The Hill is reporting today that five House Republicans plan to add an amendment to the Democrat’s healthcare bill that would automatically enroll members of Congress in the
public option program.  I think that is a wonderful idea.  Let Congress try it for three or four years, and if it keeps healthcare costs down while providing quality healthcare and not raising taxes, the rest of us can join them.

The article points out:

“The Pelosi health care bill could force millions of Americans off
their current plan and onto the government-run plan, but there are
hypocritical Members of Congress who are not willing to enroll in the
same government plan,” (Steve) Scalise said in his statement. “Speaker Pelosi
and her lieutenants need to put their money where their mouth is and
support our amendment.”

It will be interesting to watch the vote on this amendment.

Politico is quoting Nancy Pelosi as saying:

“From our perspective, we won last night,” the California Democrat told
reporters during a Wednesday photo op. “We had one race that we were
engaged in, it was in northern New York, it was a race where a
Republican has held the seat since the Civil War. And we won that seat.
So, from our standpoint, no, a candidate was victorious who supports
health care reform, and his remarks last night said this was a victory
for health care reform and other initiatives for the American people.”

It is my hope that if winning one race out of three in an election is a victory, the Democrat Party will have more victories.

The Washington Examiner has a different take.  In it’s editorial analyzing yesterday’s election results, it points out that Americans elected President Obama on his promise to cut federal spending and to cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans.  The direction President Obama and the Democrat Congress have taken since the election does neither of these two things.  In fact, the legislation that has been passed or proposed since the 2008 election has increased the federal deficit considerably.  This is what the vote last night was about. 

The message to all elected officials is simple.  The American people want lower taxes and less government interference in their lives.  This is something Congress needs to keep in mind as the healthcare debate continues.  The question for the moderate Democrats is simple, “Are we willing to pass government healthcare at the expense of being reelected?”  That is the question that will ultimately shape the final debate on healthcare.

Fox News reported that the current healthcare proposal will create 111 “new boards, bureaucracies, commissions and programs” if it is passed.  Let’s make a conservative estimate about the money involved in creating and maintaining that sort of bureaucracy.  If every new agency has only one head, one staff member, and a place to meet, the minimum cost would be at least $200,000 per year per agency.  That’s even before the government spends a penny on healthcare.  How is this going to save money?  Also, have you ever seen a government program that got smaller?  How much was Medicare supposed to cost when it was started?

It really is time to throw this bill overboard and start from scratch.  We need tort reform, health insurance sold across state lines, provisions made for pre-existing conditions, and a tax credit to help lower income people purchase insurance.  The government does not need to run health insurance, they just need to free up the insurance companies to do business.  As I reported in an earlier article, the insurance companies averaged about 2% profit last year.  They are not greedy corporations taking advantage of Americans; right now Congress seems to fit that description!

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article yesterday asking if it is constitutional to require people to purchase health insurance.   Senator Orrin Hatch, a member of the Judiciary Committee, is questioning the legality of that requirement.  

In an interview on CNS News, Senator Hatch stated:

“Well, let’s put it this way: If that is held constitutional-for them to be able to tell us we have to purchase health insurance-then there is literally nothing that the federal government can’t force us to do. Nothing. Now, whether or not the states can is another issue. The states may be able to. But since that government is closer to the people, those state representatives know that their very political lives depend on not doing things like that to the people.”

Please follow the link to read more of the interview.  The interviewer pointed out that if you are sitting at home not engaged in any sort of commercial activity, the government should not be able to require you to buy health insurance.

I am waiting to see if the constitutionality of this requirement will be part of the healthcare debate.

Let me just say right now that I have no problem with people being successful and making money.  Entrepreneurs helped make this country great.  We have, however, come to a place where a person in a position to influence government decisions can have an unfair advantage in the marketplace.

Yesterday’s New York Times posted an article in their Energy and Environment Section spotlighting how much money Al Gore has earned by investing in ‘green energy’ ventures subsidized by the government (while traveling the world promoting green energy and leaving a very large carbon footprint!).

The article points out both sides of the argument:

“Representative Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, asserted at a hearing this year that Mr. Gore stood to benefit personally from the energy and climate policies he was urging Congress to adopt.

“Mr. Gore says that he is simply putting his money where his mouth is.”

As I said, I have no problem with Mr. Gore’s success, I just question his science and his motives.

The article also points out that Al Gore is not unique:

“Other public figures, like Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who have vocally supported government financing of energy-saving technologies, have investments in alternative energy ventures. Some scientists and policy advocates also promote energy policies that personally enrich them.”

Somehow, we need to find a place where public policy and lawmaking is based on honest governance–not on personal enrichment.

