There may be hope

With the Senate taking a test vote to kill our medical industry last night I decided to see what the opposition to my non-representing representative had to say about it. When I visited his site on facebook, I noticed that there was a link to an article published in the WestLinn Tiddings dated November 12, 2009. In this article, both Kurt Schrader (D) and Scott Bruun (R) were interviewed. Mr. Schrader espoused his flawed ideology about how socialized medicine would keep costs down and wouldn't allow the health insurance companies deny anyone because of preexisting conditions. The two points are contradictory unless the ultimate goal is to push all private health insurance companies out of business.

Mr. Bruun's view of the House's version of socialized medicine is vastly different and would be a more hands off approach to the issue. Mr. Bruun used some language that is a little disturbing like "bi-partisan" and "tax incentives." Some language was right on such as "reducing the Medicare/Medicaid cost shift onto private insurance" and "allowing for purchase of private insurance across state lines" and "fixing our tort system to reduce costs related to defensive medicine."

I know that Medicare and Medicaid are black holes when it comes to government spending. The federal government has to cut Medicaid completely. First they do not have the authority to run or manage this monstrosity. Medicaid, if it were to remain, falls under the ninth and tenth amendments and therefore fall under the individual States to run if they decide to have this program. Medicare is a completely different situation altogether. Those that are receiving Medicare benefits were promised that this program would be there when they reached a certain age. For those who are receiving those benefits or are about to receive the benefits, they must keep them. The federal government needs to impose a cutoff. Those who were born before the cutoff have to rely on either themselves or their State to pay for their medical costs when they get to retirement age. Those who were born after the cutoff have the option to receive Medicare when they reach the age where they are able to receive them or they may choose to opt out.

As for Scott's comment about buying health insurance across state lines, this is the first politician from the left coast, that I have heard or read, who has uttered those words. For that I must applaud him. I can't say who I will support for Oregon's fifth congressional district. I can say with certainty that it will not be Mr. Schrader, he is too liberal. As for Scott Bruun, only time will tell if I put my hat in the ring for him or someone else that is running for that seat. As of now, I can say that Mr. Bruun's stock with me is rising.

Physician Assistants Gone Wild

Imagine that you're at your doctor's office and the physician assistant comes in and asks if you are a gun owner. Think this won't happen? Think again. In the past, various medical associations have weighed in on the subject of firearm ownership. The latest offender is the physicians assistants in the article titled, "Ready, Fire, Aim" written by Sarah Zarbock. I heard of this article when I was listening to Cam and Company the other night; Cam and Company can be heard M-F 9pm ET to 12am ET on www.nranews.com or on Sirius Patriot 144.

First let me ask the first question that came to my mind, "How is it any of their business whether or not I own a firearm?" This question is pointed at anyone in the medical field, my employer or prospective employer, my religious leaders, the government, or any number of people. For this post, however, I will focus on the medical community and more specifically, physician assistants.

Ms. Zarbock starts off with the usual suspects of emotional arguments why owning a firearm is bad, starting with the child that "plays with a loaded handgun" that was discovered and within its reach. The next ones are just as predictable; the homeowner that loses their handgun in a struggle with an invader and the depressed "gun-owning college student." The last example that is used, is actually a reason to own a firearm, the last example given is a female opening her door only to find her ex on the other side with a rifle even though there's a restraining order barring him from being near her. This shows that a piece of paper can't stop someone from doing harm if they really want to.

Ms. Zarbock claims that she isn't writing an editorial on gun control but is focusing on gun safety. She states, "Where I think most of us can agree is that we have an obligation as health professionals to discuss gun safety with patients."(Emphasis added). How is it that gun safety falls under the purview of a medical professional when they are operating in the role of a medical professional? What type of training do they have that qualifies them to offer unsolicited advice about gun safety? Has a qualified person trained them? Isn't this a type of conversation better left to someone you know and not a stranger?

Putting these questions aside and returning to the article, she turns to statistics. When I start seeing statistics I hear Mark Twain in the back of my mind saying, "There are three kinds of lies in the world; lies, damned lies, and statistics." She quotes a study published in the Journal of Community Health in 1997. The study stated, "that 1 in 7 patients had a gun in their house. About half of the patients with guns reported storing them unlocked, and more than half had not talked to their children about gun safety." Are all of these "patients" legal gun owners? In regards to those who haven't "talked to their children about gun safety," there may be some reasons that they haven't done so. First, if they are part of the criminal element they may not care much about teaching gun safety to their kid. Barring that reason, the children may not be old enough to learn about gun safety. Some people choose to wait to teach gun safety and some don't do it at all. Teaching gun safety to your kids is a good thing to do especially if you own one but that is your choice. The study goes on to say that half of the patients think that the doctors should "counsel about gun safety... [t]wo-thirds of the doctors said that they were not trained in or comfortable with counseling on gun safety." For those who think their medical professional should counsel the on firearm safety, I would ask them if they would ask their plumber how to operate a car safely? Notice that the study claims that the majority of doctors say they aren't trained in counseling patients on firearm safety. Leave the teaching to those who know. If a patient needs advice, point them to the local gun range, NRA or state association, or a gun store.

