My Beauty Best Teacher

The Democrats made a lot of corrupt insider deals in order to get the 60 votes needed to shut off debate on the issue of 1/6 of our economy and jam through without a single vote from the other major party in our nation a bill that will in the end increase the cost of healthcare with dozens of new taxes and government agencies and lower the number of people covered by private healthcare by bankrupting insurance companies and jobs-providers. And Michigan, as usual with our our inept representation in the Senate, got nothing.

Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson traded his vote on this issue for an estimated $45 million in federal Medicaid funds funneled to his state, enough to completely cover his state's costs of complying with an expansion of the program mandated by the bill. This money was taken from residents all around the country and is now being sent to Nebraska simply because that Senator held out the longest and was able to game the system for increased kick-backs and bribes. But he wasn't the only one.

The Senators in Vermont (1 Democrat and 1 Socialist) and Massachusetts (2 Democrats) also won additional Medicaid funds in exchange for promising to vote for the bill. Senators in North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming and Montana also managed to find ways to make insider deals and game the corrupt system of passing legislation under Democratic leadership, scamming additional Medicare funds for their states, and also the good Senators from Hawaii (2 Democrats) exchanged their votes for additional taxpayer money funneled to their state.

Read the story here.

Michigan received no additional money and was not able to scavenge a piece of the dying carcass of the United States taxpayers because Michigan's two Senators, Carl Levin and Debbie Stabmenow, are so extremely liberal, so partisan, and so far to the left that their determined ambitions to expand the size of government blinded them to the opportunity that existed with the passage of this 'healthcare bill' to funnel kick backs and bribes to the residents of our good state.

This is not to say that I endorse this process or applaud the actions of Senators who, in what I feel is a violation of the Constitution, took bribes in exchange for their votes. I'm just saying that Michigan Senators continue their record on turning the residents of Michigan into a donor state that transfers wealth from our citizens to the citizens of other states purely because of their representation is better at the political game than ours. If our Senators did this out of principle or because they rejected bribes, that would be one thing, but the real reason that our state didn't get any corrupt kick backs is pure incompetence.

As this year ends, we are witnessing some pretty shocking behavior by the Democrats. If you know anyone who is a voter, they need to vote Republican for every single race next election. Republicans aren't perfect, but at least when they were in charge they never engaged in this irresponsible one-sided orgy of spending funded by corrupt bribes and kickbacks.

If you want, you can call Senators Levin and Stabmenow, but it won't have much of an effect- they don't care a bit what you think about this issue, otherwise they'd be listening to the opinion polls that show over 60% of the people reject what they are trying to do. Your Michigan Senators don't care about you, don't care what you think, and would sooner kick you in the face than talk to you about healthcare debate. Senator Stabmenow doesn't owe you anything anyways- she has long been bought off by special interest groups from California- and has spent her time in office figuring out ways to funnel money to her campaign coffers, not to Michigan residents.

UPDATE I: Michelle Malkin has two complete lists of all of the bribes that were used to pass this healthcare bill- as you can see from list one and list two of the bribe lists, there were a lot of deals that were made using your taxpayer money.

It turns out, Michigan Senator Carl Levin was able to get a little kickback in return for trading his vote. The 'Healthcare Bill" includes a new $7 billion tax on nonprofit insurance companies, but for some unexplained reason, Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan will be exempt from this tax. Levin received a lot of funding from BCBS last election, as did Democrats in general, and so in exchange for money for their re-election campaigns they fought hard to make sure that while every other company is taxed, they are exempt.

So it looks like Levin was able to win a concession for a major company in Michigan, although I still feel he sold his vote for very little. Stabmenow remains in my mind an utter failure in every possible way as a Senator.

Incidentally, this just highlights yet another reason why I oppose this bill so vigorously. Raising taxes on nonprofit insurance companies will not 'cut into the profits of those evil healthcare robber barons.' They are nonprofit. They will pay for that tax by raising prices on the customers- ie, they will raise the cost of healthcare coverage on those who are currently paying it. That is what this Demcare bill does- it will raise the cost of healthcare coverage on those who do pay for it in order to provide enhanced healthcare to those who do not pay for it.

UPDATE II: Not surprisingly, the deal that Nebraska cut in exchange for its vote is almost certain to be unconstitutional, and attorney generals all over the nation are looking into suing the federal government if this unconstitutional bill becomes law.

The Democrats are going to make another push for their healthcare bill. Let's not forget why we opposed this bill in the first place. As I wrote in Tyranny: Healthcare Reform Threat to Life, Liberty, and Property :

The Democrats healthcare plan is going to need my tax money to be put in place, and thus it does not increase the protection of my property from government, and recent reports and reviews by several groups in government and business have concluded that this healthcare plan will indeed end up costing most American’s more money in the end, further eroding my property.

The Democrat’s healthcare plan does not adequately address concerns for life either. The plan is going to create panels who will evaluate whether or not someone or something should be covered, and this may indeed put pressure on a government that wants to contain costs to not do everything in its power to protect the life of seniors in our society.

Nor does the plan adequately address concerns that taxpayer money and government support will not be used to support or encourage abortions. It is not hard to imagine that a government that is concerned with keeping down the costs of healthcare coverage may somehow with some policy push for the abortion of special needs children who will indeed be a great cost on a national healthcare system.

My objections to the Democrats healthcare plan are based on an understanding of what the proper role of government in our society should be, as written about by those great men who founded our nation. They wrote that the purpose of government is to protect my life, my liberty, and my property, and not to create vast bureaucracies of unelected officials who will control my life, my liberty, and my property.

Don't forget what is in this bill that the Democrats want to pass- Death Panels Are in the Healthcare Bill, and none of President Obama's proposed changes diminish any of the sweeping pro-abortion problems in the Senate bill and he actually proposes to increase the funds that would be available to directly subsidize abortion procedures (through Community Health Centers) and to subsidize private health insurance that covers abortion (through the premium-subsidy tax credits program).

I've tried to simplify this for you before- Simplifying the Healthcare Debate and Simplifying the Healthcare Debate Again. But all you really need to know about this healthcare bill you already know- that Obama's Health Care Plan Attacks Life, Liberty, and Property:

Obama's health care plan attacks life, by subsidizing abortion clinics at birth, by denying care and treatment (through rationing and bureaucratic delays) during life, and by denying care and treatment (through 'consoling and discussion') at the twilight of life.

