Posted by Greg L on 10/27/09
Last updated 10/27/09

  Medical Marijuana. On October 19th the Federal Justice Department finally declared an end to the policy of going after doctors who prescribe medicinal marijuana in states where it is legal. Let's take advantage of this rare case of state rights not being trumped by an overzealous federal government. Marijuana has many possible medicinal uses including the treatment of: Alzheimer's, anorexia, arthritis, cachexia, cancer, Crohn's disease, epilepsy, glaucoma, HIV/AIDS, migraine's, ...

What good has come from not allowing the use of marijuana? Let's get one thing straight - Medicinal Marijuana is not toking up!! This involves taking a pill or capsule with extract the same as other vitamins or supplement.

This is a chance for Wisconsin to take a step in it's advancement of health care and make a statement for state sovereignty with one action.

  Education Vouchers.  The voucher system should be expanded statewide. Where used the demand far exceeds the number of vouchers provided. Why are the futures of our children left to a lottery? Why is the program not opened to anyone who wants in? How can anyone claim that they are for better schools if they oppose vouchers?

Let's call a spade a spade. Anyone who supports WEAC or votes for WEAC endorsed candidates is for dumbing down our populace. Let's stop opposing vouchers just because a union believes every child deserves an overpaid teacher even in areas where they fail to graduate 50% of the students. Let's stop accepting a virtual monopoly that underachievers. Let's take a stand for giving our children every possible opportunity to overcome ignorance. Let's support the schools who do succeed in graduating educated students.

  Distilling Your Own Spirits.  It is legal to make personal use wine and beer at home, but not spirits.  Why not?  It's a legal product, it can be made safely.  This is not just Nanny state regulation. This is not just corporate welfare forcing us to buy from big alcohol. This is a slap in the face of self sufficiency and rugged individualism.

  Smoking.  This is a prime case of the government treating adults as children.  If one person owns a business, another person wants to patronize that business, and the owner allows the patron to smoke, what is the problem?  Non-smokers can get off of their tender oversensitve ass and choose a different place in which to dine, drink and be entertained?  I know I can make that grown-up decision.  Can you? 

The owner of a private establishment to decide whether they will or won't allow smoking on their premise. The customer, can voice their opinion with their wallet. If the support is their they can go smoking, non-smoking, or have separate smoking and non-smoking sections.

  Serve Alcohol Responsibly at a Restaurant.  Vito J. Congine, Jr. made news when he started flying his American flag upside down outside his property in Crivitz. Vito plans to open an Italian restaurant. In addition to pasta menu plans include beer and wine. Despite thinking he had everything in order his petition for a liquor license was initially denied.
The number of liquor licenses a municipality can hand out are limited. It is based on population. It no way factors in market demand, how responsible those who have or want one are, or how responsible the citizens of that municipality are.

These limits make the issuing and review of liquor licenses very political. This is wrong.
If a tavern violates noise ordinances, waters down their drinks, allows patrons to drive drunk, engage in fights, or other illegal actions then fine them. If they refuse to conform and have repeat offenses shut them down. But, don't declare them guilty before they even open for business.

  Open a Neighborhood Bar.   On TV in the 90's Cheer's was portrayed as a typical neighborhood bar in Boston where "everybody knew your name". That romanticized notion of a local watering hole is going extinct. Bars are being forced into entertainment districts.
Not only is the price of a night out driven up by artificially limiting the number of liquor licenses issued, but is driven up further when establishments are forced into high rent areas. No longer having a bar on just down the street one can walk to we a greater number of people having to drive to the bar and then choosing to drive home. One can not say they are opposed to drunk driving when they remove drinking establishments from residential neighborhoods.

At the old local tavern the patrons were from the neighborhood. The bartenders knew who the drunks, bullies, and hustlers were. They also needed to know how to control them or they risked seeing people go somewhere else.

The best way to promote responsible drinking is to have it take place where everybody knows your name and will hold you responsible for your actions.

  Buzzed Driving.  A current advertising campaign says buzzed driving is drunk driving. That may the case according to current drunk driving laws but there is a difference.

Different people have different tolerances. Most people are not drunk and can and do drive safely with a BAC of .08%. Many people who believe they have been drinking responsibly are actually above the legal limit. By having a BAC which is too low we are turning otherwise responsible individuals into criminals. When it is too easy to break a law it becomes trivial. When breaking the law is common place the negative social connotation goes away. There is little outrage when our elected leaders like Peg Lautenschlager,  and Jeff Wood get pulled over, in Jeff Wood's case again and again.

Wisconsin legislature is debating toughening drunk driving laws. I am all for this if they are applied to people who are actually drunk. This used to be defined as a BAC of .10%. Before that it was .12%. I would say that we move back to .12%, a point where most people can responsibly have a few drinks without having to worry about getting put in jail, a point where law enforcement efforts can be focused on people who are more likely to actually be impaired and dangerous.

  Give Legal Advice. We all give legal advise, it's hard not to. But, legally only a member of the state bar association may do so. The bar association is not alone in limiting competition.

The Wisconsin Dietetic Association has put forward the Wisconsin Dietitians Licensing Bill (SB115). This would limit the issuing of diet and nutrition advice to those who have been trained and certified as registered dietitian's by the American Dietetic Association.

