Archive for the 'health care' category

Dangerous Precedents. "Desert is not a right." "Backyard gardens."

Jul 18 2010 Published by under Filburn, health care, Impeach Obama, Wickard, Wickard v. Filburn

We all knew it was a tax, so it’s really no surprise Obama would have Holder argue it as such in his legal defense of the monstrous health care law, but take that together with Kagan’s refusal to answer “No” when asked whether the Supreme Court had the right to tell you what to eat added to Michelle telling us “Desert is not a right.” through the lens of what follows and you get a sense of how much smarter this crowd thinks they are than you…

…and how dangerous this much power is for them (or anyone) to have over you.

Let me introduce you to a gentleman farmer, one Roscoe Filburn, from the Depression Era. His Supreme Court case is *exactly* the one Obama’s DOJ is using to argue the legality of the health care law. (It’s one of ten precedents they cite.) 

From the Austin Free Press, an article opposing a farming bill, HR875, lays out Wickard V. Filburn. It makes reference to an article the Huffington Post had published in favor it:

“… Looking at the case of Wickard V. Filburn, we can see how a seemingly innocuous bill (like HR 875) can (lead to) draconian (food) circumstances …

The summary of the case of Wickard V. Filburn is really quite simple. The Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1938 (AAA) set quotas on the amount of wheat that could enter interstate commerce and created penalties for overproduction. Farmer, Roscoe Filburn, met his quota for wheat but failed to include in his quota the amount of wheat that he grew for his own consumption. Secretary of Agriculture, Wickard, ordered Filburn to destroy his excess crops and pay a fine. Filburn refused to pay and filed suit claiming that AAA was acting unconstitutionally seeking to limit local commercial activity, which went beyond the purview of Congress under the Commerce Clause….Shockingly, the Supreme Court held (in Wickard V. Filburn) that “wheat not intended in any part for commerce but wholly for consumption on the farm, are within the commerce power of Congress.” The Supreme Court reasoned that although the amount of wheat that Filburn would not purchase from the market (because he had provided for his own needs) may be trivial in this particular circumstance, it does not remove him from the scope of federal regulation because, his circumstance, when taken with similar others, could be far from trivial. This basically set the precedent that, under the act, the government is legally entitled to prevent individuals from growing wheat for their own consumption (beyond the designated quota) because, if too many people were to do this, it would negatively impact the interstate wheat market – which was precisely the fear outlined by the concerned citizen in the Huffington Post…”

“…One of the main arguments in the Huffington Post in support of HR 875 is that it… could not possibly affect small (family or even backyard) farms and farmer’s markets…”
Now let’s extrapolate this out to what these kinds of powers could actually mean in the wrong hands.  This is not to say that anyone would do this, just that this would give our federal government the legal right to do it. From a December 29, 2009 article from Associated Content:
The specific wording in the bill defines a “food production facility” as any “farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal feeding facility” with the possibility (regardless of how remote) that it could be expanded to include any place that grows food, even a backyard garden… Proponents of the H.R.875 bill state there is nothing in the wording that would lead to making backyard gardens illegal. On the opposite side, it is believed that the wording is so broad that opponents to the bill insist this will also include all organic farms, small or family farms, and including backyard gardens at any location – even if it is not considered a typical farm.
Now here we are to this morning’s New York Times article where Obama’s DOJ is preparing its constitutional defense of health care on  Wickard v. Filburn:
In its legal briefs, the Obama administration points to a famous New Deal case, Wickard v. Filburn, in which the Supreme Court upheld a penalty imposed on an Ohio farmer who had grown a small amount of wheat, in excess of his production quota, purely for his own use.

The wheat grown by Roscoe Filburn “may be trivial by itself,” the court said, but when combined with the output of other small farmers, it significantly affected interstate commerce and could therefore be regulated by the government as part of a broad scheme regulating interstate commerce.

Spooked yet?  I don’t think Madison and Jefferson, when crafting our founding documents throwing off the tyranny of King George III had in mind that America would allow even a whisper of constitutional language that would even hint at powers so broad that the federal government could have this kind of power of you.  In fact, reasonable people would argue that it was exactly that kind of power our 18th century ancestors were fleeing, yes?

God help us all.

No responses yet

Hysteria & "Selling a Car We’ve Already Bought"

Mar 26 2010 Published by under Dave, health care, Obama

Obama “selling” health care AFTER it’s law just SCREAMS of this iconic scene from “Dave” when this hapless Secretary is chastised for spending precious tax dollars to make Americans “feel better about a car they’ve already bought.”

America is hacked off. Hacked off about having our freedoms bought and sold and slipped under the door with Health Care Reform. Nancy Pelosi holding the wooden mallet robbed from the Flinstones’ prop closet, walking through the crowd of the Tea Partiers she wept in fear of just months earlier (when she could have used the legendary tunnels under the Capital for less haughty ingress) was the perfect metaphor for what they have hammered us with.

