Tag Archives: universal healthcare

Healthcare Debate Update: Stupak Anti-Abortion Funding Amendment Passes

Bookmark and Share    By a vote of 240 to 194, the Stupak-Pitts Amendment which provides language that will have prohibit the House bill for a government takeover of heath care, from allowing any funding of abortion procedures passed.

The move which satisfied a the handful of anti-abortion Democrats who were needed to pass the larger health reform bill. However; its passage could cause some of the majority of Democrats who are anti-right to lifers, to oppose the bill. Last night, Speaker Pelosi saw that if she allowed anti-abortion Democrats to get their away and adopt the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, she would have lost more votes for the overall health care reform bill than she would have gained

A majority of Democrats are so vehemently opposed to saving the lives of the unborn. Now we must wait and see just how many Democrats are so offended by not allowing federal funding for abortions that they will risk losing a vote to pass what they are the calling one of the most important pieces of legislation in our nation’s history.

Before the vote on the abortion funding amendment, a vast majority of Democrats made clear their strong opposition to the amendment. Some even suggested that it could prevent them from going ahead with their intended support for the final health care reform bill. Passage of the Stupak-Pitts anti-abortion funding amendment just adds further doubt about what the final House vote on the health reform bill will be.

In the mean time, following the Stupak-Pitts vote,as expected the Republican substitute Health Care Reform bill went down to defeat.

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

Government Health Care Takeover May Go Down Because of Abortion

Bookmark and Share  Passage of the Pelosi-Obama government takeover of health care may all come down to the House Health Care Debate CoverageStupak-Pitts Amendment.

The Stupak-Pitts Amendment is sponsored by Democrat Bart Stupak of Michigan and Republican Joseph Pitts of Pennsylvania and what is does is create language in the health care government takeover bill which not allow any federal monies in the plan to be used for abortion procedures.

At this point in time, as debate on government run health care is taking place and now as they specifically discuss the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, Democrat after Democrat are coming to the floor of the House and opposing it. A few though have stated that if this amendment is passed, they will vote for the bill.   These few are the Democrats who passage of the bill hinges on and it seems apparent that they will not get they want.  It should be noted that if they do not go what they want, neither will Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and President Obama.

Earlier in what was perhaps the most ingenious maneuver of the debate yet, House Republican Leader John Boehner asked a very important question. Congressman George Miller, the Chairnman of the House Committee on Education and Labor who stood to start dispensing time to those Democrats who could offer their remarks in the debate.  As he did  Boehner asked him the following. Will you assure me that in committee you will support the Stupak Amendment and its passage?   After trying to dodge the question, Miller finally stated that he can not make such an assurance.

This successfully allowed those Democrats whose votes the government health care takeover hinges on, to be more reluctant to support the bill.

Following that, as more and more Democrats angrily denounced the Stupak-Pitts Amendment and declared their opposition to it, House Democrats voted to delay any further on the Stupak-Amendment. What this could come down to is a standoff that will ultimately kill liberal attempts to have the government micromanage health care and insurance. A vast majority of Democrats are so opposed to saving the lives of the unborn that they will actually allow what they call one of the most important pieces of legislation in our nation’s history to fail.

For live streaming video coverage of the health care debate before its scheduled vote visit C-Span here.

Bookmark and Share

1 Comment

Filed under politics

President Obama Asks Democrats To Walk The Plank On Healthcare Vote

   High Drama grips Washington, DC today in a way that has rarely ever been matched before. Few Congress pelosivotes have ever been quite as transformative as the healthcare and insurance reform bill which Democrats and Nancy Pelosi are proposing on behalf of President Obama.

The political intrigue being witnessed on this day is heightened by incredibly unique circumstances surrounding the actual vote.

First, it is very rare, for Congress to convene during the weekend. Second, it is not at all certain if Democrats have all the votes they need to pass the bill, however it is seemingly certain that every Republican is voting against it.