  Running a Small Business Without Government Approval.  This is a catch-all to keep this list from going on too long.

Bureaucrats will tell you business licenses serve to protect the public, by making sure the a practitioner has the skills and competence necessary to do their job. This is only a small percentage. Most business licensing serves two purposes.  To collect taxes and to push one business person around to the benefit of another business person the politician likes better.

How much government regulation do we need for Tom's Snow Removal, Dick's Plumbing , or Harry's Barber Shop?  It's not like any of these people are performing open heart surgery. It snow's Tom plows my drive I pay him, my toilet backs up Dick snakes it out I pay him, my hair gets a little long Harry gives me a haircut where my sideburns are different lengths, by bangs a crooked, and the back half of my head is shaved bare so I wear hat, wait till it grows back, and find a different barber.

Posted by Greg L on 08/16/09
Last updated 08/17/09

The long intro

Dear Friend,  This is probably one of the longest emails I?ve ever sent,  but it could be the most important.   Across the country we are seeing vigorous debate about health insurance reform.   Unfortunately,  some of the old tactics we know so well are back ?   even the viral emails that fly unchecked and under the radar,  spreading all sorts of lies and distortions.   As President Obama said at the town hall in New Hampshire, ?   where we do disagree,  let's disagree over things that are real,  not these wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that's actually been proposed.?    So let?s start a chain email of our own.   At the end of my email,  you?ll find a lot of information about health insurance reform,  distilled into 8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage,  8 common myths about reform and 8 reasons we need health insurance reform now.   Right now,  someone you know probably has a question about reform that could be answered by what?s below.   So what are you waiting for?   Forward this email.   Thanks,  David David Axelrod Senior Adviser to the President   P.S. We launched www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck this week to knock down the rumors and lies that are floating around the internet.   You can find the information below,  and much more,  there.   For example,  we've just added a video of Nancy-Ann DeParle from our Health Reform Office tackling a viral email head on. 

If you fast forwarded: The White House hates viral e-mails spreading "misinformation" - my experience is that politicians only really hate viral e-mails when they are losing the battle over "misinformation".

The White House wants to battle the "viral e-mails" with a "chain e-mail" - I may be splitting hairs but isn't a "viral e-mail" one which people willingly forward and spread because they find it amusing, humorous, or entertaining; while a chain e-mail one that needs either the false promise of return or the threat of bad happenings to get forwarded?

I have a feeling they didn't the time to test these terms on focus groups.

8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage

1. Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions:  Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.

They feel it's wrong that those who are healthy should have preferential treatment over those who are unhealthy.  Or do they?

Costs to the health care system have been used as arguments for increasing sin taxes on cigarettes, trans-fats, and other items deemed to be unhealthy.  The argument has went beyond sin taxes to legislation limiting personal choice on the idea that the costs of unhealthy citizens in federal programs is a detriment to us all.  

How can it be right to increase costs on tobacco and sugary sodas because it may lead to disease, yet wrong to ask those who have developed cancer or diabetes to pay more than those who have remained healthy?

2. Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays:  Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.

They want to limit out of pocket expenses.  Is that really a good idea?

High deductible insurance policies have the lowest premiums.  The higher the deductible the lower the cost.  If we limit how high a deductible can go we limit the low cost options. 

Lowering the out of pocket expenses also eliminates the amount a consumer has invested in the cost of the care. 

This option actually limits choice and increases costs.

If the actual goal is to increase options for consumers and/or decrease costs this section has to be removed from the table.

3. Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care:  Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.

The end goal is to persuade people to make more health conscience choices, so they will have less disease, so there will be less need of medical care, so there will be less cost. 

If so are they going far enough?  Cover my gym membership, vitamins, organic foods, yoga sessions, and massages.  And, if someone else is footing the bill it would be healthy for me to take up golf so I have something to do on weekends besides watch ESPN. 

The best way to lower cost is to make the consumer more responsible for costs - not less.

4. Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill:  Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.

The reason we willingly pay insurance up front, before we become sick, is so that we will be covered if we do become ill.  It is wrong to drop someone who has been paying for coverage as soon they become expensive.  There are some good things being proposed, but they are outweighed by everything else included in this massive, unconstitutional, takeover by our federal government.

5. Ends Gender Discrimination:  Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.

Gender, preexisting conditions, age, occupation, risky lifestyle choices ... These are a few of the various factors actuaries crunch as they try to come up with a figure representing the potential cost one may be to an insurance company.  The more factors the government prevents them from using the less accurate their estimates. 

When all discrimination is removed, when all our individuality is stripped away, when we all pay the same premiums, will we all be equal?  Or will there be an elite class which will have better coverage than the masses?  Right now more of our legislatures are in favor of language which exempts them allowing them to keep current coverage as opposed to amendments which would require them to have the public option this bill would create.

6. Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage:  Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.

They want to eliminate high deductibles, require the full coverage of routine preventative care, and caps on coverage - yet this will reduce cost ?!? 

I hate caps, I try to get the highest cap's I can afford.  I do this by opting for higher deductibles and co-pays, with Obama-care that option is taken away. 

