Conservatives Donate With Their Hearts

Conservatives donate with their hearts. Liberals donate through taxation of the rich.

Forced Health Coverage

Excellent! Mandated (read: forced) health coverage, whether or not you want it or need it!

WASHINGTON – President Obama’s dream of dramatically remaking the nation’s health-care system is still a long way from reality. But if lawmakers can reach an accord, one thing is virtually certain: For the first time ever, every American would be required to carry health insurance.

The requirement, known as an individual mandate, is among the most far-reaching changes envisioned this year by those pushing for health-care reform. And it is one of the few common threads running through all three bills being considered in Congress, greatly increasing the likelihood it will survive the legislative process. Obama continued Tuesday to push lawmakers struggling with the large costs and scope of health legislation to move forward, pronouncing reform to be “closer than ever.”

Just as drivers must purchase auto insurance, the medical system of the future would put responsibility for health coverage first and foremost on every adult.

For the vast majority of Americans who have health insurance, the change would mean little more than submitting a form with their tax returns proving that the plan they carry meets certain minimum standards. Many of the nation’s 47 million uninsured people, however, would be required to purchase a health policy or face financial penalties, though waivers or discounts would be provided for lower-income Americans.

The concept is modeled after a requirement instituted in Massachusetts three years ago as part of that state’s broad health-care overhaul. And like the Massachusetts law, the individual mandate proposed by congressional Democrats would be paired with a much more controversial new requirement that nearly every employer contribute to the total cost of care.

‘More affordable for everyone’
“Without an individual mandate, you’re never going to get to universal coverage,” said Bradley Herring, a health economist at Johns Hopkins University.

Bringing everyone into the insurance pool — particularly young, healthy customers — spreads the risk and lowers overall costs. “That will make it more affordable for everyone,” Herring said.

Some proponents of a European-style, nationalized single-payer approach say an individual mandate places an unfair financial burden on lower-income consumers. Some conservative analysts argue that such a requirement forces individuals into an overpriced, underperforming health system.

Yet in a nation that prides itself on having freedom of choice, it is striking that such a wide and diverse coalition has formed around the individual mandate. Labor unions, economists, the medical industry, big business, some prominent Republicans and Obama all support the requirement, which has its roots in the conservative philosophy of self-reliance.

In the debate over Massachusetts’s measure, then-Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican with presidential aspirations, touted the approach as a “personal responsibility system.”

Ferocious lobbying
Hospitals, insurers and drug manufacturers — salivating at the prospect of up to 50 million newly insured customers — have lobbied ferociously for the federal provision.

Obama, after sparring last year with his Democratic presidential primary opponents over the concept, is a convert, as long as there are “hardship exemptions” for those least able to pay.

“I was opposed to this idea because my general attitude was, the reason people don’t have health insurance is not because they don’t want it, but because they can’t afford it. And if you make it affordable, then they will come,” he said in a recent interview with CBS. “I’ve been persuaded that there are enough young, uninsured people who are cheap to cover, but are opting out. To make sure that those folks are part of the overall pool is the best way to make sure that all of our premiums go down.”

Nearly one-third of the uninsured in the United States in 2007 were between the ages of 19 and 29, and 42 percent were between 30 and 54, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. A fair number of young, healthy workers choose not to purchase insurance, believing they do not need it.

Advocates of universal coverage want to lure that group into the insurance pool because they tend to use fewer medical services and help keep premiums down. If only the sick buy coverage, premiums will be high. And visits to emergency rooms by uninsured patients increase premiums for the insured — by $1,000 per person per year, according to some estimates.

The Massachusetts experience with an individual mandate has provided a model, as well as some unexpected results.

“Massachusetts changed everything in the policy community and the political arena,” said Karen Ignagni, president of the industry group America’s Health Insurance Plans.

The penalty for Massachusetts residents who do not carry health insurance was $220 in late 2007 and rose to about $1,020 this year. Still, relatively few residents have balked at the idea — and an additional 432,000 people have signed up for health coverage.

Today, less than 3 percent of Bay State residents lack health insurance, compared with about 16 percent nationwide.

Out of the 3.9 million people who filed taxes in Massachusetts in 2008, 86,000 paid the penalty, and 71,000 were exempted because they did not meet the minimum income levels.

One of the great surprises is how many more people — an additional 148,000 — have enrolled in plans offered through the workplace, most likely nudged by the individual mandate.

“It’s worked out better than I would have guessed,” said MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who serves on the board of the Massachusetts program. “We didn’t anticipate the increase in employer-sponsored insurance.”