Obama and his best friend, the TOTUS (Tele Prompter of the United States) are spending God knows how much money and adding who knows how much carbon to the non-existant Global Warming “crisis” giving a speech in front of carefully selected and paid ACORN operatives in Iowa City so he can ridicule the Republican Party (he did) and admit that he has been lying through his teeth all along about Universal Health Care (“It’s coming.)

Meanwhile, back at #MSNBC, a steady parade of talking heads and democrats hysterical over crude voice mails, ugly emails, completely unsupported allegations of Tea Party sourced violence – Nothing more than any conservative public figure gets on a daily basis, but they’re ginning it up into some kind of domestic terrorism from the Tea Party – UNBELIEVABLY reckless incitement of civil unrest and they will have blood on their hands if someone really gets hurt.

Jesse Jackson Jr. even video taped the entire episode where a black congressman was supposedly called the “n” word revealed NOTHING. Tape after tape that has turned up have revealed NOTHING.

So far, all we have are completely IMAGINARY ALLEGATIONS on the part of MSNBC and the left that the Tea Party is linked. NO PROOF has been shown. And Obama is SILENT about it.

But, boy, oh boy, he can sell a bill…. that… he’s already signed into law. Reminded me of the scene from the movie “Dave.”

“Selling a car we’ve already bought”

No responses yet

Representative Paul Ryan – New American Hero & Patriot

Mar 22 2010 Published by under health care, Representative Paul Ryan

Below is the unexpurgated text of Rep. Paul Ryan’s impassioned and correct bid Sunday night (3.21.10) to call the disgraceful, Socialistic “health care” bill what it was.  These are the words of a a man with the soul of a Founder.  One who truly, deeply, understands the grand American idea.  I indulged the freedom accorded to me in my own little digital slice of blogosphere here to highlight my favorite parts!
Madam speaker, there is a lot wrong with this bill.  We know the problems with its cost. We know it doesnt really reduce the deficit. We know that it increases health care premiums. The CBO has given us all of this information and its clear that what we have is a bill chock full of gimmicks and hidden mandates. 
So Im not going to get into all of that again. 
But what I will ask is this: why has this decision become so personal to our constituents? Why are so many people swarming the Capitol over this? Why have we received 100,000 calls an hour from all over the country?
It is because health care affects every one of us. And yet, here we are, debating whether the government should have a bigger role in making those personal decisions. 
So make no mistake about it. Were not just here to pass a healthcare bill. We are being asked to make a choice about the future path of this country. 
The speakers to my left are correct: this is history. Today marks a major turning point in American history. This is really not a debate about prices, coverage, or choosing doctors.
This is ultimately about what kind of country we are going to be in the 21st century. 
America is not just a nationality its not just a mass of land from Hawaii to Maine, from Wisconsin to Florida. America is an idea. Its the most pro-human idea ever designed by mankind. 
Our founders got it right, when they wrote in the Declaration of Independence that our rights come from nature and nature’s God – - not from government. 
Should we now subscribe to an ideology where government creates rights, is solely responsible for delivering these artificial rights, and then systematically rations these rights? 
Do we believe that the goal of government is to promote equal opportunity for all Americans to make the most of their lives – - or do we now believe that governments role is to equalize the results of peoples lives?
The philosophy advanced on the floor by the Majority today is so paternalistic, and so arrogant. Its condescending. And it tramples upon the principles that have made America so exceptional. 
My friends, we are fast approaching a tipping point where more Americans depend on the federal government than on themselves for their livelihoods — a point where we, the American people, trade in our commitment and our concern for our individual liberties in exchange for government benefits and dependencies.
More to the point, Madam Speaker, we have seen this movie before, and we know how it ends. The European social welfare state promoted by this legislation is not sustainable. 
This is not who we are and it is not who we should become. 
As we march toward this tipping point of dependency, we are also accelerating toward a debt crisis a debt crisis that is the result of politicians of the past making promises we simply cannot afford to keep. Déjà vu all over again.
It is unconscionable what we are leaving the next generation.
This moment may mark a temporary conclusion of the health care debate – but its place in history has not yet been decided. If this passes, the quest to reclaim the American idea is not over. The fight to reapply our founding principles is not finished, its just a steeper climb. And it is a climb that we will make. 
On this issue – - more than any other issue we have ever seen here – - the American people are engaged. From our town hall meetings, to Scott Browns victory in Massachusetts, you have made your voices heard. And some of us are listening to you. 
My colleagues, lets bring down this bill – - and bring back the ideas that made this country great!
Congressman Paul Ryan serves the 1st Congressional District of Wisconsin. For more information please visit:…

No responses yet

Next: Supreme Court?

