The deceit of Congress and the folly of the American public

The following was forwarded to me in an email from a friend of mine. Thought it worth sharing more widely.

---

I was in my neighborhood restaurant and was seated behind a group  of jubilant individuals celebrating the successful passing of the recent health care bill. I could not finish my breakfast. This is what ensued:

They were a diverse group of several races and both sexes. I heard a young man exclaim, “Isn’t Obama like Jesus Christ? I mean, after all, he is healing the sick.” A young woman enthusiastically proclaimed, “Yeah, and he does it for free. I cannot believe anyone would think that a free market would work for health care. Another said, ‘The stupid Republicans want us all to starve to death so they can inherit all of the power. Obama should be made a Saint for what he did for those of us less fortunate.”

At this, I had more than enough.

I arose from my seat, mustering all the restraint I could find, and approached their table. “Please excuse me; may I impose upon you for one moment?” They smiled and welcomed me to the conversation. I stood at the end of their table, smiled as best I could and began an experiment.

“I would like to give one of you my house. It will cost you no money and I will pay all of the expenses and taxes for as long as you live there. Anyone interested?”

They looked at each other in astonishment. “Why would you do something like that?” asked a young man, “There isn’t anything for free in this world.” They began to laugh at me, as they did not realize this man had just made my point.

“I am serious, I will give you my house for free, no money what so ever. Anyone interested?” In unison, a resounding “H*** Yeah” fills the room.

“Since there are too many of you, I will have to make a choice as to who receives this money-free bargain.” I noticed an elderly couple was paying attention to the spectacle unfolding before their eyes, the old man shaking his head in apparent disgust. “I tell you what; I will give it to the one of you most willing to obey my rules.”

Again, they looked at one another, an expression of bewilderment on their faces. The perky young woman asked, “What are the rules?” I smiled and said, “I don’t know. I have not yet defined them. However, it is a free home that I offer you.”

They giggled amongst themselves, the youngest of which said, “What an old coot. He must be crazy to give away his home. Go take your meds, old man.”

I smiled and leaned into the table a bit further. “I am serious, this is a legitimate offer.”

They gaped at me for a moment.

“I’ll take it you old fool. Where are the keys?” boasted the youngest among them.

“Then I presume you accept ALL of my terms then?” I asked.

The elderly couple seemed amused and entertained as they watched from the privacy of their table.

“Oh h*** yeah! Where do I sign up?”

I took a napkin and wrote, “I give this man my home, without the burden of financial obligation, so long as he accepts and abides by the terms that I shall set forth upon consummation of this transaction.” I signed it and handed it to the young man who eagerly scratched out his signature.

“Where are the keys to my new house?” he asked in a mocking tone of voice.

All eyes were upon us as I stepped back from the table, pulling the keys from pocket and dangling them before the excited new homeowner.

“Now that we have entered into this binding contract, witnessed by all of your friends, I have decided upon the conditions you are obligated to adhere from this point forward. You may only live in the house for one hour a day. You will not use anything inside of the home. You will obey me without question or resistance. I expect complete loyalty and admiration for this gift I bestow upon you. You will accept my commands and wishes with enthusiasm, no matter the nature. Your morals and principles shall be as mine. You will vote as I do, think as I do and do it with blind faith. These are my terms. Here are your keys.”

I reached the keys forward and the young man looked at me dumbfounded.

“Are you out of your mind? Who would ever agree to those ridiculous terms?” the young man appeared irritated.

“You did when you signed this contract before reading it, understanding it and with the full knowledge that I would provide my conditions only after you committed to the agreement,” was all I said.

The elderly man chuckled as his wife tried to restrain him. I was looking at a now silenced and bewildered group of people.

“You can shove that stupid deal up you’re a** old man, I want no part of it” exclaimed the now infuriated young man.

“You have committed to the contract, as witnessed by all of your friends; you cannot get out of the deal unless I agree to it. I do not intend to let you free now that I have you ensnared. I am the power you agreed to. I am the one you blindly and without thought chose to enslave yourself to. In short, I am your Master.”

At this, the table of celebrating individuals became a unified group against the unfairness of the deal.

After a few moments of unrepeatable comments and slurs, I revealed my true intent.

“What I did to you is what this administration and congress did to you with the health care legislation. I easily suckered you in and then revealed the real cost of the bargain. Your folly was in the belief that you can have something you did not earn; that you are entitled to that which you did not earn; that you willingly allowed someone else to think for you. Your failure to research, study and inform yourself permitted reason to escape you. You have entered into a trap from which you cannot flee. Your only chance of freedom is if your new Master gives it to you. A freedom that is given can also be taken away; therefore, it is not freedom.”

With that, I tore up the napkin and placed it before the astonished young man.

“This is the nature of your new health care legislation.”

