The Story of the Buck Act

If you have ever wondered why the federal government can do whatever it wants (whether it be taxes or forcing you to have health care, or filling out paperwork to have a baby), here is why. Original here.

In order  for you  to understand  the full import of what is happening, I must explain certain laws to you.

When passing  new statutes,  the Federal  government  always does everything according to the principles of law.  In order for the Federal  Government to  tax a  Citizen of  one of the several states, they  had to create some sort of contractual nexus.  This contractual nexus is the “Social Security Number”.

In 1935,  the federal government instituted Social Security. The  Social  Security  Board  then  created  10  Social  Security “Districts”.   The combination of these “Districts” resulted in a “Federal area”  which covered all the several states like a clear plastic overlay.

In 1939,  the  federal  government  instituted  the  “Public Salary Tax Act of  1939″.   This Act  is a  municipal law of the District of  Columbia for taxing all federal and state government employees and those who live and work in any “Federal area”.

Now, the government knows it cannot tax those state Citizens who live and work outside the territorial jurisdiction of Article 1, Section  8, Clause 17 (1:8:17) or Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) in the U.S. Constitution.  So, in 1940, Congress passed the “Buck  Act”, 4 U.S.C.S. Sections 105-113.  In Section 110(e), this Act  authorized any  department of the federal government to create a  “Federal area” for imposition of the “Public Salary Tax Act of  1939″.   This tax is imposed at 4 U.S.C.S. Sec. 111.  The rest of  the taxing  law is  found in  the Internal Revenue Code. The Social  Security Board  had already  created a “Federal area” overlay:

4 U.S.C.S. Sec. 110(d). The term “State” includes any Territory or possession of the United States.

4 U.S.C.S. Sec. 110(e). The term “Federal area” means any lands or premises held or acquired by or for the use of the United States or any department, establishment, or agency of the United States; and any Federal area, or any part thereof, which is located within the exterior boundaries of any State, shall be deemed to be a Federal area located within such State.

There is  no reasonable  doubt that  the federal  “State” is imposing an excise tax under the provisions of 4 U.S.C.S. Section 105, which states in pertinent part:

Sec. 105.  State, and  so forth,  taxation affecting Federal areas;  sales or use tax(a) No  person shall  be relieved from liability for payment of, collection  of, or  accounting for  any sales or use tax levied by  any State,  or by  any  duly  constituted  taxing authority therein,  having jurisdiction to levy such tax, on the ground  that the sale or use, with respect to which such tax is levied, occurred in whole or in part within a Federal area;   and such  State or  taxing authority shall have full jurisdiction and  power to  levy and collect any such tax in any Federal  area within  such State  to the same extent and with the  same effect  as though such area was not a Federal area.

Irrespective of what the tax is called, if its purpose is to produce revenue, it is an income tax or a receipts tax under the Buck Act [4 U.S.C.A. Secs. 105-110].

Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Calvert, 464 SW 2d. 170 (1971), affd (Tex) 478 SW 2d. 926, cert. den. 409 U.S. 967, 34 L.Ed. 2d. 234, 93 S.Ct. 293.

Thus, the obvious question arises: What is a “Federal area”? A  “Federal   area”  is   any  area  designated  by  any  agency, department, or  establishment of  the  federal  government.  This includes the  Social Security  areas  designated  by  the  Social Security Administration, any public housing area that has federal funding, a  home that  has a  federal bank  loan, a road that has federal  funding,   and  almost   everything  that   the  federal government touches  through any  type of  aid.    Springfield  v. Kenny, 104  N.E. 2d 65 (1951 App.).  This “Federal area” attaches to anyone  who has  a Social  Security  Number  or  any  personal contact with  the federal  or state  governments.   Through  this mechanism, the  federal government usurped the Sovereignty of the People, as  well as  the Sovereignty  of the  several states,  by creating “Federal  areas” within  the boundaries  of  the  states under the  authority of Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) in the federal Constitution, which states:

2.   The Congress  shall have  Power to  dispose of and make all needful  Rules and  Regulations respecting the Territory or other  Property  belonging  to  the  United  States,  and nothing in  this Constitution  shall be  so construed  as to prejudice any  claims  of  the  United  States,  or  of  any particular State.

