Jail, SCOTUS and Obamacare

I guess it is jail time for me. The Supreme Court, in its 5-4 decision to uphold the Affordable Healthcare Act, just made that evident.

I am a self-employed, one person small business owner, and I cannot afford health care. How is this possible you ask? Didn't the President sign into law the Affordable Health care law so that millions of Americans like me can afford healthcare and not be a drain on society?

Yes and no.

Yes the President signed that 1,990 page monstrosity into law. No, it does not help millions of Americans like me.

There are many – okay, a few – parts of the thing known as Obamacare that are good. The keeping your kids on parents insurance until they are 25 is good. Lots of young people these days are struggling to become employable – college, looking for work, etc – and they cannot afford their own insurance. Covering children. That's a good thing and – believe it or not – a conservative's view of each American's responsibility to take care of those who can't take care of themselves.

But the law does little to address the real problems facing our broken health care system in this country.

TORT reform would have been one thing. If a doctor or hospital or whatever does something wrong they should be dealt with. You deserve redress of the wrong. But saying a person who is the victim of malpractice should be paid $250 million, $1 billion – hell anything over a few million is ridiculous – is just insane. It feeds into the sorry notion that people today will become rich through 1) the lottery, 2) inheritance, 3) litigation. Whatever happened to working hard and reaping the benefits of your hard work? This entitlement nonsense where people think they deserve to be taken care of, cradle to grave, is NOT American at all.

As stated above, limitations on how much you can get would help lower malpractice costs which in turn would lower healthcare costs. Another adjacent issue would be the elimination of frivolous lawsuits. If you buy coffee, and you did not ask for “iced coffee”, then you – YOU – should expect it to be hot. Suing a restaurant because YOU were stupid, is frivolous. This is personal responsibility. It shouldn't take a little warning on the cup “Caution! Contents may be hot!” for you to KNOW that coffee is hot. So don't spill it. If you do, clean it up.

Drug company recuperation of costs is another area of reform that should have been dealt with. In other countries, drug companies who put out the expenses to do research, do trials and come out with new life saving drugs do not charge the outrageous fees associated with getting their investment dollars back. But in America, they seem to feel since we are the “richest country in the world” we can afford to pay enormous costs for drugs in order for them to recoup their investments. This is wrong and should be addressed. Maybe a little of redistribution of wealth idea, but more a redistribution of responsibility and cost sharing. Instead of Burundi only pay 2,929.20 BiF – Burundi francs – (the equivalent of $2 USD) a bottle of life saving drugs and Americans paying $200 a pill, it could be more like everyone paying $10 a bottle.

And while we are at it – a side note, if you will indulge – what is up with all these drugs being developed for impotence and little attention paid to Lyme disease (which millions suffer excruciating pain from every day), Alzheimer, MS, and other less sexy ailments that the not so rich have to deal with? But that is another topic of discussion for another day.

Interstate commerce for insurance companies is an area NOT covered under this law that would do a world of good – and in particular to someone like me – that was absolutely not addressed in this so-called affordable healthcare legislation. Each state has their own insurance regulations. But if the federal government would mandate a set of compatible guidelines across all 50 states, insurance companies could offer their policies in all 50 states. This means that other like minded individuals, such as myself, could join together across the country and form an alliance where we could get a lower rate on health insurance and be covered. And the thing is, due to the interstate commerce clauses, this is an area the Federal government has purview over.

I could join with other self employed writers, such as a group associated with writing for Yahoo, and form a good mid-sized group (I imagine there would be at least 100 people who would go for this idea, if not many many more). Then we could get a group rate for basic coverage and Voilà!, no more depending on the government for our healthcare needs and being a drain on society.

(Funny how the bill's proponents are also the ones against strengthening immigration laws and yet the reason for hospitals across the country closing their maternity wards, emergency rooms and even the whole hospital is due to illegal immigrants coming in for service and unable to pay. N 2005 – 2006, California had 84 of them close. I do not make this up. There was a study reported in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons in Spring of 2005 – Volume 10 Number 1.)

But none of these very important issues were discussed in this nearly 2000 page document that Nancy Pelosi said had to be passed so we could then be told what was in it.

Which is one of the reasons I will be going top jail. This bill may be Constitutional according to the Supreme Court. But that is simply law. How many times do you know a guilty person was set free because the law said they had to be, not because they weren't guilty? So is the case here. The Constitutional issues that were brought before the Court were deemed to adhere to the law set down in the Constitution. But there is a higher issue involved. Obama care is not American.

