My Beauty Best Teacher

Philip Stevens writes in the Taipei Times

According to International Finance Corporation and World Bank figures, between a third and half of the US$16.7 billion spent on health in sub-Saharan Africa in 2005 was spent in the private sector, often by the poorest people who cannot get government services. This huge capacity is ignored by donors, who for ideological reasons prefer to work directly with governments.
Donors should be embracing this massive capacity, offering competitive contracts to deliver health services. Non-profit groups, government and, crucially, the private sector should all be competing to deliver a broad set of services, such as improving maternal health. This competitive stimulus would give a powerful incentive to improve standards...[continue reading]

Read parent paper titled Foreign Aid for Health - Moving beyond government (pdf)

Mckinsey reports on opportunities in health care :

In Nigeria, Kenya, and elsewhere, the private sector already serves more than 40 percent of the people in the lowest economic quintile. With the right investments, it could do even more.

A recent study found that:

The increasing demand for health care due to improved economic growth across much of the region could translate into $20 billion of additional investment in the region’s private-sector health care infrastructure in the coming decade.

Congressman Lee Terry (Republican, Nebraska 2nd District) emailed me a list of all of the 159 new ways that Section 10221, page 2173 of House Resolution 3590 which deemed that Senate Bill 1790 was passed with certain amendments creates jobs. I'm only putting up the first 10 amazing new ways it creates jobs- the full list is here or here or here:

1. Grant program for consumer assistance offices (Section 1002, p. 37)
2. Grant program for states to monitor premium increases (Section 1003, p. 42)
3. Committee to review administrative simplification standards (Section 1104, p. 71)
4. Demonstration program for state wellness programs (Section 1201, p. 93)
5. Grant program to establish state Exchanges (Section 1311(a), p. 130)
6. State American Health Benefit Exchanges (Section 1311(b), p. 131)
7. Exchange grants to establish consumer navigator programs (Section 1311(i), p. 150)
8. Grant program for state cooperatives (Section 1322, p. 169)
9. Advisory board for state cooperatives (Section 1322(b)(3), p. 173)
10. Private purchasing council for state cooperatives (Section 1322(d), p. 177)

My personal favorites are these new boards, agencies, and commissions that Obamacare creates. I'm not saying that what these do are not important or worthy, but I would question whether or not they are more worthy of tax dollars than national defense, fiscal responsibility (debt that my children and grandchildren are going to have to pay interest on even though they don't receive these services now), or any of the proper and limited and constitutional responsibilities of our national government:

• Health and Human Services Coordinating Committee on Women’s Health (Section
  3509(a), p. 1098)
• Centers for Disease Control Office of Women’s Health (Section 3509(b), p. 1102)
• Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Office of Women’s Health (Section 3509(e), p. 1105)
• Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Women’s Health (Section 3509(f), p. 1106)
• Food and Drug Administration Office of Women’s Health (Section 3509(g), p. 1109)
• Community Preventive Services Task Force (Section 4003(b), p. 1126)
• Grant program to support school-based health centers (Section 4101, p. 1135)
• Grant program to promote research-based dental caries disease management (Section
  4102, p. 1147)
• Grant program for States to prevent chronic disease in Medicaid beneficiaries (Section 4108, p. 1174)
• Community transformation grants (Section 4201, p. 1182)
• Grant program to provide public health interventions (Section 4202, p. 1188)
• Demonstration program of grants to improve child immunization rates (Section 4204(b), p. 1200)
• Pilot program for risk-factor assessments provided through community health centers
  (Section 4206, p. 1215)
• Grant program for delivery of services to individuals with postpartum depression (Section 2952(b), p. 591)
• Grant program to recruit students to practice in under-served communities

Tina Korbe at HotAir explains the picture perfectly:

A new report out yesterday from The Heritage Foundation shows private sector job creation dropped dramatically almost immediately after President Barack Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) into law.

From the recession’s low point in January 2009 until April 2010, when Obamacare went into effect, the private sector created about 67,600 jobs a month. After the president signed PPACA into law, that number slowed to a meager 6,400 jobs a month — a more than 90 percent decrease or less than one-tenth the previous rate.

