Yesterday a miracle happened. No, a lion did not lie down with a lamb, the lame did not walk and neither did the blind see. Instead, a miracle of an unprecedented magnitude happened in the state of Massachusetts. A Republican was elected to fill the seat of Teddy “One-for-the-Road” Kennedy. To say that the left is in shock is an understatement.

The question I ask coming out of this election is how will the GOP read it? The election was spun by the left as a referendum on healthcare and that is exactly what won it for Brown. The people of Massachusetts came out in droves to vote against Obama’s plans to extend control over 1/7th of the US economy in the guise of healthcare reform. GOP leadership is of course ecstatic over the victory and they should be (heaven knows it’s been a while since good news involved the GOP). The danger to those of us who value freedom is a misread of Brown’s victory by party elites.

If party leadership reads this victory to mean people are so fed up with the Democrats they will vote for anyone wearing the Republican moniker the potential for big wins in 2010 will be lost. The Republican Party lost big in the last round, not because the country had shifted left, but because the Republican Party had shifted left. Under Bush it was hard to tell a Republican voting record from a Democratic one. Keynesian deficit spending alongside rampant Congressional corruption and moral turpitude produced a perfect storm for the left. The left won because the right stayed home.

It may be possible for the GOP to go one cycle or perhaps two with the old practice of running RINOs and Rockefeller Republicans. It is possible the electorate, shocked by the abuses of a strong Democratic majority, will vote for any elephant walking down the street, but this will not last long. Unless the party of Reagan returns to its base it will find itself exiled from power again and again. If this happens it is not the Republican leaders who will suffer but the American people who are forced to watch more and more of their freedoms wheedled away by misguided apparatchiks.

Recently a friend sent a list of ideas to reform Congress. I told his that most of the ideas would not work and pointed out that many of the ideas were based on myths about Congress—such as the old claim that Congress does not pay into Social Security. This was changed in the 80’s. My friend’s response was to ask for my ideas. I don’t know why in this country we have adopted the ludicrous idea that one cannot point out problems of an action without also laying out a better plan. We saw this in the healthcare debates when the Democrats belittled Republican opposition with the accusation that they had not given a better plan. One does not have to have a better plan to be able to recognize a bad plan. Despite this, I put together my usual list of appropriate fixes. You will not that none of them are the usual fluff floating around conservative circles.

Since only Constitutional Amendments cannot be overturned let’s start there.

First, repeal the XVII Amendment. In the Constitution, the Senate represented the state governments so Senators were elected by the State Legislatures. This was changed to popular election by XVII. We have such a bloated federal government because no one speaks for the states in Congress. With this small change there will never be another unfunded mandate, the X Amendment will be uplifted, and state governments will be empowered to stand up to the federal juggernaut.

Second, repeal the XVI Amendment. This aberration allowed the federal government to tax the people directly without apportionment by census figures. This would abolish the income tax. If you want to limit a government you must keep a tight grip on its ability to raise funds.

Third, further define the treaty making process. The Constitution empowers the President and the Senate to ratify treaties. This is fine with the repeal of XVII since the Senate would once again represent the state governments. The problem is that all bills for appropriation of money are constitutionally required to start in the House. What happens if a treaty is signed that requires the raising of an amount of money? Does the house have to raise the money? If so this is in effect an appropriation started by the Executive branch and the Senate sunning roughshod over the people’s representatives. There needs to be more definition. It must be stated that even if the President and Senate approve a treaty, the House still has the right to refuse to pay for it, by withholding the appropriations. This would handicap much of the feared results of Kyoto, UN mandates, etc. This does not violate the president’s power of foreign diplomacy, but it would limit his ability to enact harmful legislation under the guise of diplomacy, and protect the sovereignty of the American people.

Fourth, the war powers of the president need to be amended. Yes, the president is Commander-in-Chief but the power to send troops outside the US borders to engage any force or nation must be limited to those engagements where Congress has passed a declaration of war. In the case of Afghanistan this would not have been a problem because one could have been passed within hours of 911. However, this would have prevented many problems with Korea and Vietnam because the war could not simply be handed off to blame the president because Congress’ own votes would have been a matter of record. The American soldier should never be sent into harm’s way without the recorded agreement of their representatives. Voting to fund is not enough; it must be a declaration of war.