Obama's heath care plan attacks choice, by replacing the patient-doctor relationship with one of patient-bureaucrat-doctor, where if you choose a procedure or drug, a government employee can tell you no. It removes responsibility to work hard and insure your own self, and gives up your freedom and liberty to government run and regulated faceless bureaucrats.

Obama's health care plan attacks property, because in order to pay for it, he needs to raise money. That money is either borrowed, which lessens the worth of all other money in the system, including mine, or the money is raised, by taking it from me. I worked for whatever money I earn- if the government did not exist, I would still work for whatever money I earn and it would be mine- therefor the government is not the creator of money nor the lawful taker of it. Obama's heath care plan will take my property in the form of higher taxes, fees, or borrowed funds.

Remember why you opposed this healthcare plan in the first place, and do not let your Congressman forget.

Over and over when debating Obamacare supporters I hear the claim that the number one reason why government needs to take on a massive new expensive role in healthcare is because it has become too expensive. These Obamacare supporters think adding more government to the equation will make healthcare less expensive. They are so wrong.

The reason why healthcare is expensive is because of government. Adding government to healthcare in the past has resulted time and time again with a higher cost for healthcare. Government is the problem, not the solution. And this is not just rhetoric- the evidence and data supports the conclusion that adding more government involvement and interference in the private industry of our nation's healthcare has made it much much more expensive.

Presidential-candidate Harry Browne wrote about this back in 2002. He wrote:

It may be hard to believe, but back in the 1950s health insurance cost just a few dollars a month for most people -- and it was available to virtually everyone, including people with pre-existing conditions. The percentage of people covered grew steadily from the 1940s. And by the early 1970s, almost all Americans were covered by some form of insurance. Then the politicians went to work to load up policies with mandatory coverage of all sorts of conditions that may be of no use to you. More and more people decided that insurance had become too expensive and decided to risk being uninsured. By the 1990s coverage had dropped to under 70% of Americans.

In addition, many employers decided health coverage was too expensive. In 1980 fully 97% of the companies with 100 or more employees provided medical coverage. By 1995, only 77% were doing so. The growing number of uninsured people gives politicians more ammunition for more programs to force more costs onto insurance companies, and to push the price of insurance still higher.

Once again, the politicians are seizing the opportunity to save us from their own handiwork.

Over and over it is demonstrated that when government becomes more involved in an industry, that industry becomes less efficient, less responsive to market forces, and services suffer while prices go up. That is why our founding fathers designed a system where government would not have the authority to even think about doing what it does today- they knew that having government run health insurance companies, auto companies, banks, home loan companies, alternative energy companies, and all the other companies that the government now runs would only result in a poorer society.

Government is the reason why healthcare is expensive- the solution is in every way possible less government. Not a lot more government, not a little big more government, not even the same amount of government- the solution to healthcare costs is less government. LESS GOVERNMENT.

Today I read a great article in National Affairs called "Capitalism After the Crisis." It discusses what is happening to the idea of capitalism after the recent economic crisis, and makes some very important points. One of the most important ideas is that the idea of capitalism is dying today, but not because of it's failures, but instead because we are turning away from capitalism:

When the government is small and relatively weak, the way to make money is to start a successful private-sector business. But the larger the size and scope of government spending, the easier it is to make money by diverting public resources. Starting a business is difficult and involves a lot of risk — but getting a government favor or contract is easier, and a much safer bet. And so in nations with large and powerful governments, the state tends to find itself at the heart of the economic system, even if that system is relatively capitalist. This tends to confound politics and economics, both in practice and in public perceptions: The larger the share of capitalists who acquire their wealth thanks to their political connections, the greater the perception that capitalism is unfair and corrupt.

Under Democratic-control and influence, America is increasingly becoming less a company where your fortunes are defined by what you do, and is increasingly becoming a nation of who you know- who your political connections are, who is giving you grants of taxpayer money, who your parents are, etc. If you have a million dollars now, the best way to turn it into two million is not to work harder and develop a better product- it is to lobby government to have government help protect your product from competition, or to give you a government contract, or to help you in some other way. Our nation is becoming corrupt under Democrats and corruptible Republicans.

Think about what is going on today, especially in the debates regarding healthcare and energy. Supporters of government control of these areas of the economy talk about all the failures of these 'private capitalist systems'- but over the past decades, energy production and healthcare have become amoung the most non-private non-capitalist systems in our economy. The soda-pop market or movie business does not have the same problems as transportation, energy, healthcare, etc- and the difference is not that these problem areas are more capitalist, it is that they are less capitalist.

The problem with healthcare is not not enough government, it is too much government. The problem with energy is not not enough government, it is too much government. The problem with transportation is not not enough government, it is too much government. The problem with education is not not enough government, it is too much government.

The sad thing is, America might have turned the corner towards statism and corruption, and what once made us exceptional may have been lost forever:

Once economic and political systems are built to reward relationships instead of efficiency, it is very difficult to reform them, since the people in power are the ones who would lose most in the change.

One way to possibly make America exceptional again is to remember how we got here. When your children read stories or watch movies, what sort do they read or watch?

The image many Americans have of capitalism is therefore that of Horatio Alger's rags-to-riches-via-hard-work stories, which have come to define the American Dream. By contrast, in most of the rest of the world, Horatio Alger is unknown — and the image of social mobility is dominated by Cinderella or Evita stories: fantasies more than plausible dreams.

Are your children taught to win the government lottery? To win riches by being a professional athlete? To go to Hollywood and star in movies? To marry someone rich? Or are you teaching your children that the way to success in life is hard work and a good attitude? And is our society still reinforcing those teachings by rewarding hard work and a good attitude more so than luck and connections?

Read the whole article- I'm only pulling from a tiny portion of it, but the whole thing is indeed a good read.

Juan Williams was on Sean Hannity today discussing President Obama's economic and domestic policies, and when push came to shove and facts and figures and data and evidence was cited, he fell back on the same argument that liberals and progressives always fall back on when the results of their policies prove to be harmful to poor people, minorities, and the groups in society that need the most help- he fell back on the argument that for all of the government's faults, at least it was taking wealth from rich people and redistributing it as charity to poor people.

