Political Correctness and the Killing at Fort Hood

•November 10, 2009 • Leave a Comment

Barack Hussein Obama wants us to look the other way at the radical islamic Nidal Malik Hasan’s murderous spree against his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas. Political Correctness must be abolished in this country and our PC in chief Obama who bows to Muslim kings tells us to not “jump to conclusions.” Hasan wrote “Allah” on his door, according to a neighbor, in Arabic…During his postgraduate work at the Uniformed Service University of the Health Sciences, he was reprimanded for preaching Islam to his patients and other doctors. He drew attention from law enforcement officials with Internet postings under his name that praised suicide bombing, saying that their intention was to “save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers,” and that “if one suicide bomber can kill 100 enemy soldiers because they were caught off guard that would be considered a strategic victory.” (Atlas Shrugs)
Husan
From Pamela Geller: “Nidal Hasan was doing what Muslims are compelled to do – invade, invite to Islam, destroy, take over. Nidal is a good Muslim – a savage yes. But a good Muslim according to the quran.”

“Again, I ask, is there anywhere Muslims have colonized where they live in peace with the host country. Anywhere?”

Thirteen people are dead in this, the latest jihad action against Americans, but this is nothing new under the USA sun. In the last 35 years, the following has happened on US soil:
jihad Ajihad Bjihad C

We have radical mosques all over our country. There are 1209 mosques in America, well over half founded in the last 20 years. Three out of four of these mosques are considered radical.

Killing a young woman in the name of family “honor” is so appalling, so medieval, that we imagine it can’t happen here.

Yet a Glendale man is accused of running down his daughter last week because she refused to follow traditional values. Police say Faleh Hassan Amaleki, an Iraqi immigrant, had threatened his 20-year-old daughter, Noor, for being too Westernized. Now, he’s a fugitive and she’s in the hospital with life-threatening injuries. (It has been recently reported she died of her injuries.)

Around the world, honor killings claim the lives of an estimated 5,000 girls and women and probably far more, because the crime is often hushed up. The Middle East and Southeast Asia are the epicenter, where the killings are often based on a warped interpretation of Islam.

Rifqa Bary, a teen from a Muslim family, ran away from home fearing an honor killing by her parents for her conversion to Christianity. She was recently found and forced to return to her home state under foster care.
Rifqa
How will we know if Rifqa is not being psychologically abused, physically abused? How will we know if she is ok? Rifqa Bary should be posting to a facebook page everyday. These Islamic apologists are not protecting this girl but rather endangering her life. They say there is no threat but they would not release details about her trip back to Ohio “for safety reasons”.  They are going to kill this girl. Ohio is enforcing sharia law. Female apostates must be imprisoned until they recant.

Read more about Rifqa on her friend, Jamal Jivanjee’s, blog

At any rate, we can see that the creeping horror of political correctness leading this country down the path of a dangerous inertia.

First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.
Martin Niemoeller

First Move Toward European Style Health Care Imposed on an Unwilling American Public: SEE WHO VOTED FOR THIS MONSTROSITY!

•November 8, 2009 • 4 Comments

By Paul Revere

From Tea Party Patriots

Near midnight on Saturday November 7th, when most Americans were either sleeping or otherwise distracted, democratic members of the House of Representatives ignored the clear will of a very vocal American majority and implanted the tentacles of a growing tyrannical government into the spine of the republic that was built on the back of hard working Americans.

The merits of the democrats proposal have been debated and it is well known that the bill will result in an enormous breakdown of the American health care system.

This did not stop Nancy Pelosi and her fellow democrats from grabbing trillions of dollars directly from the paychecks of average citizens. An amount equal to one sixth of the American economy.

What does that mean? Well, in simple terms, if the final step of the bill is realized, Americans will spend 1 of every 6 hours working for the government to pay for nationalized healthcare. Essentially your paycheck is now one step away from being laundered through the government monopoly called nationalized health care.

