Why Pay for the Care of the Careless?

Why Pay for the Care of the Careless?
August 23, 2009 by Dr. Roger Starner Jones

During my last shift in the ER, I had the pleasure of evaluating a patient with a shiny new gold tooth, multiple elaborate tatoos and a new cellular telephone equipped with her favorite R&B tune for a ring tone.

Glancing over the chart, one could not help noticing her payer status: Medicaid.

She smokes a costly pack of cigarettes every day and, somehow, still has money to buy beer.

And our president expects me to pay for this woman's health care?

Our nation's health care crisis is not a shortage of quality hospitals, doctors or nurses. It is a crisis of culture — a culture in which it is perfectly acceptable to spend money on vices while refusing to take care of one's self or, heaven forbid, purchase health insurance.

Life is really not that hard. Most of us reap what we sow.

Starner Jones, MD

Doctor Jones was right, and should be commended for publishing his comments. We were told to be outraged that banks, insurance companies, auto-manufacturers and other businesses got a government bailout. The issue was that bad decisions have negative consequences, and that to protect these mega-corporations from the consequences of their own actions was not only unwise (encouraging them to continue making bad decisions) but that it would unjustly shift the burden of responsibility from those who made the mistakes to all the rest of us who were the victims of those decisions.

This problem is precisely what occurs when individuals are bailed out as well. I don't know anyone who objects to helping those who cannot help themselves, even with expensive health care. But I know many people, myself included, who do have a problem with forcing the rest of us to help those who simply won't help themselves, such as the woman in Dr. Jones' example (and let us not pretend this was only an isolated case). If it is outrageous to spend hundreds of billions of tax dollars to bailout irresponsible businesses for making bad decisions, it should also be outrageous to spend hundreds of billions more in tax dollars to bailout millions of irresponsible individuals for making bad decisions.

And that is the underlying problem: government is rightly expected to be responsible with the people's money. This oversight (although selectively applied) requires endless strings, bureaucracy and red tape. And that is why America's founders set up the Constitution so the federal government had no place in any of the myriad social programs we pay into today. Retirement, education, health care, etc., is supposed to be the realm of the states and the people, not of the federal government. If you want your state government to handle your health care, public education, Social Security and other aspects of your life, fine; but get the federal government out.

The World is Selectively Complex

A favorite quip of ultra-liberals is the reminder that the world is complex. Of course, this fact is acknowledged only selectively, when it can support the left wing narrative.

The Fort Hood massacre is said to be a complex situation. Major Nidal Malik Hasan may be Muslim, but we should not jump to conclusions, as President Obama cautioned us. But the George Tiller murder was a rather simple affair. Do you recall any efforts from politicians or from the news media to understand Scott Roeder, the man who killed abortionist George Tiller? On the contrary, where we have been urged to avoid treating this terrorist attack by a radical Muslim in our homeland as a typical Islamic trait, the Tiller murder was widely criticized as a typical anti-abortion, right wing act.

collection of Fort Hood stories
collection of George Tiller stories

Have you noticed the seldom distinction between legal and illegal immigration? There are xenophobes and racists who oppose all immigration, but there are many LEGAL immigrants who oppose illegal immigration, and insist that our government should acknowledge the difference. The media's selective use of the distinction should be concerning to those of us who operate by common sense, which apparently isn't so common among journalists.

collection of stories on immigration

Climate change "deniers" are not deniers of any legitimate facts. Junk science deniers reject the blind assumption normal human activity is destroying the planet. Yet the global warming alarmists are denying that this current ebb of climate change could be natural. You may not have heard the founder of the Weather Channel is suing Al Gore, or that 30,000 scientists disagree that human activity has any significant impact on earth's climate. Suddenly we're supposed to accept an over simplified conclusion from fraudulent science as proof that Al Gore finally found something he knows something about (even if he turns out to be wrong)? What happened to not jumping to conclusions? What happened to a nuanced look at a complex situation?

collection of stories on global warming

We can't drill our way out of an energy crisis but we can spend our way out of a recession.

collection of stories on the recession

No attempt to understand the situation when America's military is accused of a crime.