Mar 22 2010 Published by under health care

March 22, 2010

Is ObamaCare Headed for a Supreme Court Smackdown? by Michael Filozof
Now that the House Democrats have rammed ObamaCare down the throats of the nation by a vote of 219-212, the situation is indeed bleak. But Conservatives and Tea Partiers despondent over the fact that liberal Democrats just passed a massive encroachment on our liberties over their massive protests should take hope. James Madison saw this coming, and his forethought will give opponents of ObamaCare one last shot at killing it.

In Federalist #10, Madison wrote “Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.” (Boy, did he ever get THAT right.)

Knowing that the nation’s future leaders would include usurpers and potential tyrants, Madison sought a way to preserve individual liberty despite their efforts. He thus devised the system of the separation of powers. “[E]ssential to the preservation of liberty…” he wrote in Federalist #51, “it is evident that each department should have a will of its own” and “members of each department should be as little dependent as possible” on the other branches.

Passage of legislation by Congress and the signature of the President are not enough. The next step is judicial review by the Supreme Court, an independent and co-equal branch of government. (Already the states of Idaho and Virginia have vowed to sue the Federal government over ObamaCare, and the passage of the legislation will doubtless spawn hundreds of other lawsuits as well).

Madison was a brilliant enough thinker to understand that the separation of powers relied on more than each branch having the “necessary constitutional means” to resist the others. The separation of powers provided each branch with the “personal motives” to “resist the encroachments of others.”

“Ambition,” wrote Madison, “must be made to counteract ambition. The interests of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the [branch].”

Thankfully, the Court has an axe to grind with Obama.

Remember the State of the Union Address? In January, Obama took a cheap shot at the Supreme Court’s courageous decision in the Citizens United case, upholding free speech and overturning key provisions of the “McCain-Feingold” law. Congressional Democrats whooped and jeered at the Court like obnoxious schoolboys. The Court was humiliated. Justice Alito shook his head in disgust and muttered that the President’s remarks were “not true.” In March, Chief Justice Roberts told an audience at the University of Alabama that the behavior of the President and the Congressional Democrats was “very troubling,” and questioned why the Supreme Court should even bother to attend a “political pep rally.” Roberts’ remarks caused the White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs to issue a snarky rebuttal, again condemning the Court’s decision.

It is quite likely that the “individual mandate” in ObamaCare requiring all Americans to purchase health insurance against their will is unconstitutional. But after the State of the Union dust-up, the Court has more than just technical legal motives to take up the case.  Madison lamented that reliance on personal motives and ambitions “should be necessary to control the abuses of government” but understood that this was a “reflection on human nature.”

I’m hoping that Madison’s understanding of human nature was correct, and that Justices Alito and Roberts are chomping at the bit for the chance to get back at Obama and his Congressional goons for the humiliation they inflicted on the Court. A decision striking down ObamaCare, authored by Justice Alito, would be the ultimate smackdown.

Page Printed from: at March 22, 2010 – 02:32:19 PM CDT

No responses yet

How Grown Ups View FACTS of this "Health Care Reform" Legislation

Mar 22 2010 Published by under Health, health care, Obamacare

1. There’s money to pay for 16,000 to 18,000 new IRS agents to enforce compliance with the “Health Care Reform” law but:

a. NOT DOLLAR ONE for new doctor training for the 30,000,000 new patients this law will “cover.”

b. NOT DOLLAR ONE for new clinics, hospitals, medical facilities of any kind to handle the 30,000,000 new patients this law will “cover.”

c. NOT DOLLAR ONE for Research & Development to continue our dominance as the finder of cures for all that ails us.

This is about CONTROL, aka, a contraction of your freedoms. Remember a “gaffe” in Washington is when a politician accidentally tells the truth. Just yesterday, Rep. John Linder told the truth: “A lot of us have been saying for a long time that this has never been about healthcare. It’s about government.” That’s a direct quote.

2. Any moron can make 10 years of tax collecting pay for 6 years of coverage, which is what this new law does. What happens the next 10 years?

3. Forcing insurance companies to cover all pre-existing conditions is a lovely moral imperative, but will bankrupt them all. What happens then? Any moron can figure it out. Single-payer government healthcare. Picture yourself lobbying Congress for your MRI… How’s that going to go for you?

4. This is the first time in the history of the Republic that a we will have to purchase a commodity in order to be a lawful citizen. That’s demonstrably UN-AMERICAN and a very, very dangerous precedent.

These immature, gimme girls & boys used to instant gratification and helicopter parents are gleeful that the sun still rose this morning despite all our cries “that world will end” if this bill becomes law. Even their need for the destruction of our country can’t wait! Well, those of us with a few miles on us know these things take time. It’s coming. We saw it already with the situation with Walgreens in Washington. Why do you think that happened? Because government run healthcare “rationed” care by dropping reimbursements so low that it became toxic to a free market enterprise like Walgreens. That situation is our canary in the coal mine. More and more and more private medical enterprise will fall.