Therefore, all  U.S. citizens [i.e. citizens of the District of Columbia]  residing in  one of  the states  of the  Union, are classified as property, as franchisees of the federal government, and as  an “individual entity”.  See Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773.  Under the “Buck Act”, 4 U.S.C.S.  Secs. 105-113,  the federal  government has created a “Federal area”  within the  boundaries of all the several states. This area is similar to any territory that the federal government acquires through  purchase, conquest  or treaty, thereby imposing federal territorial  law upon  all people in this “Federal area”. Federal territorial  law is  evidenced by  the Executive Branch’s yellow-fringed U.S.  flag flying  in  schools,  offices  and  all courtrooms.

You must  live on  land in one of the states in the Union of several states, not in any “Federal State” or “Federal area”, nor can you  be involved  in any activity that would make you subject to “federal  laws”. You  cannot  have  a  valid  Social  Security Number, a “resident” driver’s license, a motor vehicle registered in your  name, a  “federal”  bank  account,  a  Federal  Register Account  Number   relating  to  Individual  persons  [SSN],  (see Executive Order  Number 9397,  November 1943), or any other known “contract implied  in fact”  that  would  place  you  within  any “Federal area”  and thus  within the  territorial jurisdiction of the municipal  laws of  Congress.  Remember, all acts of Congress are territorial  in nature  and only apply within the territorial jurisdiction of  Congress.   (See American  Banana Co.  v. United Fruit Co.,  213 U.S.  347, 356-357  (1909);   U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217,  222, 94 L.Ed. 3, 70 S.Ct. 10 (1949);  New York Central R.R. Co.  v. Chisholm, 268 U.S. 29, 31-32, 69 L.Ed. 828, 45 S.Ct. 402 (1925).)

There has  been created  a fictional Federal “State within a state”.   See Howard v. Sinking Fund of Louisville, 344 U.S. 624, 73 S.Ct.  465, 476,  97 L.Ed. 617 (1953);  Schwartz v. O’Hara TP. School Dist., 100 A. 2d. 621, 625, 375 Pa. 440.  (Compare also 31 C.F.R. Parts 51.2 and 52.2, which also identify a fictional State within a state.)  This fictional “State” is identified by the use of  two-letter   abbreviations  like  “CA”,  “AZ”  and  “TX”,  as distinguished from  the authorized  abbreviations like  “Calif.”, “Ariz.” and  “Tex.”, etc.   This  fictional State  also uses  ZIP codes which  are  within  the  municipal,  exclusive  legislative jurisdiction of Congress.

This entire  scheme was accomplished by passage of the “Buck Act”, 4  U.S.C.S. Secs.  105-113, to implement the application of the “Public Salary Tax Act of 1939″ to workers within the private sector.   This subjects  all private  sector workers  who have  a Social Security number to all state and federal laws “within this State”,  a  “fictional  Federal  area”  overlaying  the  land  in California and  in all other states in the Union.  In California, this is established by California Form 590, Revenue and Taxation. All you have to do is to state that you live in California.  This establishes that you do not live in a “Federal area” and that you are exempt  from the  Public Salary Tax Act of 1939 and also from the California Income Tax for residents who live “in this State”.

The following  definition is  used  throughout  the  several states in  the application  of their municipal laws which require some sort of contract for proper application.  This definition is also included  in all  the codes  of California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah and New York:

“In this  State” or “in the State” means within the exterior limits of  the State … and includes all territories within such limits owned or ceded to the United States of America.

This definition concurs with the “Buck Act” supra which states:

110(d) The term “State” includes any Territory or possession of the United States.

