Universal health care as a weapon

In America power is supposed to belong to the people as the Founding Fathers intended. The three branches of government check and balance each other. Citizens elect government officials regularly. People are given the freedom to pursue their dreams, whatever those may be.

Our Founding Fathers realized the perils of too much government, and that's starting to show its ugly head with this administration...

The economy is certainly a critical aspect of our well-being and the nation's viability. The government should be involved in minimizing the adverse impact of a recession, but the Obama administration has definitely gone too far by pushing for TARP legislation without proper scrutiny, seizing control of major financial institutions, and taking over major corporations like General Motors. The White House now dictates who banks can lend money to and how much, and who becomes CEO and who sits on the board of directors.

This means American people can't get a loan to buy a house, car, or business without government approval. The other way to think about this: The government can now dictate how big of house you live in, what type of car you drive, and what type of business you operate. It's that simple! Don't be surprised when you receive notice about your house not meeting environmental standards, or your car putting out too much carbon, or your business deemed too controversial for the community.

And consider the fact that the administration is now pushing hard for a universal health care system. Yes, imagine the government in charge of your health. Imagine doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and various hospital staff absorbed as federal employees. If you think going through the airport is bad with TSA's "efficiency," wait until you need to make a trip to the clinic! But okay, you can live with some inconveniences and inefficiencies...

But what worries me greatly is the issue of privacy.

Today our medical history and data is shared by you and the doctor, and anyone you designate. Our medical privacy is protected by law. But what happens when universal health care is implemented? Your health record is shared by you and... the government! Yes, President Obama and his friends will know if you have an urinary infection or AIDS.

If you were a celebrity or politician, that's the information tabloids would pay money for to splash across the cover. That's also the information some politicians could use against their opponents or worse yet, ordinary citizens. All in the hands of the government.

California gets a dose of W.H. strong-arm politics

What the federal government gives, it can also take away. The state of California is learning this the hard way as the Obama administration threatens to rescind stimulus funds if the California state government doesn't restore wage cuts to the unionized home health care workers.

Two things at play here: the intimate relationships between unions and Democrats and the White House's disregard for a state.

The unions in questions are the powerful Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and United Domestic Workers (not in the motherly sense). In fact, it was the SEIU which went to the W.H. to ask for a ruling on this matter.

This also shows the administration's disregard for a state. The wage cut is a necessary step in keeping California afloat as it's operating on IOUs already. These health care workers aren't the only ones affected by wage cuts. The state legislature passed a state law but looks like the W.H. has a problem with that. Does the administration truly have the state's interest in mind?

States which have accepted the stimulus money should take note. This money comes with strings attached -- many which aren't to the states' benefit. Be warned.

An example of what to expect with government-run health care

Patients from V.A. clinics in Tennessee and Georgia are infected with hepatitis and other viruses, and the number could rise. The infections are due to using unsterilized equipment! That's the quality government health care you'll get if the system is nationalized.

Obama wants private insurers to pay for wounded vets

The economy is bad, but President Obama is heartless to charge for treating wounded veterans, hoping to generate $540 million. Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion comes out of a meeting with the President all ticked off:

The Commander, clearly angered as he emerged from the session said, "This reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate ' to care for him who shall have borne the battle' given that the United States government sent members of the armed forces into harm's way, and not private insurance companies. I say again that The American Legion does not and will not support any plan that seeks to bill a veteran for treatment of a service connected disability at the very agency that was created to treat the unique need of America's veterans!"

This is ridiculous and shameful and illustrates how the Obama team views the military. If my taxes are to be raised to fund Obama's crazy spending, one thing I wouldn't mind is paying for the medical treatment of wounded soldiers. Forget Geithner's recovery plan (if any)! At least make my money useful by helping a wounded vet!

The stimulus could ruin your health care

Betsy McCaughey of Bloomberg is raising a flag about health provisions in President Obama's stimulus bill:

The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.

But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”

Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.