America is about working hard and getting to be whoever you want to become. It is about the richness of possibilities not available in so many other countries. In India, a small poor from the ghettos of Calcutta could not aspire to be a prominent physician. A girl in just about any Middle Eastern country does not have a path before them to become a successful business owner or leader of their country. But in America the promise exists, thanks to those who founded our nation and those who strive to keep it free and democratic, for anyone to aspire to be anything. So long as they work hard for it. America is not about being lazy, getting a handout by the government and passing along your entitlement beliefs to the next generation – although it has been promulgated to be just this by unscrupulous blowhards who are only after power and wealth.

And this law is definitely not American. Unless you think it is American to force people to buy something they do not want to buy. Unless you think it is American to let the government be a nanny to you your entire life. Unless you think it is American to tax people over and over and over again to pay for irresponsible behavior of others.

I, for one, do not.

Which brings me to the other part of why I will be going to jail. It is actually three fold.

The first, I mentioned. It is simply not an affordable option, no matter how many times you stress, highlight, capitalize or italicize that word. I barely make enough to pay my existing bills, rent and food. It is a tough economy still. So without the law addressing the things that actually would make it affordable to millions like me, I cannot buy it.

The second is that taxing issue. There are hundreds of references in this law about taxes, taxation and penalties. Nothing about making insurance available across state lines. Including penalizing me for not having it to the tune of 2.6% of my annualized pay. What part of my limited budget do you think I can afford to pay that fine out of? My rent, my bills (which allow me to work as it is), my food? You tell me what you would cut out and I might consider it.

That takes care of not buying it and not paying the fine.

The third and final reason I will be going to jail is that I am a responsible American. And I am proud to be an American. And I will not be handed a diaper by my government and told when and how to wear it. There have been times where my existing insurance had gaffs and I could not cover the exorbitant hospital bill, or I was out of work and would have died had I not gone to the hospital or doctor. But in most other instances, I go to the doctor when I can afford it. I pay the doctor when I go. I will not be told by the President, the Congress, the Supreme Court or anyone else that I cannot pay someone for services rendered. This law states that I cannot. And to me, that is definitely not American. And I really doubt it is something that would be approved by those who wrote our Constitution.

(note - In 2009, President Obama said he did not want to classify this as a "tax". But since the Supreme Court of the United States said it could pass BECAUSE it is a tax, he now thinks of it as a victory. Guess if its the only way he can thrust this BS down our throats, he will sacrifice his principles. Pretty sad, Mr President. Pretty sad.)

So, as stated above, I am one American that will be going to jail because of the President's ridiculous political move to pander to the least common denominator instead of striving for the highest standards. And don't be naive, this is exactly what this law and many of this Administration’s policies are, whether they will admit it or not.

Obama has been running for something ever since he entered politics. He ran for state legislature. As soon as he was in, he began running for the US Senate. As soon as he was in he started running for the White House. And as soon as he got there, he started – despite his words to the contrary – to run for re-election. I feel sorry for him when he has nothing else to run for. He will be lost.

But me, I will be in jail, getting three squares a day, free healthcare and free rent.

Thinking Out Loud is a blog of my own thoughts and therefore my own opinion. You can either agree or disagree with me, which really makes no difference to me personally. The only thing I ask of my readers is to take a moment to think for yourselves on this and many other topics that come to my mind. STOP BEING SHEEP and AVOID THE SPIN are two things I would hope for you to keep in mind. Gather all the information about a topic, not just the SPIN from one side or the other. And believe me, it is ALL spin. Anyway, as I say, this is just me, Thinking Out Loud.

Have a great day.

Charles

(author's note – this comes to my blog after Yahoo declined the article. My guess is that it is too opinionated for them to put out there and have their access denied by petty politicians who use their media access as a weapon to control the truth. I felt this was just and honest personal observation of how such a wide-reaching piece of legislation is going to affect a large number of Americans. But that, also, is just my opinion.)

The Good, The Bad . . . The Obama

Its been an amazing week for the President. And America.

Today, the President signed a bill he touts as his good idea (even though it is part of the Republican's Job Creation plan) . . . and it is a good one. It will indeed make small business start-up an easier process. And the way small biz can create investment capital a real new era thing. There' some "policing" issues that opponents of the bill are voicing. But DAMN, we need to get this economy going again NOW!!!!!!