Third, as this is being written, President Obama is on Capitol meeting with fellow Democrats who are in the House. He is said to be telling them that his presidency is on the line with this vote. According to the Administration, if they fail to pass this legislation they will have a hard time getting future legislation passed. In politics, the term being used to get votes for healthcare reform right now, is to “walk the plank”. This means that the Administration and Speaker Pelosi are aware of the fact that many Democrats in moderate and even Republican districts may be voting against the will of their constituents. But The President and Pelosi are asking that they still walk the plank for them. They are claiming that if the Party fails to pass this bill, the liberal base of the party will not be there for those who voted against the bill and they may very well be so disappointed in the Democrat Party that the liberal base will sit at home come the 2010 general elections.

It is not often that the President of the United States personally comes to The Hill to twist arms in order to get members of his own party to vote for one of his initiatives. Doing so makes it clear that the liberal leadership is not sure that they have enough Democrats walking the plank for them. Republicans even claim that they have a commitment from 21 Democrats who say that they are voting no.

As of last week, 43 Democrats were voting against Pelosicare. That would have produced 215 yea votes to 220 nays. But since last week, hundreds of backroom deals have been made behind closed doors, twice as many arms were twisted and tons of changes have been made to the original bill in an attempt to at least win the minimum 218 votes needed to make this boondoggle law. Many of the changes have to do with language in the bill which would allow public funding in the bill to be allowed for abortion procedures. Quite a few socially conservative Democrats are opposed to such language but it would seem that many Blue Democrats are nothing more than lap dogs. Last night it would seem that many have shifted their support and at the moment Democrats are only 10 votes short of passing their liberal legislation.

But now, as the moment of truth approaches, the pressure being placed on Democrats to place their loyalty to party above their loyalty to their principles and the constituents they represent, is unlike any ever seen since LBJ personally called Democrat Senators and promised to use his own hands to crack their heads open if they didn’t support and pass his historic civil rights legislation.

For their part, Republicans have vowed to do everything possible to prevent this bill from being passed. They will use procedural objections and other tactics to stall it. They will also hold Democrats to their pledge to put a final version of legislation on line for a period of 72 hours before it comes to the floor for a full vote. The GOP will point out that with all the last minute changes being made to the bill in an attempt to win over any available Democrat votes, voting on the bill tonight would be premature and provide the American people with at least 72 hours to review the bill themselves.

For Democrats, if the healthcare reform bill does not get passed by the House, the Senate is not likely to bring it up for a vote and force Democrats to take a stand on the controversial issue. That would mean that Democrats would have to push the issue next year, during the midterm elections. It is more than likely that the President and Democrats will not want to be pushing a controversial debate that they are on the losing side of while they are also trying to win reelection and keep a hold on their majority power. So tonight is probably now or never for liberal attempts to have the government takeover health care and insurance.

This afternoon Speaker Pelosi spoke of the pending vote and called it “historic”. What she failed to mention is that history has two parts. There are good parts and there are bad parts. Rational people appreciate and support the good parts of history but they are not willing to repeat the worst parts of our history. Yes Madame Speaker; this 1,900 page novel which amounts to a government takeover of healthcare and insurance will forever more have the government micromanage what should be our health choices.

Yes indeed this is a historic vote but for all the wrong reasons. Hitler and Soviet style socialism are also historic but they reflect a history that we wish never happened and your government takeover of one fifth of our economy is something that most Americans hopes never happens.

1 Comment

Filed under politics

Those Who Refuse To Buy Mandatory Obamacare Face Fines And Prison

Bookmark and Share    Does the Constitution allow for the government to mandate that one purchase health JCT Letter To Senator John Ensigninsurance?

That is a question which may eventually make its way to the Supreme Court of the United States for as the debate on how to make sure that all Americans have access to affordable health care rages on the debate on whether or not the government can force people to buy into it has really yet to begin. But one thing is for sure, the heavy hand of government that is exercised in current government run health management and care reform measures is so heavy handed that clearly neither our Constitution or our nation’s founding principle of freedom are being considered. 

Case in point. Republican Senator John Ensign asked the Joint Committee on Taxation’s chief of staff, for the committee’s assessment of taxes and penalties relating to pending health care reform legislation. He received a handwritten response from the JCT’s Chief of Staff Tom Barthold, as seen in the above photo, that read as follows:

Dear Senator Ensign;

Section 7203 provides that if there is a willful failure to file, pay, maintain appropriate records and the like that the taxpayer may be charged with a misdemeanor with a penalty of up to 25,000 and not more than 1 year in jail.


