The Healthcare Bill: Next Steps, Thoughts …
April 2, 2010
These are not darker times. These are ‘sterner times,’” so said Winston Churchill at the height of the Blitz. “These are the times in which a genius would want to live,” wrote Abigail Adams to her young son John Quincy who himself would go on to become President of these United States. “The habits of a vigorous mind are formed in contending with great difficulties.”
Ladies & Gentlemen, these are certainly sterner times. And we must work hard to keep them from becoming darker times. We can do better.
We must become the party of Optimism and Opportunity We must become the party of “a Better Idea.” We must become a party of leaders and of bright futures .
The recently passed healthcare bill, the so-called “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” is an abomination and tramples on the very constitution for which we have shed so much blood over the last 200 years. The 10th Amendment to our constitution – You know the Constitution, that document that established the longest-standing democratic republic in the history of the world, the one that put in place a system of government of the people, by the people and for the people, the one that made this country the subject of envy for every man, woman and child in the entire world. The place where even the most vile of anti-American demagogues come for their healthcare. You know that country?
Well, the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States is there even mention of “health care” nor is there any provision allowing the Federal Government to dictate to the people what they will purchase, from whom they will purchase or what they will pay for any purchase.
Our five basic principles of the Republican Party, our party, are:
- Lower Taxes
- Smaller Government
- Free Enterprise
- Individual freedom and personal responsibility
- Defend the Constitution of the United States.
Last Sunday, the United States Congress trampled on the Constitution of the United States with the passage of the so-called “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act;” and the President of the United States signed that unlawful bill. The irony of the title is incredible. The bill is NOT-Affordable but it is a NO-Choices power grab.
I will not spend time giving you chapter and verse of this bill’s attack on our constitutional rights nor do we need to dwell on its many failures. I would rather talk about where we go from here. What do we, what can we, do about this “Obama-nation!”
First, I am proud to tell you that the Republican Party in North Carolina is aggressively pursuing not only a challenge but also an alternative to this tyranny. Representative Thom Tillis, the House Republican Whip and a representative from the 98th District (just north of Charlotte) has set in motion a petition calling on the Governor and the Attorney General to join the legal challenge against the federal government. Thom is leading this effort. You can go on-line and read about it at www.thomtillis.com.
Additionally, the House Republican Caucus has unanimously endorsed the efforts of Commissioner of Labor Cherie Berry and Commissioner of Agriculture Steve Troxler in their efforts to call on Governor Perdue and the Attorney General to join the Attorneys General of our sister states of Florida, South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Louisiana, Alabama, Michigan, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Washington, Idaho and South Dakota in their legal challenge to the H.R. 3590 – Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Healthcare Reform).
On-going and open discussion and debate on matters as important as a policy that constitutes 1/6th of our economy is vital. We must work to remove provisions that could cause serious fiscal problems, including a deficit that will be left to our children and our children’s children to repay.
There are none among us that believe that we don’t need a fundamental reform in how health insurance is handled. It is our responsibility to view health care reform as a work in process, and the current health care bill needs a lot of work.
Regardless of one’s position on H.R. 3590, the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” which became law on Tuesday March 23, this federal mandate presents a significant number of legal and constitutional questions that must be answered fully and quickly before the nation attempts to implement this Act.
Let’s briefly review just some of the content of this bill:
- Young adults, that would be our kids, who purchase their own insurance will carry a heavier burden of medical costs for older citizens. This shift will likely raise insurance rates for young people when the plan takes full effect.
- We will all be required to buy health insurance or face a fine and/or a tax penalty or imprisonment.
- This higher costs will pinch people in their 20’s and 30’s who are struggling to get started in life, begin a family and a career.
- The feds will take a Half BILLION dollars out of Medicare to begin funding this program
- Young males will be hit the hardest because they actually have lower healthcare costs than young females. Plus since they go to the doctor less often their premiums will have to pay for us old farts who do go more often and use more medical services
- Each day we learn something new about this bill and how it is going to affect the average American. I guess Pelosi was right….we need to pass it to find out what’s in it…..well what’s in it is negative consequences for all of us
I could go on and on. But let’s consider what could have been done better and what proposals we need to champion.
