How do I feel about the 2nd Amendment? I fully support it.

I believe law abiding citizens have the right to defend themselves and to me, one of the best ways to do that is the right to bear arms. Defending the Constitution is something that I firmly believe in and to me, it is the 2nd Amendment that is the key to guaranteeing all the other rights of the citizens.

Rugged individualism, independence and self sufficiency are a part of our American culture and I like that about us. Being able to defend yourself is a key ingredient. It is also something that sets us apart from other countries. Taking away the ability of Americans to defend themselves is un-American.

Here is a link to an ABC News: 20/20 story that furthers the discussion and confirms my belief in the value of the 2nd Amendment.

Like the rest of the Constitution, it is there for a purpose and I seek to defend it.

This week I took a break from the normal routine and instead, posted the refreshing words of one of our friends, the only democracy in the middle east. To me, this is leadership, and a much needed breath of fresh air. I spent a month in Israel a few years ago and was struck by the diversity of the population. My stereotype was broken when I saw that the Israeli Arabs were just as proud of their country as the Jews. Israel is a melting pot of people, proud of their democracy…and with their size and location, can not afford to lose a single battle. I will never forget getting on a bus to head up Mt Carmel and being surrounded by school girls with Uzi’s. I never felt safer.

Israel’s Prime Minister Netenyahu speech at the UN:

Mr. President,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Nearly 62 years ago, the United Nations recognized the right of the Jews, an ancient people 3,500 years-old, to a state of their own in their ancestral homeland.

I stand here today as the Prime Minister of Israel, the Jewish state, and I speak to you on behalf of my country and my people.

The United Nations was founded after the carnage of World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust. It was charged with preventing the recurrence of such horrendous events. Nothing has undermined that central mission more than the systematic assault on the truth.

Yesterday the President of Iran stood at this very podium, spewing his latest anti-Semitic rants. Just a few days earlier, he again claimed that the Holocaust is a lie.

Last month, I went to a villa in a suburb of Berlin called Wannsee. There, on January 20, 1942, after a hearty meal, senior Nazi officials met and decided how to exterminate the Jewish people. The detailed minutes of that meeting have been preserved by successive German governments.

Here is a copy of those minutes, in which the Nazis issued precise instructions on how to carry out the extermination of the Jews. Is this a lie?

A day before I was in Wannsee, I was given in Berlin the original construction plans for the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. Those plans are signed by Hitler’s deputy, Heinrich Himmler himself. Here is a copy of the plans for Auschwitz-Birkenau, where one million Jews were murdered. Is this too a lie?

This June, President Obama visited the Buchenwald concentration camp. Did President Obama pay tribute to a lie? And what of the Auschwitz survivors whose arms still bear the tattooed numbers branded on them by the Nazis? Are those tattoos a lie?

One-third of all Jews perished in the conflagration. Nearly every Jewish family was affected, including my own. My wife’s grandparents, her father’s two sisters and three brothers, and all the aunts, uncles and cousins were all murdered by the Nazis. Is that also a lie?

Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium. To those who refused to come here and to those who left this room in protest, I commend you. You stood up for moral clarity and you brought honor to your countries.

But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency?

A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies that the murder of six million Jews took place and pledges to wipe out the Jewish state. What a disgrace! What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations!

Perhaps some of you think that this man and his odious regime threaten only the Jews. You’re wrong. History has shown us time and again that what starts with attacks on the Jews eventually ends up engulfing many others.

This Iranian regime is fueled by an extreme fundamentalism that burst onto the world scene three decades ago after lying dormant for centuries.

In the past thirty years, this fanaticism has swept the globe with a murderous violence and cold-blooded impartiality in its choice of victims. It has callously slaughtered Moslems and Christians, Jews and Hindus, and many others. Though it is comprised of different offshoots, the adherents of this unforgiving creed seek to return humanity to medieval times. Wherever they can, they impose a backward regimented society where women, minorities, gays or anyone not deemed to be a true believer is brutally subjugated.

The struggle against this fanaticism does not pit faith against faith nor civilization against civilization. It pits civilization against barbarism, the 21st century against the 9th century, those who sanctify life against those who glorify death. The primitivism of the 9th century ought to be no match for the progress of the 21st century. The allure of freedom, the power of technology, the reach of communications should surely win the day.

Ultimately, the past cannot triumph over the future. And the future offers all nations magnificent bounties of hope. The pace of progress is growing exponentially. It took us centuries to get from the printing press to the telephone, decades to get from the telephone to the personal computer, and only a few years to get from the personal computer to the internet.

What seemed impossible a few years ago is already outdated, and we can scarcely fathom the changes that are yet to come.

We will crack the genetic code. We will cure the incurable. We will lengthen our lives. We will find a cheap alternative to fossil fuels and clean up the planet.

I am proud that my country Israel is at the forefront of these advances – by leading innovations in science and technology, medicine and biology, agriculture and water, energy and the environment. These innovations the world over offer humanity a sunlit future of unimagined promise.

But if the most primitive fanaticism can acquire the most deadly weapons, the march of history could be reversed for a time. And like the belated victory over the Nazis, the forces of progress and freedom will prevail only after a horrific toll of blood and fortune has been exacted from mankind.

That is why the greatest threat facing the world today is the marriage between religious fanaticism and the weapons of mass destruction, and the most urgent challenge facing this body is to prevent the tyrants of Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Are the member states of the United Nations up to that challenge? Will the international community confront a despotism that terrorizes its own people as they bravely stand up for freedom?

Will it take action against the dictators who stole an election in broad daylight and gunned down Iranian protesters who died in the streets choking in their own blood?