Thomas A. Barthold

Felony tax evasion provides for restitution and fine for up to 100,00.00 for an individual and up to five years in jail.


I once brought up the fact that what must worry people even more than what Democrats put in health management and care reform legislation is what they don’t put in the bill. This reference was made in regards to the question about whether or not illegal immigrants would be eligible to participate in any government run healthcare program. Before that question was raised, excluding illegal immigrants was not mentioned.

In this case, the Democrat’s constitutionally questionable health insurance mandates would bring into play, the aspects of other existing laws which are not addressed in the existing health care legislation. Those aspects include steep fines and even the specter of imprisonment that could be imposed on anyone who fails to abide by any government mandate that seeks to force one to buy health insurance. 

A very large can of worms has been opened up here ladies and gentlemen. The rush to ram through unconstitutional legislation has ramifications far beyond those which have already been discussed. Will there be a proper discussion of these new facts before Democrats “go it alone” and pass a bill that will not improve healthcare in the United States but could seek to coerce people into buying insurance against their will through fines as much as $100,000.00 and imprisonment for as much as five years?

Bookmark and Share


Filed under politics

A New Approach To The Healthcare Dilemma & A Warning From Ronald Reagan About Socialized Medicine

Bookmark and Share
On April 4th , of 1960, Time Magazine ran a story that began as follows:

u4PrezHealthCareBlog“Shaping up as one of 1960’s most incendiary political issues is the problem of providing adequate medical care for those who need it most and can afford it least: the 15 million U.S. citizens 65 and over. A variety of bills calling for federal medical subsidies to the aged is before both the Senate and House. By far the most popular and controversial of all has been introduced by Rhode Island’s Democratic Representative Aime Forand, 64. Last week the Forand bill was drawing more mail than any other bill of any kind before Congress.”

Fast forward almost 50 years, boost the numbers and change the names and the same opening paragraph can be written of the new universal healthcare legislation that was recently hammered out by the most liberal legislative leaders Congress has ever housed.

Under the orders of the President of the United States, Congress must hurry up and pass a universal healthcare package. Yet this is not an issue easily solved.

After winning reelection in 1938, President Franklin Roosevelt sent Congress a national health-care program of his own.

It failed.

On November 19th of 1945 President Harry Truman declared that he would protect Americans from the “economic fears” of illness and gave Congress a national healthcare bill of his own that increased federal aid for healthcare, health education and research for the medical profession; and it was to make health insurance and disability insurance compulsory.

Truman’s initiative had a mixed reception in the Democrat controlled Congress of the time and on the Republican side people like Senator Robert Taft of Ohio declared that Truman‘s proposal was “the most socialistic measure” that “this Congress has ever had before it”.

Truman’s national healthcare initiative failed.

Sixty four years later and here we are again but now what Truman called national healthcare is called universal healthcare and President Obama wants Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to rush a meaningful plan together before Congress takes their traditional summer recess.

This debate has gone on for over seven decades but Obama, Pelosi and Reid are going to hammer out the elusive solution together in the first seven months of the new President’s administration.

Why is he rushing?

Could it be that President Obama wants to ram some half-assed legislation through immediately because he fears that the newness of his tenure in office which affords him the good will and popularity may not be there a year and a half from now when mid-term elections take place and the effects of his leadership set in?

Is such a partisan rush responsible or rational? Is it sensible?

I am not suggesting that important issues get sat upon while Americans see health costs rise and feel increasingly insecure about the future of their current healthcare coverage. What I am suggesting is a careful, thoughtful, comprehensive and different approach be taken. I am offering an approach different from those which other Democrats in President Obama’s position have taken and failed at.

Perhaps a bipartisan approach can be attempted. And maybe, just maybe President Obama could try and initiate a plan that does not involve a government takeover and government run solution that overrules the founding principles of our democracy. We have had enough of that from him already.

A start would be understanding that one solution for all is not appropriate and that the federal government could and should allow states the regulatory and legislative flexibility that would enable and inspire them into action.