Every time they require insurance to cover more the money has to come from somewhere.  That somewhere is my premium.  My premium is going to have to go up.  I am going to have to make cuts in my budget to afford these higher premiums.  Many of us will.  Will the only affordable choice be to take a tax subsidised "public option"?

7. Extends Coverage for Young Adults:  Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.

As if recent generations haven't had enough problems with maturing and accepting adulthood.  Think there would be more acceptance if they piggyback raising the voting age to 26 with this. 

PS the Constitution isn't stopping Congress from entering trampling an issue like health care which is reserved for the states why should it prevent them from changing the voting age?

8. Guarantees Insurance Renewal:  Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.

Didn't they already have an end to dropping of coverage for seriously ill?  With the need to reach 8 they repeat the one I have trouble arguing with.  Why not separate and let this through on it's own?  Why hold it back by including it with all the junk the public doesn't want?  Could it be that they are disingenuous and the true desire not insurance reform but growing government?

8 common myths about health insurance reform

Learn more and get details: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/health-insurance-consumer-protections/ 8 common myths about health insurance reform

1. Reform will stop "rationing" - not increase it: It?s a myth that reform will mean a "government takeover" of health care or lead to "rationing." To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies.

This is a "government takeover"!!!  This is the government userping power that it was not granted.  The government taking power it didn't have, taking power and choice from the people, is a takeover!!!

I have added in my own thoughts but done no editing to this text.  They do say "reform will forbid many forms of rationing".  This does not mean all, not even most.  It does not mean new rationing can not take place. 

I have checked the White House and other websites hoping to find a where in any of the health care proposals they have text that will forbid rationing - no luck.  Same with trying to find just a list of the rationing they are planning to forbid. 

The closest I can find is that they will require the coverage of preventative care.  I don't know of any insurance which forbids preventative care just ones which don't cover in for the sake of keeping costs and premiums down.

2. We can?t afford reform: It's the status quo we can't afford. It?s a myth that reform will bust the budget. To the contrary, the President has identified ways to pay for the vast majority of the up-front costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs; ending big subsidies to insurance companies; and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork. In the long term, reform can help bring down costs that will otherwise lead to a fiscal crisis.

We can't afford the status quo.  The status quo being an ever growing, ever more intrusive federal government.  We can't afford the mounting debt.  We can't afford social ponzi schemes like Social Security and Medicare.  We can't afford to see our dollar weakened by a Federal Reserve and treasury which are running the printing presses at full speed.  We can't afford to bail out failing corporations.  We can't afford the ever growing taxes, fees, and regulation at all levels of government.  We can't afford to see factories and jobs driven out of our nation. 

The only way it's a myth that reform will bust our budget is if you are conceding that the budget is already busted. 

Government and bureaucracies have a dismal record when it comes to waste fraud and abuse.  If they want to win our trust why not eliminate waste, fraud and abuse in existing government programs?  Why not have a year where government efficiency's result in actual cost savings as seen in overall spending going down?  

Those pushing this monstrosity have no proof to back up their claims but those who question this are the ones spreading misinformation.

3. Reform would encourage "euthanasia": It does not. It?s a malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors. For seniors who want to consult with their family and physicians about end-of life decisions, reform will help to cover these voluntary, private consultations for those who want help with these personal and difficult family decisions.

There is talk that the end of life counseling is going to be eliminated as soon as congress returns from recess.  But that is just the start.

Much of the talk of cast savings comes with cutting costs in the last year of life, where the greatest expense is.  But they never get specific on where the savings will come.  One is left to fill in the pundits pauses and jump to a conclusion.  Many are jumping to conclusion that there will a push to "pull the plug".

Whether or not euthanasia, nonresuscitation, or some other form of not providing life saving treatment is is the goal; the Democrats are doing little to win our confidence.  One way would be to include a sanctity of life clause.  Don't hold your breath for this.

4. Vets' health care is safe and sound: It?s a myth that health insurance reform will affect veterans' access to the care they get now. To the contrary, the President's budget significantly expands coverage under the VA, extending care to 500,000 more veterans who were previously excluded. The VA Healthcare system will continue to be available for all eligible veterans.

Just what we a need a promise to put more into  cockroach infested Walter Reed type VA hospitals. 

Other than removing Major General Weightman, the director for WRAMC director for less than 6 months, and having legislative committees (for show), investigations (for show), and reports (for show); what has actually been done since the Washington Post articles broke, in February 2007, to improve the system?

5. Reform will benefit small business - not burden it: It?s a myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses, provide tax credits to help them pay for employee coverage and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average.

When AIG was bailed out did this level the playing field for any small health insurance firms or other forms of small business? 

The usual knock is that small businesses can not afford to health insurance plans for their employees.  How are we leveling the playing field.  By having the taxpayers subsidise insurance costs so they can compete with the big boys?  By punishing big business for providing insurance to their employees?  By not allowing any business to provide insurance thus eliminating the argument altogether?

The truth is that once you look behind the broad promises of socialists one has to realize that government can not force equality, or levelness, upon us. 