And since I have been a vocal proponent to President Obama's lack of understanding HOW THINGS WORK IN THE REAL WORLD as far as business goes, I will say, "Thanks POTUS, for listening to the right people this time. These guys KNOW how to get businesses up and running!"

Hey, I give credit where its due. Okay?

Now for the bad. President Obama showed his "dictator" and Il Presidente stripes this week with his ill-advised coments about the Supreme Court. And least you jump in and say he is right (which, um, he's not), first let me remind you what he said. And then let me tell you why, by example, it is wrong.

Obama said that if the Supreme court overturned HIS healthcare legislation it would be "judicial activism" (lets leave that one alone for a spell) and that it would be "an unprecedented, extraordinary step." AND he added that it would be wrong to overturn "a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

First of all, its not unprecedented. Its the Supreme Court's JOB to make sure legislation is constitutional if someone says to them it is not. They MUST review the law and hold it up to the light of the Constitution. (You know, that silly document the LEFT is always saying is OUTDATED . . . you know, they one that was the FOUNDATION OF OUR COUNTRY!) It isn't unprecedented. Try doing a web search "supreme court overturns law" and you will get a bunch of history about it.

UNPRECEDENTED?! Pshaw!

As for overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress"????

Okay, what if that democratically elected congress passes, with a strong majority a law that states we MUST follow Sharia law? We wouldn't like that, would we? Or what if they passed a law that said black and white people could own native American slaves?? We wouldn't like that.

What if Ford came out with THE safest car on the road. "No highway deaths" were a guarantee. What if the Congress passed a law that said every American HAD to buy a Ford this year? What if the law said if you didn't you were a MENACE to American safety and the economy? Would you want the Supreme Court to rule that law was un-constitutional and overturn it?

Now replace "Ford car" with "heath insurance." Does it make a difference. Maybe to some it would and to others it wouldn't. But THAT is not he point.

The POINT is that this is their job. And the President making such comments shows two things. He should be embarrassed as a lawyer NOT to know this. And he should be ashamed as a President for inserting his not-so-lacking-power self into the process. The three branches of government form a series of check sand balances. that is how this country was designed. So that no one branch could be more powerful than the other. That they could keep that POWER to govern in check. So no one in Congress could usurp the people's rights. So that the President could not become a dictator. So that the Supreme Court could not make law and lessen our rights.

Agree or disagree . . . I do care, because I want to show you where lack of self thought can lead to disaster for America - that listening to all the SPIN doctors and lying politicians will lead to a further decline. But in the end, I just want you to listen to all sides, think for yourself, AVOID THE SPIN and STOP BEING SHEEP. Don't listen to the left, the right, the middle ONLY. Listen to everything and then use that thing between your ears - your BRAIN - and start thinking for yourself. But either way, this is just me, Thinking out Loud.

Have a great day.

Charles

Keystone XL asks "Who is in charge?"

Keystone XL Pipeline would bring over a million barrels of crude a day to the U.S. - nearly tripling the current supply from Canada – and almost 400,000 jobs.

The government under President Obama has said there are “issues” that must be resolved. Excpet his own agencies have given the okay for the pipeline deal, said there was no environmental impact and found the jobs growth acceptable. But the President and his Administration apparently has not read those reports.

So why the delay? Is it because the pipeline is an unknown quantity? Phase I was completed in 2010 and Phase II in 2011. Bringing over 500,000 barrels a day. It is in operation now. The barrels of crude and jobs the XL deal would bring are ADDITIONAL to existing ones. So it is not an unknown quantity.

Are there environmental issues that would bring unknown dangers? The State Department says there would be no significant environmental risks. So that one is off the table.

Or is it? The State Department, on January 18, 2012, sent a letter advising the President to deny the permits to build. Why? They stated issues with the Sand hills portion of the pipeline. This, however, is in contradiction to their analysis (“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Final Environmental Impact Statement
for the Proposed Keystone XL Project”). On page 13, the Department of State determined that any spill would be minimal, not affect more than a localized area and Keystone agreed to all the clean-up and financial impact to residents if one did occur.

One must wonder who is running the show in Washington these days. If the Department of State can reverse their decision, and advise the President to deny a permit that would help us toward less dependency on Middle Eastern oil AND bring 400,000 jobs to a desperate economy, who is in charge? Surely not the President. He is letting the DoS tell him what to do without question. And certainly not the Department of State, as they are reversing their own decision. So who is telling them to do it?