110(e) The  term “Federal  area” means any lands or premises held or  acquired by  or for the use of the United States or any department,  establishment,  or  agency  of  the  United States;  and any Federal area, or any part thereof, which is located within  the exterior  boundaries of any State, shall be deemed to be a Federal area located within such State.

So, do  some research.   I  have given  you all  the  proper directions in  which to  look for  the jurisdictional  nexus that places you within the purview of the federal government.

Healthcare: It’s Not Cool So I Won’t Pay

We have a problem with Jonesing here in America. We see what we have and then compare it to our neighbors, friends and family. It is a popularity contest to see who can obtain the most gadgets and the most gadgets the quickest. We spend hundreds and thousands of dollars a year on… junk.

Think about it… how much is your cell phone plan? Mine is about $75/month, which comes out to $900/year. If it was an iPhone it would be  $99 for the phone (8GB, bottom of the barrel) and for the minimum plan (450 minutes + iPhone service + no text messages) $63 a month. Almost everyone has a flat screen TV which is probably $800 or more. Many people have laptops. Smoke and spend $900/year (1 pack a day). Drink every weekend ($1000/year). And if you ever go to the mall or the electronics store people are clearly buying crap they really don’t need. And the list goes on and on.

So why is it so hard to pay for something as sacred as your health? Why is it that we want free health care but we don’t mind buying big screen TVs, new cars, iPods, laptops, netflix, cable, tivo, satellite, and new clothes? Was America not taught that there are “needs” and “wants” in the world and that needs come first?

Also, what about preventative maintinence of the body? We change the oil on our car to keep the engine happy. We vacuum the carpet to maintain the quality of the carpet. We clean the inside of our computers (well some of us) so that the dust buildup allows parts to cool down. We change the batteries in the smoke detector so we can be alerted that something is on fire. We wash our hands to prevent germ buildup. We trim the grass in the front yard to maintain our property values.

But when it comes to our HEALTH… hell no, we can’t do personal maintinence on that.

Now, I am not advocating that the government should come in and tell us how to do preventative maintinence on our bodies to keep us healthy. What I am saying is that it is our personal responsibility to maintain our bodies… just as it is our personal responsibility to maintain our cars, homes, electronics, and safety equipment. It is not my neighbors responsibility to maintain my body nor is it their responsibility to pay for it.

So what I am hearing is this.

1. My body and my health is not important enough for me to invest my money into.
2. My body and my health is not important enough for me to invest my time into.
3. My body and my health need to to be supervised and cared for by someone else.
4. I do not want to hear how much health care costs so hide it from me – make my employer see the bill, or my neighbor (see #1).
5. My government knows more about what is good for my body than I do.

Maybe I am wrong. It isn’t cool to show off how healthy you are… or that you are covered by your plan… or that you made some lifestyle changes to live healthier. No, it is cooler to show things that are materialistic that you can show to the neighbors, friends, or family. It simply is not cool to say “I look out for myself” but it is cool when you whip out your iPad at the bar to check the score of the game.

In other words, if it does not score me cool points then I don’t want to pay for it. I want it, but I don’t want to pay for it. I am too busy buying other things to score me cool points.

How the Public Option Healthcare Becomes Universal Healthcare

This is the new drum for the Public Option.

Am I missing something here? Option A, Option B, Option C, and then the Public Option. Well, sounds like capitalism, right? I now have 4 options to chose from!

But who is paying for the Public Option so we can choose that? The Taxpayer. So that means that if you are paying for Option B, then you are actually paying for Option B AND the Public Option. Why are you paying for Option B if you are being forced to pay for the Public Option through taxes?

Any sane person will realize that financially speaking it is stupid to pay for Option X when you will always be paying for the Public Option. Right? So slowly, Option X will disappear and we will be left with only the Public Option.

