Obamacare - Loss of Freedom?

Jeffery Anderson, at National Review, has a thoughtful article on the impact of Obamacare will have on personal freedom.

Remember back in June, in President Obama’s major address to the AMA, when he said the following? “No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise. . . . If you like your health-care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.” In the six months since, there seems to have been a change.

Obamacare would require Americans to buy government-approved health insurance. It would make it illegal to offer choices in insurance plans beyond the handful of very similar ones that the government would allow. It would become illegal to offer new and innovative plans. Under any of the government-approved plans, it would become illegal to pay your doctor directly for more than a certain percentage of your care. Higher deductible, consumer-driven plans would be severely altered or eliminated. By law, a greater percentage of money would have to be paid in insurance premiums, rather than directly for care. Competition and choice would diminish tremendously. One-size-fits-all conformity would rule the day.

At its core, what Obamacare really means is a loss of freedom.

Obamacare would significantly diminish Americans' freedom to control the fruits of their own labors and to spend them as they choose and as they think best. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports that American taxpayers would be on the hook for approximately $2.5 trillion for Obamacare in its real first ten years in operation (2014 to 2023) — about triple the false number of $871 billion that the Democrats are spreading. As the CBO conveys, $871 billion only covers the cost of insurance coverage expansions, which is only a portion of the bill. Furthermore, less than 2 percent of the costs for what the Democrats are calling the bill's "first-ten-year costs" would hit prior to the fifth year of that period. So the Democrats are really giving the six-year costs — for insurance coverage expansions alone — and calling them the ten-year costs for the whole bill. Either the Democrats know this and are being deliberately deceitful, or else they don't understand their own bill and are in over their heads even more than it appears

I don't know HOW the United States Government can legally mandate us to purchase PERSONAL health insurance from a PRIVATE corporation, but then I didn't think Eminent Domain could take PRIVATE property and give it to a corporation either. Are they going to whip out the old and tired Commerce clause in the constitution? This covers interstate transactions, but due to anti-trust status of the health care insurances, many are limited to intrastate commerce. If that's the case, the Commerce clause would not be applicable. However, what will happen is Obama will transfer $1.0 trillion from American taxpayer to the insurance companies... Talk about redistribution of wealth! Is this REALLY a surprise? How many people know that Obama more than doubled the contributions for McCain from the health care industry during the 2008 election? He received a record $389.4 million!!!!

The CBO also reports that, in its real first twelve years in operation (2014 to 2025), Obamacare would transfer $1.0 trillion from American taxpayers to private insurance companies. Ever wonder why insurers back Obamacare — even though they would no longer be free to control their own product-line? The answer is plain: Obamacare would mandate that Americans buy insurers' product. And to make that mandate more feasible, it would transfer a trillion dollars of Americans' earnings to insurers over a dozen years. That trillion dollars would be funneled through the government and used to help individual people comply with the mandate, but the money would be required to be spent on insurance, and it would therefore end up in the hands of insurers.

The Democrats are not only making disingenuous claims about the costs of their proposal, they are making similarly disingenuous claims about its effects on the deficit. Democrats claim that this massive expansion of government would somehow reduce the deficit. But the CBO says otherwise. The CBO says that unless Democrats follow through and cut doctors' pay under Medicare by 21 percent next year and never raise it back up, the bill would increase the deficit by over $200 billion in its real first decade. How many people think that the Democrats would really cut doctors' payments by a fifth? Certainly the Democrats know that they won't, and yet they are shameless enough to pitch Obamacare as deficit-neutral, despite the CBO’s plain findings to the contrary.

What is to happen next? I guess we start paying now for the future prospect of "reward". Kinda like Wimpy's "I'll gladly pay you next Tuesday for a hamburger today." Not only will we pay, but our children will pay as well as our grandchildren will pay. I have no doubt health care needs to be revamped, but this monstrosity along with the anticipated collapse of Medicare will only bring us pain with little reward. The 20th century will be remembered as the halcyon days of America...

Peace

Healthcare Bill Changes Senate Rules - Illegally

Something amazing is happening with the disastrous ObamaCare bill about to be passed. Reid has sneaked in a Senate rule change under the guise of it being a procedural change. This is significant. Any Senate rule change requires a two-third approval, not just the filibuster proof of 60 votes.

Sen. DeMint (R-SC) brought it to the floor of the Senate trying to get parliamentarian clarification, but was informed it was merely procedural and not really a rule. How does this sound to you?