- Make health insurance more competitive
- Be able to buy across state lines
- Be able to buy what you actually need and not have un-needed service imposed on you along with their un-needed charges
- Allow/encourage Medical Savings Accounts and expand their application.
- Deduct your MSA investment
- Pay from your MSA for medication, doctor’s visits
- Keep what you don’t use each year without a tax consequence
- Level the playing field for insurance companies and consumers within a state and across state lines
- Eliminate mandated coverages that do not apply, like pre & post-natal care regardless of gender
- Allow and even require individual states to regulate healthcare for targeted needs.
- Allow the states to set thresholds on coverage and on costs. Get the Federal Government out of our healthcare.
It is said that “politics is the art of compromise.” I reject that. We must NEVER compromise our principles, we must never accept “close enough or good enough” until it is right. And right is always enough.
Please go on line to sign the petition to: www.thomtillis.com. Let us begin now to forge a new beginning in truly affordable and responsible healthcare. Let us begin tonight to identify and work for new ideas, good ideas, affordable ideas. Let us work for:
- Lower Taxes
- Smaller Government
- Free Enterprise
- Individual freedom and personal responsibility
And Let us Work very very hard to:
Defend the Constitution of the United States.
/s/
D. Craig Horn
When Does Life Begin?
August 19, 2008
Pro-Life Federation of Michigan
Update :: August 19, 2008 :: Dr. Jerry Zandstra
When Does Life Begin?
The question was clear: “At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?” asked Pastor Rick Warren last Saturday night at Saddleback Church.
Obama is supposed to be deep, thoughtful, and careful. His Harvard law degree, in which he no doubt considered the matter of human rights, should have served him well. This would be the time for him to defend his pro-abortion position with a contemplative answer. After all, the lives of millions of babies may depend on how Barack Obama thinks of life and human rights.
His answer? “Well…, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6R317vqsM4
To date, more than 40 million innocent lives have been extinguished. At present, more than 40% of African American pregnancies end in an abortion.
Does this man stand for anything? How can it be that he has no thoughts on it? Trained at one of the top law schools in the nation and has nothing to say on the matter of human rights? Even pro-abortion people must have been stunned.
He either lacks the spine to say what his position truly is or he lacks the depth to consider such questions. Either way, he is simply not fit to be the person who will appoint two or three Supreme Court justices in the next four years.
Dr. Jerry Zandstra was a candidate for the United States Senate in 2006 and is the President of the Pro-Life Federation.
Hear Ye, Hear Ye Oh America
March 7, 2008
To The Editor and President Of The USA
Hear Ye, Hear Ye Oh America.
Wake up America. Our US Government is bankrupt and on the present course will, not maybe, but will collapse in a few short years unless there is real change. Real change means a total restructuring of monetary policy and government spending. Not one presidential candidate even mentions this as they promise change. It is impossible now to predict meeting future obligations and unfunded mandates such as medicare, medicaid, government pensions, debt repayment plus many more thus imminent government collapse any day now.
When our creditors, the foreign countries who buy our debt instruments, cease loaning us 2 billion dollars a day because they recognize our future inability to repay the debt, our credit card is maxed out. Then they can own us the next day without firing a shot and we are their servants. Proverbs 22:7 says that “a borrower is a servant to the lender” – how true that is.
President Reagan said that the solution is simple, but it is not easy. I suggest that our president appoint a small group of the most wise experts in the fields of economics, banking, business or other and commission them to produce in short order a plan of government restructuring that would reduce the debt to 0 in x years and mandatorily balance the budget thereafter.
Then a massive campaign would be required to educate the American people on the necessity of the plan and of applying enough pressure to our representatives in the US Congress to legislate the plan. By necessity, the legislators must be pressured by threat of job removal but is it not better for them to lose jobs than for us to keep losing ours.
I know! I know! This solution sounds easier said than done. I did not say that it would be easy. I said it would be simple, albeit painful for those now accustomed to enjoying the largesse of our government, particularly the politicians.
For the benefit of our children and generations to come, let us leave them a country that is great to live in like we lived in – free, sovereign, and not in slavery to foreign powers.
God save America.
Jack Oldham,
Wright Punished for Supporting Republican?
