Letter from Sen. John Cornyn (R. Tx) regarding the Harry Reid health care bill

Sen. Cornyn's Health Care Reform Alert

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Last night, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid released his 2,074-page health care bill, which Senate Budget Committee analysis shows will cost American taxpayers $2.5 trillion when fully implemented over ten years.

Until we have had a chance to read the full 2,074 page Reid Bill, it’s impossible for Americans to fully grasp what the Majority Leader has cooked up behind closed doors. It is my hope that Sen. Reid will afford all Americans the same courtesy that he had: ample time to study the legislation and deliberate the best way to proceed.

What we do know so far, as reported by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), is that this bill will have a wide, negative impact on Americans across the board – from seniors on Medicare to small business owners to future generations of Americans who will be footing the bill. The bill will increase taxes on all Americans by nearly half a trillion dollars and breaks the President’s pledge not to raise taxes on working families earning less than $250,000—at a time that unemployment is at a 26-year high.

While CBO has not been given time to analyze the Reid bill’s impact on premiums, every other independent analysis to date has found that Reid’s new mandates and taxes will increase health care premiums on American families. The Reid bill increases taxpayer spending and liability for health care over the next ten years—instead of reforming our already insolvent entitlement programs. It will gut the already insolvent Medicare program by $464.6 billion, hurting access to care for seniors. It includes a government-run public option that will, according to CBO, have premiums higher than private plans and cause millions of Americans to lose the coverage they currently have. The largest expansion of Medicaid since it was created means the Medicaid program will be the only coverage option for 60 million Americans. It will also impose $28 billion in punitive taxes on employers who do not comply with Washington’s new job-killing mandates.

These initial findings are troubling, to say the least. My staff and I will be pouring over the 2,074 pages, assuming we are given the time to do so. You can access the full text of the Reid bill from my web site:http://cornyn.senate.gov/public/?p=HealthCareReformHQ.
It is essential that Congress take the time get health care reform right. If the President and Majority Leader are more interested in getting health care reform right for all 300 million Americans than they are in putting a political feather in their cap for the midterm elections, this shouldn’t be an issue.

** Rednex Note – Get involved.  Write your congressman and let them know that the American people want the time to analyse this bill.  Don’t let the government take your rights without a fight. 

Republicans: A historical primer and plead

Many people who know me, know that my libertarian leanings have led me to disagree with the Republican party on many things.  However, when it comes to the two party system in America, the Republican party comes the closest to matching my ideals, and with whom I usually side, on most issues.  That being said, with each passing day, I grow more and more discouraged and distrustful of the current day party.  I can no longer say that they closely represent my ideals, because it’s become almost impossible to differentiate Republicans from the Democrats.  It’s almost impossible to tell where Republicans draw the moral line and where their beliefs actually lie.  It’s for this reason, I’ve decided to give a short historical primer on the party in hopes that people, as well as those that call themselves Republican, will know from where they came.

Democrats and liberals alike love to paint the Republican party as “the party of old rich white men”.  You need only listen to any interview with that nut job Janeane Garofalo to hear how Republicans are nothing but racists and minority haters, as shown in this quote she made to Bill Maher in October:

It's obvious to anybody who has eyes in this country that tea-baggers, the 9-12ers, these separatist groups that pretend that it's about policy – they are clearly white-identity movements. They're clearly white power movements. What they don't like about the President is that he's black – or half black (applause) – and they, what also is shocking is that people keep pretending that that's not really the case with these people.

It's very weird that whenever this comes up in conversation, so few people are willing to say that yes it is racism, straight up racism. And the Republican Party has been willing to carry water for racists in this country since about the 1950s

However, she shows the depth of her ignorance in this statement.  The Republican Party was born in the 1850’s by a group of anti-slavery activists.  The “Great Emancipator” himself, Abe Lincoln, was the first Republican voted into the White House.  It was also the Republican party of this day that passed the 13th (outlawing slavery), 14th (granting African-Americans equal protection under the law), and 15th (securing African-American voting rights) amendments. 

Along with belief of  “Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Speech, Free Men”, the core Republican beliefs are as such (as taken from the GOP site):

• Power and ingenuity of the individual to succeed thru hard work, family support, and self discipline
• Value of voluntary giving and community support over taxation and forced redistribution
• Government must be limited so that it never becomes powerful enough to infringe on the rights of the individual
• Low taxes as individuals know best how to make their own economic and charitable choices
• Free market support of logical business regulation that encourages entrepreneurs to start business to enjoy fruits and satisfaction of self-made successes
• Preservation of national strength and defense while working for peace, freedom, and human rights

These are, at their core, beliefs and values I agree with.  While my libertarian mind may disagree on how best to ensure them, they are the same.  However, it seems to me, that the Republican party has abandoned these principals.  We saw this with George Bush’s implementation of the first auto bailout, the Republican congress’s increased agreeance of tax and spend, and the list goes on.  So concerned with bi-partisanship and political correctness, the Republican party disregarded their core values and deserted those that elected them to represent.  Today, it’s almost impossible to tell who is Republican and who is Democrat on speech alone.  I ask, why is it so important to concede and compromise your beliefs to reach a “middle ground”?  If you stick to your principals, the people will follow.  I believe this is precisely why the party is a shadow of it’s former self.  Having abandoned the values that made the people believe in them, they left the people with no hope.  They went so far off course, that the American people, looking for any method of direction change, placed this socialist Manchurian candidate in power today.  Sure, now they start to unite, but my trust in them is gone.

