The Balanced Budget Amendment concept is fundamentally bad for America

The Joint Resolution I read

 

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.J.RES.2:

 

contains enough loopholes to neuter the entire concept. For instance, we can't spend more than we take in unless we vote to spend more than we take in or if America is at war or in a military conflict. [Is there any extended period during the past 60 years where American has not been involved in a military conflict?] I think those provisions will fully protect the spenders from any meaningful limits ostensibly imposed by the BBA.

 

 

Also, the President's "proposed budget" suggests that the President is the new author of revenue bills. Knowing that there are many in America with "expansive" views of the law, why won't this clause simply mean the President can decide where and when to spend money and how to raise it? Add one more member to the Supreme Court and can you be certain that such an expansive interpretation would never happen?

 

Considering how long a Balanced Budget Amendment would take to be enacted, I believe this is just a political play to shift focus to deliver the perception of concern about debt. It does not appear to me that it will produce any results in the next 5 years. Our debt and deficits should be reduced now. This can be done because all revenue bills must originate in the House, the joint resolution notwithstanding. The House should prioritize the revenue bills, delivering first, those bills that America needs - funding for military and interest payments. All others can be argued ad infinitum.

 

Why not instead, shrink government. Why not make all "agencies" justifiy every $ they spend or lose them? All dollars spent on fraud, mismanagement, or outside of mission projects would be lost in the following budget cycle. All information on where the dollars went would be public and even I could mine the data to find waste. There is (or should be) no PRIVACY for public dollars or public agencies.

 

Why not eliminate from the Federal government all missions that don't belong there. Oil subsidies, farm subsidies, energy subsidies, Housing and Urban development, the list goes on.

 

Do not be fooled into arbitrarily supporting a BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT. No such proposal has been offered.

 

Obama's accomplishments as of July 21, 2010:

1. Health Care - More than 50% of Americans want to repeal this (I am one

     of them); Doctors are leaving the profession. Insurance costs are

     already going up.  This bill is so large and filled with secret deals

     that it must be repealed.  The most unsettling thing about it is

     the unlimited power granted to the Secretary that is beyond

     judicial review [there is no legal recourse].  The way Obama

     has politicized everything in his administration is indication

     enough that a Secretary of Health without judicial limits is

     a problem.  I find that so troubling that no matter

     what else the bill has in it, it the whole bill should be repealed.

2. Financial Reform - without understanding why it happened.

     Without understanding what happened or why it happened, the

     congress took a shotgun and fired it at American business.

         [At this point in time, Obama has not signed

          it, but I think it unlikely he would veto it.]

     American business will react by working around the new regulations but

     today, it is extremely cautious about new investments -- so cautious that

     there's something like $250 Billion of cash reserves sitting in banks

     not being invested because no one knows what the government is going

     to tax or regulate next.  The Financial reform bill did not touch

     Fannie and Freddie. F & F will eventually cost you and me

     about $3T according to the WSJ (2010-07-21).

3. Afghan War - He waits 5 months before delivering 75% of

     of the request by his personally chosen General McCrystal and then

     fires him. He has no credible plan of terminating the war.

     Afghanistan is dissimilar to Iraq; the latter

     was organized societies who found that cooperating among themselves

     led to a safer country. Afghanistan citizens are rural and

     simply waiting until one or the other wins and then will adapt

     to the winner.

4. Eric Holder - New Black Panthers absolved from criminal charges -

     Imagine, instead, a person in a white hood standing in front of a

     polling place; do you think Holder would have prosecuted them?

     Holder made a clearly racist decision to not prosecute the NBP's.

     Christenson has testified under oath to a congressional investigating

     committee about this. Either he is telling the truth or should be

     shown to be lying and prosecuted. I don't believe Obama and/or Holder

     will pursue this because the public relations would be all bad.

     I also know, that Obama, Pelosi and Reid have created so polarized

     a government that there will be no congressional investigations into

     why charges were dropped.