Section 3403 of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment requires that “it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.” The good news is that this only applies to one section of the Obamacare legislation. The bad news is that it applies to regulations imposed on doctors and patients by the Independent Medicare Advisory Boards a/k/a the Death Panels.

What this means is the IMAB, the Medicare review board (I won't call it the Death Panel...) will now be permanently entrenched with no future Senate able to amend or dissolve it.

While I don't believe the IMAB will actively be something like the so-called Death Panels, I do believe they will be active in deciding what is the preferred treatment or what is considered acceptable treatment and will not allow payment to treatment they don't prefer. Remember the outcry recently concerning mammograms? These folks will issue guidelines along this line. Granted, there is always some 'rationing'. The insurances do that NOW. But to have it written into law that the IMAB cannot be amended is frightening.

Is this constitutional? If this goes through it will truly be frightening! Imagine the next Republican Senate inserting language that prohibits future Senates from modifying or amending a permanent tax rate of 10% or prohibiting (insert ANYTHING here) from considering any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.

The dissatisfaction with Congress is at an all time low and rightly so. These folks are using our money as Monopoly money, spending it like there's no tomorrow. Know what? If we don't get these people under control, we'll NEVER pay off the $14 TRILLION we now currently owe. Our children's lifestyle will be considerably lower than ours and that's a sad testament to our responsibility to provide for them to the best of our ability.

New Evidence Against Iran

Sorry for the lack of posting. There have been MANY topics to comment on but I've just not had the desire to give my two cents worth.

However . . . after having just read this article from Times (UK), I felt I had to post something.

Unlike a lot of people, I believe what the Mad Mullah says when he talks of the destruction of Israel. For some reason, many folks just poo poo it as rhetoric. But I truly believe he'd like nothing better than to be known as the one to wipe Israel off the map, regardless of the consequences.

The latest in Iranian nuclear armament shows their desire to acquire or build the nuclear trigger require to detonate their bomb.

Confidential intelligence documents obtained by The Times show that Iran is working on testing a key final component of a nuclear bomb.

The notes, from Iran’s most sensitive military nuclear project, describe a four-year plan to test a neutron initiator, the component of a nuclear bomb that triggers an explosion. Foreign intelligence agencies date them to early 2007, four years after Iran was thought to have suspended its weapons programme.

An Asian intelligence source last week confirmed to The Times that his country also believed that weapons work was being carried out as recently as 2007 — specifically, work on a neutron initiator.

The technical document describes the use of a neutron source, uranium deuteride, which independent experts confirm has no possible civilian or military use other than in a nuclear weapon. Uranium deuteride is the material used in Pakistan’s bomb, from where Iran obtained its blueprint.

[...]

The documents have been seen by intelligence agencies from several Western countries, including Britain. A senior source at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed that they had been passed to the UN’s nuclear watchdog.

A Foreign and Commonwealth Office spokeswoman said yesterday: “We do not comment on intelligence, but our concerns about Iran’s nuclear programme are clear. Obviously this document, if authentic, raises serious questions about Iran’s intentions.”

Responding to The Times’ findings, an Israeli government spokesperson said: “Israel is increasingly concerned about the state of the Iranian nuclear programme and the real intentions that may lie behind it.”

The revelation coincides with growing international concern about Iran’s nuclear programme. Tehran insists that it wants to build a civilian nuclear industry to generate power, but critics suspect that the regime is intent on diverting the technology to build an atomic bomb.

Wonder what the IAEA will say about this new development? Will the toothless enforcers try to brush is aside as inconsequential or try to get the Security Council involved?

Publication of the nuclear documents will increase pressure for tougher UN sanctions against Iran, which are due to be discussed this week. But the latest leaks in a long series of allegations against Iran will also be seized on by hawks in Israel and the US, who support a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities before the country can build its first warhead.

Mark Fitzpatrick, senior fellow for non-proliferation at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, said: “The most shattering conclusion is that, if this was an effort that began in 2007, it could be a casus belli. If Iran is working on weapons, it means there is no diplomatic solution.”

The Times had the documents, which were originally written in Farsi, translated into English and had the translation separately verified by two Farsi speakers. While much of the language is technical, it is clear that the Iranians are intent on concealing their nuclear military work behind legitimate civilian research.

The fallout could be explosive, especially in Washington, where it is likely to invite questions about President Obama’s groundbreaking outreach to Iran. The papers provide the first evidence which suggests that Iran has pursued weapons studies after 2003 and may actively be doing so today — if the four-year plan continued as envisaged.

Ultimately something must be done otherwise the Mad Mullah will have The Bomb, which means Hezbollah and Hamas wield more power against Israel. God help Israel because no one else will.