Those who voted the big gorilla into the room happen to have nothing to lose, as they are exempt from participating. They opened the cage, released the beast and ran. Their plan is to leave Joe Public to his fate against a monster of impersonal legislative bureaucracy.

The fight now moves to the senate, and forces for smart reform based on conservatism, capitalism and compassion for the less fortunate will fight harder than ever to prevent a final bill created by a tyrannical government from ever seeing the light of day.

Join us in the fight today!

What has the biggest impact?
Email and letters while simple to do, have minimal impact. The fight must be taken to them. You must go to your local or national offices to be heard. Letters can take up to three weeks to make it into the hands of your representatives and email often ends up as spam or in their junk folders. For maximum impact please visit your senators’ offices and let them know how you feel.

FIND OUT WHO VOTED FOR THIS BILL AND WHO DID NOT!

Why the OK of Abortion Limits Cleared the Way for Health Care Passage

•November 8, 2009 • 1 Comment

OK of abortion limits clear{ed} way for historic health care vote

By David Lightman | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — With a personal push from President Barack Obama, the House of Representatives Saturday inched closer to passing historic health care legislation that would guarantee virtually all Americans access to care.

Three key votes pointed to its passage: one, 242 to192, authorized the bill to be debated, a key test of Democratic strength.

A second vote banned government subsidized health insurance from covering elective abortions. That vote was 240 to 194, with most Democrats opposing what opponents of the abortion limits calling them the greatest restriction on health care imposed on women in a generation. Republicans, however, overwhelmingly backed the amendment.

Passage of the amendment, however, was considered critical to win the support of anti-abortion Democrats for passage of the final health-care proposal, which needs 218 votes.

The final hurdle was a low one, rejection of a Republican version of the legislation, which lost 258 to 176, with one Republican, Timothy Johnson of Illinois voting with the Democrats.

That left only the final vote on the bill, was not expected until nearly midnight.

As the debate began, Obama visited Capitol Hill to meet for half an hour with House Democrats as the all-day debate was starting Saturday morning, and compared the health care effort to Democrats’ championing of Social Security and Medicare.

“Now is the time to finish the job,” Obama said later in brief remarks in the White House Rose Garden.

On the House floor, Democratic leaders appealed to members’ sense of history, reminding them this was one of the most significant votes, short of war, they are likely to take.

“There are few moments when we have the opportunity to do so much good with one vote. This is one of those moments,” said Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md.

Republicans countered with arguments that the health care plan did little to improve coverage or affordability.

“Astoundingly, Democrats are bringing to the floor a bill today that will not reduce the costs of health insurance, it will grow the size of government,” said GOP Conference Chairman Mike Pence, R-Ind..

Democratic leaders scheduled a final vote on the bill late Saturday night, and were confident they had enough for passage after a last-minute abortion deal.

The House bill would make the biggest changes in the nation’s health care system since Medicare was created 44 years ago to provide coverage for seniors and the disabled.

Passage of the bill by the House would be the first crucial step to overhauling health care; the Senate hopes to act by the end of the year, and the two Houses would then craft a compromise that would need approval of each chamber.

The House measure would create a government-run health care plan to compete with the private sector, bar insurers from denying coverage because of pre-existing conditions and set up health care “exchanges,” or marketplaces where consumers could easily shop for coverage.

The changes are expected to mean that by 2019, 96 percent of eligible Americans would have health insurance, up from the current 83 percent.

Obama took no questions from lawmakers, but his presence was a vivid, and highly partisan, reminder that the president has put health care overhaul at the top of his domestic agenda _ a change that has eluded presidents for nearly a century.

“He came here to say, ‘This is what we said we would do in the campaign. Let’s do it,’ ” Hoyer said.

Democratic leaders said that they doubted many votes would change as a result of the Obama appearance; but that “the energy he brought to this debate will be helpful,” said Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, D-S.C.

A bigger boost likely came from the abortion deal.

As originally written, the House bill would have required insurers to separate public and private money, so that only private funds could be used for elective abortions. Abortion opponents were concerned that such a policy would effectively expand the government’s role in improving access to abortion, and as many as 40 Democrats threatened to withhold support from the health care bill unless changes were made.