     Close Gitmo, leave it open; Try KSM in NYC, don't

     try him in NYC. Eric Holder is a continuing disaster for Obama. He

     is leading the AZ suit against a law that is almost identical to the

     federal law.

5. Leadership - Gulf crises demonstrated to me that he doesn't have the

     ability to lead and solve problems. He said he was in control and then

     denied it. He withheld help from the Republican administration of

     Louisiana and then gave it. He avoided visiting the Gulf for how

     many weeks?

6. Immigration - Obama sues AZ when AZ law is identical to federal laws;

     Obama says AZ doesn't have the authority to make the law but ignores

     Sanctuary cities who endeavor to break the law. The AZ law is a simple

     restatement of the federal law and in no way conflicts with Federal

     law. [You should watch the strategies emerging in how the Federal

     Government will take AZ to court. None of the denouncement

     techniques mentioned in the press are being used in Holder's suit.]

     When Holder and Obama came out criticizing the AZ law and then admitted

     they hadn't read it, I was stunned. How can anyone trust these two?

7. Unemployment benefits  and PayGo - Six months ago, Obama said he

     wouldn't sign an unemployment extension that wasn't paid for.

     The previous one was passed and paid for. This time, however, the

     only thing the Republicans in the congress wanted was to have the

     $34B paid for. Obama changed his mind and now thinks we don't have to

     pay for it. He still has $400B in Tarp money but did not see fit

     to use that.

8. Recess Appointment of the Obamacare Czar - The manner in which the

     appointment was done [a recess appointment] cannot be blamed on the

     Republicans. The appointment had not even come up in the Senate which

     is controlled by the Dem's. He appointed a man who admires the British

     Health care system and has stated our health care will redistribute

     wealth.  The manner in which Obama appointed this man leaves me doubting

     if Obama has any limits on what he would do to carry out the

     missions he and his handlers deem necessary.

9. Appointment of Kagan to SCOTUS - This candidate has no more experience

     than Harriet Myers of Bush 2 fame. The only reason she passed out

     of the Senate Judiciary Committee is because Lindsey Graham supported

     her with this profound reasoning: "Elections have consequences".

10. X millions jobs "saved" - What does that mean? All Obama statements

     about the stimulus start with:

     

        "If we hadn't done it the unemployment would have

         been much worse".

     What is strange is that no one in the major media (ABC,CBS,NBC,MSNBC,CNN)

     ever questions that statement.  It has no basis in fact and is pure

     conjecture and as valid as the statement:

     

        "If the stimulus hadn't been passed the economy would

         be recovered by now and unemployment would be back

         down to 5%".

         

     Both statements are equally unverifiable, but Obama

     keeps making his with no challenges from the audience. He seems

     to be trying to make people believe what he did was good for America

     but with no evidence whatever to back it up -- he's asking us to

     take him at his word.

11. Education - The first thing Obama did for education was defund the

      Washington, D.C. Opportunity Scholarships for poor (mostly black)

      children. The program was a nationally recognized successful

      program that allowed children to get vouchers to go to

      private schools. The success rate for those who used

      vouchers versus those who did not in that program was

      outstanding.  Unions don't like vouchers and that is the only

      reason I can come up with why he killed the program.

      Washington, D.C. spends more dollars per pupil in public schools

      than any school district in America. The Voucher program

      costs 1/3 what a public school child costs per year. There is no

      excuse for Obama's behavior that I can see other than politics. No

      economics have been mentioned as to why we must spend three

      times as much for educating a child in Washington, D.C. and

      have the acknowledged worst school system in America as a result.

12. Energy - Obama predicted our electricity rates would "necessarily

      skyrocket".  Be has fallen hook, line and sinker for man made

      global warming. What his famous intellect fails to understand is

      that even if the US does everything he suggests, it is uniformly

      recognized that the effect on the climate change would be nil.