The CEO's and Presidents of big business know this.  Yet they welcome big government and  regulation.  They welcome it because regulation raises the cost of entry into a field.  The higher the cost of entry the fewer people who can afford to compete.  So regulation decreases competition.  Less competition means less supply so prices can go up.  Higher prices means more profit for them.  More profit means a greater ability to squeeze the little guy.

Big government is the enemy of small business.  Limited government is where small business is able to thrive.  A limited government which does not practices laze fare and swears off corporate welfare will be most just playing field for consumers and entrepreneurs.

6. Your Medicare is safe, and stronger with reform: It?s myth that Health Insurance Reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits. To the contrary, reform will improve the long-term financial health of Medicare, ensure better coordination, eliminate waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies, and help to close the Medicare "doughnut" hole to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors.

Medicare costs are bankrupting the federal government.  Medicare and Medicaid are unsustainable.  The costs are growing faster than the GDP.  Without new revenue the system is in trouble.  This is why there is the need to get the young, poor, unemployed, and underemployed on a public option. They need to take health insurance premiums from those who will be healthier to fund other the other government programs which already have the nations most expensive patients.

This is a huge overhaul to provide a temporary fix.  The only permanent fix will be to get the ever open money bags of the federal government out of the health insurance industry and allow the private market place to work and stabilize costs.

7. You can keep your own insurance: It?s myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them.

Universal health care is the ultimate goal of Obama and others on the left.  None of the current bills in consideration call for universal health care, at least not outright.  To find it one has to read between the lines and follow the slippery slope of government growth. 

The only new competition being brought into play is a proposed government option.  Private insurance will actually have fewer options as there will greater restriction over what is offered and covered. 

Proposals have clear language about grandfathering those with existing coverage.  Allowing us who want to keep our existing coverage to do so.  Now if there was going to be a system in place where one could freely change coverage if and when they see fit to the provider of choice why would they need to grandfather anyone?  It would be a given that they could freely keep it.  

Current public option plans are designed to slowly reduce choice and force those without insurance onto the public option.

8. No, government will not do anything with your bank account: It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts. Health insurance reform will simplify administration, making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose. Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill, you can pay by traditional check, or by a direct electronic payment. And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand. The choice is up to you ? and the same rules of privacy will apply as they do for all other electronic payments that people make.

Learn more and get details: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck/faq

Forms will be easier to understand.  This from a government which puts out legislation so difficult to understand that they have to accuse anyone who quotes anything less that the entire 1,000+ pages as a whole of spreading misinformation?  This from a government who fails every time they try to simplify taxes?  A government who needs lawyers to tell them what pending legislation means is going to be trusted to simplify hospital bills?

And government will certainly do something to my bank account.  They will do the same thing they have been doing, they will make it smaller.  There will be a cost to this legislation and we, the taxpaying public, will pay it.  There are no proposals from the majority party to make cuts to offset the costs from this new program so taxes will have to go up.  When taxes go up take home income goes down.  When take home income goes down savings go down.  So what good does it do for the government to tap into the bank accounts of citizens who are as broke and in debt as they themselves are?

8 Reasons We Need Health Insurance Reform Now

1. Coverage Denied to Millions: A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adults ? 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market ? were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years or dropped from coverage when they became seriously ill. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/denied_coverage/index.html

2. Less Care for More Costs: With each passing year, Americans are paying more for health care coverage. Employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have nearly doubled since 2000, a rate three times faster than wages. In 2008, the average premium for a family plan purchased through an employer was $12,680, nearly the annual earnings of a full-time minimum wage job. Americans pay more than ever for health insurance, but get less coverage. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hiddencosts/index.html

3. Roadblocks to Care for Women: Women?s reproductive health requires more regular contact with health care providers, including yearly pap smears, mammograms, and obstetric care. Women are also more likely to report fair or poor health than men (9.5% versus 9.0%). While rates of chronic conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure are similar to men, women are twice as likely to suffer from headaches and are more likely to experience joint, back or neck pain. These chronic conditions often require regular and frequent treatment and follow-up care. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/women/index.html

4. Hard Times in the Heartland: Throughout rural America, there are nearly 50 million people who face challenges in accessing health care. The past several decades have consistently shown higher rates of poverty, mortality, uninsurance, and limited access to a primary health care provider in rural areas. With the recent economic downturn, there is potential for an increase in many of the health disparities and access concerns that are already elevated in rural communities. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hardtimes

5. Small Businesses Struggle to Provide Health Coverage: Nearly one-third of the uninsured ? 13 million people ? are employees of firms with less than 100 workers. From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. Much of this decline stems from small business. The percentage of small businesses offering coverage dropped from 68% to 59%, while large firms held stable at 99%. About a third of such workers in firms with fewer than 50 employees obtain insurance through a spouse. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/helpbottomline

6. The Tragedies are Personal: Half of all personal bankruptcies are at least partly the result of medical expenses. The typical elderly couple may have to save nearly $300,000 to pay for health costs not covered by Medicare alone. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction

7. Diminishing Access to Care: From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. An estimated 87 million people - one in every three Americans under the age of 65 - were uninsured at some point in 2007 and 2008. More than 80% of the uninsured are in working families. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction/diminishing/index.html

8. The Trends are Troubling: Without reform, health care costs will continue to skyrocket unabated, putting unbearable strain on families, businesses, and state and federal government budgets. Perhaps the most visible sign of the need for health care reform is the 46 million Americans currently without health insurance - projections suggest that this number will rise to about 72 million in 2040 in the absence of reform. Learn more: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/assets/documents/CEA_Health_Care_Report.pdf

There is only one real reason to oppose this : It's unconstitutional.  The Constitution does not grant congress, or any area of the federal government any authority to regulate health insurance.