This is, as many would argue, a very complex issue. And should not be dealt with lightly. And I would absolutely agree.

However, it is an issue that has been kin the works since 2008. that is nearly FOUR years of determinations and analysis and surveys and legislative issues and God only knows what else. (Trade discussions, market research, et al) And it boils down to the Department of State issuing a decision in opposition to their own studies. And a President that doesn't even know what is what and allows a department within his own government to tell him what to do – which he does, without question – on a decision that will impact our country, our economy and our security.

Something is just not kosher with this set up.

Meanwhile, American suffer. Tyrants and madmen dictate our security. And Congress argues about whether it is right or not for them to use insider information to get richer. And politicians argue who has better family values, who has the neatest hair and who is more politically sensitive than who.

For crying out loud!

All these putzes have to go. We need leadership that thinks of America first. And yes, I mean the people in the Supreme Court – Justice Ginsberg, you heard me – too. We also need all you morons out there – who continue to just regurgitate the rhetoric fed to your by people who really could care less about you in order to get themselves more money, more power and power influence – off the voter registration rolls. I know I have been an advocate of everyone deserving the right to vote. But remember, I have also always said it and Uncle Ben told Peter, “with great power [the right to vote] comes great responsibility [the effort to understand what you are voting for].”

Agree or disagree, I don't care. Just think about it before you agree or disagree. Know what it is you are agreeing or disagreeing with me about. STOP BEING SHEEP! AVOIOD THE SPIN! (I swear I am getting bumper stickers made soon.) Think for yourself, for crying out loud. Either way, this is just me, Thinking Out Loud.

Have a great day.

Charles

Egypt Constitution not for Ginsburg to discuss

There seems to be a bit of an uproar in the conservative community about Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's comments to an Egyptian television station.

Seems Justice Ginsburg did not extoll the value and virtue of the US Constitution to the middle eastern country who is seeking a new one. When asked what type of government Egypt should look to in when rebuilding their country, Ginsburg said "“I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.”

As much as I hate to disagree with Rep. Bachmann (R-MN) - okay you can stop laughing - I will have to do so here, on this point.

In a "diary" article posted on Erik Erickson's RedState website, Rep. Bachmann states "I am deeply saddened and disappointed in Justice Ginsburg’s answer. As a Supreme Court Justice who daily delves into the U.S. Constitution looking for answers to the nation’s top cases, I would hope she would have developed a love for this crucial founding document. Yet instead, she implied its irrelevancy! Why would our Constitution not be just as good a foundation for a nation’s government today as it was in 1788?"

I must say, I think the U. S. Constitution is a beautiful document. It is a magnificent example of words being used in the finest light. And it has been a cornerstone and benchmark for America to be proud of. It was a document, unlike any at the time, which allowed for future tuning without losing its basic fundamentals.

And I must also say, for the record, that I think any country that truly looks to the Constitution as guidance can not be served any better for an example.

BUT - and I mean this with all the love and compassion for my fellow human beings around the world - these nitwits and twits and thick headed illiterates could never truly grasp the fundamental and founding concepts of the U. S. Constitution. Hell, there are tens of millions of Americans who fail to grasp it. Including, ESPECIALLY, most of our political leaders. And I would rather they not say they are framing their document based on ours because they will get all the essentials wrong, blame us for their failures and have even more weapons and ammunition (imagined, of course) to use in their campaigns of hate and violence.

Back to Ginsburg for a moment. While the right wing (and I use that here instead of conservative, because there is a difference) is upset, the left - like Media Matters - is "freaking" at what they say is the "freak out" by the right. But here is the thing. Ginsburg both misspoke and should not have even been in the conversation.

As a member of a body that is supposed to measure all US law through the prism of the US Constitution, she should phrase her comments through that prism as well. The US Constitution IS relevant - to the US. It is NOT relevant to those who do not understand it nor to those who, at their very core, despise it. But the question was one of what type of government, not what type of constitution they should have. She was right that they need to form one that reflects their country and their needs, just as our founding fathers did. She was wrong not to express the core foundation of the US Constitution, which would be relevant to any freedom loving people.

As always, you are free to agree or disagree with my assertions here. But don't form your views through what I say, through what Rep. Bachmann or RedState or Media Matters or ANYONE else for that matter. You need to stop listening to the SPIN of those who wish to control what and how you think. You need to STOP BEING SHEEP. And think for yourselves. But, whatever, this is just me Thinking Out Loud.

Have a great day.

Charles