The Democrat leadership in Congress, under the direction of President Obama, needs to understand that the many regions and populations in America are so varied that their differing conditions warrant different approaches to the different needs of our divergent society. Another words, a federalist approach to healthcare will not work. Democrats may seek to insure healthcare for all but a one for all national policy will not suit the needs of all.

That is just one reason why the differing states should have the flexibility to formulate different systems, systems that best suit the needs of each state’s population.

Yet while there should not be another failed national attempt to make one policy fit all, one direct line does exist which can allow, as Dr. Henry J. Aaron of the Brookings institute puts it, federalism to “spur bipartisan action on the uninsured“.

Bipartisanship is the key to any enduring solution to reduce the number of American citizens lacking healthcare. Bipartisanship is the one component that every Democrat proposed, national healthcare, initiative from Roosevelt in 1938 to Hillary Clinton in 1994 lacked. Without bipartisanship only one approach is looked at and the pool of ideas is limited to one school of thought.

That limited scope of thinking will inevitably leave many stones unturned and lead to many failures as such a single minded policy is imposed on all the states’ people.

Arranging allowances and guidelines for state experimentation is the first area where bipartisanship can allow for a federalist approach on healthcare.

With federal legislative guidelines and financial support, state experimentation would produce a myriad of various solutions and in time the best solutions for each state will evolve into better and stronger healthcare availability options fore all states.

Dr. Stuart Butler, a devoted and learned expert on the issue contends that “ Congress could enact a policy toolbox of federal initiatives that states could include and federal funding to the states would be linked to success in reaching the goals.”

Another issue that collectively, all the parties that make up Congress can work together on when it comes to national action on healthcare, is portability.

Millions of Americans cannot keep their coverage when they change jobs and often they can not continue with the same coverage they have throughout their lives as changes in their lives occur. Federal action that would allow for the portability of health insurance would solve this problem and help to stabilize insurance markets, reduce costs and ultimately reduce the fluctuating number of uninsured in America.

Comprehensive immigration reform measures that secure our borders are yet another bipartisan effort that could inspire a federalist approach that will significantly help to lower healthcare costs.

If Democrats can understand that we are a sovereign nation with borders that mean something and realize that Republicans are not an anti-immigration party, maybe cooler heads could prevail and a secure border can be achieved.

As an “Open Arms-Secure Borders” Republican, I know that most in the G.O.P. understand the national and moral value of immigration and that we welcome immigrants. The difference is that unlike liberals we do not condone and promote illegal immigration. We do not wish to promulgate an underground society and culture of illegal immigrants who hide from the light of day and the law. If the left could grasp these facts perhaps they could embark on a bipartisan effort to secure our borders.

With secure borders the flow of the millions of illegal immigrants who overtax our already overburdened emergency healthcare services will be sharply reduced. Currently millions of undocumented, untraceable illegal immigrants find themselves in need of emergency health care and in the end, the costs for their medical attention is tacked on to the bill of every medical procedure that every American citizen undergoes.

These are but a few options to the one size fits all, socialist approach to healthcare that Democrats in the past and present have tried and are trying to inflict upon society.

Each time Democrats have attempted to take the lead on the issue of healthcare, they have refused to work along bipartisan lines. Roosevelt presented his own partisan plan, and so did other Democrats like Aime Forand and Hillary Clinton. History shows that these same partisan, socialist approaches have always failed. Now President Obama has asked Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to follow the same path that all of histories other failed federal healthcare initiatives took.

Pelosi and Reid are not discussing healthcare with their Republican counterparts. They are simply crafting a proposal together that will suit the desires of their major backers such as the N.E.A., C.W.A., AFL-CIO and UAW.

Left to their own partisan tendencies these liberal leaders are allowing an alphabet soup of special interests influence a national policy for all Americans. Facts are not the soul determining factor in their partisan proposal and neither is the Constitution of the United States. The one sided healthcare bill being thrown about in Congress today totally ignores the founding principles of our once and hopefully still great nation.

The current conduct and intentions of the liberal controlled federal government simply proves that history repeats itself.

So much so that the dated words of Time Magazine from 1960 can be applied to the contemporary plans of liberals in 2009. So much so that even the urgent warning about socialized medicine that Ronald Reagan gave 20 years before he became President still applies to approach to healthcare that Democrats are taking today.

