Mr. Obama's 2nd State of the Union proved again his love for rhetoric and caveats. Short on details and substance, contrite with those who oppose his ideological views, Mr. Obama once again left us unconvinced that he is truly concerned with the escalating deficit, which is now exponentially out of control.
The Devil is in the details, and Mr. Obama cleverly left out the agonizing details of how restrictions and limitations on insurance companies and the private sector would reduce their services, cut jobs, and in the short term eliminate private sector healthcare plans. The CBO has estimated that if the private sector healthcare folds and insurance companies fold it would amount to approximately 5 million jobs lost. It's just words, Mr. Obama, just words. But these are extremely important words.
Let's talk about "just words, just words," as you so often and so eloquently state when campaigning, Mr. Obama. You used an operative word in your comments about malpractice reform. You said you would "consider" it. "Consider" it doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement, does it? Or is it 'just words, just words' to pacify a nation so you can ram a healthcare bill through Congress?
Other than that comment, Mr. Obama, you simply regurgitated everything in H.R. 3200.
The phrase "public option" is nothing more than a silent synecdoche for government run healthcare...and look how well they have done with Fannie, Freddie, Cash for Clunkers, the Postal Service, VA services, Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. Mr. Obama, when are you going to give us the word that the Congressional Budget Office reported this week that your Government Motors will not be able to pay back the $70 billion the hard working taxes payers gave them? Is $70 Billion 'just words, just words'?
Silly me, those were all the faults of the Bush Adm.
You know, that's like me saying that any student who didn't do well in my class was the fault of Elementary teachers!!
If the American people bought those 'just words' last night, then they bought a lemon.
Let's face it. There are simply some people out there who think the Public Option is going to be free, some who have no peripheral vision, and some who can't make a decision on their own. These are the people who worship at the altar of the Almighty GOVERNMENT as their savior in life.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Synopsis of H.R. 3200
Synopsis of HR 3200: “America’s Affordable Health Choice Act of 2009”
By Rebecca K. Wetzel [1]
“Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.” Thomas Jefferson
Introduction:
H.R. 3200 or “America’s Affordable Health Choice Act of 2009” is a massive proposal for the centralization or nationalization of the US Healthcare system by MANDATING REGULATIONS on individuals, employers, private insurers, hospitals, doctors and states.
In the words of The Congressional Research Services report, “Private Health Insurance Provisions of H.R. 3200”, H.R. 3200 would establish new federal health insurance standards.” [2] The essence of H.R. 3200 is the federalizing of all healthcare in the United States.
H.R. 3200 gives all regulatory authorization over those components to the Secretary of HHS and creates a new Health Benefits Advisory Commission. In examining H.R. 3200, what clearly jumps out is the broad sweeping powers over the healthcare component of the US economy that the US Government is seizing. This authority also extends to the Medicare Program, Medicaid, and SCHIPs.
525 pages of H.R. 3200’s 1018 pages are devoted to reforming, restructuring, and assessing treatment and hospitalization under the Medicare coverage for the elderly.
Another obvious revelation is the ambiguous language that opens the door to significant unintended consequences that will have political and government structure altering outcomes perhaps for the long term future. All economics teachers will tell you everything has a cost, and every economic choice we make has a consequence. [3]
Mr. Obama continues to waffle on whether or not there will be a public option plan in H.R. 3200. On Saturday, August 15 he stated that the public option plan is only a sliver of the bill. It only takes a sliver of an opening for mice to enter your home and cause chaos and disruption.
Even if H.R. 3200 excludes a public option plan, the intent of H.R. 3200 is for the Federal Government to seize control of the nation’s healthcare system, dictate the benefits and treatments of your healthcare coverage, access your financial records to automatically transfer the taxes you would owe if you chose not to have healthcare insurance, and to determine if you qualify for Medicaid.
What is truly missing from H.R. 3200 is the fundamental principle upon which this nation was founded: Freedom of Choice.
What is unclear in this legislation is the estimated cost of initiating the complete overhaul of healthcare system as we know it. The Congressional Budget Office has re-assessed the potential cost of H.R. 3200 at approximately $1.68 Trillion. Although H.R. 3200 does not clearly specify how the entire cost will be covered, provisions are made in the bill for the wealthy citizens to have their income taxes increased by as much as 5%.
There are no checks and balances in the bill for the government overreaching in its power into the lives of the American people as the bill specifically states in Section 223 on page 124 that “There shall be no administrative or judicial review of a payment rate or methodology established under this section or under section 224.” Hence, citizens are denied the right to court review of complaints against the Federal government over the healthcare issue. Does this have a potential unintended consequence of limiting citizens’ rights under the Federal government?
Article IV of the US Constitution guarantees due process of law to citizens.
The 3rd Amendments to the Constitution guarantees individuals the right to privacy and security in their own homes.
The 4th Amendment to the Constitution states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The 9th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees individuals the right of privacy.
The 14th Amendment guarantees individuals and entities equal protection of due process of law.
The purpose of the bill is stated on page 1: “To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending and for other purposes.” [4] What does “for other purposes” mean? Does this open the door for unintended consequences?
The Congressional Budget Office report describes this particular health care plan in the following way: “federal individual mandate for health insurance would be unique and unprecedented because it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society and it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by government”. Such a public policy is unprecedented and represents a Federal take-over of 1/6 of our nation’s private sector.
Mandatory Regulation:
What does it mean to be a MANDATED REGULATORY program? In the state of nature animals of prey such as jackals feed on lesser animals. Although we cannot change natural behavior, we can regulate what predators consume. In the marketplace, monopolies feed on smaller competitive businesses and individuals as monopolies, like all businesses and individuals, have a natural appetite to make a profit. After all, it is profit that enables one to meet their needs and wants. [5]
Price is a rationing factor in the marketplace. If the price is too high for some people based on their profits, then they will shop around to find a competitive price that suits their financial standing.
In any economic system, including that of the United States, there are four questions to answer: what to produce, how to produce, for whom to produce, and what is the role of government in production.
The critics of capitalism have obviously not read Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations. Smith, the father of capitalism, published The Wealth of Nations in 1776. Capitalism is the economic system that is based on competition, the rationing system is determined by the price mechanism, individuals make the determination what they will purchase from competitive choices, and individuals have the right to own property.
Let’s take the example of an artist, an entertainer, a doctor, a nurse, or a mechanic. All of these produce goods and services. They set the price they are willing to accept for the fruits of their labor.
Consumers, in turn, decide if they are willing to accept the going price for the services of the artist, entertainer, doctor, nurse or mechanic. Government regulates to make sure that the producer of goods and services is not taking advantage of the consumer just as government intervenes if the consumer takes from the producer of goods and services without a fair market compensation for services rendered.
Adam Smith advocated limited government, but the government had the responsibility and obligation to protect consumers from predators such as monopolies. [6] Critics of capitalism reveal their economic and political illiteracy when they maintain that Smith’s theories supported big business over individuals.
Under capitalism, the interaction of supply and demand determines what to produce, how to produce, for whom to produce, and the role of the government is to regulate business and protect the consumer.
Socialism is the economic and political theory that advocates the government ownership of the means of production. In his “Class Struggle of History Theory”, Karl Marx has Socialism as the second phase of his Class Struggle Theory in his work, The Communist Manifesto in 1848. Marx’s three phases are (1) class revolution of the haves v. the have-nots, (2) government ownership to eliminate private property, and (3) the utopian of communism where there will be no government to regulate behavior because people will share out of love for one another. Ironically, in the last section of his book, Karl Marx admitted that the utopian system of Communism was simply that: a Utopia. Marx then concluded that the political economic system he supported was that of Socialism. [7]
Under socialist systems, the government owns the means of what will be produced, dictates how goods and services are produced, determines for whom goods and services are produced, and the government’s role is to control the production of goods and services. In the case of the artist, entertainer, doctor, nurse, or mechanic, a socialist government would determine what prices you set for your services as well as the length and time of effort you put into your work. A socialist government would also be your employer.
There has never been a pure capitalist system. What was created in 1776 with the North American Revolution against England was a system that held the principles of capitalism as its goals. The Declaration of Independence, regrettably never read by but a few Americans, calls for a system where the usurpation of power by the government is limited. In fact, it was the egregious usurpation of power by George III of England that was the ultimate cause for revolution. The battle cry for the revolution was “No Taxation without Representation”.
Socialism, on the other hand, has existed as a political system, and generally, socialist systems are overturned because they place the ultimate focus on government authority over individuals and businesses.
When a government takes over the price mechanism function of an economy, the government has the power and authority to issue mandatory regulations. With such power, the government is close to nationalizing or taking over the ownership of businesses. In the spring of 2009, the United States government took over the ownership of two automotive businesses: General Motors and Chrysler.
Mandates Over Individuals in HR 3200:
•Individual mandates are an unprecedented violation of individual liberties: A Report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO, which reports directly to the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi) issued an assessment in July 2009 stating that the “federal individual mandate for health insurance would be unique and unprecedented because it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society and it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by government”.
Dr. Sherry Glied, an Obama HSS nominee, stated, “Developing a system to promptly identify and penalize scofflaws will take effort and ingenuity, particularly, in our diverse and mobile country. It may require a degree of intrusiveness and bureaucracy that some will find unpalatable.” [8]
•Individual Mandates will not resolve the uninsured problem: Massachusetts was the first state to enact an individual mandate with tax penalties and fines. However, this mandated program has not fulfilled its intended persons because some people are exempted while some people have deliberately chosen to forgo health insurance. The cost of care for those without health insurance is always passed on to the consumer. Government, like businesses, passes its cost of public policy onto to its consumers—the tax payers—in the form of higher taxes.
Currently there are approximately 47 million Americans without healthcare. This number is approximately 15% of the population which means 85% have healthcare coverage. Of that 47 million, 12 million are illegal aliens. Of the remaining 35 million, 12 million are those who have chosen not to purchase healthcare because they are in the upper income bracket and can pay for their healthcare out of pocket. Of the remaining 23 million, 12 million of those who are eligible for already existing federal programs such as Medicaid and SCHIPs but have chosen not to sign up for these programs. This number also includes young people in their 20’s to 30’s who feel they do not need healthcare insurance. The remaining 11 million are the ones who really need help.
Hence, HR 3200 claims to seek healthcare reform when its structure and function clearly indicate it is healthcare overhaul and take over by the US Government. [9]
•Individual Mandates will not solve the Free-Rider Problem: In economics and public policy, the free-rider is the person who benefits from a public policy at the personal expense of others. Even under the proposals of H.R. 3200, the free-rider problem ill exist because the bill has provisions for leveling the cost of covering those who cannot pay on insurers, institutions, and tax payers. The Urban Institute has produced studies showing that people with health insurance account for 30% of the uncompensated care delivered to the non-elderly.
•Individual Mandates are expensive: Dr. Sherry Glied, Obama nominee, states: “Funds diverted from uncompensated care would not be sufficient to pay for the subsidies needed to cover most uninsured people. Eliminating the free-rider problem through universal insurance might make the health care system more fair, but it wouldn’t make it less costly.”
•Individual Mandates are a Special Interest Bonanza: Government mandates that individuals purchase health insurance will define a MINIMUM SET of covered benefits that satisfies that mandate.
Minimum or limited benefits are code words for restrictions and rationing. When something is limited, it is in short supply. When items are in short supply, the cost increases.
Does this limitation then defy the stated purpose of H.R. 3200?
If benefits are limited in supply, there will be competition to have access to the benefits. Thus, health care providers who wish to stay in business will compete or LOBBY the Federal government to make sure their products and services remain in the benefits package.
•Individuals will be required to pay or play: Section 59B on page 167 states that the IRS will be authorized to levy a 2.5% income tax on individuals the Secretary of HHS has determined does not have acceptable health care insurance.
Does this open the door to unintended consequences?
Section 202(d)(3) authorizes the Commissioner of the Health Benefits Commission to automatically enroll those persons eligible for Medicaid into the Medicaid program (regardless of their choice).
•Individuals will automatically have their financial records accessed by the Federal government: Section 163 authorizes the Secretary of HHS to enable automatic electronic transfer of funds from an individual’s financial accounts.
(Note to those critics who say that showing our healthcare cards at medical facilities allows them to access your financial accounts: no, showing your healthcare card at a medical facility provides them with information that you have insurance coverage. Some individuals argue that we already do our banking online and pay bills online. The difference between banks and private sector is you are WILLINGLY ALLOWING them to access your financial accounts. Even if you allow the IRS to access your financial accounts online for a tax payment or refund, the difference is you are WILLINGLY ALLOWING THEM ACCESS. Compulsory access moves the government into the absolute control of your financial accounts. Remember, you will not have any federal judicial review of the healthcare under H.R. 3200, and that includes if the government ‘accidentally’ withdraws too much from your account.”)
Mandates over Private Insurers:
•The Commissioner of the Health Benefits Commission will dictate to private insurers how much and what rate may be charged as determined by the Commissioner (page 17 of H.R. 3200)
•Participation by all insurance plans is mandated. (page 20 of H.R. 3200)
•The Commissioner and Secretary of HHS are authorized to determine the financial solvency and audit all private insurers and employers. (page 22 of H.R. 3200)
•The Commissioner and Secretary of HHS will determine the quality benefits of all healthcare plans of all insurers. (page 25 of H.R. 3200)
•In Section 122, pages 26-30 of H.R. 3200, the following minimum services to be covered as essential benefits includes:
Hospitalization
Outpatient hospital and clinic services
Professional services of physicians and other health professionals
Such services, equipment, and supplies incident to the services of a physician or a health professional’s delivery of care
Prescription drugs
Rehabilitative and habilitative services
Mental health and substance use disorder services
Preventive services
Maternity care
Well baby and well child care
•The National Health Benefits Advisory Committee will make recommendations for benefits and treatments in all insurance plans. No appeals process is specified. (page 30 of H.R. 3200)
•The National Health Benefits Advisory Committee and the Commissioner will design the essential benefits package so that the cost sharing will provide a level of coverage that is designed to provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to approximately 70% of the full actuarial value of the benefits.
•Under Section 122, the limitations on the amount of benefits and treatments in a fiscal year (FY): $5000 per individual/ $10,000 per family.
