Steven Howard's weblog
It has been only a year and look how far we have come. On October 1, 2008, the Campaign for Liberty officially launched in Vermont with eight members and a little under 100 email only members. As of today, we now have 97 members and over 550 email only members. Back in October, 2008 we were only an on-line entity with little interaction with other, like minded organizations. Now we have a working relationship with several well established groups around Vermont and continue to support their efforts as our organization grows. In one year, we went from nothing to being an upcoming and important voice in Vermont Politics.
Over the last 12 months so much has happened. We have had a State Convention with over 50 attendees and some really great speakers. We have had regular quarterly meetings of our Local Coordinators. We have help create tea parties on April 15 and July 4th. We sponsored a petition drive that brought all three of our Congressional Delegates to support the "Audit the Fed" effort. We had a hugely successful fair booth at the Rutland Fair this year. The Liberty Blog and the Vermont Campaign for Liberty site were launched. Finally, we have offered seminars to the public aimed at helping our fellow Vermonters become better citizens. Looking back we have accomplished a lot with such a small group in a very "liberal" state.
But our progress does not end there. Come this January, we will be holding our second State Convention. In the Spring another round of Citizen Forums will be held throughout the State. We will be having information tables at New Hampshire's Freedom Fest and The Free State Projects' Porcupine Fest. Finally, plans are in the works to increase our presence in Vermont through media expansion and publication of our own material.
All of this success has been as a result of our members contributing their time, wealth, and skills to further the Campaign. Make no mistake, this is your Campaign for Liberty and it can only grow and continue to succeed if you continue to help it.
So, with the successes of the last twelve months in mind, let's work together to make the next twelve even more successful. We can do it, if we all contribute.
Tags:
No comments yet.
You must be logged in to post comments. [Become a member]
|
Recently a discussion has arisen concerning the effectiveness of 10th Amendment Resolutions as a way to address Washington's long history of over reaching its Constitutional Powers. As part of this discussion, a member noted that " Our hope is not in, nor should it ever be in the Constitution". After reading this entry, I felt compelled to write the following:
"The discussion over the Constitution misses a vital point that the previous writer has hinted at. Even the best crafted document is meaningless unless those it seeks to guide honor it. Classic examples are the Constitutions of the Soviet Union or Weimar Germany. Both, on their faces, are incredible documents which maximizes individual liberties, popular government, and a well reasoned system of governance. The only problem was that they also were only documents. Both the Soviet Union's and Germany's leaders hardly paid attention to either while paying lip service to them.
A nation of laws ruled by a government of men is a contradiction. If the rulers do not obey the law, then the law fundamentally is meaningless or at least unstable and subject to the whims of an elite, a mob, or personalities.
While agreeing with the previous writer that our hope is not in the Constitution, I disagree with his contention that "we must be good and elect good people to write good laws." Read Madison's notes on the Convention. Throughout the painful, slow process of crafting the Constitution, there was one assumption that all present held and periodically expressed. That assumption was that the American People, jealous of their liberties, would serve as a check upon the actions of a rouge government. In effect, they assumed that the Citizens would be a Fourth Branch of government. And, they felt that this assumption was so self-evident that they did feel the need to write it down.
For some reason we, as a people, have forgotten our traditional suspicion of government and our sense of ownership in our government. We, citizen's of the greatest republic known to man, failed to perform our office as citizens and let our vital role in that republic slip, leaving great power in the hands of those with great ambition, unchecked.
The simple passage of a resolution or even a bill will not effect the necessary change we seek. The fight over this bill or that piece of legislation will not alter the fact that government is treated as a separate and unrelated entity in the lives of Americans. Most Americans treat politics as a specialized field or as a seasonal sport and not directly effecting their daily lives.
For too long we have been trying to have good laws written, only to be bitterly disappointed by the works of our servants. For too long we have been trying to "elect good people", only to find that good people are few and far between despite the protestations of many claiming the role. If anything, history tells us that wanting and waiting for a white knight to come along is a sure recipe for dictatorship and disaster.
For the Constitution to work, we must make it work. We must hold everyone accountable to its provisions, regardless of party, for both have long abused this document for too long. We must demand that the lawgivers honor and obey the law first. We must keep everyone of their actions under scrutiny constantly and call them to account when they fail their office.
To do all of this requires something more than playing party politics or campaigning for this candidate or that one. It requires finding those few, precious few, citizens in a sea of people. Citizens who understand their role goes beyond Tax Day and Election Day. Citizen's who love their liberty and the fruits of it and are willing to work to maintain them. The reality is to effectuate change we don't need a majority, or a large minority. We only need an educated, motivated, and committed minority of people willing to work for the change we seek. To find that minority of citizens, true citizens, we need to look in our neighborhoods, churches, clubs, and workplaces. We must interact with the community and send out the liberty message and listen intently for a reply.
