Obamacare: cure? or curse!

Obamacare: Cure Or Curse?

By Louis R. Petolicchio

With recent news that the “Blue Dog Democrats” – Congressional Democrats reputed to be fiscally conservative or ‘moderate’ – have reached an agreement with liberal Democrat leader Henry Waxman (D-CA) on a ‘compromise’ version of national health care reform (referred to here as “Obamacare”), it would appear that the federal government is on target to take over America’s vast and advanced medical industry.

Advocates have praised the movement towards nationalizing how medicine and medical services are delivered to the American people, particularly the 50 million plus-or-minus uninsured who have been the focus of Obama’s great angst. Critics have been raising a host of concerns that Obamacare is the first step towards a federally funded, single payer program that would eliminate individual choice of doctors and treatment.

While some may say that both sides on the issue may have valid arguments and are using hyperbole to discredit each other, if one begins to review the House that is under consideration (HB 3200), the case against Obamacare grows stronger and stronger.

In the past week a document by Peter Fleckstein has been circulating through the Internet that essentially outlines some of the most outrageous and disturbing elements of Obamacare, many of which directly contradict the claims Obama has been making in his efforts to promote this overhaul.

All of which raises some serious questions that Pennsylvania’s confirmed liberal Senators Bob Casey and Arlen Specter, as well as Congressmen like Tim Holden who claim to be Blue Dogs, should be forced to account for:

• Should the federal government decide for every individual what medical treatments we should receive? (Section 123 establishes a Health Benefits Advisory Committee to determine who gets what treatment)
• Should the federal government have the access to every individual’s private medical history? (Section 142 outlines the ‘collection of data’ as one of the duties of the ‘Health Commissioner’)
• Should illegal immigrants and non-citizens be provided health care coverage? (Section 152 provides blanket coverage to everyone without regard to US citizenship)
• Should the federal government have real-time access to every individual’s private financial records? (Section 1173A outlines the use of real-time access information to determine medical coverage concurrent with implementation of a national health ID card)
• Should the private health insurance plans be forced into the national program regardless of the desires of the individual participants? (Section 202 outlines the creation of a ‘Health Insurance Exchange)
• Should the federal government have the authority to ration healthcare for the American people? (Section 203 outlines the authority granted to the Commissioner to establish a ‘permissible range of cost-sharing’)
• Should the states be forced to restrict the coverage mandates approved by their own representative bodies? (Section 203 requires states to reimburse the federal government for any state requirements that exceed federal minimums)
• Should the federal government have the authority to mandate cultural and linguistic services (Section 204.b.7 states: “The entity shall provide for culturally and linguistically appropriate communication and health services”; Section 1122 reinforces these type of services)
• Should the federal government have the power to tax private individuals who choose not to participate in a health plan not approved by the federal government? (Section 207 outlines how individuals and employers will be taxed for not providing “acceptable coverage”; reiterated in Section 322 and Section 401)
• Should the federal government have the authority to interfere with the compensation relationship between the private individual and their respective physician? (Section 224 notes that “payment mechanisms and policies under this section may include patient-centered medical home and other care management payments, accountable care organizations, value-based purchasing, bundling of services, differential payment rates, performance or utilization based payments, partial capitation, and direct contracting with providers”)
• Who will pay for the treatment of illegal aliens? (Section 152 provides blanket coverage to everyone without regard to US citizenship while Section 246 prohibits payments for those not legally present in the US)
• When is a tax not a tax? (Section 59B.e.6 states: “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax…”)
• Should the federal government have the authority to control the productivity of medical service providers? (Section 1131 outlines those providers subject to federal quality oversight, including ambulatory and laboratory services)
• Should the federal government interfere with the physician/patient relationship with regards to hospital readmissions? (Section 1151 outlines how the national program will be applied to limit readmissions)
• Should the federal government interfere with the physician/patient relationship with regards to post acute care services? (Section 1152 outlines how the national program will be applied to control post acute care services)
• Should the federal government control the expansion of hospital facilities? (Section 1156 outlines how the national program will impact the expansion of medical facilities)
• Should the federal government determine whether special needs individuals should be eligible for health care services? (Section 1177 indicates that a cost analysis will be completed to determine the impact of costs as related to special needs individuals)
• Should the federal government manage individual healthcare without involvement of a local physician? (Section 1191 outlines implementation of a ‘telehealth’ [health care by phone?] system)
• Why should the federal government provide end-of-life counseling to participants in the national health plan? (Section 1233 outlines the use of ‘Advanced Care Planning Consultation’ including counseling for end-of-life services and supports)

Where do Pennsylvania’s federal legislators stand on these questions? Do they really think that the same government that spends $600 for a toilet seat and spends hundreds of thousands of dollars for Social Security bureaucrats to dance in Arizona can efficiently manage the American medical system?