I turned away to leave these few in thought and contemplation and was surprised by applause.

The elderly gentleman, who was clearly entertained, shook my hand enthusiastically and said, “Thank you Sir, these kids don’t understand Liberty these days.” He refused to allow me to pay my bill as he said, “You earned this one, it is an honor to pick up the tab.”

I shook his hand in thanks, leaving the restaurant somewhat humbled, and sensing a glimmer of hope for my beloved country.

Use reason,

~ Clifford A.

ObamaCare will NOT reduce the deficit

ObamaCare will not reduce the deficit regardless of what the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) says. Here's why:

At Reason.com, economist Veronique de Rugy rued the “fantasy at work in many official health care cost projections," including a purposely limited report from the CBO that the [NY] Times and Democrats have used to argue ObamaCare as a cost-saver. de Rugy wrote:

"[The CBO report] assumes that Medicare’s sustainable growth rate mechanism, which would have reduced physician payments by 21 percent in 2010 alone, actually takes effect. Medicare reimbursement rates are legislated to decline over time but basically never do. Instead, Congress routinely enacts what's known as the ‘doc fix,’ or upward payment adjustments. As Politico reported in May, ‘In 2010 alone, Congress has already headed off three scheduled payment drops – in January, March and April.’ In fact, as the CBO notes, Congress has kicked the can down the road on payment reductions yet again, putting off the reduction in payment rates until at least December 2010.

ObamaCare doesn't reduce medical costs under even the rosiest of scenarios (that is, projections that take seriously all its creators' assumptions). What we can be certain of is that this legislation increases the amount of money taxpayers will be forced by law to pay for health insurance to the tune of $420 billion over the next 10 years. Claims about ObamaCare’s deficit-reduction effects depend on new taxes growing even faster than new spending. Despite the persistent claims of Peter Orszag and other defenders of the president's health care legislation, ObamaCare has nothing to do with cutting costs."

---

Let me repeat that last phrase: "ObamaCare has NOTHING to do with CUTTING COSTS." [Emphasis added.]

Congress gets at least one repeal of ObamaScare right!

Recently the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation repealing the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) created by the President's healthcare law. The IPAB would have been a powerful new board of 15 unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats whose job will be to save money by setting reimbursement rates for specific procedures – giving them the power to deny care to seniors. The law required no public comment or transparency prior to a decision and the board is authorized to make unilateral decisions that should be made by patients and their doctors.

Will this repeal pass the Senate? Will Obama sign it if it does get through the Senate?

Keep your eyes and ears open.

Health care bill creates “ObamaCare University”

The program is unassumingly titled the “United States Public Health Sciences Track,” and it’s among the many items hidden inside the massive, 2,000-plus-page health care reform package adopted by Congress in 2010.

But it is anything but innocent.

Instead, it is a first-of-its kind, federally funded and federally administered civilian medical school that grants advanced degrees (post-graduate, post-doctoral and technology) in medicine, dentistry, nursing and pharmacy, among others.
 
It will be run by Obama administration officials, namely, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who will determine the number of students who can enroll, and the Surgeon General, who will decide how to admit students, to recruit instructors and to write the curricula, among other tasks. Administration officials will act like college deans with the Surgeon General in charge of operations and the HHS Secretary in charge of funding.

[Sounds ghoulish, already, doesn’t it? Can’t you just imagine the powers this gives government over how and why health care is administered or withheld by medical professionals? Can you imagine what a Stalin or a Hitler might have done with such a tool in their hands?]

Like the grants and contract sections of the health care reform law that require the use of race-based criteria [really?!?] for awarding federal money to hospitals and schools for medical training programs, the Surgeon General is required to create race-based selection procedures for admitting students into what we’ve nicknamed “ObamaCare University.”
 
The more we know about the health care reform bill, the more unconstitutional and problematic it gets. The establishment of ObamaCare U and its race-based provisions reinforce the importance of striking down this law.

[Adapted from a report by Diane Cohen, an attorney with the Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation]

On ObamaCare’s manipulation of markets

Imagine this:

Obama—”We need to bend the health care cost curve. I want the food industry to cut chocolate sales by 25 percent."

Industry—“But we would lose $100 million from the cutback.”

Obama—“Just raise the price of celery to recoup the $100 million.”

Industry—“Nobody will buy celery at the inflated price.”

Obama—“Not to worry. We'll impose a fine on any family that doesn't buy a sufficient quantity of celery.”

Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?

Try this:

Obama—“A lot of sick people can't get insurance. I want the industry to cover pre-existing conditions.”

Industry—“But we would lose a fortune if we did.”

Obama—“Just raise the premiums paid by healthy people and sell more policies to those who aren't insured.”

Industry—“If we have to cover pre-existing conditions, healthy people won't buy policies until they're sick.”