•The Commissioner will establish uniform marketing standards which all insurers will be required to meet. (page 37 of H.R. 3200)
•Under section 1173A of the Social Security Act the Health Benefits Board will be authorized to conduct electronic financial and administrative transactions of funds. (page 41 of H.R. 3200)
Mandates on Employers:
Employer healthcare insurance will not face a level playing field. The government does not have to worry about cost, and the government can simply raise taxes or print more money. H.R. 3200 along with increased energy taxes and Card Check, which will force unions in most businesses, will drive up operating costs of business so that employers will opt out of providing health insurance.
The Lewin Group conducted a study of the current healthcare legislation before Congress. Their study shows that the public option plan if adopted will cover approximately 103 million people. The unintended consequences of this legislation will result in 83.4 million people will lose their private insurance. This would represent a 48.4% reduction in the number of people with private coverage.
According to the Lewin Group study, 88.1 million people would see their private, employer sponsored health plan go away, and they would be shifted to the public plan.
Yearly premiums for private coverage will increase as much as $460 per privately insured person as a result of cost shifting to a public plan. [10]
In time, the only plan would be the government’s single payer plan which Mr. Obama stated in 2003 and in the campaign at Ames, Iowa in 2008 was his goal and intention.
Medicare:
525 pages of H.R. 3200 are devoted to Medicare. This alone tells you that Medicare is a significant component of our nation’s healthcare system.
In April 2009, Mr. Obama stated, “The chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80% of the total health care bills out there. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channel. This is why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance.” [11]
Is this the reasoning behind the Advisory Boards and government agencies that will be created by H.R. 3200 to enter the homes, nursing homes, etc. to advise the elderly about the end of life wishes?
16.7% of our annual GDP is health care. (The GDP is the Gross Domestic Product which includes the total dollar value of all goods and services produced in the US. It includes Government spending, Consumer spending, Savings, Investments, and Business spending. IT IS NOT SOLELY GOVERNMENT MONEY.)
52% of our federal budget is spent on welfare and entitlement programs. Included in these are Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, VA, and SCHIPs.
Mr. Obama is currently seeking a reduction in the Medicare budget for the upcoming Fiscal Year. By 2019, he wants a $313 Billion cut in the Medicare Budget. Currently, Medicare’s annual budget is approximately $413 Billion. Mr. Obama’s slashing of the Medicare Budget is questionable. By 2019 the bulk of America’s ‘Baby-boomer’s will be eligible for Medicare coverage.
If the budget is cut, does this have the unintended consequences of rationing who will get Medicare coverage?
H.R. 3200 does authorize government Advanced Directive sessions with those persons as they near the final stages of life. Advanced Directive Planning sessions are wonderful ideas for a family to do with their doctors, family members, spiritual directors, and / or ministers. It becomes a different ball game when the persons conducting the Advanced Directive is a government employee sent to discuss this with you as mandated by law.
Mr. Obama is calling for to removal of the Medicare Advantage Plan and Medicare Part D.
H.R. 3200 will have a tremendous impact on Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIPs. At the present, it does not appear to have an impact on Social Security. However, we cannot forget there are unintended consequences to any public policy.
Medicaid:
H.R. 3200 proposes a major expansion of Medicaid as a primary vehicle to reduce the number of persons who currently do not have health insurance.
Although Medicaid might theoretically cheaper alternative, it would represent a balkanization of families based on income levels, geography, and even history. Not all poor people qualify for Medicaid. Not all people on Medicaid are poor. Criteria such as disability and whether there is a dependent child in the household factor into Medicaid eligibility.
According to CBO studies, H.R. 3200 would increase federal Medicaid spending to $2.2 Trillion in order to keep generally healthy individuals outside the rest of the insurance pool.
Is this and example of the unintended consequences that is counterintuitive and also counterproductive?
What is Missing:
Health Savings Accounts and Flex Savings Accounts will be eliminated.
Specification as to how States who will be mandated to implement parts of H.R. 3200 are going to cover the costs of implementation.
Endnotes:
1.The author holds a B.A. degree from the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Alabama with a major in History and a minor in Political Science. Although the University only officially recognizes one major and one minor, Mrs. Wetzel’s transcript indicates she took sufficient course work in history, political science and English to qualify for three majors. Her M.A. degree is also from the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Alabama in history. During her graduate work, Mrs. Wetzel was a Graduate Assistant in historical research of public policy under the tutelage of the late Dr. Charles G. Summersell and the late Dr. Austin L. Venable. Mrs. Wetzel also served as a lecturer in Diplomatic History of the United States and Foreign Relations. She is a retired educator having taught in the public schools in Alabama, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania. The classes she has taught include English literature, English grammar, Alabama History, Kentucky History, U.S. History, World History, World Cultures, Political and Economic Systems, AP History, AP Government, AP Comparative Government, AP Economics: Macroeconomics and Microeconomics, Rights and Responsibilities, and Current Issues. Mrs. Wetzel received her Teacher Certification from Millersville University, and she has taken post graduate courses at Pennsylvania State University. She is a member of Phi Beta Kappa, Phi Alpha Theta, Pi Sigma Alpha, and Alpha Lambda Delta. Mrs. Wetzel’s two Master’s papers were: “James G. Birney’s Role in the American Colonization Society” and “James K. Polk’s Secret War Agent: Juan de la Atocha”.
2.Congressional Research Services Report, “Private health Insurance Provisions of H.R. 3200, page 7.
3.The children’s story of The Three Little Pigs is an excellent introduction to teach the idea of choices having consequences.
4.Page 1 H.R. 3200.
5.Fred Gottheil, Principles of Economics, p. 304.
6.Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776.
7.Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto, 1848.
8.CBO Report July 2009.
9.Dr. Sherry Glied, Obama nominee.
10.Heritage Foundation, www.heritage.org.
11.Barack Obama, April 2009.
By Rebecca K. Wetzel [1]
“Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.” Thomas Jefferson
Introduction:
H.R. 3200 or “America’s Affordable Health Choice Act of 2009” is a massive proposal for the centralization or nationalization of the US Healthcare system by MANDATING REGULATIONS on individuals, employers, private insurers, hospitals, doctors and states.
In the words of The Congressional Research Services report, “Private Health Insurance Provisions of H.R. 3200”, H.R. 3200 would establish new federal health insurance standards.” [2] The essence of H.R. 3200 is the federalizing of all healthcare in the United States.
H.R. 3200 gives all regulatory authorization over those components to the Secretary of HHS and creates a new Health Benefits Advisory Commission. In examining H.R. 3200, what clearly jumps out is the broad sweeping powers over the healthcare component of the US economy that the US Government is seizing. This authority also extends to the Medicare Program, Medicaid, and SCHIPs.
525 pages of H.R. 3200’s 1018 pages are devoted to reforming, restructuring, and assessing treatment and hospitalization under the Medicare coverage for the elderly.
Another obvious revelation is the ambiguous language that opens the door to significant unintended consequences that will have political and government structure altering outcomes perhaps for the long term future. All economics teachers will tell you everything has a cost, and every economic choice we make has a consequence. [3]
Mr. Obama continues to waffle on whether or not there will be a public option plan in H.R. 3200. On Saturday, August 15 he stated that the public option plan is only a sliver of the bill. It only takes a sliver of an opening for mice to enter your home and cause chaos and disruption.
Even if H.R. 3200 excludes a public option plan, the intent of H.R. 3200 is for the Federal Government to seize control of the nation’s healthcare system, dictate the benefits and treatments of your healthcare coverage, access your financial records to automatically transfer the taxes you would owe if you chose not to have healthcare insurance, and to determine if you qualify for Medicaid.
What is truly missing from H.R. 3200 is the fundamental principle upon which this nation was founded: Freedom of Choice.
What is unclear in this legislation is the estimated cost of initiating the complete overhaul of healthcare system as we know it. The Congressional Budget Office has re-assessed the potential cost of H.R. 3200 at approximately $1.68 Trillion. Although H.R. 3200 does not clearly specify how the entire cost will be covered, provisions are made in the bill for the wealthy citizens to have their income taxes increased by as much as 5%.
There are no checks and balances in the bill for the government overreaching in its power into the lives of the American people as the bill specifically states in Section 223 on page 124 that “There shall be no administrative or judicial review of a payment rate or methodology established under this section or under section 224.” Hence, citizens are denied the right to court review of complaints against the Federal government over the healthcare issue. Does this have a potential unintended consequence of limiting citizens’ rights under the Federal government?
Article IV of the US Constitution guarantees due process of law to citizens.
The 3rd Amendments to the Constitution guarantees individuals the right to privacy and security in their own homes.
The 4th Amendment to the Constitution states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The 9th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees individuals the right of privacy.
The 14th Amendment guarantees individuals and entities equal protection of due process of law.
The purpose of the bill is stated on page 1: “To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending and for other purposes.” [4] What does “for other purposes” mean? Does this open the door for unintended consequences?
The Congressional Budget Office report describes this particular health care plan in the following way: “federal individual mandate for health insurance would be unique and unprecedented because it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society and it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by government”. Such a public policy is unprecedented and represents a Federal take-over of 1/6 of our nation’s private sector.
Mandatory Regulation:
What does it mean to be a MANDATED REGULATORY program? In the state of nature animals of prey such as jackals feed on lesser animals. Although we cannot change natural behavior, we can regulate what predators consume. In the marketplace, monopolies feed on smaller competitive businesses and individuals as monopolies, like all businesses and individuals, have a natural appetite to make a profit. After all, it is profit that enables one to meet their needs and wants. [5]
Price is a rationing factor in the marketplace. If the price is too high for some people based on their profits, then they will shop around to find a competitive price that suits their financial standing.
In any economic system, including that of the United States, there are four questions to answer: what to produce, how to produce, for whom to produce, and what is the role of government in production.
The critics of capitalism have obviously not read Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations. Smith, the father of capitalism, published The Wealth of Nations in 1776. Capitalism is the economic system that is based on competition, the rationing system is determined by the price mechanism, individuals make the determination what they will purchase from competitive choices, and individuals have the right to own property.
Let’s take the example of an artist, an entertainer, a doctor, a nurse, or a mechanic. All of these produce goods and services. They set the price they are willing to accept for the fruits of their labor.
Consumers, in turn, decide if they are willing to accept the going price for the services of the artist, entertainer, doctor, nurse or mechanic. Government regulates to make sure that the producer of goods and services is not taking advantage of the consumer just as government intervenes if the consumer takes from the producer of goods and services without a fair market compensation for services rendered.
Adam Smith advocated limited government, but the government had the responsibility and obligation to protect consumers from predators such as monopolies. [6] Critics of capitalism reveal their economic and political illiteracy when they maintain that Smith’s theories supported big business over individuals.
Under capitalism, the interaction of supply and demand determines what to produce, how to produce, for whom to produce, and the role of the government is to regulate business and protect the consumer.
Socialism is the economic and political theory that advocates the government ownership of the means of production. In his “Class Struggle of History Theory”, Karl Marx has Socialism as the second phase of his Class Struggle Theory in his work, The Communist Manifesto in 1848. Marx’s three phases are (1) class revolution of the haves v. the have-nots, (2) government ownership to eliminate private property, and (3) the utopian of communism where there will be no government to regulate behavior because people will share out of love for one another. Ironically, in the last section of his book, Karl Marx admitted that the utopian system of Communism was simply that: a Utopia. Marx then concluded that the political economic system he supported was that of Socialism. [7]
Under socialist systems, the government owns the means of what will be produced, dictates how goods and services are produced, determines for whom goods and services are produced, and the government’s role is to control the production of goods and services. In the case of the artist, entertainer, doctor, nurse, or mechanic, a socialist government would determine what prices you set for your services as well as the length and time of effort you put into your work. A socialist government would also be your employer.
There has never been a pure capitalist system. What was created in 1776 with the North American Revolution against England was a system that held the principles of capitalism as its goals. The Declaration of Independence, regrettably never read by but a few Americans, calls for a system where the usurpation of power by the government is limited. In fact, it was the egregious usurpation of power by George III of England that was the ultimate cause for revolution. The battle cry for the revolution was “No Taxation without Representation”.
Socialism, on the other hand, has existed as a political system, and generally, socialist systems are overturned because they place the ultimate focus on government authority over individuals and businesses.
When a government takes over the price mechanism function of an economy, the government has the power and authority to issue mandatory regulations. With such power, the government is close to nationalizing or taking over the ownership of businesses. In the spring of 2009, the United States government took over the ownership of two automotive businesses: General Motors and Chrysler.
Mandates Over Individuals in HR 3200:
•Individual mandates are an unprecedented violation of individual liberties: A Report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO, which reports directly to the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi) issued an assessment in July 2009 stating that the “federal individual mandate for health insurance would be unique and unprecedented because it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society and it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by government”.
Dr. Sherry Glied, an Obama HSS nominee, stated, “Developing a system to promptly identify and penalize scofflaws will take effort and ingenuity, particularly, in our diverse and mobile country. It may require a degree of intrusiveness and bureaucracy that some will find unpalatable.” [8]
•Individual Mandates will not resolve the uninsured problem: Massachusetts was the first state to enact an individual mandate with tax penalties and fines. However, this mandated program has not fulfilled its intended persons because some people are exempted while some people have deliberately chosen to forgo health insurance. The cost of care for those without health insurance is always passed on to the consumer. Government, like businesses, passes its cost of public policy onto to its consumers—the tax payers—in the form of higher taxes.
Currently there are approximately 47 million Americans without healthcare. This number is approximately 15% of the population which means 85% have healthcare coverage. Of that 47 million, 12 million are illegal aliens. Of the remaining 35 million, 12 million are those who have chosen not to purchase healthcare because they are in the upper income bracket and can pay for their healthcare out of pocket. Of the remaining 23 million, 12 million of those who are eligible for already existing federal programs such as Medicaid and SCHIPs but have chosen not to sign up for these programs. This number also includes young people in their 20’s to 30’s who feel they do not need healthcare insurance. The remaining 11 million are the ones who really need help.