As the report states, correlation cannot prove causation — but the change in course is statistically measurable and testing reveals a structural break between April and May of 2010. Moreover, small-business owners have said Obamacare is a deterrent to hiring. Take Scott Womack, the owner of 12 IHOP restaurants in Indiana and Ohio, as just one example. Before Obamacare became law, he had development plans in Ohio. Now, he’s worried he won’t be able to carry out his original plans unless Obamacare is repealed. Those restaurants he planned to open would provide jobs not only for his future employees, but also for everyone involved in the construction of the restaurant buildings themselves.

As the Heritage report explains, Obamacare discourages hiring in three important ways:
Businesses with fewer than 50 workers have a strong incentive to maintain this size, which allows them to avoid the mandate to provide government-approved health coverage or face a penalty; Businesses with more than 50 workers will see their costs for health coverage rise—they must purchase more expensive government-approved insurance or pay a penalty; and Employers face considerable uncertainty about what constitutes qualifying health coverage and what it will cost. They also do not know what the health care market or their health care costs will look like in four years. This makes planning for the future difficult.

Democrats once touted that Obamacare would create jobs, but the data underscore the reality that that’s not true for the private sector. The only jobs Obamacare created were within the new agencies and layers of bureaucracy the law added to the federal government.

The Heritage report recommends repeal — and comes as a welcome reminder that the health care law can’t be ignored as the president and Congress attempt to address the debt and deficit or as the nation attempts to right the still-struggling economy. Nor can it be ignored in the upcoming presidential election. Likely U.S. voters have said jobs and the economy are their No. 1 issue. That means the repeal of Obamacare should be a top priority, too.

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.

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.

Vin Suprynowic, writing in the Las Vegas Review Journal, writes:

The modern Prussian police state was built by Bismarck and others in the 19th century on a Spartan model, giving the central government vastly greater control over the individual than had ever been considered possible before.

Bismarck's program centered squarely on insurance programs designed to increase support for the ever larger and more powerful government. The program included health insurance, workman's compensation, disability insurance and old-age retirement pensions, all innovations at the time.

Starting with the model of Prussian compulsory schooling, American "educators," starting with John Dewey and Edward Thorndike eagerly imported this Prussian model to America.

Trained to accept such state control (and now the new "green" religion) in the schools for most of the past century, then made dependent on government insurance programs (Social Security, Medicare) as surely as the pimp makes sure his young ladies are dependent on the needle and the fix only he can provide, slavery to the state soon appears inescapable, even ordained by God and nature.

"It is possible that all our politics will come to nothing when I am dead, but state socialism ("Der Staatssozialismus") will push itself through," Bismarck said in 1881.

"State socialism," he called it.

We're told that for some reason we're not allowed to call the Obama-Reid-Pelosi agenda "socialism," "communism," "Marxism," "state socialism" "fascism," or anything else that might sound unpleasant.

Much as I hate to cite the tyrant Lincoln, if we call a dog's tail a leg, does it have five legs? Telling us we're not "allowed" to use an accurate label for something doesn't change what it is.

Instead of allowing General Motors and Chrysler to go through normal bankruptcies, through which new and more efficient private operators could have purchased their worthwhile assets while shedding their crippling union contracts, the two giant auto makers have now been effectively nationalized. Meantime, an unelected federal "pay czar" decides on the compensation of executives, even at supposedly private banks that have paid back all their "bailout" loans. Does that sound like the normal function of the American free market, as understood in 1910, 1960 or even 1990?

Thanks to thoroughly unconstitutional "bailouts," the federal government now de facto manages our major banks and/or credit card companies, along with our airlines and airports.

The health care bill was "sweetened" with a federal takeover of college loans. Why? You don't imagine the federal government will ever try to manipulate the behavior of college graduates, offering to "forgive their college loans" if they agree to behave in ways favored by the fedgov, do you?

"Federalizing" all these programs shifts money and employment from the private to the government-bureaucrat sector. Unionized government bureaucrats tend to belong to outfits like the SEIU, which actively back Democrat/socialists, while dispatching purple-shirted thugs to beat up black freedom-fighters handing out "Don't tread on me" Gadsden flags outside rigged Democratic "town hall" meetings.