Ms. Zarbock closes her article with, "Asking patients about gun ownership and safety should be as automatic as asking them whether they smoke or how much alcohol they drink." Comparing tobacco use and alcohol consumption with owning a firearm are as different as night and day. She dose impart her words of wisdom in the following list.

1. Remove guns from your home, or keep them unloaded and locked up, with ammunition stored separately.
2. Treat guns as if they were loaded and ready to fire.
3. Do not allow children access to guns.

Removing firearms from your home is the top of the list? It appears that as a side thought she concedes that there will be some who will refuse to get rid of their guns, so for them, they should keep them locked and unloaded but make sure you don't have the ammunition near the gun. The second piece of advise should be the first on the list and is probably the only part of her article that is valid.

For those who would like to know how to act around any firearm, I will impart on you some advice. First, I would suggest you visit www.nra.org, search for your state association for contact information. Another way to get good information is to visit any place that sells firearms, it could be a gun store or a sporting goods store, talk to someone behind the gun counter for help. I have never men anyone in these places who wouldn't help answer any questions you may have. If there are any customers around, they may help out too. My advice on firearm safety is as follows:

1. Treat every firearm as if it were loaded. In doing this, you will not point it in an unsafe direction or handle it in an unsafe manner.
2. Do not point the firearm at anything you do not intend to shoot. Be aware of where the muzzle is pointing.
3. Keep your finger straight and off the trigger until you are ready to shoot. There is less chance that the trigger will be pulled when nothing is touching it.
4. Keep the firearm on safe until you are ready to fire. Not all firearms have safeties. Even if they do have one, they are mechanical and should not be trusted. This is the last check to keep you and everyone around you safe. If you live by the first three, this last rule is a failsafe.

Ther are valid reasons for going to see a medical professional; firearm safety is not one of them. Again, it is none of their business whether or not you own a firearm for now. If universal medicine is implemented in the United States, these questions may be standard and under a government bureaucracy, you could be required to answer them or risk being denied. Think this is a little far fetched? Patrick Henry, George Mason, and many others predicted that the Constitution would lead to this type of overreaching government.

Health insurance

There has been a lot of talk this last year about "health care reform." This phrase is misleading at best. What is really meant is a "reform" of the health insurance industry due to "high profits" and "outrageous premiums." In one of the bills that is being debated, there would be a provision that if you do not buy health insurance, you will be fined by the government. This power grab by our 535 elected nitwits and the President is completely unconstitutional but why should that stop them now. There may be some that will claim they have the power using the Commerce Clause or the Welfare Clause. By using either one of these "clauses," those who use them are trying to revise the Constitution to mean what they want after the fact. The "Commerce Clause" says "among" the States not within the States. The "Welfare Clause" says "promote the general welfare" not provide the general welfare.

With the Congress and President thinking they can take more and more power "to help the people" and "help the economy," when do we say enough is enough. When do we take a stand and tell them, "Stop." When do we draw a line in the sand and tell them, "This is a line you may not cross."

If we are required to have health insurance or pay a fine, I will drop my health insurance and if they try to fine me I will take it to court. I will not settle for a plea bargain. I will not back down. How many of us are willing to put up with more government intrusion allowing our liberties to be eroded in the name or progress or compassion? If you're willing to allow this government intrusion, when do you take a stand? Is there any point that you can't cross? When will you tell the government to back off? At that point, will there be anyone else to stand with you or are you going to be standing alone?

"Those who would give up a little liberty for security deserve neither."
"The government which is benevolent enough to give you everything is big enough to take everything from you."

President vs. Congress

Everyone thinks that the office of the President of the United States is one of enormous power but that is not so. What power does the President really have. In Article II of the Constitution section 2 it spells out the power that the President. Besides being the commander-in-chief of the military, the power to pardon for "Offenses against the United States, and the power to fill positions that were vacated when Congress is in recess; Presidential power is tied directly into Congress. He can appoint cabinet members, judges, and ambassadors but the Senate has to confirm the appointment. When it comes to treaties, the President can make treaties but Congress must pass it in order for it to be legally binding. The President can suggest legislation but Congress must pass it. The one thing that the President can do is to sign legislation into law or veto it and send it back to Congress. In those cases, Congress can try to override the President's veto, rewrite the bill, or do nothing. Of course the President does have the ability to issue executive orders but if they are unconstitutional, they will be overturned.