Will the international community thwart the world’s most pernicious sponsors and practitioners of terrorism?

Above all, will the international community stop the terrorist regime of Iran from developing atomic weapons, thereby endangering the peace of the entire world?

The people of Iran are courageously standing up to this regime. People of goodwill around the world stand with them, as do the thousands who have been protesting outside this hall. Will the United Nations stand by their side?

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The jury is still out on the United Nations, and recent signs are not encouraging.

Rather than condemning the terrorists and their Iranian patrons, some here have condemned their victims. That is exactly what a recent UN report on Gaza did, falsely equating the terrorists with those they targeted.

For eight long years, Hamas fired from Gaza thousands of missiles, mortars and rockets on nearby Israeli cities. Year after year, as these missiles were deliberately hurled at our civilians, not a single UN resolution was passed condemning those criminal attacks.

We heard nothing – absolutely nothing – from the UN Human Rights Council, a misnamed institution if there ever was one.

In 2005, hoping to advance peace, Israel unilaterally withdrew from every inch of Gaza. It dismantled 21 settlements and uprooted over 8,000 Israelis.

We didn’t get peace. Instead we got an Iranian backed terror base fifty miles from Tel Aviv. Life in Israeli towns and cities next to Gaza became a nightmare.

You see, the Hamas rocket attacks not only continued, they increased tenfold. Again, the UN was silent.

Finally, after eight years of this unremitting assault, Israel was finally forced to respond. But how should we have responded?

Well, there is only one example in history of thousands of rockets being fired on a country’s civilian population. It happened when the Nazis rocketed British cities during World War II.

During that war, the allies leveled German cities, causing hundreds of thousands of casualties. Israel chose to respond differently. Faced with an enemy committing a double war crime of firing on civilians while hiding behind civilians – Israel sought to conduct surgical strikes against the rocket launchers.

That was no easy task because the terrorists were firing missiles from homes and schools, using mosques as weapons depots and ferreting explosives in ambulances.

Israel, by contrast, tried to minimize casualties by urging Palestinian civilians to vacate the targeted areas. We dropped countless flyers over their homes, sent thousands of text messages and called thousands of cell phones asking people to leave.

Never has a country gone to such extraordinary lengths to remove the enemy’s civilian population from harm’s way. Yet faced with such a clear case of aggressor and victim, who did the UN Human Rights Council decide to condemn? Israel.

A democracy legitimately defending itself against terror is morally hanged, drawn and quartered, and given an unfair trial to boot.

By these twisted standards, the UN Human Rights Council would have dragged Roosevelt and Churchill to the dock as war criminals. What a perversion of truth! What a perversion of justice!

Delegates of the United Nations,

Will you accept this farce? Because if you do, the United Nations would revert to its darkest days, when the worst violators of human rights sat in judgment against the law-abiding democracies, when Zionism was equated with racism and when an automatic majority could declare that the earth is flat.

If this body does not reject this report, it would send a message to terrorists everywhere: Terror pays; if you launch your attacks from densely populated areas, you will win immunity.

And in condemning Israel, this body would also deal a mortal blow to peace. Here’s why. When Israel left Gaza, many hoped that the missile attacks would stop. Others believed that at the very least, Israel would have international legitimacy to exercise its right of self-defense.

What legitimacy? What self-defense?

The same UN that cheered Israel as it left Gaza and promised to back our right of self-defense now accuses us –my people, my country – of war crimes? And for what? For acting responsibly in self-defense. What a travesty!

Israel justly defended itself against terror. This biased and unjust report is a clear-cut test for all governments. Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists?

We must know the answer to that question now. Now and not later. Because if Israel is again asked to take more risks for peace, we must know today that you will stand with us tomorrow.

Only if we have the confidence that we can defend ourselves can we take further risks for peace.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

All of Israel wants peace. Any time an Arab leader genuinely wanted peace with us, we made peace. We made peace with Egypt led by Anwar Sadat. We made peace with Jordan led by King Hussein.

And if the Palestinians truly want peace, I and my government, and the people of Israel, will make peace. But we want a genuine peace, a defensible peace, a permanent peace.

In 1947, this body voted to establish two states for two peoples – a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews accepted that resolution. The Arabs rejected it. We ask the Palestinians to finally do what they have refused to do for 62 years: Say yes to a Jewish state.

Just as we are asked to recognize a nation-state for the Palestinian people, the Palestinians must be asked to recognize the nation state of the Jewish people. The Jewish people are not foreign conquerors in the Land of Israel. This is the land of our forefathers.

Inscribed on the walls outside this building is the great Biblical vision of peace: “Nation shall not lift up sword against nation. They shall learn war no more.” These words were spoken by the Jewish prophet Isaiah 2,800 years ago as he walked in my country, in my city – in the hills of Judea and in the streets of Jerusalem. We are not strangers to this land. It is our homeland.

As deeply connected as we are to this land, we recognize that the Palestinians also live there and want a home of their own. We want to live side by side with them, two free peoples living in peace, prosperity and dignity.

But we must have security. The Palestinians should have all the powers to govern themselves except those handful of powers that could endanger Israel.

That is why a Palestinian state must be effectively demilitarized. We don’t want another Gaza, another Iranian backed terror base abutting Jerusalem and perched on the hills a few kilometers from Tel Aviv.

We want peace.

I believe such a peace can be achieved. But only if we roll back the forces of terror, led by Iran, that seek to destroy peace, eliminate Israel and overthrow the world order.

The question facing the international community is whether it is prepared to confront those forces or accommodate them.

Over seventy years ago, Winston Churchill lamented what he called the “confirmed unteachability of mankind,” the unfortunate habit of civilized societies to sleep until danger nearly overtakes them.