We all want liberty minded candidates to win. But in order to give them a fighting chance we must prepare the ground. Create an atmosphere in the public forum where his message will not be shunted aside. To do this, the public must be made fully aware of the message and create a network of liberty minded citizens willing to rush to his aid and work for his success. Ultimately, it requires us to model good citizenship for our neighbors and provide them with an opportunity to become involved"
Tags:
No comments yet.
You must be logged in to post comments. [Become a member]
|
Last night President Obama challenged everyone to debate the real substance of the health care bill and not engage in hyperbole. I accept his challenge and in this light make the following observations regarding my opposition to the health care bill or bills currently being considered.
1) In order to focus the debate we need to focus on what it is we are debating. Are we debating available of health care, that is the actual amount of health care providers in this country or the cost of said health care? Clearly the problem is not whether we have a sufficient number of health care providers. It is a question of the cost of health care. So what are the cost drivers which make medical care unaffordable? Well the short answer is cost shifting. You see the existing government run health care plan, AKA Medicaid/Medicare, pays only a small fraction of the total bill. The remainder of the bill must be written off by the medical provider. Health Insurance Companies also pay only a fraction of the bill, but substantially more than the Government. Again, the provider must either write off the remaining balance or bill the insured person. Many times, this fractional payment is less than the cost of providing the service or allows very little profit making it hard for the provider to remain in business. So how do these health providers make a living? By doing two things, either jacking up the price for services so that the fractional shared that is paid comes closer to the real cost of providing or shifting the cost onto the third person in this equation, the uninsured individual. Since this shift falls on people with a very high likelihood of not paying their bill, the shift must be significant enough must allow for this eventually.
Here is an example of what I mean: Hospital X provides a specific procedure costing $400 a treatment to 300 people in a given time frame. One hundred patients are on medicare. One hundred are on private health insurance. And one hundred are uninsured or self-paying. Hospital X had previously billed $500 for the procedure (cost plus profit) in the past and found that Medicare only pays $150 per treatment (a net loss of $250 in cost alone and $350 overall). Historically, insurance companies only paid $450 per treatment (an overall loss of $50). So the Hospital is faced with a challenge? How to remain in business while suffering thousands of dollars in losses due to Medicare and health insurance companies. The answer is clear, jack up your prices to get more out of both. So Hospital X starts charging $800 per treatment. Medicare now pays about $270 per treatment (thereby cutting in half their losses related to costs) Meanwhile the insurance companies pay around $720 of the $800 bill which makes up some of the lost profits. But for the poor uninsured individual, this means he faces a much larger bill. Health care has now become more unaffordable than before.
As you can see, due to the massive cost shift brought on by the underpayment of a governmental health insurance program, medical costs have skyrocketed out of reach for the millions uninsured. Or in other words, governmental involvement in the health insurance business has been a major player in the present crisis we face.
2) Are we actually debating not the cost of health care, but the cost of health insurance? Well if it is the cost of insurance is the issue, a simply review of the state of the industry today shows that governmental mandates and regulations have lead to higher insurance premiums. Every state has a list of mandatory benefits which must be covered by persons seeking to provide health insurance. These benefits are blind in that whether you needed them or not, you have to purchase a policy that provides for these benefits and you have to pay for these benefits. So as it stands right now, your insurance policy provides every man with coverage for mamograms, ob/gyn appointments, and birthing/delivery services. You pay for them, even if you will never use them.
Additionally, most states use "community rating" to set premiums. What this means is that a 22 year old active and fit college student without a family history of disease, a 42 year old, slightly overweight male with a family history of early onset Parkinson's disease, and a 60 year old man with a personal history of multiple medical problems generally pay similar amounts for their insurance premiums. Even though they make different demands on their health insurance and need differing levels of medical care, the health insurance companies in community rating states can not charge each of them substantially different insurance rates. Therefore, in order to provide for their own overhead and profits, the health insurance companies have to charge higher rates for the 22 year old and the 42 year old in order to cover the increased health care claims of the 60 year old.
3) If the debate is that health care coverage is not available and affordable, then is the answer really mandatory health insurance? Right now it appears that Washington is going in the direction of mandating that everyone be required to have health insurance. The idea is that if the young and health join the pool of the insured, it will drive down the premiums and make health care insurance more affordable. The problem with that logic is that Worker's Compensation Insurance and Automobile Insurance are both mandatory and historically neither of these types of insurance have gone down premium wise. If fact they tend to go upwards regardless of the insureds personal accident history. Yet, some how health care will be different? I think not.