March 6, 2008
By Fern H. Shubert
As printed in The County Edge, March 7, 2008
Some days you have to laugh to keep from crying. I’ve finally found out why the Legislative Ethics Committee dismissed my complaint against Pryor Gibson. They do not believe telling a lie is unethical. It is just a procedural matter.
In 2006, Pryor Gibson wanted to introduce a bill that was not eligible for consideration unless he signed a document verifying that his bill had the unanimous support of the other representatives from the area affected by the bill. They did not support the bill. Gibson lied in writing and said they did in order to get a bill passed that could not have been introduced if he told the truth.
The bill was not an insignificant matter. It moved the date of the vote on the Monroe food tax from the general election in 2006 when Gibson was running for re-election to the lower turnout municipal election in 2007. It also granted ETJ to two towns, Wingate and Marshville, that had not even made a public request for it. The bill gave town officials the authority to decide the zoning for people who lived in the county and could not vote for or against them. It affected the property rights of hundreds of people.
When I challenged Gibson’s lie by filing a complaint, the Legislative Ethics Committee dismissed the complaint, saying “the complaint alleged conduct, that even if true, would not constitute an ethics violation, or alleged conduct, that even if true, would not be within the jurisdiction of the Committee.”
It was my understanding that since the fraud was committed in 2006, the committee dismissed the complaint because it did not believe it should go into events that happened before 2007 when the current law became effective. If they truly believed actions prior to 2007 were a closed book, so be it.
But if that was the standard, how could they ask the House to hold hearings designed to lead to the expulsion of Thomas Wright based on even older events? Mr. Wright and I were hardly friends . . . he was a friend of Jim Black and I was the only member of the 2001 House who never voted for Black . . .plus he was a Democrat and I’m a Republican, but the way he was being treated just didn’t make sense.
In my experience, far greater misdeeds than any alleged against Wright were normally ignored. While I did not see his treatment as racially motivated . . .after all, misuse of non-profits by several other black legislators didn’t result in expulsion attempts. . . the fact that my complaint against Gibson was dismissed because the event was pre-2007 while events even older were being used to justify Wright’s House ethics hearing just didn’t seem right.
I approached Wright’s attorney, Irv Joyner, at Wright’s court hearing last Thursday with some hesitation. I had no desire to be seen as defending illegal behavior and some reluctance to even be involved in something with so much negative press, but the double standard being applied in the legislature offended me. In addition to giving Joyner a copy of the dismissal of the complaint I filed against Gibson, I informed him of the November 2002 Carolina Journal article outlining several other ethical issues concerning Gibson.
If the committee didn’t have jurisdiction to deal with my complaint against Gibson, I didn’t understand how they could be dealing with far older issues with respect to Wright.
Moreover, the Carolina Journal article stated that Gibson had a non-profit that seemed far more dubious than Wright’s, but to the best of my knowledge, no one ever followed up on the questions raised by the Carolina Journal. Why the double standard?
I later learned that Wright had supported the Republican NC Senate candidate from Wilmington in 2006 rather than the Democrat, and suddenly the reason for the double standard seemed very obvious. The Democratic leadership of the House and Senate, plus the Governor, needed someone to toss to the wolves to divert the public from the bribery and gerrymandering that kept them in power, the sale of DOT board seats, the mental health malfeasance, and a litany of other misdeeds.
By going after Wright, the leaders could sell the public on how serious they are about ethics without actually doing anything to reform the system. At the same time, they could show other legislators how dangerous it would be to cross the party big wigs. A twofer!
In 1998, my opponent used last minute ads that misrepresented my vote against the 1997 budget in order to defeat me. He and Speaker Black later used what happened to me to threaten other legislators; vote as you’re told on the budget or we’ll do to you what we did to Shubert. In my case, the threat lost a lot of steam when I returned to the legislature in 2000, but I see some of the same motivation behind the hearings now being held.
Note, I see nothing wrong with a criminal prosecution of criminal misdeeds. I think we need a lot more legislative attention to ethics; but to hold hearings on Wright while ignoring far greater ethical lapses by other legislators is just plain wrong.
Speaking of wrong, according to an article in The Charlotte Observer (March 4, 2008), committee chairman Rick Glazier “said that Gibson’s and Wright’s cases are so different that any comparison is profoundly absurd. One involves legislative procedure, he said, and the other involves allegations of fraud and corruption.”