This entire debate should according to the Constitution be held at the state level. Any attempt to do so at the federal level should according to our Constitution be done through the process of amending the Constitution.  Any other argument is a show of contempt for our Constitution, our founders, and all who have fought to keep this nation free.

This is a huge power grab at the expense of the document which protects our very liberty. When our government becomes destructs our Constitution, our liberties, our unalianable rights, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.

Posted by Greg L on 08/09/09
Last updated 08/10/09

I'm a mobster - and proud

I did attend a Town Hall Meeting hosted by my congressman, Steve Kagen. 

I will give him credit for having held it at 7PM.  No typo, that was 7PM.  Unlike other representatives who hold there's during the middle of the day; he had it at a time when average taxpaying working stiffs (or mobsters in pro-Obamacare circles) could show up.  That or the newer (even more deceitfully) tactic of not putting advance info out on their website, rather sending a select group of e-mails the day before.

I have thoughts on the issue of health care and I want to be heard.  I want to think that my congressman will take my opinion into consideration before they vote on something which; like social security, medicare, and other social programs; we may never be able to undo once in place.

I did attend the town hall at the Brown County Library.  I found myself amongst the many who could not get in.  Being outside the auditorium and having the opportunity to move around.  I was able to see who the other people were that showed up.  I knew some of the faces in the crowd.  These were people from the area, not outsiders bussed in.  These were other people who, whether for, against, or undecided, are concerned about the nations well being and want to see that there is adequate debate so a decision can be reached that will best fit the nation as a whole. 

I do agree that these town hall meeting are getting unruly, that they should be a place of civil discourse where all sides are allowed a chance to speak.  But, for any representative to use the rudeness of a few as an excuse to deny the rest the right to address and petition their legislature, to hold meetings at times and places which deny the majority a chance to be seen and heard, to take deliberate efforts to silence those who disagree with you is despicable.

I did attend a town hall meeting, only I did not speak.  I did not even hear my concerns brought up.  So, I am using this medium to voice my concerns.

It's Unconstitutional

Article I, Section 1 of the US Constitution reads: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."  From the very begging our Constitution is makes it clear that it is the record of the powers that Congress is granted, they do not have the authority to go beyond what is written.

Some may try to argue that the necessary and proper clause gives Congress a blank check to do whatever they like.  Take a look at the clause in its entirety: "Congress shall have the Power" "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution on the Government of United States, or in any Department, or Office thereof."  Once again limited to powers vested by the Constitution.  Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress or part of the federal government granted the power to pass laws in areas where the power is not vested to them. 

Does the Constitution at any point mention health care, or the medical sciences and arts?  It does: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;".  Cleaned up into modern English; they have the power to grant patents. 

Is there anything in the Constitution which shows what to do with areas such as regulating insurance, providing care for the indigent, overseeing hospitals?  Yes, Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."  The Constitution is clear.  The only power with issue of health care that it vests in Congress is to issue patents, all other areas are reserved to the states. 

Why then does our President and Congress want to pass legislation that is blatantly unconstitutional?  Why it they believe that the states have ignored their responsibilities and they need to take over do they not go through the proper channels and amend the Constitution? 

To ignore their oaths and our Constitution which is the supreme law of the land shows a complete contempt for positions they were given.  It shows a contempt for our nation, and it's citizens as a whole.

Why not a Bill of Rights?

When the US Constitution was brought before the people for ratification one of the big concerns was the lack of a Bill of Rights.  Many were worried that without Bill of Rights Congress could find a means to limit their liberties. 

There was much fear that Congress would one day start to overstep it's limited authority in the Constitution and infringe on person liberties.  This fear was standing in the way of getting the Constitution ratified.  If fear continued to rule the Constitution may never have been ratified.  It was Samual Adams and John Hancock who managed to put the populace at ease.  They put forward a list of amendments, based on the Virginia Declaration of Rights and the English Bill of Rights, which would be taken up as soon as the first Congress met. 

Likewise, we need someone to step forward and put fears about this proposal to rest.  Why can't President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Senate majority leader Reid promise that they will put forward a bill of rights which guarantees that the fears of government overreaching will not take place? 

Why not promise that legislation will not be passed which does not have protections guaranteeing us that:

• No one will be forced into a government insurance program;
• That those in a government insurance program will have the ability to leave the program at any time they so choose;
• That personal medical charts, files, and records of private citizens will not be collected or stored by any government agency;
• That no doctor, nurse, pharmacist, or other medical practitioner will be forced to engage in activities which go against their religious beliefs;
• That no government agent, or member of non-government commission put into place through government actions, will take any action which will deny a citizen life saving medical treatment; 
• That no one will be denied any medical care, testing, or prescribed medicine which they or their insurance provider are willing to pay for; 
• That no government agent or member of a non-government commission put into place will encourage euthanasia of the elderly, sick, or disabled.