      Part of the reason is because all the gloom and doom predictions

      are based on computer climate models for estimating 50 and

      100 years in the future. No one is certain that the predictions

      of these computer models have any bearing on reality. Obama

      wants to bet the economy on the veracity of these models.

      To me that is so child like in comprehension that I am

      simply astounded. Are we to believe that Obama understands climate

      models? If not, does he have someone who can explain them to

      the people Obama wants to pay for his plans? [The simple observation

      that water vapor is not included in climate models suggests great

      caution in believing the results.]

13. Anti-Business attitude. Each week or two, Obama seems to have chosen

      a new industry to attack. Auto Makers, Insurance, Banks, Chamber

      of Commerce, Fox News, Glenn Beck, Oil companies, Las Vegas, the

      list goes on. He will be raising taxes on small businesses next

      year. How will that help the unemployment problem? He has

      introduced a new IRS form (making the unwieldy and overly complex

      IRS even more so). For each business paid more than $600, a form

      must be filled out for that business and sent to the IRS.

      Enlarging the IRS is not my idea of efficient government. Adding

      more rules to the IRS that are hidden in the Health care bill, the

      Health care amendment and the Financial regulation acts, simply

      means there are more ways the government can put you in jail

      or, as in the Clinton and Obama cases, the administration

      can use the government to attack enemies. There are so many

      rules that only Geithner and other Democrats will be excused. This is

      easily seen by Geithner's example, Holder's example with the New Black

      Panthers, and the Arizona law suit challenging a state wishing to enforce

      the federal laws. Obama has used government force to attack his

      enemies and suppressed government force for friends. He has politicized

      justice.

      I don't believe the unemployment rate will drop significantly until

      taxes are predictable, there are no more giant regulatory bills

      in the mill and businesses feel confident that if they are

      successful, Obama won't be attacking them [Recall the partisan

      attacks on the competition to Government Motors -- Toyoto].

14. Predator flights that kill people in other countries. I don't like this.

      Innocent and guilty people are simply killed. What about mistakes? Obama

      has also put American citizens on an assassination list without any form

      of judicial review. Bush started the predator attacks, but they were few

      and far between and were beneath the radar of most Americans. Now, they

      are front and center -- by count. American major media don't report it.

      They also don't report the assassination list. Obama could easily be charged

      with international war crimes based on the predator mass killings. This

      is such a disreputable policy that it should be stopped completely.

15. Israel - He has treated Israel with disrespect and insults. Israel is our

      only true friend in the Middle East and from what I can gather, he

      thinks the Palestinians are more deserving of diplomatic sympathy

      than Israel and that the two warring factions are morally equivalent.

      Like Jimmy Carter welcoming the inventor of suicide bombing to the

      White House, Obama and his administration demonstrate a profound

      ignorance of the Middle East -- his attitude comes over to me

      as "Can't we all just get along?" -- child like.

16. The Oil Spill and "we are in control".

      Apparently, the solution to the BP oil spill is to stop all deep

      drilling and all exploration in the Gulf. His actions make 1000's of

      people unemployed in the Gulf area with no useful by-product. Meanwhile,

      other countries drill away and explore. His lack of leadership in

      a problem like this is worrisome. Should a time come when people's

      lives are in danger, what would he do? One thing is sure, from everything

      he has done up to the present; he will weigh the political consequences

      of any decision he makes before acting. In any situation where real

      leadership is needed, he appears to me to be in over his head.

Obama has created the most divisive, blame filled, racist society in my

memory.  He branded Tea Party people as "tea baggers".  His fellows

in the administration brand them racists.  He attacks individual citizens.

He blames all his difficulties on the Republicans or George W. Bush.

According to Obama, all of the country's economic problems should be

blamed on Bush even though all spending originated with Nancy Pelosi

since 2006 which is before the financial crises. As far as I can see,

he has no analytic skills whatever. The answer to all problems is

blame someone first ["the cops acted stupidly"].

I started out inquisitive about what he meant by "hope" and "change".