After tense negotiations Friday night _ with White House officials and representatives of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops as well as key Democratic members of Congress _ House Democratic leaders agreed to allow a vote Saturday on sweeping changes to the abortion provision.

The change would permit abortion coverage for people receiving federal aid for their insurance only in the case of rape or incest or where the mother’s life is endangered. That change is consistent with a 1970s-era federal law governing public funding of abortion.

Under the new provision, only people buying private insurance with their own funds would have an elective abortion covered.

Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., a leader of the anti-abortion forces, said the new language was “strong,” strong enough that he expected most of the approximately 40 anti-abortion Democrats to back the final bill.

But many abortion rights advocates were angry, and the brief debate often pitted Democrat against Democrat.. “This amendment is government interference in the decision between a woman and her physician,” said Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif. “Unnecessary and reprehensible,” added Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y.

“Today we’re on the brink of passing health care reform that honors and respects life in every state,” countered Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind.

With the abortion agreement, House Democratic leaders said they were confident they had the 218 votes needed to pass. The Democrats control 258 seats, but 27 Democrats, most from conservative states or freshmen facing tough re-elections, were seen as solid “no” votes.

Republicans tried throughout the day to create more doubt and delay, loudly shouting objections to routine parliamentary requests by objecting when Democratic women tried to discuss their concerns on the House floor.

GOP members then pushed their own plan, which would make it easier for small businesses to band together to purchase competitively-priced coverage, allow consumers to buy policies across state lines, and effect strong medical malpractice reforms.

Since the GOP controls only 177 seats, it was expected to fail — and did.

The bigger obstacle for Democrats was fellow Democrats, as dozens of members continued to express reservations about the bill.

Some were freshmen elected by slim margins in conservative districts.

Rep. Walt Minnick, D-Idaho, wanted to see more cost-cutting. “Unfortunately, the new health-care bill in the House does not adequately meet those goals, so I will vote ‘no.’ ” he said.

Some were veteran members of the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of 52 Democratic conservatives. Many objected to the bill’s price tag and worried it would increase the federal deficit.

The House bill misses a critical opportunity to address access, quality and costs on the one hand, and solidify our fiscal future on the other hand,” said Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, D-S.D.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated the bill’s net cost would total $891 billion over 10 years and reduce the deficit by $109 billion. But many Democrats were wary.

“While the Congressional Budget Office predicts this bill is paid for over 10 years, there is no mechanism in the bill to force spending cuts if those complicated projections turn out to be wrong,” said Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas.

But enough Blue Dogs and freshmen were expected to back the leadership _ which was stressing how the bill could be changed later _ that passage seemed likely.

In the Senate, where moderates’ concerns have stalled progress, Democratic leaders are hoping for a debate and vote before the end of the year.

“My vote is not an endorsement of all the provisions of the bill, because I find much of the bill to be deeply flawed,” said Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn., a Blue Dog who backed the measure. “My reason for voting ‘yes’ is to advance the cause of health care reform by forcing the Senate to act.”
McClatchy Newspapers 2009

Conservatives are Taking Back America, One Election at a Time.

•November 4, 2009 • Leave a Comment

As I write this, we do not know where Conservative Hoffman stands against Bill Owens in NY District 23 and Republican. Republican Christie is neck and neck with incumbent Corzine as New Jersey Governor. Bolling, Republican, has beaten Wagner as Virginia Lt. Governor and McDonnell, Republican, won against Deeds as Governor in Virginia with Cuccinelli, Republican, winning against Shannon as Atty. General also in Virginia. Bloomberg remains Republican Mayor of NY City against Thompson.

It is well-known that Dede Scozzafava dropped out of the race as she saw the “handwriting on the wall” as a liberal Republican candidate. She then endorsed the Democrat candidate Bill Owens, further supporting the claims she was a leftist candidate.