If those in favor of Obama-care want to end the fears, if they want to put the worries of extremest to rest all they would have to do is promise to include provisions like these listed.  Failure to do so shows that they are not open to working with those who disagree with them and leaves on wondering if the extremest views have any validity.

Why not make it simpler and less complicated?

The term misinformation is getting thrown around as a label for any criticism of Obama-care.  How do we know what is right and what is wrong?  The e-mails providing the misinformation provide copies of text from the bill, references to page and section, links back to copies of the proposal.  Hard to argue when they are using the text of the bill as the bases of the augment. 

The problem is many of us get snip-its and have no idea of the totality of what is being said.  This is because very few of us have read the bill in it's entirety.  Few of our congressmen have either.  As John Conyers said "I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill,' What good is reading the bill if it's a thousand pages and you don't have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?" 

We have a representative government, not a direct democracy.  Complex issues like health care are the reason why.  Our founders understood that the average person did not have the time or interest to become educated enough to make an informed and intelligent decision on every issue facing the nation.  Therefore, it was decided to have a small group representing the populace as a whole.  A small group who would take the time to read legislation then seek the information necessary to reach a rational decision on how to vote.  It is a total break down of the system when those charged with the obligation of educating themselves on the issues do not have the time or expertise to read and comprehend legislation put before them.

Voting for any bill which they have not personally read in it's entirety, and have full comprehension of, is a dereliction of their duties.

It's time to end 1,000 page documents written in some cryptic combination Latin and legalese.  Let's end bills with countless amendments, riders, and earmarks.  Let's stop slipping in unpopular legislation by paper-clipping it to some otherwise meaningless piece of feelgood legislation.  Let every bill stand on it's own.  Have every bill read into the record.  And make it part of their oath that they will read every bill before they vote for it.

If they want to end misinformation, if they want to end misinterpretations, if they want to end public fear of unknown consequences, put forward legislation which the average person can read and understand.   If they want civil discourse treat us, your constituents, with the same dignity which they expect and deserve.

Posted 08/09/09 Voice0fReason Silver Spring, MD

It's true that many of our lawmakers may not be able to understand what they are voting for. But you can rest assured that certain interested parties have read the entire text of the legislation and thoroughly researched the implications of every legalistic phrase. This would include the executives of Goldman-Sachs and their massive legal team, as well as certain players in the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. You know they have close friends in the administration and in congress. They helped put the language in place. They may have made a few "concessions".... but you can be certain that the final version has plenty of stipulations and loopholes that will siphon billions of taxpayer $$ into their pockets.

Posted 08/30/09 Bill O. Rights Neenah, WI

A thorough reading of the Constitution would clearly show that these proposed healthcare-reform measures are NOT necessarily unconstitutional. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 gives Congress the power to "provide for the...general Welfare of the United States." The rest of Article 1, Section 8 that you quoted comes after the first clause, obviously. You must have skipped over the General Welfare clause somehow. You can argue that Congress only has its expressly-granted constitutional powers, which is true. I strongly advocate a small federal government, as well as states' and people's reserved rights. But what is the expressly-granted power to provide for the general welfare? What spending can this involve? What are this clause's limits? What is "general welfare" and what isn't?

Posted 09/01/09 Greg L Appleton, WI

Article 1, Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" The power being granted is to collect taxes. Providing for the "General Welfare" is not a power being granted. It is a stipulation of how taxes are to be used: for "Common" and "General" purposes. Taxes were not to be used to by government to redistribute wealth. Taxes collected were meant to used for purposes which benefited society as a whole. We were to go to war to the nation as a whole, not enter into wars for the benefit of multi-national corporations, or to back up UN missions - the armed forces are for "Common Defence". Taxes were not meant to be used for bailouts, loans, or other forms of corporate welfare to large corporations. They were meant to be used to provide for "the commons" or the things that benefit all citizens like courts, roads and bridges, a stable currency, and other areas enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.

Posted 09/02/09 Bill O. Rights Neenah, WI

How is a road or a bridge for the "general welfare" or common good? It benefits a small amount of people. Besides, building a road is redistributing wealth -- a poor person and rich person may equally use the same road, but the rich person footed much more of this road's bill via taxes. I'm not arguing for socialized medicine or a public option, but this would be for the general welfare. I agree with your view that this general welfare clause is not a separate power; it is instead a legitimate reason for taxing and then spending. But either way, Congress has the power to spend our tax money on things for the general welfare.