The so-called "health reform" bill authorizes $10 billion to field 16,500 more IRS agents to collect and enforce mandatory "premiums," which we're assured are not a "tax." Providing you're a "normal" citizen with a job and house, of course. (Illegal aliens Get Out of Jail Free, as usual.)

Last week the Review-Journal mentioned in passing, in an editorial about socialist Congresscritter Dina Titus' move to facilitate the takeover of Nevada Occupational Safety and Health enforcement by the federal government, that the Constitution grants the federals no authority to regulate workplace safety within the states. One letter writer couldn't wait to write in that the newspaper was wrong: turns out the preamble to the federal OSHA law as adopted specifies that it's all constitutional, since the federal government is empowered to regulate interstate commerce, and "workplace health and safety can impact interstate commerce."

So we're right back to "If you call a dog's tail a leg, does it have five legs?" If Washington can do anything it likes because everything somehow "impacts interstate commerce," why do we have a Constitution with that two-page list of specifically delegated powers? Why not just one sentence: "Congress shall have power to do anything it figures might promote the general welfare and/or impact interstate commerce"?

Vin is right- our Constitution was written for the expressed purpose of limiting the power of the national government so that our god-given rights to life, liberty, and property would be better protected. As the federal government expands, so does its threat to your life, your liberty, and your property, and that is what our founding fathers were trying to protect us against. They wanted to unleash the best of human potential, and knew that that is best done when man is allowed to be free from the constraints of the state. Our economy is more prosperous when we are free and property is protected, and our society is more civil when people provide funds for charities rather than having the government take money from people and redistribute it to favored charities.

In Michigan, I have observed what happens when Democrats run government, and I predicted accurately what would happen if Obama and the Democrats won the elections of 2008. Democrats turned Michigan into Detroit, and Democrats are now turning the United States into Michigan. You need to make sure that everyone you know votes Republican next election, or else your kids will grow up in a nation that is less civil, less prosperous, and less free than then one they are growing up in now. We need to stop these Prussians who are running out government today before they turn us into Germany in 1900... 1920... or 1940.

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.

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.

Reason.tv has some interesting videos on its site. The one that I found the most fascinating is called "Food Fight." In this video, which is hosted by Drew Carey, we a battle between private businesses and government officials. In what is only to become more common with the passage of legislation giving more government power over controlling the health care and energy industries, the video shows how public officials paid for by citizen taxpayer dollars spend their time going around Los Angeles seizing bacon-wrapped hot dogs.

Yes, amid the hustle and bustle of downtown Los Angeles, there exists an underground world of illicit trade in bacon-wrapped hot dogs. The Department of Health has made it illegal to sell a hot dog wrapped in bacon, and if they catch any street vendors doing so, they will use their police powers to hassle these private businesses, shut them down, seize their goods, or even destroy their businesses. It is all seen on the video- there is actually camera footage of government thugs confiscating a food cart and dumping the bacon-wrapped hot dogs into the trash.

"Bacon is a potentially hazardous food,” says the LA County Health Department. Personally, I think a government that can throw a food vendor in the in the slammer for 45 days for selling bacon dogs is a bigger threat to our lives, liberty, and property. Which do you want- a dangerously powerful government or a street vendor who pays taxes and sells consumers products they want?

A government bureaucrat, supported by no data at all, feels personally that bacon-wrapped hot dogs are not safe, and put in a rule that makes it illegal to sell them. Apparently he feels he is the business of stopping people from doing what they want because he doesn't agree with it- sounds like more government officials in the business of tyranny.

Be prepared for more of this- is your home or business going to be up to the new Green Codes or the new Health Codes that government officials come up with every day? With Democrats in office, you really need to ask yourself- are you really living in a free country any more?

If you thought I was joking, you should have been paying more attention to the news- Government tightens food standards is only the beginning. Obama and the Democrats have just decreed that the bureucratic agencies that rule us now have more power over private businesses and can decide what temperature eggs must be kept at and who you are allowed to buy chickens from.

This new system for 'monitoring eggs' was coupled with 'other steps' gives federal monitors more authority and more force with which to respond when you break their rules. These new powers are designed to combat salmonella in eggs, but are only the first step- the Department of Agriculture is soon to be created similar powers to those who raise cows for meat and milk, and the FDA is developing ways to control those who grow tomatoes, melons and leafy greens.

