Denver 9/12 Rally: Freedom Forever

by Ari Armstrong | 8:57 am, September 13, 2009

In my speech at the Denver 9/12 rally, I discussed the fundamental moral and political choices our nation faces. To illustrate these themes I described how the problem of pre-existing health conditions, and the resulting difficulties of buying insurance, is primarily a product of political controls, starting with tax-driven, non-portable, employer-paid insurance.

See People’s Press Collective for the report.

Lu Busse, chair of The 9.12 Project Colorado Leadership Team, said the proper response to the cry, “health reform now,” is “freedom forever.” Of course, real health reform means reestablishing freedom in medicine, so the two goals are wholly consistent.

Chuck Moe:

Amy Oliver:

Jon Caldara:

Denver 9-12 Rally Report

by T.L. James | 5:48 pm, September 12, 2009

Some quick impressions from today’s 9-12 Rally on the capitol steps in Denver: Crowd size: I’m not an expert, but based on past experience I would guess there was maybe a bit shy of a thousand people there. Judge for yourself from the crowd photos below (keeping in mind that the width and shallowness of the venue [...]

A Million-Plus Marchers at Washington, DC 9-12 Tea Party?

by T.L. James | 3:33 pm, September 12, 2009

Stephen Green of Pajamas Media has live reports from throughout the day on today’s big Tea Party rally in DC. And check out this picture of the rally taken by Mary Katherine Ham [via Instapundit]. Who knew it would be so big? Just back now from Denver’s 9-12 rally – pictures to follow shortly. My [...]

Jon Caldara Speaks at the Denver 9.12 March

by admin | 12:05 pm, September 12, 2009

For more visit the Peoples Press Collective Video Feed

Ari Armstrong of FreeColorado.com

by admin | 11:11 am, September 12, 2009

Ari Armstrong of FreeColorado.com addresses the crowd at the Denver 9.12 march on Denver For more visit the Peoples Press Collective Video Feed

9.12 March On Denver Video Coverage

by admin | 10:27 am, September 12, 2009

For more visit the Peoples Press Collective Video Feed

Ryan Frazier leads Michael Bennet in early CO Senate poll

by Rossputin | 1:23 am, September 12, 2009

In a September 9th Rasmussen Reports survey of 500 likely Colorado voters, Ryan Frazier, the ex-military small businessman and Aurora City Council member, leads incumbent appointed Senator Michael Bennet by 1%, at 40% to 39%. Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck, who had been widely expected to be dropping out of the race (including by people who apparently heard that from Buck) but changed his mind, trails Bennet by 6 points.

It’s common wisdom (and Rasmussen notes) that an incumbent with less than 50% is a ripe target for tossing out of office. And that should be particularly true of a Senator with such low name recognition and higher negatives than positives.

Additionally, the rest of the Rasmussen survey has a couple of items which should bode well for Republicans: A majority of respondents believe the economy is getting worse and a majority believe the government will do too much in response to the economic downturn.

Of course, these polls still show a large number of undecided voters and there’s still a very long time until the election…time during which each candidate will work hard to build name recognition and approval.

While it’s going to be very difficult for Michael Bennet to increase his approval given his apparent left-wing positions (I say apparent because it’s very hard to know for sure what positions he holds). But Bennet already has a large fund-raising lead, money of his own, rich friends, and, even for someone with the nickname “Senator Who?”, there is value in incumbency, both because of the franking privilege and in fundraising in general.

It still seems likely that former Lt. Governor Jane Norton will enter the race and if so she may become the instant, though slight, front-runner for the Republican nomination because she’s held state-wide office and she, like Bennet, has friends who are huge political fund-raisers. That said, I think (and I hope) Ryan Frazier can overcome Norton’s strengths with his own: He’s a good speaker and, maybe more importantly, a good listener. I believe his political views will resonate much better with the broad Colorado electorate than would the views of the other GOP candidates. That means that some Republicans might have to decide whether they want a candidate to emerge from the primary who is their dream of a pure fire-breathing conservative, especially on social issues, but who will lose to Bennet, or whether they want to go with a solid candidate who might have one or two areas of difference with the most conservative members of the party but who stands a very good chance because of his wider appeal to knock out “Senator Who?”.

I would also note that rumors of the National Republican Senatorial Committee’s endorsement or quasi-endorsement of Jane Norton even before she had officially entered the race were damaging to Norton’s chances. While it’s not clear whether they initially directly endorsed her, they did register two Internet web sites to be used for her campaign. The NRSC explained that they do this on occasion to make sure that Democrats don’t register the sites, but one has to wonder how they choose which candidates to do this for. Colorado is a caucus state, not just a go-to-the-voting-booth primary state. This means that perceptions of grassroots GOP activists, precinct captains, etc., are extremely important. And I think most Colorado Republicans are sick of DC know-it-alls, particularly since those know-it-alls have destroyed the party by abandoning fiscal responsibility during the reign of George W. Bush. To the extent that GOP activists feel that Beltway politicians are trying to anoint a candidate, it’s a big negative for that candidate. In other words, the NRSC did Norton no favors by actions that allowed the inference of favoritism, even if none was intended (and I’m not saying I think none was intended). Even the chairman of the Colorado GOP, Dick Wadhams, said as much. And Norton did herself no favors by staying mostly silent on the matter.