Hence, HR 3200 claims to seek healthcare reform when its structure and function clearly indicate it is healthcare overhaul and take over by the US Government. [9]
•Individual Mandates will not solve the Free-Rider Problem: In economics and public policy, the free-rider is the person who benefits from a public policy at the personal expense of others. Even under the proposals of H.R. 3200, the free-rider problem ill exist because the bill has provisions for leveling the cost of covering those who cannot pay on insurers, institutions, and tax payers. The Urban Institute has produced studies showing that people with health insurance account for 30% of the uncompensated care delivered to the non-elderly.
•Individual Mandates are expensive: Dr. Sherry Glied, Obama nominee, states: “Funds diverted from uncompensated care would not be sufficient to pay for the subsidies needed to cover most uninsured people. Eliminating the free-rider problem through universal insurance might make the health care system more fair, but it wouldn’t make it less costly.”
•Individual Mandates are a Special Interest Bonanza: Government mandates that individuals purchase health insurance will define a MINIMUM SET of covered benefits that satisfies that mandate.
Minimum or limited benefits are code words for restrictions and rationing. When something is limited, it is in short supply. When items are in short supply, the cost increases.
Does this limitation then defy the stated purpose of H.R. 3200?
If benefits are limited in supply, there will be competition to have access to the benefits. Thus, health care providers who wish to stay in business will compete or LOBBY the Federal government to make sure their products and services remain in the benefits package.
•Individuals will be required to pay or play: Section 59B on page 167 states that the IRS will be authorized to levy a 2.5% income tax on individuals the Secretary of HHS has determined does not have acceptable health care insurance.
Does this open the door to unintended consequences?
Section 202(d)(3) authorizes the Commissioner of the Health Benefits Commission to automatically enroll those persons eligible for Medicaid into the Medicaid program (regardless of their choice).
•Individuals will automatically have their financial records accessed by the Federal government: Section 163 authorizes the Secretary of HHS to enable automatic electronic transfer of funds from an individual’s financial accounts.
(Note to those critics who say that showing our healthcare cards at medical facilities allows them to access your financial accounts: no, showing your healthcare card at a medical facility provides them with information that you have insurance coverage. Some individuals argue that we already do our banking online and pay bills online. The difference between banks and private sector is you are WILLINGLY ALLOWING them to access your financial accounts. Even if you allow the IRS to access your financial accounts online for a tax payment or refund, the difference is you are WILLINGLY ALLOWING THEM ACCESS. Compulsory access moves the government into the absolute control of your financial accounts. Remember, you will not have any federal judicial review of the healthcare under H.R. 3200, and that includes if the government ‘accidentally’ withdraws too much from your account.”)
Mandates over Private Insurers:
•The Commissioner of the Health Benefits Commission will dictate to private insurers how much and what rate may be charged as determined by the Commissioner (page 17 of H.R. 3200)
•Participation by all insurance plans is mandated. (page 20 of H.R. 3200)
•The Commissioner and Secretary of HHS are authorized to determine the financial solvency and audit all private insurers and employers. (page 22 of H.R. 3200)
•The Commissioner and Secretary of HHS will determine the quality benefits of all healthcare plans of all insurers. (page 25 of H.R. 3200)
•In Section 122, pages 26-30 of H.R. 3200, the following minimum services to be covered as essential benefits includes:
Hospitalization
Outpatient hospital and clinic services
Professional services of physicians and other health professionals
Such services, equipment, and supplies incident to the services of a physician or a health professional’s delivery of care
Prescription drugs
Rehabilitative and habilitative services
Mental health and substance use disorder services
Preventive services
Maternity care
Well baby and well child care
•The National Health Benefits Advisory Committee will make recommendations for benefits and treatments in all insurance plans. No appeals process is specified. (page 30 of H.R. 3200)
•The National Health Benefits Advisory Committee and the Commissioner will design the essential benefits package so that the cost sharing will provide a level of coverage that is designed to provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to approximately 70% of the full actuarial value of the benefits.
•Under Section 122, the limitations on the amount of benefits and treatments in a fiscal year (FY): $5000 per individual/ $10,000 per family.
•The Commissioner will establish uniform marketing standards which all insurers will be required to meet. (page 37 of H.R. 3200)
•Under section 1173A of the Social Security Act the Health Benefits Board will be authorized to conduct electronic financial and administrative transactions of funds. (page 41 of H.R. 3200)
Mandates on Employers:
Employer healthcare insurance will not face a level playing field. The government does not have to worry about cost, and the government can simply raise taxes or print more money. H.R. 3200 along with increased energy taxes and Card Check, which will force unions in most businesses, will drive up operating costs of business so that employers will opt out of providing health insurance.
The Lewin Group conducted a study of the current healthcare legislation before Congress. Their study shows that the public option plan if adopted will cover approximately 103 million people. The unintended consequences of this legislation will result in 83.4 million people will lose their private insurance. This would represent a 48.4% reduction in the number of people with private coverage.
According to the Lewin Group study, 88.1 million people would see their private, employer sponsored health plan go away, and they would be shifted to the public plan.
Yearly premiums for private coverage will increase as much as $460 per privately insured person as a result of cost shifting to a public plan. [10]
In time, the only plan would be the government’s single payer plan which Mr. Obama stated in 2003 and in the campaign at Ames, Iowa in 2008 was his goal and intention.
Medicare:
525 pages of H.R. 3200 are devoted to Medicare. This alone tells you that Medicare is a significant component of our nation’s healthcare system.
In April 2009, Mr. Obama stated, “The chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80% of the total health care bills out there. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channel. This is why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance.” [11]
Is this the reasoning behind the Advisory Boards and government agencies that will be created by H.R. 3200 to enter the homes, nursing homes, etc. to advise the elderly about the end of life wishes?
16.7% of our annual GDP is health care. (The GDP is the Gross Domestic Product which includes the total dollar value of all goods and services produced in the US. It includes Government spending, Consumer spending, Savings, Investments, and Business spending. IT IS NOT SOLELY GOVERNMENT MONEY.)
52% of our federal budget is spent on welfare and entitlement programs. Included in these are Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, VA, and SCHIPs.
Mr. Obama is currently seeking a reduction in the Medicare budget for the upcoming Fiscal Year. By 2019, he wants a $313 Billion cut in the Medicare Budget. Currently, Medicare’s annual budget is approximately $413 Billion. Mr. Obama’s slashing of the Medicare Budget is questionable. By 2019 the bulk of America’s ‘Baby-boomer’s will be eligible for Medicare coverage.
If the budget is cut, does this have the unintended consequences of rationing who will get Medicare coverage?
H.R. 3200 does authorize government Advanced Directive sessions with those persons as they near the final stages of life. Advanced Directive Planning sessions are wonderful ideas for a family to do with their doctors, family members, spiritual directors, and / or ministers. It becomes a different ball game when the persons conducting the Advanced Directive is a government employee sent to discuss this with you as mandated by law.
Mr. Obama is calling for to removal of the Medicare Advantage Plan and Medicare Part D.
H.R. 3200 will have a tremendous impact on Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIPs. At the present, it does not appear to have an impact on Social Security. However, we cannot forget there are unintended consequences to any public policy.
Medicaid:
H.R. 3200 proposes a major expansion of Medicaid as a primary vehicle to reduce the number of persons who currently do not have health insurance.
Although Medicaid might theoretically cheaper alternative, it would represent a balkanization of families based on income levels, geography, and even history. Not all poor people qualify for Medicaid. Not all people on Medicaid are poor. Criteria such as disability and whether there is a dependent child in the household factor into Medicaid eligibility.
According to CBO studies, H.R. 3200 would increase federal Medicaid spending to $2.2 Trillion in order to keep generally healthy individuals outside the rest of the insurance pool.
Is this and example of the unintended consequences that is counterintuitive and also counterproductive?
What is Missing:
Health Savings Accounts and Flex Savings Accounts will be eliminated.
Specification as to how States who will be mandated to implement parts of H.R. 3200 are going to cover the costs of implementation.
Endnotes:
1.The author holds a B.A. degree from the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Alabama with a major in History and a minor in Political Science. Although the University only officially recognizes one major and one minor, Mrs. Wetzel’s transcript indicates she took sufficient course work in history, political science and English to qualify for three majors. Her M.A. degree is also from the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Alabama in history. During her graduate work, Mrs. Wetzel was a Graduate Assistant in historical research of public policy under the tutelage of the late Dr. Charles G. Summersell and the late Dr. Austin L. Venable. Mrs. Wetzel also served as a lecturer in Diplomatic History of the United States and Foreign Relations. She is a retired educator having taught in the public schools in Alabama, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania. The classes she has taught include English literature, English grammar, Alabama History, Kentucky History, U.S. History, World History, World Cultures, Political and Economic Systems, AP History, AP Government, AP Comparative Government, AP Economics: Macroeconomics and Microeconomics, Rights and Responsibilities, and Current Issues. Mrs. Wetzel received her Teacher Certification from Millersville University, and she has taken post graduate courses at Pennsylvania State University. She is a member of Phi Beta Kappa, Phi Alpha Theta, Pi Sigma Alpha, and Alpha Lambda Delta. Mrs. Wetzel’s two Master’s papers were: “James G. Birney’s Role in the American Colonization Society” and “James K. Polk’s Secret War Agent: Juan de la Atocha”.
2.Congressional Research Services Report, “Private health Insurance Provisions of H.R. 3200, page 7.
3.The children’s story of The Three Little Pigs is an excellent introduction to teach the idea of choices having consequences.
4.Page 1 H.R. 3200.
5.Fred Gottheil, Principles of Economics, p. 304.
6.Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776.
7.Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto, 1848.
8.CBO Report July 2009.
9.Dr. Sherry Glied, Obama nominee.
10.Heritage Foundation, www.heritage.org.
11.Barack Obama, April 2009.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Analytical Breakdown of HR 3200
Analytical Breakdown of HR 3200: “America’s Affordable Health Choice Act of 2009” Pages 1-167
Page 1: “To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes.” (What does the prepositional phrase “for other purposes” mean?)
Page 17:Dictates to private insurers how and what rates may be charged as determined by the Commissioner
Page 19:No pre-existing conditions exclusions may be imposed ( A Positive)
Page 20: HIE: Health Insurance Exchange Program—network of all insurance plans including the Public Option; Participation for all insurances plans is mandated;
Page 22:Commissioner and Sec. of HHS will have the authority to determine the financial solvency and AUDIT of private insurers and all employers that self-insure.
Page 25:Commissioner and Sec. of HHS will determine QBHP (qualified benefits health plan) that comprises a plans essential benefits plan
Page 26-29:lists the general benefits a plan in the private sector market must provide;Specifies all plans will be co-pay not co-insurance;
Page 29:Limitations will be placed on the amount of benefits permitted in a fiscal year (FY). $5000 per individual/$10,000 per family;
Page 30:A national Health Benefits Advisory Committee will make recommendations for benefits and treatments in the essential, enhanced and premium plans; No appeals process is specified.
Page 37:Commissioner shall establish uniform marketing standards that all insured QBHP (benefits plans) offering entities shall meet. Commissioner will establish the grievance and claims mechanisms
Page 38:(apparently the program is going to be run through States as there is reference to the State Judicial Review process concerning grievances and claims; there is no Judical Review permitted under HR 3200 at the Federal level)
Page 39-40:Commissioner will oversee transparency of QBHPs through mandated audits
Page 40-41: Commissioner will standardize benefits and reimbursement of payments
Page 41:A QHBP offering entity is required to comply with
standards for electronic financial and administrative
transactions under section 1173A of the Social Security
6 Act, added by section 163(a).
Page 41-43:Governance will be by the Health Choices Administration headed by the Health Choices Commissioner;(new government agency in the Executive Branch)Commissioner will be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate (a political appointment);
DUTIES.—The Commissioner is responsible forcarrying out the following functions under this division:
(1) QUALIFIED PLAN STANDARDS.—The establishment of qualified health benefits plan standards under this title, including the enforcement of such standards in coordination with State insurance regulators and the Secretaries of Labor and the Treasury.
(2) HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE.—The establishment and operation of a Health Insurance Exchange under subtitle A of title II.
Commissioner will have the authority to audit QBHPs and recoup payment from QBHPs for the audit.
Plans that fail to meet the standards established by the Commissioner will be subjected to fines and suspension of of enrollment of individuals;
Commissioner is responsible for development of standards for the definitions of terms used in health insurance coverage, including insurance-related terms.
Commissioner is responsible for determining regulations and standards of efficient and effective administration in the HIE.
Page 42:Commissioner will determine all health benefits for all persons and all insurance plans.
Page 46:Commissioner will appoint QBHP Ombudsman
Page 50:Sec. 152 prohibits any discrimination in healthcare coverage;
Page 51: Whistleblower Protection
Page 57:Standardized Electronic Administrative Transactions
Page 58:“authoritative, permitting no additions or constraints for electronic transactions, including companion guides; be comprehensive, efficient and robust, requiring minimal augmentation by paper transactions or clarification by further communications; enable the real-time (or near realtime) determination of an individual’s financial responsibility at the point of service and, to the extent possible, prior to service, including whether the individual is eligible for a specific service with a specific physician at a specific facility, which may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan beneficiary identification card;”
‘‘ enable, where feasible, near real-time adjudication of claims; provide for timely acknowledgment, response, and status reporting applicable to any electronic transaction deemed appropriate by the Secretary;
“The goals for Financial and Administrative Transactions call for eanbling the real-time (or near real time) determination of an individual’s financial responsibility at the point of service and, to the extent possible, prior to service, including whether the individual is eligible for a specific service with a specific physician at a specific facility, which may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan beneficiary identification card;… and enable, where feasible, near real-time adjudication of claims.”
Every individual will be required to have a National ID Health card.
Page 59:“enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice;
(The Congressional Budget Office: CBO has stated this power will be the greatest concentration of an individual’s financial records in the hands of the US Government’s computer systems.)
Page 65:Reinsurance Program for Retirees who do not fall under Social Security
Page 72:All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules and to participate in the Healthcare Insurance Exchange
Page 84:All private healthcare plans benefits must conform to the Healthcare Insurance Exchange benefits
Page 91:Mandated requirement of linguistic infrastructure for services
Page 102:Mandates automatic enrollment of individuals who are eligible for Medicaid. Individuals will have no choice in the matter.
Page 124:No healthcare insurance company can sue the government for price-fixing; No ‘judicial review’ is permitted against the government monopoly of nationalized healthcare.
