Healthcare For All, Freedom for None

The big news last week was a joint announcement by President Obama and top Democrats that a health care reform bill will be brought to the floor of the House this summer. Mr. Obama said:

“The most significant driver, by far, of our long-term debt and long-term deficits is ever-escalating health care costs..... A new plan must uphold three principles:

1.Rising costs must be brought down.
2.Americans must be able to choose their doctor and plan.
3.All Americans must have access to quality, affordable healthcare.

We've got to get it done this year, both in the House and Senate. And we don't have any excuses; the stars are aligned.”

To anyone who considers this announcement good news, let me raise the following points:

1. The upward spiral in health care costs is directly attributable to the Federal government's involvement in the industry.

Medicare/Medicaid decides how much it will pay for services provided to its patients, and that amount has nothing to do with the cost for providing said services. For example, a routine exam may cost a clinic $200 to provide, but if Medicare determines it will only pay $75 for the exam, the clinic is stuck with a $125 loss. The clinic is forbidden to bill the Medicare patient for the difference, so instead, they charge $325 for the same exam to patients with private health insurance. Patients without insurance are billed an even higher rate for the exact same service.

Premiums for health insurance have risen as more and more Americans turn to Federal health insurance (Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, etc), because hospitals and clinics have more losses to pass on to other customers. Private health insurers raise their rates to compensate for these higher costs. Working Americans foot the bill for the entire Federal health insurance program, and are slapped in the face with higher premiums for their own private insurance because of the inadequacies of the Federal system.

In a free society, the price for the same procedure at the same clinic, would be the same for every patient. Instead, thanks to the Federal involvement, we have a tiered pricing system. If the Federal health programs would pony up the fair market value for services, prices across the board would go down. Less government involvement is key to lowering prices.

2. No private business can compete with the Federal government.

Private insurers operate on the principle of a “shared risk pool”. One patient who needs $30,000 in services does not bankrupt the company, since there are many other healthy people in the “pool” who do not require expensive procedures. As Americans flock to Federal health programs – last month I demonstrated 10% of us already have, and that number is rising – every private insurer's risk pool will shrink, further escalating the price of premiums. The increased premiums will make private insurance unaffordable for even more Americans, who will then turn to a Federal plan. And the cycle will continue, until private health insurers do not exist and every American relies on the Federal government for health insurance.

Despite all the Democratic assurances to the contrary, this outcome is inevitable. It may not happen this year or next, but it WILL happen. Neil Armstrong might've said, “This is one small step for liberals, one giant leap for Socialism”.

Private business must provide services their customers want, at a price their customers are willing to pay, or go out of business. The Federal government must not. Private businesses must be efficient and profitable to stay in business. The Federal government must be neither.

3. “Quality” and “Affordable” are subjective terms.

Personally, I have an objection to being told by Congress which healthcare facilities are “quality” and which premiums are “affordable”. Particularly since our veterans, who deserve the very best health care our country can provide, are treated to shoddy conditions at facilities run by the Veterans Administration. Federal health care facilities are among the worst in the nation. Price and distance being equal, would any American choose to receive treatment at a VA hospital over the Mayo Clinic?

Many times distance is the factor in determining which healthcare facility to utilize. A few minutes can be the difference between life and death. With Federal guidelines on “quality”, Americans can expect some hospitals and clinics across the nation to close. If you're unlucky and live in an area without a “quality” facility nearby, you and your neighbors will be forced to travel for routine appointments and emergencies alike. Probably to a facility already straining to accommodate the increasing number of patients, and Americans, especially poor Americans, will suffer longer wait times and crowded conditions for the sake of “quality”.

The upcoming health care reform bill will undoubtedly require that all Americans have some sort of health insurance. A healthy 25-year old will be required to spend thousands of dollars in annual health insurance premiums, even if he does not visit a doctor once. I doubt that American will view the expense as “affordable”. If a young adult goes to work for a small business that doesn't offer health insurance benefits, he will be forced to choose a plan from the private market and bear the full brunt of ever-escalating premiums caused by the Federal government. Does that American have a choice? Does that sound like freedom?


It took only a few decades for the Federal health care insurance plan to go bust and require reforms. Now, our President and other Democrats believe they can provide a sweeping reform with access and quality to all in a matter of months. We need only to look back at any of the “Bailout” bills for a demonstration of what happens when Congress rushes passage of a bill. They are correct in saying the system needs reforms, but the reform needed is less government involvement, not more. The Democrat's portrayal of urgency is grounded in the current political power struggle as exemplified by President Obama's remark about the stars. For the first time in 20 years, Democrats have control of the White House, and both chambers of Congress. And they intend to not “let a good crisis go to waste” - even if it's one they created.