Personally, I support the latter choice which is why I support Ryan Frazier.

Sept 11 post – how did our country change that day?

by Mr. Bob | 10:56 am, September 11, 2009

#tcot #redco #9-11 #gwot

Hard to know what to post about this morning. I am a little depressed that it seems the majority of people in my country are behaving as though 9-11 was a distant dream and our reaction to it was overdone.

I am in the unique position to be able to read reports otherwise not available to the uncleared public and I believe we didn’t go far enough to try and stop this from happening again, but I am restrained from being specific.

My life changed on 9-11, I fulfilled a promise I made to myself during the 1st gulf war by joining the US Navy shortly after 9-11 and doing my small part to help protect this country. I also was deployed during the Iraq surge and am proud of being able to take part in freeing that country from a dictator, then eventually from insurgents (for the most part).

Regardless of how you feel about it, Al-Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan fled to Iraq shortly after we went there, and were given a safe haven to regroup. We took them on and the blood thirsty dictator (and sons), destroying more than a few of them, making the middle east a safer place, and waking up the slumbering American haters too I’ll admit.

The ensuing propaganda war by partisan Democrats and European socialists hurt the effort a great deal, but we won none the less. The effects of the propaganda and the ineptitude of some in the previous administration have ushered in the most left wing administration this country has ever seen. I predict a one term Obama presidency as the country seems to have woken up from its ridiculous notion that liberals are somehow more moral. I speak as one “hoping for change”.

Thomas Jefferson said “oppressive laws are a result of a people who cannot govern themselves”. It remains to be seen if Iraq will be able to govern itself freely, given their chosen religion’s tendency to want to kill people who disagree with them. If they cannot, then the Libertarians and the “liberals” will be proved right and we should have stayed out…but that remains to be seen. Afghanistan/Pakistan is still a safe haven for terrorists because of the terrain and poverty of the area, but we are giving it the ole college try to oust them from that haven. Pray for peace.

Yesterday I posted that an American Muslim who previously accurately predicted 9-11 and the first tower bombing is predicting another, larger attack. I hope he is wrong. It seems however only about 1/2 of us woke up that September morning, I just wish it would not take more death and destruction to get the rest of us to realize what must be done.

Those in the “secret” services of our country can’t come out and defend themselves without losing their jobs by revealing secrets they’ve sworn to keep. This lack of available evidence fuels the left’s partisan and wrongheaded attacks, especially now as they move unfettered to attack the people who are sworn to protect their rights.

During the Bush administration’s tenure high level Democrats in congress and the house leveled charges of lying, murder, torture and terrorism against the CIA, the US Marines, the Army and other people sworn to protect us. 99.9% of it was a lie. The remaining was overblown. To date no one has paid any price for this treason. When will it end? It is getting worse (see below).

Good News! ABC Outs CIA Contractors!

ACLU outs CIA agents to Gitmo lawyers and to terrorists!

To end on a positive note, Andrew Klavan has a great video post today KLAVIN ON THE CULTURE

9/11: A Tribute to Dennis Cross

by elpresidente | 9:54 am, September 11, 2009

Michelle Malkin remembers as well. First posted September 11, 2006: This meager effort will surely not assuage the grief and pain felt by Dennis Cross’ family, but it is hoped will provide a small glimpse of the man known as “Captain Fearless”. I do not know this man, but upon reading his biography and the [...]

Obama Was Against the Mandate Before He Was For It

by Ari Armstrong | 9:00 am, September 11, 2009

Back on February 26, 2008, Barack Obama criticized Hillary Clinton for offering the same health insurance mandate that he endorsed just two days ago. (Thanks to Adam Eidelberg for looking up the transcript of the primary debate.)

Obama was right to question the mandate when Clinton proposed it. I’ve written more about the matter elsewhere (such as here.) For now, as a prelude to the before-and-after Obama quotes, I’ll summarize the main arguments against the mandate.

1. People have the right to choose which products to buy. It is immoral for politicians to force people to buy politically-controlled products.

2. The main reason some fraction of “the young and healthy” currently decide not to buy insurance is that politicians try to force the young and healthy to subsidize other people’s health care through jacked up insurance premiums. This is especially true in employer-paid insurance, and it is also true for directly purchased insurance due to state benefit mandates.

3. Obama’s pretense that the mandate solves the problem of forcing “the rest of us to pick up the tab” is laughable. The entire point of the mandate is to force some people to pick up the tab of other people’s health care through higher insurance premiums. That’s why Obama must force people to buy it. Without this coercion, Obama’s other insurance controls would dramatically increase costs of premiums and thus the numbers without insurance.

