This was emailed to me---just when I figured I was going to kick the depression of watching the political arena. What do you think about this? (I cut and paste this from my email with no editing.)
It's Not An Option
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, July 15, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Congress: It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.
When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.
It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:
"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.
So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.
From the beginning, opponents of the public option plan have warned that if the government gets into the business of offering subsidized health insurance coverage, the private insurance market will wither. Drawn by a public option that will be 30% to 40% cheaper than their current premiums because taxpayers will be funding it, employers will gladly scrap their private plans and go with Washington's coverage.
The nonpartisan Lewin Group estimated in April that 120 million or more Americans could lose their group coverage at work and end up in such a program. That would leave private carriers with 50 million or fewer customers. This could cause the market to, as Lewin Vice President John Sheils put it, "fizzle out altogether."
What wasn't known until now is that the bill itself will kill the market for private individual coverage by not letting any new policies be written after the public option becomes law.
The legislation is also likely to finish off health savings accounts, a goal that Democrats have had for years. They want to crush that alternative because nothing gives individuals more control over their medical care, and the government less, than HSAs.
With HSAs out of the way, a key obstacle to the left's expansion of the welfare state will be removed.
The public option won't be an option for many, but rather a mandate for buying government care. A free people should be outraged at this advance of soft tyranny.
Washington does not have the constitutional or moral authority to outlaw private markets in which parties voluntarily participate. It shouldn't be killing business opportunities, or limiting choices, or legislating major changes in Americans' lives.
It took just 16 pages of reading to find this naked attempt by the political powers to increase their reach. It's scary to think how many more breaches of liberty we'll come across in the final 1,002.
------------
The only way to really solve the problem is to give a pink slip to all compromised politicians (who vote without reading the bills) and replace them with men that believe in the constitution and will protect our rights.
Doug Olinger in a blog says,
I believe The Independence Caucus, originated in Utah, has correctly identified the root cause of failure for all efforts of conventional attempts to stop and rectify the decimation of The Constitution -- over the past 100 years!
The Independence Caucus is committed to removing compromised incumbents from office and replacing them with good men and women who agree with our principles. -- principles spelled out in videos at www.icaucus.org.
While it is absolutely necessary that we put out the fires that are symptoms of our decimated Constitution, it only stands to reason that, as with any disease or other malady, if you only treat the symptoms, said malady will keep coming back or, even worse, continue to grow and thereby infect the host that much more, perhaps even to the death of the host. We see this affect in our precious, dying Constitution.
Please, go to www.icaucus.org, and watch the videos. It is a long read, there are 12 of them. But, I am certain, after you watch them, you will see the reason conventional protest methods do not work.
I just got a letter from the school district which has me really upset. Here is the beginning of it. See if you can find the irony. I’ve tried to help by italicizing the important parts. They were not italicized in the letter.
Missouri law requires that all children show proof of adequate immunizations. According to our records your child will NEED the following immunization(s) to be in compliance.
VARICELLA
Although not required for school entry/participation, Menactra, Gardasil, and Varicella (Chickenpox shot) are currently recommended for children of middle and high school age. Please see enclosed information sheets for further information.
According to State law, your child cannot enroll, pick up schedules, or attend school unless properly immunized. Students will be excluded from school August 25, 2009 unless proof of adequate immunization is presented to the school.
And the most convincing argument any health care worker has given me for the shot? Parents have to miss too much work if their kids get chicken pox. The threat of complications is very low—although the numbers (9,000 hospitalized annually with 90 deaths) look big until you realize that 3.5 million kids used to get chicken pox every year. Oh, and don’t forget the booster shot because they have found one shot isn’t good enough. Wonder what the next 10 years will bring? Another stronger booster shot?
My biggest question, however, is how many people notice the dichotomy between the “requirement” and state law? Or is that the kind of education the state-run institution is giving now—to forget the previous paragraph instantly? Or simply not understand what it said?
Unfortunately, at some point I will probably have to cave in and make sure my daughter has the blasted immunization because catching chicken pox as an adult is highly dangerous. Her odds of getting it as a child are not very good since many, if not most, states are requiring it. Is chicken pox uncomfortable? I don't think anyone who has ever had it would deny that and most probably remember it, but I don't think it's anywhere near the same level as measles or scarlet fever.
In the meantime, I guess that means we will opt out of participating even part-time with the governmentally-controlled schools. Shucky darn. We are, however, participating with a huge co-op (350 students). I am so excited I can hardly sit still!
----------------------------------------
Then there is this whole health care business. If "they" would kindly leave freedom of choice in it, I'd be okay with it all. Not really, but resigned, but my biggest problem with it is that we have made a conscious (and financially necessary) choice to opt out of it. Good ol' big brother would remove that option and make sure we either paid for it or get penalized (since we aren't in the poverty bracket for which I'm eternally grateful) for not paying for it. Given that the highest bill we have ever had to handle is $1000 in a year, the $7,000 a year insurance just doesn't seem worth it. (My husband is covered since he is the breadwinner of the family.) I guess "choice" is only associated with the right to have an abortion. Right, Rep. Claire McCaskill?