Navy SEALS Criminally Charged for roughing up a terrorist

We're supposed to believe our elected officials always have our best interests at heart. No need to question their motives or the news media who obviously support their efforts to take care of us. For 8 years we were told not to trust the president; now we are told precisely the opposite.

collection of stories on the health care

There are no liberal extremists, only right wing extremists. When you are an ultra-liberal, even moderate leftists like David Brooks seem "conservative" to you. Ever wonder why you rarely if ever see a news story condemning left wing extremism but frequently hear terms like ultra-conservative, religious right (used as synonymous with extremism), right wing extremists, etc.?

The State is the new Church

Government is taking over the role of the Church. I use "Church" here in the traditional sense of Christianity. Where religion once taught morality (what is right and wrong), responsibility (honor, integrity, reliability) and compassion, the State now largely does these things in American society. How's that going so far?

For generations the Christian Church has neglected its role and failed to teach people how to live well (how to make good and wise decisions). In the last 100 years there has been a serious shift in cultural attitudes about who should guide civilization. It seems there are now more people looking to government rather than religion to deal with life's problems. Subsequently, the role of religion has diminished significantly, while it is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Unfortunately, this is not entirely a surprise.

My experience is with Christianity and so I limit my comments to that faith. To put it simply, the Church has failed in its job. Let me begin with the obligatory plug on the issue of poverty. Many religious people have devoted their lives to helping others. The Catholic Church as well as many protestants have given us numerous examples of this. And despite the immeasurable effort and resources expended in religious and secular endeavors, in general there is still a great deal of poverty in the world, and it appears no progress has been made to eliminate it. One observation here is that poverty in the world seems to garner far more attention from the Church than many other ailments of civilization. Abortion, for example, does not appear to generate as much organized Christian effort as does poverty. I do not mean to slight the great efforts some particular congregations and innumerable groups and individuals invest into fighting for an unborn child's right to live. I merely point out the fact that secular moral outrage at poverty vastly overshadows that for abortion, and this same attitude seems reflected, in general, in the Church. I'm very glad to note there are many, many exceptions but the rule none-the-less seems to hold that poverty is more important to our culture than is the legal killing of unborn children.

I do not believe poverty will ever be eliminated. In John 12:8 Christ says we will always have the poor with us. Jesus was not granting a license to ignore the poor, as that would be utterly inconsistent with the rest of his ministry as well as the Hebrew and Christian testaments. However, in this passage of John chapter 12, it was Judas, the disciple who would later betray Jesus, who expressed frustration at the supposed waste of money in pouring expensive perfume on Christ, rather than selling it and giving the proceeds to the poor. Mary's example should remind us that giving to the poor should not trump all other aspects of the Lord's work. I mention this only because so much injustice is being perpetrated on the world in the name of fighting social and economic injustice.

I believe it unfair to condemn the Church for the fact that poverty and misery still exist in this world. A more pragmatic issue, I think, is that the Church has also largely failed in another of its very important missions: to provide hope to the world. Let me repeat some words from a very famous person:

It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.

We think sometimes that poverty is only being hungry, naked and homeless. The poverty of being unwanted, unloved and uncared for is the greatest poverty. We must start in our own homes to remedy this kind of poverty.

The most terrible poverty is loneliness and the feeling of being unloved.

The hunger for love is much more difficult to remove than the hunger for bread.

There is more hunger for love and appreciation in this world than for bread.

If you haven't guessed it, these statements are common quotations of Mother Teresa, and are easily found on the internet. If you feel tempted to disagree with her on any of these points I caution you to remember she saw a great deal of pain and suffering in the world, chances are more than you ever will. She knew what she was talking about. That's not to say Mother Teresa is unquestionable, there is plenty of misery to go around in this world. But let's be realistic with which one of you has a deeper perspective on suffering. Mother Teresa also said she saw more poverty in the United States than anywhere else in the world; she was referring to spiritual poverty.

Is it not one of the callings of the Church to bring hope and love to the world? Church membership is often used as a metric for determining the effectiveness of ministry, yet this measurement has been declining for generations. The general western Church offers hope to everyone, but seems successful with so few. The problem with the Church's past neglect of aiding the needy is not the issue here; that is a topic for another discussion. Christendom seems to be emerging from a desert period where true life was seldom found in its religiosity. Thankfully there is tremendous effort in the modern American Church to make up for this neglect, though there is still much ground to be covered. But in the vacuum created by the Church are other attempts to fill it with a secular remedy. The government has taken upon itself a major role of the Church.