Churchill bemoaned what he called the “want of foresight, the unwillingness to act when action will be simple and effective, the lack of clear thinking, the confusion of counsel until emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong.”

I speak here today in the hope that Churchill’s assessment of the “unteachability of mankind” is for once proven wrong.

I speak here today in the hope that we can learn from history — that we can prevent danger in time.

In the spirit of the timeless words spoken to Joshua over 3,000 years ago, let us be strong and of good courage. Let us confront this peril, secure our future and, God willing, forge an enduring peace for generations to come.

My greatest concern about our energy policy is that we buy oil from countries and people who we would otherwise never support. We put our money into Marxist dictatorships, and authoritarian regimes that not only do not share our values but actively support people and principles that go against the core values of the people of the United States. To me, this is a huge problem. Aside from indirectly supporting terrorism, our dependence on foreign oil allows our economy to be manipulated by foreign entities like OPEC. As we saw when gas prices hit $4 a gallon, market manipulation caused a ripple effect leaving people who were financially on the edge, unable to pay their bills. This caused hardship for not only them but the whole country.

Reducing dependence on foreign oil is a constant campaign theme, but have we really done anything meaningful in this regard? Not that I can tell, but I do have some ideas on reducing our dependence on foreign oil and I think this an area where I may be able to garner some bi-partisan support.

So far, wind power seems not to provide the return on investment needed in order to be a viable energy source. Ethanol, from corn, is also a diminishing return on investment, and ultimately is less efficient and dirtier to produce than normal fuel. Solar power is similar concerning the return on investment. But I am optimistic that as this industry and technology develops, the cost of producing solar energy for individual homeowners and businesses will drop, making it much more cost effective. I support investing in further development of this technology.
Coal energy is still viable and can be done in an environmentally responsible way with new technology and clean burning plants. I do not believe there is a good reason to kill this industry and the coal producing states, the way that I believe the Cap and Trade bill will. I would seek to repeal the Cap and Trade if it passes and put policy in place which encourages older coal plants to switch over to clean burning technology.

Some look at France as the shining example of reducing their “carbon footprint” per capita. What makes the French so good at this? Nuclear power. Because of the stigma associated in the United States surrounding nuclear power, many people are wary of it. I believe that the technology now exists to build nuclear power plants that are extremely safe and also are able to recycle their used fuel. Having spent a good portion of my naval career living on top of a nuclear power plant, I can tell you I trust this technology with my life. We need to start replacing our old power plants with clean burning nuclear power. By doing this, we would greatly reduce our need for oil.

Finally, I want to get us out from under the OPEC thumb. My proposal is two pronged. #1, allow oil drilling to take place wherever oil exists in the United States and surrounding waters. Companies already adhere to the highest environmental standards and I support that. I just want to make sure they can drill, and once done, leave the area in better condition than they found it. #2, as soon as the green light is given for domestic drilling, impose an initial $10 per barrel tariff on all crude oil that originates outside the North American continent. This money will be set aside to fund alternate energy research and education in order to develop new energy technology. Each year, the tariff on oil originating outside of the North American continent will be incrementally increased by an amount determined to minimize the impact to the economy while gradually forcing OPEC out of our market.

My goal would be to complete this process of completely pricing foreign oil out of our markets within 5 to 10 years.
Our dependence on foreign oil must stop, and this is my vision of how to make that happen. We must resist having our economy controlled directly by people who do not share our values.

I believe the people concerned about carbon emissions will favorably view this plan because it will significantly reduce the amount of carbon emissions as we transition to other forms of power. There will still be many companies competing for our energy needs and keeping prices controlled according to supply and demand. Also, because they will all be operating within North America, we can ensure attempted price fixing, OPEC style, becomes a thing of the past. Most importantly to me, within 10 years we will have weaned ourselves from foreign oil and be able to address foreign policy issues from a position of relative economic security. OPEC is one special interest group we can do without.

It’s time we did this… It won’t be easy, but as a country, it is time to resist.

My greatest Navy survival school lesson: I’d rather be hungry and free in the woods than have a full belly in a prison cell.

I look at it and say, what a waste. Make no mistake, I want to take care of people too but what I see is that she has taken money out of the pockets of the people who work for her and put it into people’s pockets she deems more needy. In essence, I see the redistribution of wealth.

What would I advise you say?

I would encourage Sarah to instead, take that budget and work hard with her people and create the best possible video. I would encourage excellence and to take the making of the video to new heights. I would want her to make the most popular video ever and generate obscene profits with it. I would celebrate her excellence as an artist. Then, I imagine she would still want to help the needy. I would encourage her to double or triple the amount of money she would have originally given. Everyone would win, and with the other videos that she has done, she has done just that. We really all have won. We get to watch her excellence, her people get to have jobs, and the needy still get help. It is not morally wrong and you should never feel bad about making a profit. It’s ok.

Think of the federal budget in a similar way. Liberals see that money as something they can distribute to the needy, like a pie. Take the ingredients from “the rich” and redistribute it to “the poor” so they can have pie too. Seems nice at first glance, but again, what a waste. By putting policies in place that can expand the economy, in essence, we are able to expand the size of the pie. Everyone benefits when that happens, especially “the poor”. By putting policies in place that will sap the economy, e.g. cap and trade, stimulus and now health care, we will create problems for “the poor” in the long run because there will be less jobs and what looks like high inflation to come. Inflation hurts “the poor” more than anyone else. I see creating more poor people who need welfare as a form of slavery in the 21st century. Making people dependant on the government saps their spirit and encourages them to be satisfied with mediocrity. On the other hand, it does create a huge voter block who will tend to vote to keep their handouts…(in this regard, FDR was brilliant).