Democrats, liberals, and Obama are only about one thing- controlling your life. Now they are even trying to control what you eat! Will the attacks on property, liberty, and life never end?

Via Memeorandum I came across this story over at the Volokh Conspiracy called "Administration Tells Regulated Industry That There Will Be “Zero Tolerance” for Alleged “Misinformation” in Industry’s Statements About Government Policy":

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius wrote America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the national association of health insurers, calling on their members to stop using scare tactics and misinformation to falsely blame premium increases for 2011 on the patient protections in the Affordable Care Act.... "There will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases," she wrote "I want AHIP’s members to be put on notice: the Administration, in partnership with states, will not tolerate unjustified rate hikes..."

The precise nature of the threat — as with so many threats — is not made entirely clear, so the legal analysis of the threat is also unclear.  But if the Administration is threatening to use its considerable regulatory power to retaliate against insurance companies that, in the Administration’s view, are conveying “misinformation” — for instance, because their financial analyses disagree with the Administration’s financial analyses — that strikes me as quite troubling.

Quite troubling indeed. You really need to ask yourself and your friends and your family whether or not they believe anymore that everyone (both individuals and private companies) have the right to be free, to earn and keep property, and to protect others lives, or if they believe that the government exists to control others (both individuals and private companies) based on what they think is right. The very fundamental nature of our nation is being threatened by Obama and Democrats who support him and his agenda, and using the instruments of the state to force (or in this case vaguely threaten to use force) others to follow what they believe in is tyranny, and all tyrants must be overthrown. The evidence is piling up, in bits and pieces- just like Democrats hammered on George Bush for supposed faults and problems and all those little blows took their toll and idiots then voted Democrats, we must continually guard our freedoms and liberties and call out Obama and the Democrats when they exercise their power in unjust, immoral, and illegal ways, such as was done above.

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.

Warrick Smith writes(PDF) about the potential of entrepreneurship in the developing world. "...Today, few informed commentators question that the private sector plays a critical role in growth and poverty reduction. The ideological debates of the past are giving way to more pragmatic discussions about how best to unleash and expand that contribution while preserving other social values. New research is also providing fresh insights into what works and what doesn’t...when assessing the contribution of entrepreneurship to development,we need a more encompassing view. We need to include peasant farmers toiling in their fields in Uganda and Bangladesh; street vendors peddling their wares in La Paz and Manila; and microenterprises in Cairo and Istanbul...The private sector is the principal source of investment, with domestic private investment substantially overshadowing foreign investment across the developing world...The private sector accounts for about 90 percent of jobs in developing countries, .and poor people rate self-employment and jobs as the two most promising ways to improve their situation. But employment is not the only mechanism. A vibrant private sector expands the availability and reduces the prices of goods in society, including goods consumed by poor people. And firms and commercial transactions are the main source of taxes from which governments can empower the poor through investments in health, education and other public goods, as well as through direct income transfers..."

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?

How Mauritius continues to get it right-Economist
Worldchanging provides an overview of Financial Innovators
Is Private Health Care the Answer to the Health Problems of the World's Poor?-Plos
Competing views on Informal Economies-Next Billion
A Cheery African future?
Alaskan Village Corporations, A model for rural Africa?
Poverty Reduction demands a 'bottom-up approach'.
Training Women Entrepreneurs-WSJ
While Rio Tinto and Israeli diamond trader Beny Steinmetz fight over Guinean Iron Ore...the question is where are the Africans?
Wealth creation in the developing world: Is Africa a lost cause? Listen here

Poor USA- I tried to warn you. We have a politician here in Michigan who sounds a lot like Obama- an amateur who lacked executive experience, a liberal who pushed for higher taxes and more regulation, and a Democrat who passes larger and larger budgets that benefit special interest groups while the state suffers. Granholm, our Governor, even has a bogeyman to blame like Obama- first it was Engler, than it was Bush, and if she was Governor another 10-20 years, it would always be a bogeyman causing the problems, not her. Get used to it, nation, because when I listen to Obama talk, that's the impression I get.

