Fighting for the People . . . of Afghanistan?

WASHINGTON, September 23, 2009–In a recent statement by top U.S. commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal, he criticized the U.S. military for being “preoccupied with protection of our own forces” in Afghanistan. He wrote that American forces should “share risk, at least equally, with the people” of Afghanistan. What makes our leaders think that they can ever win a war with this sort of philosophy?

They’re not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

Read more…

We are hearing a lot about the Democrats’ health care reform plan(s), which consists of a full-blown government takeover of the industry, but what about other proposals? Other than bromides like “the party of no” and “Republicans have no solutions”, you don’t hear anything about the suggestions made by Republicans and non-partisan think tanks. Is Obamacare really the only game in town? Or is this just another example of the mainstream media being in the tank for the administration? I’ve been doing some research and was surprised to learn there are other proposals out there.

One proposal comes from the Republican Study Committee, the Empowering Patients First Act, HR 3400. Let’s take a look:

Pillar #1: Access to Coverage for All Americans
Makes the purchase of health care financially feasible for all – Extends the income tax deduction above the line) on health care premiums to those who purchase coverage in the non-group / individual  market. And, there is an advanceable, refundable tax credit (on a sliding scale) for low-income  individuals to purchase coverage in the non-group / individual market.

Covers pre-existing conditions – Grants states incentives to establish high-risk / reinsurance pools. Federal block grants for qualified pools are expanded.

Protects employer-sponsored insurance – Individuals can be automatically enrolled in an employer-sponsored plan. Small businesses are given tax incentives for adoption of auto-enrollment.

Shines sunlight on health plans – Establishes health plan and provider portals in each state, and these portals act to supply greater information, rather than acting as a purchasing mechanism.

Pillar #2: Coverage Is Truly Owned by the Patient
Grants greater choice and portability – Gives patients the power to own and control their own health care coverage by allowing for a defined contribution in employer-sponsored plans. This also gives employers more flexibility in the benefits offered.

Expands the individual market – Creates pooling mechanisms, such as association health plans and individual membership accounts.

Individuals are also allowed to shop for health insurance across state lines.

Reforms the safety net – Medicaid and SCHIP beneficiaries are given the option of a voucher to purchase private insurance. And states must cover 90% of those below 200% of the federal poverty level before they can expand eligibility levels under Medicaid and SCHIP.

Pillar #3: Improve the Health Care Delivery Structure
Institutes doctor-led quality measures – Nothing suggested by the Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research can be finalized unless done in consultation with and approved by medical specialty societies. It also establishes performance-based quality measures endorsed by the Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement (PCPI) and physician specialty organizations.

Reimburses physicians to ensure continuity of care – Rebases the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) and establishes two separate conversion factors (baskets) for primary care and all other services.

Promotes healthier lifestyles – Allows for employers to offer discounts for healthy habits through wellness and prevention programs.

Pillar #4: Rein in Out-of-Control Costs.
Reforms the medical liability system – Establishes administrative health care tribunals, also known as health courts, in each state, and adds affirmative defense through provider-established best practice measures. It also encourages the speedy resolution of claims and caps non-economic damages.

Pays for the plan – The cost of the plan is completely offset through decreasing defensive medicine, savings from health care efficiencies (reduce DSH payments), ferreting out waste, fraud, and abuse, plus an annual one-percent non-defense discretionary spending step down.

Now let’s do a side by side comparison on some of the issues:

PATIENTS FIRST – CHOICE AND PORTABILITY
RSC Plan (H.R. 3400)
Offers new innovate solutions for individuals to shop across the state lines and make insurance companies responsive to patients.  And employers can offer a “defined contribution” to individuals to purchase a plan which they can keep if they change jobs.

House Democrat Plan (H.R. 3200)
Bless individuals to “choose” from a host of plans approved by the Health Benefits Advisory Committee, a new government bureaucracy (and that’s if choices remain after the new government-run plan gets to “compete.”.

IF YOU LIKE WHAT YOU HAVE, YOU CAN KEEP IT
RSC Plan (H.R. 3400)
Grants power to individuals and their families with no fear that existing coverage will be deemed unacceptable by Washington.

House Democrat Plan (H.R. 3200)
Outlaws private insurance on the individual market and requires employers to change their current health care plans if they do not comply with new stringent government requirements.

