Train Wreck

RomneyCare Inspires ObamaCare, But Not America

Via-Red State

Rick Santorum

...The 2012 election should be an opportunity for Americans to elect a President committed to ObamaCare’s repeal and replacement with sound free-market competition. But that is where this 2012 election has an unusual aspect. The original architect of the Democrats’ unpopular healthcare law is himself also running for president on the GOP ticket. Mitt Romney, one of the candidates in the race for the GOP nomination, authored and championed his own version of ObamaCare less than six years ago....

Video: 3 Reasons to end Obamacare before it begins

Via-Hot Air

Obamacare Undermines America's Founding Principles

Via-Townhall

Star Parker

...The challenge before the Court, a challenge it has often not lived up to, is to keep perspective that applying our constitution is not about splitting hairs about the meaning of words in order to further a personal agenda. It’s about applying, in good faith, the principles that define this country and assuring that our government operates in a fashion consistent with those principles.

There is no technical substitute for common sense. And clever men can always use words to overpower men not as clever to show anything they want. Cleverness should serve principle, not vice versa...

Why the Individual Mandate Is Inseparable from Obamacare

Via-American Interest

MARIO LOYOLA, RICHARD EPSTEIN & ILYA SHAPIRO

...In fact, implementing those other core provisions without the mandate is likely to result in a financial meltdown. The reason lies in the unyielding economics of health insurance, which the policy reforms at the heart of ACA sought to reshape...

...The ACA’s guaranteed issue provision does nothing to encourage healthy people to pay for “insurance”; on the contrary, it is a powerful incentive for people to wait until they are sick to buy it. That behavior leads to the “adverse selection spiral” under which people buy health care insurance only when they know it is worth more to them than what they pay for it. As healthy people leave the rolls, the per-unit cost of insuring the remaining (riskier) insured rises, which pushes premiums up, which in turn drives more healthy people off the rolls. In the end, the only people who enroll are those with known medical conditions, such that premiums approach the actual cost of health care, and the insurance industry collapses...

It is a matter of religious liberty

Via-JS On Line

By Timothy Dolan

..On Jan. 20, the Department of Health and Human Services announced a decision that would force practically all employers, including many religious institutions, to pay for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilizations and contraception. There was a miserly religious exemption, for the parish church, for example, but it provided no protections for institutions such as Catholic charities, hospitals and universities. The regulations struck at the heart of our fundamental right to serve those outside our faith community. The regulation also gives no consideration for the individual faithful in the marketplace.

People of every political persuasion and creed, or none at all, saw how wrongheaded this was. They came together and stood united against this attempt to deny or weaken the religious freedom upon which our country was founded.

On Feb. 10, the administration issued the final rules. By their very terms, the rules were reaffirmed "without change," despite the language of "accommodation" issued by the White House the same day, leading to more questions than answers. The mandate to provide the controversial services remains. The exceedingly narrow exemption for churches remains. Despite public outcry, all the threats to religious liberty posed by the initial rules remain.

Clearly the administration has attempted to reduce the free exercise of religion to a "privilege" arbitrarily granted by the government. The exemption is too narrowly defined because it does not exempt most nonprofit religious employers, the religiously affiliated insurer, the self-insured employer, the for-profit religious employer or other private businesses owned and operated by people who rightly object to paying for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization and contraception. And because it is instituted only by executive whim, even this unduly narrow exemption can be taken away easily...

HHS Expands Unconstitutional Birth Control Mandate

Via-Townhall

by Guy Benson

...Not only must all universities now provide insurance plans that cover "free" birth control to their employees, they are also required to do the same for students. Perhaps we should call this latest maneuver 'the Sandra Fluke provision.' Note how Kathleen Sebelius goes out of her way to advance the specious argument that the White House's "accommodation" for religious employers provides a meaningful escape hatch from the policy. It does not. Religious employers and institutions are still forced to pay for insurance packages that must cover birth control at no charge. The US Catholic Bishops aren't fooled by this clumsy attempt at misdirection and remain dead-set against the mandate and its phony religious liberty "protections:"...

MSM IGNORES OBAMA'S FRIDAY HHS MANDATE EXPANSION

Via-Big Journalism

by DANA LOESCH

...It is absolutely a mandate to abridge conscientious objection by way of the First Amendment right to freely practice faith. It doesn't "protect religious liberty" simply because Sebelius says it does; especially when the financial reality undercuts such a preposterous argument. The media blackout only assists by providing cover.

Playing

It is amazing to me how out of touch the government is with the people of this country. I honestly believe that they are like a bunch of kids with a chemistry kit, they just have to play with it regardless if they are making anything meaningful or not, even at the risk of blowing up the house. Consider this paragraph from Rasmussen today:

Perhaps the most stunning aspect of the numbers is how stable they have been through months of debate, town hall protests, presidential speeches, congressional wrangling, and more. With the exception of bounces following nationally televised presidential pitches for the plan, support has stayed between 41% and 46% since July. In all cases, the intensity has been with the opposition as the number who Strongly Oppose the bill has remained nearly double the number who Strongly Support it. Rasmussen Reports is tracking support for the plan on a weekly basis.