Safety Net

For decades Americans have been taught to put our faith in the social safety net. In efforts to deal with "social injustice" and "economic injustice" there is often an ostensible effort to ignore religion and even to discard healthy American traditions which made the United States the greatest economic power in human history.

When I hear critics of capitalism present their argument it is typically by suggesting capitalists put blind faith in greed, as if the world were really that simple. There is often the implication that merely trying to keep up with or stay ahead of inflation is greed, even when it is a middle class or poor house hold simply trying to survive. When these critics are religious people their argument often includes the implication that trying to make ends meet by trying to increase one's income is relying on one's wealth or 401(k) or savings account rather than relying on God. If this is true, is it not also a conflict for Christians to put so much faith in the government social safety net?

I suggest a support of the social safety net is blind faith because it seems the most accurate term for it. With substantial evidence government is slow to act, negligent and even incompetent and corrupt (and that these problems are the rule rather than the exception) there are still many in politics, journalism, academia and ordinary citizens who strongly support an ever increasing role of government in social affairs. Underlying this secular agenda seems to be an unquestioning faith in the ability of the state to fix society's problems. Even among many religious people (and in my experience among some Christians) there is tremendous faith in the power of government with an unwavering assumption that government is benevolent.

The rhetoric of good intentions has indeed programmed many of us that government's compassionate attempt to help people can have only good results, despite the increasing hostility toward religion and the increasing harm public social policy perpetrates on those same people. If efforts to bring oneself out of poverty are "greed" and misplacing faith in one's wealth, why shouldn't the same be said of putting such faith in the social safety net provided by government?

In order to provide social programs, or more accurately to ration services to the people, the government must raise taxes. That is the only way government can pay for its ever increasing promises. And we the people are supposed to believe raising our taxes helps us. All the while, accompanying this propaganda is the false suggestion that confiscation of wealth under threat of imprisonment and redistribution is the same thing as "sharing." But let us not call this greed.

Once Considered Unthinkable, U.S. Sales Tax Gets Fresh Look
Levy Viewed as Way to Reduce Deficits, Fund Health Reform

House eyes new taxes as senators pare health bill
House Democrats say they won't reveal how they intend to pay for their plan until later. Higher taxes on upper-income households appear likely, but broad levies — even a federal sales tax — are also under discussion.

Obama pivots on taxing health benefits
President Obama, in a pivot from a campaign promise, told Democratic senators Tuesday that he is willing to consider taxing employer-sponsored health benefits to help pay for a broad expansion of coverage.

For the Better Good... Dems Consider Soda Fat Tax to Pay For Healthcare Monstrosity

ABC's Diane Sawyer Pleads for European-style Gas Tax

And what happens to those who question these well intended policies that end up taxing the people back into poverty? Typically there is the knee-jerk accusation of being uncaring or greedy. In contemporary politics, with Barack Obama as our president, it seems any disagreement or disapproval of the left wing agenda is branded as racist. This blind faith in liberalism and in Barack Obama has led leftists to actually believe their own propaganda. Recently there was a news story on Politico.com revealing an astonishing discovery: Study: Obama foes aren't race-driven. Please note: leftists had to conduct a study to discover they've been deluding themselves about criticism of President Obama.

Think for a moment about the last time the federal government promised a social service and actually did a good job. How about the last time it stayed within budget? How quickly do you expect to get your benefit from a government program (the DMV, immigration services)? Remember the recent Cash for Clunkers program?
Some Surprised By 'Clunker' Tax
NY dealers pull out of clunkers program
Cash for Clunkers success limited by program flaws

And at this time we face the possibility of a bunch of people who can't manage our national budget, our retirement or our education who want to take over our health care and run numerous other industries. To think the people can't be trusted to make their own decisions for their own lives and must have some other supposedly qualified persons make such decisions for them is the ultimate in elitism. It would make Lenin and Mao proud.

Christ tells his followers to help those in need. But how have we interpreted his command? Compulsory "benevolence" robs people of the opportunity to give and to practice charity. Being charitable and selfless comes from the heart, or it should. Raising our taxes (compelling us to contribute to supposedly help others) robs us of the ability to practice grace on our own. Not only does it reduce the wealth that people could use to help others it also tends to reduce the impetus to do so; after all, paying taxes supposedly is helping people. (Note to the reader: you are not supposed to be aware of wide spread fraud, incompetence, waste and corruption with the spending of your tax dollars. And when politicians claim they will solve such problems you are supposed to trust them.)