Page 127:The government will determine how much physicians will be paid for treatments;
Page 145:Employers must automatically enroll employees into the government public plan.
Page 146:Employers must pay healthcare bills for part-time employees and their families.
Page 149:An employer with a payroll of $400,000 + and does not offer the public option plan must pay an 8% payroll tax on each employee
Page 150:Employers with a $250,000-$400,000 payroll who do not offer the public option must pay 2-6% payroll tax on each employee
Page 167:Individuals who do not have acceptable healthcare as determined by the Sec. of HHS will be taxed 2.5% on their income.
Page 1: “To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes.” (What does the prepositional phrase “for other purposes” mean?)
Page 17:Dictates to private insurers how and what rates may be charged as determined by the Commissioner
Page 19:No pre-existing conditions exclusions may be imposed ( A Positive)
Page 20: HIE: Health Insurance Exchange Program—network of all insurance plans including the Public Option; Participation for all insurances plans is mandated;
Page 22:Commissioner and Sec. of HHS will have the authority to determine the financial solvency and AUDIT of private insurers and all employers that self-insure.
Page 25:Commissioner and Sec. of HHS will determine QBHP (qualified benefits health plan) that comprises a plans essential benefits plan
Page 26-29:lists the general benefits a plan in the private sector market must provide;Specifies all plans will be co-pay not co-insurance;
Page 29:Limitations will be placed on the amount of benefits permitted in a fiscal year (FY). $5000 per individual/$10,000 per family;
Page 30:A national Health Benefits Advisory Committee will make recommendations for benefits and treatments in the essential, enhanced and premium plans; No appeals process is specified.
Page 37:Commissioner shall establish uniform marketing standards that all insured QBHP (benefits plans) offering entities shall meet. Commissioner will establish the grievance and claims mechanisms
Page 38:(apparently the program is going to be run through States as there is reference to the State Judicial Review process concerning grievances and claims; there is no Judical Review permitted under HR 3200 at the Federal level)
Page 39-40:Commissioner will oversee transparency of QBHPs through mandated audits
Page 40-41: Commissioner will standardize benefits and reimbursement of payments
Page 41:A QHBP offering entity is required to comply with
standards for electronic financial and administrative
transactions under section 1173A of the Social Security
6 Act, added by section 163(a).
Page 41-43:Governance will be by the Health Choices Administration headed by the Health Choices Commissioner;(new government agency in the Executive Branch)Commissioner will be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate (a political appointment);
DUTIES.—The Commissioner is responsible forcarrying out the following functions under this division:
(1) QUALIFIED PLAN STANDARDS.—The establishment of qualified health benefits plan standards under this title, including the enforcement of such standards in coordination with State insurance regulators and the Secretaries of Labor and the Treasury.
(2) HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE.—The establishment and operation of a Health Insurance Exchange under subtitle A of title II.
Commissioner will have the authority to audit QBHPs and recoup payment from QBHPs for the audit.
Plans that fail to meet the standards established by the Commissioner will be subjected to fines and suspension of of enrollment of individuals;
Commissioner is responsible for development of standards for the definitions of terms used in health insurance coverage, including insurance-related terms.
Commissioner is responsible for determining regulations and standards of efficient and effective administration in the HIE.
Page 42:Commissioner will determine all health benefits for all persons and all insurance plans.
Page 46:Commissioner will appoint QBHP Ombudsman
Page 50:Sec. 152 prohibits any discrimination in healthcare coverage;
Page 51: Whistleblower Protection
Page 57:Standardized Electronic Administrative Transactions
Page 58:“authoritative, permitting no additions or constraints for electronic transactions, including companion guides; be comprehensive, efficient and robust, requiring minimal augmentation by paper transactions or clarification by further communications; enable the real-time (or near realtime) determination of an individual’s financial responsibility at the point of service and, to the extent possible, prior to service, including whether the individual is eligible for a specific service with a specific physician at a specific facility, which may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan beneficiary identification card;”
‘‘ enable, where feasible, near real-time adjudication of claims; provide for timely acknowledgment, response, and status reporting applicable to any electronic transaction deemed appropriate by the Secretary;
“The goals for Financial and Administrative Transactions call for eanbling the real-time (or near real time) determination of an individual’s financial responsibility at the point of service and, to the extent possible, prior to service, including whether the individual is eligible for a specific service with a specific physician at a specific facility, which may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan beneficiary identification card;… and enable, where feasible, near real-time adjudication of claims.”
Every individual will be required to have a National ID Health card.
Page 59:“enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice;
(The Congressional Budget Office: CBO has stated this power will be the greatest concentration of an individual’s financial records in the hands of the US Government’s computer systems.)
Page 65:Reinsurance Program for Retirees who do not fall under Social Security
Page 72:All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules and to participate in the Healthcare Insurance Exchange
Page 84:All private healthcare plans benefits must conform to the Healthcare Insurance Exchange benefits
Page 91:Mandated requirement of linguistic infrastructure for services
Page 102:Mandates automatic enrollment of individuals who are eligible for Medicaid. Individuals will have no choice in the matter.
Page 124:No healthcare insurance company can sue the government for price-fixing; No ‘judicial review’ is permitted against the government monopoly of nationalized healthcare.
Page 127:The government will determine how much physicians will be paid for treatments;
Page 145:Employers must automatically enroll employees into the government public plan.
Page 146:Employers must pay healthcare bills for part-time employees and their families.
Page 149:An employer with a payroll of $400,000 + and does not offer the public option plan must pay an 8% payroll tax on each employee
Page 150:Employers with a $250,000-$400,000 payroll who do not offer the public option must pay 2-6% payroll tax on each employee
Page 167:Individuals who do not have acceptable healthcare as determined by the Sec. of HHS will be taxed 2.5% on their income.
Monday, August 10, 2009
HR 3200 and Reading
HR 3200 (National Healthcare Plan): 485 pages read. Only 633 to go.
The following is an overview of the first 100 pages of the House of Representatives Healthcare Bill in addition to some possible questions one needs to keep in mind.
First lesson in Economics 101 is nothing is free. Everything has a cost. By cost we mean that you have to give up something.
The US healthcare system is not perfect. It has its flaws. There needs to be some type of reforms without question.
Every year the US Government spends $2.1 TN on the following components of healthcare/entitlement programs: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIPS, Veterans benefits, State and Local healthcare programs. (GAO)
The $2.1 TN the Federal Government spends on healthcare/entitlement programs is 1/6 or 16.7% of the nation’s GDP (total dollar value of all goods and services produced within the nation in a fiscal year). (GAO)
Any and all government programs result in government agencies having the sole power to determine the rules and regulations pertaining to these healthcare/entitlement programs. [Hence, there is great ambiguity in Congressional legislation because Congress relegates the detailed rule making to Bureaucratic agencies. Examples: Food Stamps are regulated by the Agriculture Department. Tax policies, as we all know, are written by the IRS.]
Thus, healthcare/entitlement programs are one of the most highly regulated sectors of the US economy. The result of this massive regulation is a loss of personal freedom known as the right to make a choice.
1.HR 3200 will not go into effect until 2013. (HR 3200 itself)
Why the rush to ram in through Congress?
Why not get states to run trial healthcare systems to tweak the system before mandating it in all 50?
2. If the Federal Mandated Healthcare System is adopted, and should it fail, can we get rid of it?
Probably not because once Congress has created a Federal Bureaucratic agency, it tends to grow, feed on itself in a self-perpetuating manner.
Example: When FDR signed the Social Security Act into law in 1935, he stated it would only be in use for 5 years. 74 years later we still have it, and Social Security is the largest component of the healthcare/entitlement programs.
If it’s voted in, we’re stuck with it---flaws and all---forever.
3.Single Payer (Public Option) v. Private Sector Plans
Will you be able to retain your current healthcare plan? Yes, as long as the current plan is offered by your employer. Businesses may (and probably will) opt to pay the 8% fee (tax) not to offer their healthcare plans. Why? The cost of healthcare already consumes a large % of operating costs for businesses. Competing against the government in offering healthcare plans is not feasible since the government has the capacity to print more money (inflationary) and / or raise taxes (inflationary) to generate revenue to pay for the public option –government healthcare.
Private enterprises simply are unable to compete with government subsidies.
Members of Congress have their own healthcare plan, and they have stated they will not have to participate in the public option because they are very satisfied with their plans. (They also have the power to make that decision unlike average citizens.)
4. Freedom of Choice in Plans
As long as there are private healthcare plans available.
5. Doctors
Will you be able to keep your own doctors?
Maybe. Maybe not.
When you add more people to a healthcare system, but you do not increase the numbers of doctors the result is a shortage. Whenever there is a shortage of goods, the price goes up. Price is a rationing system in economics.
Hence, a shortage of doctors will result in a rationing of healthcare.
6.Costs
The cost of government healthcare has not been forthcoming from the White House nor the Congress according to the CBO.
The CBO--Congressional Budget Office (which reports directly to the Speaker of the House, currently Nancy Pelosi)-- has stated in reports that the projected plan has failed to provide the following:
“The current plan has not detailed evidence of and cost of disease management, comparative treatment effectiveness, health information technology projections, prescription drug re-importation in reducing costs quickly, appreciably, and effectively.” (CBO)
The CBO’s best estimates and disregarding inflation for the annual cost of the current House of Representatives Plan is $1 TN a year on top of the current $2.1 TN spent on the healthcare/entitlement programs in the Federal budget.
7.Privacy of Health Records
Thus far, the bill is not clear on whether the health records will be kept private. The language is vague and ambiguous. Such policies will be determined by whatever government agency Congress creates.
8.Federal Health Regulatory Board will have the power to deliver, determine, and resolve conflicts over what constitutes ‘quality care’.
HR 3200 calls for an expansion of Medicaid and SCHIPs by the Federal Health Regulatory Board.
This board, according to HR 3200, will have watchdog power over Private Sector Plans (micromanaging) --the competitor of the government healthcare plan.
The Federal Government will have control overall all healthcare---public or private.
Is this an invasion of privacy?
Is this an egregious intrusion of government power into the lives of individuals?
9.Secretary of Health and Human Services
The HHS Secretary will be authorized to establish the standards and goals for the financial and administration transactions.
The Secretary will have access to determine an individual’s responsibilities at point of service (POS), the power to determine if the individual is eligible for specific services.
The HHS Secretary will have power to “enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automatic reconciliation with the related healthcare payment and remittance.” (pages 52-59 HR 3200)
Note the ambiguity of the language. Transfers of whose funds? Automatic payment from whom to whom? How extensive is this power to access one’s financial records and funds?
Would you have wanted the Nixon Administration to have had such a power?
10. What role will states have in the government healthcare?
Although he is a proponent of a public option plan, Governor Ed Rendell on the Mike Huckabee show on Sunday, August 9 made some interesting points.
Gov. Rendell raised these questions that remain unanswered by the Congress and White House:
If this is a Federally Mandated Program, will the Feds pay the cost or will there be a split cost such as 90/10?
Will this be an unfunded mandate and the states expected to pay the cost as well as run the program?
Will there be a Claw-back as there currently is with Medicare Part D?
What happens to the funding (if the Feds provide any) in the Outyears (5 years after the program begins)?
Obviously, there are more questions than answers.
The bill is a typical Congressional piece of legislation: oblique, obtuse, and full of enough holes to drive a mack truck through it. In other words, enough room for the creation of more government RED TAPE.
11.Are there 50 million who are uninsured?
We know there are at least 250 million in the US with healthcare plans. Of the 50 million remaining, 12 million are illegals leaving us with 38 million uninsured. From that number, about 20 million fall under government healthcare/entitlement programs. Now we’re down to 18 million. Approximately 10 million young adults have chosen not to purchase healthcare, leaving us with approximately 8 million uninsured.
Is it absolutely necessary to restructure/destroy the entire private healthcare system in order to reform a system? There have to be some alternative means to achieve the goal of offering the 8 million uninsured persons healthcare coverage.
Do we not have the ability and leadership in Congress to think creatively without furthering the economic recession?
Saturday, August 08, 2009
Real Unemployment Numbers
What do the unemployment numbers mean?
When the Feds released the July unemployment numbers, some people were giddy with excitement to see a decline in the unemployment numbers.
Every citizen should be excited to see the numbers in decline from 9.5% to 9.4%. Those who were ecstatic over this decline said only approximately 247,000 persons lost their jobs in July. Wait a minute! ONLY 247,000 persons??? Is there some magic cut off point where we lose compassion for those individuals who did lose their jobs?
Totally ignoring the fact that millions of persons are now in the unemployment ranks, some chose to focus on the decline of .1%, which is somewhat miniscule in the big scheme of things. In fact, since January 20, 2009, two million Americans have lost their jobs. When BHO took office, the number of unemployed was 4 million. Now it is at 6 million--an increase of 50% since BHO became President. What about the recent entrants into the labor force who haven't found employment?
What is unemployment? Economists define unemployment as those persons who are without a job BUT ACTIVELY SEEKING ONE. That last phrase is key.
If you have been without a job, but you are disgruntled and have given up finding one, you ARE NOT INCLUDED in the unemployment ranks.
If you have been unemployed for over 15 months and your unemployment subsidy has expired, you ARE NOT INCLUDED in the unemployment ranks.
If you are a new entry into the labor force (no longer in school but first time full job hunter), you ARE NOT INCLUDED.
If your unemployment is the result of your own actions instead of the economic conditions, you are disqualified. You ARE NOT INCLUDED in the unemployment ranks.
If you do not file for benefits, you ARE NOT INCLUDED in the unemployment rate.
The jobs that generated this .1% decline were federal government jobs and not those in the private sector. In other words, more red tape has been created.
When we examine the unemployment numbers and include those whom the government excludes, the real unemployment numbers nationally are approximately 10.7%.
So, how’s hope and change working for these people?
(Information based on BLS.gov data)
When the Feds released the July unemployment numbers, some people were giddy with excitement to see a decline in the unemployment numbers.
Every citizen should be excited to see the numbers in decline from 9.5% to 9.4%. Those who were ecstatic over this decline said only approximately 247,000 persons lost their jobs in July. Wait a minute! ONLY 247,000 persons??? Is there some magic cut off point where we lose compassion for those individuals who did lose their jobs?
