual does with the base of being treated like everyone else is up to them. When she withheld a promotion from all firemen, because there weren’t enough “African-American’s” that scored well on the test, she not only created a racial divide, but she withheld rights from men who earned that promotion. How equal and fair is that?

When one is called a bully by her peers and coworkers, even before she is appointed to be Obama’s first pick for the Supreme Court, you have to question her character. Is she really going to be fair and use sound judgment? Or will she coerce, and push here way through decisions and cases to get what her personal agenda wants? Even after the Supreme Court (the very court she is “applying for”) decided that the 2^nd Amendment is most assuredly a personal right that is not only federal, but extends to states as well, she ignored their decision and many decisions made before them in various cases, and “…held that the Constitution does not protect the right to keep and bear arms against infringement by state and local governments.”
When the 14^th Amendment specifically {imposed new restrictions on the States, forbidding them to abridge the “privileges or immunities” of American citizens or to “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”} – RCP

So where does that leave us? We obviously have someone who believes their background, gender, and race should be of matter to her confirmation. She’s a bully who doesn’t understand the job she is eager to start, and has knowingly made decisions that are in direct violation of what the VERY COURT she is awaiting to be a part of. Remember folks, there is no term limit on Supreme Court Judges. Once they are in, they are in until they choose to retire. Is this really the type of person we want hearing the most important cases in this country? Or do we as the American people deserve a judge with less personal agenda and bias? Or do we want someone who knows the duties of their position, and interprets the law with a clear, and un-biased mindset.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/03/palins-resignation-stirs-debate-political-future/

Why did she step down? Could it be she bowed out under pressure? Or could it be to save her state money invested in defending her against ethics investigations liberal critics keep pounding her with. Where were these ethics investigations before she became the GOP Vice-President nominee? How many other governors are going through the same treatment? Ask yourselves these questions before you make your mind up.

EDIT: 07/04/09. Full text of Sarah Palin’s letter posted today:

Happy 4th of July from Alaska!
Today at 4:55pmOn this Independence Day, I am so very proud of all those who have chosen to serve our great nation and I honor their selflessness and the sacrifices of their families, too.