Last year, the average price nationwide for health insurance purchased through an employer was $12,680 for a family plan and $4,700 for an individual, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

In Congress, lawmakers are weighing slightly different proposals. A bill being debated in the House this week would charge individuals a penalty of 2.5 percent of income above $9,000, up to the price of the average premium sold nationwide. The fines would begin in 2013.

A bill passed by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee last week would set the penalty at $750 per person. Individuals earning less than 150 percent of the poverty level, or about $16,245, would be exempt.

Negotiations are continuing in the Senate Finance Committee, where Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) has argued for months that an individual mandate is central to achieving Obama’s goal of near-universal coverage and cost controls.

Stuart Butler, a vice president at the conservative Heritage Foundation, agrees that bringing everyone — especially young, healthy patients — into the risk pool would be advantageous.

But he advocates beginning with a voluntary “opt out” approach similar to automatic enrollment programs for retirement accounts. If policies are reasonably priced, he expects that few will turn down the coverage.

The challenge, said Butler and experts in Massachusetts, is designing a basic benefits package that is affordable. Writing a law that requires individuals to purchase something they cannot afford is “inhumane,” Herring said.

When Massachusetts approved its individual mandate, proponents of the new law braced for a modern-day Tea Party. It never materialized.

“I don’t see people revolting over having to have a driver’s license or insurance to drive a car,” Gruber said. “And we haven’t seen it with the mandate.” (link)

Important or interesting parts bolded by me. So this is what I get out of this whole idea. Regardless of who you are, regardless of what care you need, regardless of what you choose to do… you are going to have to enroll. What the article does not tell you is that there are plenty of people that are enrolled and that don’t use their coverage – like me. I am covered by a nice plan and go to the doctor probably once every five years. Hell, I don’t even take medicine – OTC or perscription – unless I am near my deathbed. I do not use my medical coverage and never really will. It is my individual and personal choice to not participate in the system – partly because I prefer eastern/homeopathic medicine over western medicine and also because I have faith in my body to naturally recover from whatever ailment.

Quite frankly, I am not sure why I have not opted out of my coverage and pocketed the money.

So, why should I be forced into remaining in a plan? The answer they give is that people like me will help lower the cost for everyone. I doubt it. Like I alluded to above, I doubt that I am the only one that has coverage and does not use it. Yet, the coverage remains the same. The real answer is that the government wants to play games with us. They want to control what we can and cannot do. What a better way to control us than to control our health? As the article says above, they will require some sort of minimum coverage. So what does that mean? They will take care of you if you have the flu, but not if you need emergency surgery to remove your appendix? Or maybe that cancer that just popped up, well, that isn’t included in the minimum… but hey, thanks for paying anyways, schmuck.

History has shown and continues to show that the only way to drive prices down and quality up is to do it through competition. You read it right – free-markets. I’m not talking about this molested “free-market” we have now either, I am talking about free free-markets. When people are directly exposed to the prices of a product or service, they are directly responsible for the demand (and indirectly, the supply).  This balance is what gives us progression of products and service, not the enforcement of government to participate.

Furthermore, multiple studies have been shown that there is a large amount of people that are uninsured, can afford it, they just don’t want to enroll. If you don’t understand what I just said, then go watch the videos on my old posts, “Who is uninsured in America?” and “Gillespie Plan: If you want health insurance, get some.”

Wake up America.

How Did America Become Great -RL

Over the last few years I have obtained a new respect for Mr. Rush Limbaugh. For years I admittedly didn’t like him. However, the more I listen to him or read what he writes, the more I understand where he is coming from. Below is a piece about America, and why we are great. I agree.

I’d like to ask this question again since I have your attention. There have been populations of people organized as countries since the founding of the planet, since it was created, and since humanity first appeared. People have organized themselves in various ways: groups, families, nations. Now, the earth and humanity, depending on who you talk to, is millions of years old, billions of years old, and throughout the history of human beings, no group of human beings has ever produced the wealth, the freedom, the opportunity, the prosperity, the security, as Americans. The United States of America, throughout human history, is the greatest nation however you wish to define it, in history. Now, how did this happen? We, the United States of America, are just human beings. There are countries that exist at the same time we have, there are countries that existed long before we came into being, of course in Europe and Asia, Africa, Australia, the subcontinents.

How is it that in less than 250 years, this group of human beings called Americans has revolutionized everything about life? We’ve produced the greatest standard of living and shared how to do it with others. We have produced a standard of living unheard of and undreamed of even by people who were alive 100 years ago. We have produced a country where the occupants, the residents have the highest expectations of opportunity, security, wealth, all of these things, education, than any group of human beings has ever had. I really would like for you to take a moment and, when you have a moment, ask yourselves how this can be. And do it honestly. How can it be? And not to besmirch some of these other countries, but just to give you an example. China, Japan, Russia, the satellite countries, Rome, Italy, take your pick, France, all these countries have been around much, much longer than we have. And admittedly, people that founded this country came from Europe. Why were they not able to do where they lived what they did here? You realize our Founding Fathers were Brits. Why were they not able to turn Great Britain or England into the United States when they lived there?

