Twisted Musings

UPDATE: The number below has at least doubled and is now over 220 and rising!!!!

Apparently everyone! So far 111 companies have applied for and received waivers from implementing the plan. Some of the companies that have been granted waivers include McDonald’s, Darden Restaurants (owners of the Olive Garden and Red Lobster restaurant chains), Aetna, the United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund in New York, and Dish Network.

http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/approved_applications_for_waiver.html

Why do you suppose these companies have been exempted? It’s supposed to be a great plan? Why do they not have to implement. It all seems to be big companies too, you know companies that could take this to court if they had to implement this plan. Make you wonder huh?

It’s kind of ironic when you consider that this was Obama and the Dems crown jewel of their “accomplishments”. Looks to me like this is proof that it is a failure.  What do you think?

The most arrogant President, maybe even the most arrogant politician we have ever had has once again, proven it to be so.  Instead of taking any responsibility for events under his watch, he is blaming someone else. Who is he blaming this time? Us! The American People. And what did we do wrong this time? We are not thinking straight. Why are we not thinking straight? Because we are scared and not thinking. What is his proof of that?  Because we have turned away from him and his policies.

 I have to give him partial credit. I am scared. I am scared that despite any indication that his policies work, he pushed forward with them.

 I am scared that his stimulus plan which he said if not passed would cause unemployment to reach 8 percent, has failed. I say it has failed because unemployment is now at 10 percent.  

 I am scared that our taxes are going to increase dramatically next year, because he is convinced that levying additional taxes will correct his wrongs. I am also scared that these taxes being increased in addition to cutting down my paycheck, is going to  keep businesses from spending and expanding. This will not only cut paychecks but probably end some paychecks.

 I am scared that his healthcare policies are anything but!

 I am scared that with his globetrotting apologetics tour, he is not doing anything to secure our safety. Instead, he is potentially putting us more at risk, as enemies sense his weakness.

 I am scared that anytime he doesn’t don’t agree with someone, he and his staff can create stories about illegal contributions, such as they did with the U.S Chamber of Commerce, though no proof has been offered to substantiate their charges.

 I am scared of a lot of things, but it is not the irrational fear he is portraying us of having. Mr. Obama, it’s about time you accepted some self responsibility and quit blaming all of your woes on someone else. We are not running from you because we are scared. We are running from you because we know we have to.

 One other thing you were right about Mr. Obama. You said we can look backwards or look forwards. Mr. Obama, while you continue you to look backwards and treat this as a campaign, continually blaming your problems on Bush, Cheney, Republicans, Tear Partiers, Conservatives, and anyone or thing else you can think of, we will be looking forwards to the next two elections.

 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/18/obama-voters-scared-thinking-clearly-election/

It’s good to know that our President is so easily amused. The arrogance of his attitude is extremely unsettling. I wonder if anyone can show me where George Bush ridiculed and mocked the people who didn’t support him, like Obama ridicules those of us who are against his policies.

At a fundraiser in Miami he said he was amused by the Tea Party protests. Amused! Well excuse us Mr. President, but we do not find your policies amusing whatsoever, and I hope you are still amused when the next two national elections take place! I have the feeling though that you are not going to be quite as amused as you are now.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100416/D9F3SNCG1.html

Obama cheered the special-election victory of Florida Democratic state Sen. Ted Deutch in Tuesday’s special election to replace retiring Democratic Rep. Robert Wexler. He noted that the election was considered a referendum on healthcare and on Obama himself. “And it was!” he said. Oh really, you think so? You think winning a seat that you always win means something? Before you get too amused, I suggest you wait Mr. Obama, until after the elections. You may have to invest in the entire Three Stooges collection to amuse yourself. No, I don’t mean, Larry, Moe and Curly. I mean Obama, Harry, and Nancy! Enjoy this moment. Enjoy it while you can.

Joe is a friend and former coworker  he volunteered this post and I am happy he did because it sheds some light on insurance issues in general and health insurance specifically. Joe has experience in several disciplines related to law, insurance, and healthcare and offers some very good insights. Let us know what you think.

THOUGHTS ON INSURANCE

I heard an argument today for “Obamacare” on one of the cable news networks.  It went something like this:  “The bank can make you buy car insurance when you buy a car and you have to buy homeowner’s insurance when you buy a house; so, the government can pass a law to make you buy health insurance.”  The person arguing for nationalized healthcare went on to say, “We have to have laws, or we would be a ‘banana republic.’”

There is a serious flaw in this argument, which goes to the heart of the debate about a government health insurance plan.  First, we should go back to the insurance required for the car and home.  Yes, we can be required to purchase this insurance and keep it in force because the bank or mortgage company that loans us the money to buy the car or house has an insurable interest in the property we purchased.  In a voluntary exchange, in exchange for the loan of the money to buy the property, I agree by contract to pay the debt owed and I agree to purchase insurance to make the lender whole if the property is damaged or destroyed.  I have given them first lien on the property in exchange for their economic interest in the property.  However, it should be remembered, I am the owner of the property; not the bank or the mortgage company.  It is my name on the deed or title to the car.  When I own my house free and clear of any mortgages, I am not required by law to buy insurance on my home.  If I choose not to do so, I am assuming the risk of loss if the property is damaged or destroyed.  It would be a stupid decision, but one I am free to make: stupid is not against the law.  A bank can no longer require me to buy insurance on a property in which it no longer has a contractual right to claim an interest.