PRESERVE THE EMPLOYER – BASED SYSTEM
RSC Plan (H.R. 3400)
Keeps intact the current pre-tax benefits while permitting employers to offer discounts for healthy habits through wellness and prevention programs.  And tax incentives are granted for auto-enrollment programs.

House Democrat  Plan (H.R. 3200)
Implements a host of new government mandates on employer-sponsored coverage, increasing the costs for businesses and employees while taking away innovation and flexibility.  And don’t forget more than 80 million Americans would lose their coverage.

MEDICAL LIABILITY REFORM AND REINING IN COSTS
RSC Plan (H.R. 3400)
Reduces frivolous lawsuits by establishing health courts in each state and adding affirmative defense through best practices set by physicians, not trial lawyers chasing a buck in lottery courts.

House Democrat  Plan (H.R. 3200)
Nothing.  Estimates peg the cost of defensive medicine between $70 billion to $124 billion per year, or around 10% of all health care dollars.  If there were less interest in blaming “greedy doctors” and protecting trial lawyers,  they’d actually address the problem.

LOWER TAXES
RSC Plan (H.R. 3400)
Gives Americans back their own hard-earned tax dollars, through credits and deductions, to purchase the quality health insurance of their choice.  It makes the purchase of health care financially feasible for all Americans.

House Democrat  Plan (H.R. 3200)
Taxes business (pay or play) the wealthy (surtax) and the middle class – you know, those making less than $250,000 a year (individual mandate).

LIMITATIONS ON ABORTIONS
RSC Plan (H.R. 3400)
No funds may be used to pay for an abortion or cover any part of the costs of  any health plan which includes coverage of abortions.

House Democrat Plan (H.R. 3200)
Permits taxpayer dollars to be spent on abortions and does not prevent the Health Benefits Advisory Committee from mandating coverage of abortions.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Another alternative proposal written by John Mackey, co-founder and CEO of Whole Foods Market and can be found on his blog http://www2.wholefoodsmarket.com/blogs/jmackey/.

John Mackey writes: “While we clearly need health care reform, the last thing our country needs  is a massive new health care entitlement that will create hundreds of billions of dollars of new  unfunded deficits and moves us much closer to a complete governmental takeover of our health care  system.  Instead, we should be trying to achieve reforms by moving in the exact opposite direction-toward less governmental control and more individual  empowerment.”

The following are the eight reforms proposed by Mr. Mackey:

1. Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans
and health savings accounts.

2. Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned
health insurance have the same tax benefits.

3. Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from copeting across state lines.

4. Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover.

5. Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurances costs of
hundreds of dollars per year.

6. Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost.

7. Enact Medicare reform: we need to face up to the actuarial fact that Medicare is heading
towards bankruptcy and move towards greater patient empowerment and responsibility.

8. Revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deduction donation
to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren’t coverd by Medicare, Medicaid or
the State Children’s Insurance Program.

If we are going to reform health care, we should take the time to explore and discuss all of the options. Unfortunately, with the Obama administration constantly throwing out arbitrary deadlines, this probably won’t happen.

Obama’s Health Care Deception

Washington, D.C., August 11, 2009–President Obama has recently gone on record saying that his health care reforms “will keep government out of health care decisions,” that they will enable individuals to keep their current plans, and that they will be “deficit neutral.”

“But,” says Jeff Scialabba, a writer with the Ayn Rand Center, “the President’s eight ‘health insurance consumer protections’ demonstrate the contradictions inherent in these claims. The protections are effectively eight mandates that the President intends to place on insurance companies. These mandates would, among others, prohibit them from pricing their plans according to the health risks of the consumers purchasing them, prohibit them from limiting the amount of coverage a customer receives, require that they pay in full for preventive care, and require that they renew plans in perpetuity.

“Are we really expected to believe that a whole series of new mandates forcing insurance companies to absorb additional costs while preventing them from making up the losses elsewhere will have no effect on current plans–or that this does not constitute government involvement in health care decisions? The only certainty is that Obama’s mandates will affect everyone–even those who like their current insurance plan. Cumulatively, we’ll be worse off for it.”