It’s for this reason that I believe we should remind those in Congress who they work for and vote them all out!!  Democrats and Republicans alike need to be reminded that they work for us, the people.  That they were sent to D.C. to represent our wants and ideals.  With current direction, Republicans are starting to unite and rally against the so called “change” that Obama is bringing, but I fear it may be too little, too late.  A message must be sent, a message that states, We are in control.  Do as we ask or you will be fired!  Yes, there are good Republicans in office today, but cherry picking which stay and which go will not send the resounding message required.  We must turn over the leadership and let them know that we will no longer tolerate their abuse.  Our founding forefathers had the insight to give us the most powerful weapon of all, the power of the vote.  We can take back control of our nation with this weapon, but we have to be willing to use it.

To end, I offer you three quotes:

"Now more than ever, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption."

James Garfield, 1877

“So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men.”

Voltaire

“People often say that, in a democracy, decisions are made by a majority of the people. Of course, that is not true. Decisions are made by a majority of those who make themselves heard and who vote -- a very different thing”

Walter H Judd

I urge each of you to become involved.  The effects of the decisions of today will have impact for decades to come.  It is your duty as an American to openly discuss, question, and comment on all policies and opinions.  Use this forum if you so desire.  If you like what I say, comment and let your voice be heard so that others will know they are not alone.  If you disagree, then I offer you to do the same.  Debate and comparison of ideas is the only way to affect change.  Those who don’t understand the issues, cannot intelligently decide on them.  I am not close minded.  If you believe me to be wrong, then show me where, but be prepared to acknowledge my arguments as well.  As stated by Judd above, it is only the majority that makes themselves heard that decide.  For too long, too many have kept a silent voice and the time for that to change is now.

Universal Healthcare: Is it even constitutional?

There are many things within the healthcare proposal that have seen the limelight of debate: Should there be a public option, will illegals be covered, does a person have the right to keep current insurance, but of all these things, I think we are missing the most important debate.  Is universal healthcare constitutional?

Grounds:  Right to Privacy and due process.

As discussed in a earlier post, Section 1401, Pg 503 gives the government health care center undisputed access and authority to pull information from any government source.  In addition, Section 1651, Pg 734 allows, for law enforcement sake, the Attorney General to receive from the Director of HHS, all medical information when requested and Section 431, Pg 195 allows the HC administration access to all financial and personal records.   What impact do these sections have on a persons right to due process and to privacy?  In Griswold vs. Connecticut, the US Supreme Court recognized a constitutional right to privacy.  In addition, Whalen vs. Roe,  the court validated the duty to avoid unwarranted disclosure of personal information is rooted within the Constitution and the right to privacy.  It went on to state that “privacy involves two types of interests: individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters, and an interest in protecting one’s independence in making certain decisions”. (William H. Roach, Medical Records and the law)

So with these two court decisions, we have precedence showing that we have the right to privacy in accordance with our medical information.  If the HHS uses our medical history to substantiate, or adjust, our health insurance allowance under a federal plan, then how is this not considered unconstitutional?  Likewise, with our medical records, financial information, etc being made available without written consent, on what grounds does the US government have access to this information?  If not charged with a crime or illegality, then it would seem that the government has no right.  One could claim that by signing up for the government plan, you provide your consent for access, but under the healthcare plan, subscribing to the plan is not an option, but a mandate.  If we are forced to enter into this plan, then by proxy, we are being forced to provide consent.  Where would this abuse stop?

Grounds:  Usurping of Federal Privilege via the Commerce Clause

Many healthcare proponents have cited Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, more commonly known as the Commerce Clause.  This specific power granted to the Fed, allows for the “regulation of commerce with foreign nations, among several states, and with Indian tribes.” Using this clause, proponents content that the Fed has the power to regulate healthcare, as it deals with citizens of the US across all state borders; in addition, as health care comprises 1/6th of our GDP, regulation has a direct impact on economic affairs.  However, there are two major issues with this argument.

David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey cited two important court cases in the Washington Post:  United States vs. Lopez (1995) and United States vs. Morrison (2000).  In these two cases, the US Supreme Court rejected the notion that the commerce clause allowed the Fed to regulate non-economic activities, simply because, thru causal effects, they might have economic impact.  Judge Andrew Napolitano, expounds on this in his recent Wall Street Journal interview, by stating that the “practice of medicine consists of the delivery of intimate services.  In most all instances, this delivery occurs in one place and does not move across state lines.  One does not go to a doctor to engage in commerce, but to improve one’s health”. 