Fifth, there must be a Constitutional definition of Executive orders. As it is right now the president can make what is in effect law through these monarchical pronouncements, without Constitutional limitation. These orders are necessary for the operation of the executive branch to carry out its duties, but for now there is nothing to limit them. In this way the president is without the limits of checks and balances in executive orders.

Sixth, repeal the XXII Amendment. While others are proposing term limits for Congress, I see presidential term limits as detrimental. Limiting the president to two terms places the executive at a disadvantage in dealing with Congress, because this person’s political career is over. This in effect removes part of the checks and balances over Congress. During a second four year term Congress can force through many things that would never be possible without an emasculated president. Yes, some may point to the danger of ending up with an unbeatable president doing popular but unwise things such as FDR. However the New Deal was long after the passage of the XVI and XVII Amendments. With these repealed FDR would have been powerless.

A recent study from George Mason University proves stimulus dollars, taken from taxpayers and redistributed with promises of jobs and economic growth, are accomplishing little of what they promised. We’ve all heard the old saying: “Follow the money.” If you want to see what is really going on follow the money—where it comes from or where it is going—to discover far more than rhetoric will ever admit. This saying especially applies to politics—where money is spent shows the true intention of those who appropriated it.

Most would expect stimulus funds to go to areas hardest hit by the recession or places where investment can most efficiently produce results. According to the above mentioned study more money went to Democrat districts than went to Republican districts, by almost double. When the stimulus was pushed through, opponents claimed it was nothing more than redistribution of wealth and borrowing from our kids. It appears the redistribution is from Republican to Democratic coffers. Those who supported Barry and his bunch got their payoff. While Democratic representatives campaign on how much money they brought home to constituents, productive taxpaying members of society (GOP for short) are left holding the check.

I case you don’t recognize that the plans of the liberal junta include expansion of government to an unprecedented degree, consider the 111 new government programs and bureaucracies created by the latest Healthcare bill released in the House of Representatives. To see a full list go here.

I will limit myself to mentioning a few with my own personal remarks. The numbers correspond to the above list.

1. Retiree Reserve Trust Fund (Section 111(d), p. 61)
Because the Social Security Trust Fund has been such a success.

4. Program of administrative simplification (Section 115, p. 76)
Just what we need, an administrative program to simplify administrative programs.

6. Health Choices Administration (Section 241, p. 131)
Since you will ultimately lose your healthcare choices, why do we need to administer those choices?

7. Qualified Health Benefits Plan Ombudsman (Section 244, p. 138)
Because we do not have enough unelected bureaucrats.

11. Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund (Section 307, p. 195)
We can always use another trust fund for Congress to plunder.

12. State-based Health Insurance Exchanges (Section 308, p. 197)
Can you say “unfunded mandate?”

14. “Public Health Insurance Option” (Section 321, p. 211)
A public option will be needed after they bankrupt the entire industry.

15. Ombudsman for “Public Health Insurance Option” (Section 321(d), p. 213)
Bureaucrats are popping up like mushrooms after a bad rain.

16. Account for receipts and disbursements for “Public Health Insurance Option” (Section 322(b), p. 215)
Special account for all the wealth they will be redistributing.

17. Telehealth Advisory Committee (Section 1191 (b), p. 589)
Because the other government telephone advisory systems have been so popular.

23. Independence at home demonstration program (Section 1312, p. 718)
Who better to teach independent living than a government liberal bureaucrat?

24. Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research (Section 1401(a), p. 734)
Comparative Effectiveness Research? I’m more effective than you.

25. Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission (Section 1401(a), p. 738)
Of course you need an ineffective commission to research effectiveness.

26. Patient ombudsman for comparative effectiveness research (Section 1401(a), p. 753)
Another one! Sheesh!

27. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1412(b)(1), p. 784)
28. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for nursing facilities (Section 1412 (b)(2), p. 786)
I can hit both of these with the same statement: Because the federal government has such a reputation for improving performance and assuring quality in other programs.

33. Pilot program to develop anti-fraud compliance systems for Medicare providers (Section 1635, p. 978)
They have such a stellar record at preventing fraud.