Do Casey, Specter, Holden, Murphy and the other liberals who make up this commonwealth’s Democrat delegation, actually embrace such meddling in our individual health plans and our individual physicians? Do they really think the federal government has been granted the authority by the Constitution to tell doctors what to do and what medical treatments a sick individual should receive? Are they such tyrants that they want to steal away so much of our God-given liberties?

Ironically, the Obamacare bill does not simply relate to the creation of a national health care program. Multiple references are made throughout that amended the Social Security Act, Medicare, the federal tax code, and many other areas. To say that the Obamacare bill is sweeping in its nature is an understatement.

And need mention be made of the fact that there is no way to tell how this program will be fully funded?

Presuming neither the House nor the Senate actually try to sneak a vote in before their August recess, it is imperative for the people of Pennsylvania to challenge their legislators and demand both an accounting for their support of Obamacare. Opponents of Obamacare must make it clear in no uncertain terms that political careers are on the line, and must remain vigilante and vocal in publicly fighting this assault on American liberty.

Left? Right? or Balanced! - Part I

OK, I've jumped on the bandwagon and started reading the "5000 Year Leap". I highly recommend it to anyone and everyone. But I have quickly realized that the United States has skidded violently away from the intents and hopes of our founding fathers and, truthfully, we all are to blame. If Skoussen is right, then the accurate model of governmental ideals would show that there really is no 'left' or 'right' as we define them. In fact, though many of us have almost proudly claimed the moniker "right wing conservative", we really are not on the right. According to Skoussen's model, what we know as "right wing" is more properly defined as centrist. The Founders placed us in a balanced position of a constitutionally bound, democratic, republic - a conglomeration of the best facets of some of the most successfull governments of history. What we have seen for many years is the shifting toward government control (which Skoussen would place on the left) and away from our position of balance. However, the growing trend at the moment seems to be more libertarian and while many god-fearing Americans are pleased with the levels of agreement we have with those fighting for "more liberties", we need to carefully realize that there are many who would be pleased with absolute liberty - which would lead to anarchy (placed by Skoussen on the right). Therefore the battle, as always, is for CONTROL by the government or LIBERTY by the godless or BALANCE by the god-fearing. In other words, to whom is man really accountable - government, God, or himself?

Our Founding Fathers knew that any form of government that did not acquiesce to God (or at least a power higher than man himself - the Creator) would not and could not succeed. They believed that religious belief was the glue that would bind a people together, provide a common foundation for building this great nation and encourage the growth and prosperity that they all hoped for when they first came to this continent. It is important to realize that they did this knowing that no one religion was the answer, but a general appreciation of five basic truths was absolutely necessary. These five truths, as outlined by Benjamin Franklin and identified by Skoussen are as follows:

1. There exists a Creator who made all things, and mankind should recognize and worship him.
2. The Creator has revealed a moral code of behavior for happy living which distinguishes right from wrong.
3. The Creator holds mankind responsible for the way they treat each other.
4. All mankind live beyond this life.
5. In the next life mankind are judged for their conduct in this one.

While many Bible-believing Christians would wish to add to this list, we certainly agree that these five fundamentals are consistent and pertinent for every man and in a more practical sense, every religion - other than Humanism.

Elbridge Gerry, signer of the Declaration of Independence wrote, "Should we succeed in Power & Wealth every Empiree on Earth, and neglect the Morals of the people, is it not evident, that our Independence, instead of Freedom would produce a slavery far exceeding that of every other nation?" November 8, 1778

References: "The 5000 Year Leap", W. Cleon Skoussen

U.S. graduates low in Math, high is Socialism!