Know what you vote for.

The Congress Shall Have The Power

“The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts an dprovide for the common defense and general welfare of the USA. But all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the land. And no capitation, or direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to the census”

What the founding Fathers were trying to say in their chapter of the Constitution on Congress, is: It's best to leave decisions regarding how much to tax citizens to the branch of government made up of citizen elected Representatives. Which is not surprising, from the fellows who shouted “No taxation without representation!”

But they also envisioned a nation of equal citizens. So they require that direct taxes be doled out on a “per person” basis. That way, every citizen pays an equal share for the debt and general defense of their own country. Equal in benefits, equal in costs. Truly a nation of equals.

Congress waited barely 100 years before taking its first stab at equality. In 1894, The Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act, sponsored by two Democratic Representatives in the Democratic 53^rd Congress, reduced tariffs and imposed the first peacetime national income tax to make up the lost revenue. Democratic President Grover Cleveland was apathetic about the legislation – he allowed it to pass into law without his signature. A year later, the US Supreme Court ruled the income tax portion of the law was unconstitutional.

In 1909, the 61^st Congress tried again. This time, Republican President William Taft urged his Republican-controlled House and Senate to pass an amendment to the Constitution giving power to National Government (themselves) to levy income taxes, without equal distribution among citizens.

To quiet their squeals of glee, Taft reminded them that passage of the amendment would not produce funds for the current Congress, merely change the Constitution so future Congresses may levy income taxes without it being judged unconstitutional.

The 61^st Congress wasted no time agreeing to propose:

“The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the States, and without regard to any census.”

as the 16^th Amendment to the Constitution. The matter was sent to the States. After four tumultuous years, the required 36 states ratified the proposal and the amendment was adopted on February 3, 1913.

By 1913, Democrats had regained power in the White House and both chambers of Congress. The 63^rd Congress wrote and passed our country's first progressive tax law, the Revenue Act of 1913.

The Revenue Act of 1913 Tax Table, with figures adjusted for 2009 dollars in italic
Exemptions: $3000 for single ($64,000), $4000 for married couples ($85,300)
Taxable Income	Normal Rate	Additional Rate	Total Rate
Up to $19,999 ($426,599)	1	0	1
$20,000 – 49,999 ($426,600 – 1,066,399)	1	1	2
$50,000 – 74,999 ($1,066,400 – 1,599,599)	1	2	3
$75,000 – 99,999 ($1,599,600 – 2,132,799)	1	3	4
$100,000 – 249,000 ($2,132,800 – 5,331,899)	1	4	5
$250,000 – 499,999 ($5,331,900 – 10,663,799)	1	5	6
$500,000 and above ($10,663,800)	1	6	7

And, for comparison:

2009 Tax Table for Single Taxpayers, with figures adjusted for 1913 dollars in italic
Exemptions: $5450 standard deduction, $3500 personal exemption. Total of $8950 ($420)
Taxable Income	Normal Rate	Additional Amount
Up to $8349 ($391)	10	$0
$8350 – 33,949 ($392 - 1591)	15	$835 ($39)
$33,950 – 82,249 ($1592 - 3855)	25	$4675 ($233)
$82,250 – 171,549 ($3856 - 8042)	28	$16750 ($785)
$171,550 – 372,949 ($8043 – 17,484)	33	$41,754 ($1957)
$372,950 and above ($17,485)	35	$108,216 ($5073)

Since Americans allowed it to do so, Congress has tinkered and fiddled with the Tax Code until American taxpayers are taxed at levels the 20^th Century Socialists wouldn't dare to dream of.

The 16^th Amendment is a continuing assault on equality in America. It removes citizens from the “equal benefits, equal costs” vision of the Founding Fathers.

The tax code which resulted from the 16^th Amendment punishes employment and financial success. It prefers taxing money earned (productivity) over money spent (consumption). While tariffs and excises were dramatically reduced after the creation of a federal income tax, they did not disappear. As a result, today we are taxed both on money earned AND money spent.

There is a way to correct this egregious injustice. The Fair Tax Act of 2009 (HR 25) was introduced by Republican John Linder of Georgia to the 111^th House of Representatives on January 6, 2009. It aims to repeal the 16^th Amendment, abolish the IRS and its $11 billion annual budget, and promote freedom, fairness and economic opportunity in America.

The Fair Tax Act seeks a return to taxation on spending, rather than earning. It would repeal all payroll taxes currently withheld from American paychecks and replace them with a national sales tax. It is a tax on all goods and services consumed in the United States, once and only once. There is no double or multiple taxation with Fair Tax.