Hoffman

The race in NY 23 between incumbent Corzine and Hoffman on a “Conservative” (not Republican) ticket is a microcosm of the country and has been highly touted by both Democrats and in Hoffman’s case, Conservatives. For this reason, I believe the liberals have been out in force to run their usual scams and fraud with the help of the infamous Acorn.

On his third trip to the polls, a Hoffman supporter and poll watcher had his tires slashed this afternoon —as you can see he had a Hoffman sign in his back window.
Slashed Tires
The Dems are keeping the absentee voting procedure as loose as possible, and the question remains: how many people who didn’t go out to vote today ended up voting in NJ, after all?

Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Franks, are you paying attention?

Stop Obama’s Rise to Power Through World Government Treaty in Copenhagen 12-09

•October 31, 2009 • 2 Comments
Instrument of Repudiation

Sign it and Urge Others to Do The Same

Important Notice for America’s Future

The draft Treaty of Copenhagen, to be signed in mid-December 2009, would create an unelected world government with direct power over all financial and trading markets, and direct power to intervene over the heads of elected governments in the economic and environmental affairs of all nations that sign the Treaty. The word “government” actually appears in the Treaty as the first of three purposes of a huge, new, supranational bureaucratic entity that will have the power to require wealthier nations to redistribute up to 2% of their annual gross domestic product to third-world countries in imagined reparation for imaginary “climate debt” – and all this just as final scientific proof that CO2 has a tiny and harmless warming effect is available. Please read the Instrument of Repudiation, and SIGN IT urge at least five of your friends to sign it too, and urge each of them to find five more to sign it. The Instrument will be tabled during the Copenhagen Conference this December. So sign now, and save America’s freedom, democracy, and prosperity.

View the list of those who have signed it already.

Illegal Aliens Included in 2010 Census Raises Serious Constitutional and Voting Rights Issues

•October 28, 2009 • 2 Comments

From FAIR:
Census Card
Last week’s Legislative Update provided details about an amendment filed by Senator David Vitter to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Commerce, Justice, Science (CJS) appropriations bill. (FAIR’s Legislative Update, October 19, 2009). The Vitter amendment would require the Census Bureau to ask questions about citizenship and immigration status as part of the 2010 decennial census. (See The Stein Report, October 19, 2009; for more information on how prior censuses have included questions on citizenship see The Stein Report, October 26, 2009).
Vitter
The Vitter amendment is very important and brings with it serious implications about a variety of issues. For example, Census data will be used to “apportion” Congressional seats to each state. If non-citizens are used for purposes of Congressional apportionment, Senator Vitter’s office has said that nine states with lower illegal immigration and lower foreign-born populations would end up losing a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, while four states would pick those seats up. (CQ Today, October 22, 2009). The implications are that the inclusion of non-citizens for purposes of House apportionment would reduce, or dilute, the political influence of citizens in House elections. FAIR conducted a similar analysis in September 2008 regarding the impact of including non-citizens in the apportionment process. (See FAIR’s Report: Who Represents Illegal Aliens?, September 2008).

In addition, because House apportionment also determines the number of Electoral College votes each state has, the inclusion of non-citizens for apportionment purposes could also determine the outcome of America’s Presidential elections. For example, when nine House seats are given without regard to citizenship, that necessarily takes away nine seats from other states. Accordingly, this could potentially create a swing of 18 electoral votes in a Presidential election. Such a swing would have been more than enough to change the outcome of several recent elections.

Another area where the Census will matter is with respect to the distribution of federal funds under programs based on population. According to the census bureau, state populations are used to determine how nearly $400 billion is allocated in federal spending every year. If the census does not ask citizenship and immigration questions, states with higher illegal alien populations will get more federal funds at the expense of states with lower illegal alien populations. As a result, a few states will get money they shouldn’t, while the vast majority of states will be short-changed out of their fair share. (For a detailed discussion of this issue, listen to FAIR’s October 26, 2009 podcast, here).