To extend the same argument to us as individuals to be forced by the government to purchase health insurance, is to say that the United States Federal government has an insurable interest in us; some sort of first lien, which gives them the right to force us acquire insurance.  This would shift the burden of economic loss from us as individuals if we do not acquire insurance to the government simply because it has determined that it has an interest, i.e. ownership rights, in us as individuals.  How else could the government exercise such power, unless such a right, either by ownership or by contract exists?

The Preamble to the constitution of the United States reads as follows: 

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

It states, the Constitution, the very government of the United States was ordained and established by the people: a group of individuals.  It does not state the government established itself to provide the benefits of the constitution to the people. 

The government was granted authority to act for the benefit of the people, but it was not granted unlimited authority.  The “people” never gave up their rights of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” in order to establish a government for the United States.   Within the inalienable rights, among which are: the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are also the freedom to self determination, the right to marry whomever we choose and the right to own property.  The founders also enshrined other rights to ensure limited powers of government: the right to a free press; freedom of religion; freedom to assemble and freedom to bear arms to protect ourselves from those who would infringe on our inalienable rights.

Nowhere in the constitution was the federal government given an ownership right in the individuals who ordained and established it, nor in their posterity (us).  Slavery was abolished at the end of the civil war.  No individual in the United States can have an ownership interest in another person.  As we are free citizens in the U.S., (and our government derives its power from us, the citizens), the government would also have no right to an ownership interest in us as human beings.  That too would be another form of slavery.

As the founders never gave the government a right, or legal interest (as an ownership interest) in their lives, and as we have not done so since; by what legal right does the government say it has an interest in us individually to require us to insure ourselves?  It does not have an insurable interest in me.

The government does not have the authority to tell us to buy a car, or a house.  It does not have the authority to tell me what to believe, who I can meet with peaceably, or what I can say.  So then, by what authority can it tell me I have to allocate a portion of my property to purchase a good or service that I may not want? 

The structure of the “Healthcare law” is such that everyone is required to buy insurance.  If one does not have the income to afford the minimum required by the government, a refundable tax credit is provided, i.e. an individual subsidy is paid to those who do not have the income in order that they can purchase the government mandated insurance.  Who pays for the subsidy?  The same individuals who pay income tax now, those who are the top half of the income earners.  So, by taxing some to give to others, income is “redistributed.”  Redistribution is not in the United States Constitution.  It is illegal.  It may well have been the purpose of the constitution of the United Soviet Socialist Republic – but that communist government failed under the tyranny of communism.

Our founding fathers also realized the power of greed and the greed of power when, in the Bill of Rights, they ensured the government would not take citizen’s property without just compensation.  If government cannot take our property without just compensation, by what authority can it make us use our property to acquire an insurance contract for ourselves, or our fellow citizens?

The answer is simple: the federal government does not have the authority to pass laws that require us to buy insurance, or any other product; nor does it have the authority to make us buy it for fellow citizens by application of taxes and tax credits.

 If our government passes laws, such as Obamacare, and they stand the tests of our courts – laws that establish the rights of the government, over the rights of the citizens, the United States will already have become a “Banana Republic.”

A friend of mine sent me a great email at Christmas. I asked him if I could post it in my blog because I thought it was really cool. I pulled out any personal information at his request but I definitely thought it was post worthy!

*******************************************************

Of course that was in 2006, when she was House Minority leader and she wanted to do everything she could to undermine George Bush and his war efforts. This video from a 2006 town hall meeting shows Nancy Pelosi supporting anti war protesters and encouraging their disruptive tactics. That was then, this is now. Now protester’s against Obamacare and its exorbitant price tag are considered, by her, to be mobsters and Nazis. She has even said they are un-American. Times have changed haven’t they?

Am I talking about a soccer match in Europe? Oh no, I’m talking about the White House’s opinion of people who disagree with Obamacare. The White House blog, once again not exactly helping their cause, says “If you’ve tuned into the news in the past few days, it’s clear that the debate about health insurance reform has heated up as Senators and Representatives return to their home states and districts. A troubling trend has also emerged: as more people become engaged in the issue, defenders of the status quo have responded by muddying the waters with more wild rumors and scare tactics.
” So now if we disagree with the White House, we are not an opposing view, we are people muddying the wars, passing wild rumors, and using scare tactics. I find that very disturbing that apparently their is only supposed to be one point of view in this country now, and that is the Obamaview! Of course that point of view is bolstered by Nancy Pelosi claiming that attendees of the town hall meetings are waving swastikas, when there has been no evidence to support that. Perhaps the White House should work harder at giving us a reason to support their plan instead of polarizing half the country.

As the members of Congress make their way home for town hall meetings, which I’m sure they regret scheduling now, they are getting an earful from constituents who are fed up with the whole idea of Obamacare.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8UjY3YDlwA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-Bpshk5nX0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eq5mWkF5zuo&feature=related

These are just a sample. This is happening all over the country. I listen to talk radio and the Democratic guests of the conservative hosts are questioning Obamacare! Is Congress really that determined to make a name for themselves that they will go against the obvious will of the people! I hope they remember that elections are only a year away.