HR 833

Representative Culberson: (and Senators Cornyn and Hutchinson, should the Senate see this bill) Intellectual honesty dictates an end to the Federal Reserve. In its 96 year history, it has failed to achieve its promised goals. Inflation and economic instability, two key promises of the Fed to control, have been more volatile during its existence than before it came into being. The argument "Oh, it would have been much worse without the Federal Reserve in place" is an insult. It has failed. Only the banks of the Federal Reserve have done well (follow the money on the bailout and stimulus spend -- only the banks of the Fed win) Our Founding Fathers warned against such a plan, and their warnings have achieved the level pf prophetic utterances. The dollar has reached historic lows in terms of value, all under the Federal Reserve system. The only thing for which the Fed is good is to continue to send us down the path to socialism and Marxism. Liberty cannot prevail in the presence of its centralized power."

BHO Health Care Speech of 09/09/09

What he said well (from a Constitutionist's view):

Tort reform is necessary.

Expansion of competition is necessary.

What needs work and clarification:

"...against the law to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions...": As one transfers from one insurance platform to another (due to age, such as rolling off the parent's healthcare, or changing jobs due to opportunity or RIF), I agree. To those who refused the opportunity to buy health insurance available from their employer, and only sought the same when something serious came up, they well should be on more tenuous grounds (if they do not invest in the system, why should they reap from it?)

What I oppose on principle:

Any public option: BHO claimed health care costs rose 3x faster than incomes; Medicare has grown 4.5x faster (after 10 years, Medicare costs 50% more per year than the private option). The public option as Canada operates it was promised to be a modest 7% increase in taxation. It now averages 25% for all Canadians (and those that can come to the USA for on-demand care). Why? People abuse what they perceive to be "free"; and certainly desire volume for that which they are already paying. As long as there is a public option, more and more people will find they cannot afford to provide their own insurance -- this is human nature (welfare has worked this way; it did not become the "bootstrap solution" as advertised, it became a means of enslaving people in poverty by taking away personal responsibility).

Forcing employers to offer healthcare, and forcing individuals to buy healthcare insurance is wrong, just un-American. Likewise, let them live with the outcomes.

Forcing one group of Americans to pay for the healthcare of another group of Americans is morally wrong and un-American, too. Americans freely donating to healthcare entities so they might provide care for the less fortunate is quite American (most hospitals in America and the world began as the result of charitable organizations).

Those in this country without legal immigration process should not receive the "government/public option" (which is another reason to not have it, since it will become a political tool).

What is naive:

"The only thing this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud..." Medicare/Medicaid are poster children for such, just as Fannie and Freddie are poster children for the mortgage debacle -- both government run and sponsored. There is just too much opportunity for "sideline wealth" and too little accountability, and the necessary accountability only drives up the costs without offering more/better services. Remember, by the government's own admission, it costs them $1.50 to $2.00 to deliver $1.00 in goods/services.

Medicare, left unchanged, will break this country financially, or it will default and most boomers will not see it. There are no good outcomes for government run healthcare at any level. All government bureaucracies become political pawns and self-perpetuating in short order (What was the last expensive government program YOU saw terminated by our Congress? There will be no government cuts to pay for this thing.). And who will pay for it? It will not be the savings he indicated...

The CBO is non-partisan, and says any public option is more expensive; the math and accounting do not agree with BHO's words.

Possible Outcomes:

Insurance companies will be forced to compete across state lines, I hope. This will bring down prices somewhat, especially for individuals.

The fact that businesses will be required to provide insurance will create a captive audience for insurance companies and fuel inflation of goods in general.

Companies may find it more profitable to not offer health insurance at all, paying the fines, and therefore putting more people on the "public/government option" (if it comes to pass, and another reason to not have it). After all, the fines will not be high enough to sink the company and should not be. And the companies and its employees pay lots of taxes, so their continuance is more important than whether or not they offer health care insurance.

My View:

(it would be best if the following came from the states with the endorsement of Congress)

Let's try tort reform, clarification (with fairness for all parties) of the "pre-existing condition" coverage, and expansion of competition, first, and see what affect that has on health care costs. Also, recognize that there are those who do not take advantage of their employer's offered healthcare -- it is not that they cannot afford it, it is a matter of priority. We all make lifestyle adjustments for the price of goods and services, and those of us who take responsibility for providing our families healthcare should not be penalized by paying for those who choose otherwise.