###

A “Uniquely American” Health Care Plan

Washington, D.C., August 7, 2009—President Obama, in an effort to sell his socialized health care plan, has said that what America needs is not a free market in health care, but a “uniquely American” government-controlled system. But what would such a plan really look like?

We currently employ 50+ people and before the economic slowdown we employed over 70 local people. We are active in the community and the local chamber of commerce. We deal with several dozen local vendors on a day to day basis and many more during a month. All depend on our business for part of their livelihood. We are financially strong with great respect in the market place and community. We have strong local presence and stability.

I work every day the store is open, nine to ten hours a day. I know most of our customers and all our employees. Sunshine Dodge is my life.

On Thursday, May 14, 2009 I was notified that my Dodge franchise, that we purchased, will be taken away from my family on June 9, 2009 without compensation and given to another dealer at no cost to them. My new vehicle inventory consists of 125 vehicles with a financed balance of 3 million dollars. This inventory becomes impossible to sell with no factory incentives beyond June 9, 2009. Without the Dodge franchise we can no longer sell a new Dodge as “new,” nor will we be able to do any warranty service work. Additionally, my Dodge parts inventory, (approximately $300,000.) is virtually worthless without the ability to perform warranty service. There is no offer from Chrysler to buy back the vehicles or parts inventory.

Our facility was recently totally renovated at Chrysler’s insistence, incurring a multi-million dollar debt in the form of a mortgage at Sun Trust Bank.

HOW IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CAN THIS HAPPEN?

THIS IS A PRIVATE BUSINESS NOT A GOVERNMENT ENTITY

This is beyond imagination! My business is being stolen from me through NO FAULT OF OUR OWN. We did NOTHING wrong.

This atrocity will most likely force my family into bankruptcy. This will also cause our 50+ employees to be unemployed. How will they provide for their families? This is a total economic disaster.

HOW CAN THIS HAPPEN IN A FREE MARKET ECONOMY IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

I beseech your help, and look forward to your reply. Thank you.

Obama Evades Government’s Role in the Crisis

Washington, D.C., April 10, 2009–In an op-ed published this week by Canada’s Financial Post, Alex Epstein, analyst at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, argued that “In calling for a massive increase in government control over the economy,” Obama “has evaded the mountain of evidence implicating the government.”
 
The primary cause of the current crisis, explained Mr. Epstein, was “drastic attempts by the government to control the housing and financial markets–via a Federal Reserve that cut interest rates to all-time lows, and via a gigantic increase in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s size and influence.” Through these entities, Epstein pointed out, “the government sought to ‘stimulate the economy’ and promote homeownership by artificially extending cheap credit to home-buyers.”
 
But, Mr. Epstein noted, Obama did not mention the Fed, Fannie, or Freddie even once, during his recent 52-minute speech to Congress. “Not once did he suggest that government manipulation of markets could have any possible role in the present crisis. He just went full steam ahead and called for more spending, more intervention, and more government housing programs as the solution.”
 
But the “fundamental solution to our problems,” said Epstein, is “to disentangle the government from the markets to prevent future manipulation.” To achieve that, Epstein concluded, we need to consider “pro-free-market remedies such as letting banks foreclose, letting prices reach market levels, letting bad banks fail, dismantling Fannie and Freddie, ending bailout promises, and getting rid of the Fed’s power to manipulate interest rates.”

———-

What must be done to recover from this financial crisis? Barack Obama rightly stresses that we first must understand how today’s problems emerged. It is “only by understanding how we arrived at this moment that we’ll be able to lift ourselves out of this predicament.”

Unfortunately, Obama (along with most of the Washington establishment) has created only misunderstanding. In calling for a massive increase in government control over the economy, he has evaded the mountain of evidence implicating the government.

For example, Obama’s core explanation of all the destructive behavior leading up to today’s crisis is that the market was too free. But the market that led to today’s crisis was systematically manipulated by government. Fact: this decade saw drastic attempts by the government to control the housing and financial markets–via a Federal Reserve that cut interest rates to all-time lows, and via a gigantic increase in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s size and influence. Fact: through these entities, the government sought to “stimulate the economy” and promote homeownership (sound familiar?) by artificially extending cheap credit to home-buyers. Fact: most of the (very few) economists who actually predicted the financial crisis blame Fed policy or housing policy for inflating a bubble that was bound to collapse.