What is fraud? According to Wikipedia, “In the broadest sense, a fraud is a deception made for personal gain.” A lie in writing is certainly a deception, and there is no doubt that Gibson lied in writing for his personal benefit, to gain a political advantage he could not otherwise obtain. I didn’t just accuse Gibson of breaking a rule; I provided the evidence to prove he committed fraud on the people of
Mr. Gibson has tried to trick the House before to get a bill passed that would not pass without deception, but I exposed the trick in time and the bill was voted down. This time, the lie was told in a printed document, and even though it was exposed before the bill passed, the leaders of the legislature made the conscious decision to support Gibson’s dishonesty.
Gibson tells people he withdrew the bill when he learned the legislators he said supported it did not, but that’s another deception. Ask Gibson how the contents of the bill became law if he dropped the issue when he learned of their objection?
Gibson’s case involves the corruption not only of Gibson but of the leaders of the House and Senate. The fraud Gibson committed was embraced by the very people who are now eagerly condemning Wright for deceit.
I regret that Wright’s attorneys suggested Mr. Glazier is racially biased; I do not believe he is. But I understand why they came to that conclusion. Anyone unfamiliar with the history of the legislature, who is familiar with
People unfamiliar with the legislature would find it hard to believe that telling a lie to deceive the legislature into acting in a way it would not if it knew the truth is a mere procedural matter.
To people not tainted by “legislative ethics,” telling a lie to the legislature to subvert our very government is a far more significant ethical transgression than anything of which Representative Wright stands accused.
The explanation of the dismissal of the complaint against Gibson makes the phrase “legislative ethics” an oxymoron.
Coalition Will Continue To Press Jessica’s Law
January 21, 2008
The “coalition for Jessica’s law ‘has various rallies planned through-out North Carolina. The first rally in Weddington was very successful. Our goal is to educate the public on crimes being committed on children throughout North Carolina such as rape and molestation. We feel as though once the public is made aware of these horrendous crimes being committed on our children that in turn the public will demand passage of “Jessica’s Law For NC” which will require a mandatory sentence of 25 years to life in prison for people convicted of rape or molesting children under 13 years old as well as wearing a global position device for life if released after 25 years.
North Carolina is one of only a few states that has not signed into law any form of “Jessica’s Law.” You would think our state would be among the first since Jessica Lundsford was born in Gastonia.
This will be a challenge that our coalition will not give up on until this bill is signed into law. Although we have received many many letters of encouragement and support from all parts of North Carolina surprisingly not everyone is in favor of passage. I would like to share a letter we received from an individual who apparently just doesn’t get it. This letter is an example of what we face in our efforts, though I assure you we are strong and will not give up our efforts until all N.C. children are protected: Jeff, It was with interest I read your involvement with sex offender laws.
Before I go into my position on them, let me first tell you a little about my background. I am now retired from Law Enforcement after over 25 years in police work, I can now speak out.
I became very involved with the sex offender laws. As you may or may not know sex offenders have one of the lowest recidivism rates among all criminals. Also over 95 percent of sexual assaults and rapes are committed by someone who has no prior arrest record.
So that brings me to sex offender list, should we have them? Only if the law makers will require ALL known sex offenders to be tested (at the sex offender’s cost) to see how likely the sex offender is to re-offend. If those who write the laws are not willing to do that, then no we should not have sex offender list.
As we in law enforcement called these laws ‘feel good laws, they make the public feel good, but do nothing to protect the public.’ In many cases these laws have made the situation worse.
I suggest that you do some deep research as to why these laws are being written in the first place. For the most part those we have elected to office are using this issue to get the public to think that they are doing something to protect the public. The issue is have we protected anyone with these laws. The answer is no as they are written now. The time has come for people to stop being hard on crime, but instead be smart on crime. Sex offender laws were never intended to make it harder or more of a punishment on sex offenders. Thank you in advance for your time on this issue.
Tim P.
The realistic research shows, however, that if you release these individuals too early they will most certainty recommit or at the very least continue their dysfunctional fantasies.
JEFF GERBER
Unionville
Event Calendar
« Aug 
Oct » September 2010 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 EC