In addition, the application of the commerce clause is hypocritical when it comes to this issue.  Judge Napolitano continues in above article, to detail how Congressional regulation has allowed states to erect barriers that the commerce clause was expressly written to tear down.  In all states, Health insurance issuers are prohibited from selling policies to people in other states.  This artificially drives up health care cost, by disallowing the act of competition and individual policy creation.   Thereby, using this definition, its easy to see how the commerce clause would not apply to the health care debate.  How can proponents claim that this clause is the provision allowing the creation of universal health care, while on the other hand, the lack of the clause’s enforcement is a primary reason that health care insurance costs are so high?

Grounds:  Precedence of Roe vs. Wade

Ironically, a liberal agenda piece may actually be the guiding factor in determining the constitutionality of the universal healthcare plan.

In the 1960’s, the US Supreme Court created the right to privacy, and using that right, struck down a series of state/federal regulations of personal conduct, namely, the Roe v Wade (1973) abortion case.

While not abortion specific, the US Supreme Court established a constitutionally mandated zone of personal privacy that must be made free of government regulation.  The court explained this rationale in Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992) by stating:

"these matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and the mystery of human life."

If Roe v Wade upholds that a “right to abortion” holds true as a“choice central to personal dignity and autonomy”, then it would also seem to hold true that a person’s choice in intimate medical care would be covered under the same statue?  How could the inability to regulate fetal life within one’s own body, suddenly be found doable for the inclusion of medical devices, procedures, etc.  If the government cannot interfere or regulate a person’s physical body in the case of abortion, then it would likewise be unable to force a regulation in the terms of health care.

Rivkin and Casey state in another Wall Street Journal article that the weakness of the healthcare debate is shown via the principal of one size fits all approach.  Proper health care is uniquely individual as it is based on unique lifestyle choices, genetics, predispositions.  That under the health care proposal, the government seeks to a regularity in the application of governmental power with regards to health care practice.  By establishing this regularity, it will serve to limit the individual choice, taking primary decision away from the patient and their doctor, thus making the system constitutionally weak.

Grounds:  Improper Taxation

Lastly, within the healthcare bill, Section 313, Pg149-150 provides for a 2-8% tax on any employers who does not provide for the public option, while Sec. 401.59B, Pg 167 provides for a personal tax on any individual without health care.  Given the government’s right under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution to collect taxes, how could this be an argument for unconstitutional grounds?

First, Ernest Christianson explains to us in a Tax.com article that Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution forbids direct tax that is not apportioned among several states according to their numbers.  In addition, Article 1, Section 9 states that “no direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion with the Census or Enumeration herein”.  So given this, how is Congress pushing this tax thru with the healthcare bill?

Well, Sen. Baucus has claimed that the tax imposed on the uninsured is an "indirect tax” or an excise tax and doesn’t have to be apportioned.  However, Christian explains to us the error in this thinking, in that excise taxes are levied on a “thing”, not a person.  That a tax imposed directly on a person is akin to an income tax.  In addition, since this tax is levied only on those that fail to come under the plan, it is an unfair tax on action, which is beyond congressional authority.

In Bailey v. Drexel Furniture (1922), the Supreme Court established that Congress could not impose a “tax” to control behavior or conduct that it could regulate under the commerce clause.  In this case, the issue stemmed around the utilization of child labor, but the same precedent could be held for health care.  Since the tax included in the bill is only applied to those that choose not to participate, it is, in essence, a penalty for non-compliance.  Given the above shaky case for health care under the commerce clause, the precedent would hold true here.  As congress has no ability to regulate health care under the commerce clause, then neither does it have the authority to penalize the conduct (inaction) of citizens for non-participation.

Conclusion

For all the arguments against Obama Care, this is one argument that I would like to see more publicized. Lawyers are usually so quick to jump into the fray, but strangely, constitutional lawyers have been silent on this one.  Could it be that the Obama Administration is the lawyers saving grace, or is it that they too are scared to speak out against Pres. Obama for fear of back lash.  I know that the question has been raised to both the President, Speaker Pelosi, and others, but the idea of the bill being unconstitutional is always brushed off.  I find that a travesty and feel that we, the people, should demand an answer.  Why even go thru the debate and arguments if it can be found that the bill would not be legal under our founding documents. 

Of all mistakes, Lack of Leadership is the Biggest

We are a country in trial now.  We are in the midst of a politico cause financial disaster, a unemployment rate of 10.2% to 17.5% (depending on calculation method used), and a nation that now borrows it’s living expenses from foreign countries.  We need a leader!  We need a president that is willing, and able, to guide us thru these times and tribulations, but sadly, we are left with no captain at the helm.

