The house version of the Health Care Reform Bill contains something noteworthy. As Nancy Pelosi was asked by a reporter on Friday, October 23, 2009…

CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”

Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes I am.”

Let's get a few things out of the way. The United States Constitution does not allow for the government to force (mandate) its citizens to purchase anything.

Nancy Pelosi either doesn't know this, or doesn't feel that she needs to answer the question. I think she knows the answer, but isn't going to comment. Here's why...

Consider, the current health care legislation's funding is based on the idea that people will be forced into the health insurance market by way of a government mandate. Remember, the plan is going to pay for itself because everyone will be in the system right?

Now consider, if the bill passes in its current form, or some form that still has the mandate in place, there will be a lawsuit and the mandate will be found unconstitutional. There is no Constitutional basis for a mandate of any kind. When the Supreme Court bars the mandate based on the fact that it is unconstitutional, what happens? Where is the funding going to come from?

Pelosi is like a Scooby Doo villain. "And I would have gotten away with it, if it wasn't for you meddling kids Constitution!"

So, where will the money for government health insurance come from? I'll give you a hint. Tax increases. The mandate itself could be considered a tax, but Obama doesn't see it that way.

Just more (unconstitutional) "Change You Can Believe In..."

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

When I first heard of the Fort Hood shooting, I was at the pediatrician's office with my wife and my new baby boy. Fox News was on in the lobby. I watched as Shepard Smith said, "The FBI is in route to Fort Hood right now." Which makes sense I suppose, but why would the FBI be involved if there were not already some information about those involved? Then Smith says, "The FBI has stated that the shooting is not an act of terrorism." How can the FBI which is not even on the scene yet determine that terrorism was not the goal in the shootings? This announcement was made before the name of the shooter had been released. Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan.

I've seen a lot of things, but this is insane. Remember everyone, this is not terrorism. What else do you call a mass shooting? Now the news is filled with nothing but story after story of people comming forward telling how they knew that this guy might be a Jihadist. Look at this headline!

Hasan Called Himself 'Soldier of Allah' on Business Cards

Here is more from the Washington Post article.

Opened to reporters by a manager on Wednesday, the scuffed one-bedroom rental on Fourth Street presents a few scattered tiles in the mosaic of Hasan's life. Among them is a box of business cards, ordered from an Internet printer, that signal Hasan's profession and his faith:

"Behavioral Health -- Mental Health -- Life Skills

Nidal Hasan, MD, MPH

SoA(SWT)

Psychiatrist"

SoA refers to "soldier of Allah" or "slave of Allah," and "SWT" to an Arabic phrase meaning "glory to him, the exalted."

So this guy had business cards which portrayed his radical beliefs? This is incredible! Of course nobody wanted to turn him in. It would not have been politically correct. After all, he's a Muslim.

Politically correct speak is a way to limit the exchange of information. Instead of saying what you think, you have to slow down and reword it. When you inject PC terms the tone (inflection) of what you have to say is completely different.

Consider if someone says "Damn, that woman is fine!" there is a much different tone than "She's attractive." One must keep in mind that the person who says "She's attractive" might be thinking "Damn, that women is fine." Because of the word choice the thoughts of that individual were suppressed. Of course this is an extreme example, but you get the idea. Political correctness limits information exchange, and makes conversation more generic. Who want's that?

Classmate: Hasan said terror fight a war on Islam

Dr. Val Finnell was a classmate of Hasan's at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md. Both attended a master's in public health program in 2007 and 2008.

Finnell says he got to know Hasan in an environmental health class. At the end of the class, students gave presentations. Finnell says other classmates wrote on subjects such as dry cleaning chemicals and mold in homes, but Hasan's topic was whether the war against terror was "a war against Islam." Finnell described Hasan as a "vociferous opponent" of the terror war.

Finnell says Hasan told classmates he was "a Muslim first and an American second."

Political correctness played an indirect roll in the deaths of those shot at Fort Hood. That's enough for me.

People actually died because others were worried that if they pointed out the obvious they would be chastised for it!

Enough said...

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

This is classic!

Apparently if you own an "Jail-Broken" iPhone or iPod Touch (with SSH installed) you could be at risk! The BBC breaks this case wide open! So you can get your iPhone hacked and have a picture of Rick Astley plastered up as the background.