The next step (after two to four years), should costs not come down nor coverage grow, is more draconian, and I do not like it, but there is a reality about the matter: put it to the states to pass legislation for individual minimum health care insurance requirements (just like auto insurance), whether privately purchased or obtained through their employer. Again, it is another boom opportunity for insurance companies, and the opportunity for employers for rolling back what they offer, and this is why it should not be pushed too early.

We do not have to rush into a perceived "grand solution" (which are usually fraught with unforeseen errors in analysis and judgement, driving up costs and reducing service, and the path of all government programming I have known), but we should take it in steps, and small steps are best. In no way should the government ever, ever provide health care insurance -- Medicare/Medicaid should scare us away from that option.

Random thoughts on serious issues

Lots of things going on out there, so I am just collecting my thoughts.

Military:

I attended the 30 year retirement of a very dear friend (we grew up together, beginning in first grade, families always close), and I can tell you, our military has great love for their own, their families, and their country. The ideals of our country, freedom and liberty, are very much alive in our military community.

That being said, I want to see our military brought home -- from everywhere. Western Europe neither needs us nor wants us, or even likes us -- why do we even bother with them? Let them take care of their own countries. We are done in Iraq; my fear is the the Iraqi government will play us and prolong our presence, and if that is not the case, I also fear that like we have done in Europe, we are beyond helping and have moved to enabling, which is disastrous. Afghanistan is a place where the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are the enemies. We should train the Afghans to protect themselves, and create a plan to destroy these elements with extreme aggression, then turn it over to the Afghans to decide what nation they want. Perhaps such a plan exists, but shifting 100,000 troops there would be such a sign.

Altogether, I want our military home, protecting our own borders (North and South), and that we sever military alliances with those outside our own hemisphere.

Health Care:

Health care is not a right guaranteed by anything or anyone. Those of socialist/Marxist ideological leanings say that it is, but that is because of what it represents (though they may not have realized it): it makes the State responsible for the person from the cradle to the grave, an incredible power entrusted to government (Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action. George Washington).

Health care is a responsibility. Period. I have lifted some comments I wrote concerning health care from a recent Facebook discussion and mixed them below, without citation, as they are my own thoughts. Let me say I am no fan of insurance companies, who are in the risk management business, and IMHO, tend to drive up the price of goods and services such that everyone needs them, wherever they are present. Regulation for those run amok is not a bad thing, and I think insurance companies in general drive prices of anything up rather than down, encourage massive lawsuits, etc. They are in the risk mitigation business, and both parties need to understand that.

Further, I bust my butt to take care of my immediate and extended family, paying out 45% of my wages in taxes to various governments in my life (local, state, federal), and I am not interested in paying more to cover those who will not take care of themselves (I do that through higher premiums already). I know for a fact that many of the uninsured are so by choice. My daughter's company offers to pay 90% of the medical insurance for its employees, who are asked to pay $30/month, but they opt to save the $360/year and get free (to them) care at the local ER, but when something major hits, they are uncovered. Whose fault is that? My dad forked out 25% of his meager monthly pay to make sure we had Blue Cross/Blue Shield, because it was his responsibility to look after us; it was his PRIORITY. More than 85% of people are covered in this land, most would consider that a working system -- oh yeah, our cancer survivor rates hare higher than Canada's and the UK's, and nevermind that there are no medical innovations in those places, they rely on our system.

I know several independent business people who offer employees coverage (because it is cheaper for their own families if it is part of a group plan) and their employees turn it down for the sake of a few extra bucks a month, failing to grasp what a good opportunity they have. The key verbage is "will not take care".

Insurance is a risk mitigation industry, and has become a necessary evil. No government should force any enterprise, no matter how much we dislike it, to take a bad business deal. Look at Medicare. Medicare is a debacle, and by itself will break America, growing at a rate of 4.5X inflation while giving poorer service than private insurance companies (I know this, because my mom has suffered under its "care"). But I do know we don't screw up the whole system for a relatively small number, and if Medicare and its poor service, high cost (I have more taken out for Medicare than I pay in my company's co-pay program) AND corruption is an example of government health care (and it is), then we should run away from it and look for alternative solutions.