Posted 09/12/09 Greg L Appleton, WI

If taking over a week to respond makes it look like I have been avoiding this, rather than just busy, one would be right. I had been hoping someone else would have taken up the arguement and saved me from having to ask for truce. I do not want Bill O Rights remarks to go unchallenged, but I see no way of responding without it leading to a more rounds of circular arguements. I will have to conceed that we both have our vision skewed by our differing poitical philosophies. I want a limited government so as I view the 9th, 10th amendments, article 1 section 1, article 1 section 8,... - I see the Constitution limiting government. Bill O Rights has a differing philosophy. He does mask it by saying; "I'm not arguing for socialized medicine or a public option, but this would be for the general welfare." It should be noted he hasn't argued against it. What he has argued for is a government with almost limitless power. He sees anything which can be justified as a "common good" or a "general welefare" as being constitutional whether or not there is any additional test justifying the action. These are his ideals and that is what he reads into the Constitution. With this huge of a gap, with this little common ground, we have an impass from which it is unlikely there will be little more productive debate. So I ask for a truce. I conceed to a stalemate, and remove myself from any future debate in this thread.

Posted by Greg L on 07/25/09

Krist Novoselic v. Grange

Last month Krist Novoselic, former bass player for Nirvana, signed up to run for the clerk position in his small, rural county in Washington state.  He has since withdrawn. 

During his short stint he ran what could be called a third party campaign with the Grange Party.  But, there is no Grange Party.  There is a Grange Farmers' Association that endorses, but does not run, candidates.

Novoselic never intended to run for office rather he ran a protest campaign to bring attention to Washington state's "Top Two Primary" system.  He viewed it as a flaw that one could not just ran as a member of a party but as "preferring" a party.  Had he continued on the ballot next to his name would have appeared "prefers Grange Party".  In Washington a person can run as "preferring" any political party - imaginary, defunct, or alive and kicking. The identified party has nothing to say about it. 

When withdrawing Novoselic put in his letter to the local paper:

What I did -declaring my candidacy under the banner of the Grange Party-would have been unimaginable before Washington's new election law was applied. Now the state, without restriction, has given the name Grange to any taker. I don't like this state intrusion. It has allowed me to change the message of a group. There is no such thing as a Grange Party, but that's what it would look like to voters who don't read legal disclaimers on their ballots.

Looking back, perhaps I should have chosen an organization which would have been more willing to protect its trademark? How about the Prefers Starbucks Party? Maybe Microsoft? The best would be the Prefers Walt Disney Party-because claiming Disney would further demonstrate what a Mickey-Mouse system this is.

Partisan Primaries

Washington States has a nonpartisan blanket primary.  In this the candidates from every party are placed in one central primary and the top two move on.  Sounds fair, but every major political party (Republican, Democrat, Libertarian) opposes this. 

What Novoselic supports are firehouse primaries wherein the parties pay for their own nominating procedures.  Also sounds nice but doesn't address the real issue.

In the case of Novoselic he was running for Clerk .  Why should it matter what political party the County Clerk is form?  Unless the intent is for the office to be used to help ones party.  I have never heard a good argument for why any administrative position should be partisan.  In fact mast people when discussing this say they are against having administrative positions being partisan but no one pushes to have this changed.  

I would go a step further why are party affiliations listed on a ballot for legislative positions?  I'm not saying that political affiliations are not important.  What I am saying is that if we are electing an individual to represent the voters and not a party which chooses a person to represent them (at least in theory) why are political parties given such a place of prominence on the ballot?    

The only place party affiliation should be listed is for executive positions. 

This is because with executive positions (mayor, governor, president) you are voting not for one person, but an entire cabinet or administration.  To reach the pinnacle of political power one has to make numerous affiliations.  To get be granted endorsements for these affiliates politicians need to make many promises and grant countless favors.  This leaves them with little ability to operate as individuals and instead leaves them beholden to the special interests who helped them ascend.  This leaves the choice not Obama vs. McCain, or Doyle vs. Walker, but the Republican Party and their allies vs the Democrat Party and their allies.  This may sound cynical, but it is reality.

So in my view our executives should not be viewed as great powerfull individuals, but as the face for a conglomeration of special interests and legislatures should be veiwed as individuals with the power to vote their will rather than another number toward the majority for either the elephants or donkeys.

The first step to making this happen.  To making legislatures beholden to the people and not the party.  To ending the ability of the party in power to ram legislation through with no real debate or review is to remove the parties from the ballots.  To have truly nonpartisan primaries and elections.

Posted 07/27/09 MarkStrand4Liberty Lomira, WI

Yes, I like it! Why does it matter which party you are from when it is majority rules for voting in bills? Also, why does it matter which party your sheriff is in, or county clerk, or district attorney, or even judges? I would think that qualifications would matter more than political party (at least they do to me). The only issue is the way the "leaders" of the house (or assembly) and senate would be chosen, but in reality we could get rid of that too.