And what are the justifications for raising our taxes? Usually we are manipulated by class envy and jealousy, pitting rich against poor, white against everyone else, etc. Merely using a government service more than someone else (i.e., money or the interstate) is typically portrayed as an injustice. How does brotherhood and peace exist in a culture where our leaders constantly try to divide us particularly on racial or economic lines? Suggesting that being Caucasian or Republican automatically makes one a bigot is somehow suppose to unite the people. Merely being conservative must make one homophobic, racist, sexist, you name it and this is supposed to build community. How does claiming the rich need to be taxed more and that they can afford it build brotherhood among a nation's population? This sort of rhetoric is class warfare; inciting envy destroys community. To promote an ever increasing intrusion of government (called "social programs") we are bombarded with propaganda designed to destroy national unity. And those of us who object to this are called greedy, and worse.

There is a time to give, but we too often neglect the teaching of how to survive. Most objections to higher taxes are not a matter of greed or even fairness. If it is greedy for one already struggling to make ends meet to oppose paying higher taxes, is it not also greedy for the government to raise those taxes in the first place? Aside from the concerns of helping and giving there are practical concerns entirely neglected by proponents of higher taxes. For example, the idea that raising our taxes helps us often leads one to forget that relying on government aid tends to atrophy people's ability to take care of themselves. The law of unintended consequences strikes a painful blow almost every time we presume a well intended public policy can do no harm. Medical practitioners try to help people too, but even they have a policy of "do no harm" (or at least they used to). This should be the first test of any public policy.

But rescuing people from poverty is not the goal of our social and political do-gooders. Helping to build people up so they no longer need assistance is the issue so often missed. The point, more often than not, seems to be to tear down the wealthy, the successful, the hard working and the independent. Economic justice is not about justice at all, it is about equality. By this reckoning, for one to have more wealth than someone else is an injustice. The solution is not to elevate the poor man but to take from the rich man with the blind promise that redistributing that wealth equally will eliminate misery (with the incredible assumption such wealth actually will be redistributed equally). But the fact is no amount of giving will ever eliminate poverty. Forced redistribution does not create wealth; it destroys wealth.

Prosperity is the only thing yet known which even has a chance of rescuing ordinary people from desperate poverty. Unfortunately, government has tremendous ability to squelch prosperity, but very little power to help it grow. Prosperity must grow to exist. We have witnessed the truth that the power to tax is the power to destroy, just as America's founders told us.

But these practical concerns are lost on so many who seem more concerned with equality than with the well being of people. Achieving this mythical and subjective idea of social justice requires the enactment of profound injustice in all other aspects of life. For some there is an almost religious devotion to the quest for equality. For others it is their religious faith that drives them to support the same endeavor, resulting in the attempt to force people to show love to humanity. In Christianity and in government forcing people to "give" is inimical to the professed goals of building unity, and typically becomes oppressive and abusive in the process. It is not our place to expect more from those who have more. Presuming we have a right to compel those wealthier that us to "give", as it is dishonestly called, is just as oppressive and destructive as is it for those with more wealth to greedily cling to it. And let us be careful not to naively assume simply being wealthy is greedy, as is often the suggestion.

Much effort is devoted to fighting the symptoms of social and economic problems rather than the real problems themselves. Using Christ's command to help the poor as justification for government interference and confiscation is a purposeful misrepresentation of this command. Christ never told us to use the government to force people to do what they really should be doing on their own. It is the Church's failing for not teaching people to be generous. What's worse, the Church has been quite successful at teaching the world religion is irrelevant at best, but most likely harmful. How does using the government to eliminate poverty actually solve any problem? What reason is there to believe the government is even capable of this? The American government can't handle public education and Social Security, let alone poverty or health care.

Illiteracy: An Incurable Disease or Education Malpractice?

According to the National Adult Literacy Survey, 42 million adult Americans can't read; 50 million can recognize so few printed words they are limited to a 4th or 5th grade reading level; one out of every four teenagers drops out of high school, and of those who graduate, one out of every four has the equivalent or less of an eighth grade education.

Annual report due for Social Security and Medicare

The financial health of the government's two biggest benefit programs may have slipped over the past year, reflecting the deep recession that has already bitten into other areas of the budget.