Liberals and progressives, who have seized the old Democratic Party and are now running it as a communist organization, believe that one of the primary roles of the new United States of America is to use the power of the state to distribute charity to those who need it. But their actions and beliefs are in fact resulting in less money and wealth going to the people who need it in society because the government is THE SINGLE WORST charitable organization in the world, having considerable overhead, being motivated by politics and not need, and full of corruption and graft.

CATO, in a report that, although dated, still gets to the heart of the matter, said:

Private charities have been more successful than government welfare for several reasons. First, private charities are able to individualize their approach to the circumstances of poor people in ways that governments can never do. Government regulations must be designed to treat all similarly situated recipients alike. Glenn C. Loury of Boston University explains the difference between welfare and private charities on that point. "Because citizens have due process rights which cannot be fully abrogated . . . public judgments must be made in a manner that can be defended after the fact, sometimes even in court." The result is that most government programs rely on the simple provision of cash or other goods and services without any attempt to differentiate between the needs of recipients.

Take, for example, the case of a poor person who has a job offer. But she can't get to the job because her car battery is dead. A government welfare program can do nothing but tell her to wait two weeks until her welfare check arrives. Of course, by that time the job will be gone. A private charity can simply go out and buy a car battery (or even jump-start the dead battery).

The sheer size of government programs works against individualization. As one welfare case worker lamented, "With 125 cases it's hard to remember that they're all human beings. Sometimes they're just a number." Bureaucracy is a major factor in government welfare programs. For example, a report on welfare in Illinois found procedures requiring "nine forms to process an address change, at least six forms to add or delete a member of a household, and a minimum of six forms to report a change in earnings or employment." All that for just one program.

In her excellent book Tyranny of Kindness, Theresa Funiciello, a former welfare mother, describes the dehumanizing world of the government welfare system--a system in which regulations and bureaucracy rule all else. It is a system in which illiterate homeless people with mental illnesses are handed 17-page forms to fill out, women nine months pregnant are told to verify their pregnancies, a woman who was raped is told she is ineligible for benefits because she can't list the baby's father on the required form. It is a world totally unable to adjust to the slightest deviation from the bureaucratic norm.

In addition to being better able to target individual needs, private charities are much better able to target assistance to those who really need help. Because eligibility requirements for government welfare programs are arbitrary and cannot be changed to fit individual circumstances, many people in genuine need do not receive assistance, while benefits often go to people who do not really need them. More than 40 percent of all families living below the poverty level receive no government assistance. Yet more than half of the families receiving means-tested benefits are not poor. Thus, a student may receive food stamps, while a homeless man with no mailing address goes without. Private charities are not bound by such bureaucratic restrictions.

Private charity also has a better record of actually delivering aid to recipients. Surprisingly little of the money being spent on federal and state social welfare programs actually reaches recipients. In 1965, 70 cents of every dollar spent by the government to fight poverty went directly to poor people. Today, 70 cents of every dollar goes, not to poor people, but to government bureaucrats and others who serve the poor. Few private charities have the bureaucratic overhead and inefficiency of government programs.

Democratic policies are increasingly being defended on 'charitable' grounds, from healthcare policies to economic policies to environmental policies, but the truth of the matter is that government is a poor method of distributing charity. Instead of relying on government and its horrible charitable giving, all of these programs should be ended and the money spent on them should be returned to citizens. Even if a small percentage of this money was given in charity, then it would be more successful than government programs, and as long as there are a lot of conservative Republicans around, we can be sure that a good percentage of money will be donated and not a small percentage (according to studies, liberals don't donate to charity- they feel superior by taking money from you and giving that to charity).

The healthcare debate frustrates me and confuses me because I simply don't understand why certain groups are supporting the drive for nationalized healthcare. The AARP is urging its dwindling members to back a proposal that will cut from Medicare, provide funds for assisted suicide and death panels, and encourage the system to start rationing healthcare. Why would the AARP support this agenda? Why are you still a member of the AARP?

Why does the UAW support the healthcare plan by the Democrats? If I'm GM or Chrysler or Ford and I have two options of paying for healthcare for my employees or shoving them on the government plan and saving all that money, I'm shoving them on the government plan. The UAW is supporting a plan that would trade the quality coverage it has already bargained for with the government plan.

Although perhaps UAW understands that the fix is in- the government plan will a better plan than whatever the UAW has, because it will be funded on the backs of taxpayers to the cost of trillions of dollars over ten years, and trillions more over the next 10 years, if the United States lasts that long as a nation with that kind of spending and debt.

I don't understand the debate at all- there is no money for this program, it will raise costs, it will cause millions to be dropped from current plans, it will destroy the private insurance industry and lead to a loss in all of those tax dollars that industry provides, and it has many controversial and polarizing provisions in it like money for abortions (cut out of House version but in Senate version), money for assisted suicide, money for death panels, and many other controversial provisions.

The way this bill is being sold is by having people each share their sob story- that's anecdotal evidence that is nice, but should not be determining whether the bill is passed or not. Senator Debbie Stabenow is running a special interest lobbying group on her official Senate webpage (is that legal?) called Health Care People's Lobby (people's lobby... paging Soviet Russia...) where she encourages people to email her their sob stories about dealing with the insurance industry. Almost 10,000 people have emailed her various stories of how they where not able to take more advantage of an insurance system and how they were not able to get someone else to pay for their health-related procedures. This is the kind of 'evidence' that is being pushed as a reason to nationalize healthcare? I just don't understand why people are falling for this garbage argument.

Today around the nation there were rally's held to oppose the Democrat's healthcare plan, and I attended the one in Birmingham, home of Democrat Gary Peter's. It was a great turn out, and there were quite a few notable people there- Oakland County Executive L Brooks Patterson, County Commissioner David W. Potts, Michigan Governor-hopeful Michael Bouchard, and even theplogprof. It was a good time- saying hello to friends, educating one another about various issues, and sending a message to politicians that the people are opposed to this Obamacare proposal.

There were also supporters of the healthcare plan at the rally, and like the Greeks of old or our revolutionary forefathers, I engaged these people in debate, and the crowd circled us and listened to us as we each advanced our aguments. And every time, through every twist and turn of logic that these healthcare supporters took me, I won the debate by relying on facts, statistics, history, and the core principles of our nation. And every time I won the debate, these liberals would give me the finger or yell 'f-you' at me, and I would simply say that I am trying to fight tyranny and stand up for life, liberty, and property.