In addition to closing all the tax loopholes created by Congress over the years, the Fair Tax eliminates the tax gap. The IRS itself admits it does not collect all the tax it is owed - $300 billion goes uncollected every year.

A national sales tax, collected at the cash register at the time of purchase, requires no inefficient administrative agency. The technology is already in place and working!

HR 25 and it's Senate companion, S296, are both stuck in committees. In the House, it's the Ways and Means Committee, chaired by the ethically-challenged Democrat Charles Rangel of New York. S296 is in the Senate Finance Committee, chaired by Democrat Max Baucus from Montana. Mr. Baucus is undoubtedly more interested in passing his own “Middle Income Relief” bill – which aims to make permanent (no raising OR lowering!) the 10, 25, and 28 tax rates.

A bill providing real efficiency, change and freedom isn't worthy of attention from these two Democrats.

Congratulations to the citizens of Georgia for electing Representative John Linder and Senator Saxby Chambliss, men who obviously cherish American freedom.

We in Minnesota have only one current Representative in the 111^th Congress in support of the Fair Tax, John Kline, from the 2^nd District.

Minnesotans, New Yorkers and folks from Montana would do well to follow Georgia's lead. Contact your elected representative and tell them to support equality in America with the Fair Tax Act of 2009.

The Congress Shall Have the Power. Know what you vote for.

A CHIP off the Clinton Block

Last week, Public Law 111-3, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 (CHIP) took effect. Originally known as SCHIP (the State Children's Health Insurance Program), it was brought to life by President William J. Clinton, who identified children's health care as a national priority in his 1997 State of the Union address. He included the program in his fiscal year 1998 budget, and signed the resulting legislation into law on August 5, 1997.

SCHIP is actually an amendment to the Social Security Act, but became law as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33). The program gives states federal taxpayer money to provide health insurance to low-income children.

The 105^th Congress and Mr. Clinton appropriated the following amounts for SCHIP:

1998: $4.275 billion

1999: $4.275 billion

2000: $4.275 billion

2001: $4.275 billion

2002: $3.150 billion

2003: $3.150 billion

2004: $3.150 billion

2005: $4.050 billion

2006: $4.050 billion

2007: $5.000 billion

2008: $5.000 billion **This amount was appropriated by President George W. Bush in Public Law 110-173 “The Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007” on December 29, 2007. He also appropriated $5.000 billion for 2009, but the current bill amends the 2009 figure.

Total: $44.65 billion

The 111^th Congress and President Barack H. Obama appropriated the following amounts for SCHIP:

2009: $10.562 billion

2010: $12.520 billion

2011: $13.459 billion

2012: $14.982 billion

2013: $17.406 billion **2013 payments to states will be made in two equal installments of $2.850 plus a one-time payment of $11.706 billion.

Total: $68.929 billion

It's hard to know whether President Obama believes Clinton's SCHIP plan is terrific or terrible to justify this near-quadrupling of spending. It really could be either.

Here is what the original SCHIP legislation accomplished between 1998 and 2007, according to the US Census Bureau:

	1998	2007
Total US Population	270 Million	302 Million
Total number of uninsured children	15.4% (11.1 Million)	11.0% (8.1 Million)
Total number of citizens receiving government-provided health care	24.3% (66 Million)	27.8% (84 Million)

SCHIP succeeded at reducing the number of American children without health care coverage by 3 million, it also increased the total number of Americans that rely on taxpayer-provided health care coverage. Of the 32 million new citizens we acquired during this time, 18 million receive health care benefits from a government agency.

At a cost of $40 billion to American taxpayers, SCHIP provided health care insurance benefits to 3 million children, an average of $13,333 per child.

2009's Reauthorization Act, which officially changes the name of SCHIP to CHIP, aims to provide coverage to 4 million low-income children over five years. At a cost of $69 billion, that averages $17,250 per child. What remains to be seen, is how many additional taxpayer-supported citizens will result from this legislation.

CHIP attempts to correct a perceived flaw in SCHIP – namely, a provision allowing coverage for adults. After April 1, 2009, no new or renewal applications for adults will be approved without a special waiver from Health and Human Services Secretary (and Obama appointee) Kathleen Sibelius.