How does all this evidence factor into Obama’s understanding of “how we arrived at this moment”? It doesn’t. Not once, during the solemn 52 minutes and 5,902 words of his speech to Congress did he mention the Fed, Fannie, or Freddie. Not once did he suggest that government manipulation of markets could have any possible role in the present crisis. He just went full steam ahead and called for more spending, more intervention, and more government housing programs as the solution.

But a genuine explanation of the financial crisis must take into account all the facts. What role did the Fed play? What about Fannie and Freddie? To be sure, some companies and CEOs seem to have made irrational business decisions. Was the primary cause “greed,” as so many claim–and what does this even mean? Or was the primary cause government intervention like artificially low interest rates, which distorted economic decision-making and encouraged less competent and more reckless companies and CEOs while marginalizing and paralyzing the more competent ones?

Entertaining such questions would also mean considering the idea that the fundamental solution to our problems is to disentangle the government from the markets to prevent future manipulation. It would mean considering pro-free-market remedies such as letting banks foreclose, letting prices reach market levels, letting bad banks fail, dismantling Fannie and Freddie, ending bailout promises, and getting rid of the Fed’s power to manipulate interest rates.

But it is not genuine understanding the administration seeks. For them, the wisdom and necessity of previous government intervention is self-evident; no matter the contrary evidence, the crisis can only have been caused by insufficient government intervention. Besides, they are too busy following Obama’s chief of staff’s dictum, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste,” by proposing a virtual takeover of not only financial markets, but also the problem-riddled energy and health-care markets–which, they conveniently ignore, are also already among the most government-controlled in the economy.

While Obama has not sought a real explanation of today’s economic problems, Americans should. Otherwise, we will simply swallow “solutions” that dogmatically assume the free market got us here–namely, Obama’s plans to swamp this country in an ocean of government debt, government controls, and government make-work projects. But alternative, free-market explanations for the crisis do exist–ones that consider the inconvenient facts Washington ignores–and every American should seek to understand them.

Those who do will likely end up telling our leaders to stop saying “Yes, we can” to each new proposal for expanding government power, and start saying “Yes, you can” to Americans who seek to exercise their right to produce and trade on a free market.

Obama Whitewashes Iran

By Elan Journo
 
In his address to the joint session of Congress, President Obama said that “We cannot shun the negotiating table” in conducting our foreign policy. He’s previously elaborated that “if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us.” And Iran’s president Ahmedinijad tentatively welcomes “talks based on mutual respect and in a fair atmosphere.”
 
The shared idea, evidently, is that our conflict with Iran stems largely from a past failure to use so-called diplomacy to settle disputes. Alluding to George W. Bush’s supposedly tough policy, Obama has said he wants to restore “the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years” ago.
 
Really? Thirty years ago this November, followers of Ayatollah Khomeini, who spearheaded Iran’s Islamic revolution, stormed the U.S. embassy in Teheran and took the personnel hostage. President Carter gently admonished Iran, but ruled out military retaliation. Instead his advisors spent months dreaming up schemes to bribe Iran into releasing the hostages–while bending over backward to enable the regime to save face. In the end Khomeini’s Islamist theocracy collected a handsome payoff for its aggression, and concluded, rightly, that if attacked, America would crumple to its knees.
 
Was Obama thinking of the 1980s? In April 1983 Iran’s jihadist proxies in Lebanon rammed a truck bomb into the U.S. Embassy in Beirut; the Reagan administration responded by doing nothing. Months later, encouraged by Washington’s inaction, Teheran issued a kill order–via its ambassador in Syria–to its allied groups in Beirut. Early one morning, an Islamist suicide bomber set off a massive explosion at the barracks where U.S. marines were sleeping and killed 241 of them.
 
Reagan spouted hot air about not backing down–and soon after ordered the U.S. troops to bug out. The jihadists wanted America out, they slaughtered our troops, and we caved in and gave them what they wanted.
 
Osama bin Laden, like jihadists in Iran and elsewhere, viewed our response to the Beirut bombings as further proof that their ideologically driven war was a viable cause. And so, inspired by Iranian aggression, the anti-American jihad kept ramping up.
 