The Fed Creates a Crisis and Hampers the Recovery

by William Anderson (Original here)

When Ron Paul made eliminating the Federal Reserve System a centerpiece of his presidential primary campaign last year, media pundits and others scratched their heads in amazement.  After all, they reasoned, is not the Fed a collection of “conservative, buttoned-down” public officials who are given the mission of providing prosperity?

Indeed, whenever Ben Bernanke and his predecessor, Alan Greenspan, have traveled to Capitol Hill to testify before congressional committees, they are treated as royalty, economic geniuses whose every word is treasured, even if Congress and the press cannot comprehend all of them.  If there is any criticism for these men, it is that they have not inflated enough.

However, in watching one exchange last year between Rep. Paul and Bernanke, I was struck not only by the lack of comprehension of economic logic that Bernanke possessed, but also his utterly wrong view of the actions of the Herbert Hoover administration.  In response to Rep. Paul’s criticism of the numerous Fed-oriented bailouts, Bernanke quoted Andrew Mellon, Hoover’s secretary of the treasury, who had advocated that the government permit weak businesses to go under in order to “purge the rottenness from our system.”

Unfortunately, Bernanke got it wrong.  After quoting Mellon, he assumed that Hoover had followed Mellon’s advice, which clearly is not what happened.  Instead, as Murray Rothbard conclusively pointed out in his classic America’s Great Depression, Hoover ignored Mellon and continued his attempts to bail out failing businesses and implement huge public works projects in order to “increase employment.”

The irony is that Hoover’s policies did “liquidate” the farmers, the bankers, and many others, despite the efforts of the government to keep it from happening.  Unfortunately, the liquidation was much worse than it would have been had Hoover done what his predecessors had done: not intervene into the economy during a downturn.  (President Warren G. Harding, although ridiculed by historians for his relative laissez-faire viewpoints, nonetheless understood the limitations of federal power in economic affairs and refused to intervene when the economy faced a serious downturn in 1921.)

Economic Freedom or Socialist Intervention?

The freedom to fail is an essential part of freedom. Government- provided financial security necessitates relinquishing the very essence of freedom. Last week, the big 3 American automakers came back to Capitol Hill with their hands out to the government. Congress spent this past week debating how much money to give them and what strings should be attached. Though the bailout plan for the auto industry has suffered what I would call a temporary setback in the Senate, other avenues for public funding are being explored through the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department. I am afraid the American auto industry will soon learn that having billions rain down from Washington will not be the blessing one might expect.

The government, after it subsidizes an industry, tends to become a very demanding benefactor. Politicians may not have any real idea about how to build a car, run a bank, educate a child, heal the sick or build a road, but they are quite adept at using carrots and sticks to manipulate and threaten those who do. Most of the federal control over education, roads, healthcare, and now banking and soon auto manufacturing, is done through money, mandates and conditions. The bailout proposal we were considering would force automobile manufacturers to submit their business plans for the approval of a new federal “car czar.” This bureaucrat would have the authority to approve the automakers’ restructuring plan, monitor implementation of the plan, and even stop certain transactions he determines are inconsistent with the companies’ long-term viability.

One could argue that if billions of taxpayer dollars are going to flow into a failing industry, then representatives of those taxpayers have “bought” a say in how that industry is run – which is precisely why bailouts are such a bad idea for both the industry and the taxpayers. The federal government has neither the competence nor the Constitutional authority to tell private companies, such as automakers, how to run their businesses. I would have thought that failed experiments with central planning and government control of business that caused so much harm in the last century would have taught my colleagues the folly of making businesses obey politicians and bureaucrats instead of heeding the wishes of consumers, employees, and stockholders. But the auto industry is in danger of learning for themselves one of the oldest lessons in politics: he who pays the fiddler calls the tune.

It is not the job of government to sustain business. The government should get out of the way, and instead examine excessive regulations, tax policy and red tape that have been hostile to manufacturing in this country. We should get back on a sustainable economic course in this country, or we are doomed to collapse, as the Soviets did, under the crushing burden of big government and a strangled economy that can no longer pay for it.

(Reblogged. Original here)

Drew Carey on Politics

Old, but good (original here).

