Connect with us

Everything

Want to know what health care plan the Senate is voting on? Get out the Ouija board

Published

on

What do we know about the federal healthcare kickback-producing, wealth-redistributing, rights-trampling, mandated-health-insurance bill that the Senate is voting on today? I think it’s clear with Senator Rand Paul’s [R-KY] response to a reporter, “I think it’s kinda hard to make a determination if you don’t know what you’re proceeding to.” I apologize. I thought someone on Capitol Hill knew what they were doing today. My mistake. I am not even sure if it is an actual vote on the bill or a vote to debate the bill.

Some believe it is a version of the bill that passed in May. I really don’t care what version it was if it didn’t fully repeal Obamacare. From what I understand, the only version that “mostly” repealed Obamacare was the 2015 version. I don’t know whether this is supposed to be a really bad Laurel and Hardy movie or a heart-wrenching drama. There are so many memes running through my head …

As I understand it, being a simple citizen on the Left Coast, the Senate is expected to vote on debate. If McConnell gets 50 votes to proceed with debate, then the Senate begins considering amendments. Here is an amendment I might propose: Forget everything and send a reset button to all insurance providers. Well, at least that matches the levels of hilarity we are seeing in D.C. now.

Okay, in all sincerity, there are some serious problems. Obamacare tied any opposition into a precarious knot. In order for one thing to be changed – one piece to be cut – someone would lose coverage. We don’t want to be mean, though, right? Being mean isn’t really a concern for the Democrats. They pushed a whole set of mean regulations onto the backs of every working American. The Republicans in the Senate need to get over it. There is no nice way to rip this Band-Aid off the festering wound. The first amendment to the May bill: End all mandated individual and corporate coverage guidelines.

Ending all government mandated coverage items is the first big step. Is anyone going to lose coverage? No. Why would they? The government is simply stating that it is not mandating any coverage. With that amendment it is understood that there could be no fines levied by the IRS for not having the care. Okay, that wasn’t hard. What’s next? Oh, the millions already on subsidized healthcare. Next, amend the bill to audit those with subsidies to ensure they are supposed to be there.

The subsidized recipients will fall into 3 general groups: 1) fraud, 2) genuinely needy, 3) erroneously added to rolls. Deal with them as follows: 1) prison, 2) Medicaid, 3) temporary group coverage until they find the insurance they want (max two year program).

Okay. What’s next? Oh, people are going to lose insurance coverage? No. They are going to choose not to have coverage.

What about people with pre-existing conditions? Listen, we all have a pre-existing condition and I think it is a terrible practice for insurance companies to deny coverage for these people. But should the federal government really be in the business of telling companies how to do theirs’? From all the evidence I have seen, the fed is the last advisory committee I would listen to on good business models. Remember that “group coverage” idea I mentioned earlier? That could be a permanent program at the State level, administered by a provider of the State’s choosing, specifically for individuals with pre-existing conditions. And it could even have the Medicaid and Medicare members enrolled. Group plans are less expensive than individual plans. This seems like the most humane and Constitutional way to dismantle Obamacare and move on.

The most inhumane thing the Senate can do is to allow any version of Obamacare that mandates coverages. Not only is it unsustainable, but it encroaches on the individual’s right of choice. Obamacare was never about healthcare. It was about mandating all individuals have health insurance. I am simply baffled how the Democrats came to the conclusion that it was okay to tell people who had insurance already that it wasn’t good enough; this coming from the same entity that can’t separate abortion from actual women’s health, or determine the gender of an individual by physiology.

The bottom line is that the Bill is completely repeal-able without forcing anyone to “lose healthcare”. No one is going to lose healthcare. Doctors, bound by the Hippocratic Oath, will do what it takes to provide necessary care. Is there a debt incurred? Of course. But that doesn’t mean I am responsible for paying that person’s debt (this is called wealth redistribution). Healthcare is not an inalienable right which means the federal government should not treat it as one.

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Judiciary

Census case will demonstrate if the Supreme Court is political or not

Published

on

Census case will demonstrate if the Supreme Court is political or not

There is an unnecessary amount of controversy surrounding whether or not a citizenship question can be added to the upcoming United States census. But now that it’s here, the outcome of the case will say a great deal about the makeup of the Supreme Court and whether or not it has become a body that is driven solely by politics despite the intent of the founders to make sure it never would be.

On the surface, this case seems rather mundane. It’s just a question about the citizenship status of individuals. Some may be wondering what the big deal really is. In reality, it’s a very big deal. Census data is used to determine pretty much everything as it pertains to the relationship between the federal government and the states. Grant money, House of Representative seats, and district allocations are among the many changes that will all be determined by the census.

From a purely political perspective, this should be a no-brainer to conservatives. Of course the question should be included. It’s unfair for states who allow a higher level of illegal immigrants to gain more power as a result. These are not voters (at least they’re not supposed to be). It’s idiotic to give states a great incentives to bring in as many illegal immigrants as possible, so if the presence of a censorship question lowers the numbers reported, that’s not a bad thing.