Totally ignoring the fact that millions of persons are now in the unemployment ranks, some chose to focus on the decline of .1%, which is somewhat miniscule in the big scheme of things. In fact, since January 20, 2009, two million Americans have lost their jobs. When BHO took office, the number of unemployed was 4 million. Now it is at 6 million--an increase of 50% since BHO became President. What about the recent entrants into the labor force who haven't found employment?
What is unemployment? Economists define unemployment as those persons who are without a job BUT ACTIVELY SEEKING ONE. That last phrase is key.
If you have been without a job, but you are disgruntled and have given up finding one, you ARE NOT INCLUDED in the unemployment ranks.
If you have been unemployed for over 15 months and your unemployment subsidy has expired, you ARE NOT INCLUDED in the unemployment ranks.
If you are a new entry into the labor force (no longer in school but first time full job hunter), you ARE NOT INCLUDED.
If your unemployment is the result of your own actions instead of the economic conditions, you are disqualified. You ARE NOT INCLUDED in the unemployment ranks.
If you do not file for benefits, you ARE NOT INCLUDED in the unemployment rate.
The jobs that generated this .1% decline were federal government jobs and not those in the private sector. In other words, more red tape has been created.
When we examine the unemployment numbers and include those whom the government excludes, the real unemployment numbers nationally are approximately 10.7%.
So, how’s hope and change working for these people?
(Information based on BLS.gov data)
Friday, August 07, 2009
Dear Senator Specter
Dear Senator Specter,
In February I emailed you with the simple question, “Why did you vote for the Stimulus Bill that will increase our national debt into the trillions for decades?” You (or someone on your staff) responded in a very terse, concise sentence.
“I voted for the Stimulus Bill as an exercise of my judgment.”
To which I replied, “Senator, if you can exercise your judgment, then I think it is fair to inform you that in 2010 I will exercise my judgment about your retention as a Senator from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.”
Apparently you and your staff must have paid attention to the focus polls because a few short months later, you officially abandoned the Republican Party and returned to the Democrat Party. (Originally, you had abandoned the Democrat Party to seek election on Reagan’s coattails.) As a Republican Senator from the Commonwealth, you voted with the Democrats 60% of the time. Now as the Junior Democrat Senator from the Commonwealth you vote to support Mr. Obama’s agenda and legislation 99.9% of the time despite your pledge on the Switch Party Day that you would not be the automatic 60th vote for Mr. Obama.
When you abandoned the Republicans, you felt so confident, so self-assured that you would be the automatic Democrat Senatorial candidate in 2010. It must have come as a shock to you and your staff to learn that the Pennsylvania Democrats have not fallen head over heels over your candidacy. Perhaps, they, too, have recognized that your only focus is your re-election.
Watching yours and Secretary Sibelius’ stunned face at the Philadelphia town meeting when Philadelphia citizens vociferously exercised their First Amendment rights to question you and express their opinions, both of you appeared taken back. How dare citizens question you!
Mr. Specter, citizens are simply exercising their constitutional rights and, yes, their judgment.
Have you and Secretary Sibelius forgotten you WORK FOR the people? The people DO NOT WORK FOR YOU!
You’re an attorney, Mr. Specter. To pass the bar, you had to answer questions about the fundamental principle of our republican democracy: The Rule of Law. Perhaps you have been inside the Beltway far too long to remember the Rule of Law.
Better yet, perhaps you have been inside the Beltway far too long to comprehend what it’s like to compete for a job. You don’t seem to grasp the fear some Americans have about the ‘dizzying debt’ with which YOU and YOUR President have saddled us and future generations. Yes, you don’t have to worry about unemployment because you have gained financially from Special Interest groups and your lifetime pension will be in the millions. By the way, this is a pension you voted for yourself. Incidentally, every year you manage vote yourself a pay raise.
You don’t have to worry about healthcare because you have voted yourself a Gold-Plate Plan of lifetime healthcare. You and your fellow members of the Apparatchik in DC look down on American citizens as not worthy of the healthcare plan the Apparatchiks have. How condescending! How arrogant!
In 1776 King George III of England sent his goons throughout the North American colonies spying, snooping, and flagging those persons who spoke out against his authoritarian policies. He ordered his troops and goons to hit back hard against those who protested his policies. Sam Adams, John Hancock, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, George Mason, Patrick Henry and many more had a bounty on their heads. They congregated bravely in the City of Philadelphia, the city of brotherly love, to courageously stand up and say “No More!”
Yes, Mr. Specter, Philadelphia, the city where you live, became the cradle of American democracy, the rule of law, the right to free speech, the right to discuss publicly various issues with their representatives in a republican democracy. The city where the liberty bell sits today inscribed with the words, “Proclaim liberty throughout the land.” Yet within the last week you demonstrated utter disdain that Philadelphians would dare to question and challenge your position and posturing in the most egregious intrusion of the federal government in the lives of American citizens since the days of King George III.
Mr. Specter, we are your employer, and in 2010 we will deliver our job evaluation. I’m voting we give you retirement from the federal government. Happy Retirement!
In February I emailed you with the simple question, “Why did you vote for the Stimulus Bill that will increase our national debt into the trillions for decades?” You (or someone on your staff) responded in a very terse, concise sentence.
“I voted for the Stimulus Bill as an exercise of my judgment.”
To which I replied, “Senator, if you can exercise your judgment, then I think it is fair to inform you that in 2010 I will exercise my judgment about your retention as a Senator from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.”
Apparently you and your staff must have paid attention to the focus polls because a few short months later, you officially abandoned the Republican Party and returned to the Democrat Party. (Originally, you had abandoned the Democrat Party to seek election on Reagan’s coattails.) As a Republican Senator from the Commonwealth, you voted with the Democrats 60% of the time. Now as the Junior Democrat Senator from the Commonwealth you vote to support Mr. Obama’s agenda and legislation 99.9% of the time despite your pledge on the Switch Party Day that you would not be the automatic 60th vote for Mr. Obama.
When you abandoned the Republicans, you felt so confident, so self-assured that you would be the automatic Democrat Senatorial candidate in 2010. It must have come as a shock to you and your staff to learn that the Pennsylvania Democrats have not fallen head over heels over your candidacy. Perhaps, they, too, have recognized that your only focus is your re-election.
Watching yours and Secretary Sibelius’ stunned face at the Philadelphia town meeting when Philadelphia citizens vociferously exercised their First Amendment rights to question you and express their opinions, both of you appeared taken back. How dare citizens question you!
Mr. Specter, citizens are simply exercising their constitutional rights and, yes, their judgment.
Have you and Secretary Sibelius forgotten you WORK FOR the people? The people DO NOT WORK FOR YOU!
You’re an attorney, Mr. Specter. To pass the bar, you had to answer questions about the fundamental principle of our republican democracy: The Rule of Law. Perhaps you have been inside the Beltway far too long to remember the Rule of Law.
Better yet, perhaps you have been inside the Beltway far too long to comprehend what it’s like to compete for a job. You don’t seem to grasp the fear some Americans have about the ‘dizzying debt’ with which YOU and YOUR President have saddled us and future generations. Yes, you don’t have to worry about unemployment because you have gained financially from Special Interest groups and your lifetime pension will be in the millions. By the way, this is a pension you voted for yourself. Incidentally, every year you manage vote yourself a pay raise.
You don’t have to worry about healthcare because you have voted yourself a Gold-Plate Plan of lifetime healthcare. You and your fellow members of the Apparatchik in DC look down on American citizens as not worthy of the healthcare plan the Apparatchiks have. How condescending! How arrogant!
In 1776 King George III of England sent his goons throughout the North American colonies spying, snooping, and flagging those persons who spoke out against his authoritarian policies. He ordered his troops and goons to hit back hard against those who protested his policies. Sam Adams, John Hancock, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, George Mason, Patrick Henry and many more had a bounty on their heads. They congregated bravely in the City of Philadelphia, the city of brotherly love, to courageously stand up and say “No More!”
Yes, Mr. Specter, Philadelphia, the city where you live, became the cradle of American democracy, the rule of law, the right to free speech, the right to discuss publicly various issues with their representatives in a republican democracy. The city where the liberty bell sits today inscribed with the words, “Proclaim liberty throughout the land.” Yet within the last week you demonstrated utter disdain that Philadelphians would dare to question and challenge your position and posturing in the most egregious intrusion of the federal government in the lives of American citizens since the days of King George III.
Mr. Specter, we are your employer, and in 2010 we will deliver our job evaluation. I’m voting we give you retirement from the federal government. Happy Retirement!
Sunday, August 02, 2009
Obamacare
Did you realize that Obamacare will have a Federal Health Board with the power to determine who gets what medical treatments, when they may get them, how often they may get them, and from whom they will get them?
Now, let's be realistic. Obamacare with a government bureaucracy making these determinations about your healthcare plans is a frightening nightmare. This is the same bunch who couldn't get Cash for Clunkers to work properly!
Obamacare is RATIONED healthcare which smacks of social engineering designed to reduce the number of senior citizens. Don't forget, when Obama was a state senator in Illinois, he voted for and advocated infanticide. Perhaps someone in the media should ask the President at what age would he recommend his mother-in-law dispense with medical treatments and simply take a pain pill as he recommended to a lady who questioned him at a town hall meeting about this very topic. Obama stated that at some age old people should simply take a pain pill.
If Obamacare is so great, why did Congressman Henry Waxman say that Congress will not be participating in the government healthcare? What do we have now, an Apparatchik System in DC? Well, we do know that his Job Czar is an avowed Communist. Think about it.
During the month of August, call your Congressman, your Senators, and give them your assessment of Obamacare!
Now, let's be realistic. Obamacare with a government bureaucracy making these determinations about your healthcare plans is a frightening nightmare. This is the same bunch who couldn't get Cash for Clunkers to work properly!
Obamacare is RATIONED healthcare which smacks of social engineering designed to reduce the number of senior citizens. Don't forget, when Obama was a state senator in Illinois, he voted for and advocated infanticide. Perhaps someone in the media should ask the President at what age would he recommend his mother-in-law dispense with medical treatments and simply take a pain pill as he recommended to a lady who questioned him at a town hall meeting about this very topic. Obama stated that at some age old people should simply take a pain pill.
If Obamacare is so great, why did Congressman Henry Waxman say that Congress will not be participating in the government healthcare? What do we have now, an Apparatchik System in DC? Well, we do know that his Job Czar is an avowed Communist. Think about it.
During the month of August, call your Congressman, your Senators, and give them your assessment of Obamacare!
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Jefferson and Lincoln on Debt and Capitalism
"In June of 1816, Samuel Kercheval wrote President Jefferson for his thoughts on a proposed revision of Virginia’s first constitution. A month later Jefferson replied, devoting a great part of his letter to a warning about the consequences of unending government debt:
'I am not among those who fear the people. They, and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom. And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts, as that we must be taxed in our meat and our drink, in our necessities and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers. Our landholders, too, like theirs, retaining indeed the title and stewardship of estates called theirs, but held really in trust for the treasury, must wander, like theirs, in foreign countries, and be contended with penury, obscurity, exile, and the glory of the nation.
This example reads to us the salutary lesson, that private fortunes are destroyed by public as well as by private extravagance….A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, and to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering. Then begins, indeed, the bellum omnium in omnia [war of all against all], which some philosophers observing to be so general in this world, have mistaken it for the natural, instead of the abusive state of man. And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.'
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights." Abraham Lincoln
>
'I am not among those who fear the people. They, and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom. And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts, as that we must be taxed in our meat and our drink, in our necessities and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers. Our landholders, too, like theirs, retaining indeed the title and stewardship of estates called theirs, but held really in trust for the treasury, must wander, like theirs, in foreign countries, and be contended with penury, obscurity, exile, and the glory of the nation.
This example reads to us the salutary lesson, that private fortunes are destroyed by public as well as by private extravagance….A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, and to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering. Then begins, indeed, the bellum omnium in omnia [war of all against all], which some philosophers observing to be so general in this world, have mistaken it for the natural, instead of the abusive state of man. And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.'
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights." Abraham Lincoln
>
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Mob Rule is Mass Hysteria
The idea of targeting buildings and people that stand for conspicuous consumption is an old one. The peasants' revolt of 1381 saw ferocious disturbances in London, and what was called "luxury" was one of its targets. Various palaces and grand houses such as the home of the Archbishop of Canterbury were sacked because they represented opulence. What could not be smashed, pulverized or burned was thrown into the river.
Our mother country, Great Britain, has a long tradition of riots and, through the centuries, mobs have often made their intended targets clear in advance. Protesters have realized that the anticipation of a riot can be as disruptive as any actual assault on property, and riots are more often remembered for their targets than for their causes. Nearly 500 years ago, on May 1, 1517, riots were directed against the property of affluent foreign merchants and craftsmen plying their trades in London. These became known as the "Evil May Day" riots.
Disturbances in Elizabethan and Jacobean England directed against the enclosure of common land frequently took place on traditional holidays. The rioters would throw down the fences erected to deny access to land on which they had once been allowed to graze their animals. The motives behind these riots were to demonstrate their contempt for the landowner (occasionally by surrounding his house or burning him in effigy).
The word "mob" was first used in 1688, the year of the Glorious Revolution, at a time of great political upheaval, and it was to become a key word in the 18th century. Writers such as Addison and Jonathan Swift complained about the inelegance of the term (short for "mobile vulgus", the excitable crowd), but it stood for a vulgar, sometimes irrepressible reality. Henry Fielding sardonically called the London mob the "fourth estate".
The age of Enlightenment saw its share of rioting and in the late 18th century, with the birth of the confident, organized and educated urban mob, riots began to show signs of the sophistication that they have today. In the 1760s and 1770s, protesters took to the streets in support of John Wilkes, who coined the dismissive term "mobocracy" to describe the revolutionary government of France. Wilkes, dubbed the first "mobocratical" politician by the press, campaigned for wider parliamentary representation, the liberty of bourgeois Englishmen, and the freedom of the press. His campaign was accompanied by displays of support on the London streets, bouts of window smashing in the City, and by random attacks on the houses of wealthy Londoners some of whom were supporters of Wilkes.