34. Special Inspector General for the Health Insurance Exchange (Section 1647, p. 1000)
The head Bureaucrat-in-charge.

39. Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund (Section 1802, p. 1162)
More trust funds. Can’t you just see Pelosi salivating over all that money just lying around?

41. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Section 1907, p. 1198)
This will be needed because the new government health care program will squelch all other innovation.

42. Public Health Investment Fund (Section 2002, p. 1214)
They don’t even try to put the word ‘trust’ in this one.

43. Scholarships for service in health professional needs areas (Section 2211, p. 1224)
No one will want to spend their own money to become a doctor when profit is illegal.

44. Program for training medical residents in community-based settings (Section 2214, p. 1236)
See above

45. Grant program for training in dentistry programs (Section 2215, p. 1240)
See above

51. Prevention and Wellness Trust (Section 2301, p. 1286)
Money, money, money!

52. Clinical Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1295)
Huh!?

53. Community Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1301)
Now they’re just getting silly.

58. Center for Quality Improvement (Section 2401, p. 1322)
Isn’t Government Quality Improvement like military intelligence?

59. Assistant Secretary for Health Information (Section 2402, p. 1330)
What’s a secretary of Health Information without an assistant?

60. Grant program to support the operation of school-based health clinics (Section 2511, p. 1352)
Kids-with-Condoms program. When that fails you only have to miss third period to have that abortion.

61. Grant program for nurse-managed health centers (Section 2512, p. 1361)
Who needs high priced doctors?

64. “No Child Left Unimmunized Against Influenza” demonstration grant program (Section 2524, p. 1391)
It’s for the children!

65. Healthy Teen Initiative grant program regarding teen pregnancy (Section 2526, p. 1398)
‘No Child Left In-uterus” program.

69. Grant program to promote positive health behaviors in underserved communities (Section 2530, p. 1422)
To undo what years of welfare has created.

71. Grant program to develop infant mortality programs (Section 2532, p. 1433)
For those who make it past the abortoriums.

74. Grant program for community-based overweight and obesity prevention (Section 2535, p. 1457)
Because fat is not your program, the government should pay for it.

86. Health and Human Services Coordinating Committee on Women’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1610)
87. National Women’s Health Information Center (Section 2588, p. 1611)
88. Centers for Disease Control Office of Women’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1614)
89. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Office of Women’s Health and Gender-Based Research (Section 2588, p. 1617)
90. Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Women’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1618)
91. Food and Drug Administration Office of Women’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1621)
Because more women vote liberal.

94. Grant program to disseminate best practices on implementing health workforce investment programs (Section 2591, p. 1632)
There is no better arbiter of best practices in medicine than a bureaucrat.

95. Demonstration program for chronic shortages of health professionals (Section 3101, p. 1717)
This will be needed because of all the shortages this bill will create.

97. Program of Indian community education on mental illness (Section 3101, p. 1722)
98. Intergovernmental Task Force on Indian environmental and nuclear hazards (Section 3101, p. 1754)
99. Office of Indian Men’s Health (Section 3101, p. 1765)
100. Indian Health facilities appropriation advisory board (Section 3101, p. 1774)
101. Indian Health facilities needs assessment workgroup (Section 3101, p. 1775)
102. Indian Health Service tribal facilities joint venture demonstration projects (Section 3101, p. 1809)
104. Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for diabetes prevention (Section 3101, p. 1874)
110. Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1966)
111. Committee for the Establishment of the Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1968)
These last few will be needed because of the poor performance of that little known government healthcare program: Indian Health Services.

The latest evolution of the health care monstrosity slinking through the Capital is just as dangerous as earlier versions. The House is considering a version that would supposedly allow doctors to negotiate prices with the government instead of the earlier plans that included set prices that amounted to price controls.

Price controls are a problem because they are historically unrealistic and, over the long run, produce shortages. When a company is forced to sell an item at a price below the cost of production, distribution, and profit they stop producing—resulting in a shortage. Price controls also cause shortages through overconsumption. Thomas Sowell in Basic Economics (pg 29) tells of wealthy people who did not even live in the city holding on to apartments covered under New York’s rent control laws. This reduced the number of apartments available for the poor who were supposed to benefit from the laws.