Presto! We have our Universal Health Care. And the best part is with this plan… the government didn’t force Universal Health Care, you chose it by giving up your Option X health care… because the Public Option was better, right? Right. It is always better to get your opposition to slide over to your side by their own choice (even if it is a pseudo-choice) because they then cannot say that you forced them.

Seriously this is genius and if you listen to videos like this, then you will be duped.

Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

Reagan on Socialized Medicine

America’s Socialized Health Care

Health-care systems in most developed nations are in financial trouble. Health benefits are being cut back because of exploding costs. Degenerative illnesses such as diabetes and cancer are at epidemic levels in spite of new drugs and treatments. While doctors, politicians, and insurers blame each other, they rarely mention the real problem.

Skyrocketing costs are due to the structure of health care in all these nations. All are mainly socialized, including America’s. This means they operate as top-down bureaucracies, out of touch with people’s real needs. Almost no market forces are allowed to operate for rational decision-making and cost control.

Flag Yourself for Suspicious Activity

Flag yourself.

I did.

Show that you do not agree with what is going on.

Healthcare Plan Based on Economic Fantasy

As the healthcare debate rages on, there is one reality that even the proponents of this hostile takeover of healthcare by government cannot ignore — and that is money. The government simply does not have the money for a new, expansive, public healthcare plan. The country is in a deep recession that will deepen even further with the coming collapse of the commercial real estate market. The last thing we need is for government to increase and expand taxes to pay for another damaging, wasteful program. Foreigners are becoming less enthusiastic about buying our debt, and creating another open-ended welfare program when we cannot pay for what is already in place, will not help. Champions of socialized medicine want to tax the rich, tax businesses that already cannot afford to provide health plans to employees, and tax people who don’t want to participate in the government’s scheme by buying an approved healthcare plan. Presumably, all these taxes are to induce compliance. This is not freedom, nor will it improve healthcare.

There are limits to how much government can tax before it kills the host. Even worse, when government attempts to subsidize prices, it has the net effect of inflating them instead. The economic reality is that you cannot distort natural market pressures without unintended consequences. Market forces would drive prices down. Government meddling negates these pressures, adds regulatory compliance costs and layers of bureaucracy, and in the end, drives prices up.

The non-partisan CBO estimates that the healthcare plan will cost almost a trillion dollars over the next ten years. But government crystal balls always massively underestimate costs. It is not hard to imagine the final cost being two or three times the estimates, even though the estimates are bad enough.

It is still surreal that in a free country we are talking only about HOW government should fix healthcare, rather than WHY government should fix healthcare. This should be between doctors and patients. But this has been the discussion since the 60’s and the inception of Medicare and Medicaid, when government first began intervening to keep costs down and make sure everyone had access. The result of Medicaid/Medicare price controls and regulatory burden has been to drive more doctors out of the system — making it more difficult for the poor and the elderly to receive quality care! Seemingly, there are no failed government programs, only underfunded ones. If we refuse to acknowledge common sense economics, the prescription will always be the same: more government.

Make no mistake, government control and micromanagement of healthcare will hurt, not help healthcare in this country. However, if for a moment, we allowed the assumption that it really would accomplish all they claim, paying for it would still plunge the country into poverty. This solves nothing. The government, like any household struggling with bills to pay, should prioritize its budget. If the administration is serious about supporting healthcare without contributing to our skyrocketing deficits, they should fulfill promises to reduce our overseas commitments and use some of those savings to take care of Americans at home instead of killing foreigners abroad.

The leadership in Washington persists in a fantasy world of unlimited money to spend on unlimited programs and wars to garner unlimited control. But there is a fast-approaching limit to our ability to borrow, steal, and print. Acknowledging this reality is not mean-spirited or cruel. On the contrary, it could be the only thing that saves us from complete and total economic meltdown.

(link)

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.