The picture of Rick Astley is believed to be a nod to the internet phenomenon known as Rickrolling, where web users are tricked into clicking on what they believe is a relevant link, only to find that it actually takes the user to a video of the pop star's song "Never gonna give you up".

"What's clear is that if you have jail-broken your iPhone or iPod Touch, and installed SSH, then you must always change your root user password to something different than the default, 'alpine'," wrote Graham Cluley of security firm Sophos.

Some estimates suggest that up to 10% of all iPhones and iPod Touch are jail-broken.

The practice allows a phone user to install software and applications that have not been approved by Apple.

The worm has so far only been found circulating in Australia, where the hacker - Ashley Towns - who wrote the program lives.

The code contains numerous comments from Mr Towns about his motivation.

One comment reads: "People are stupid and this is to prove it."

"It's not that hard guys. But hey who cares its only your bank details at stake."

This reminds me of the early 90s when viruses were mostly harmless. Most viruses were just annoying, some were even funny.

p.s. If you Google "Rickrolling" DON NOT GO TO "rickrolling.com"! Just a warning...

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Many people remember history class and don't have fond memories of it. I didn't like history when I was in school. History class always consisted of remembering dates. I had teachers who were only interested in dates. That's one of the reasons that I didn't like history, it made for a boring subject, because it was simply memorizing dates and events. There was no substance to it.

It wasn't until I was older that I realized what had happened. When I read about a historical events on my own, I found that I had missed a lot while I was in school not because I didn't pay attention, but because it was never presented to me.

When taught about WWII, there was no mention of the past historical events that lead up to the war. We just jumped right in, here are the countries and here are some dates. It was like showing up to a movie 30 minutes late. Characterization and some background had already taken place before you arrived. That characterization, and background is exactly what was missing from the history I was taught.

One can't delve into WWII without examining hundreds of years of history. Now, I know that the school curriculum is limited time-wise, but there could have been much more informative sessions as to why specific events occurred.

I don't think that this, watering down of history, happened by accident. I feel that in order for what is taking place right now in the U.S. to occur, history had to have been "nipped in the bud." This is why many older Americans are worried about the future of the country. The younger Americans have no historical perspective on which to base their decisions That's why so many younger Americans get swept up in idiocy.

Remember the post I did about Reagan and Operation Coffee Cup Coffee Cup? Reagan warned of exactly what is happening to our country right now.

There were many memorable quotes in that recording. One of those quotes applies to current times. Reagan quoted Norman Thomas, a six-time U.S. Presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America.

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." -Norman Thomas

What I have seen is that people from other countries have a better since of what is going on in the U.S. Take for example this article from PRAVDA On-line (a Russian news publication).

This is a brilliant article by Stanislav Mishin.

"American capitalism gone with a whimper"

Read it, and research it. You will find that Mishin is 100% correct.

When it comes to politics in America, most of the general electorate is disinterested. We have to change this if the United States is going to survive as it was envisioned.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

The question is; what will come of these bills once melded together?

Here is where you can find all of the bills. There are four different pieces of legislation now. Here are links, names and numbers:

HR3200: America's Affordable Health Choices Act

HR3962: Affordable Health Care for America Act

S1679: Affordable Health Choices Act

S1796: America's Healthy Future Act

All information can be found here:

http://thomas.loc.gov/

Now let's stop for a minute and look at what the proposed legislation equals in total page length. If you add them up you come up with a whopping 7,805 pages! It breaks down like this...

HR.3200.IH .... 1017 pages

HR.3200.RH .... 2454 pages

HR.3962.IH .... 1990 pages

S.1679 .......... 840 pages

s.1796 .......... 1504 pages

How can you have legislation which in total equals 7,805 pages, but claim that it is not a takeover of the health care system? Is there a need for 7,805 pages worth of regulations? What could possibly need to be regulated to that extent --in a free country?!