I didn't like him or dislike him. I didn't vote for him, but in

an American fashion, I would give him a chance.

He has personally transformed me into thinking of him as

a political hack whose only goal is to win re-election with little

or no understanding of economics or history. I can't find

any principles in him at all.

Obama promised:

   1. "I will use public campaign financing" - he didn't

   2. "I will have an ethical government" - hires a tax cheat for Sec

       of Treasury and doesn't prosecute him

   3. "I will put all bills on the White House Web site for 5 days

       before signing" - he hasn't

   4. "I won't have lobbyists in the White House" - Not so, see:

       Obama finds room for lobbyists

       http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18128.html

   5. "I will bring America together again" - As I mention above we

          are more divided today over blame and race than any time in my

          lifetime.

   6. "95% of Americans will get a tax cut" - Nope.

   7. "I will veto earmarks" - Nope

   8. "I will keep unemployment from rising above 8 percent" - didn't happen

   9. "I will close Quantanamo" - It's still open.

  10. "I promise direct talks with America's worst enemies

       in 1st year seeking peace" - He didn't do this.

  11. "I will end no-compete contracts with government" - they are alive

       and well.

  12. "I will disclose the names of all attendees at closed WH

       Meetings" - he has not done this.

And Obama'S 7 PROMISES

  1. Make government open and transparent. FAIL

  2. Make it "impossible" for Congressmen to slip in pork barrel

     projects. FAIL

  3. Meetings where laws are written will be more open to the

     public.  FAIL (Even Congressional Republicans shut out.)

  4. No more secrecy. FAIL

  5. Public will have 5 days to look at a bill. FAIL

  6. You'll know what's in it. FAIL [Pelosi: "We have to pass it so

        we'll know what's in it"]

  7. We will put every pork barrel project online. FAIL

Another disturbing thing is that everyone said Obama was the smartest

person ever in the White House. I look for his intelligence but don't

see it. He seems to be being managed by people in the

background. I am certain he doesn't understand what happened in the financial

crises. I read Paulson's book and Sorkin's book and both of them don't

understand why it happened. Are we to believe that Obama understands how and

why the financial crises came about,  that he supports the Financial Reform

bill [all 800 pages of it] and knows more than Paulson or Sorkin?

Overall, there is only one thing I can say without hesitation that

he has done well. That would be to use the two Navy Seals to take

out the pirates holding an American captive.

Other than that, he gets a "VERY UNSATISFACTORY" rating.

[He doesn't have enough experience yet to be on the A to F grading scale.]

OIL SPILL TASK FORCE

A National Militia for Environmental Disasters

Create a task force of the most expensive experts from all of the oil

and oil services companies to deal directly with this and any future

undersea problem. They would be assembled in the same fashion and time

frame as a Volunteer Fire Department responding to an emergency -- "Now"

is the operative word.  Give them near plenary powers so politics will

not disrupt the problem resolution.  Give the task force the draft

power. "Draft" means that if the task force says "We need

person 'abc' from Exxon (or the US Government regulation agencies)

right now' - then person 'abc' is called up or Exxon ceases doing

business in the US.  Fund them with a $5B reserve fund owned and

managed by the particpating companies.  Make participation a condition

to drilling or selling oil or oil products in America. This will

cost the government no new money and will provide the government no

new money. US Government can establish well defined and reasonable

"response time" metrics.

I am proposing a practical inexpesive to tax payers non-government

solution to a problem.

The PRIVATE OPTION

The PRIVATE OPTION is simple to understand, provides universal
health care coverage, drives health care costs down and is favored
by doctors. The PRIVATE OPTION is the only plan that would turn around
our health care problems and provide universal coverage. It is not
supported by big government types (Dem's and Repub's) because the
government no longer would control the money.

The PRIVATE OPTION is two things.