I’m not sure we should be surprised.  America was so caught up by the showmanship and speech of our current president, so excited by his claims of “hope and change”, that they failed to fact check his resume.  They failed to find that, not only was he not qualified for the position, but that he also lacked the leadership characteristics to prepare him for the job at hand.  The American people hired this man because he was “likeable” and “well spoken”.  His victory was one of stardom, not record. 

Pres. Obama’s only claim to legitimacy is his three years spent as a senator and time as a state senator.  During that time, he was absent for 314 of 1300 roll call votes (24%), often putting him in the worst 10% of congress.  As a state senator for Illinois, 129 times, our current President chose to vote “present” .  While, this only represented ~ 3% of his votes, its a flag for his leadership.  These were not insignificant bills, but politically contentious issues which included votes on partial-birth abortions, the ability to seal court records of victims of rape and sexual abuse, and protection of a child if surviving an abortion attempt.  For a man who campaigned on a promise to “tackle and address” the tough issues, I don’t see how this fits his declaration.

One would also assume that at least some foreign policy experience would be needed to fill such an important office, but Pres. Obama has none.  One need only look at some of his recent policy decisions/actions, to see his lack here as well.

Great Britain
As our strongest, most loyal ally, one would expect the President of the United States to treat the UK with respect, but Pres. Obama has snubbed them at every turn.  From the returning of the Churchill Bust, to the undiplomatic reception of PM Brown, to the narcissistic offering of an IPOD of his speeches to the Queen, our president has shown nothing but contempt to our friends across the pond. 

Honduras
In spurn to a Latin American ally, Latin American Honduras, President Obama quickly condemned and sanctioned the country of Honduras for diplomatically, and legally, removing President Manuel Zelaya from power after his attempts at an unconstitutional power grab.  After a 15-0 Honduran Supreme Court decision (of which 8 members were of Zelaya’s own party) to remove the  President  Zelaya under article 239 of their constitution, the Pres. Obama's reaction was to cutoff aid to this invaluable ally and deny political visas to it’s leaders.  As a lone example of democracy in this region, an ally on our war on drugs, and a $5B annual export country, we should take a stand and defend the actions of this Honduras, but instead, we have abandoned them.

Poland & Czech Republic
In an effort to placate Russia, Pres. Obama pulled out of the missile defense shield to be deployed in Poland and the Czech Republic.  In a hopes to win Russia’s support in negotiating with Iran, Obama stated that “”the initiative was aimed at the wrong enemy, Iran” just shortly before we learned of Iran’s development of weapons grade plutonium and enrichment.  Talk about a timing miscue of ultimate proportion!  While this move does not severely harm our allies, due to their involvement with NATO, it is a definite mistake to abandon allies who went to grave political sacrifice to allow this defense.  Leadership is not throwing your friends and allies under the proverbial bus.  Worst off, we made this concession and gained nothing in return.  No promise of help from Russia, no pressure on Iran, no concession on Russia's part at all.  For the return of nothing, we abandoned friends.

Iran
Even French Prime Minister Sarkozy showed public contempt for our president over his handling of the Iran nuclear announcement.  When Pres. Obama called for proposals for dialogue, PM Sarkozy responded with:

"What good has proposals for dialogue brought the international community?" More uranium enrichment and declarations by the leaders of Iran to wipe out a UN member state off the map."

Who thought we would see the day when the French would be lecturing us on taking soft handed approaches to hard subjects?  This may very well be the biggest insult of all.

In addition, Iran flaunts it’s arrogance directly in the face of our leader.  After Obama states “Iran has been put on notice” during a speech in Pittsburg, Iran’s response was to test two ballistic  missiles capable of carrying warheads 1,200 miles.  Pres. Obama:  You threw down the gauntlet and it was picked up and used to slap you in the face.  Where do you leave this country when your words carry no fear, no slight of retribution.  Our country is being threatened, yet you do nothing!

Afghanistan
General McChrystal, Obama’s commander in Afghanistan, has requested an additional 40,000 more troops else America risks failure in the theater.  A request that is seconded by McChrystal’s superiors.  However, our president has done nothing with regards to this request.  For a president who campaigned on the idea that victory in Afghanistan was paramount, how can you go for over 70 days without talking to your military commanders.  You can find time to unsuccessfully campaign to bring the Olympics to your beloved Chicago, to hold town halls with citizens of foreign countries, but yet you have no time to make a decision, when indecisiveness puts the sons and daughters of America in harms way?  You, a man of no military background or service, think you know better than a general how best to handle conflict?  A true sign of leadership is knowing when to defer and trust the decisions of those who know.  It’s time you used your backbone and allowed our military what it requires.  Waffling and delaying on decisions that put this countries sovereignty at risk are not the leadership we need.