The most destructive riots of the early 19th century added another word to the English language. The Luddite disturbances in the north and the midlands, later fictionalized in Charlotte Brontë's novel, Shirley, occurred between 1811 and 1816, when rioters broke into mills and workshops to destroy the new machinery that threatened their jobs and rates of pay. In some cases, factories containing machines such as the new steam loom were destroyed.
More recently, we have become familiar with the idea that, when property is attacked, rage can give way to acquisitiveness even if the rioters have initially been infuriated by the acquisitiveness of others. Such were the images of the Watts riots of 1965. Local stores and businesses were attacked, ransacked and burned as TV viewers watched rioters looting anything in sight.
Probably one of the most famous historical images of violent protests is the storming of the Bastille in July 1789 that is taken as the beginning of the French Revolution. This was partly an achievement of later propaganda by the revolutionaries because the Bastille was far from being the vast, institutional embodiment of despotism. In fact the Bastille contained a mere seven petty criminals. The sans-culottes also marched on Versailles, the real seat of power, yet it is the symbol of the Bastille that is remembered.
In revolutions of the modern era, parliament buildings and TV stations have been the preferred targets; for successful revolutions, in this age of mass media, are also public performances. In Yugoslavia, Belgrade's parliament building served as a spectacular stage set for popular insurrection. The Berlin Wall was the perfect symbolic location for German celebrations after the downfall of the GDR. Thanks to a film-maker, Sergei Eisenstein, “the storming of the Winter Palace in St Petersburg with the masses trampling the thick carpets of the tsar became as central to the notion of the Russian Revolution as the storming of the Bastille to the French.”
Riots usually target symbols of power.
Mob rule tends to reflect an anti-authoritarian character and has not always been progressive in nature. If anything, mob rule tends to be reactionary and destructive of property if not lives.
Sometimes an entire profession has attracted the ire of the mob. “During the peasants' revolt in London, rioters vented their fury on the Temple in London, the hive of lawyers, who were hated as the agents of manorial lords, helping them control and bind their serfs. The Kentish men sacked the lawyers' inns and dwellings. A supportive eyewitness expressed support by sayin ‘It was marvelous to see how even the most aged and infirm of them scrambled off, with the agility of rats or evil spirits.’ Shakespeare was perhaps reflecting this historical reality in Henry VI part II when he had Dick the Butcher, right-hand man of the rebel Jack Cade, cry, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
Fear of the mob was keenly felt in Shakespeare's England. Dearth was a constant threat, food shortages were frequent and the populace was readily thought of as what one of his contemporaries called "the Beast with many Heads". In the opening scene of Coriolanus, Shakespeare dramatizes the fear of the mob as the patrician, Menenius, confronts a rabble of "poor citizens" who are demanding bread and threatening violence.
Among the most notorious instances of mob culture in America was the incident of the Salem witch trials. In these trials, there was a legal due process that was used to determine innocence or guilt. However, the unified beliefs of the townspeople overpowered the logic of the law. The Salem community abandoned logic. Instead of looking at the logic of the law, Salme simply followed the mob’s belief and many people were innocently targeted and put to death as a result.
The witch trial incidents serve as a very early example of how mob rule can take over and govern a society. In our contemporary society, mob rule is still a very prevalent phenomena. Remember the Duke Lacrosse team accusations? Duke administrators and professors shot from the hip in knee jerk fashion and did not follow the American legal precedent of innocent till proven guilty. Look at the harm and deprivation of personal reputation that resulted from this jumping to conclusions.
Other visible examples of mob rule on college campuses are the riots that break out on college campuses across the country. Riots are not a new phenomenon on college campuses as anyone who lived during the social revolution of the 1960s, but recent history suggests that they are a growing trend. For example, 2004 riots on the Hill at the University of Colorado demonstrate how a mob rule mentality can turn violent.
What starts as a celebration can quickly turn into a violent rebellion when police authorities show up. In the case of the riots at Colorado, a large party was shut down by the police. This scene then morphed into an angry mob intent upon defying the police. We also see this mob rule mentality when college students go on celebratory rampages. In many instances, riots seem to emerge from an extravagant celebration surrounding a school sports team winning a big game when one person or a small group becomes destructive. This initiates a domino effect that leads to mob driven violence.
What about the destruction of private and public property that results from these riots and demonstrations of mob rule? Why is there no remorse for such destruction? American history is replete with numerous instances of mob rule that have led to violence for many different reasons. Regardless of the setting or situation, mass hysteria determined the outcome, rather than logic. Accepted norms encourage people to abandon reasonable and responsible decision making. Instead, the illogic group mind often leads to chaos and unnecessary destruction.
Our mother country, Great Britain, has a long tradition of riots and, through the centuries, mobs have often made their intended targets clear in advance. Protesters have realized that the anticipation of a riot can be as disruptive as any actual assault on property, and riots are more often remembered for their targets than for their causes. Nearly 500 years ago, on May 1, 1517, riots were directed against the property of affluent foreign merchants and craftsmen plying their trades in London. These became known as the "Evil May Day" riots.
Disturbances in Elizabethan and Jacobean England directed against the enclosure of common land frequently took place on traditional holidays. The rioters would throw down the fences erected to deny access to land on which they had once been allowed to graze their animals. The motives behind these riots were to demonstrate their contempt for the landowner (occasionally by surrounding his house or burning him in effigy).
The word "mob" was first used in 1688, the year of the Glorious Revolution, at a time of great political upheaval, and it was to become a key word in the 18th century. Writers such as Addison and Jonathan Swift complained about the inelegance of the term (short for "mobile vulgus", the excitable crowd), but it stood for a vulgar, sometimes irrepressible reality. Henry Fielding sardonically called the London mob the "fourth estate".
The age of Enlightenment saw its share of rioting and in the late 18th century, with the birth of the confident, organized and educated urban mob, riots began to show signs of the sophistication that they have today. In the 1760s and 1770s, protesters took to the streets in support of John Wilkes, who coined the dismissive term "mobocracy" to describe the revolutionary government of France. Wilkes, dubbed the first "mobocratical" politician by the press, campaigned for wider parliamentary representation, the liberty of bourgeois Englishmen, and the freedom of the press. His campaign was accompanied by displays of support on the London streets, bouts of window smashing in the City, and by random attacks on the houses of wealthy Londoners some of whom were supporters of Wilkes.
The most destructive riots of the early 19th century added another word to the English language. The Luddite disturbances in the north and the midlands, later fictionalized in Charlotte Brontë's novel, Shirley, occurred between 1811 and 1816, when rioters broke into mills and workshops to destroy the new machinery that threatened their jobs and rates of pay. In some cases, factories containing machines such as the new steam loom were destroyed.
More recently, we have become familiar with the idea that, when property is attacked, rage can give way to acquisitiveness even if the rioters have initially been infuriated by the acquisitiveness of others. Such were the images of the Watts riots of 1965. Local stores and businesses were attacked, ransacked and burned as TV viewers watched rioters looting anything in sight.
Probably one of the most famous historical images of violent protests is the storming of the Bastille in July 1789 that is taken as the beginning of the French Revolution. This was partly an achievement of later propaganda by the revolutionaries because the Bastille was far from being the vast, institutional embodiment of despotism. In fact the Bastille contained a mere seven petty criminals. The sans-culottes also marched on Versailles, the real seat of power, yet it is the symbol of the Bastille that is remembered.
In revolutions of the modern era, parliament buildings and TV stations have been the preferred targets; for successful revolutions, in this age of mass media, are also public performances. In Yugoslavia, Belgrade's parliament building served as a spectacular stage set for popular insurrection. The Berlin Wall was the perfect symbolic location for German celebrations after the downfall of the GDR. Thanks to a film-maker, Sergei Eisenstein, “the storming of the Winter Palace in St Petersburg with the masses trampling the thick carpets of the tsar became as central to the notion of the Russian Revolution as the storming of the Bastille to the French.”
Riots usually target symbols of power.
Mob rule tends to reflect an anti-authoritarian character and has not always been progressive in nature. If anything, mob rule tends to be reactionary and destructive of property if not lives.
Sometimes an entire profession has attracted the ire of the mob. “During the peasants' revolt in London, rioters vented their fury on the Temple in London, the hive of lawyers, who were hated as the agents of manorial lords, helping them control and bind their serfs. The Kentish men sacked the lawyers' inns and dwellings. A supportive eyewitness expressed support by sayin ‘It was marvelous to see how even the most aged and infirm of them scrambled off, with the agility of rats or evil spirits.’ Shakespeare was perhaps reflecting this historical reality in Henry VI part II when he had Dick the Butcher, right-hand man of the rebel Jack Cade, cry, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
Fear of the mob was keenly felt in Shakespeare's England. Dearth was a constant threat, food shortages were frequent and the populace was readily thought of as what one of his contemporaries called "the Beast with many Heads". In the opening scene of Coriolanus, Shakespeare dramatizes the fear of the mob as the patrician, Menenius, confronts a rabble of "poor citizens" who are demanding bread and threatening violence.
Among the most notorious instances of mob culture in America was the incident of the Salem witch trials. In these trials, there was a legal due process that was used to determine innocence or guilt. However, the unified beliefs of the townspeople overpowered the logic of the law. The Salem community abandoned logic. Instead of looking at the logic of the law, Salme simply followed the mob’s belief and many people were innocently targeted and put to death as a result.
The witch trial incidents serve as a very early example of how mob rule can take over and govern a society. In our contemporary society, mob rule is still a very prevalent phenomena. Remember the Duke Lacrosse team accusations? Duke administrators and professors shot from the hip in knee jerk fashion and did not follow the American legal precedent of innocent till proven guilty. Look at the harm and deprivation of personal reputation that resulted from this jumping to conclusions.
Other visible examples of mob rule on college campuses are the riots that break out on college campuses across the country. Riots are not a new phenomenon on college campuses as anyone who lived during the social revolution of the 1960s, but recent history suggests that they are a growing trend. For example, 2004 riots on the Hill at the University of Colorado demonstrate how a mob rule mentality can turn violent.
What starts as a celebration can quickly turn into a violent rebellion when police authorities show up. In the case of the riots at Colorado, a large party was shut down by the police. This scene then morphed into an angry mob intent upon defying the police. We also see this mob rule mentality when college students go on celebratory rampages. In many instances, riots seem to emerge from an extravagant celebration surrounding a school sports team winning a big game when one person or a small group becomes destructive. This initiates a domino effect that leads to mob driven violence.
What about the destruction of private and public property that results from these riots and demonstrations of mob rule? Why is there no remorse for such destruction? American history is replete with numerous instances of mob rule that have led to violence for many different reasons. Regardless of the setting or situation, mass hysteria determined the outcome, rather than logic. Accepted norms encourage people to abandon reasonable and responsible decision making. Instead, the illogic group mind often leads to chaos and unnecessary destruction.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Congress and the Executive Branch: Knee Deep in Retention Bonuses
For over a week the nation has been in an uproar over the retention bonuses being handed out by AIG. Granted, these may seem extravagant during an economic crisis and the question of their morality is a legitimate discussion topic. The tragedy, however, is the complicity of Congress in AIG paying out the bonuses and in the cover-up of their own guilt.
The Stimulus (aka Stealth) Bill passed by Congress and signed into law by Mr. Obama included a clause known as the Dodd Amendment which exempted AIG from any penalty or restrictions on bonuses. Translated: CONGRESS AUTHORIZED AIG TO PAY BONUSES TO THEIR EXECUTIVES.
The Stimulus (aka Stealth) Bill was written by none other than Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, and Chief of Staff to Mr. Obama, Rahm (Rambo) Emannuel. The 1100 + page bill was given to members of Congress 10 minutes before they voted. There are probably some speed readers in Congress but more than likely none of the 535 members had the appropriate amount of time to read, study, analyze, and question what was in this piece of legislation.
At first, Senator Chris Dodd denied he had written the Dodd Amendment. The next day he admitted he wrote it, but immediately Dodd claimed he did not know how it got attached to the legislation. Then, two days later Dodd admitted he had submitted it but the Executive branch "made" him do it! What is Dodd, some kind of puppet? What does he take the American people for, some kind of Kool Aid drinking idiots who cannot think?
When Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner ( who has an MBA but can't figure out how to use Turbo Tax and that was why he didn't pay his taxes) was asked about the AIG bonuses, he said he was unaware of them and outraged. Now we've learned Timothy Geithner as the director of the New York Fed last fall, knew about AIG's bonus plan and that as the Secretary of Treasury had full knowledge of the Dodd Amendment. The White House also knew about the Dodd Amendment and encouraged the Dodd Amendment be kept in the stealth legislation known as the Stimulus Bill.
In a knee jerk reaction and an attempt to take the heat off of themselves, Nancy Pelosi, beloved Speaker of the House, pushed through a bill to tax individuals who received AIG retention bonuses to the tune of a 90% tax on these bonuses.
Think about the significance of this action. The US Congress in the Stimulus Bill endorsed by 100% of the Democrat members of Congress and the three renegade Republicans GAVE and ENDORSED an exemption for AIG to pay out these Retention Bonuses. What will prevent Congress from targeting individuals or groups of people they choose to levy taxes in an attempt to silence?
Now, in an attempt to appear shocked and outraged over this incident, we have a Congress that is promoting Mob Rule by promulgating class hatred and envy towards persons who chose to enter the financial profession. Not only is Congress engaged in promoting class envy and hatred, but apparently the President has chosen to debunk persons who have chosen careers as investment bankers. On Friday, March 20, when introducing his new education policy urged persons to consider careers other than investment banking.
Why not include careers as Congressional and presidential politicians in this class envy and hatred hit list?
The Stimulus (aka Stealth) Bill passed by Congress and signed into law by Mr. Obama included a clause known as the Dodd Amendment which exempted AIG from any penalty or restrictions on bonuses. Translated: CONGRESS AUTHORIZED AIG TO PAY BONUSES TO THEIR EXECUTIVES.
The Stimulus (aka Stealth) Bill was written by none other than Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, and Chief of Staff to Mr. Obama, Rahm (Rambo) Emannuel. The 1100 + page bill was given to members of Congress 10 minutes before they voted. There are probably some speed readers in Congress but more than likely none of the 535 members had the appropriate amount of time to read, study, analyze, and question what was in this piece of legislation.