1. Health Savings Account (HSA) covers expected medical care.

   Everyone contributes to their own health savings account with pre-tax
   dollars. In other words, no money contributed to that account is
   taxed. Furthermore no government can get its hands on the money.
   The individual will have a choice: pay 8% of gross pay into their own
   HSA and not be taxed on the 8% (no federal or state tax) or not pay 8%
   into the HSA and suffer the federal tax and state tax.

   The HSA is used for all planned medical expenses which includes
   annual checkups, chest X-Rays, pap smears, colonoscopies, child
   birth and anything that can be expected to occur in the normal
   maintenance of health.
  
   For those who are young, and just entering the economy, the
   U.S. Government provides overdraft protection.  In that way,
   no one is ever without normal health care.  Any account in the
   overdraft state repays the overdraft at 12% of gross salary,
   no exceptions (just like FICA is always deducted). The government
   charges no interest on overdrafts.

   The PRIVATE OPTION HSA provides universal coverage.

2. Catastrophic health insurance covers unexpected medical care.

   Everyone from birth signs up for catastrophic (high deductible)
   health insurance. Premiums are paid with pre-tax dollars.
   Rates are based on birth to death mortality rates,
   not on pre-existing conditions. All are accepted. None is rejected.
   Catastrophic health insurance covers unexpected health care
   expenses. There are limits to the amount of money that will be spent,
   but the amount can be increased by paying for medical care from the
   HSA. The insurance benefit is based on money, not medical procedure
   or drug. An individual is free to choose zany cures, but risks
   exhausting his payment limits. The premiums and benefits would be
   decided using objective publicly understood actuarial principles.

An HSA reduces health care costs by having patients pay doctors
directly from their HSA. The insurance middle man (insurance companies
or the US Government) no longer takes a cut and the doctor's offices can
stop filling out insurance forms. Doctors no longer deal with the
government or insurance companies.

Since the government provides overdraft protection, all are covered.
Since the money is owned by the individual, it is the individual who
decides how to spend his health care dollars. The individual knows
exactly what to expect from the medical system.

Progressives and Health Care

There are "issues" with words. Liberal, liberalism, progressivism,
socialist all mean different things to different people.

I find that "progressive" is the most informative of words. I read
Woodrow Wilson's words and thoughts and he seems to express the
concepts of progressivism as well as anyone I can understand.
He thinks the constitution is a living breathing document that should be
shaped to the needs of the times. He thinks that smart people should be
running the government and the government should make life better for
people. He thinks human beings can eventually create a perfect society
here on earth. Those thoughts seem to dovetail with much of what FDR did
and his famous (infamous?) 2-nd bill of rights. Basically, with
progressives, government is the solution. With conservatives, government
is the problem.

I'm slightly to the left of conservative. I've read Howard Zinn ["A
People's History of the United States"] and the history
of the ICC, the FDA, and Social Security and I have not yet found where
large government programs have a net positive effect on society [the
transcontinental railroad investments made in 1864-1869 might be an
exception - see "Railroads and American Economic Growth" by Robert
Fogel]. For each perceived positive, I find many negatives. Social
Security is an example. It seems to offer security in the retirement
years. It accomplishes significantly less than a private savings plan
could do for individuals, and is on a track to cost more and offer
less now. Had the original Clark Amendment [private, opt-out option]
been included, the system would be on a sustainable, actuarially
sound foundation today yielding substantially larger returns. Instead,
our future is of increased taxes and lower benefits. The idea
of off-loading retirement welfare to individuals was good.
Roosevelt's desire to buy votes by changing SS to a pay-as-you-go
scheme and blocking the Clark Amendment is so evil that nothing
that I can find in corporate history compares.

All attempts to fix social security are resisted by D's. The Bush
suggestions to privatize it were fought tooth and nail by D's even
though a non-partisan study [actually, to me, the authors seemed
partisan anti-Bush people] suggested privatization (like IBM and other
large corporations did with pensions) is the only known path to
sustainability.