Presidential cabinet
Another true sign of leadership, is the people that person chooses to surround himself/herself with.  Again, you fail in this regard.  You have chosen tax frauds and cheats as your top advisors.  Kathleen Sebelius, Tom Daschle, Nancy Killefer, Ron Kirk, and worst of all, Timothy Geithner.  Please tell me how you think it’s a good idea to put a man in charge of the Treasury, who himself is unable to properly pay his taxes.  Have you no vetting process for your advisors?  Do you not consider character at all in your appointments?  My fear is that you do not.  It’s not hard for a man of questionable character to associate with others of the same character.  Again, America was blind and should have seen this with your associations of Saul Alinsky, Rev. Wright, and others.

Failure in your own policies
Lastly, the most appalling lack of leadership, is the fact that you are unable to even usher in your own policies.  You promised this countries people transparency and openness, yet your shoved the $787B stimulus package down our throats via your doom and gloom speeches that drove the Dow below 7000.  You stated action had to be immediate, with no time for oversight, yet when the bill was passed, you went on a three day vacation before signing it into law?  Where was the urgency then?  You preached health care, but you haven’t even guided your team for it’s proposal.  Instead, you allow Pelosi, Reid, and Bakkus to outline YOUR agenda.  You state falsities of “no illegals covered” when there are no provisions to protect against it.  You state that the bill will not cost us one dime, but the CBO states that it would add $249B to the deficit, for an overall cost of $1.5T.  When asked by a blogger “Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies under your health care plan?”, You, yourself, stated “You know, I have to say, I’m not familiar with the provision you are talking about”.  If you don’t understand, or know, the provisions of your own healthcare plan, then how are you leading?  To say I disagree with the policies your agenda is forwarding is a gross understatement, but atleast I would have some respect for you if you stood up and directed the policies in your name.  I can respect someone who leads, even if in opposition to my beliefs, but you sir, have shown no such determination.

Lastly, as the American people start overwhelming uniting in opposition to your policies and direction via tea parties, you aren’t even aware that they are demonstrating.  How can a leader be so out of touch with his people?  However, rather than facing the critics and leading, you choose to attack and start a war with Fox news?  In fact, you release the hounds on anyone that opposes, or speaks out, against you.  You label them racists and bigots.  I don’t care that you are black (half-black?), all I care about is your steering this country towards a cliff.  I guess that makes me a racist, but then again, I was never aware that socialism was considered a race.

This country needs a leader and that is not Barack Obama.  We are at time of crisis and we need someone that lift us out and expounds on our virtues, reminding us of why this country is great, not tour the world apologizing for us.  A leader that will not stand by and politely listen while a dictator bashes his country, but one with the fortitude to walk out or refuse the handshake of a dictator.  A leader that believes in the country he leads, it’s place as a shining light in this world, and not someone who bows before rulers of enemy nations.  We need a leader and I pray that we will find one come the next election.  Just like we hired you with a lack of experience, we can fire you for the same reason.

Universal Health Care: Coverage for all or just governmental control?

There are many things to be worried about it when it comes to the health care proposal that is being debated currently, but I think the most disconcerting of all is that amount of control this bill grants the government over our lives.  I can hear you naysayers now saying “Man, this is the conspiracy theory rants all over again”, but let me break down some of the provisions of the health care bill and let you make up your own mind.

Control of Private Citizens

Sec. 1401, Pg. 503 – Comparative Effectiveness Research

(3) POWERS-

`(A) OBTAINING OFFICIAL DATA- The Center may secure directly from any department or agency of the United States information necessary to enable it to carry out this section. Upon request of the Center, the head of that department or agency shall furnish that information to the Center on an agreed upon schedule.

`(B) DATA COLLECTION- In order to carry out its functions, the Center shall--

`(i) utilize existing information, both published and unpublished, where possible, collected and assessed either by its own staff or under other arrangements made in accordance with this section,

Notice the important parts here, “may secure directly from any department or agency of the United States”.  There are no exclusions here, it clearly states ANY department.  In addition, it goes on to state that the Center may use both published and unpublished information, again with no restrictions.  You are hereby giving the government unrestricted access into your private lives, allowing them to create a data network of your most private information.  No longer will you rest assured of “Doctor/Patient confidentiality”, the government will have access to all.

Sec. 1711, Pg. 764 – Required Coverage of Preventative Services

`(z) Preventive Services- The preventive services described in this subsection are services not otherwise described in subsection (a) or (r) that the Secretary determines are--

`(1)(A) recommended with a grade of A or B by the Task Force for Clinical Preventive Services; or

`(B) vaccines recommended for use as appropriate by the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and

`(2) appropriate for individuals entitled to medical assistance under this title.'.

Here, the bill states, that if a preventive service recommended by a grade of A or B, or vaccines determined appropriate by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), then they will be given to those entitled to medical assistance.  You worried about Swine Flu?  With this section, you need not worry, cause you will have forced immunization regardless of if you want it or not.