Also last week, several Members of the House held a press conference to voice their opposition to the Vitter Amendment, including Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA), Rep. Barbara Lee, (D-CA) and Rep. Joe Baca (D-CA). (CQ Today, October 23, 2009). Velazquez, Honda and Lee are respectively the chairs of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Congressional Asian-Pacific American Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus. The media failed to point out, however, that each of these members were also from either New York or California, which are two of the states that benefit most from the inclusion of non-citizens, including illegal aliens, in the apportionment process.

In this light, it also becomes apparent why Rep. Joe Baca introduced H.R. 3855, the “Every Person Counts Act,” on October 20, 2009. This bill would require including illegal aliens for purposes of the Census. In his press release, Congressman Baca wasn’t shy about the fact that he wants illegal aliens to skew Congressional apportionment, Presidential elections and Federal funding in favor of his home state of California. Baca said that census data (1) “determines the allotment of federal funding” and (2) is “absolutely necessary for [determining] Congressional representation and Electoral College figures.” (Rep. Baca’s Press Release, October 21, 2009).

If you want to help ensure the Vitter amendment is adopted by the Senate, please see FAIR’s Action Alert to see what you can do to make a difference.

Obama Fails to Exclude Fox News From White House Interview

•October 24, 2009 • 4 Comments

I have a hard time understanding that our president spends so much time disparaging radio-talk show host Rush Limbaugh and Fox News when he has a bogus health care bill to roll through Congress and a war to ignore in Afghanistan.

As published in Politics (NY Times):
Mr. Ailes {Fox News chief executive}, who had reached out to Mr. Axelrod {White House Advisor} to address rising tensions between the network and the White House, told him that Fox’s reporters were fair, if tough, and should be considered separate from the Fox commentators who were skewering President Obama nightly, according to people briefed on the meeting. Mr. Axelrod said it was the view of the White House that Fox News had blurred the line between news and anti-Obama advocacy.

What both men took to be the start of a frank but productive dialogue proved, in retrospect, more akin to the round of pre-Pearl Harbor peace talks between the United States and Japan. The White House relented.

The confrontation went to a new level when the White House called Fox News a talk show rather than a news show and purposefully excluded them from any White House press with a goal to marginalize them and control any other possible criticism. The largest slap came, however; when the White House refused to give Fox an interview it gave all the other news networks.

All of this came to a political head when the White House was to grant interviews to its pay czar Kenneth Feinberg. Fox is one of 5 news networks who rotate the White House interviews:

The pool is the five-network rotation that for decades has shared the costs and duties of daily coverage of the presidency and other Washington institutions. (Fox News)
In a surprise response, the other four news groups refused to do the interviews without Fox.

But the Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV networks consulted and decided that none of their reporters would interview Feinberg unless Fox News was included. The pool informed Treasury that Fox News, as a member of the network pool, could not be excluded from such interviews under the rules of the pool.

Baltimore Sun’s TV Critic David Zurawik summed up the news groups’ (ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC) reaction to the White House’s latest attempt to control the press calling it “outrageous.”

“What it’s really about to me is the Executive Branch of the government trying to tell the press how it should behave. I mean, this democracy — we know this — only works with a free and unfettered press to provide information,” he said.

…Obama, speaking publicly…about his administration’s portrayal of Fox News…said he’s not “losing sleep” over the controversy.

Based on his reaction to any criticism however slight, I beg to differ.

Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty, Claims British Lord

•October 19, 2009 • 4 Comments

From American Grand Jury
October 17th, 2009

The Minnesota Free Market Institute hosted an event at Bethel University in St. Paul on Wednesday evening. Keynote speaker Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, gave a scathing and lengthy presentation, complete with detailed charts, graphs, facts, and figures which culminated in the utter decimation of both the pop culture concept of global warming and the credible threat of any significant anthropomorphic climate change.

A detailed summary of Monckton’s presentation will be available once compiled. However, a segment of his remarks justify immediate publication. If credible, the concern Monckton speaks to may well prove the single most important issue facing the American nation, bigger than health care, bigger than cap and trade, and worth every citizen’s focused attention.

Here were Monckton’s closing remarks, as dictated from my audio recording:

At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.

I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfication of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.

How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it.