The trustees for Social Security and Medicare are scheduled to provide their annual report on the finances of both programs on Tuesday. In advance of the release, many private analysts said they expected both programs could run out of cash sooner than last predicted.

So many journalists, politicians and ordinary citizens have blind faith in the power of government to fix society's ails that is seems like a new religion has formed, fixating itself on the power of the state. Secular statism now has tremendous sway in the lives of the American public, and some would say more than does religion.

If Christianity is to regain its proper role in training and teaching and forming a peaceful society it needs to stop transferring its faith from God to government. Electing representatives who understand this fact is a vital step toward that end. The Church should be defining for society what it means to have hope, compassion and love but the government will not easily give up this role it has taken upon itself. For too long the state and secular society have defined these things for the Church. Is it any wonder so many people think of the Church as useless?

A Free Ride Era

The 1980s is typically touted as the era of the "free ride". President Ronald Reagan's right wing economic and political policies were designed to reduce government power and to increase the freedom of the people to make their own decisions. Reagan was of the conservative school of thought which holds several fundamental premises based on the importance of individual liberty, one of which is that you can make decisions for your individual life better than the government can. You realize, of course, I have to mention this because there is a large segment of American culture that does not believe this.

There seems to be an increasing number of people who believe government can make specific decisions for you and your loved ones on an individual basis better than you can. Leftists often treat Ronald Reagan as an uncaring president, and they say his policies were uncompassionate. The economic boom of the 1980s, they will tell us, is evidence of an uncaring and greedy administration. The fact that so many people were able to make something of their lives and bring themselves out of poverty and away from living on government handouts is portrayed as a "free ride."

A free ride is when you get something and don't have to pay for it yourself. This is the defining aspect President Barack Obama's administration. President Obama based his campaign and is now basing his agenda on the notion of giving people something they do not have to pay for directly. Health care is the biggest example.

So how do we get this fantastic new health care system if we don't have to pay for it? Well, we actually do have to pay for it.

• NYT Shocker: 'Obama’s Pledge to Tax Only the Rich Can’t Pay for Everything'


• House Dems look at taxing the rich for health care


• Obama pivots on taxing health benefits


• Once Considered Unthinkable, U.S. Sales Tax Gets Fresh Look


• Proposed tax on 'Cadillac' coverage questioned


• House eyes new taxes as senators pare health bill


• Only ABC Cites 'Devastating' CBO Judgment & 50%+ Tax Rates to Pay for Health Care


• After Denying Obama Would Raise Taxes During Campaign, NYT Calls for Increases

To the modern liberal, success equals greed. If you can make a living without having to beg the government for a personal bailout you are getting a "free ride." But this label more aptly applies to the current era of American politics. You almost can't watch, listen to or read the news without seeing another example of the Obama administration discussing another need for the government to provide something to the people. And we are fast approaching the point of unsustainability, where the government simply cannot pay for all the promises it has made. The $1 trillion health care bill is totally borrowed money.

The wisdom of America's founders could help us understand why socialism should be avoided. The conservative principles written about and practiced by our founders paved the way for the world's strongest economy and greatest nation to build itself.

“An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation.”
– John Marshall

“With respect to future debt; would it not be wise and just for that nation to declare in the constitution they are forming that neither the legislature, nor the nation itself can validly contract more debt, than they may pay within their own age…”
– Thomas Jefferson

“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”
– James Madison

“I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.”
– Thomas Jefferson

Too bad the left wing narrative is treated as the only reality we need today. Welcome to the free ride era.

Symbolism and the $1 Bill

Published at Mentalfloss.com August 18, 2009 by

Crack open your wallet, pull out everyone’s favorite portrait of George Washington, and be prepared to learn about some odd symbolism that probably seemed perfectly normal in the 18th century. Here are the explanations behind some of the more baffling parts of our nation’s smallest bills.

What’s that weird pyramid drawing on the reverse of the bill?

The two circular drawings on the reverse of the bill are actually parts of the two-sided Great Seal of the United States. Although we don’t see the entire seal outside of our wallets too often, the notion of having a great seal is actually as old as the country itself. The Continental Congress passed a resolution on July 4, 1776, to create a committee to design a great seal for the fledgling nation, and heavy hitters John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson got the first crack at creating the seal.