What would I advise you say?

I want to expand the economy by supporting the people who create jobs and wealth. I believe that if we cut taxes on corporations and “the rich”, that money will be used to hire more people and create more wealth. I want to make this country a place where businesses run to, not from and forming a commission to work together with businesses to figure out what regulations we need to do away with. We need to figure out what we can do to help businesses, not how to fleece them. Again, everyone wins…except for those in government who want to expand their power over people.

We have examples from the past that prove that this works but first I have to ask, did the “New Deal” get us out of the depression? Did President Jimmy Carter’s economic ideas work? Contrary to revisionist history, absolutely not. I remember the words, stagflation, malaise and mediocrity used when I was a kid growing up watching the terrorists disrespect us and hold our hostages at the same time as well. It was an embarrassing moment in our history perpetrated by the liberals. What brought us out of those times? President Ronald Reagan. Terrorists knew he meant business and his economic policies created a bigger economic pie for sure.

How about those tax cuts put in place by President John F. Kennedy? President Ronald Reagan? Yes. It worked and stimulated some of the largest economic expansions in the history of the country.

We do need to stimulate the economy, but we need to do it by helping the people who create jobs and wealth, not by attacking them and preventing them from succeeding. Hand outs to ACORN are nice sounding to some, but they really don’t help the economy…

So, what I want is to help people achieve great things. I want Sarah McLachlan to make great videos, I want Warren Buffet to achieve obscene profits with his ventures, I want to see home runs hit in every way possible and I want to somehow support and encourage people to greatness. I don’t want to expand mediocrity.

If you really want to help someone in need, you first have to be able to take care of your own needs. If you can achieve a profit, then you can look out around you, and start finding and caring for those around you. It feels good to give time, money and resources to good causes. It does not feel good to have my money taken and given to causes I don’t support…and not only that, any time the government is involved; there is a huge overhead cost. It is very inefficient.

Once the economy is on the mend following tax cuts, I want to focus on cutting programs. My feeling is that federal welfare programs are too far removed from where the money actually goes. With every layer of bureaucracy, comes another fleecing of the money. I would support pushing that money down to the State or local level in order to let local people decide where it is needed most. I am suspicious of having both the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA. I think they can become one entity and be much more efficient. I am very suspicious of the Department of Energy and Education as they seem to not be doing the things they were formed to do. I have great heartburn with the National Endowment of the Arts as well, and would like to see some oversight and accounting go into that funding. Lastly, I am appalled at the runaway costs of Graduate Education and how we are fleecing our young college kids. Tuition and book prices are out of control and need to be looked at as well. Education is key to our future, so we have to make sure it is affordable.

Making a profit is a good thing and anyone who does should not be embarrassed about it. We should hold up those who achieve as examples of what can be done. I look up to people like Ken Griffey Jr. whacking his home runs, people like Sarah McLachlan making great music, people like Warren Buffet making great businesses, even Wall Street executives…I want to encourage these people to achieve new heights…not bind them in regulation and taxes…let them run…and they will expand our American pie.

If you want to know why we are a great country, it’s because of great individual efforts like these which had nothing to do with the expansion of the government.

We can turn the economic tide around, but it won’t be done with socialist policy. It will be done with great individual efforts and we need to help those individuals achieve wherever possible.

I had the opportunity to meet with all the people who were not let into David Wu’s town hall meeting in McMinnville, OR. It was a large crowd, mostly representing those concerned with the President’s proposed plan. I did manage to speak to people representing all sides of the issue, including an ex-anti-establishment holdover from the 1960’s whose beliefs now represent the autocracy in power now. It’s ironic to me that I am “anti-establishment” and he represents the core values of the “establishment”. Times certainly have changed. Anyhow, of all the crowd, his raised voice to me was the most hostile encounter of the day, so the “unruly, well dressed” masses were about as confrontational as a Sunday morning walking around the church parking lot.

The thing that got under this old hippy’s skin was when I mentioned the story about how the President told a lady that instead of replacing her heart valve, his plan would most likely just “give her a pill”. I also mentioned that the plan will have to determine what level of care will be given. In a universal plan, that means the government will decide who gets what level of treatment. I say, what right does the government have to decide who lives and dies? (Side thought: Will Rahm Emanuel threaten to hold back health care from people based on their support of the administration like he threatens with the “Stimulus” money?) Anyhow, this guy told me that the President never said that and I was just there scaring people. As you can see from the actual bill below…and the video of the President, this guy better get off the weed, out of the University classroom, and face reality. Here is the ABC News footage:

My brother Rich forwarded a very informative report, directly studying the proposed bill and I will post that here, along with some interesting comments from other random folks. As far as I can tell, the majority of us are right to be worried:

Rich Keller, American, sends:

We were talking and I thought it would be good to get into your hands a good summary of some key things actually written in the HC Bill, HR 3200. The bill is a tough read, although not so tough that any regular Joe the plumber couldn’t figure out. Feel free to correct your Congressmen when they say things like “you won’t lose your private insurance” (at least not right away), “the government won’t determine who lives and who dies” (aka Rationing), “Only those making more than 250k yr will see an increase in taxes” (yeah right).

Here’s the actual bill,

And here’s some summary discussion:

The Health Care Bill: What HR 3200, “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,” Says John David Lewis, American

August 6, 2009

What does the bill, HR 3200, short-titled “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,” actually say about major health care issues? I pose a few questions here in no particular order, citing relevant passages and offering a brief evaluation after each set of passages.