Some say tort reform is needed to bring down the cost of health care, first and foremost, but the rights of the patient to hold negligent doctors accountable must be held intact. While those who argue against tort reform say "there is no price you can put on a human life", the self-contradiction is apparent: this is exactly what such lawsuits attempt to do, often many times above the patient's lifetime earning potential. This is wrong and unfair, too.

Begin with tort reform, and correct the prejudicial concept of "pre-existing condition". After all, insurance companies, by definition, are in the risk management business. But I add this in their defense: the insurance company should not be forced to take a client who has no continuity of coverage, i.e., they had no previous coverage and only sought such when a problem arose (of course, therein lies a financial opportunity for someone else). In the case of a person coming of age or transference of jobs, the insurance industry should buck up and cover (since they have driven prices up to force their own necessity), though this will likely result in slightly higher premiums for us all. Open competition by allowing those seeking insurance to buy across state lines to insure healthier competition for premiums, as other industries do.

I'd rather try the above on health care than let the government touch any of it.

Taxation:

Odd to me how people who pay no taxes (Federal) feel so self-righteous as to demand of those who pay the bulk of such taxes to pay more, or receive no tax cuts. Such people are little more than pan-handlers, letting the government do their dirty work of begging, and of such petty self-righteous freeloaders I have no use.

The other aspects of the taxation include the size of governments, the brutal robbery of progressive tax scales, and the participation of citizens.

I used to carry a briefcase in my early years. Briefcases wear out, and the first two or three replacements were larger than the previous. I felt the need to carry more stuff. The last in this series was, at times, painful to carry. It was replaced with a smaller one, and I carried less stuff. I did fine. Its replacement was smaller yet, and I still did fine. Now, most of the "stuff" is in my smartphone, and I cannot remember when I last carried a briefcase. The point is this: I thought I needed much more than I did, which I discovered only after forcing myself to do with less. Our governments, local-state-federal, need to learn to do with less, and they will only do this if we shrink the "briefcase of cash" we are sending them. As soon as the end of next year, the tax haul at all levels will reach 45% of GDP, affecting ALL Americans. When does their spending growth stop? The governments in our lives need to live on significantly less, and this will only happen if we dramatically reduce the haul they are making on our wages, properties, and purchases.

Progressive tax scales are only called "fair" by those who do not pay taxes or are at the lowest end. They are also called "fair" by those who never learned complicated math concepts like 'percentages'. But I repeat myself. The higher wage earner pays more in taxes than the lower wage earner even when the percentage of tax is the same. A person making $20,000 per year pays $2,000/year on a flat 10% tax system. A person making $2,000,000/year pays $200,000/year on the same flat tax. The person making 100x as much pays 100x as much. That's fair. A progressive system says the person making $20,000/year pays 10% or $2,000/year in taxes, but the person making $2,000,000/year should pay 30% or $600,000/year in taxes. How is that fair? It is disproportionate. You say, "Well, they can afford it". Who are YOU to judge? What is fair about YOU deciding who makes "enough"? It is the freeloader mentality that says those who make more should pay DISPROPORTIONATELY more, because it is driven by their desire to get more for nothing.

Excusing people from the tax roles is wrong, because it does create freeloaders. They want more and more in services from the government, and thinks everyone else should pay for such services. A flat tax for everyone would make our government more efficient, since everyone would hold the governments accountable for expensive programming that would raise everyone's tax rate. Or, we say that only those who pay federal taxes may vote in a federal election, and the same down through the local level elections. That would be "fair", too.

Czars in our Federal Government:

I am against it. I have felt it was not a good since the first presidentially-appointed czar I remember -- Bill Bennett, Drug Czar ("War on Drugs"; we have lost some civil rights over that one). I think the first was William Simon, Nixon's "energy czar". The subsequent use of such positions, positions bred of cronies and unvetted, bypassing Congressional review, pose a real threat to the Constitutional Cabinet system. BO has appointed more czars than Cabinet positions and threaten our "government of the people" system. BO has only taken it to the extreme; his predecessors are guilty, too, and I think this whole "czar thing" needs to be abolished, however expedient it may seem and regardless of who is in the White House.