As CHIP closes one loophole, it opens another. To anyone who cannot provide ordinary proof of citizenship, and whose Social Security number when applying for benefits is inconsistent with records at the Social Security Administration, the State must allow 90 days for the individual to resolve the error, while providing medical assistance during said period. If there is no resolution within 90 days, the State must disenroll the individual from the program in 30 days. There is no provision requiring repayment for medical services received while without adequate proof of citizenship. This immigrant-friendly provision, unlike the rest of the bill, takes effect January 1, 2010. Months before the 2010 Census.

The CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2009, which began life as bill HR 2, was sponsored in the House of Representatives by Mr. Frank Pallone, Jr. Mr. Pallone is the Chairman of the Subcommittee of Health, under the Energy and Commerce Committee. He has been representing 650,000 citizens of New Jersey since 1993. Interestingly, in 1997, Mr. Pallone voted against passage of SCHIP when it was included in the Balanced Budget Act.

President Obama signed the final version of HR 2 into Public Law 111-3 on Wednesday, February 4, 2009, the same day he received it from the Senate. Obama's campaign pledge to allow five days for public comment between receiving and signing legislation, lasted only 16 days into his Presidency.

No doubt the public would have had plenty of comments about States required to provide medical assistance for 90 days while citizenship inconsistencies are resolved, with no repayment provision for improperly received services. We, the public, hire people to represent our views in the lawmaking process. Did your Representatives represent YOU?

Minnesota Delegates on Passage of the

CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2009

Yea Votes:

Senator Amy Klobuchar

1^st District Representative Tim Walz

3^rd District Representative Erik Paulsen

4^th District Representative Betty McCollum

5^th District Representative Keith Ellison

7^th District Representative Collin Peterson

8^th District Representative James Oberstar

No Votes:

2^nd District Representative John Kline

6^th District Representative Michelle Bachmann

Know what you vote for.

PS. If anyone out there has ideas on why the payment for fiscal year 2013 is so funky, I'd like to hear them. Is Obama planning a one-term Presidency? Is SCHIP a political power-tool to keep Democrats in power beyond 2012?

Introduction

Fellow Americans, is our country truly the “land of the free and home of the brave”, as we were affectionately dubbed in 1814? Or is the notion so deeply ingrained in all of us that we believe we are free regardless of circumstance?

Though freedom is a subjective concept, freedom in America is always measured by the Constitution. Some people say the Constitution is an outdated document which doesn't apply to a technological, global society. To them, I say: The Constitution created our government, not the other way around. Our government cannot destroy the Constitution without destroying itself. The government is as legally bound to the Constitution as we citizens are bound to the government. The Constitution is a forward-looking document that protects citizens from a tyrannical government - it's ludicrous to think of disregarding it!

But Americans fell asleep at the wheel. We elected people to the Congress to represent our views - as is our Constitutional right to do - and then failed to monitor their activities. Which is also our Constitutional right to do.

While we were asleep, our lawmakers slipped their greasy fingers into all aspects of our lives. Think for a moment about your daily life. Is there any transaction in which government is not involved? Let's use my average day for example: I start my day by using electrical appliances. TAXED. Then I drive my car. REGULATED and TAXED. I go to work in an office. REGULATED. I earn money. TAXED. I buy lunch. REGULATED and TAXED. I put on hand lotion. REGULATED and TAXED. If any of these taxes and regulations are violated, men with guns will visit me, and perhaps lock me in a prison against my will. And that's just before noon!

Our country didn't begin this way and was never intended to be this way. Not paying attention to government activities has led us to this point. To the point where more people watch panda bears sneezing on YouTube than watch the national evening news or read a newspaper. Today, many Americans cannot even name their congressional representatives, much less know what legislation they've sponsored or supported.

But still we complain....that taxes are high, that jobs are rare, that corruption is rampant...and we don't know how things got this bad, but we surely know its the fault of the last President. Or the current President. Take your pick.

In reality, the President of our great nation can serve only two four-year terms. Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate can serve an UNLIMITED number of four- or six-year terms, respectively. In the current 111th Congress, 27% of Representatives have served for fifteen years or longer, in the Senate, 35% have served more than fifteen years. Which branch really has more impact on the overall conditions in America?

It's those nameless people who write our laws, spend our money, declare our wars, go to jail for corruption, yet continue to win elections. Our collective inattention has allowed this culture to flourish and prosper.

No matter what your political affiliation, its easy to agree that things are out of hand in Washington, DC. Our votes allowed it to happen, and our votes are the only thing that can change it.

With this column, I aim to shine a light on the activities of the federal government. I'll show you the actual legislation being discussed in the news, and expose its authors and beneficiaries. I will discuss specific facts, not talking points. I will encourage all to know, and contact their elected officials. If any material presented here changes one uneducated vote into an educated one, I'll consider it a smashing success.