Obama—“Not to worry. We'll impose a fine on any family that doesn't buy a policy now.”

---

[Thanks to Robert Levy in the “Cato Policy Report” (March/April 2010)

Minnesota GOP has no “brand” and appears ignorant of dangers of ObamaCare

The following message was received from Twila Brase and the Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom:

The ObamaCare health insurance exchange bill, (Minnesota) HF 2290, is deceptive. It talks only about a "marketplace." It never mentions the word "exchange," but that's exactly what it is. A new government-established agency to comply with ObamaCare law and myriad regulations.

The bill will implement the ObamaCare Exchange, the command and control structure that is key to the federal government takeover of health care in each state. The first set of proposed Exchange regulations include the word "require" a whopping 811 times.

The Minnesota House co-authors of the bill, HF 2290, are Taxes Chairman Rep. Greg Davids (R-Preston), Commerce and Regulatory Reform Chairman Rep. Joe Hoppe (R-Chaska), and Health and Human Services Finance Chairman Rep. Jim Abeler (R-Anoka).

To contact them by email: rep.greg.davids@house.mn, rep.joe.hoppe@house.mn, rep.jim.abeler@house.mn

For additional information please see CCHF Press Releases:
"Marketplace" Legislation Will Implement ObamaCare and Government Takeover.

DFL press conference, Feb 16, 2012

All House Co-Authors

HF 2290

House GOPers sign onto exchange bill, Jake Grovum, Politics in Minnesota, Feb 16, 2012

Keeping you informed and engaged,

Twila Brase, RN, PHN
President, CCHF
651-646-8935

Citizens' Council for Health Freedom (CCHF)
161 St. Anthony Ave Ste 923
Saint Paul, MN 55103
Phone: 651-646-8935

www.cchfreedom.org

A non-technical narrative about health care reform

Those who allege that health care prices are being skewed by the health insurance industry are correct, but that is really our (us, the insurance and health care consumers) fault.

As our culture has changed and more and more Americans have defected from taking personal responsibility, the insurance industry saw an increasing opportunity for profit. (We really can't blame the industry for wanting to make more money. I'm sure the company you work for wants to make money and I know the company I work for wants to do so.)

How it used to work

You see, when I was a kid, "medical insurance" (not "health insurance") was owned by many people (but not all) and it was used to cover what today would be known as "major medical" costs. When my parents needed to take one of their seven children to the doctor or hospital, they paid for the visit in full out of their own pocket. If they couldn't pay all at once, they made arrangements to pay it off over time—and they kept their word. And, no doubt, good-hearted doctors and hospitals offered an informal "sliding scale" of fees. Wealthy families probably paid more for services than poorer families visiting the same office or hospital for the same service.

We didn't get check-ups every year. We also didn't have a battery of tests performed with every checkup, but we all survived—as did just about everyone else in my generation.

But handling medical expenses under this "plan" meant self-denial (saving for emergencies, setting aside money and not spending it on every new titillating bauble that hit the market). Unfortunately, most of my generation didn't like that more or less austere lifestyle.

So, along came the insurance industry to "help" us out. Instead of "saving" money, this generation would buy a "product" called "health insurance" that would permit them to visit the doctor with little or no out-of-pocket expense—except for the money being taken out of their paychecks every month for the insurance. As you know, having a payroll deduction means it's money you seldom or never miss.

You also know, if you've read Human Action by Ludwig von Mises, about moral hazard. This new insurance reduced risk for us, the insured—thus making us less careful about how we spend the insurance money. This, in turn, drives the prices of insurance up, because there are more dollars chasing the supply of goods and services.

Meanwhile, access to more money flowing from the insurance industry drove doctors and hospitals to invest in new products and services to "attract" their customers more frequently—more checkups, more tests, more fancy gadgets. Do so tended to drive up the cost of health care which, in turn, drove up the cost of health insurance. Of course, the more money the insurance companies were handling, the more profits the insurance companies garnered from their financial and operational entities.

Profits everywhere went up: doctors made more money, hospitals typically made more money, the insurance companies made more money all from processes that drove the cost of health care upward in a vicious spiral. Add in the whole new field of tort law exploited by the legal community against doctors and hospitals knowing that the insurance companies would end up paying and you have one huge problem. And Congress won't address tort reform because 40 percent or more of Congress is made up of attorneys.

All of this really stems—as I said—from us (the insurance and health care consumers) who willingly engage in the purchase of "health" insurance which, in turn, created for all the participants a moral hazard—a willingness to be more careless about our spending because it seemed like the money really wasn't our own.

Health care reform?

Yes. We need it. But, we have met the enemy, and it is us.

Furthermore, ObamaCare is not the right answer. Tort reform and new approaches to insurance industry competitiveness across state lines is a very good place to start.

Thanks for listening.