Although no one would say that education is free (just check you property tax bills!), free education has all but destroyed our American way of life. Liberal thought and philosophy have pervaded our educational institutions and just as John Dewey would have planned, the way was paved for a socialist, idealist to win the Presidency of the United States. We should all pay close attention to the perspective that the White House gives to ideals like liberty, equality, democracy, capitalism and so on. However, this trend toward socialism and the destruction of our freedoms was predicted based on the direction of our system of education.
When? How about the 1600's and the Jamestown Colony. Here's what Governor Berkely observed, "I thank God there are no free schools...and I hope we shall not have [for a] hundred years; for learning has brought disobedience and heresy and sects into the world, and printing has divulged them, and libel against the best government. God keep us from both."
"Free" education in the United States has done exactly what the Governor warned against. Our classrooms have become destitute of historic facts, absolute truths and the basic tenets of religious belief that made our country great. Instead, our students have been instructed in the great thinkers of history that have exalted man above all else. This simple yet pervasive ideal has given rise to generations that believe the tried and failed philosophies of socialism and collectivism combined with humanism and atheism will now work because our people have progressed to a point where "we" can now make them work! No matter how you spin it, the foundational truths of the American Independence are still relevant and current. Unalienable rights, endowed by the Creator are self-evident - unless you graduated from a public school in the United States!

Independence Day? Not in the House Speaker's office!

For all the good that is happening in Pennsylvania these days, beware of the continued erosion of our liberties. Ethan Allen and his Green Mountain Boys when mounting their amazing victory at Fort Ticonderoga were challenged with their authority in demanding surrender, made this stirring declaration: "In the name of the great Jehovah and the Continental Congress". It's a good thing he wasn't answerable to the Pennsylvania House of Representatives! Consider this:

"It then recent days, news has spread like wildfire throughout the commonwealth that the office of House Speaker

Keith McCall (D-Carbon County) censored a prayer which was supposed to be delivered by a pastor from

Adams County. The edit involved two words: "Jesus Christ."

McCall's office has tried to explain this action in a variety of ways. First, his office said the censorship was an

effort to keep all prayers made in the House "nondenominational" claiming that they don't want the commonwealth

to get sued, and that they are simply doing what other states have done. Then, his office said they wanted to

avoid any controversial prayers because of an incident alleged to have occurred where a pastor from Lancaster

County made inflammatory comments in a prayer he gave. Finally, McCall is claiming that he is only continuing

a policy begun by former House Speaker Matt Ryan (R-Delaware County) - which was three Speakers ago.

Yet, when a muslim cleric was invited to pray in the House, he was permitted to pray in the name of "Allah."

Laurel Lynn Petolicchio, Constitutional Organization of Liberty


Happy 4th of July

Sanford...Step Aside!

I'm often amazed at the apologists that spring up to defend immoral and unacceptable behavior of elected leaders! The comments I've heard have ranged from "What's the big deal?" to "His personal life is between he and his wife". These well intended comments might be political idealogs who do not want to lose a "good" man in office or they could just be truly apathetic to what these kind of actions really represent.
Frankly, whether Governor Sanford has finally found his "soul mate" or just a no strings attached fling is really meaningless. The fact is that his actions reveal a character flaw that cannot be ignored. First, he made a vow to his wife, probably before God, that implied faithfulness, honor, protection and love. He betrayed that vow. No matter how you slice it, that speaks to his integrity. As an engineering term, integrity implies thorough, complete strength. Governor Sanford has shown his flaws and revealed his lack of integrity. This disqualifies him from office.
Second, Governor Sanford spent money (his or otherwise), time and thought to "cover" his extramarrital affair. Regardless of where his "heart" was, this reveals a total lack of honesty and, in fact, exposes his proclivity to deceit.
Last, Governor Sanford's actions show that he is unworthy of the trust of his wife, his family, and certainly the people of South Carolina.
Integrity, fidelity, trust, and character are not just words to build a campaign or describe a friend. They are words with meaning; conservative thought and values will not be helped by someone with these unfortunate failings.
Our founding fathers knew that a nation that became godless, that elected leaders without virtue and that ignored the basic values of human decency was doomed. Marital infidelity and betrayal is enough reason for any public official to resign - regardless of conservative, liberal, republican or democratic schools of thought.
Finally, Governor Sanford has some serious work to do - but not in the State Capital, rather he has some serious work to do at home. Restoring his own values, his own marriage, his own family and his own soul. Caretakers of the public trust, that show themselves to be lacking in the areas mentioned above must honor the office and respect the position of leadership - even above their own worth to that office.
Mr. Sanford, the first step in restoring your integrity and character is to resign and privately deal with the difficulties you caused. Please step aside!