Southern Colorado Patriots Club: Blog

If I remember the words found in the Declaration of Independence, it's the government that serves the people--not the other way around.  Yet more and more items are being unearthed from the 1,900-page bill that passed the House of Congress over the weekend.

Consider this article by Betsy McCaughey at the Wall Street Journal.  These reveal some amazing requirements of citizens by their government.  Who is serving who here?  See the following excerpt from McCaughey's article:

• Sec. 303 (pp. 167-168) makes it clear that, although the "qualified plan" is not yet designed, it will be of the "one size fits all" variety. The bill claims to offer choice—basic, enhanced and premium levels—but the benefits are the same. Only the co-pays and deductibles differ. You will have to enroll in the same plan, whether the government is paying for it or you and your employer are footing the bill.

• Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement.

These are just two of the 14 points exposed in this article, which I'd encourage you to read.  Does this sound like the land of the free and home of the brave to you?  You can see the full text of this bill for yourself here.

This bill must still pass a vote in the Senate to become law, but from what I see here, there's nothing in this for the citizens of the USA.  If you contact your representatives, ask them why they would support a bill with these provisions and see what they say.  For those of us in Colorado, I'm sure you'd be proud to know Representative John Salazar voted for this bill.  Is he representing you?  Will your Senators represent you?

Lots of talk abounds on why this bill is so great for the needed reforms to our health care situation in this country.  Why not decide for yourself?  After all, if you don't, someone else will decide for you.

Labels: government, H.R. 3962, health care, health insurance, Salazar

Coming down to a weak 220 to 215 vote, H.R. 3962 passed last night.  That means if only three more members of Congress voted against this bill, it would have failed.  Make no mistake--we've seen far more controversy over this bill than unanimity.  Why?

Many point to this bill as missing its intended purpose, which is stated to solve our broken health care condition in this country.  I don't dispute our current health care is sub-par and could use big improvements.  However, is this within the realm of the federal government?  If so, to which part of the Constitution is the federal government granted powers to enact such laws?  Shouldn't this be--at most--an issue for the states?  Is anyone in Washington even asking such a question with the bills they "write" (but don't read) anymore?  It would seem not.

H.R. 3962 is a bloated stack of kludges that nobody has read.  I wonder, then, how our representatives can demonstrate they're maintaining their vow to uphold the Constitution of these United States, if they repeatedly vote bills into law without even reading them.  I wonder, also, who is writing these bills?  Whatever happened to the promise to make such bills available to the American citizens several days before a vote?  Was the full bill even available to those expected to vote on it several days before the vote?  If not, isn't it safe to say upholding their Constitutional duties is impossible with behavior of this sort?

Anyway, it seems the real purpose of this bill has been diluted into solving the problem--not of access to good, affordable health care for U.S. citizens--but of an unacceptably low percentage of citizens holding health insurance.  (Nothing like aiming high, eh?)  What is ultimately the solution proposed in this bill?  Simple.  Citizens are now mandated to have health insurance, never mind the cost.  Oh, that was easy--why didn't we do this before?  If you don't get "acceptable" insurance, you'll be slapped with a fine.  If you don't pay the fine, you can be criminally prosecuted for tax evasion.*  Nanny state to the rescue, though I can find nothing in the Constitution to even allow such "rescues".

Of course, it's easy to throw stones (and particularly easy to throw stones at our so-called representatives), but that still leaves us with the problem of sub-par health care, doesn't it?  How might a reasonable person address this problem?

I've recently read an excellent article in the fall edition (Southern Colorado) of the Good American Post by Sean McCarthy, which draws, in part, from another article in the Wall Street Journal by John Mackey (CEO of Whole Foods Market) which I highly recommend reading as well for eight solid health reform ideas.

If you look around, you might locate a copy or two of this edition of the Good American Post around town, and I highly encourage you to read it and consider the ideas therein.  McCarthy's basic assertion in his article is that--as with all government programs--discouraging a particular activity (such as smoking) uses tools such as regulation and taxation, whereas encouraging a particular activity requires relaxation of these tools.  Therefore all the options being discussed in Washington regarding health care appear to be headed in exactly the wrong direction, by increasing both regulation and taxation!

With all the good ideas available out there in tackling this health care issue, isn't it a wonder that our servants in Washington haven't stumbled across any of them?  Of course a cynic like myself might wonder if that's really their intended purpose in the first place.  From their poor approval numbers, it looks like I'm not alone.

Please make a priority to inform yourself of viable, Constitutionally-sound alternatives to the broken proposals seen on Capitol Hill.  Learn, think, debate, and contact your representatives and let them know what you think.  After all, they don't even read the bills they pass into law--how can you expect them to read your mind?

Remember, this recent legislative disaster passed the House with only three votes' margin.  Could your involvement with your representative have changed that outcome?  What will you do when this bill hits the Senate floor?  Anything?



*Edit:  I've found several articles backing up these claims, as well as the language in the H.R. 3962 bill itself, and decided to add it to this post, for reference.  See Section 59B under Part VIII for the special tax on individuals without "acceptable" health insurance coverage.  Because this is a special tax, it's subject to enforcement by the IRS.  See this article at the National Underwriter for why non-payment of the special tax can result in criminal prosecution.  And this article at the National Federation of Independent Business details 15 reasons why this bill is necessarily bad for independent/small businesses.

Labels: Congress, Constitution, H.R. 3962, health care, health insurance, Senate

Mike just sent me the following information for contacting our representatives by email!  But you can also find their phone numbers and mailing addresses at our Representatives page (which I'll update with this information shortly).

I have found some contact info this am trying to contact Salazar which i hope to you can add to our website.

Udall email:  Senator_Mark_Udall@markudall.senate.gov

Edit:  I've received notice from Mark Udall's email address that this is NOT a monitored email address.  You can send an email directly online through the following link:
http://www.markudall.senate.gov/?p=contact

Bennet email:  senator_bennet@bennet.senate.gov

Salazar email: you have to go to his website and then you can email him: www.house.gov/salazar/contact.shtml

Also please check this website for more contact info: www.webslingerz.com/jhoffman/congress-email.html

Mike

Please contact your representatives today, since it seems the Health Care bill will be pushed for a vote sometime today.  Is this bill, H.R. 3962, constitutional?  Have your representatives read all 1,900 pages of the bill to know what they're doing with this powerful piece of legislation?  Do you care?  If so, please contact your representatives and let them know your thoughts.  With the information above, this should be easier than ever.

Labels: Bennet, contact, H.R. 3962, Salazar, Udall

Gee, thanks, representatives! The Congressional Budget Office has confirmed expected costs of H.R. 3962 (Pelosi's health care bill) are expected to cost each family a minimum of $15,000 per year by 2016. Here's an excerpt:

Although premiums under H.R. 3962 would vary by geographic area to reflect differences in average spending for health care and would also vary by age, the table shows the approximate national average for that lower-cost reference plan—about $5,300 for single policies and about $15,000 for family policies in 2016. Enrollees could purchase a more expensive plan or more extensive coverage for an additional, unsubsidized premium—and CBO anticipates that many enrollees would do that, so the average premiums actually paid in the exchanges would be higher (although average cost-sharing amounts could be lower than those shown in the table). The figures are presented for 2016 in order to illustrate the likely situation after the proposed changes in insurance markets were fully implemented. (A downside of that approach is that the figures are harder to compare with those observed in 2009.)

Care to opt out? Well, you can do that, but you risk big fines and imprisonment if you don't purchase an "acceptable" health insurance plan. Isn't that nice? Whatever happened to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness anyway?

Labels: CBO, H.R. 3962, health care, Pelosi