My favorite debate was with a guy from England, who, over a course of several minutes, went through all of the talking points of liberals- Bush bankrupted America, spent all our money on the war, Obama needs to put our nation more in debt to dig us out of Bush's jobless recovery, etc. I really enjoyed how proud he was of having not read the bill (HR 3200)- when I started quoting from it, he started yelling that that isn't the bill he supports. I wondered what bill he does support, and he told me that one that would create a heaven on Earth, as if man could create such a thing. After a while it grew tiring to talk to this guy though- his world was a maze of conspiracies and evil capitalists- and when cornered, he quickly would turn to character-assassination- he called me a liar, another guy a stooge, another guy unintelligent, etc. Typical rules for radicals- if you can't win the argument, attack the person.

This was usually the way I won the intellectual arguments- I found it much easier to win the ethical arguments. One Obama supporter (she had an Obama hat on) told me that it wasn't personal- that all she was trying to do was make me pay for insuring more poor people and provide better coverage for those who were in need in our nation. I told her that that was personal- my property was not hers to distribute to those who she favored. Her reply was that the government already does it- she mocked me by gloating about all of the liberal projects that my tax money already funds, and mocked me by saying that now that the Democrats were the majority, they were free to take my money and redistribute it for whatever they wished. When I told her that she was proud of tyranny and gloating about taking away my liberty and property, she said "yes, we can" and turned away from the debate, as if tyranny were something to be proud of.

Recently I bought a yellow "Don't Tread on Me" flag, and I brought that to the rally to wave. One lady, who was holding up a 10 foot long banner supporting healthcare (paid for by a special interest group- it had the logo on the back corner), asked me what the flag meant. I told her that my position on this issue as simple- I don't want government to get in my business, to tax me any more, and to let me live my life in freedom and liberty. She scoffed at that- she said it wasn't really a free world because of all the capitalists and private companies that ran the world, and that the only way we can truly be free is if the government runs everything. I think Stalin and Mao made those same arguments.

The highlight of the afternoon came as I was engaged by a supporter of the single-payer system (that's what her sign said), and told me that my view didn't matter at all, and that I should just pay for the increased healthcare and be happy about it. I told her that I was a person who had rights, and she laughed at me, and several of her friends came and told me that I was in the minority now. I started to grow angry, so I began to yell louder and louder that I was a person, that I was endowed by God with rights that no one could take away, and that those rights were life, liberty, and property. These Obamacare supportes laughed at me, and said that I was in the minority, and I began to yell louder and louder yet- the rights were God-given and include my right to live free and to keep and earn property. Liberals may laugh about these things, but I still believe in the Declaration of Independence and the ideas it espouses- revolutionary ideas that say to fight tyranny such as this proposal.

Don't get me wrong- the overwhelming number of people at this healthcare rally were patriots who were waving flags asking to be treated fairly, asking to not pay for government programs with debt, suggesting positive solutions like tort reform or increased competition, and voicing concerns about the constitutionality of the Obamacare program. They were grandmothers and young children, teachers and car workers, and when spoken to, they were good people who frequently had a good grasp of history and economics. They understand that this healthcare proposal is bad, and they were against it, and the only thing that they are hoping that will change is that they want our leaders, our Representatives and Senators, to hear them and their concerns.

UPDATE I: theblogprof has some great pictures from the event up as well, click here to see his post. I'm visable in one of the pictures.

UPDATE II: Welcome readers from Instapundit and Moonbattery!

UPDATE III: Welcome readers from American Power!

Over the summer I got in many debates with liberals who supported the government's plan to nationalize the healthcare system. One of the most frequent pieces of evidence cited to support their argument was that currently there is a lot of waste and fraud in the system, and that when the federal government runs your insurance plan, that will all be eliminated. Because the government will run such an efficient system with no waste and fraud, these liberals would argue, it will be able to provide quality insurance to high risk individuals who never paid a dime into the system.

When faced with this logic, I would laugh, and question the assumption that the government will have less fraud and waste than private companies, especially the dramatically less rates needed to fund the magic system of to each according to their needs that liberals are promising.

This week my logic is reinforced by two points. First, the U.S. Office of Budget and Management this week announced that taxpayers lost at least $98 billion through waste and fraud in fiscal year 2009. That’s up $26 billion from last year. The Medicare and Medicaid programs counted for more than half the total—about $54.2 billion. Most of that went out for erroneous payments and outright fraud. With the massive power of the federal government supporting every move, the government still lost AT LEAST $98 billion, and I bet you that the number is much much higher than that in reality (a lot of what a liberal auditing private companies would call 'waste and fraud' is not counted when it is the government doing it). Oh, and amount of waste and fraud is not going down after the election of 'make government more efficient' and 'get rid of the special interests' Barack Obama to President- it is going up, almost as if Obama is doing the exact opposite of everything he promised to do and yet exactly the stuff I predicted he would do.

The other interesting story this week is that the according to the best and the brightest people in our nation's government, publishing official statistics meant to demonstrate the competence and transparency of the best that government has to offer, over $6.4 billion in stimulus money had been spent in hundreds of nonexistent congressional districts. That's right, the federal government 'created and saved jobs' and spent stimulus money in districts that don't exist (like Puerto Rico's 99th Congressional District). Joe Biden says it isn't a big deal- that the numbers the government published were totally made up and had no basis in reality, so don't get upset about it. But that doesn't comfort me and demonstrate to me that government can run a more efficient, less corrupt, less fraudulent, and less wasteful operation than private industry.

The very foundations of this healthcare bill are called into question every day using logic and common sense, and to be perfectly honest, it doesn't matter. The bill that the Democrats are producing could be proved to do everything that conservatives say it is going to do, and Democrats and Obama would still support it. Because its intent is not to make health care costs go down (in fact, it will make them go up) and it is not to cover more people (most people will lose coverage under their old plans), but the whole point of this healthcare bill is to expand the government power over your life. They want to control your life. They want to control your liberty. And they want to control your property. Government is, as it has always been, the biggest threat to your natural god-given rights, and we can see that today in the Obama administration backed by Democratic Congressman.

In the Detroit News today, there is a story about how the Obama administration wants to spend $63 billion to fund world health.