Sec. 1801, Pg. 828-832 -  Disclosures to Facilitate Identification of Individuals likely to be ineligible for low-income assistance

(a) In General- Paragraph (19) of section 6103(l) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:

`(19) DISCLOSURES TO FACILITATE IDENTIFICATION OF INDIVIDUALS LIKELY TO BE INELIGIBLE FOR LOW-INCOME SUBSIDIES UNDER MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG PROGRAM TO ASSIST SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION'S OUTREACH TO ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS-

`(A) IN GENERAL- Upon written request from the Commissioner of Social Security, the following return information (including such information disclosed to the Social Security Administration under paragraph (1) or (5)) shall be disclosed to officers and employees of the Social Security Administration, with respect to any taxpayer identified by the Commissioner of Social Security--

`(i) return information for the applicable year from returns with respect to wages (as defined in section 3121(a) or 3401(a)) and payments of retirement income (as described in paragraph (1) of this subsection),

`(ii) unearned income information and income information of the taxpayer from partnerships, trusts, estates, and subchapter S corporations for the applicable year,

`(iii) if the individual filed an income tax return for the applicable year, the filing status, number of dependents, income from farming, and income from self-employment, on such return,

`(iv) if the individual is a married individual filing a separate return for the applicable year, the social security number (if reasonably available) of the spouse on such return,

`(v) if the individual files a joint return for the applicable year, the social security number, unearned income information, and income information from partnerships, trusts, estates, and subchapter S corporations of the individual's spouse on such return, and

`(vi) such other return information relating to the individual (or the individual's spouse in the case of a joint return) as is prescribed by the Secretary by regulation as might indicate that the individual is likely to be ineligible for a low-income prescription drug subsidy under section 1860D-14 of the Social Security Act.

 

This one is hard to read, I know, but this bill amends the IRS code to allow access to your personal financial information, and if you file jointly, that of your spouse to determine where you fall on the eligibility scale.  This includes not only wages, but also monies from trusts and partnerships that your family may be involved.

Sec. 440, Pg. 843-844 – Home visitation program for families with young children and families expecting children.

This is a pretty big section that goes into Sec. 1904, Pg. 843-844, so I will spare you the full section, but pay special attention to this:

`(v) provide parents with--

`(I) knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains (including knowledge of second language acquisition, in the case of English language learners);

`(II) knowledge of realistic expectations of age-appropriate child behaviors;

`(III) knowledge of health and wellness issues for children and parents;

`(IV) modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices;

`(V) skills to interact with their child to enhance age-appropriate development;

`(VI) skills to recognize and seek help for issues related to health, developmental delays, and social, emotional, and behavioral skills; and

`(VII) activities designed to help parents become full partners in the education of their children;

I guess it’s only right.  The government does know what’s better for us and our children than we do, right?  Well this bill says yes.  Notice that this section allows for visitation to provide parents “modeling, consulting, and coaching on parental practices” as well as providing" knowledge of realistic expectations of age-appropriate child behaviors”.  So a stranger gets to come into your home and lecture to you about what is realistic for you to expect from your child?  A person that knows nothing about your family, morals, or way of life?  Yeah, and this system has work so well in the foster care arena.  While I’m not a parent, I think I would have grave problems with anyone telling me what I should expect from my child, much less some government drone that meets with 100 families a week.

Sec 2521, Pg. 1000 – National Medical Device Registry

`(g)(1) The Secretary shall establish a national medical device registry (in this subsection referred to as the `registry') to facilitate analysis of postmarket safety and outcomes data on each device that--

`(A) is or has been used in or on a patient; and

`(B) is--

`(i) a class III device; or

`(ii) a class II device that is implantable, life-supporting, or life-sustaining.

 

Again, another very long section, but as titled above, if you have a medical device used, or implanted, in your person, that device (you!) will be tracked by this national registry.   They state that the purpose of this clause is to examine, and track, the outcome of such devices in patient wellness.  However, how will they be able to determine the effect unless they know how you lived with the device?  Will your moves, lifestyle, and choices all be recorded for the “purpose of outcome evaluation?”  Even if you had a device implanted before enactment of the bill, subsection 4, line (A)(i) would require manufactures of said devices to submit information to the registry, if deemed necessary by the Secretary.  Again, a very scary proposition knowing the government, by virtue of caring for you, now has the ability (mandate?) to track your life thereafter and that the value of your choices may impact the next citizen needing such device.

 

First, by no means am I a lawyer, which you most certainly need to be to really be able to understand the provisions of this bill, but I have picked out the sections of the bill that seemed most easy to understand.  That being said, this is by no means a full accounting of the privacy and control issues that exist with this disastrous legislation, but hopefully, it’s enough to open your eyes and start asking questions.

** Note:  I did not even start getting into the limitations and restrictions that this bill would put on our Doctors and Nurses.  I felt that this post was getting far too long, but rest assured, if passed, the medical profession would cease to be the sought after career it once was due to the suffocating control imposed upon it by our government.  If interested, I will dig into it, but not until.  That said, stay tuned in next few days when I look into other claims of this so-called “health reform act”.