Okay, so I'm looking through Obama's speech, and here are some parts that jump out to me:

"That day of reckoning has arrived, and the time to take charge of our future is here."

First off, why is today the day of reckoning? Why wasn't it yesterday, or last year, or two years ago? Why wasn't it September 11, 2001, or 1940, or 1776? Why is it the election of Obama as President? Obama shows his lack of humility, and shows why people mock him by calling him the Messiah and the Anointed one- he feels that the election of him is the day of reckoning. That's interesting.

According to wikipedia, the Day of reckoning is a term used to describe the Last Judgment in Christian eschatology. Judgment Day, or Day of the Lords, is the judgment by God of all nations. It will take place after the resurrection of the dead and the Second Coming (Revelation 20:12–15). So what does Obama really believe about our times? Interestingly enough, wikipedia is a fine help- under the section "Gnostic tradition", there is this line-

some liberal theologies reject the traditional conception of the Last Judgment as inconsistent with an all-just and loving God, in favor of some form of universal salvation. They teach that all beings of the human evolution will ultimately be saved in a distant future as they acquire a superior grade of consciousness and altruism.

Obama thinks that he is more evolved than us, that he is superior in consciousness and altruism than us, and that he is the second coming of Jesus, and that the election of him will bring universal salvation to all- everyone, no matter if they are good or bad, will be saved by him, and he will provide everything to everyone.

Here is another line I like:

This plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs. More than 90% of these jobs will be in the private sector - jobs rebuilding our roads and bridges; constructing wind turbines and solar panels; laying broadband and expanding mass transit.

Let's see if I understand the logic- 1 trillion dollars in taxpayer money, government money, sent to government agencies and bureaucracies, and 90% of the jobs are private sector? Building roads and bridges, wind turbines, solar panels, broadband, mass transit- I guess by private sector he means private sector in the sense that favored businesses will get government money, much like the Nazi's ran their economy under their fascist systems in Germany and Italy.

Next, let's look at how Mr. Bipartisanship really works:

Given these realities, everyone in this chamber - Democrats and Republicans - will have to sacrifice some worthy priorities for which there are no dollars. And that includes me. But that does not mean we can afford to ignore our long-term challenges. I reject the view that says our problems will simply take care of themselves; that says government has no role in laying the foundation for our common prosperity.

In other words, everyone in Congress- except Democrats- will have to sacrifice their priorities- but Democrats totally reject the worldview of libertarians and fiscal conservatives. Totally reject- entirely reject- everything that you believe in, if you are a fiscal conservative or libertarian. If you voted for this guy, you elected someone who rejects your views in the name of 'bipartisanship'.

Oh, his speech is getting better- now that he is past the flowery language, we get to the heart of the matter. He is going to cut our energy supplies, especially oil. He is going to drive our domestic auto industry out of business. He is going to put in place a Soviet health care system. He is going to give everyone free college education, especially if you volunteer for Democrat causes. He is going to lose militarily around the world and sit down and give in to all of our enemies.

Incidentally, I'm shocked by how scripted this guy is- not a single variation in anything he says. I was reading this entire speech as he was saying it- he didn't vary a single word in the entire speech. Is this really how Lincoln and Reagan did it? Is this really how FDR and JFK did it? Read a speech word for word that others had written? I don't think so.

UPDATE: I was curious about what Obama knew about Greensburg, Kansas- apparently when a tornado ripped through this city last May, Obama said that 10,000 people were killed because the entire Kansas national guard was in Iraq- in reality, only 12 people died, and very little of Kansas's national guard was gone. Opps! All this guy knows are the places he saw during his campaign- all of his education about the world has been gained in campaigning for office.

How about Dillon, South Carolina, and Obama's visit there? Well, Obama was there for a campaign stop too. Apparently it is part of the 'Corridor of Shame'? Anyways, since everyone in this school is poor and African-American, and the people in this area supported Obama, he wants to now give kick-backs to this school. Interesting. See this information here.

Recently I wrote in San Francisco Passes Ban on Toys and Happiness:

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors recently approved a preliminary ban on toys in McDonald's Happy Meals, although the decision still needs to pass a final vote. This echo's an earlier decision in California’s Santa Clara County, which also passed a similar Happy Meals toy ban ordinance. And don't look now, but the Center for Science in the Public Interest wants the ban on toys and happiness for children to go national- it is going to sue McDonald's to force it to end its practice of throwing in a free toy along with an order of fries and Chicken McNuggets....