Congress wasn’t so keen on the design these big names brought back, though, and it took nearly six years and several drafts to finally find a suitable seal. Congress finally approved of a design on June 20, 1782.

What’s the story behind the Great Seal of the United States?

According to the State Department, which has been the official trustee of the seal since 1789, both the obverse (front) and reverse (back) of the seal are rich with symbolism. The obverse picturing the eagle is a bit easier to explain. The bird holds 13 arrows to show the nation’s strength in war, but it also grasps an olive branch with 13 leaves and 13 olives that symbolize the importance of peace. (The recurring number 13, which also appears in the stripes on the eagle’s shield and the constellation of stars over its head, is a nod to the original 13 states.) The shield floats unsupported over the eagle as a reminder that Americans should rely on their own virtue and strength.

The symbolism of the pyramid on the seal’s reverse is trickier. The pyramid has 13 steps – the designers apparently never got tired of the 13 motif – and the Roman numeral for 1776 is emblazoned across the bottom. The all-seeing Eye of Providence at the top of the pyramid symbolizes the divine help the early Americans needed in establishing the new country. The pyramid itself symbolizes strength and durability.

The divine overtones don’t stop with the unblinking eye, though. The Latin motto Annuit Ceptis appears over the pyramid; it translates into “He [God] has favored our undertaking.” The scroll underneath the pyramid reads Novus Ordo Seclorum, or “A new order of the ages,” which was meant to signify the dawn of the new American era.

read full article

Morning Bell: Is Obamacare Consistent With Our First Principles?

Published at the Heritage Foundation, August 14th, 2009 by Conn Carroll

During one of Sen. Arlen Specter’s (D-PA) early health care townhalls in Lebanon, Pennsylvania; mother of two Katy Abram told the audience: “I don’t believe this is just about health care. It’s not about TARP. It’s not about left and right. This is about the systematic dismantling of this country. I’m only 35 years-old. I’ve never been interested in politics. You have awakened the sleeping giant.” Abrams is dead on. Our federal government has, unfortunately, long been drifting away from the limited government principles first envisioned by our founders. But over the past eleven months, that drift has turned into an all out sprint towards an undemocratic, technocratic, leviathan state … a type of government that our Constitution was specifically designed to prevent.

As Abram points out, both political parties have been complicit in the rapid deterioration of our founding principles. It was after all President Bush who pushed for and signed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 which created the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). When the Bush administration submitted their legislation to Congress we warned: “From a constitutional standpoint, the current versions of the legislation are different in scope, and especially in kind, from almost any federal legislation that has come before.” Specifically we identified: (1) Congress’s enumerated power—or lack thereof—to intervene with private markets in the manner contemplated, (2) the lack of meaningful standards to guide the extremely broad grant of discretion to the Treasury secretary (the “legislative delegation” problem), (3) limitations on judicial review over the exercise of that almost limitless discretion, and (4) related separation of powers concerns.

The only thing that truly surprised us after the legislation’s passage was just how quickly our worst fears were realized. The TARP plan, as sold to Congress, was never even implemented and, instead, it quickly devolved into a political slush fund. Because of the broad delegations of authority in the bill, the American people were left with no real avenue to check the federal government’s unprecedented interference in the U.S. economy. When Members of Congress voted for the bill in October 2008, could any of them honestly say they thought they had just voted to bailout General Motors and Chrysler?

The proposed health care legislation is just as bad, if not worse, than TARP. Sec. 142 of H.R. 3200 grants the new Orwellian-titled “Health Choices Commissioner” broad lawmaking authority, including the power to: set standards for every Americans health insurance plan, determine which of your current insurance plans do or do not meet that standard, and then punish plans that do not meet that standard. Even worse is what is not yet in the bill, but is desperately wanted by the Obama administration. A super-empowered Medicare Payment Advisory Commission that is specifically designed to “save money in an apolitical, technocratic way.” The entire purpose of this part of Obamacare would be to take medical decisions away from patients and vest it in a panel of experts specifically designed to be completely unaccountable to the American people. Is this what the Framers of the Constitution had in mind?

When the Constitution was being ratified, James Madison, writing as Publius, sought to allay fears that the new national government would turn into a Leviathan. In the 45th Federalist Paper he emphasized that adoption of the Constitution would create a government of enumerated, and therefore strictly limited, powers. Madison said: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined… [and] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce….” Federal tax collectors, Madison assured everyone, “will be principally on the seacoast, and not very numerous.” Exactly six months after publication of this essay, New York became the 11th state to ratify the Constitution. Is turning over one-sixth of our nation’s economy over to Obama’s super-MedPAC panel in any way consistent with this vision?