So not only does Big Brother want access to all your medical treatment data, but it also wants control over how the doctors perform procedures and diagnosis. The scary thing is that although Tom Daschle no longer gets to be the HHS Secretary, his soul lives in this bloated bill.

Worse yet:

Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541)

What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make.

The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.

Again, the ghost of Daschle appears, and he wants the government to be the brains of the health care provider instead of the doctor's. What is government health care like? Just look back to the debacle of Walter Reed Army Medical Center 2007 scandal. (Thankfully, things have improved there after the bad publicity.)

Nationalized health care snuck into stimulus

The Democrat-owned stimulus package is nothing more than a $900 billion bribe for votes. It's low on tax cuts where money is put into people's pockets and high on large government spending. Paul Krugman of the NYT cannot wait:

The bottom line, then, is that this is no time to let campaign promises of guaranteed health care be quietly forgotten. It is, instead, a time to put the push for universal care front and center. Health care now!

Kimberley Strassel points out in the WSJ:

It began one week after the swearing-in, when Nancy Pelosi whipped through a big expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The Schip bill was Democrats' first stab at stealth expansion, unveiled in 2007, though vetoed by George W. Bush.
...
Under "stimulus," Medicaid is now on offer not to just poor Americans, but Americans who have lost their jobs. And not just Americans who have lost their jobs, but their spouses and their children. And not Americans who recently lost their jobs, but those who lost jobs, say, early last year. And not just Americans who already lost their jobs, but those who will lose their jobs up to 2011. The federal government is graciously footing the whole bill. The legislation also forbids states to apply income tests in most cases.
...
The "stimulus" also hijacks Cobra, a program that lets the unemployed retain access to their former company health benefits -- usually for about 18 months. The new stimulus permits any former employee over the age of 55 to keep using Cobra right up until they qualify for Medicare at age 65. And here's the kicker: Whereas employees were previously responsible for paying their health premiums while on Cobra, now the feds will pay 65%. CBO estimates? Seven million Americans will have the feds mostly pay their insurance bills in 2009.

Thanks to Strassel for shedding light on this. It further illustrates the Democrats' nationalization agenda disguised as a bill to stimulate the economy.

The inauguration speech

Overall, I think President Obama gave a very good speech after taking the oath. He touched on America's proud history and traditional values. He spoke of faith and religion. He warned America's enemies. He extended a hand to other nations. He highlighted the spirit of Americans.

But he also cautioned about the current economic crisis, ongoing wars, rising health care costs, and global warming threat. What worries me a little is this:

...The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

This sounds to me like more Big Government rhetoric, disguised as a plea to believe in a Big Government that "works." In comparison, here's what Ronald Reagan said in his inaugural speech delivered in 1981, as Larry Kudlow reminds us:

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem.

Obama's promise of government responsibility and accountability definitely deserves applause, especially if he wants to spend our way out of a recession (good luck). When he raised his right hand in front of Chief Justice Roberts and all the world, to take the oath of defending the Constitution, did he realize that the Constitution says nothing about the government's duty to provide jobs at a "decent wage," or affordable health care, or stable income after retirement?

The inauguration was historical and inspiring, and personally, I think that way of all past inauguration ceremonies. The source of this profound awe, however, lies with the U.S. Constitution, and it ought to be the guide to all presidents.

Please don't go there: amending the Constitution to include right to health care

Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. wants the Constitution amended so that citizens enjoy the right to health care. What's next? The right to employment?

This notion, however attractive, is absurd. The Constitution grants us freedom and capitalism. Those are really the two crucial ingredients to form a sustainable, prosperous society. We live in it. Millions of others leave behind their homelands to come to America. But America is under threat from Big Government and socialistic policies. And guess what? Universal health care is bigger government and socialization.

Legally, health care as a right would spell disaster. What is health care? Besides being treated for illnesses and injuries, what about preventive measures? Would universal health care pay for gym memberships? Doctors and nurses would become government workers, what about gym operators? What about paying for Alcoholics Anonymous sessions? You can see how crazy things could get...

Even if legislators want a nationalized health care plan, amending the Constitution is the wrong way to go about it anyway.