At some point, our political leaders decided that the best way to protect my life, liberty, and property was to support the creation of a fund that would fight global diseases and help children's health. I'm looking at the Constitution right now- I can't figure out how more American taxpayer money to people in other countries for prenatal and postnatal care helps create a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, or promote the general welfare of the people of the United States.

Probably this legislation when it was passed talked about how the creation of this fund would go towards helping the common defense- that spending American taxpayer money on providing healthcare for someone in another nation would make him feel more supportive to the United States. I suppose the argument was that I would be better protected against crime and death if money were spent to create a global perception that the United States cares, and this might lessen the draw of terrorism or something. I disagree with this argument, and I feel the money could be spent better elsewhere to accomplish the goals of protecting me and keeping me free, but I can see the argument.

In fact, under the Bush administration, these very arguments were made- there was an effort to provide funding to improve health in the world's poorest places, as some argued that these efforts could improve the United States' image and security. I get it- I don't agree, but I get it.

But, what I do not agree with or get is the idea that my hard-earned and hard-worked for taxpayer money should be diverted to another nation because of "a responsibility to protect the health of people... reducing suffering, and support the health and dignity of people everywhere." That's not in the Constitution, Mr. Obama, and I do not support expanding US efforts to fund healthcare for the world by over $63 billion.

When actions like this are undertaken, purposefully separated from their legal and moral justifications, they become illegal and immoral, and thus any patriot should oppose them, and that is exactly what Obama has done- he has said that the reason why we should spend this taxpayer provided government money to compete against private healthcare around the world is not to provide for the common defense, but to "moral obligation to help the world's poorest and most threatened populations". There is no such obligation in the Constitution, Mr. President. There is however a clearly written obligation to follow our Constitution as written- you ignore that when you follow this 'moral' obligation to take my money to 'help the world.'

At what point do we find it necessary to remove this guy from office? At what point will voters realize that Obama does not see them as free and equal people, but rather slaves to his personal desires and wants? At what point will I be provided with decent respect for my views and my work, and not be mocked or threatened? Just exactly who does Obama think provides liberty and prosperity- the government or the people? Why does Obama think that government has been provided with power- to go off fixing every problem in the world, or only to protect my life, liberty, and property? I ask you, fellow patriots and readers of my blog, at what point are the evils of this man's presidency too sufferable?

The FT reports:

The International Finance Corporation, the private-sector arm of the World Bank, is to co-ordinate a $1bn package of debt and equity funding designed to strengthen health across Africa by supporting the private sector.
The move follows the findings of a study commissioned from McKinsey highlighting the size and fast growth of private healthcare in sub-Saharan Africa and the potential it has to improve tackle ill-health among the poor while generating profits.

President Barack Obama's remarked today after the passage through the House of his new health control law that "after nearly 100 years of talk and frustration, after decades of trying, and a year of sustained effort and debate, the United States Congress finally declared that America's workers..." have health care reform.

Obama is right- the battle between communism and liberty has been raging for over a hundred years, and last week, communism won a great battle. The headlines are shouting how after years and years of fighting, finally healthcare reform is here. The way they say it makes you think that the reform is the good guy and the bad guys were the people fighting it- but in reality, the good guys were fighting the reform, and in yet another case of bizzaro world striking, the newspapers are cheering on the bad guy, health care reform.

That is not to say that health care reform is a bad thing- don't get me wrong, I think it is nice that millions of people are now going to get healthcare, that people with pre-existing conditions get covered, etc. It's just sad that to do that, the government is going to hold a gun to my head and make me work harder and longer so that others can benefit from the fruits of my labor. In a way it's like forced charity, but not really, because it is a very inefficient charity and it is a charity that makes me not want to give and the recipient not feel thankful for the gift that is being given to him. This healthcare reform, like much of communism, degrades the human condition, by forcing one person to give to another what they did not earn, demeaning the transactions that make our society civilized and humane.

People are claiming this health care reform is historic- it isn't really. Most communist nations long ago jammed through healthcare, overcoming opposition by those who fought for rule of law, liberty, freedom, and private property protection. Stalin greatly expanded health care for poor people in the Soviet Union in the 1930's, and so whatever victory Obama achieved he did so much later than other great communist leaders of the past. I guess what the newspapers are cheering is that Obama is right- after 100 years of determined efforts to keep the government out of private transactions between a medical professional and a person, the government finally managed to do what Mao, Stalin, and Hitler did long ago and inject itself between those groups and gain power and control over the transaction.

The sadness and anger I have is that after 100 years of talk, debate, and deliberation, our nation went stupid for two elections (2006 and 2008) and that was all that Democrats needed to end talk, debate, and deliberation and ram through the society-changing initiatives to move our nation away from a Republic of laws to a Dictatorship of men. Obama is right to gloat- he did what other dictatorships only dream about, and took a society of liberty, life, and property and reformed into into one of tyranny, death, and poverty.

Fuzzy Logic has attempted something that our own Congressman and Senators are terrified to do- read the actual health care bill and try to understand it. I don't think Fuzzy Logic is a team of lawyers, so perhaps the analysis isn't perfect, but the stunning nature of HR 3200 should be driving everyone to the Healthcare Rally's today (where people rally to save healthcare in America from the Obamanation it may become). I haven't read the bill yet, but I find the Fuzzy's Notes: HR 3200, Pages 1-95 more insightful than the platitudes from President Obama, so here is some of that analysis (read the whole post for all of it):

The only way you can make your own choice about having employer-based, rather than the government-run, health insurance is if you have it when the bill is enacted. This is the "grandfathered health insurance coverage" (pg 16). So in a way, BO actually got that part right. The part he left out is that if you don't have insurance when the bill is enacted, you're screwed (go straight to government-run health care, do not pass go, be sure to pay as you pass go). Also, if you do get "grandfathered" in with your own employer-based insurance, your future dependents cannot be added to that (also page 16), so you'll either have to pay for two policies, deductibles, etc. or switch yourself to the same coverage as your poor, doomed children.

So it looks like our generation will indeed live better than any other generation in the world- all those who follow will be on the government-run healthcare. And all of those young people who voted for Obama in such large numbers will also no longer have the hope of a good health insurance plan- they'll be forced to take the government-run healthcare.