And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, if your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution (sic), and you can’t resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties – And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.

See him here:

For more information, see: http://www.resistnet.com/group/watchdogforcapandtradebill/forum/topics/unfccc-091709-and-the

The Health Care Bill Obama and the Media Don’t Want You to See

•October 18, 2009 • Leave a Comment

From the Picayune Item Publication:

“We knew the president would at some point say something like, ‘And the other side has no ideas,’” Price says. So Price and his Republican colleagues brought with them copies of the more than 30 healthcare-reform bills they have proposed in the House this year.

Obama didn’t directly accuse Republicans of not having a plan. But he did say he would welcome “serious” healthcare proposals. “My door is always open,” Obama said.

That’s when Price held up the sheaf of papers he was carrying — a copy of HR 3400, the Empowering Patients First Act, which Price and the Republican Study Committee proposed in July. Other GOP lawmakers held up their own bills. Some raised a list of all the healthcare bills — there are more than 30 — proposed by members of the Study Committee.

Why use the props? “To say in a quiet and respectful way, ‘Here are our ideas,’ “ Price says. “To say to the president, ‘You’re not being honest with the American people when you say that there haven’t been ideas put forward, and that you’ve listened to them, because you haven’t.’”

…Republicans have authored a number of healthcare bills — serious legislation addressing portability, pre-existing conditions, cost and other issues that trouble American consumers — and hardly anyone has noticed.

Out of 152 citizens who have examined the precepts of this bill, 128 support it.

Health Care 3400: The Conservative Alternative in the House
by Rep. Tom Price

Perhaps the most blatant “disinformation” being promulgated in the health care debate this year is that there are only two choices for American health care: putting the federal government in charge or allowing insurance companies to run the show. While the President, congressional Democrats in charge, and, to a degree, the media have done all they can to shut out Republican ideas, the truth remains that there is a third path, a correct path.

Republicans have put forth bold ideas that can transform American health care in a positive way — without a government takeover of medicine. Before the August recess, I joined with a number of colleagues to introduce H.R. 3400, the Empowering Patients First Act. Our solution is built upon the principle that when individuals are given control and ownership, we will achieve full access to coverage and see the entire system move in a positive, patient-centered direction. While we join in the national critique of the President’s misguided proposal, we also offer positive solutions for health care reform.

*Full Access to Coverage

First, all people should have the financial wherewithal to purchase private, personal health plans. As cost is the biggest barrier to coverage, H.R. 3400 employs a hybrid tax structure to ensure that there is no financial reason for a person to go without coverage. Based on factors such as income and family size, the legislation offers tax credits and deductions, which are advanceable and on a sliding scale, so the less wealthy and those without employer-provided plans will be able to purchase coverage.

A true market for Americans to purchase this personal private coverage, however, does not currently exist. For patients to have real choices, we must create a functioning marketplace for all to gain coverage they select. To achieve this, under the Empowering Patients First Act, all Americans would be able to use pre-tax dollars to buy coverage on the open market, leveling the playing field with employer-provided care that already receives this benefit. And to provide Americans greater purchasing power, the legislation allows for robust pooling mechanisms so that people can come together freely to drive down prices. These pools will provide a place for those with pre-existing conditions to find coverage at an affordable price. And there is the opportunity to purchase health insurance across state lines, which is currently barred.

Finally, we cannot fully bring down costs without addressing the runaway medical liability crisis. From exorbitant malpractice insurance premiums to the remarkably expensive practice of defensive medicine, it is my experience that the current culture of litigation costs patients hundreds of billions of dollars. And these costs do nothing to provide better care, but rather serve only as a defense against unyielding personal injury lawyers. H.R. 3400 tackles this problem with the creation of new health courts that trust the expert opinions of medical professionals. When malpractice suits are brought through specialized courts and viewed through the perspective of medically appropriate care, rather than a lottery mentality, we will see a decline in frivolous lawsuits and the need for costly defensive medicine.