Quick Hits:

* The contentious health care debate is forcing many Democrats to rethink an August tradition: town-hall-style meetings.
* House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) compared townhall protesters to the “snarling dogs” used against the civil rights movement of the 1960s and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) called Obamacare protesters “evil mongers.”
* The American College of Surgeons released another statement condemning President Barack Obama “statements that are incorrect or not based in fact” adding: “We assume that the President made these mistakes unintentionally, but we would urge him to have his facts correct before making another inflammatory and incorrect statement about surgeons and surgical care.”
* With 3,300 lobbyists working on health care reform, there are six lobbyists for each of the 535 members of the House and Senate.
* According to a still mostly secret White House deal with the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, PhRMA promised to promote healthcare reform in a multimillion-dollar ad campaign in return for a White House promise capping PhRMA’s costs under the overhaul legislation at $80 billion.

read original article

Proposal for the 28th Amendment

Two stories worthy of note:

• AIG Bonuses Renew Call for Congress to Read Bills


• Rep. Conyers: Why Bother to Read the Health Care Bill? (Video)

Many Americans are aptly frustrated with their representative government, and for many reasons. The largest spending bill in United States history was passed in early 2009 with few members of Congress reading it. Presently we have massive health care legislation before Congress, and it appears this will be no different. It seems fairly non-partisan to ask: how can Congress do its job responsibly if its members won't read the bills?

If one knew only what was reported in main stream news stories one is likely to think anyone who opposes the health care bill is extremist and racist. But in reading for oneself the bills before Congress a different opinion may arise. Aside from the legislation itself, the game of politics is known around the world to be one of deception and corruption. While Republicans and critics of all political stripes are accused of lying and exaggerating elements of the health care legislation, it appears there is legitimate concern over the unwritten results of a government takeover of American health care:

• Barney Frank: Yes, a public plan will lead to a government takeover of health care

The status quo of the day in Washington is to write massive legislation, rush it through Congress, and with selective attention to detail by Congress and journalists alike. The politics of personal destruction is used to attack those who disapprove of the government health care initiative coupled with lying and misrepresentations of the legislation, which is exactly what the critics of that legislation are accused of doing. And it turns out those critics actually do have good reason to oppose the legislation.

• It's Not An Option by Investors Business Daily


• 5 freedoms you'd lose in health care reform by Shawn Tully


• Shock: Inside the Healthcare Bill by Robert Wenzel


• Undue Influence by Charles Lane


• Dirty Secret No. 1 in Obamacare by Chuck Norris


• The Health Care Bill: What HR 3200, ‘‘America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,” Says by John David Lewis

Returning to the issue of Congress' unwillingness to read its own legislation, we the people have seen too many examples of Congress willing to spend other people's money with little regard for accountability while selectively using the argument of accountability to attack their political opponents when expedient. We heard many complaints about deficit spending during George W. Bush's presidency and now a bill encompassing $1 trillion in borrowed money meets with little resistance from those same critics. Unruly and manufactured protests were common and lauded during the Bush years (with much insistence such protests were genuine) and yet today any dissent from the Obama administration is treated with contempt and accusations of being politically manufactured, not merely by leftist journalists but also by members our government. Serious problems are found in the health care legislation currently before the Congress and have been exposed, yet are largely ignored by its supporters. And now we hear dissent from the government is un-American.

In light of these grievances we the people of the United States therefore propose this amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. If Congress is going to act like spoiled children they should be treated as such.

Amendment XXVIII: amending Article 1, creating Section 11

1. All final legislation, before the final vote, shall be read aloud in its entirety in the main chamber to the House of Representatives on the same day of the vote; and likewise for the Senate. The reading shall be performed in person only by the Speaker of the House to the House of Representatives, and only by the Senate President Pro Tempore to the Senate.

2. The place, date and time of the legislation reading shall be publicly announced no earlier than 7 days before the day of the vote and shall not be changed once announced unless canceled, nor shall it commence before the appointed time. Any member of Congress not physically present in the appointed place during the entirety of the reading shall not vote on said legislation.