It is obvious that the American people are not buying this. Rather than reset and try to do something that would gain support, they accuse the public of being uninformed and continue to play around with it like the fate of the nation depends on it. The truth is the fate of the nation depends on them not doing it, at least the way they are going about it. But they are so obsessed with their power to fiddle with society they can not help themselves.

Letter to Senator

Letter I sent to Senator Bill Nelson of Florida


I ask that you vote against the health care bill currently in the Finance Committee. Based upon your previous disregard of wishes of the majority of your constituents and the Constitution of the United States I doubt this but hope and change springs eternal.

When it Comes to Small Business, Obama Just Doesn’t Get It

from Pajama Media


Just when I thought President Obama couldn’t be any more out of touch with small business, his weekly radio address last weekend made me wish Ronald Reagan was around to say “there you go again” with a chuckle. The president’s misunderstanding of America’s entrepreneurs, from what makes them tick to what would really work for them on health care, is laughably profound.

It’s hard to laugh, however, at something so serious. Small businesses do need help when it comes to health insurance, and they are the most important job-creating sector of our economy. And the president paid lip service to these facts in his recent radio address, but his ideas about how his proposals might help small business and the economy are like public policy on acid — from mildly distorted to downright hallucinogenic.

President Obama says he hears from would-be entrepreneurs that losing the health insurance they get through their current jobs is a significant disincentive for them when they think about starting a business. And that some kind of guarantee on health care would encourage all of these people to start companies and create jobs! As a self-employed person who grew up in a small business family, this theory had me literally spit out my coffee. Although obtaining my own health insurance was a serious matter, it was about number 99 on my list of pros and cons surrounding my decision to leave my job and start my own enterprise. I called my father, another entrepreneur, for his reaction to the president’s claim. Dad started his land-surveying business 25 years ago when he was laid off from his job (a fairly common story among real small-business owners). He and his partners all took out second mortgages on their homes to start their business. Was it a struggle to start a business and buy health insurance for themselves and their families? Sure. Was it enough to sway their decision? No.

My father and I both had the same one-word reaction to the president’s perception of entrepreneurial motivation: bull.

If someone wants to be an entrepreneur, if they have that hunger for being their own boss and a passion for doing things their way, they will do it. If the issue of giving up their cushy employer-provided health insurance holds an individual back, then I’m sorry — that person is not entrepreneur material.

The president also mentioned other “small business owners” who apparently tell him that the cost of health insurance is an impediment to growth and to their “research and development” budgets. In the same breath, he said, “these businesses are the mom and pop stores and restaurants, beauty shops, and construction companies that support families and sustain communities.” Adding to the confusion, he said that these business owners are “the small startups with big ideas, hoping to be the next Google, or Apple, or HP.”

Come again?

Research and development is the stuff of high-tech firms, and only five percent of the nearly 30 million small businesses in the country fall into that category. Maybe some of these firms are hoping to be the next Google, Apple, or HP, but they only represent a few threads in the small business quilt. Retail shops, restaurants, and beauty shops — these types of business certainly do not conduct research and development, and they rarely are able to provide health benefits because their cash flow goes toward giving people jobs, period.

American entrepreneurs are nearly fearless risk-takers. They have big hearts, callused hands, and dark circles under their eyes — and that’s the way they like it. They are realists who almost never dream of being “the next Google.” That statement would make them laugh. Would American entrepreneurs like to be able to get health insurance at a more affordable price? You bet, but health insurance didn’t have a darned thing to do with why they stand where they are today.

Please, Mr. President. Go out and meet some real small business owners.

Contact Olympia Snowe

Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion: Contact Olympia Snowe

by William A. Jacobson
You can find an e-mail submission form for Maine Senator Olympia Snowe by clicking here.

Snowe is the key vote on the Senate Finance Committee because she is the only Republican on the Committee who might vote in favor of the non-Bill markup language. If Snowe votes in favor, it will give political cover to moderate Democrats, both on the Committee and generally.

So please contact Senator Snowe. Be polite. Here is the message I submitted:

Dear Senator Snowe,

Please vote No on the Senate Finance Committee health care mark-up. There is no legislative language, and I feel it is wrong for a Senator to vote on mere concepts, not legislation, on such an important subject. Additionally, the CBO estimate makes clear that many of the financial assumptions are not realistic and may never be implemented, leading the seemingly deficit-neutral scoring to result in huge deficits.

Thank you for your consideration, and please vote No.
Just do it. It only takes a few minutes, and it could make a difference.