When one of the agents is the government, negotiated prices are price controls with a less offensive name. Control is negative and implies a use of force. Negotiation sounds warm and fuzzy, sitting down over coffee and biscotti, and seeking what is best for both parties. In order for a negotiation to be effective, and balanced, each must have something to offer and negotiate from an equal footing. When one agent is far more powerful than the other, negotiation quickly gives way to demand. How is anyone, other than a separate sovereign nation, to negotiate with the US government? This is not possible because the government will set the terms of the negotiation. This will quickly degenerate to hidden price controls along with the resulting shortages.

What our healthcare system needs is a healthy dose of free market economics. Our system has been under the boot of big government for too long; Mr. Obama and his cronies in the Congress want us to believe the solution is adding the other boot.

Though it may sound like a bad, old joke, it is actually today’s news. Senator Olympia Snowe, from Maine, has once again crossed the aisle to vote with Democrats in favor of government healthcare. Many have referred to Senator Snowe as a moderate Republican, but this is not the proper term to describe her. To call someone a moderate implies that they stand in the middle on issues between extremes and seek to find the best way to work with the right or the left. Moderation connotes discipline and thoughtfulness, but political moderation is not what Senator Snowe practices. Since Arlen Specter left the party he pretended to support for years, Senator Snowe is now the turncoat-in-chief.

Of course, the Democrats are the one delivering the punch line in this joke. They are claiming a victory for the president, hoping it will shield moderate Democrats who have been forced to stand against this program. Senator Snowe has always danced to the left’s tune. I wonder if she realizes that today is National Coming-Out Day and those hiding their feelings are being encouraged to come out of the closet and express who they really are. Senator Snowe, it is time you came out of the closet and accept that you are a Democrat; you are not a moderate but a hard-left statist.

At one time the federal government was seen as limited. Now under the liberal junta currently running this nation the states are being reduced to branch offices of Washington. This was never envisioned by the founders who saw our nation as sovereign people in several sovereign states joined together and pooling part of their sovereignty in the federal government. King Obama and his Hip-Pocket Congress are working to sieze control of American lives and the American economy far beyond anything King George would have imagined. If you think healthcare has a problem now, wait until it becomes a government program–emergency room meet Post Office and DMV.

Max Baucus of Montana is hard at work trying to force his healthcare bill through committee and onto the floor of the Senate. If he succeeds we could have a new healthcare system in this country before long. Of course the new system will take care of few if any of the old problems and simply create higher taxes and more government red tape.

As an astute politician Max understands that sometimes compromise is needed to pass legislation. Some changes made to his proposal should get serious attention from those of us who will foot the bill for this program. He has offered changes to the number of people being subsidized to pay for coverage and the penalty for not getting coverage has been lowered.

The Baucus plan will provide subsidies to families and individuals to help defray the cost of getting insurance. This subsidy is available to any family making under $88,200 or any individual making less than $43,230. Of course when we look simply at the dollars one can see why this would be offered. Neither figure is a huge income these days, because the cost of coverage can run to 5 digits for some families. The problem is when you consider what portion of the population will now be subsidized. According to 2005 census figures, this would cover 80% of American households. If Max’s plan goes through 80% of Americans will have their healthcare costs subsidized by the Federal Government. Is anyone silly enough to believe that this will not require higher taxes or cuts to other spending? This is simply an effort to buy support from the American people. By casting wide the net of those on the dole Max hopes to get more people supporting his proposal.

The next problem doesn’t seem like a problem at all. It can almost be spun as a fix to a problem I already addressed. Max’s plan to require all Americans to buy coverage or face a fine is obviously problematic. In recognition of this Max had lowered the fine for not having coverage from $3800 to $1900. This is recognition that many will defy the plan and admission that the purpose is not to defray the costs to the system of uncovered patients. If the system were enforceable and truly for the purpose of getting Americans covered a higher fine makes sense. By lowering it Max is admitting that his plan will quickly make many previously law-abiding Americans into criminals. What will their crime be? Choosing to spend their money elsewhere.

Privacy between a doctor and patient is sacred in this country. It is illegal to share information with anyone the patient has not designated including the police—with a few exceptions. However, if Montana’s Max Baucus gets his way in the healthcare debate your doctor would become an agent of the police, at least in the enforcement of one federal law.