This article is not meant to debate abortion.  It’s purpose is, however, to point out that people  can change their ideas on what is legal and moral.  KBTX.com in College Station, Texas, is reporting that Abby Johnson, who had worked as the Bryan Planned Parenthood Director for two years, handed in her resignation on October 6th. 

Ms. Johnson’s resignation was due to two factors.  She was troubled by viewing an ultrasound of an abortion procedure, and by the fact that Planned Parenthood was moving its business model away from preventing pregnancy and toward abortion.  Obviously, abortion is more profitable. 

The article points out:

“Johnson now supports the Coalition For Life, the pro-life group with a building down the street from Planned Parenthood. Coalition volunteers can regularly be seen praying on the sidewalk in front of Planned Parenthood. Johnson has been meeting with the coalition’s executive director, Shawn Carney, and has prayed with volunteers outside Planned Parenthood.”

Planned Parenthood has filed restraining orders against both Johnson and the Coalition For Life.  According to the article “The temporary restraining order contends that Planned Parenthood would be irreparably harmed by the disclosure of certain information.”  A hearing about the order has been set for November 10.

Ms. Johnson had worked for Planned Parenthood in some capacity for eight years.  I wonder what information Planned Parenthood is concerned about being disclosed. 

I lived in New Jersey as a teenager, and I will admit that I am concerned about the integrity of the election process in that state.  Big Government posted an article yesterday about some of the things they are seeing as New Jersey prepares to go to the polls tomorrow.  Dirty tricks are not new to political campaigns, but it is a good idea to be aware of them when deciding how to vote. 

The article points out:

“(Chris) Daggett’s run for office is certainly convenient for Corzine, as he will help split any anti-Corzine vote. And, as a Corzine political appointee, one wonders if his candidacy wasn’t a set up to begin with. Now, in the final days of the campaign, it appears state democrats are paying for robo calls supporting Independent Chris Daggett. First reported here, the robo calls attack Christie (but not Corzine) and promote Daggett. At the end of the call, it is mentioned that the calls are paid for by a “project of the NJSDC.” No idea what that acronym stands for, but New Jersey State Democratic Committee, isn’t too big of a stretch. More interesting is the fact that the return number on the calls is the same number that was used to promote Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley’s election in closing days of the 2006 race.”

The fact that Chris Dagget was a political appointee of Jon Corzine leads me to believe that either Chris Daggett is challenged in the area of political loyalty or that his running for governor was designed to re-elect Jon Corzine, who has dropped significantly in popularity.  The other interesting aspect of this race is the appearance of people wearing ACORN t-shirts at a hospital in Newark signing and collecting absentee ballots. 

My favorite quote from the article:

“…the state Democratic Committee recently sent a letter to the Secretary of State, arguing that any absentee ballot that is rejected should still be counted as a “provisional” vote. The letter complained that almost 3,000 absentee ballots had already been rejected “solely on the basis of a comparison of their signature to the signature on record.” Solely? If the signature of the voter doesn’t match the signature on the ballot, is there really a reason to look at anything else? The letter from the state Democrats suggests that election officials should simply verify that the address on the absentee ballot matches the address on record. Right, and my bank should go ahead and cash any suspicious check as long as the address on the check matches my home address.”

I don’t know if things have changed, but the joke in Jersey City when I was young was that as voter registration was going on, you would see people walking through the cemeteries with clipboards collecting names.  Are we still there?

If you are a New Jersey resident concerned about election integrity, please follow the link to the Big Government website to see what steps you can take to prevent election fraud.

Today’s New York Post posted an editorial explaining how the healthcare proposals currently in the House of Representatives and the Senate would effect small businesses.  Part of the problem with the current proposal is that small businesses would not only be required to pay at least 72.5 percent of insurance premiums for an individual and 65 percent for families, but the healthcare they pay for would have to meet federal guidelines. 

According to the article:

“Data from a 2009 Kaiser Family Foundation survey suggest that at least 30 percent of firms with fewer than 200 employees that now offer insurance would fail the test for family coverage, and about 20 percent would fail for individual coverage.”

Has anyone stopped to think that if Americans got back in the habit of paying for routine health costs out of pocket and having insurance to cover accidents, serious illness, etc., how much the cost of health insurance could be reduced?  In Massachusetts, which has compulsory health insurance, policies that cover only accidents, serious illness, etc. have been declared illegal in the state and have been discontinued.  This increases the cost of health insurance for everyone.

The article points out:

“The bill offers a few subsidies to help small businesses pay for insurance. But the credit would cover only half the cost — and only if businesses agree to comply with a list of government demands on coverage requirements.