Posted 07/29/09 Greg L Appleton, WI

I would like to see a change to the perks one gets for belonging to the majority party. Or the punishment districts have if they elect a member from the party which turns out to be in the minority. We can not, nor should we, outlaw political parties. With the party system you will always find one majority party which elects the leaders. The leaders decide who sits on what committees, what bills get to be discussed and voted on, how much time one gets to speak on proposed legislation... When all it is all done being in the right party can get a representative better office space, more staff, more funding,and most importantly more ability to shake down lobbyists (I mean fundraise). This does not work out equal representation for all districts. The only way to break this would be to have legislatures who are open minded, considerate of the opposition, and willing to set aside partisan preferences, or develop a multiple party form of representation. If no single party has a majority this would require a conscious to be formed to obtain a majority. Without all ones support coming from their party there is a point where obligations will split between the speaker and leaders of the representatives party. Without the ability to both punish on the floor and behind the scenes with funding and election support it to rule with an iron fist. This brings in the problem how do you establish enough of a third party that neither of the major parties has a majority? The Republicrats benefit from a bias against voting third party (this we can overcome with hard work) as well institutionalized preference to themselves (and why would they object once they are in power). To overcome both the bias and institutionalized preference for the current two headed monster will require a Herculean effort our part. However, I think that the planets are lining up just right to allow for some upsets. Just enough of the public is suffering and turning to the message of less rather than more government, others just want actual change, some just join because Ron Paul and the liberty movement is becoming a hip group to belong to. With a population ready to listen and ample examples of where the big government monster is going to start devouring our huge portions of this once free land a moral candidate with a motivated army of supports should be able to take on the beast.

Posted by Greg L on 06/26/09

I am not a member of the Right.  I am not a war hawk.  I do not believe that morality can be forced on people.  I do not think that it is governments job to promote business.

I am definately not a member of the Left.  I believe that government bureaucracys are highly inefficient.  I advocate a laze fare approach to enterprise.  I believe in borders and defending them. 

I do not think that I can be defined as a moderate.  I reject the bipartisan support of outrageous pork projects, huge budgets, a debt they have no intention of paying off, a willingness to ignore our nations supreme law (The Constitution for those who have forgotten), and a general disregard of the public in favor of special interest.  All moderate means to me is a politician who is willing to sell their soul to lobbyists from either side of the aisle.

I am not apathetic or ambivalent.  I have strong convictions and am willing to fight for them.

How can I allow myself to lie outside the bounds of mainstream conventional wisdom and enter an area reserved exclusively for "kooks", "weirdos" and "extremest"?  What can give my outlook something other than that of the left or right?  What are my convictions?  What is the philosophy that defines my political ideology?

I have a foundation built of three key principles: austrian economics, personal responsibility, and self reliance.

Austrian Economics

I do think the Austrian of neoclassical school of economics is the most accurate.  I so not subscribe to the Keynesian school; and think the idea that government spending can produce economic growth is laughable. 

I want sound money instead of fiat money.  I am against corporate welfare instead advocating that government to take a hand off - laze fare approach to business.  I am against a tax code which is used as a back-door approach to regulating and rewarding behavior.  I disagree with the notion that government can create wealth, jobs, or economic prosperity.

Personal Responsibility

I remember when comedians were the only ones bringing up the idea that government regulate fatty foods. Now New York has already started regulating what restraints can serve. 
Often when the debate over the regulation smoking, fast food, and other health choices is brought up someone will eventually slip up and mention the cost to taxpayers - after all we cover there expenses through medicare, medicaid or some other form of socialized medicine.  Taking over health care entirely gives that much more room to take away our ability to choose for ourselves. 

I believe that there are consequences for ones actions.  That if I overeat and don't exercise that I will become fat, that if I don't brush my teeth I will get cavities, that if stay out in the sun too long that I will get a sunburn, that if I don't pay my insurance they won't pay me when an accident occurs. 

I don't think that you can outlaw stupidity - and why would politicians put themselves out of business.  I accept that because I didn't become a doctor, lawyer, or banker I do not make the same pay as a banker, lawyer or doctor.  I accept that because I choose to live in Wisconsin that I have to freeze through Wisconsin winters; and - although begrudgingly -I have to pay Wisconsin taxes. 

I disapprove of a government which tries to give the perception that they can remove risk from our lives.  But they give the false hope one can overextend on a mortgage, go bankrupt and get baled out; that you can not put away any of your take home pay but still have retirement income; that nanny government will protect you from tobacco, alcohol, cancer, AIDS, the devil, and ourselves.

Self Reliance

One can not the joys of liberty if they seek to taken care of.  We live in a society where it is almost revered to be a grown child.  The notion of leaving home to seek your own path is longer admired.  Gone are the days when even the pampered rich like Teddy Roosevelt and Kit Carson would go west in pursuit of the zen that comes from a life or rugged individualism. 

It's not just that as individuals we do not grow, hunt or catch their own food.  It's not that we don't shingle our own roofs, plunge our backed up toilets, or change our own oil.  It's what it represents.  An attitude of having someone else take care of our selves.
Would Washington, Adams, Franklin, and the rest of our founders have fought the revolution if they lacked confidence in their ability to be self reliant - to govern their own nation with a king?  

So is it any wonder that the current government takes steps to limit our ability to be self reliant?  That it seeks to tax us off our land if we choose to try and just live off it rather than joining the rat race so government can take it our earnings.  That they put undue regulations making it so one can not just hang a shingle and perform a service where they can earn an honest living?  That they discourage bartering?  That they discourage and punish saving and investing?  That they encourage a throw away materialistic society?  That they encourage us to become slaves to easy credit?     

We have a government that wants to promote alternative energy, energy conservation, green lifestyles.  But those who actually lead the way are those who want escape government, those who want to live off the grid, those who possess the rugged individualism and self reliance.  The very attributes they seek to destroy.