—

Price Is Right’s Drew Carey Shows His Libertarian Colors

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 2:55 PM

Comedian Drew Carey, who debuted Monday as the host of “The Price Is Right,” is showing his libertarian colors by participating in a series of videos for the Reason Foundation’s new Web site Reason.tv.

The short videos will focus on the libertarian think tank’s belief in what it calls “free minds and free markets.”

Carey said in a statement issued by Reason: “We need Reason to help fight the stupid drug laws, the stupid immigration laws, and stupid big government in general.”

In his first video, Carey examines traffic congestion in Los Angeles and the ways the private sector – rather than taxpayers – can solve the problem.

Ten years ago, according to NewsBusters.org, Carey told Reason magazine about government: “The less the better. As far as your personal goals are and what you actually want to do with your life, it should never have to do with the government. You should never depend on the government for your retirement, your financial security, for anything. If you do, you’re screwed.”

Carey has been politically active over the years. He performed at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner in 2002, and the ex-Marine entertained troops in Iraq in 2003.

He’s been a financial backer of Republican Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, Reuters reported, and in 1998 led a “smoke-in” in defiance of a no-smoking ordinance.

More recently, he has expressed his distaste for the Bush administration’s handling of the Iraq war.

How Do You Feel About a 103% Tax Hike?

I am not the biggest Glenn Beck fan. I think he is way off base sometimes and completely disagree with him. But, that is the beauty of being a human, right? You can be unique as you want to be, or try to xerox yourself…

With that said, sometimes Glenn Beck spits out some absolutely beautiful jems. Things that need to be said, addressed, and spread.

One thing that has been mentioned over the last decade but never talked about and definitely not addressed. In fact, many people think that it is some sort of fairytale. This issue is Social Security and how it is going to bankrupt our economy. BANKRUPT, people! There is no way around this unless we all start giving up a whole lot more of our paychecks.

Yes, we need $54 TRILLION dollars to finance Social Security for just the baby boomers. That means that we need to raise payroll taxes by 103% to cover that. Can you afford a 103% tax hike to cover this tab? If you can’t cover this type of hike, I hope that you (a) send this page to your friends (b) Digg this page and/or (c) write your Congressman. We need to get on this as soon as possible because, guess what, the baby boomers are already starting to draw their checks.

It doesn’t matter if you are an anarchist or a fascist, a Republican or a Democrat, a socialist or a conservative – you need to act…. no, you have to act. We all need to demand that this problem is addressed and fixed. At the very least, we need to demand that our politicians quit trying to bury the $%#@!$ truth from us like they always do. This is not a problem they can just continue to bury because it is a problem that is going to bury us.

Below is the video of Glenn Beck – Touching the Third Rail.

Dear Government, Please Regulate All Aspects of My Life

So, a few months ago I got in a debate with some self-admitted Communists. Now before I get started, let me say that you can be whatever you want – I believe in individualism and am not going to try to say that you can be this and cannot be that. If you want to be a Communist, then so be it.

In this conversation with these Communist it was obvious that they were lustful of big government. In fact, I think they wanted to have everything regulated by the government. I mean, after all, we elect the officials so they will always be looking out for our best interests, right?

They wanted electricity to be [governmentally] re-regulated. That way we wouldn’t have California-Brown Outs. They want radio and television and all forms of news regulated. So that everyone with a political idea could be heard. They want all food production to be regulated. So that there is no surplus. They want universal “free” health care. So that everyone gets to go see a doctor whenever they want. Oh, and they want to burn the Constitution. So that everyone is free? Wait…

So, in part, I agree. Nobody wants to go through brown outs or have high utility bills. Everyone with a political idea wants to be heard. No farmer wants to be poor because their field did not yield crop. And everyone wants to be able to go to the doctor to get help. However, is the answer to all these problems to give all power and decision making to some entity? An entity that in the past has repeatedly proven itself to be (a) vastly incompetent in upholding it’s promises (b) providing a solution that is long-term (c) being more efficient than the private-sector (d) and not creating additional problems in the process.

One of the Communists dared to ask “is there anything that the government deregulated or privatized completely that has proven to run better or more effeciently (with the exception of the US army via blackwater)?” And below is my answer…

The Gnashing of Communist Teeth

So, about a month ago I got into a fairly well natured debate with some Communists (Marxist, Socialist, or whatever else they called themselves). It all started with them dogging my homeboy, Ron Paul. Of course, their aim was to post a slanderous article and hope that everyone took it at face value and didn’t research it to find out the truth. What they didn’t expect was that an avid Ron Paul supporter would come along and challenge everything they put forth as “fact.” Below, I am going to give you a few snippets of the conversation that ensued.
Them in Red… me in blue.