Joe Wilson is my hero!

Why would I consider Joe Wilson (R -S.Carolina) my hero you ask? The answer is simple: On September 9th, 2009, President Obama was giving a speech to a joint session of Congress dispelling the "myths of healthcare" when he made a statement that "Illegal Aliens would not be covered under the current health care plan" to which Rep. Joe Wilson responded with a resounding "YOU LIE!"

Why would this simple act raise this man to hero status in my eyes? It did so because Rep. Wilson spoke the truth, he had passion about the American President lying to the American people, and with those simple words, brought a much needed question to the forefront of this debate, which is "What is the truth?"

Today's leadership tries very hard to spread the falsehood that illegals won't be covered because, due to a Rasmussen poll, nearly 80% of the American population oppose the covering of illegal aliens under any health care plan Critics: Free Health Care means more illegals Many proponents will even state that the bill doesn't specifically include coverage for illegal aliens so therefore the president is correct. They will even go so far as to point out Section 246 of the bill specifically denies subsidies and payments "on behalf of of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States". However, it's important to note, while this provision is included within the bill, there are absolutely zero methods to enforce this section of the bill. In fact, any attempt by the Republicans to ammend the bill so this section is enforceable, have been defeated by the Democrat leadership.

Rep. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) offered up a Republican ammendment to the health care plan that would have provided checks and balances, and a method of enforcement, to prevent illegal aliens from receiving government subsidized health care, however, this ammendment was shot down by the House Ways and Means committee in a 26-to-15 vote following straight party lines. So if the Democrats are so opposed to the covering of illegal aliens, why defeat an ammendment that would ensure it's probablilty? The answer is, they are counting on the fact that Section 246 is unenforceable, providing them their goal of complete coverage, while allowing them to maintain that they opposed it all along. Now are you starting to see the genius of Rep. Wilson's statement?

Jack Martin, Director of Special Project at the Federation for American Immigration Reform states, that by defeating Rep. Heller's ammendment, “there is no system for the verification of identity, and the entitlement to receive those benefits." Urban Grind The Congression Research Service (CRS) itself states "Under H.R. 3200, a 'Health Insurance Exchange' would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside a public option…H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens—whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently—participating in the Exchange." Washington Examiner The CRS goes on to state that there are no provision requiring those that seek coverage or services to provide any proof of citizenship.

Lastly, the leadership is operating on the principal of "least known facts" to help ensure that they reach their goal of covering illegals. Even under section 246, the standards are so lax, it would not be hard for illegals to meet the standard. According to John Sheils of the Lewin Group, a health care consulting firm for UnitedHealth Group, of the 12 million undocumented aliens (Obama's number given during the 2008 presidential campaign), over half (5-6 million) use falsified documents to obtain employment. Ronald W Mortensen, in a recent Center for Immigration Studies research paper, puts that estimate even higher by stating that experts suggest that ~75% of working age illegals use fraudulent Social Security cards for employment dispelling the misconception that illegals are undocumented. Couple that with the fact that many can use these documents to obtain Driver's Licenses and/or State ID cards, you can start to see how Section 246 of the health care plan will do absolutely nothing to prevent the coverage of illegal aliens under the government plan.

So with all that said, again, Rep. Joe Wilson is my hero for have the courage and fortitude to stand up and publicly call the President out on what he was doing, which is lying to the American people. The only thing I disagree with Rep. Wilson on is that he apologized for his statements. Was the outburst against congressional decorum, yes, but at a time when this country's leadership is doing everything in it's power to bancrupt and move this country down a socialist path, I think a lack of decorum is needed! Sen. John McCain called Rep. Wilson's comments "totally disrespectful" and asked for an apology. Well Sen. McCain, maybe if you would have had showed the same passion and contempt for the lies as Joe Wilson, you might not have lost the election to begin with and we wouldn't be worring about this disaster that is ObamaCare. To all the Congress men and women who felt the need to condemn Rep. Wilson for his comments, take a look around you. See that your constituents do not want this bill passed and that it is bad for America. You condemn the man that "was disrespectful and engaged in childish name calling" but you say nothing about a President who stands before his people and flat out lies about his plans. You are silent while our President leads us down yet another road of broken promises and false statements. You should look in yourself and see, Joe Wilson did what was right for America and called out the lies that are being spoken to us. I would consider this country lucky if we had more representatives like Joe Wilson and less that are willing to sacrifice the good of this country for misguided "respect and decorum".

FT. Hood: An act of Terrorism

Imagine if you will, a police officer sitting in his patrol car on his city streets. This police officer is a decorated gang task force member, well known in his department as a man that has done serious damage to the gangs that prey upon his city. He has been recognized for his efforts and is considered a hero for the work that he does. As he sits in his car, a lone gang member sneaks up behind him, pulls a pistol, and shoots this officer in the head, killing him instantly. Quickly, the perpetrator is captured and taken to jail.