There is one part I read about the other day which is really interessting. Take a Peek at HR.3962.IH pages 1431 - 1432...

page 1431

1 SEC. 2531. MEDICAL LIABILITY ALTERNATIVES.
2 (a) INCENTIVE PAYMENTS FOR MEDICAL LIABILITY
3 REFORM.—
4 (1) IN GENERAL.—To the extent and in the
5 amounts made available in advance in appropriations
6 Acts, the Secretary shall make an incentive payment,
7 in an amount determined by the Secretary, to each
8 State that has an alternative medical liability law in
9 compliance with this section.
10 (2) DETERMINATION BY SECRETARY.—The
11 Secretary shall determine that a State has an alter-
12 native medical liability law in compliance with this
13 section if the Secretary is satisfied that—
14 (A) the State enacted the law after the
15 date of the enactment of this Act and is imple-
16 menting the law;
17 (B) the law is effective; and
18 (C) the contents of the law are in accord
19 ance with paragraph (4).
20 (3) CONSIDERATIONS FOR DETERMINING EF-
21 FECTIVENESS.—In determining whether an alter-
22 native medical liability law is effective under para-
23 graph (2)(B), the Secretary shall consider whether
24 the law—

page 1432

1 (A) makes the medical liability system
2 more reliable through prevention of, or prompt
3 and fair resolution of, disputes;
4 (B) encourages the disclosure of health
5 care errors; and
6 (C) maintains access to affordable liability
7 insurance.
8 (4) CONTENTS OF ALTERNATIVE MEDICAL LI-
9 ABILITY LAW.—The contents of an alternative liabil-
10 ity law are in accordance with this paragraph if—
11 (A) the litigation alternatives contained in
12 the law consist of certificate of merit, early
13 offer, or both; and
14 (B) the law does not limit attorneys’ fees
15 or impose caps on damages.
16 (b) USE OF INCENTIVE PAYMENTS.—Amounts re-
17 ceived by a State as an incentive payment under this sec-
18 tion shall be used to improve health care in that State.
19 (c) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—The Secretary may
20 provide technical assistance to the States applying for or
21 receiving an incentive payment under this section.
22 (d) REPORTS.—Beginning not later than one year
23 after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary
24 shall submit to the Congress an annual report on the
25 progress States have made in enacting and implementing

Did I just miss something, or does this legislation punish states which impose laws limiting attorney's fees, or caps on awarded damages? This legislation would effect states negatively if they have, or wish to pass any kind of Tort reform. Can someone explain to me how that is going to improve health care?

The director of the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) Douglas W. Elmendorf, mentions in his blog that the effect of Tort reform could benefit both the private sector, and increase federal tax revenue.

Tort reform could affect costs for health care both directly and indirectly: directly, by lowering premiums for medical liability insurance; and indirectly, by reducing the use of diagnostic tests and other health care services when providers recommend those services principally to reduce their potential exposure to lawsuits. Because of mixed evidence about whether tort reform affects the utilization of health care services, past analyses by CBO have focused on the impact of tort reform on premiums for malpractice insurance. However, more recent research has provided additional evidence to suggest that lowering the cost of medical malpractice tends to reduce the use of health care services.

Enacting a typical set of proposals would reduce federal budget deficits by roughly $54 billion over the next 10 years, according to estimates by CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee of Taxation. That figure includes savings of roughly $41 billion from Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits program, as well as an increase in tax revenues of roughly $13 billion from a reduction in private health care costs that would lead to higher taxable wages.

So, why would the health care reform legislation attempt to punish activity (tort reform) that can benefit everyone?

All those stories you've heard about democrats being "in bed" with trial lawyers are starting to sound a little less conspiratorial huh?

--> My two cents...

Also I would like to add this, for all of those who think that tort reform would NOT lower the cost of health care. To you, I ask one simple question. If frivolous law suits were not really an issue; why are the majority of new businesses in the U.S. registered as LLCs (Limited Liability Companies)?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124698320557906557.html

...LLCs and LLPs. Since the 1990s these have been the entities of choice for virtually all new businesses, and many old ones converted to them as well. They offer the liability protection of a corporation combined with a partnership's freedom from double taxation. Pretax profits and losses flow directly to investors, who report them on their individual returns.

There are fewer tax benefits than those available from law suite. Why else would LLCs be so popular? This is just a guess, but I bet it has something to do with frivolous law suites.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.