4) If the new system involves governmental oversight of the health care system, then where in the Constitution does the government have that power? I heard one representative who tried to claim that he was empowered to do so under the "promote the general welfare..." sentence in the Preamble. Since the Preamble is just that a preamble and not a clause granting any power, that clearly is not the right answer. Others say that it is the Commerce Clause. But again, the Commerce Clause is about Commerce, not Health Care.
5) If the new system involves the idea of "Medicare for everyone" as some are talking about in Washington, I think the current state of Medicaid/Medicare should be a role model that warns against this idea, much less one that should be embraced. Medicare/Medicaid are broke, bankrupt and unsustainable. What else needs to be said?
6) My final point is that those who pay the piper gets to call the tune. Governmental involvement in your health care means that they will have a say in your health care. When money starts running short, which it will, how will the government try to meet the shortfall? It can raise premiums, but that would be a clear renunciation of their expressed reasons for having governmental health care. It can cut costs by reducing or denying benefits, but again that would go against their claims. It could start mandating certain "healthy" behaviors of their insureds and have the power of government to enforce its mandates. (you know fines, increased taxes, and yes even the courts.) It is not unimaginable for the government to tell us what to eat, when and how often to exercise, and how we spend our free time. All in the name of making people healthy so they can reduce costs.
Ultimately, we have to ask ourselves this all important question: Has governmental involvement in the health care system been truly beneficial to date? Well looking back over the last 70 years, each time government inserts itself into the health care market with its programs, mandates, and regulations, health care costs have gone up and health care access has gone down. Why would this rushed through, unread, and poorly thought out Bill be any different?
Steven J. Howard
Categories: Health Freedom
Tags:
No comments yet.
You must be logged in to post comments. [Become a member]
|
Over the last few days I have been watching several videos on Youtube of the anti-obamacare protests taking place at town meeting across the country. One such video involved the protest of a town hall meeting held by Rep. Kathy Castor just recently. It was reported that Acorn and SEIU members were allowed into the meeting an hour before hand and a crowd of citizens were denied access as a result. During the course of this video, we observe union members, Acorn Members and the Police move the crowd outside the room back and away from the double doors leading into the room. Even as the crowd shouted "you work for us" and "hear our voice", the doors were shut in their faces and their voices were ignored. As I watched, I was reminded of an ancient tradition practice each year in England.
At the opening of parliament each year, the Queen comes to Westminster Abby to deliver her speech to parliament. As she enters the House of Lords, she instructs a servant (called "Black Rod") to go to the House of Commons (the People's House) and summon them to attend her. Black Rod dutifully marches down the main hallway to the House of Commons to carry out his orders. As he steps to the door, they are slammed in his face. He is therefore forced to knock and request permission to enter the House to carry out his duties. This yearly exercise is a recreation of the events of the First English Civil War which lead to the fall of the absolute monarchy and the establishment of popular sovereignty. By slamming the doors of the people's house and forcing the Crown to beg permission to address them, all Englishmen are reminded that the true source of sovereignty is vested in the people of that great nation and their servants, the House of Commons.
Our revolution of 1776 found its intellectual and political genesis in this very act. Each year, I make it a point to watch the opening of parliament especially for this moment. Such a tradition is sorely lacking in our country now.
So, returning to the video, I saw the exact negative of the Opening of Parliament played before our eyes. The people begging to be heard. The servant, now sovereign slamming the doors on them and ignoring their cries. And I found myself wondering, is this the Republic they imagined all those years ago? Have we truly grown accustom to our servants treating us with contempt and distain.? How could the media, the talking heads and the other so-called representatives of the people's will all this to pass unnoticed and unchallenged?
Still another video I found involved a public meeting of AARP members. The organization called the meeting to have a "listening session" with its members. However, as the meeting started, it was clear that AARP was for the bill and expected its members to step in line. Nevertheless, they didn't what they wanted. The response was clear and overwhelming, no to Obamacare and governmental involvement in medicine. After a while, and when it become obvious that the members would not act the role of placid and accepting sheeple, the AARP rep closed the meeting, yanked the microphone, and left the room with the other volunteers. But there was one problem, the people refused to leave. They stayed and talked out their concerns, beliefs, and ideas. Ultimately, they resolved to end their AARP membership and to fight against the effort to force this bill down their throats.
I know that you have heard this many times and from a number of sources, but I have to say it. Now is the time to make a stand. To attend those town hall meetings. To speak out. To say no. To fight back. Like those people at the AARP meeting or the Town Hall, make your voices heard. Demand more. This fight is only the first step in a larger effort to expand government into your lives and homes. We must push back our we all will be pushed over the cliff and fall into the nightmare our founders were so afraid of and our uniformed heroes fought against in the last century.
Tags:
No comments yet.
You must be logged in to post comments. [Become a member]
|
| |
Interim State Coordinator
RSS feed