Medical care in this country is the technical leader of the world. One
of many reasons is that we are a free-enterprise (actually, only
"freer") system where, if you discover something, you can make an almost
unlimited fortune. Our leadership is reflected with the 60% of Nobel prizes
in the past 60 years that have been won by Americans. Our medical research
funds the advances and discoveries. Our high prices for drugs fund
the free-riders and give-aways America provides to the world. The
reason drugs are cheap in Canada is because the government has price
controls. Merck's decision is that the marginal cost of manufacturing
drugs is tiny, so selling them at any prices is better than not
selling them. However, they must recover their investments or they
won't invest and since they can only do that in America, they do
it -- and they continue to invest. Should America decide that Merck
shouldn't get so much money for their drug discoveries, Merck will
not invest. America provides health care to the world and no one
acknowledges that fact.

Some say socialistic medical systems are successful, and I say they
are only successful as long as the low priced and free riding
medical "goods" they acquire from America are available. Without
America, what would be the survival rate for HIV and Cancer patients
in the world today? America is the most expensive because we create
the medical technology that the price controlled societies of the
world depend on.

My problem with our government health care solutions that are
floating around is that they don't address health care needs.
Lack of insurance never killed anyone, despite what Obama says.
Lack of health care might have, but lack of insurance never has.
The bills in the House and Senate address money. Money is what
politicians want to get their hands on. They want to control the
money going to insurance companies -- they want to tell the
insurance companies how to write policies and how much to
charge. They want to give the Secretary powers to set rates and content
of insurance that are "beyond judicial review" [House and Sentate bills].
None of this helps a cancer patient. The Senate bill collects
taxes [$125B/yr] for 4 years without spending any of it on improved
health care. What happens to this money? Do you believe a Democrat
congress will not spend it on something else?

By the CBO's estimates and Medicare actuaries
the Senate plan INCREASES health care costs, and creates price controls.
All price controls schemes in history I have read about caused
shortages. As if to support this observation, yesterday (March 17, 2010),
the New England Journal of Medicine reported a poll of doctor's
declaring that one third of doctors would leave the profession if
the health care bill is passed. I doubt 33 in every 100 doctors
will leave, but I wouldn't be surprised if 20 did. That doesn't
bode well for America. I'm betting that is why Canada has
so few doctors.

The current plans are full of things that if you or I did would be
illegal. When the government does things that are illegal for citizens
to do, that is immoral. Our government is voting on a bill that contains
graft and corruption larger than anything I have found in American
history. The Cornhusker hustle, the Louisiana purchase, the Florida gift
to the elderly, the Connecticut hostpital, the union gift of no increase
in taxes for 5 years are all examples, any one of which would put
a citizen in jail. Ask yourself what would happen to you if you
went to Ben Nelson (D-NE) and told him you would pay for his state's
citizens' medical care if he votes for the bill.

Socialism (collectivism) was the first form of organization by
Europeans in America. Both Jamestown and Plymouth started out
as collectives -- one for all and all for one. Both communities
had significant numbers of people starve to death. In Jamestown,
many of the people that came over were "dandies" -- who wouldn't
work. It was only after John Smith (I think it was Smith) reorganized
and gave people their own plots that enough food was grown to
create a store to pass through winter. Plymouth went through
the same process and William Bradford (my 13-th great grandfather)
reorganized and gave individuals property that they owned. The result
was the same as in Jamestown -- the community became self sustaining. Both
experiments in socialism failed because human nature is such that some
didn't want to contribute and others who were over achievers got nothing
for their extra work. To me, socialism [as I understand it] isn't
compatible with human nature.


Finally, the problem America faces in health care is what? D's (R's too)
don't even have a succinct statement of what problem they are solving.

I contend there are two:

1. Health care costs
2. Universal coverage

On #2, conservatives would become very uncomfortable because they assume
the only solution is to take money from other people to cover those who
are freeloaders, those who don't want to be covered or can't cover
themselves. They would be wrong.