Healthcare is a Good, Not a Right

From: Ron Paul

Political philosopher Richard Weaver famously and correctly stated that ideas have consequences. Take for example ideas about rights versus goods. Natural law states that people have rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A good is something you work for and earn. It might be a need, like food, but more “goods” seem to be becoming “rights” in our culture, and this has troubling consequences. It might seem harmless enough to decide that people have a right to things like education, employment, housing or healthcare. But if we look a little further into the consequences, we can see that the workings of the community and economy are thrown wildly off balance when people accept those ideas.

First of all, other people must pay for things like healthcare. Those people have bills to pay and families to support, just as you do. If there is a “right” to healthcare, you must force the providers of those goods, or others, to serve you.

Obviously, if healthcare providers were suddenly considered outright slaves to healthcare consumers, our medical schools would quickly empty. As the government continues to convince us that healthcare is a right instead of a good, it also very generously agrees to step in as middle man. Politicians can be very good at making it sound as if healthcare will be free for everybody. Nothing could be further from the truth. The administration doesn’t want you to think too much about how hospitals will be funded, or how you will somehow get something for nothing in the healthcare arena. We are asked to just trust the politicians. Somehow it will all work out.

Universal Healthcare never quite works out the way the people are led to believe before implementing it. Citizens in countries with nationalized healthcare never would have accepted this system had they known upfront about the rationing of care and the long lines.

As bureaucrats take over medicine, costs go up and quality goes down because doctors spend more and more of their time on paperwork and less time helping patients. As costs skyrocket, as they always do when inefficient bureaucrats take the reins, government will need to confiscate more and more money from an already foundering economy to somehow pay the bills. As we have seen many times, the more money and power that government has, the more power it will abuse. The frightening aspect of all this is that cutting costs, which they will inevitably do, could very well mean denying vital services. And since participation will be mandatory, no legal alternatives will be available.

The government will be paying the bills, forcing doctors and hospitals to dance more and more to the government’s tune. Having to subject our health to this bureaucratic insanity and mismanagement is possibly the biggest danger we face. The great irony is that in turning the good of healthcare into a right, your life and liberty are put in jeopardy.

Instead of further removing healthcare from the market, we should return to a true free market in healthcare, one that empowers individuals, not bureaucrats, with control of healthcare dollars. My bill HR 1495 the Comprehensive Healthcare Reform Act provides tax credits and medical savings accounts designed to do just that.

Did Obama Lie About Health Care Deal?

A few weeks ago Obama pretty much said he made some sort of negotiating with the health care industry. I heard a lot of people rallying this point on Obama’s brow. FINALLY, someone up high is looking out for us. My first thoughts? Fooey! He didn’t do anything significant! If anything, he took us a step closer to universal health care. No bueno in my opinion. Come to find out, he really didn’t make any deals with them. The companies are still ramping their prices, just as they have before. Obama is a liar and the proof is below.

—-

When President Obama announced last week that he had worked out a deal with various health care “stakeholders” to reduce health spending 1.5% per year, most of the “news” media reported the event by parroting the White House talking points.

It would appear, however, that the Obama talking points diverge somewhat from the actual agreement. According to AHA President Richard Umbdenstock, our fearless leader misrepresented the consensus reached by the group:

The groups, he said, had agreed to gradually ramp up to the 1.5 percentage-point target over 10 years — not to reduce spending by that much in each of the 10 years.

Now, why would our President fudge the facts? Well, it’s nothing new. He’s been lying about health care since well before the election. He has, for example, repeatedly told whoppers about how much money EMR will save the system.

In this case, the obvious reason is that he wants to pretend his government takeover of healthcare is actually a perfectly reasonable bipartisan reform effort.  But this latest Obama whopper has caused a pretty serious rift within the lute:

Ominously for the Obama plan, the White House’s ham-handed use of the industry groups has made the industry nervous and caused the groups to start backing away.

The industry groups should be nervous. The One is obviously playing them for suckers, just as he did the chumps at Caterpillar. He did not, as claimed by the director of the White House Office of Health Reform,  misspeak.

He lied.

(Original here)