This bill is 1017 pages long. It is knee-deep in legalese and references to other federal regulations and laws. I have only touched pieces of the bill here. For instance, I have not considered the establishment of (1) “Health Choices Commissioner” (Section 141); (2) a “Health Insurance Exchange,” (Section 201), basically a government run insurance scheme to coordinate all insurance activity; (3) a Public Health Insurance Option (Section 221); and similar provisions.

This is the evaluation of someone who is neither a physician nor a legal professional. I am citizen, concerned about this bill’s effects on my freedom as an American. I would rather have used my time in other ways – but this is too important to ignore.

We may answer one question up front: How will the government pay for all this? Higher taxes, more borrowing, printing money, cutting payments, or rationing services-there are no other options. We will all pay for this, enrolled in the government “option” or not.

(All bold type within the text of the bill is added for emphasis.)

1. 1. WILL THE PLAN RATION MEDICAL CARE?

This is what the bill says, pages 284-288, SEC. 1151. REDUCING POTENTIALLY PREVENTABLE HOSPITAL READMISSIONS:

(ii) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN READMISSIONS.-For purposes of clause (i), with respect to a hospital, excess readmissions shall not include readmissions for an applicable condition for which there are fewer than a minimum number (as determined by the Secretary) of discharges for such applicable condition for the applicable period and such hospital.

and, under “Definitions”:

(A) APPLICABLE CONDITION.-The term ‘applicable condition’ means, subject to subparagraph (B), a condition or procedure selected by the Secretary…

and:

(E) READMISSION.-The term ‘readmission’ means, in the case of an individual who is discharged from an applicable hospital, the admission of the individual to the same or another applicable hospital within a time period specified by the Secretary from the date of such discharge.

and:

(6) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW.-There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869, section 1878, or otherwise of-…

(C) the measures of readmissions…

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. This section amends the Social Security Act.

2. The government has the power to determine what constitutes an “applicable [medical] condition.”

3. The government has the power to determine who is allowed readmission into a hospital.

4. This determination will be made by statistics: when enough people have been discharged for the same condition, an individual may be readmitted.

5. This is government rationing, pure, simple, and straight up.

6. There can be no judicial review of decisions made here. The Secretary is above the courts.

7. The plan also allows the government to prohibit hospitals from expanding without federal permission: page 317-318.

2. WILL THE PLAN PUNISH AMERICANS WHO TRY TO OPT OUT?

What the bill says, pages 167-168, section 401, TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE:

(a) TAX IMPOSED.-In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of-

(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over

(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer…”

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:

1. This section amends the Internal Revenue Code.

2. Anyone caught without acceptable coverage and not in the government plan will pay a special tax.

3. The IRS will be a major enforcement mechanism for the plan.

3. WHAT CONSTITUTES “ACCEPTABLE” COVERAGE?

Here is what the bill says, pages 26-30, SEC. 122, ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE DEFINED:

(a) IN GENERAL.-In this division, the term “essential benefits package” means health benefits coverage, consistent with standards adopted under section 124 to ensure the provision of quality health care and financial security . . .

(b) MINIMUM SERVICES TO BE COVERED.-The items and services described in this subsection are the following:

(1) Hospitalization.

(2) Outpatient hospital and outpatient clinic services . . .

(3) Professional services of physicians and other health professionals.

(4) Such services, equipment, and supplies incident to the services of a physician’s or a health professional’s delivery of care . . .

(5) Prescription drugs.

(6) Rehabilitative and habilitative services.

(7) Mental health and substance use disorder services.

(8) Preventive services . . .

(9) Maternity care.

(10) Well baby and well child care . . .

(c) REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO COST-SHARING AND MINIMUM ACTUARIAL VALUE . . .

(3) MINIMUM ACTUARIAL VALUE.-

(A) IN GENERAL.-The cost-sharing under the essential benefits package shall be designed to provide a level of coverage that is designed to provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to approximately 70 percent of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the reference benefits package described in subparagraph (B).

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. The bill defines “acceptable coverage” and leaves no room for choice in this regard.

2. By setting a minimum 70% actuarial value of benefits, the bill makes health plans in which individuals pay for routine services, but carry insurance only for catastrophic events, (such as Health Savings Accounts) illegal.

4. WILL THE PLAN DESTROY PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE?

Here is what it requires, for businesses with payrolls greater than $400,000 per year. (The bill uses “contribution” to refer to mandatory payments to the government plan.) Pages 149-150, SEC. 313, EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF COVERAGE

(a) IN GENERAL.-A contribution is made in accordance with this section with respect to an employee if such contribution is equal to an amount equal to 8 percent of the average wages paid by the employer during the period of enrollment (determined by taking into account all employees of the employer and in such manner as the Commissioner provides, including rules providing for the appropriate aggregation of related employers). Any such contribution-

(1) shall be paid to the Health Choices Commissioner for deposit into the Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund, and

(2) shall not be applied against the premium of the employee under the Exchange-participating health benefits plan in which the employee is enrolled.

(The bill then includes a sliding scale of payments for business with less than $400,000 in annual payroll.)

The Bill also reserves, for the government, the power to determine an acceptable benefits plan: page 24, SEC. 115. ENSURING ADEQUACY OF PROVIDER NETWORKS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.-A qualified health benefits plan that uses a provider network for items and services shall meet such standards respecting provider networks as the Commissioner may establish to assure the adequacy of such networks in ensuring enrollee access to such items and services and transparency in the cost-sharing differentials between in-network coverage and out-of-network coverage.

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. The bill does not prohibit a person from buying private insurance.