#1 and #2 are solvable without government management or direct
involvement -- other than providing "motivations" -- attractive
motivations. Here's a short item I added to someone's blog that
describes a workable solution to the "Health Care Problem (#1 and #2)".

----------------------
Re Health Care: I've heard that we all agree that we need "reform" but
no one says what "reform" is. Not only that, no one wants to discuss
what
the problems are. I will. Here are the only two health care problems
this country faces.

1. Universal coverage
2. Health care costs.

Those two problems are apolitical. Solutions are not. Conservatives may
argue with #1 but unless I say I'm going to take your money and pay for
someone else's health care coverage, they really can't make a case.

The solution to these two problems is individual responsibility --
perhaps aided and abetted by the government but not controlled by it.
The solution is individual health savings accounts, deposits to which
are paid with pre-tax dollars. The amount would be set at something like
8% of gross salary. The account is yours and the government cannot get
its hands on it. You can will it to your family. Requiring people to
have such an account is a constitutional problem, though. Leaving aside
that issue, once such accounts are created, the minimal government help
comes in when you make overdrafts of the account when you are young and
don't have sufficient funds. Overdrafts are covered by the government,
but you must repay. The Health Savings account would not deal with
catastrophic health care issues. That would be covered by catastrophic
health care insurance. Serious, expensive conditions would be covered
by catastrophic health care insurance because serious, expensive
conditions are unexpected and the unexpected is the raison detre for
insurance.

What such a plan does is make you responsible for your own health care.
It takes giant insurance companies (AETNA, WellPoint and the US
Government) OUT of the picture. No longer is anyone refused service. You
deal directly with your doctor -- there is no government or insurance
person standing in your path.

The path to excellent retirement benefits (Social Security) and
excellent Medical care is through individual responsibility and minimal
government control. Government is an enormous overhead and a source of
inefficiency and should be shunned in solutions to real
human problems.

That's my 3 cents.

----------------------

Two organizations already do this. The first is Whole Foods started here
in Austin. The second is the state of Indiana. There is an article in
the WSJ from Governor Daniels on the Indiana plan. Participants in both
plans are happy with them.

Todays health care plans in the House and Senate are immoral and will
increase the cost of heath care -- compounding the problems. There is
nothing good about them including the addition of government-only
student loads tacked on to the end of the Senate bill late last week.

Should this bill pass, there will be legal challenges and people will spend
money and time to help elect people to repeal it. We should also spend
time and money to cause a private, opt-out option to become law that would
in effect destroy the Senate law. There is nothing good about the Senate
bill as far as I can tell. I read the House bill and some of the Senate
bill and Obama's "suggestions". The corruption involved in passing them, the
actual content of the bills and the partisan nature of the bills
tells me that we are being led down a dark alley where nothing good will
result.

As for Howard Zinn, he admits in his preface that his book is biased. I
have a hard time lending credibility to an author that says he is going
to limit is presentation of facts so we see the "people's" side of
issues. He also digresses into social commentary rather than just
historic facts. I'm a fan of someone who makes a legitimate attempt to
present both sides of an issue. Zinn, right up front says he's not going
to do that. NEVERTHELESS, I read it. His presentation is amateurish
in the sense that he admits his bias. Why a college would be attracted
to this book (A People's History of the United States) is a mystery
to me.

If you have a representative who is on the fence, I urge you to
communicate to him or her with the request to vote NO on the Senate
Health care bill. Urge him or her to examine the Whole Foods plan
and the Indiana state plan to empower all individuals to solve their
own health care problems.

President Obama has proposed a summit for Health care -- a 6 hour
session that would resolve all the HC issues between D's and R's.
Now I know the left thinks Sarah Palin is a lightweight but this idea is
completely weighless. We also hear that Republican leaders are thinking of other
ways to "shore up" the insurance payments.

What they seem to forget is that the insurance middle man is one of the
prime factors in increased medical costs and a significant obstacle to
universal health care. When D's and R's realize that less insurance will
bring about lower costs and increased coverage, then they might make
some real progress.