Below is a video that I prepared which contains that warning. Look at it and listen to it.

Allow yourself to grasp the truth of his words and allow yourself to see how, in so many cases, America has already ignored Ronald Reagan’s warning. So much so, that I dare suggest that the degrees to which our nation has already adopted socialism would have The Gipper leading a second American revolution…..a revolution of restoration to life that Reagan warned we might someday be telling future generations all about as we describe how America once was when men where free.


Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics



Bookmark and Share    President Obama delivered a powerful speech that focused on bipartisanship and counted on the hope that the poor performance of the private sector over the past two years has forced people to have more faith in government and want more government action.

Undeniably well received, the speech was also undeniably expected.

President Obama believes that government is the answer to all our problems and although he made a point of stating that he does not believe in bigger government, he never backed away from more government control . In fact three extraordinary government based goals were punctuated in President Obama’s speech. One was for a government run universal health care project that is akin to LBJ’s expansion of social economic welfare in the 60’s.

Another lofty target laid out was the President’s cap and trade regulations on carbon. That well intended environmental goal will revolutionize our economy and produce some economic winners and many losers and, at best negligible, environmental results.

The final foray into change offered by President Obama was his initiatives which would put education in the domain of government and under its control from the elementary level through the college level.

However, in the Republican response to the President, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal reminded us that the strength in America’s future lays not in government but our people.

Acknowledging the fact that Washington must lead, Jindal made it clear that more money and power in the hands of Washington is not leadership.

Despite the trappings of Washington power and the deserved traditional pomp and circumstances of the Presidency, Governor Jindal presented his case under less impressive circumstances than the President, but his message was as resounding as the Presidents.

Governor Jindal addressed the need to stabilize housing markets, increase energy efficiency and the use of alternative energy sources, and the need to grow our economy. But his approach to those efforts did not rely on the government bureaucracy which has proven itself unable to effectively deliver services, monitor itself or act with speed and efficiency.

Having to follow President Obama in a response, Bobby Jindal faced a daunting task. He needed to deliver a response that could appropriately counter the President and although the grandiosity of his oration may not have met the emotional height of President Obama’s, the content did.

One speech relied on the collective will, determination and stamina of the people. The other relied on government replacing individual will, determination and stamina with a bureaucracy.

Jindal’s response was not made an easier by the fact that President Obama is undeniably one of our greatest contemporary political orators Any message that the President delivers is likely to strike a chord in the hearts and minds of citizens. Much the same way that Ronald Reagan did when he ruled the bully pulpit.

Both Obama and Reagan used the bully pulpit quite effectively. The difference between the two though, existed in content.

President Obama uses the bully pulpit to promote government as the key to the success of our people.

President Reagan used the bully pulpit to promote our people as the key to the success of our government.

President Obama sees government as the tool which people are empowered by while President Reagan saw people are the source to any power that the government is given.

It is a point noted when we look at the content of President Obama’s speech.

In it , government is the source of our success. Through incremental moves to socializing medicine, education and industry, under the leadership of President Obama, things will improve. In his speech, the source to a sustainable success is the bureaucracy which has proven itself to be slow, cumbersome, unruly, ineffective and inefficient. We are to believe that a government which can’t control itself or monitor itself is suppose to be the source of our wealth.

This is the same government that operates a postal service that is in the red, and has to increase rates while cutting services.

Yet, according to President Obama, government is the answer.

Bobby Jindal’s response to President Obama stated the opposite and although he lacked the suspense and emotion of the President, the content of his speech spoke to the fact that government bureaucracy holds no candle to the power of a free people. He spoke to the principles that our nation was founded on. The principles that we will have to someday struggle to recapture as we slowly move away from a people driven government to a government driven people.

In his address, governor Jindal stated that where Republicans agree with the President, we “must be his most ardent supporters.” With that I agree. However; I fear that that the President’s incremental adoption of the socialist policies that America has long fought against will provide little opportunity to demonstrate any ardent support.

Bookmark and Share


Governor Bobby Jindal’s Republican response to President Obama




What did Soviet Socialists use before they had candles?
Answer: electricity.




Leave a comment

Filed under politics