Like many of the current proposals on healthcare, the Baucus plan forces all Americans to purchase health coverage. Your employer might provide it, but if not, you would be required by federal law to purchase it yourself. This means that choosing to be uninsured will no longer be an option—find a job that provides it or find a way to pay for it.

On the surface it sounds good that all American’s will have coverage and it would solve some of the problems of the industry, but at what ultimate cost? Several problems would arise out of this requirement.

First, let’s look at the enforcement nightmares. Like all laws, this one is only as effective as the ability to enforce it. No matter how good a law sounds on paper, or in sound bites, if it is unenforceable there is effectively no law. Many who support this requirement compare it to mandated auto insurance, but there are some glaring differences. For one, there is the issue of opting out. If I want to avoid buying auto insurance I can choose to not drive. I can shop and work close to home or live in a community with mass transit. Either way I have a choice if I don’t want to fork out the money for auto insurance. Another difference is the issue of enforcement. In states where auto coverage is mandatory you show your insurance when getting your car inspected or registered. You also display proof of coverage when pulled over for an infraction or, in some states, at random check points.

With health coverage you will not have random check points to check insurance cards—we hope. The only option would be to report violators at the point of service. The doctor, hospital and clinic will be responsible for this. So instead of taking care of your needs, medical personal are converted into agents of the state. One may argue that checking for and reporting insurance noncompliance would be in the interest of the doctor because by this they can ensure a higher percentage of patients paying their bill. Part of the cost of health care is the number of people who opt out of coverage and choose to use the emergency room as their family physician because they can’t be refused care for an emergency. Requiring everyone to get coverage would handle this and supposedly reduce costs. What this will actually do is discourage those without coverage from seeking medical care even for true emergencies. In many communities hospitals and doctors are forbidden to report alien status. This is to protect those who are here illegally. It is assumed that if seeking medical care will get one’s illegal status discovered would keep those who need care from seeking it, endangering people’s lives and health. This is being overlooked in the case of mandatory coverage. So it is alright for the liberals to tie the doctor’s hands when it comes to reporting alien status, but then the doctor will be required to report anyone, including those here legally for not having coverage. People without coverage will be less likely to see a doctor for treatment until the danger is high enough to offset the cost of discovery.

Another problem is the negative impact to employer provided coverage plans. Most people with coverage provided through their employer pay a portion of the cost with the remainder paid by the employer. If everyone is required to have coverage the employer is empowered to transfer more costs to the employee because they have no option but to purchase coverage. They can choose to pay more though the employer or pay much more directly to the insurance company selling the policy.

Neither will this requirement reduce costs to the consumer. It is true that mandated coverage will reduce medical costs impacted by care for the uninsured. Providers will no longer set charges assuming a certain number will not pay. For example, suppose Doctor Jones knows that providing x level of coverage to n number of patients with appropriate profit requires c dollars. If Doctor Jones knows that 10% will not pay then he either finds a way to operate on less or increases by 10% his charges for those who d pay to offset the non-payers. By lowering this pool of non-payers through mandated coverage it is hoped that this transfer will no longer be needed. This will of course reduce the price of care, but only to those paying the bill—the insurance company. This decrease may lower premiums, but don’t forget that all Americans will be captive customers of the insurance companies. If they want to see the doctor without fear of being reported they must pay for insurance. Does mandating insurance lower or increase premiums? When anything is mandated those who provide it are able to demand higher prices for it, because opting out is no longer an option.
Finally, the greatest threat from this mandate is what it will do over the long haul. As people get tired of being forced to pay for insurance and accept more government interference in their health choices, the calls for a public option will grow. If you can’t convince the American voter to accept plan A just pile on more requirements until plan A becomes attractive. Those in the middle, squeezed because they don’t qualify for a subsidy, but can’t afford the cost of the coverage they are forced to buy, will begin to clamor for the system that has been planned by the left all along—a one-payer system with government control over the medical industry. Don’t be fooled. This effort to mandate health coverage in place of a public option is just one step to forcing government control of the health industry down the throats of the American people.

He overlooks the fact that it is not his townhall meeting and it is not his congressional office. The office is the property of his constituents and townhalls are where he stands before the consituents to account for his actions and to seek their continued support. Hopefully his voters will get the hint and send him home next election. Such arrogance needs to be responded to.