Scrap the current czarist plans submitted by the House and Senate [where
the Secretary sets content and price for all insuarnce with no legal
appeal process]. Instead, implement an individual responsbility
mechanism whereby everyone contributes to their own Health Savings
Accounts with pre-tax dollars and pays directly for their health
care. The HSA contribution is mandatory, but the
Health Savings account is owned by the tax payer, not the government.
The government cannot get its hands on the money.

All Americans who work would be required to have an HSA. Each would
contribute to it from a new payroll tax with pre-tax dollars.
Over time, all employer based medical programs would disappear through attrition.
From the HSA all normal, expected, and planned health care costs would be paid. For the
unusual health issues, catastrophic health insurance covers the
type of expenses that would normally bankrupt many middle and lower
income families. Finally, for the people just starting out, or those
unfortunates who have a history of expensive medical care, the
government would cover overdrafts of the HSA. In that case, the
individual would be required to repay his own HSA, but he would get the
medical coverage whether or not his HSA can cover it. [Unemployment is covered in this
fashion.]

With such a plan, today's form of medical insurance would cease to
exist. Today, insurance covers medical checkups, childbirth, dental care
and eyeglasses. There is no such thing as insurance for a medical
checkup. Is there a risk that the checkup might not be available?
We are simply paying more for insurance so we can have checkups
when we want. This is absurd.  Using insurance to cover expected and
planned medical needs drives the costs up due to additional paper
work and the probability of non-payment. Finally, with insurance for
everything medical, there is no motivation to seek the most cost
effective solutions. Today's medical insurance is oversized, expensive,
used to redistrubute wealth and has death panels. It should be scrapped.

SUMMARY:
To achieve universal coverage and lower medical costs,
an HSA plus catastrophic health insurance would guarantee health care to
all. Contributions to HSA's would be with pre-tax dollars and
mandatory like Social Security.  HSA's are owned by individuals and
are "funded" as opposed to pay as you go. HSA's are transferrable,
but the money can only be used for medical expenses. The Federal
government covers HSA overdrafts, but the overdrafts must be repaid.
Insurance companies or government no longer comes between patient and doctor.

Dear Representative

2009-12-22
Concerning the recent purchase of votes in the United States Senate:

I have been watching the Health Care fight in the Senate for the past 4
months and over that period I have become more and more angered at the
up front, in your face lying and corruption I am watching that no one
seems to care about. If you support this kind of graft and defecation
on the public and the Constitution, then resign from your office as you
are a disgrace and guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors where you are
not "supporting and defending the constitution".

Corruption is represented by the Louisiana buy out for $300 million
dollars publicly admitted to and proud of it by "senator" Mary of LA;
the attack on the wife of a sitting United States Senator; and the
granting to NE of permanent relief from Medicaid payments by the
Federal government. Paramount among the lies and deception are our
president's words who "This plan will improve health care and save
money". No one believes that. Now I hear that the bill under
consideration includes "rules" to prevent any future changes or repeal
to the bill.

If you are aghast at what is going on then you better get off your butt
and start yelling, screaming and making some very visible motions to
stop this now or promise the American Public that it will be stopped in
the very near future. 40 Senators and 220 Representatives better be
joining in a court challenge to this the minute it is signed into law.
People are really mad at this and if I continue to hear words of
conciliation and "let's all just get along", I'm going to puke.

It is beyond time to get along. It is time to create chaos and refuse
en masse to go along with any part of this bill. Publicly advise
people to civilly disobey any part they feel is unconstitutional.
Lead and do that yourself. Accept whatever consequences derive from
doing what is right.

But for God's sake, do something rather than just stay silent. What the
Democrats are doing to this country right now is obscene and any who sit
and take it get what they deserve.

I, for one, will not pay a fine, will not buy insurance, and will defend
my house and family with my last full measure.

Ed Bradford
Pflugerville, TX