2. Small businesses-with say 8-10 employees-will either have to provide insurance to federal standards, or pay an 8% payroll tax. Business costs for health care are higher than this, especially considering administrative costs. Any competitive business that tries to stay with a private plan will face a payroll disadvantage against competitors who go with the government “option.”

3. The pressure for business owners to terminate the private plans will be enormous.

4. With employers ending plans, millions of Americans will lose their private coverage, and fewer companies will offer it.

5. The Commissioner (meaning, always, the bureaucrats) will determine whether a particular network of physicians, hospitals and insurance is acceptable.

6. With private insurance starved, many people enrolled in the government “option” will have no place else to go.

5. DOES THE PLAN TAX SUCCESSFUL AMERICANS MORE THAN OTHERS?

Here is what the bill says, pages 197-198, SEC. 441. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS

SEC. 59C. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.

(a) GENERAL RULE.-In the case of a taxpayer other than a corporation, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) a tax equal to-

(1) 1 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $350,000 but does not exceed $500,000,

(2) 1.5 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $500,000 but does not exceed $1,000,000, and

(3) 5.4 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $1,000,000.

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:

1. This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code.

2. Tax surcharges are levied on those with the highest incomes.

3. The plan manipulates the tax code to redistribute their wealth.

4. Successful business owners will bear the highest cost of this plan. To pay for this, they will have to cut costs elsewhere…and in most cases, that will mean cutting payroll.

6. 6. DOES THE PLAN ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO SET FEES FOR SERVICES?

What it says, page 124, Sec. 223, PAYMENT RATES FOR ITEMS AND SERVICES:

(d) CONSTRUCTION.-Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed as limiting the Secretary’s authority to correct for payments that are excessive or deficient, taking into account the provisions of section 221(a) and the amounts paid for similar health care providers and services under other Exchange-participating health benefits plans.

(e) CONSTRUCTION.-Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed as affecting the authority of the Secretary to establish payment rates, including payments to provide for the more efficient delivery of services, such as the initiatives provided for under section 224.

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. The government’s authority to set payments is basically unlimited.

2. The official will decide what constitutes “excessive,” “deficient,” and “efficient” payments and services.

7. WILL THE PLAN INCREASE THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS TO SCRUTINIZE OUR PRIVATE AFFAIRS?

What it says, pages 195-196, SEC. 431. DISCLOSURES TO CARRY OUT HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE SUBSIDIES.

(A) IN GENERAL.-The Secretary, upon written request from the Health Choices Commissioner or the head of a State-based health insurance exchange approved for operation under section 208 of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, shall disclose to officers and employees of the Health Choices Administration or such State-based health insurance exchange, as the case may be, return information of any taxpayer whose income is relevant in determining any affordability credit described in subtitle C of title II of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. Such return information shall be limited to-

(i) taxpayer identity information with respect to such taxpayer,

(ii) the filing status of such taxpayer,

(iii) the modified adjusted gross income of such taxpayer (as defined in section 59B(e)(5)),

(iv) the number of dependents of the taxpayer,

(v) such other information as is prescribed by the Secretary by regulation as might indicate whether the taxpayer is eligible for such affordability credits (and the amount thereof), and

(vi) the taxable year with respect to which the preceding information relates or, if applicable, the fact that such information is not available.

And, page 145, section 312, EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS EMPLOYEE AND DEPENDENT COVERAGE:

(3) PROVISION OF INFORMATION.-The employer provides the Health Choices Commissioner, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of the Treasury, as applicable, with such information as the Commissioner may require to ascertain compliance with the requirements of this section.

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:

1. This section amends the Internal Revenue Code

2. The bill opens up income tax return information to federal officials.

3. Any stated “limits” to such information are circumvented by item (v), which allows federal officials to decide what information is needed.

4. Employers are required to report whatever information the government says it needs to enforce the plan.

8. 8. DOES THE PLAN AUTOMATICALLY ENROLL AMERICANS IN THE GOVERNMENT PLAN?

What it says, page 102, Section 205, OUTREACH AND ENROLLMENT OF EXCHANGE-ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS AND EMPLOYERS IN EXCHANGE-PARTICIPATING HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN:

(3) AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT OF MEDICAID ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS INTO MEDICAID.-The Commissioner shall provide for a process under which an individual who is described in section 202(d)(3) and has not elected to enroll in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan is automatically enrolled under Medicaid.

And, page 145, section 312:

(4) AUTOENROLLMENT OF EMPLOYEES.-The employer provides for autoenrollment of the employee in accordance with subsection (c).

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. Do nothing and you are in.

2. Employers are responsible for automatically enrolling people who still work.

9. 9. DOES THE PLAN EXEMPT FEDERAL OFFICIALS FROM COURT REVIEW?

What it says, page 124, Section 223, PAYMENT RATES FOR ITEMS AND SERVICES:

(f) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW.-There shall be no administrative or judicial review of a payment rate or methodology established under this section or under section 224.

And, page 256, SEC. 1123. PAYMENTS FOR EFFICIENT AREAS.

(C) LIMITATION ON REVIEW.-There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869, 1878, or otherwise, respecting-

(i) the identification of a county or other area under subparagraph (A); or

(ii) the assignment of a postal ZIP Code to a county or other area under subparagraph (B).

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. Sec. 1123 amends the Social Security Act, to allow the Secretary to identify areas of the country that underutilize the government’s plan “based on per capita spending.”

2. Parts of the plan are set above the review of the courts.

Following Comments by: Michael Rask, American

I was thinking about the healthcare thing on my way to work this morning, here is the gist of my thoughts:

What is the problem with the healthcare system now? As far as I can tell there are two things at the root of it: 1. Decent healthcare costs a lot of money and thereby, 2. Some people cannot afford it and thus do not get it. So I suppose the real crisis is poverty.