The Commissioner will be very powerful. And it'll be his or her job to ensure "adequate enrollment" in the government option by whatever means are necessary, up to and including changing the regulations, taxes, "incentives" for staying out of the government option, and whatever else the Commissioner "deems appropriate."

Obama has created already a bunch of czars and commissioners, unelected people with extensive power and few checks, to rule us. This administration now wants to create an even more powerful one- the High Commissioner of Health- to control our health. Unelected. Unaccountable. Tyrants.

The president will appoint the Commissioner. Of course. That's not why I mention it. The interesting little detail here is what is not said (as is always the case with politicians in general and with BO in particular). There is no term limit (there is for the Committee--3 years), so I guess it's a lifetime appointment. That's good. Covers all the bases when BO is booted out of office in 2012; he'll still have his man (or woman) running health care. That's encouraging.

Hear that? Lifetime appointments for government czars to run large segments of our economy. That's Democrat-control of our lives, forever. Keep voting Democrat if you like that sort of stuff.

Sec. 1173a gives the government access to your financial records, including your bank and other assets (this section starts on pg. 57). Not surprising as they will need to determine eligibility, but this SHOULD be freaking out people on the Left who were so against Bush's "invasion of privacy." BO won't be in office forever, and once he goes (2012 at this rate), you can almost bet the ranch that a republican will win the Office (and access to all your private information.). Think I'm kidding? Read the bill yourself. It's all right there. And no, as I've explained above, you are not exempt. No one is. That's what the bill is about.

Do you want the government agents having access to your bank accounts? After another couple rules of Obama and Pelsoi running things, it probably won't matter much because your bank account will be empty, but I know of a couple people out there hiding some gold in safety deposit boxes- what do you think the government is going to do when it knows for a fact that you have that in your safety deposit box?

There's a 1-3+ year description (terribly written like the rest of this bill) that qualifies groups (individuals and various size businesses) for the government-run health care plan. They've got it all in here, too. Medicaid, Medicare, Veteran's benefits, and the military and their dependents. So I guess all these plans will be dissolved at some point. Single-payer all the way.

It's a sad world when the government screws over veterans and retirees to move them to a crappy healthcare plan that Congress won't even get on. I'm going to point out right now that I voted straight ticket Republican last election, so none of this is my fault.

The plans unveiled. The basic plan is well, basic. It's the government's idea of "basic" and "necessary" and is subject to change based on recommendations by the aforementioned Committee or because the Commissioner had a bad (or good) day. Hmph! This plan is tier-priced, based on income--the more you make, the more you pay. Lovely. At least socialized medicine in most other countries provides shoddy care to its populace for free, but we get to pay for shoddy care. Yay. Only the premium-plus offers dental and optical, if the Commissioner approves, that is (pg 86).

Oh yes, this plan is bad. My years of experience in designing and recommending public policy lead me to suggest that this is poorly written garbage unworthy of being even considered by respective public officials, must less being advanced by Presidents and Congressman. If the Democrats wanted to help lower costs or expand government provided welfare insurance, they could have done so- but instead they put together this healthcare bill. No one, not a single person in our nation, should support this bill once you actually read it. It is not American- it does not protect life, liberty, and property.

Last year, our nation had a choice for President. On one hand we had a man who sprouted very nice sounding platitudes but lacked experience and had a very extreme voting record. On the other hand we had a man who spoke truthfully about the situation and had a lot of experience and had solid and well thought out policy positions. Sadly, those two were not on the same ballot- the experienced solid conservative lost in the primaries to John McCain. If only we could have had a chance to elect Mitt Romney last election, things might have turned out differently.

That's not to say that there would have been no recession, healthcare would not have been a concern, and Iran would have continued to enrich uranium. If Mitt Romney would have become President instead of Barack Obama, those things would still have happened. But the key question is how would Romney have handled those situations differently than Obama and how those differences might affect our nation.

Some people think there is no difference between the two major parties or think that Romney wasn't really that different than someone like Obama. They are wrong. In many important and key situations Romney would have advocated considerably different policies than Obama, policies that may have led to a shorter and less severe recession, that would have lowered the cost of healthcare, and that would have led to Iran thinking twice about seeking the bomb.

This is not idle thoughts- Mitt Romney wrote an editorial this week in USA Today where he laid out some things he would have done as President differently than Barack Obama. This is why he was and remains my choice for President:

• Repair the stimulus. Freeze the funds that haven't yet been spent and redirect them to immediate, private sector job-creation priorities.
• Create tax incentives that promote business expansion and hiring. For example, install a robust investment tax credit, permit businesses to expense capital purchases made in 2010, and reduce payroll taxes. These will reignite construction, technology and a wide array of capital goods industries, and lead to expanded employment.
• Prove to the global investors that finance America's debt that we are serious about reining in spending and becoming fiscally prudent by adopting limits on non-military discretionary spending and reforming our unsustainable, unfunded entitlements. These are key to strengthening the dollar, reducing the threat of rampant inflation and holding down interest rates.
• Close down any talk of carbon cap-and-trade. It will burden consumers and employers with billions in new costs. Instead, greatly expand our commitment to natural gas and nuclear, boosting jobs now and reducing the export of energy jobs and dollars later.
• Tell the unions that job-stifling "card check" legislation is off the table. Laying new burdens on small business will kill entrepreneurship and job creation.
• Don't allow a massive tax increase to go into effect in 2011 with the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. The specter of more tax-fueled government spending and the reduction of capital available for small business will hinder investment and business expansion.
• New spending should be strictly limited to items that are critically needed and that we would have acquired in the future, such as new military equipment to support our troops abroad and essential infrastructure at home.
• Install dynamic regulations for the financial sector — rules that are up to date, efficient and not excessively burdensome. But do not so tie up the financial sector with red tape that we lose a vital component of our economic system.
• Open the doors to trade. Give important friends like Colombia favored trade status rather than bow to protectionist demands. Now is the time for aggressive pursuit of opportunities for new markets for American goods, not insular retrenchment.
• Stop frightening the private sector by continuing to hold GM stock, by imposing tighter and tighter controls on compensation, and by pursuing a public insurance plan to compete with private insurers. Government encroachment on free enterprise is depressing investment and job creation.

These are great points and both Republicans and Democrats should get behind Romney and support his bid for President in 2012.

Government should do a few things, and do them well. Government should not try to be all things to all people. Oakland County (MI) government needs to wake up and realize this.