Almost immediately after the shooting, the Police Chief is on TV stating that this gruesome murder is not gang related. Never mind the fact that the man in custody for the crime is a well known for pro-gang speech, wearing gang colors, sports numerous gang tattoos, nor that witnesses to the crime state that the criminal shouted "This is for putting my brothers in jail!" right before the shooting. The police chief still declares that the shooting was not gang related.

Just a short time after the police chief makes this declaration; the Mayor of that city goes to a neighborhood well known as the turf of a specific gang and gives a press conference stating that he will personally ensure that there are no repercussions upon the neighborhoods inhabitants due to this crime. That the criminal was alone and it can't be proven that he had any direct ties to the gang to which the Mayor is now speaking. That the members of this gang should feel safe knowing that all major parties believe that this killing was not gang related.

As you read this story, do you get a feeling that this is farfetched story, one of pure fiction? Well, it's not that much different from what is happening at Ft. Hood now. Almost immediately, less than 30 minutes, after the coward Nadal Malik Hasan butchered 13 American soldiers and wounded 30 others, US officials were on TV declaring that this massacre was not terror related. There is absolutely no way that anyone could have known if it was, was not, terror related in such a short time frame, so why were they so quick to declare it not? Now, as we learn more about this man, we have every reason to think differently.

Never minding the fact that Hasan proudly declared that he was a Muslim first, American second. Foregoing proof that Hasan publicly defended, even stated that he admired, suicide bombers, or that they have emails showing him communicating with Al Qaeda, our leaders cannot admit that this was an act of terror. Ignoring testimonies that this man, charged with the well being of our returning soldiers, often advised these soldiers to convert to Islam and counseled them that they were fighting an unjust war, this man was left alone to commit this crime. Our leaders state that there are no direct ties to terrorists’ organizations, so therefore, this cannot be an act of terror, but we need to look no farther than the words of Nadal Hasan himself to see that it was. Witnesses and neighbors state that Hasan was handing out Koran's that day and stating that he was going to do "God's work" and, just prior to the shootings, he was heard yelling "Allahu Akbar". This is proof that the man who committed this heinous act was doing so in the name of a cause, a cause that is supported by Jihadists around the world, which is to kill infidels in the name of Islam.

My goal here is not to dissect the past and find any person other than Nadal Malik Hasan responsible for these crimes, but to hopefully open the eyes of America to learn from its mistakes. In order to address and resolve an issue, we must first admit that there is one. We can no longer deny that we are involved in a war on terror, a war in which our enemy seeks to completely and utterly annilate us. A war in which there is no middle ground, no compromise, no ending other than to see us, and our way of life, destroyed. Call this cowardice what it was, an act of terrorism, not a "Man Made Disaster". Doing anything other than speaking the truth only emboldens our enemy and causes harm to this country.

Our leaders use word games to down play the threat against us in an effort to dispel prejudice, but by not speaking truthfully, they are only expanding and proliferating the bigotry. By not being honest, these acts lead people to fear any, and all, associated. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but a large majority of terrorists are Muslim. We must face that fact and attack it head on. We are not interested the modern Muslim, but instead, those that are extreme Islamists and Jihadists. Our leaders must draw that line and openly seek to show where that line lay. If you are Muslim who practices your faith, we have no concern with you. However, if you are a Muslim that openly preaches death to infidels, the heroism of suicide bombings, or associate with known extremists, then you are our targets. We will be coming after you to prevent attacks on our citizens. It is the government’s mandate, its goal, to protect its citizens, but being afraid to call out, and honestly speak against, those that do us harm, does an even greater harm. When our leaders go to radical Islamist nations and state that we will ensure that there is no backlash resulting from these crimes, then our enemies grow stronger, knowing that they can attack us at will.

We are at war and our enemy is causing damage! It's time to do your job and protect your citizens, not pander and bow before the threat of political correctness. The greatest threat an enemy can do is to damage those that protect us and this is exactly what happened at Ft. Hood. Our enemy struck a blow to our protectors. They have instilled a fear in a place where our soldiers should find comfort. This is a time for our citizens to stand up for, and protect, those that offer their lives for our freedom. We must demand that our leaders do their jobs and protect our country. We must demand that our leaders stop playing the word games, falsely apologizing for our country, and pandering to our enemies in hopes of a non-violent resolution. We have been attacked, multiple times, and our citizens and soldiers have paid for those attacks in blood. We can no longer ignore the obvious, in that there are people who hate us for our way of life, and we must come to the defense of our freedom. We can no longer worry about "hurting the feelings" of our neighbors when our very safety, and sovereignty, are at stake!! This country cannot afford to go back to a pre-9/11 mentality. We cannot forget that there are those that wish to do us harm, simply because of our freedom, and we must have the courage and the fortitude to stand up for our beliefs.