At first, Senator Chris Dodd denied he had written the Dodd Amendment. The next day he admitted he wrote it, but immediately Dodd claimed he did not know how it got attached to the legislation. Then, two days later Dodd admitted he had submitted it but the Executive branch "made" him do it! What is Dodd, some kind of puppet? What does he take the American people for, some kind of Kool Aid drinking idiots who cannot think?
When Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner ( who has an MBA but can't figure out how to use Turbo Tax and that was why he didn't pay his taxes) was asked about the AIG bonuses, he said he was unaware of them and outraged. Now we've learned Timothy Geithner as the director of the New York Fed last fall, knew about AIG's bonus plan and that as the Secretary of Treasury had full knowledge of the Dodd Amendment. The White House also knew about the Dodd Amendment and encouraged the Dodd Amendment be kept in the stealth legislation known as the Stimulus Bill.
In a knee jerk reaction and an attempt to take the heat off of themselves, Nancy Pelosi, beloved Speaker of the House, pushed through a bill to tax individuals who received AIG retention bonuses to the tune of a 90% tax on these bonuses.
Think about the significance of this action. The US Congress in the Stimulus Bill endorsed by 100% of the Democrat members of Congress and the three renegade Republicans GAVE and ENDORSED an exemption for AIG to pay out these Retention Bonuses. What will prevent Congress from targeting individuals or groups of people they choose to levy taxes in an attempt to silence?
Now, in an attempt to appear shocked and outraged over this incident, we have a Congress that is promoting Mob Rule by promulgating class hatred and envy towards persons who chose to enter the financial profession. Not only is Congress engaged in promoting class envy and hatred, but apparently the President has chosen to debunk persons who have chosen careers as investment bankers. On Friday, March 20, when introducing his new education policy urged persons to consider careers other than investment banking.
Why not include careers as Congressional and presidential politicians in this class envy and hatred hit list?
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Why Are Liberals Afraid of a Walk Through History?
After reading some haughty and negative comments concerning the blog, “Why Should We Fear Government Intervention”, it is obvious that liberals, especially bleeding heart liberals, made assumptions that the article was directed at the current administration.
Perhaps they should re-read the blog. There was no mention or reference to the current administration in Washington, DC., but they reacted as if it were a direct slap in the face.
The blog criticizing government intervention and socialism could very well have been written by someone at the New York Times, which recently raised the issue directly with the President by asking him if his policies were socialist.
Was a raw nerve touched by historical facts? If so, perhaps the lessons of history should be examined again and again so these mistakes are not repeated. Perhaps the blog was too close to reality and that forced them to jump to conclusions.
What their responses indicated was their emotions are on the surface, they are sensitive to defending the current administration, and perhaps the most glaring indication is that they didn’t bother to check the author’s profile on the blog. The author is not someone mysterious to either of them. The author taught one of them and wrote a letter of recommendation for her. The blogger worked with the other person as well as taught two of his children while also providing letters of recommendations for two of his children. Yes, it pays to do your homework and research as opposed to jumping to conclusions.
How sad is it when views are condemned and distorted by liberals who are intolerant of other peoples’ opinions. “Why We Should Fear Government Intervention” is historically accurate, and what a shame that liberals dislike historical accuracy because it does not fit with their ideological point of view.
Perhaps they should re-read the blog. There was no mention or reference to the current administration in Washington, DC., but they reacted as if it were a direct slap in the face.
The blog criticizing government intervention and socialism could very well have been written by someone at the New York Times, which recently raised the issue directly with the President by asking him if his policies were socialist.
Was a raw nerve touched by historical facts? If so, perhaps the lessons of history should be examined again and again so these mistakes are not repeated. Perhaps the blog was too close to reality and that forced them to jump to conclusions.
What their responses indicated was their emotions are on the surface, they are sensitive to defending the current administration, and perhaps the most glaring indication is that they didn’t bother to check the author’s profile on the blog. The author is not someone mysterious to either of them. The author taught one of them and wrote a letter of recommendation for her. The blogger worked with the other person as well as taught two of his children while also providing letters of recommendations for two of his children. Yes, it pays to do your homework and research as opposed to jumping to conclusions.
How sad is it when views are condemned and distorted by liberals who are intolerant of other peoples’ opinions. “Why We Should Fear Government Intervention” is historically accurate, and what a shame that liberals dislike historical accuracy because it does not fit with their ideological point of view.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Why Intervention Matters
Why should we fear government intervention?
Perhaps the most pertinent example that demonstrates how rapidly instituted government intervention can lead to full-scale socialism is the record of National Socialist Germany.
January 30, 1933 Adolf Hitler was appointed to the position of German Chancellor. Hitler’s meteoric rise to power can be contributed to multiple factors. Although an inexperienced politician, Hitler’s charismatic rhetorical skills catapulted him into the public limelight.
A member of the National Socialist Party, Hitler endorsed and promoted the party’s radical reforms of collectivism, elimination of individualism, and state ownership of the means of production in the fields of banking, manufacturing, healthcare, and education. To achieve these goals, the National Socialist Party sought accretion of industry using their interventionist measures in the name of protectionism. The National Socialist Party opposed free trade and sought to reach a state of autarky (self-sufficiency). The last objective on the National Socialist Party’s list was job creation and that objective was not addressed for the first 18 months Hitler was in power.
Under the National Socialist Party and Hitler, Germany was on the road to Hindenburg or German Socialism, which had all the appearances of private ownership of the means of production and the appearances of the market functioning effectively. However, there was no longer entrepreneurship but shop keepers and managers who obeyed government orders unconditionally in the matters of production management. The centralized government instructed these managers on what and how to produce goods and services, what to pay their employees, who they could hire, what was to be automatically deducted from pay checks, and what hours the employees were to work.
Immediately upon taking office, Hitler established control over all unions by abolishing all unions but one: the Labour Front (DAF) which reported directly to Hitler’s office. There was no vote on whether there would be a union or not.
Hitler’s political campaigns were funded by Benito Mussolini and Henry A. Ford leaving Hitler free to concentrate on his rhetoric and not the financing of campaigning. Although he campaigned about the economic woes of Germany, Hitler quickly dropped economic issues once in office. Instead, Hitler’s attacks and rhetoric turned into a War on Prosperity blaming the Jews for the bad economy. Why the Jews? These were the people who had prospered, who had used their business acumen to succeed. The reality was Hitler neither understood nor did he have any interest in economics. (Bullock, A., 1962, p. 152) Thus, Hitler began the culture of class envy and hatred.
First, Hitler began confiscating property and wealth from his War on Prosperity targets, and he practiced the Marxist philosophy of Redistributing the Wealth by giving the confiscated property to those who were less prosperous. Second, Hitler established the SS who instituted social welfare policies including nationalized healthcare. The National Socialist Party decided whose lives were worthy or unworthy of living, and it was the scientists who made these decisions for the government. Third, professional women were stripped of their jobs, and women were paid to stay at home. Fourth, all wages were decided by the government. Fifth, young people were more or less forced to join the Voluntary Labour Service and the Voluntary Youth Service.
Under Hitler’s National Socialist Party, one intervention by the government led to another intervention. It was a “slither down” economy as all businesses were eventually under government control. “Businesses who were reluctant to follow the New Order had to be forced into line.”
Should we be concerned with government intervention?
Perhaps the most pertinent example that demonstrates how rapidly instituted government intervention can lead to full-scale socialism is the record of National Socialist Germany.
January 30, 1933 Adolf Hitler was appointed to the position of German Chancellor. Hitler’s meteoric rise to power can be contributed to multiple factors. Although an inexperienced politician, Hitler’s charismatic rhetorical skills catapulted him into the public limelight.
A member of the National Socialist Party, Hitler endorsed and promoted the party’s radical reforms of collectivism, elimination of individualism, and state ownership of the means of production in the fields of banking, manufacturing, healthcare, and education. To achieve these goals, the National Socialist Party sought accretion of industry using their interventionist measures in the name of protectionism. The National Socialist Party opposed free trade and sought to reach a state of autarky (self-sufficiency). The last objective on the National Socialist Party’s list was job creation and that objective was not addressed for the first 18 months Hitler was in power.
Under the National Socialist Party and Hitler, Germany was on the road to Hindenburg or German Socialism, which had all the appearances of private ownership of the means of production and the appearances of the market functioning effectively. However, there was no longer entrepreneurship but shop keepers and managers who obeyed government orders unconditionally in the matters of production management. The centralized government instructed these managers on what and how to produce goods and services, what to pay their employees, who they could hire, what was to be automatically deducted from pay checks, and what hours the employees were to work.
Immediately upon taking office, Hitler established control over all unions by abolishing all unions but one: the Labour Front (DAF) which reported directly to Hitler’s office. There was no vote on whether there would be a union or not.
Hitler’s political campaigns were funded by Benito Mussolini and Henry A. Ford leaving Hitler free to concentrate on his rhetoric and not the financing of campaigning. Although he campaigned about the economic woes of Germany, Hitler quickly dropped economic issues once in office. Instead, Hitler’s attacks and rhetoric turned into a War on Prosperity blaming the Jews for the bad economy. Why the Jews? These were the people who had prospered, who had used their business acumen to succeed. The reality was Hitler neither understood nor did he have any interest in economics. (Bullock, A., 1962, p. 152) Thus, Hitler began the culture of class envy and hatred.
First, Hitler began confiscating property and wealth from his War on Prosperity targets, and he practiced the Marxist philosophy of Redistributing the Wealth by giving the confiscated property to those who were less prosperous. Second, Hitler established the SS who instituted social welfare policies including nationalized healthcare. The National Socialist Party decided whose lives were worthy or unworthy of living, and it was the scientists who made these decisions for the government. Third, professional women were stripped of their jobs, and women were paid to stay at home. Fourth, all wages were decided by the government. Fifth, young people were more or less forced to join the Voluntary Labour Service and the Voluntary Youth Service.
Under Hitler’s National Socialist Party, one intervention by the government led to another intervention. It was a “slither down” economy as all businesses were eventually under government control. “Businesses who were reluctant to follow the New Order had to be forced into line.”
Should we be concerned with government intervention?
Monday, March 09, 2009
FOCUS, FOCUS, FOCUS
Focus groups and breakout sessions remind me of teacher in-service meetings. Did the Administration ever really listen to and follow the suggestions of the teachers in the trenches or were these merely attempts to placate the natives?
Perhaps Mr. Obama should spend less time acting as a Community Organizer leading Focus Groups and as the candidate who is still campaigning. Perhaps he should follow his supporter Warren Buffett's suggestion:"FOCUS his time and efforts in the Oval Office on the three main problems in our society. In the words of Warren Buffett, the three main problems are the economy, the economy, and the economy."
Yes, our financial system is in disarray, and it is not the result of the last eight years although they compounded the already growing problem. Go back to the Jimmy Carter administration when he pushed for and then signed into law the Community Reinvestment Act giving local community organizers the power to force local banks to create more affordable housing through low cost loans and mortgages with minimum downpayments. During the William Jefferson Clinton years, the Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) pressured Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to shift their loan and mortgage policies to no downpayment for homes and no proof of income. Then someone of genius (or sheer stupidity) came up with the incredible idea that these housing loans and mortgages should be broken into parts and bundled for sell to different mortgage lenders who in turn sold them to brokerage firms such as Merrill Lynch who in turn sold them on the market. We now know these bundled mortgages as TOXIC ASSETS.
Wait, there's more.
In 1999, yes, under a Republican controlled Congress some Republican members of Congress worked with Mr. Clinton's Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin to push through Congress a piece of legislation calling for the Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act passed in 1933, which prohibited commercial banks from collaborating with full-service brokerage firms or participating in investment banking activities. In other words, banks were to be banks and not investment companies. With the repeal of this legislation, banks were free to become investment companies.
Wait, there's still more.
During the Clinton years, there was plenty of activity at the White House. Advisers such as Robert Rubin (now a terminated Citibank official), Rahm (Rambo) Emanuel (current White House Chief of Staff who coined the expression on December 7, 2008 "Never waste a crisis.") and HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo (now Attorney General of the State of New York) orchestrated a plan to expand affordable housing in order to increase political appeal to minority groups. The plan was to promote the expansion of low cost housing mortgages by requiring Freddie and Fannie to increase the percentage of loans every year. If Freddie and Fannie met the new quotas, the directors of Freddie and Fannie would receive hefty bonuses.
During the Bush II administration, attempts to bring investigations into Freddie and Fannie’s policies and actions were met with stiff resistance by a few Republicans but largely stonewalled by Chris Dodd in the Senate and Barney Frank in the House. When the Democrats gained control of the Congress in 2004, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank lavished praise on the role of Freddie and Fannie in the expansion of affordable housing. Meanwhile, the Housing Crisis was bubbling over but ignored by Congress and its oversight constitutional obligation.
In 1993 ACORN, the Chicago based community organizer group, filed a lawsuit against Citibank because they did not participate in these low cost mortgage loans. ACORN wanted Citibank to drop the requirement that individuals would have to provide proof of income in order to get a mortgage. The attorney representing ACORN in this lawsuit was Barack H. Obama.
Not done yet.
We would not be forthright if we failed to raise questions about unethical behavior in the market over the last 25-30 years. Have individual stock brokers pocketed money entrusted to them by investors? Yes. Have brokerage firms and other businesses paid their executives exorbitant salaries and lavished them with astronomical bonuses? Yes. Have government regulators failed to properly examine and track the activities of employees in banking and brokerage firms? Yes. Should those who abused the trust of the investors be investigated, prosecuted, and punished? ABSOLUTELY.
Mr. Obama’s election on November 4, 2008 was indeed an historic election. The media and his adoring public were thrilled when Mr. Obama made daily appearances issuing White House like press conferences and issuing policy statements about the dire economy. In fact, the media and Obama staffers referred to Mr. Obama as Co-President. The President-elect repeatedly stated that the economy was his major focus. In fact, on more than one occasion, Mr. Obama stated that fixing the economy would be his number one goal on DAY ONE, and he would hit the ground running by immediately dealing with the Housing and Financial Crisis on his first day in the White House. To date, Mr. Obama has not stepped up with a plan to deal with the Housing and Financial Crisis, and the market keeps waiting.