If you need a marriage license, a death certificate, or a birth certificate, you should go to Oakland County Government. If you pay your property taxes or get a map of the county, you should go to Oakland County Government. If you need to pay a ticket, find out about the court systems, or look through campaign finances of local elected officials, go to Oakland County Government. If you want a county park or recreation area, go to Oakland County Government. Oakland County Government should be in charge of sewers, elections, roads, libraries, jails, morgues, and children's services.

But, Oakland County should not be manage an airport. It should not be in the movie making business (Office of Arts and Film). It should not be helping to sell industrial or residential properties, or listing foreclosed homes. It should not be speculating in business ventures, gambling on what kinds of industries to support with investments or tax breaks, and should not be picking and choosing winners and losers in the marketplace. Oakland County Government should not be running job placement services, or teaching people how to use a computer, or providing charity for veterans.

These are all worthy and noble efforts- but Oakland County Government should not be doing them, private businesses or private charities should, as they are better able to, provide better services, and do so more efficiently.

And Oakland County Government should not be in the business of providing healthcare to citizens. This is important, and one would hope that an employer would provide this to its employees or the healthcare would be priced so that an individual could afford it, but it is not the business of county government to provide these services.

Government should do a few things, and do them well. Government should not try to be all things to all people.

I've missed most of the debate, but I did catch pieces here and there. I did hear Obama say that the American people are hungry for leadership that will centralize power in the Presidency- maybe he is right, maybe the American people are hungry for a dictator like him.

I did hear Obama say that he wants everyone to sacrifice across the board- except for lower and middle class Americans, who will not make sacrifices, but will get gains. For all the idiots out there, that means more taxes on the rich to pay for sacrifices, and more taxes on the rich to replace the lower tax rates for middle class and poor- that's a lot of taxes on the rich that Obama wants to propose! Trickle down economics is out- soak the rich is in!

Huh, did you know that computers were invented and popularized by the government? Al Gore anyone? Computers are like any government project- billions dumped into a project that for 30 years was irrelevant, and then when private industry got its hands on computers, they took off, became profitable, and changed the world. Now, who gets credit- government or private industry? According to Obama, government.

Good question about healthcare. McCain said that it is a responsibility for employers and government to try to work to provide it efficiently. He sees government helping and assisting in the free market. Obama said it is a right. You have the right to welfare, healthcare, and a higher education- but not life, liberty, or liberty, apparently. Wow. How is this guy who is so blatantly anti-American going to be President???

Listening to Obama speak, I think that we have reached a point in America where people are so dumb and so ill-informed that we will buy whatever this guy sells. He could say that he wants to give a tax-break to 105% of the American people and everyone would like him- he could say that our war in Iraq is against bunnies and rainbows and people would buy it- he could say that 1 trillion Americans have died due to Republican policies and people would elect him in. I am getting depressed- it's almost a great depression.

I grew so depressed listening to this made up drivel that I quit watching.

Absolute madness. According to the Detroit News, Democrats in the United States House of Representatives are close to passing a health care package. At the cost of $871 billion dollars, it would create a government-run insurance company that would provide taxpayer-subsidized health insurance to millions of Americans (not those already on Medicaid), raise taxes on those families at the top income bracket, impose an array of new regulations on private insurers, and strip the industry of its long-standing exemption from federal antitrust laws.

No, no, no, no, no, no!

First no- the cost. The federal government is broke and does not have the money for this plan. That means they will borrow money from China, pay China interest on that money every day, never pay off the principle balance, and mortgage more of our children's future.

Second no- government-run companies? Seriously? I thought we learned over and over again that creating government run companies does not work- they are inefficient, corrupt, and provide poor services.

Third no- providing more health insurance coverage for those too rich for Medicaid? Really? Why didn't they just expand Medicaid, or some other government program, to cover more people? Then at least we could have had a sensible debate about the merits of the proposal. Instead we have to now create more new bureaucracies.

Fourth no- raising taxes? Raising taxes on the top income bracket is usually a very politically controversial issue- how are the Democrats hiding this in a healthcare proposal? What isn't in this bill? Raising taxes on those who are successful and prosperous is not going to make our nation a better place. Taking their wealth just because they make more wealth is not moral. There is no justification for it in this proposal, other than 'because we can take it and they have it'- and that line of logic is tyranny.

Fifth no- impose new regulations on companies? That is not going to make health insurance cheaper. I don't understand this at all- health insurance companies are struggling to keep costs down and the federal government is going to come along and kick them in the shins and impose new costly regulations on them? That is going to drive up the costs of health care coverage for you. You personally are now going to have to pay more money for the current service that you are receiving. That is not a way to help out.

Last no- strip the industry of its long-standing exemption from federal antitrust laws? So the thinking of Democrats in Congress, including my Congressman, is that by having people sue insurance companies more often for alleged lack of coverage or service will drive costs of healthcare down? Bizzaro world strikes again! Up is down, right is left, good is bad! Instead of putting in place tort reform and limiting trivial lawsuits, the Democrats doubled-down and said 'more lawsuits'! Wow.

This is pure and utter madness. Oppose with money, votes, phone calls, and visits. Start prepping for the revolution. Madness and tyranny are on the march.

Have you all seen this billboard that was put up by a tea party group in Iowa? The billboard was making two points- first, that radical leaders prey on the fearful and naive, and the second, that national socialism (German fascism), Marxist socialism (Leninism), and liberal socialism (liberal fascism) are all similar. Those are very bold points to make, and the billboard was accompanied by images that were bold- images that compared Obama to Hitler and Marx.

Of course, controversy erupted, and the billboard was removed. The Democrats were upset that Obama was compared to Hitler, because Hitler killed all the Jews. Democrats were not upset that Obama was compared to Marx, or that Obama was compared to Hitler in other ways- nope, it was just the Jewish issue that bothered Democrats. Even that is interesting- just how friendly is Obama to Jews and if he were given total power (ie, not blocked by conservatives and Republicans) what might he do to the Jews? I'm not saying Obama is Hitler, I'm just saying this- the poster makes good points, and it is a shame that it was pulled down, because it is provoking and the not that far from the truth.

Let's examine the main point- is Obama and his vision of government a version of socialism or fascism?