Maybe Obama meant the fabled halcyon days of the 1990s, when President Clinton tried to mend fences with Iran?
 
In 1996 a team of jihadists–financed and trained by Teheran–blew up the Khobar Towers building in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 American servicemen. Clinton’s administration learned that Iran was behind the attacks. But Washington brushed aside any notion of retaliating against Iran, in order to facilitate a “reconciliation” with that murderous regime. In an eerie parallel with today, Iran expressed its openness to U.S. groveling–an opportunity Clinton seized.
 
So, Clinton attended a speech by Iran’s leader at the U.N.; the administration also permitted the sale of much-needed aircraft parts to Iran, among other sweeteners. Granted the cover of respectability, Iran was emboldened to continue fomenting Islamist aggression and avidly pursue its then-embryonic nuclear program.
 
Obama’s appeasing diplomacy re-enacts the disastrous policy of the past. Our policymakers evaded Iran’s character as an enemy, and by rewarding its aggression with bribes and conciliation, they encouraged a spiral of further attacks. 
 
No. Bush was no exception to this trend. After 9/11 his administration invited Iran–the leading sponsor of Islamist terrorism–to join an anti-terrorism coalition(!). Talk of an axis of evil was quickly abandoned, and Washington backed the European scheme to bribe Iran to halt its nuclear program. By late last year, there was talk of opening a U.S. Special Interests Section (a step down from an embassy) in Iran. Meanwhile Bush’s welfare mission in Iraq negated U.S. security and left Iran untouched to grow more powerful and resolute.
 
A genuinely new, rational policy toward Iran would turn away from the last 30 years and begin by facing up to Teheran’s ongoing proxy war against us.

Rep. Ron Paul, in a speech delivered to an enthusiastic crowd at the Conservative Political Action Conference, said conservatives “have to be devoted to and willing to stand by and defend the Constitution, and have the position that it is absolutely necessary to get rid of the Federal Reserve system.”

Paul, who ran for president in 2008 championing the Constitution, talked about his bill seeking to abolish the Federal Reserve, which he said is getting bipartisan support in the Congress.
“We’ve gotten ourselves in a mess because the conservative movement, which was designed to bring us back to our roots of limited government, smaller government and more individual liberty, hasn’t happened,” said Paul, R-Texas.

Paul believes that in many ways, the conservative movement has had a struggle defining what and who a true conservative really is.

“After finally getting the House, Senate and White House in 2000, what did we do? We doubled the size of the Department of Education. I thought we were supposed to get rid of the Department of Education!” Paul said.

“Now, since we did not do the job we were supposed to do, the opposition has taken over, and they’re going to double and triple and quadruple spending. Believe me, we’re in serious trouble,” he warned.

“In the past 12 months, our national debt went up $1.5 trillion, and next year it’s going to be more. Young people know what they are getting. They know they are getting a bad deal. They’re getting nothing but debt.

“We’re in an atmosphere now where if we can accept the idea that the taxpayers can bail out the banks and big business, there is nothing that can’t be funded. Everything will be appropriated. There will be no cuts.

“Our financial system has come unglued, but the next shoe to drop will be the disintegration of the dollar. We as conservatives and believers in limited government have a tough task to restrain big spenders before that happens because, when that happens, what is threatened is our liberty.”
Paul said the main purpose of a government in a free society should be the preservation of liberty.
“Fortunately, we live in a country that knew something about that and emphasized that in our early years, but we have forgotten it and lost our confidence.”

Paul said conservatives today are not determined to present the case for liberty.

“We have chopped liberty up into pieces,” he explained. “We have economic liberty, we have social liberty, and we have a foreign policy that is built on total fallacies. We have to put this all back together again and, fortunately, we have something that can pull it back together, and that is the understanding of the Founding Fathers that put it in our Constitution.”

“If we followed the rules and did the job right, we wouldn’t have a welfare state.”
Paul said the job ahead for conservatives is “to present this case and still prove that we are the humanitarians. The liberal do-gooders and the big spenders who say, ‘We’re going to give a free house to everybody, free medical care to everybody, free education’ – that’s preposterous.

“If you care about your fellow man, there is only one way you can maximize prosperity and freedom, and that is through the rule of law and making sure that everybody understands that liberty is an individual thing and not a collective right.”