I do get annoyed when the cost of my health insurance goes up a few bucks a week every year but for me and probably most of you there is no crisis or at least I am insulated from it to the point where I do not recognize the status quo as a crisis. I heard some survey results on the radio that said 85% of Americans surveyed were satisfied with their current healthcare – people who describe themselves as satisfied typically do not perceive a crisis. Because the real crisis is poverty though, it makes sense that most people don’t see the crisis.

The idea that cost for things like healthcare is rising quickly seems somewhat intuitive when I consider the ever increasing level of technology but perhaps there are ways to improve efficiency by changing the way the system is regulated, so, from that standpoint maybe there is a bit of a chance that the government could do something to help the situation.

Anyway, as I said a moment ago, I think the real crisis that the congress is trying to solve is poverty. Once you’ve reached this point the argument about whether or not the government can or should do anything to solve the “healthcare crisis” divides people along the philosophical lines of those who think the government should take care of all people and those who think that there should be a healthy combination of people taking care of themselves as well as others around them who are in need.

Some who take the first view are motivated by laziness while others are motivated by a secular idea of charity based in relativistic morality. Some who take the second view are motivated by selfishness while others are motivated by a notion of absolute truth. I admit this is a bit of an oversimplification and that peoples motives come from all over the map but I think it captures the essence of what is happening fairly well.

Following Comments by: Dewayne Ward, American

…they’ll watch these videos:

and instead of taking the time to actually read the bill and use their

own common sense to see what it says, they’ll watch the 1 minute clip

that tells them to go about their business. People are into short sound

bites instead of actually thinking through things. There is an old movie

called “they live” where the people where subconsciously being lulled

into a false sense of security by aliens. Interesting parallel. I need

to go find my “magic glasses” ha ha!!”

“I particularly enjoy the answer to rationing by Kavita Patel and Linda

Douglas’ propaganda.” – Rich Keller, American

Cuba native aims to educate about country

Article by: Amanda Shimko

Erasmo Pinero Jr. and his family fled Cuba when he was 15.

Music, food and culture – these are what the media like to report about Cuba, things one Cuban man says do not mean a thing to Cuban exiles.

Erasmo Pinero Jr. views Cuba as a hell that he was fortunate enough to escape 33 years ago, a place where books were rewritten and freedoms were squashed.

Pounding his fists loudly on the table, Pinero Jr., 47, said the real Cuba is ignored in this country.

“Media do not like to touch Cuba because it might erase the idealistic image that they have,” Pinero Jr. said. “They see it as a socialistic paradise, and it is not. It is a total hell for people living there.”

“You have to suffer, you have to feel it in your skin to be able to be a true spokesman of what happened,” Pinero Jr. said.

Cuba is not on anyone’s radar, he said, it is a quiet island, laying dormant waiting for Castro to die.

He said he wants to expose the truth behind the communistic veil as a person who has lived it and wants others to know what really happened.

“There’s a painful legacy of communism in Cuba that goes largely unreported every day,” Pinero Jr. said. “They talk about the Palestinians, they talk about the Holocaust. They talk about the Darfur events and things like that. But they never talk about Cuba suffering for the last 47 years under communism, and that’s a very big deal for a lot of people.”

Pinero Jr. said Americans need to pay more attention to Cuba.

“Cuba is an economic powerhouse for the U.S.,” Pinero Jr. said. “There is a huge potential for Cuba becoming the Hong Kong of Latin America.”

Pinero Jr. said people and the media do not want to hear the truth.

“There is a huge exile community in the U.S. that will tell them the truth and when they are confronted with the truth, they have to erase from their minds their idealistic and utopian view of Cuba that they have,” Pinero Jr. said. “They don’t want to face reality.”

The Journey To America

Pinero Jr., along with his parents, Liduvina and Erasmo Pinero Sr., and sister, Marisol Pinero, had been able to buy their freedom from the Cuban government in the form of a visa.

Pinero was 15 years old when he and his family fled Cuba for Spain in 1974, but the memories are clear.

“It was like paying ransom to get out of Cuba,” Pinero Jr. said.

The family moved to Spain for three years while they waited for their turn to enter the U.S.

“You could not fly directly to the United States,” Pinero Jr. said. “You had to get to a third country first.”

When they finally got to Tampa, Fla., Pinero Jr. was 17 and didn’t know English.

“Whenever you get to the U.S. the first priority is to get a job,” Pinero Jr. said. “And, normally, you get a job in the underground economy, in other words, an economy that doesn’t require you speak any English.”

Pinero Jr. entered high school where he was able to learn English quickly with the help of some bilingual friends and managed to obtain a job at a local hardware store.

Upon graduation, Pinero Jr. entered a two-year college in Tampa before proceeding on to The University of Florida where he graduated in 1984 with a degree in aeronautical engineering.

But 1984 was to be an even bigger year.

Pinero Jr. became a U.S. citizen and joined the U.S. Navy the same day in 1984.

“I became a U.S. citizen and walked across the street to join the U.S. Navy,” Pinero Jr. said. “I wanted to payback my freedom.”

Pinero Jr. served as a lieutenant in the Navy where he was a naval aviator.

During the seven years he served, he was able to travel the world with his newfound family.

“There is a strong camaraderie in the Navy,” Pinero Jr. said. “It is a very strong-knit community.”

Family Life

Pinero Jr. met his wife, Barbara Perez, through his family while he served.

“It was almost like a pre-arranged marriage,” Pinero Jr. said. “They bring the girl because they know that you are a good candidate, and my mother knows that she is a good candidate.”