For over four months, Mr. Obama- with the blessings of the media and his adoring public- has been acting as President. The contention that Mr. Obama should not be criticized because he has only been in office a month is intellectually disingenuous.
Mr. Obama, instead of dealing with the Housing and Financial Crisis, you have offered many social welfare plans, environmental policies, healthcare reforms,and yes, tax increases you want enacted. If the economy continues to slide into an abyss while you focus on other issues, there will no longer be a tax base to support these massive spending plans. Printing more and more money will be as inflationary as Germany’s Weimar Republic faced.
Wall Street IS main street. Two-thirds of America’s Middle Class has some form of their hard earned money invested in pension funds, mutual funds, 401ks, 403bs, 529s, and / or IRAs. What happens on Wall Street every day does matter, and it casts a vote every day at 4 PM on how it perceives the direction this nation is headed. Every day you delay in addressing the economic crisis, hard working Americans are losing their hard earned wealth.
You seem to view the Middle Class as your enemy because they have invested money and accumulated wealth. Wealth is not bad, Mr. Obama. Wealth is the accumulation of one’s assets such as savings accounts, inheritance, property, profit from your earnings, retirement funds, education funds, and investments for starting a business. Wealth is the profit people worked for without depending on a government handout. Wealth includes the funds people use to donate to their favorite charities and causes because they choose to donate, not because it is legislated as you have proposed in the current budget. When the wealth of the Middle Class is depleted, who will donate to charities? Who will donate to their churches? Who will donate to non-profit organizations that depend on donations?
Our nation was founded by a group of people who wanted a nation where citizens were rewarded for their hard work, for their efforts to succeed, and with the opportunity to create businesses and jobs. If the market continues to be ignored by your administration, our nation will be imperiled.
Our nation is about justice and helping the downtrodden, but right now it appears your administration is willing to sit back and hurt those who have worked hard to achieve some degree of prosperity. You seem to be at War with Prosperity.
Middle Class Americans are the workers who make this nation’s economy one of the best in the entire world. Middle Class Americans are the small business owners who create jobs. Middle Class Americans are finding their backs against the wall. You need Middle Class Americans, and the nation needs Middle Class Americans working and creating jobs. "America needs everyone with a stake in the economy fighting on the same team and not against each other."
The beauty of this democratic republic is that when the election is over, the President represents all the Americans, even those who did not support them. We want to support a President who has the interest of all Americans in mind. Mr. Obama, you chose to run for this office, and you won. You cannot govern effectively if you continue to conduct yourself as if the election campaign is still going on.
Another outstanding feature of a democratic republic, Mr. Obama, is that there is always loyal opposition who not only has the right but the obligation to question, challenge, and offer alternate suggestions to proposals they view is not in the best interest of the nation so that a consensus can be reached. Maligning and impugning the loyal opposition is politics as usual which you campaigned against.
Mr. Obama, read the book, The Art of War. There’s some pragmatic advice offered by the author. “Make sure your enemy has an exit because they fight like lions when their backs are against the wall.”
Middle Class Americans are starting to feel their backs are against the wall.
Perhaps Mr. Obama should spend less time acting as a Community Organizer leading Focus Groups and as the candidate who is still campaigning. Perhaps he should follow his supporter Warren Buffett's suggestion:"FOCUS his time and efforts in the Oval Office on the three main problems in our society. In the words of Warren Buffett, the three main problems are the economy, the economy, and the economy."
Yes, our financial system is in disarray, and it is not the result of the last eight years although they compounded the already growing problem. Go back to the Jimmy Carter administration when he pushed for and then signed into law the Community Reinvestment Act giving local community organizers the power to force local banks to create more affordable housing through low cost loans and mortgages with minimum downpayments. During the William Jefferson Clinton years, the Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) pressured Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to shift their loan and mortgage policies to no downpayment for homes and no proof of income. Then someone of genius (or sheer stupidity) came up with the incredible idea that these housing loans and mortgages should be broken into parts and bundled for sell to different mortgage lenders who in turn sold them to brokerage firms such as Merrill Lynch who in turn sold them on the market. We now know these bundled mortgages as TOXIC ASSETS.
Wait, there's more.
In 1999, yes, under a Republican controlled Congress some Republican members of Congress worked with Mr. Clinton's Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin to push through Congress a piece of legislation calling for the Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act passed in 1933, which prohibited commercial banks from collaborating with full-service brokerage firms or participating in investment banking activities. In other words, banks were to be banks and not investment companies. With the repeal of this legislation, banks were free to become investment companies.
Wait, there's still more.
During the Clinton years, there was plenty of activity at the White House. Advisers such as Robert Rubin (now a terminated Citibank official), Rahm (Rambo) Emanuel (current White House Chief of Staff who coined the expression on December 7, 2008 "Never waste a crisis.") and HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo (now Attorney General of the State of New York) orchestrated a plan to expand affordable housing in order to increase political appeal to minority groups. The plan was to promote the expansion of low cost housing mortgages by requiring Freddie and Fannie to increase the percentage of loans every year. If Freddie and Fannie met the new quotas, the directors of Freddie and Fannie would receive hefty bonuses.
During the Bush II administration, attempts to bring investigations into Freddie and Fannie’s policies and actions were met with stiff resistance by a few Republicans but largely stonewalled by Chris Dodd in the Senate and Barney Frank in the House. When the Democrats gained control of the Congress in 2004, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank lavished praise on the role of Freddie and Fannie in the expansion of affordable housing. Meanwhile, the Housing Crisis was bubbling over but ignored by Congress and its oversight constitutional obligation.
In 1993 ACORN, the Chicago based community organizer group, filed a lawsuit against Citibank because they did not participate in these low cost mortgage loans. ACORN wanted Citibank to drop the requirement that individuals would have to provide proof of income in order to get a mortgage. The attorney representing ACORN in this lawsuit was Barack H. Obama.
Not done yet.
We would not be forthright if we failed to raise questions about unethical behavior in the market over the last 25-30 years. Have individual stock brokers pocketed money entrusted to them by investors? Yes. Have brokerage firms and other businesses paid their executives exorbitant salaries and lavished them with astronomical bonuses? Yes. Have government regulators failed to properly examine and track the activities of employees in banking and brokerage firms? Yes. Should those who abused the trust of the investors be investigated, prosecuted, and punished? ABSOLUTELY.
Mr. Obama’s election on November 4, 2008 was indeed an historic election. The media and his adoring public were thrilled when Mr. Obama made daily appearances issuing White House like press conferences and issuing policy statements about the dire economy. In fact, the media and Obama staffers referred to Mr. Obama as Co-President. The President-elect repeatedly stated that the economy was his major focus. In fact, on more than one occasion, Mr. Obama stated that fixing the economy would be his number one goal on DAY ONE, and he would hit the ground running by immediately dealing with the Housing and Financial Crisis on his first day in the White House. To date, Mr. Obama has not stepped up with a plan to deal with the Housing and Financial Crisis, and the market keeps waiting.
For over four months, Mr. Obama- with the blessings of the media and his adoring public- has been acting as President. The contention that Mr. Obama should not be criticized because he has only been in office a month is intellectually disingenuous.
Mr. Obama, instead of dealing with the Housing and Financial Crisis, you have offered many social welfare plans, environmental policies, healthcare reforms,and yes, tax increases you want enacted. If the economy continues to slide into an abyss while you focus on other issues, there will no longer be a tax base to support these massive spending plans. Printing more and more money will be as inflationary as Germany’s Weimar Republic faced.
Wall Street IS main street. Two-thirds of America’s Middle Class has some form of their hard earned money invested in pension funds, mutual funds, 401ks, 403bs, 529s, and / or IRAs. What happens on Wall Street every day does matter, and it casts a vote every day at 4 PM on how it perceives the direction this nation is headed. Every day you delay in addressing the economic crisis, hard working Americans are losing their hard earned wealth.
You seem to view the Middle Class as your enemy because they have invested money and accumulated wealth. Wealth is not bad, Mr. Obama. Wealth is the accumulation of one’s assets such as savings accounts, inheritance, property, profit from your earnings, retirement funds, education funds, and investments for starting a business. Wealth is the profit people worked for without depending on a government handout. Wealth includes the funds people use to donate to their favorite charities and causes because they choose to donate, not because it is legislated as you have proposed in the current budget. When the wealth of the Middle Class is depleted, who will donate to charities? Who will donate to their churches? Who will donate to non-profit organizations that depend on donations?
Our nation was founded by a group of people who wanted a nation where citizens were rewarded for their hard work, for their efforts to succeed, and with the opportunity to create businesses and jobs. If the market continues to be ignored by your administration, our nation will be imperiled.
Our nation is about justice and helping the downtrodden, but right now it appears your administration is willing to sit back and hurt those who have worked hard to achieve some degree of prosperity. You seem to be at War with Prosperity.
Middle Class Americans are the workers who make this nation’s economy one of the best in the entire world. Middle Class Americans are the small business owners who create jobs. Middle Class Americans are finding their backs against the wall. You need Middle Class Americans, and the nation needs Middle Class Americans working and creating jobs. "America needs everyone with a stake in the economy fighting on the same team and not against each other."
The beauty of this democratic republic is that when the election is over, the President represents all the Americans, even those who did not support them. We want to support a President who has the interest of all Americans in mind. Mr. Obama, you chose to run for this office, and you won. You cannot govern effectively if you continue to conduct yourself as if the election campaign is still going on.
Another outstanding feature of a democratic republic, Mr. Obama, is that there is always loyal opposition who not only has the right but the obligation to question, challenge, and offer alternate suggestions to proposals they view is not in the best interest of the nation so that a consensus can be reached. Maligning and impugning the loyal opposition is politics as usual which you campaigned against.
Mr. Obama, read the book, The Art of War. There’s some pragmatic advice offered by the author. “Make sure your enemy has an exit because they fight like lions when their backs are against the wall.”
Middle Class Americans are starting to feel their backs are against the wall.
Monday, March 02, 2009
War on Prosperity
What is the longest war in which the US was engaged?
If you replied the War on Poverty, you answered correctly.
Now it seems we are engaged in a new war: the War on Prosperity. It will last until the American people wake up, take off their rose-colored glasses, and contact their Congressional representatives and tell them: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
The current administration, after examining the proposed budget, is seeking every possible avenue to attack American citizens where it hurts the most: their pocket book.
No, we're not talking about wealthy Americans. We're talking about average Americans who invested their savings and retirement plans in the stock market. Since Mr. Obama's election the market has dropped over 3200 points, and that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the economic attack on average Americans.
Barack Hussein Obama’s National Socialist policies are pure and simple anti-capitalist, anti-free enterprise, anti-democracy, and anti-American.
Despite his avowed claim that taxes are not being raised on 95% of Americans, B.O’s Stimulus (aka Stealth Bill) and his proposed budget refute this claim. Worded deceptively in his Cap and Trade Tax are proposals for a $65 BILLION tax this year on the following forms of energy: electricity, gasoline, natural gas, and heating oil. By 2020, this Cap and Trade Tax will amount to $645 BILLION, meaning our taxes on these will be gargantuan.
Mr. Obama, do not all Americans purchase at least one or two of these forms of energy? Will not the price of these forms of energy include the Cap and Trade Tax you are going to impose?
That’s right. You’re playing the “I gotcha game”. Yes, directly Americans will not pay these taxes. INDIRECTLY, ALL AMERICANS will pay these Cap and Trade Taxes.
Mr. Obama, this is pure deception and an attempt not to level the playing field but to lower the playing field so all Americans will feel beholden to the Federal (National) government.
The National Socialist Party under Hitler followed these same steps in becoming a National Socialist nation. History knows it as NAZI Germany, a government controlled dictatorship where individuals lost their economic freedom and their ability to oppose the government.
If you replied the War on Poverty, you answered correctly.
Now it seems we are engaged in a new war: the War on Prosperity. It will last until the American people wake up, take off their rose-colored glasses, and contact their Congressional representatives and tell them: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
The current administration, after examining the proposed budget, is seeking every possible avenue to attack American citizens where it hurts the most: their pocket book.
No, we're not talking about wealthy Americans. We're talking about average Americans who invested their savings and retirement plans in the stock market. Since Mr. Obama's election the market has dropped over 3200 points, and that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the economic attack on average Americans.
Barack Hussein Obama’s National Socialist policies are pure and simple anti-capitalist, anti-free enterprise, anti-democracy, and anti-American.
Despite his avowed claim that taxes are not being raised on 95% of Americans, B.O’s Stimulus (aka Stealth Bill) and his proposed budget refute this claim. Worded deceptively in his Cap and Trade Tax are proposals for a $65 BILLION tax this year on the following forms of energy: electricity, gasoline, natural gas, and heating oil. By 2020, this Cap and Trade Tax will amount to $645 BILLION, meaning our taxes on these will be gargantuan.
Mr. Obama, do not all Americans purchase at least one or two of these forms of energy? Will not the price of these forms of energy include the Cap and Trade Tax you are going to impose?
That’s right. You’re playing the “I gotcha game”. Yes, directly Americans will not pay these taxes. INDIRECTLY, ALL AMERICANS will pay these Cap and Trade Taxes.
Mr. Obama, this is pure deception and an attempt not to level the playing field but to lower the playing field so all Americans will feel beholden to the Federal (National) government.
The National Socialist Party under Hitler followed these same steps in becoming a National Socialist nation. History knows it as NAZI Germany, a government controlled dictatorship where individuals lost their economic freedom and their ability to oppose the government.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Since Inauguration Day
Has anyone noticed that since Obama was inaugurated the stock market has dropped approximately 1150 points?
Is this a resounding negative response to Obama's economic policies?
Don't check your portfolios unless you are prepared for a cardiac shock!
Socialism and nationalism are not what this nation was founded on, and apparently it is not the direction this nation wants to go.
The reality is nothing seems to get through to this new administration. Will protests on the Mall in DC get the message across? Will the Congressional elections in 2010 get the message across?
Is this a resounding negative response to Obama's economic policies?
Don't check your portfolios unless you are prepared for a cardiac shock!
Socialism and nationalism are not what this nation was founded on, and apparently it is not the direction this nation wants to go.
The reality is nothing seems to get through to this new administration. Will protests on the Mall in DC get the message across? Will the Congressional elections in 2010 get the message across?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