Just because it’s historic, doesn’t make it good. 9.11 was historic.

Just because it’s change, doesn’t make it good. A rash is a change.

FACT: The number one reason given by people who show up in the ER give “My doctor couldn’t see me fast enough.” 83% of the people that use the ER have insurance which is, coincidentally, the same percentage of people in America that have insurance. Hows that waiting time going to be impacted when up to 1/3 of doctors leave the profession as the New England Journal of Medicine just recently wrote they might, and as noted above, no additional infrastructure for care is in place?

FACT: Who is the number one denier of claims?  Private or Medicare/Medicaid. M&M deny more claims than ALL PRIVATE INSURANCE COMBINED.  Helooooo….. That’s rationing…

Other than the Military, what has the Federal Government EVER run that hasn’t gone into unsustainable debt or complete ruin? Just name me one.

None of the people who supported this bill can answer these concerns. They seem to be incapable of separating the need for health care reform, from the “fiscal Frankenstein” (The wonderful Rep. Paul Ryan’s phrase) that this bill is. Nobody wants body parts falling off in the streets. We just didn’t want this particular bill. All the sob stories on the House floor were an insult to that legislative body. They were preaching morals, not debating the legislation at hand. It was an embarrassment to this great nation.

As is every Progressive in Washington, most especially Mr. Barack Obama.

No responses yet

Rules Shmules. "We make ‘em up as we go along."

Mar 20 2010 Published by under health care

So glad a ranking member of the Rules Committee is so cavalier about it. Wouldn’t want him to lose any hair…er…sleep over it.

No responses yet

Conservatives have a Better Argument for Obamacare than Liberals Do and Here’s Why

Mar 03 2010 Published by under health care, Obamacare

Liberals would argue that Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security are popular and people “like” them. Okay, but I think we’d all agree that they are broke, yes?

Left and right would all also agree that the USPS is broke. Like it or hate it, it’s broke. I know it’s not in the strictest sense of the word a “government” program, but, functionally, philosophically, it is, and I think we could all agree on that.

Everybody hates the IRS. Everybody agrees that you’ll get a 10 different answers to the same question from 10 different IRS employees if they actually bother to pick up the phone and bother to answer you and not put you on hold permanently or transfer you to nowhere. So the IRS, as a government agency, is also crappy.

Okay, so let’s look at the list of crappy and or broke government agencies:

Social Security

Conservatives would argue that the only government agency that works is the Military. Liberals hate the military and believe the “military industrial complex” is evil and corrupt and should be eliminated. What we’re supposed to do with our fannies hanging out there with no defense against attack is a bothersome detail libs shoo away like a fly, but that’s another discussion.

So, if liberals would argue that even the Military s-cks, exactly which government agency can you point to as a model of efficacy to bolster your argument that the government should take over 1/6th of our economy by managing health care and credibly assert that it will “save money” or be “deficit neutral?”

It strikes me as ironic that CONSERVATIVES have a stronger argument for government take over of healthcare than liberals do because at least we can point to the Military as a government agency we can be proud of.

Without support of the one agency that breaks things and kills people like it should, liberals have their fannies hanging out there undefended.

No responses yet

How Health Care will Lead to a Clothing Allowance

Mar 02 2010 Published by under health care, Obama

Elevating health care to a right, while laudable morally, is untenable legally, and here’s why:  Everything will eligible to be health related.  Just one scenario off the top of my head:

Naked, filthy, homeless guy sits on a park bench in the tonier section of Central Park in Manhattan where Katie Couric or Mika Brzezinski is playing frisbee with their kids.  They want to sit down and sip some Fiji water.  Only place to sit is on a bench just vacated by naked, filthy, homeless guy.


Presto.  Clothing becomes an inaleanable right guaranteed under the Constitution.

Don’t think for a second that it couldn’t happen.  Two years ago everyone was sure Hillary Clinton would be the next president.

Ten years ago it was unthinkable that we could be attacked by Islamic terrorists in the homeland.

One year ago, it was unthinkable that our nations debts/deficits could be “unsustainable,” our unemployment rate would be holding steady at +/- 10%, our President would be presiding over the takeover of banks, insurance companies, and car companies, outlawing privately issued school loans and centralizing them all federally in exchange for politically preferred public service, the criminal prosecution of our intelligence agents for giving a “black eye” to a known Islamic terrorist while providing Constitutional rights to KSM… Need I go on?

The framers, our founders, specified that our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were endowed by our “Creator” for a reason… Any society that has ever held that the source of those rights was Man had failed, because if Man can give, Man can take away.  Those rights endowed by the Creator are inalienable, thus intractable.

Those dead white guys knew what they were doing.  Just because they are dead, and white, doesn’t make them wrong.

No responses yet


No responses yet