While visiting his family on a leave of absence, the two were finally introduced.

“It was a very traditional courtship, mostly by letters,” Pinero Jr. said of his long distance relationship with his future wife, who is also a Cuban immigrant.

“All we could do was talk on the phone,” Barbara Pinero said. “We got to know each other much better, but we had very expensive phone bills for two years.”

Barbara Pinero was 12 years old when she emigrated from Cuba to Spain with her family in 1983 where she spent three years before entering the United States, she said.

They had similar backgrounds, Pinero Jr. said, and they held the same concerns and values.

The two got married Dec. 21, 1991. That same year Pinero Jr. was honorably discharged from the Navy.

The couple moved around Florida while Pinero Jr. held jobs at Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. and Pratt & Whitney, and his wife attended college to pursue a degree in economics.

In 2001, Pinero Jr. was transferred to Connecticut with Pratt & Whitney.

In July 2002, he accepted a job with Lockheed Martin and moved his family to Texas.

He has been at Lockheed Martin for five years working as a propulsion engineer.

He lives in Keller with his wife, 36, and their two sons, Leonardo, 10, and Luis, 8.

Pinero Jr. is very adamant about his children knowing the truth about Cuba.

“I want them to know the truth,” Pinero Jr. said. “I don’t want them to be indoctrinated by this left-leaning propaganda.”

Controversy has been looming around Cuba for some time as to whether Fidel Castro, 81, president of Cuba, is dead or alive.

Pinero Jr. doesn’t care.

“Whether Fidel Castro is alive or dead it doesn’t matter and the reason why is the damage is already done,” he said. “He affected millions of people, he affected Cuba forever and he destroyed Cuba from what it used to be, so it doesn’t matter anymore.”

He said the scenes of Cuban healthcare in Michael Moore’s “Sicko” are completely false.

“It’s a total farce,” Pinero Jr. said. “Medical healthcare in Cuba is a myth that the left in this country eats very well. They’re naive and they are gullible about that. It is a socialistic lie that doesn’t work; it never has worked.”

When those who know Pinero Jr. describe him, the first thing that comes to mind is his passion.

Brent Anderson, a co-worker who has known Pinero Jr. five years, describes him as very passionate.

“He has a great appreciation of what he has been given,” Anderson said.

Barbara Pinero said she agrees with Anderson’s description of her husband.

“He is very passionate about aviation and history – any kind of history,” Barbara Pinero said.

Pinero Jr. said he may one day visit Cuba again if the political atmosphere was to change, but he would never live there again.

“The United States is my country, my home, my only allegiance,” Pinero Jr. said.

Pinero Jr. may have been born in Cuba but he does not let that dictate his identity.

“I am an American, not Cuban-American,” Pinero Jr. said. “I don’t like to be called Cuban-American. I don’t like to be called Hispanic. I am an American. Period. And that’s what is important.”

I don’t think of myself as a Kiwi-American either. I’m proud that I was born in New Zealand, but The United States is my country and I love it. I am an American, period.

For political purposes, you often hear catch phrases which serve only to divide us. I walked into my living room a few weeks ago, and had just about every race represented by the neighborhood kids, all gathered around the Wii. They didn’t care about racial divide or discrimination…they cared about the skills that each brought to the game. It was just a bunch of kids playing, but they saw each other as individuals, and…they were color-blind in the racial sense.

It was the end of a long day for me as I stepped over and made my way through the living room. “Hi Dad”, I heard my son say as I was headed for the bedroom. I turned around, looked at the whole scene and I realized, this is what Martin Luther King spoke of, this was his dream. And here it is in my living room on display. I don’t think racism is gone by any stretch, what I am saying is, there is hope and hopefully these flashes of ‘colorblindedness’ can become more frequent, even among adults. We should do what we can to eliminate the divide between groups, and reach out to bring the groups together. When we are able to bring these groups together, and synergize the strengths, we make places like the flight deck of an aircraft carrier unbeatable world class teams. I have seen it with my own eyes.

So, whenever you hear speech where Americans are divided by hyphens, something-American, I challenge you to ask yourself: Why does that particular group need to be separated? What is the motivation behind separating them? Who benefits by putting one group up against another?

Same goes for class warfare. Who is “the rich” anyway? If you make $15 grand a year, the guy making $25 grand is “rich” right? Right now we hear that the definition of “rich” is those who make $450 grand or more, but I have also heard it defined as those who make $250 grand or more. I suspect, as we deplete “the rich”, that this defining number will continue to fall, until we are all “rich”. The point is, it is arbitrary and relative. When we say we will make the “rich” pay for something, be careful, because to someone out there, we are all rich. Similar to hyphens, this is divisive speech, pitting one group against another.

I challenge you to take the hyphens and class envy out of your speech. We are citizens of a great country, we are Americans, period. I believe the American Dream of being able to come to this country with nothing and make something for yourself with hard work is still alive and well. We can’t guarantee success, but the opportunity is certainly there, and that opportunity must be guarded.

Are you proud of your country? I hope so, I sure am.

- Barack Obama

“No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?”

- George Orwell, Animal Farm

I firmly believe that taking the money away from the people who create jobs will ruin our economy.   Am I the only one who cringes when liberals talk about redistributing wealth?  That is not what our country is about.

Our country is about opportunity and excellence through competition and we are world leaders because of that.  Socialism, marxism… we proved that didn’t work in the last century.  We called it the Soviet Union.  

Spreading the wealth…redistributing it…those are nice sounding words that seem to make sense in the academic world but in the real world, they serve only to promote class warfare, and to me, can not do the country any good.