In Fascism Healthcare, I wrote:

Under fascism, the government does not overtly take over an industry ("seizing the means of production," in Marxist terms). Rather it leaves ostensibly private institutions in place, at least for the time being, and then subjects those "private" institutions to top-down regulation that turns them into agents of state power. No meaningful competition will be permitted. The federal government runs the system, but will do so behind a facade of private enterprise.

In The Third Way: Obama and Fascism I wrote:

There is a blog out there called "Third Way." It is staffed by Obama supporters and three of its former chairs now serve in the senior ranks of the Obama administration. This is the sort of blog that Obama reads and the sort of blog that Obama takes his marching orders from. This blog is a fascist blog that preaches a fascist ideology.

In State Capitalism, Crony Capitalism, Corrupt Capitalism, Syndicalism, Corporatism... Obamaism I wrote:

...the Obama administration is putting place a version of fascism that you can nicely called Crony Capitalism or State Capitalism, whereby the government subverts the free market for the good of the 'state' and makes alliances with Big Business to crush smaller companies through regulation and taxation.

In Wikipedia Description of Fascist Sounds Like Someone I Know I wrote:

...the overall description of fascism is curiously close to Obama policies. I loosely quote "Fascism is primarily concerned with perceived problems associated with cultural, economic, political, and social decline or decadence, and seeks to solve such problems by achieving a historic national rebirth, many times by promoting cultish ideas of unity and purity." Other elements of fascism include national socialism, national syndicalism, or economic nationalism (check), class collaboration, economic planning, mixed economy, and third position (check), dictatorship, holism, major social interventionism, and statism (check again), and militarism (Obama is awfully warlike towards everything but Iraq). Apparently fascism also promotes political violence against opponents (check), welfare (check), is fiercely anti-religion (check), and promotes cults of personality (check).

So, is the billboard 100% wrong, or are there are a lot of similarities between Obama, Hitler, and Marx? I think the evidence is clear on this.

Under fascism, the government does not overtly take over an industry ("seizing the means of production," in Marxist terms). Rather it leaves ostensibly private institutions in place, at least for the time being, and then subjects those "private" institutions to top-down regulation that turns them into agents of state power. No meaningful competition will be permitted. The federal government runs the system, but will do so behind a facade of private enterprise.

This is exactly what the Democrats plan is for health care.

It appears that the liberals and the media have decided to rally around the dignity of the office of the President of the United States, who was deeply offended when some Congressmen couldn't control the shout of 'you lie' when Obama lied during his speech. This is typcial hypocrite liberal stuff- they shouted and booed during Bush's 2005 State of the Union speech. And to be honest, it isn't that big of a deal anyways- Republicans would hiss for Clinton, Democrats would heckle Reagan, and once in our history, that was democracy. Now, dissent has been deemed a game that is played by liars and deceivers, and it Obama says his administration will no longer tolerate any dissent.

Well, I dissent. Obama is a liar- he does not tell truths, and it is time to simplify the situation. When things get complicated, it is time to simplify. The government says that there is a problem with insurance. Insurance is a system where people pay money into the system, and if something bad happens,they can take out of the system. Insurance works because most people will pay more in to the system than they take out, thus providing money for those who draw more heavily on the system due to something bad happening.

The way to make a profit in the insurance business is to properly identify risk- who is going to pay more in, who is going to take more out- but also to attract customers and keep customers. If a policy drops people when they are ill, others will hear about this and drop that policy and that policy will no longer attract customers. So there is an incentive for companies to not be too focused on just risk.

There will be some people though who do not want to pay in to the system, and then when they get sick will want to draw out of the system. That is not fair to everyone else who is playing by the rules. These people are uninsurable because of pre-existing conditions, with the condition being that they did not get insurance when they were well. I feel badly for them, but they made their own choices in this world, and society should not reward people for making bad choices.

Some people are too poor to afford insurance. Either their company does not offer it to them because their company can not afford to employ them and offer it, or because they do not have a job. That's tough. The great thing about America though is that we have people who are willing to help out these people out of the goodness of their hearts,through charities and private initiatives. This does not solve the problem, but it is a good start.

So, let's go back now to this complicated situation, focusing mostly on the President's speech last night and the magical bill that he is proposing. Evaluate what he said. Is he taking a simple situation and making it more complicated, rewarding bad decisions, and having an inefficient/corrupt government seize actions that private compassionate individuals could do? Or is he finally once and for all of time going to fix the system, period? I think the answer is quite simple to this complicated question.

On this blog and around the internet, 'The People" is one of the most frequent justifications that are provided by liberals and Democrats for taxing the rich, forcing people to join a healthcare plan, stopping a mining company from mining for minerals on land that it purchased, and generally controlling people's choices and taking away their property.

So just who exactly are 'The People' who benefit when those who are successful are forced to pay higher tax rates when their investments do well or who gain when oil companies are not allowed to safely drill for oil?

I'm sure they don't mean that humanoid extraterrestrials who have paranormal powers will benefit- that would just be silly. (Zenna Henderson?)

What these liberals and Democrats usually mean when they cite 'The People' is that the so-called national community will benefit when the state gains the power to take away peoples property and choices, and that for the good of the people we need to return back to the land through green living and urban farming, lead more self-sufficient lives, and fight back against Big Business which is grinding us under its crushing foot of industrialization. Liberals and Democrats believe that 'The People' will benefit from an enlightened government that helps to progress society, and if this means that the principles of the free market or even popular elections are broken, than so be it- the People are more important than these concepts.

To liberals and Democrats, 'The People' mean the proletariat and traditional middle classes- union workers- who will benefit from a more government that is more progressive and friendly to workers.

As someone famous once said, when liberals talk about 'The People', they are talking about the basic ideas of a national government based on building social safety nets for 'The People' because 'The People' are the national government of progressive socialism.

The way that liberals throw around 'The People' is not new- in fact, the concept was pretty well established by the early 1900's. The German's called the concept of 'The People' the Völkisch movement, and it was one of the motivating factors behind Adolf Hilter and his fascist Nazi national socialist progressive party, which attempted to co-opt private industry for the good of 'The People' in order to provide national socialized healthcare, make people eat healthier food, make industries produce goods for the good of the state, and support the workers with strong union rights in a Big Business-Big Union-Big Government partnership.

What is old is new again, and we have been down this path before, so just be careful that you know what you mean when you start throwing around the term 'The People' in the future.