The Right to Fair Representation by Julie Ranson

This blog was created to examine the citizen’s place in our American republic, including our responsibilities and rights. Of late, we’ve been looking at our individual rights, so here’s another one. We have a right to fair representation in Washington DC. "A representative government [is] a government in which the will of the people will be an effective ingredient." (Jefferson, 1816) Yet imagine what they’ve been up to in just the past week!

1)Approved “activist” David Hamilton to 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Hamilton has a pretty clear leftist political record and was rated 'not qualified' by the ABA when President Clinton nominated him to the federal bench because his experience at that time was almost purely political, as opposed to legal and judicial. We need to read his decisions carefully to make definitive pronouncements, but it's clear that at least some of his work on the bench demonstrates his willingness to embrace judicial activism.
Here's the Roll call vote

2) Started to spin the Senate HealthCare bill. Yes! They are covering more people and saving money to boot. It’s a daggone miracle…. or sleight of hand, depending on your grasp of reality and basic logic. As my 17-year old daughter just asked, “If more than half of the country is against this, how can Washington vote for it?” Hmmmm, not a bad question from my Patrick-Henry-esque teenager.

Did you know:
 that the Senate bill begins to raise revenue (penalties and taxes) in 2010, but does not initiate the coverage provisions until 2014?
 that the Senate bill (like the House bill) offsets costs with “cuts” and “savings” that will never be enforced?
 that certain expensive healthcare changes have been removed from both bills because they cost too much? They are now in separate bills which will increase the deficit if passed because they cannot be paid for.
 that the Senate bill covers abortions?
 that the Senate bill will raise taxes by $370 B over ten years.
 that healthcare expenditures will rise, not go down as promised.
 that millions will lose their employer provided insurance under the proposed plans.
 that 8.5 million seniors will lose their Medicare Advantage coverage (and then be forced to buy AARP's cash cow of medi-gap insurance; hence, AARP’s endorsement)

3) Obama admits he is taking on unpopular actions, but that’s just because he cares about what HE THINKS is right for the country.

4) Another Treasury nominee has tax problems. Is it, like, a pre-requisite?

5) Senator Leahy pooh-pooh’s the need to interrogate bin Laden if he’s captured. Well, he’s just a common criminal anyway, right?

More Washington foolishness! Is it any wonder stock prices for poster board firms are climbing?

Tricking the People: Same ol’ Health-scare, but likely worse… by Julie Ranson

As is usually the case with thorny political issues, our government continues to change the terminology used in the healthcare debate. We’re no longer talking of healthcare reform, it’s now health insurance reform. It’s so much easier to demonize those greedy, mean, benefit-denying insurance companies. Since the insurance industry is the entity with which the liberal left so desperately wishes to “compete,” the Washington leadership has quit throwing doctors under the bus by accusing them of wantonly ordering tonsillectomies and foot amputations. It's the insurance company's turn to get beat up by politicians!
We do need to talk about healthcare and health insurance reform, but... with doors wide open, minds open, and fair debate about free market principles within the healthcare industry. Cries of “foul” have emanated in this lengthy fight because of the phrases like, “government takeover” and “government-run,” as the liberals vow they have no desire for a full-fledged government program (e.g., single-payer). But the facts remain that free-market principles are being flouted in favor of solutions prescribed and managed by the government, designed to move this country to a single-payer system in a decade or so.
The evolution of our insurance system from private industry to a government-payer system WILL come to pass should the public option (now called consumer option by N. Pelosi) be included in any reform legislation. Congressional liberals have been throwing the term “competition” around a lot, as though the government can function as a competitor in the health insurance field. You and I know it will not work out well for the insurers, right? Consider a basketball game where the players are insurance firms and the referee is the government. Now, what if the referee decides he also wants to play in the game? He’s calling the game, interpreting the rules, and making plays. If you were a player, you know exactly how angry you’d likely be at any given moment in that game, don’t you? It wouldn’t be fair and it would not be a real contest. David St. Clair describes how “competition” in rate setting will eliminate private insurers:

A government-based health insurer modeled after Medicare would possess Medicare’s distinct advantage over private insurance companies: the ability to use the power of the law to set rates of reimbursement to doctors, hospitals and other care providers. Private plans, in contrast, are forced to negotiate these rates. The significance of this disparity was captured in a study by Milliman, Inc., last December which revealed that private plans shouldered a $90 billion annual cost-shift from Medicare/Medicaid. A public plan’s ability to use the legal authority of the federal government to set whatever rates it chooses, as Medicare does, would effectively eliminate any chance private plans have to be competitive. Contrary to what the Times’ editorial states, this would indeed serve as a death knell for private insurers as we know them.

While we might not come to a conclusion about what is perfect in healthcare reform, clearly we can agree that the liberals in Washington have absolutely no idea how doctors work and how the free market works. It could be they don’t care much about the free market system that has brought us choice, opportunity, and prosperity. Regardless, a lack of understanding and a lack of appreciation for the system that makes America great are still shameful behaviors for elected officials.

Attempt to Deliver Petition to Washington, DC Derailed Part 1

Attempt to Deliver Heatlhcare Petitions to Senators in Washington, DC Derailed Part 2

Reclaiming Individual Rights by Julie Ranson

I’ve noticed a particular theme in the statements and signs of those so-called “right-wing extremists” (also known as, domestic terrorists, wingnuts, astroturf, among other pejoratives). Posters that declare “Hands Off My Healthcare,” “Socialism isn’t Cool,” and “No New Taxes” speak of the American’s understanding of freedom and individual rights. Our capitalist system is founded upon the individual’s right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” which translates a variety of ways within the American community – economic wealth and personal freedoms among them.

The website, Capitalism.org, describes the role of government in a capitalist society quite simply… and, please note, narrowly.

“A proper government's only responsibility is to protect the rights of the individual, by banning the initiation of force, thus making all relations between men peaceful, i.e., free from the threat of violence and fraud."

As James Madison said, “if men were angels, we would need no government.” So, how does a government protect these individual rights and promote a peaceful existence among men and women? It passes laws. It uses police and the courts to carry out this duty. An army is required to prevent us from foreign invasion. There ends the role of government in a capitalist society.

“In a free society each and every man lives under a rule of law, as opposed to a whim-ridden rule of men. It has only one purpose: to protect the rights of the smallest minority that has ever existed -- the individual……..(Emphasis added.)

Over many decades, while the citizenry “slept” as fat, dumb, and happy participants (i.e., greedy beneficiaries of wealthy-taxpayer bounty) in the ongoing dive into socialism, the government overstepped its constitutional bounds by regulating a variety of individual pursuits. Under the guise of protecting our safety and, in essence, saving us from our own stupidity, the government has passed myriad laws that intrude into our individual choice-making. In particular, the government has inserted itself into the family in significant ways. (Compulsory public education, mandated immunizations, the “Great Society” of the 1960s, child welfare laws, the list goes on). Most recently, a group of Michigan parents lost their children’s morning child care arrangements because state law regulates daycare. A kind neighbor volunteered to help out the working moms by watching their children prior to the school bus’ arrival. You know what they say….No good deed goes unpunished.

The Capitalism Site reminds us:

In a free society it is the actions of government -- and not the actions of citizens -- that are regulated.”(Emphasis added.)

Instead, government has become the regulator of individuals, groups, and businesses. This trend toward regulation has led to a variety of economic problems, for instance, economic unfairness (especially where “equality” and “fairness” have been promised by the government), and, of course, a political system whereby strong players are able to buy regulatory favors from politicians.

So, when individuals talk about “taking their country back,” they’re referring to these foundational freedoms. Yes, we’ve been lazy and ignorant, silent accomplices in the theft of our freedoms. We are no longer silent and we want our freedoms back.

(This is a first in a series of posts about individual rights/freedoms. The next post will focus on healthcare/insurance reform.)