“In any case, the subsidy is gradually reduced for businesses that employ more than 25 employees or pay average wages above $20,000 a year. And it only lasts two years — after that, the business owner is on the hook for the full cost of the expensive coverage.”

When you increase the expenses for small businesses, the businesses hire fewer people and unemployment stays high.  If you believe that the economy is recovering, the current healthcare bill will end that recovery. 

Halloween was yesterday, but today in New York State things got weird.  Yesterday, Dede Scozzafava (chosen by the local Republican Party without the benefit of a primary election) dropped out of the race for Congressman in New York’s 23rd District.  After withdrawing from the race, Mrs. Scozzafa threw her support behind Democrat Bill Owens–her former opponent.  Mrs. Scozzafa was chosen by the Republican mucky-mucks to run for office in order to hold that seat for a Republican.  Theoretically that was her intention.  Now she is supporting the Democrat in the race rather than the Conservative who was embraced by the Republican Party when Mrs. Scozzafava resigned.  Huh?

The Hill‘s Blog Briefing Room reports:

“Nevertheless, Scozzafava’s decision on Sunday is bound to infuriate Republicans, many of whom announced within hours of her suspension that they backed Hoffman and hoped soon to welcome him into their caucus. The Republican National Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee and a host of party leaders urged their members to do the same, in part to defeat the growing meme that Republicans were warring among themselves about the NY-23 race.”

This is an amazing story.  It will be truly interesting to see who wins this race!

On October 11, RightWingGranny linked to an article at Hot Air which gave the details of the savings in healthcare costs that would be achieved by tort reform.  CBO director Douglas Elmendorf has stated that tort reform would reduce the federal deficit $54 billion over the next ten years.  Please keep that fact in mind as you read this post.

The blog at BigGovernmnet.com is reporting on the part of the proposed healthcare bill that deals with tort reform.  The authors of the bill not only do not support tort reform–they intend to penalize states that have successfully passed it. 

According to the Big Government blog:

“Section 2531, entitled “Medical Liability Alternatives,” establishes an incentive program for states to adopt and implement alternatives to medical liability litigation. [But]…… a state is not eligible for the incentive payments if that state puts a law on the books that limits attorneys’ fees or imposes caps on damages.”

I can’t help but wonder why the authors of this bill have chosen the array of new taxes to pay for their program rather than saving money by doing something that not only saves money but also brings common sense to the system. 

Ed Morrissey posted an article at Hot Air this morning about the unemployment projections of Jared Bernstein, chief economic adviser to VP Joe Biden (CBS’ Morning Show on Friday).  Mr. Bernstein stated, “As far as the overall economy is concerned, private sector forecasters tell us that by the second half of next year, net job growth should be positive, unemployment should be coming down.”

I realize that unemployment is a lagging indicator in a recovery, but this seems to be some serious lag.  According to Mr. Bernstein, unemployment will not begin to go down until late next summer. 

There is a chart in the article at Hot Air showing unemployment with the stimulus package and without the stimulus package.  There is not a whole lot of difference between the two.  The only problem is that after the stimulus, we have an awful lot of debt to repay.

I’m not being sarcastic, this is an honest question.  I liked it when I no longer had to deal with cigarette smoke when I went out to dinner (although I still feel bad for the huddled groups of smokers standing outside on cold winter days because their right to smoke inside was taken away).  But the new enemy of Americans is fast food and vending machines.  I know we have an obesity problem in this country, but I hate to see the government intervene in my eating habits. 

Why not go after some of the ingredients manufacturers are putting in my food?  MacDonalds french fries used to have sugar in them, do they still?  Obviously, french fries are not health food, but does sugar make it worse?  What about high fructose corn syrup?  It extends the shelf life of food and is cheaper than sugar, but what effect does that have on weight?  Is putting a label on something the way to discourage people from eating it?

In an article posted Friday, Politico is pointing out that:

“Buried deep in the House health care bill is a provision, likely to raise nanny-state hackles, requiring fast-food chains and vending machine owners to notify customers of calorie counts — by conspicuously posting nutritional information on menus or machines.

“The provision — Section 2572 — requires retail food establishments “part of a chain with 20 or more locations” to list calorie counts “on the menu board including a drive-through board,” as is currently required in New York City and other localities.”

Do I want to see a calorie count when I go out to dinner?  (Just a note, when the calorie count law was enacted in New York City in chain restaurants, the calories consumed by each person dropped by about 106 fewer calories per purchase).   To calculate the actual result of that figure, you would have to know how often each person ate there, how many people were included in that purchase, etc. 

Aside from the fact that putting up calorie counts is expensive, I just don’t like the idea of the government policing the food at my local chain restaurants.