....Liberals in California and potential liberals in the court system believe that if you are left to freely decide on your own what to feed your child, you will make the wrong decisions because you are an idiot. You are not free to decide what to feed your children and your child is not free to enjoy happiness and a toy unless they eat their vegetables. Oh, we've all been there- threatening little Timmy or Amy to eat their vegetables or no toys, but I bet you never figured that someday you wouldn't have to say this, because if little Timmy or Amy didn't eat their vegetables the police would beat them down and steal their toys. The nanny state continues to get bigger and bigger, as people in California vote against a limited government that is restricted to protecting life, liberty, and property rights, and instead empower an all-powerful government to rule your life and control your children, all in the name of some sort of morality or fairness or something. It's creepy and predatory, and it warrants an injunction, and that injunction will be the American people standing up and saying "come and get me, and pry this McDonald's toy out of my cold dead hand if you can." ....

Well, it doesn't stop with this for liberals. Not content to control what you choose to feed your child, liberals in San Francisco could soon put a measure on the ballot banning circumcision, reports CBS San Francisco, and it will likely pass because it meets the liberals main criteria of 'control other peoples' behavior.' The ballot measure that would make it a “misdemeanor to circumcise, excise, cut or mutilate the…genitals” of a person under 18.

Now, whatever your views as parents are regarding circumcising your son (and we did extensive research before having our 5 boys circumcised), it is clear that the decision is yours and not the state's to make. People circumcise their children for many reasons- health and religion chief among them- and for the government to come in and punish parents or doctors who perform this surgery because some liberal doesn't like it speaks again to the tyranny that government increasingly engages in, where it is now the greatest threat to your life, liberty, and property.

This is not the first or last time in the last year that California has proposed or considered banning human liberty and freedom just because some do-goody fascists controlled government power and used it to coerce others into obeying their unjust commands. Whether it is outlawing Happy Meals, banning male circumcision, or outlawing bacon-wrapped hog dogs, the government of California is out of control. Instead of doing a few things right and doing them well and under budget, California's government, run by liberals and Democrats, is now a bankrupt sprawling Leviathan that threatens the citizens of that once great state increasingly.

In Government Thugs vs Bacon-Wrapped Hot Dog Vendors I wrote:

...In what is only to become more common with the passage of legislation giving more government power over controlling the health care and energy industries, the video shows how public officials paid for by citizen taxpayer dollars spend their time going around Los Angeles seizing bacon-wrapped hot dogs...


...Yes, amid the hustle and bustle of downtown Los Angeles, there exists an underground world of illicit trade in bacon-wrapped hot dogs. The Department of Health has made it illegal to sell a hot dog wrapped in bacon, and if they catch any street vendors doing so, they will use their police powers to hassle these private businesses, shut them down, seize their goods, or even destroy their businesses....

...A government bureaucrat, supported by no data at all, feels personally that bacon-wrapped hot dogs are not safe, and put in a rule that makes it illegal to sell them. Apparently he feels he is the business of stopping people from doing what they want because he doesn't agree with it- sounds like more government officials in the business of tyranny....


....Be prepared for more of this- is your home or business going to be up to the new Green Codes or the new Health Codes that government officials come up with every day? With Democrats in office, you really need to ask yourself- are you really living in a free country any more?...

...Democrats, liberals, and Obama are only about one thing- controlling your life. Now they are even trying to control what you eat! Will the attacks on property, liberty, and life never end?...

If I'm wrong, how come I'm so right so often?  Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto

In several earlier posts I have been critical of Obamacare because it attacks life, liberty, and property and because it represents the growing tyranny of the federal government. But somehow I missed an important reason why we should oppose giving the national government more control over our healthcare system- power should not be concentrated in the hands of government and government officials because when this happens it increases by considerable amounts the chances that this power will be used in a corrupt manner. And we're seeing that under President Barack Obama (Democrat) and a Congress that was run by Nancy Pelosi (Democrat), legislation like Obamacare was passed into law that is now leading to considerable amounts of corruption in our system.