If you look at Article I of the US Constitution, you will notice that the powers given to Congress, while they are wider, are still limited. Why is it that we allow Congress and the President to get away with so much instead of taking a stand against them when they make a power grab.

There are some that say that this started in the 1930s with FDR's New Deal. Others say that it started in 1913 with Wilson. I say that it started in 1861 with Lincoln but I will write on this later. No matter when it started, FDR's New Deal kicked it into high gear.

One of our founders said that a government benevolent enough to give you everything is powerful enough to take everything away. We are there and have been there for decades. Look at the power of the IRS. In a court of law the burden of proof is on the government. With the IRS they make a claim and then you have to prove them wrong. Where did we go wrong? We must work to elect people who will go to D.C. to repeal. Repeal must be on our minds and the minds of our elected officials. They need to sign a contract or pledge saying that they will work to begin the dismantling of the federal leviathan.

Selling Our Posterity Down the River

Over this past week much of the news has surrounded the "stimulus" package that has been debated in our nation's capitol. The President has claimed that the time for debate is over as has Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D) and to some extent others in both the House and Senate. Whenever any kind of salesman tells you that you have to act now. What is your first reaction? For me, I start looking for the fastest way out of their before I get trapped into a deal that I'll regret. Why should our reaction be any different because it's a politician saying the same thing? Truth be told, when a politician tells us that "the time for debate is over" or "we have to pass this now," our reaction should be to stop them and place your hands firmly on your wallet before they take it from you.

The only thing this stimulus bill is going to do for the nation is put us deeper in debt and slide us further down into recession and closer to depression. We can tell that Wall Street and other investors aren't happy with the prospects of living under the bill. On Feb 9, 2009 the Dow closed at 8,270.87 which was down ten points from the previous day. The next morning the market opened with the Dow already down 65 points. This was only a preview of what the rest of the day was going to be like. By closing bell the Dow had dropped to 7,888.88 which was a 4.8% drop. What will the markets do in the future is anybodies guess but if 1928 is an indicator of what we have to look forward to you better brace yourself because the worst is yet to come.

I would raise my objections to the stimulus bill by asking about the constitutionality of it but I know that will only fall on deaf ears. Who wants to hear about the Constitution and enumerated powers when the government is handing out "free" money. For those who don't see a problem with this, I ask you, "Are you so selfish as to condemn your posterity to a life of bondage?" Alexander Tytler wrote;

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.

I understand that we are not a democracy but are a representative republic or a constitutional republic. But the point is still valid.

If we are to believe what the politicians are saying, the bill must be passed or we're doomed. Didn't they say the same thing in October and November about the bailout bills and stimulus packages? They claimed that those bills were what was needed to fix the economy. All the bills did was to hurt the economy even more; prolonging the time it will take for the economy to recover. The economy can't always go up. There will always be short periods of economic downturns, that is the natural course of events. Even when there are downturns, as long as the government doesn't meddle with it, they will only last for a short period of time before the markets bounce back.

Trust in capitalism they won't let you down. The only thing you can count on when the government is in charge of the economy or business is misery and lines. Look at the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe under communism, China, and any other communist or socialist nation. All they had or have is misery, shortages, a crumbling infrastructure, and failed central planning. What makes us think that we can expect anything different.

Taking Our Country Back

Earlier this week it came to my attention that Rep. Itse of New Hampshire introduced HCR 6 in the NH state legislature which restates NH's sovereignty under the 9th and 10th amendments of the U.S. Constitution and reminds Congress that the Constitution spells out specific and enumerated powers that the States and people have only allowed them to have very limited powers and nothing more.

If the federal government wants more power then they are the ones who should be coming to the states with hat in hand and ask the States for more power, not just do a power grab and expect the States to accept it. Don't think New Hampshire is just one isolated event either. According to the web site http://www.taxtruth4u.com/eight%20states.html there are a total of seven other States that have had similar pieces of legislation introduced in their state legislatures.

The States have been quiet for far too long and allowing the feds to get away with too much, this is the case of the straw that broke the camel's back. Even if none (or even only a one or two) of the States are able to pass the legislation, this should serve as a warning to Congress that they better read the Constitution and strictly abide by it.

If we can't get Congress to listen to the States and the people, should a constitutional convention be called or should we go farther. I, for one, hope that we are able to reign in the federal government by passing legislation in the individual States.