*Patients in Charge

But providing access to affordable care only gets us half way to our goal. A 21st century American health care system should put the customer — the patient — in charge of the system. To truly transform American health care in a patient-centered way, we must give control and ownership of health coverage to individuals — to patients.

Currently, most people receive their care from their employer or the government. This makes someone else, not the patient, the customer. H.R. 3400 offers people the option to utilize a system that would put them in charge. This means that employers could provide their workers with the opportunity to purchase the care that best fits their individual needs, rather than just what is offered at work. Building on the new marketplace previously discussed, we can give patients seemingly limitless coverage options. What’s more, if a Medicare or Medicaid beneficiary would prefer a private, personal plan, they would have the option to move their resources and purchase whatever coverage they believe best suits them and their family. And all of these purchasing decisions will be made easier with the transparency created by new health plan and provider portal websites where patients can compare rates and information about coverage options and treatment.

All of these things give patients choices, portability, and control. And when patients are empowered with the ability to vote with their feet, we will, by necessity, see insurance companies become much more responsive to our personal needs.

Finally, all this can be accomplished without raising taxes a single penny. On top of the cost savings associated with lawsuit abuse reform, greater competition, and reining in waste, our plan is fully paid for by reducing spending, which has gotten way out of control. Instead of growing government, the Empowering Patients First Act says that Washington must once again set priorities in our budget — just like American families do every single day.

*The Third Path

Rather than a government takeover of medicine or allowing the unsustainable status quo to persist, there is a third path. No bureaucrat — one from either the government or an insurance company — should get between you and your doctor. By empowering patients, we can preserve what is good with our current system and improve what ails it, all without threatening the world class quality of care that we enjoy in America. So the next time the President asks what Republicans want to do for health care, we must all respond: empower patients!

Dr. Price is a Republican who represents the 6th Congressional District of Georgia and is chairman of the Republican Study Committee.

Copyright © 2009 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.
Posted 09/08/2009

Congress Takes Away Our Health Care but Keeps Their Own

•October 15, 2009 • Leave a Comment

As all of us with health care programs we don’t want to lose watch in horror as our self-centered “representatives” follow the pork and personal favors toward the destruction of 85% of the health care in this country to provide a vastly substandard socialized single-payer plan in preparation for 15% of the population who do not have it.

No consideration has been made toward any alternatives for those who need the help such as allowing competition among privatized insurance companies or taking off the massive government controls so that costs can come down. No allowance for tax breaks to purchase insurance; no health care savings accounts even reviewed for their viability. No, the baby must be thrown out with the bath water so that our beloved liberals can control one sixth of the economy and our entire lives.

Representatives and Senators alike receive some of the best health care benefits in the country, much of it paid for with taxpayer dollars. Yet these same members seem unable – or unwilling – to extend similar protections to the rest of America.

As soon as members of Congress are sworn in, they may participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). The program offers an assortment of health plans from which to choose, including fee-for-service, point-of-service, and health maintenance organizations (HMOs). In addition, Congress members can also insure their spouses and their dependents.

Not only does Congress get to choose from a wide range of plans, but there’s no waiting period. Unlike many Americans who must struggle against precondition clauses or are even denied coverage because of those preconditions, Senators and Representatives are covered no matter what – effective immediately.

And here’s the best part. The government pays up to 75 percent of the premium. That government, of course, is funded by taxpayers, the same taxpayers who often cannot afford health care themselves.

And the Congressional perks don’t stop with the FEHBP. According to the article “Health care as good as Congress gets,” by John Barry, a staff writer for the St. Petersburg Times, “Members of Congress have their own pharmacy, right in the Capitol. They also have a team of doctors, technicians and nurses standing by in case something busts in a filibuster. They can get a physical exam, an X-ray or an electrocardiogram, without leaving work.”
Cadillac
Although members pay extra for these services – Representatives pay about $300 per month, and Senators about $600 – taxpayers end up kicking in another $2 million. That’s $2 million not being spent on those who need it.
So join Congressman John Fleming in signing a petition to have Congress join us in the inferior health care they will provide for us.