Their feelings on Ron Paul…
A VOTE FOR RON PAUL IS A VOTE FOR PRESERVING WHITE AMERICA!!!! GO RICH WHITE MAN GO! And people take this guy seriously?

Cite your sources of this accusation, please.

If the IP wasn’t banned from seeing the pic, you’d understand. White nationalists flock to Ron Paul because he wants to destroy what threatens a lot of WN groups, such as the IRS. Basically, if hell freezes over, and Ron Paul is elected, pigs fly, and I find a cure for cancer in my back pocket tomorrow, nothing will change. Ron Paul can’t get shit done because of those who we all elected into the House and Senate. Sometimes you have to look past the one issue that people seem to focus on, the withdraw of US troops from Iraq. There are many more issues at stake here. Just because Ron Paul says that he will pull us out doesn’t mean it will happen. Look at George H.W. Bush and the “read my lips, no new taxes” speech. Just because someone says they will do something doesn’t mean that shit will change.

So you link me to a “banned” picture? What is that supposed to prove? And the IRS threatens the WN groups? No, the IRS threatens the American People. I challenge you to find the law that says that I, you, anyone, owes taxes. Don’t bother, not even the IRS can find it. So with that said… Why the hell are you saying that the IRS threatens the WN groups and nobody else? I always thought the IRS was pretty mutual on their fervency of collecting money.Look past a single issue? Are you dense? I support nearly every platform Ron Paul takes. Just because I am against this war – is far from me being a leftist, liberal, or Democrat. And to come back around, I agree with Ron Paul 100% that if we are going to go to war, then we do it the right way – which is to have Congress declare it. I’m still waiting on my proof.

Even the Homeless Don’t Like Pizza Hut?

OK, so I am pretty sure that they like Pizza Hut – but they don’t like it.

So during my lunch break I got some pizza hut. I think it was a #2, so it was a pepperoni pizza and bread sticks. I went outside to eat since it was nice outside and a homeless lady was making her rounds asking for change. Now, for the most part, and from what I could hear, people were pretty courteous. They simply said, “No, I don’t have any change. Sorry.” There was only one person that acted like they didn’t even hear the homeless. I personally think that is wrong – to ignore a human being like that. When she came to me, I politely told her that I didn’t have any change – and I didn’t. But even if I did, I still wouldn’t give them change. I know, I know… what a bastard since he won’t give them any money. But let me explain…

I have never ignored a homeless person. I’ve always politely told them that I don’t have any money for them. I’ve even said “hi” to them when they were just sitting there. There simply, in my mind, no reason to act as if they don’t exist. I used to give them money if I had it, but not anymore. And here is why. I had a friend that knew where some homeless people lived. He decided that he wanted to befriend them. Ya know, be their friend when everyone else ignored them. So I joined this friend and decided that I too was going to be their friend. When I went to go see them, they instantly got all crazy and told me that they were going to kill me. They said that the “pigs” were out to get them and that I was a nark here to spy on them. They thought that it would be easier to just kill me and eliminate a possible stoolie than to accept my word – that I just wanted to be their friend. I actually feared for my life that night as they seemed fairly determined to fulfill that desire for my blood. It was a pretty crazy night and that is just a condensed version of it. Point of this story? Those homeless people wanted to be homeless. They did not want anyone except fellow homeless people in their life.

Today’s story went something like this. I ate my entire pizza but still had 2 bread sticks left over that I didn’t even touch (3 in a pack). I saw that same lady that was making her rounds earlier, so I took those break sticks over to her and offered them to her. So what did she do? She got pissed that I was offering her that. She asked me why I wouldn’t give her money, and then busted out in tears. What? So I just tossed the food away. I was pretty disturbed at this. I went out of my way, out of the kindness of my heart, to give her something she didn’t have. And she had the audacity to try to make a scene of me (crying), refuse my gift, and then got mad at me. I don’t get it.

So that is my question to all you out there… We want to get the government involved to help these people? Why is it that these people will take money from my hand in a heart beat, but refuse my food like they don’t need it? What is it that the government is going to do for these people that I didn’t? And will they take that? And if they do take what the government gives them, why will they take it from the government and not me?

With that said, I don’t have a problem with homeless in general. I was at a Wendy’s one time and a homeless lady was scraping change to get a burger. She didn’t have enough, so she walked away with nothing. I ordered her a burger and fries and went and gave it to her, and she was grateful. I have no problem with homeless people like that. People like her are probably the homeless person that will do anything to not be homeless. The rest of them – forget it, I truthfully think that they have chosen that life and want nothing to do with society other than getting their donations.

But with that said, do I need to pay more taxes that will go to these people that want to be homeless? Your thoughts?