Corruption takes makes many forms, but in this case, we have to consider whether or not Democrats, led by President Obama and Democrats in Congress, passed legislation that allows and encourages more corruption in our nation and also whether or not these same Democrats continue to be encouraging and supporting of corruption. Corruption is seen usually in several ways- trading in influence, patronage, cronyism, electoral fraud, and kickbacks.

It was my suspicion several months ago that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was a corrupt piece of legislation designed to transfer property and choice from those who have it to those who want it. There would be those who would not want to be part of this process who would then ask for waivers, and it was my suspicion that these waivers would be given out based on political considerations- in other words, they would be given to groups that support the Democratic Party, Obama in particular, or to companies who had access and connections to those Democratic party officials who were making the decisions on the waivers, likely because of their campaign donations. So I started to do some research on the issue- as I stated, the research was by no means an exhaustive list of evidence but did end up being some pretty fair anecdotal evidence that those who are receiving waivers from Obamacare are those who donated large amounts of money to Barack Obama. Check out the post for my little bit of research on this issue. Usually where there is lots of smoke there is a fire, and it turns out the smoke I saw is now being seen by others.

The Daily Caller is reporting that:

Of the 204 new Obamacare waivers President Barack Obama’s administration approved in April, 38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Northern California district. That’s in addition to the 27 new waivers for health care or drug companies and the 31 new union waivers Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services approved.

Pelosi’s district secured almost 20 percent of the latest issuance of waivers nationwide, and the companies that won them didn’t have much in common with companies throughout the rest of the country that have received Obamacare waivers. Other common waiver recipients were labor union chapters, large corporations, financial firms and local governments.

This is not shocking news to me- Nancy Pelosi was the Speaker of the House and Barack Obama is still our President, and both are Democrats, and of course the kick-backs will be going primarily to areas that supported them, whether they be in Pelosi's district or union allies or local government units that vote overwhelmingly Democrat.

I think Mona Charen from RealClearPolitics really understands the nature of Obamacare- it is designed to move us away from a nation built on equality and laws to a nation built on power and men:

....There are rumblings of suspicion that HHS has shown favoritism -- labor unions have received some 26 percent of waivers while comprising only 12 percent of workers. As Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee remarked, "What does it say about the feasibility of the health care law when the administration needs to exempt over 1,000 health plans from its own law?"

A few wags have suggested that the HHS grant the rest of the country a waiver and be done with it. But the implications of what Professor Richard Epstein has called "government by waiver" aren't funny. As Congress has ceded more and more power to regulatory agencies, the opportunities for abuse of power multiply. Writing in National Affairs, Epstein notes that among the companies and entities that successfully sought waivers from Obamacare's provisions were PepsiCo, Foot Locker, the Pew Charitable Trusts, many local chapters of the Teamsters, the United Food and Commercial Workers union, and numerous public-employee unions.

But, asks Epstein, "(W)hat about employers who do not have the resources to navigate the waiver process? What about those lacking the political connections to make their concerns heard in Washington? And what happens when the one-year waivers run out? Will they be renewed? Under what conditions? And what rights will insurers have to waive then in order to avoid going out of business?"

The world of Obamacare is no place for the little guy.

The danger of waiver power is that it will be used differentially, giving one private entity a competitive advantage over another. The company denied a waiver can bring suit -- but litigation is expensive and slow....

....Because there are so few avenues of recourse when we live under a government by waiver, we are forced, as Epstein warns, to trust in the good judgment of bureaucrats and elected officials: "The fate of our rights and liberties is left to the wisdom and discretion of individuals; we are therefore governed by men, not by laws."

In Marbury v. Madison, Justice Marshall wrote: "The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right." It will also cease to deserve that "high appellation" if we submit to the unreviewable discretion of agencies.

There really are two visions of the future of America being pushed for by the two parties in our nation- one vision pushes for a nation built on laws (although you might disagree with some of those laws) and another vision pushes for a nation built on the rule of powerful men (although you might agree with some of the rules these men establish). It's a tough choice for many- side with the strongman who promises a better future, or side with the lawman who promises a nation built on law. Many will be seduced, and our nation will be less because of it.

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.

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.