Politically, the citizenship question is a winning play for conservatives.

But here’s the problem. The judiciary is not supposed to be driven by politics. Their job is to interpret the Constitution and the law of the land to determine how it’s to be enforced by the executive branch and whether the legislative branch is in line with the intent of the Constitution through the laws they establish. By those criteria, the Trump administration has a major problem with the citizenship question. The Census Act clearly states Congress is to be given notice of changes to the census three years in advance. They were not. The citizenship question was not part of the original list sent by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross in March, 2017. It was sent in the March, 2018 list, but that’s not enough time for Congress to review if we’re going solely based on the letter of the law.

This is an insanely stupid aspect of the law; it shouldn’t take Congress three years to read a question and determine whether or not they need to make new laws as a result. But it’s the law nonetheless and Ross broke it by not including the question in his original list. It was a rookie mistake made by someone who really shouldn’t be in his position, but what’s done is done.

Part of my heart says the censorship question is righteous and does not violate the Constitution, therefore it should be allowed. But the other part of my heart longs for a judiciary that is truly apolitical, one that does its job as laid out in the Constitution. If that’s the measure of this case, then the Administration clearly did not meet the standards set forth in the law to add the question to the census.

Where I take solace is knowing the balance of political bias within the judiciary favors the left. If it’s impossible to completely remove politics from the judiciary, then any win for conservatism is acceptable just as any loss for conservatism is unwelcome. I desperately want the originalist perspective to prevail in our judiciary, but if such apolitical adherence is only possible when convenient or in a robotic utopia of a truly impartial judiciary, then I’m forced to defer to the side of my heart that says, “Take the win and move on.”

We need the citizenship question in the census, and though I would have preferred to have seen it handled properly by the Commerce Department, I’ll accept a victory on it even if it comes by the hand of conservative bias.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Matthew 22:37 – ‘love the Lord thy God’

Published

on

Matthew 2237 love the Lord thy God

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. – Matthew 22:37 (KJV)

We’ve all heard this verse, but have we really contemplated it? This is a verse that sits in the middle of many different things happening. The Pharisees and Sadducees were questioning Him. His answers were profound and defining.

This important portion of this message is echoed three times: all. Love thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all they mind. This is the most important Commandment according to Yeshua.

Boost This Post

Get this story in front of tens of thousands of patriots who need to see it. For every $30 you donate here, this story will be broadcast to an addition 7000 Americans or more. If you’d prefer to use PayPal, please email me at jdrucker@reagan.com and let me know which post you want boosted after you donate through PayPal.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Opinions

Sign the petition demanding term limits on Capitol Hill

Published

on

Sign the petition demanding term limits on Capitol Hill

It’s time for term limits. This has been on my heart for some time, but I have held back because there are so many other important issues to cover. Today, I realized if I wait until more pressing issues are solved, I’ll be waiting forever. There are always going to be more pressing issues than term limits, but here’s the thing. Our representatives realize this, too, which is why it’s never given the attention it deserves. They use these other issues as cover to prevent them from having to address the one issue that will affect them the most.

This is my first petition on Change.org. I’ll admit I’ve never been a fan of the site because it is mostly progressive topics on the table, but this is an issue that even progressives should be able to acknowledge as a problem.

Here’s what I posted:

Set term limits for U.S. Representatives and Senators

Corruption is rampant in Washington DC. One of the biggest reasons this is the case is because lifetime politicians have become power brokers, making them the beneficiaries of favors, payoffs, and under-the-table deals. They live in a perpetual state of campaigning rather than focusing on addressing the problems that face Americans.

Term limits were never included in the Constitution because it was expected by the founders that those serving as our representatives in the legislative branch would do so as a duty to be fulfilled rather than a luxurious position of excess. They did not anticipate the electoral benefits of incumbents, nor did the realize the two-party system would polarize the nation to the point that positions could be made essentially permanent.

Power should not be accumulated over the length of a long career. It should be earned through action and earnestly held for a brief period of time. Today, too much power is consolidated in Washington DC, partially as a result of the extended lengths in which our representatives enjoy their tenure.

Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate should be there because they want to serve their country, not because they enjoy being part of the DC Country Club. Term limits are very popular among the people, but Capitol Hill continues to ignore our will by failing to address it. Why should they? Only they can be hurt by it, and it does not behoove them to hurt themselves.

Instead, they continue hurting us.

We demand Congress immediately put together legislation that spells out term limits for themselves. Americans need to know who is willing to suppress their own power for the sake of the nation. This can only happen by bringing legislation to the floor.

Imagine Capitol Hill without the perpetual campaigning. Imagine forcing our representatives to work within a time limit instead of working to stay in the DC Country Club forever. It’s time for term limits in the House and Senate.

Boost This Post

Get this story in front of tens of thousands of patriots who need to see it. For every $30 you donate here, this story will be broadcast to an addition 7000 Americans or more. If you’d prefer to use PayPal, please email me at jdrucker@reagan.com and let me know which post you want boosted after you donate through PayPal.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report