4. Real free-market reforms would lower the cost of insurance premiums so that more people could afford it. Roll back controls that jack up premiums. Expand Health Savings Accounts so that people can buy lower-cost insurance (as well as routine care) directly with pre-tax money.

5. The main reason why some people rely on expensive emergency room treatment, rather than seek out less costly alternatives, is that the federal government forces emergency rooms to offer care without compensation. That policy is wrong, and it predictably introduces perverse incentives.

6. People without insurance do not necessarily force others to fund their treatment. Many fund their treatment out of pocket. Again the solution is to legalize insurance they can afford and want to buy.

7. Mandated insurance is expensive insurance. Obama wants to force insurers to cover more routine care, continuing the federal push to pervert insurance into pre-paid medical care. When routine care is “free” (or nearly so) at the point of service, patients have practically no incentive to monitor costs. Also, under a mandate special interests continually try to get more services covered, jacking up premiums, as has happened in Massachusetts.

With that background, let us turn Obama’s position on mandates, then and now:

Obama then:

I have endured, over the course of this campaign, repeated negative mail from Senator Clinton in Iowa, in Nevada, and other places, suggesting that I want to leave 15 million people out.

According to Senator Clinton, that is accurate. I dispute it and I think it is inaccurate. On the other hand, I don’t fault Senator Clinton for wanting to point out what she thinks is an advantage to her plan.

The reason she thinks that there are more people covered under her plan than mine is because of a mandate. That is not a mandate for the government to provide coverage to everybody. It is a mandate that every individual purchase health care.

And the mailing that we put out accurately indicates that the main difference between Senator Clinton’s plan and mine is the fact that she would force, in some fashion, individuals to purchase health care.

If it was not affordable, she would still presumably force them to have it, unless there is a hardship exemption, as they’ve done in Massachusetts, which leaves 20 percent of the uninsured out. And if that’s the case, then, in fact, her claim that she covers everybody is not accurate.

Now, Senator Clinton has not indicated how she would enforce this mandate. She hasn’t indicated what level of subsidy she would provide to assure that it was, in fact, affordable. And so it is entirely legitimate for us to point out these differences.

The Democrats now have “indicated” how they would “enforce this mandate:” they would subject defectors to hefty fines.

While Obama claimed “the plan I’m proposing will cost around $900 billion over ten years,” he wasn’t specific about how much he would subsidize individuals.

Obama now:

For those individuals and small businesses who still cannot afford the lower-priced insurance available in the exchange, we will provide tax credits, the size of which will be based on your need… [F]or those Americans who can’t get insurance today because they have pre-existing medical conditions, we will immediately offer low-cost coverage that will protect you against financial ruin if you become seriously ill…

Now, even if we provide these affordable options, there may be those — particularly the young and healthy — who still want to take the risk and go without coverage. There may still be companies that refuse to do right by their workers. The problem is, such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us money. If there are affordable options and people still don’t sign up for health insurance, it means we pay for those people’s expensive emergency room visits. If some businesses don’t provide workers health care, it forces the rest of us to pick up the tab when their workers get sick, and gives those businesses an unfair advantage over their competitors. And unless everybody does their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek — especially requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions — just can’t be achieved.

That’s why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance — just as most states require you to carry auto insurance. Likewise, businesses will be required to either offer their workers health care, or chip in to help cover the cost of their workers. There will be a hardship waiver for those individuals who still cannot afford coverage, and 95 percent of all small businesses, because of their size and narrow profit margin, would be exempt from these requirements. But we cannot have large businesses and individuals who can afford coverage game the system by avoiding responsibility to themselves or their employees.

As I have noted, it is the mandate (not the public option) that defines Obama’s current policy. Mandated insurance is morally wrong and destined to generate bad consequences. We do not need more mandates. We need more liberty.

9/11 Plus 8

by Ben DeGrow | 6:46 am, September 11, 2009

Update: Michael at Best Destiny and Rossputin share their separate recollections of 9/11/01 and where our nation is eight years later.
Eight years ago today, with no substitute teaching job awaiting me, I slept in. My dad woke me. The TV was already on with scenes from the World Trade Center. The horror unfolded before my [...]

My 9/11

by Rossputin | 3:11 am, September 11, 2009

[These are my recollections as best I can recall. You can imagine that between the chaos and the years, some details may be slightly incorrect…but only slightly.]

Eight years ago today, I was sitting in my office in Chicago when I saw news of an airplane hitting one of the World Trade Center buildings. My company’s New York office was just a few blocks away (at Rector and Trinity), with my partners, employees, and friends preparing for another trading day.

I called my business partner, Steve B, in his office and was on the phone with him when the second plane hit. More precisely, I was on the phone with him as he said to me that he was watching the second plane hit. He was, not surprisingly, somewhat frazzled, with most of the the office windows having cracked or shattered, and a massive dust cloud accumulating just outside. He ran to get under a desk as it seemed the ceiling could collapse at any time, while shouting at others in the room to do the same.

Over the course of the day, I kept in touch as best I could, but it wasn’t easy. Steve and his roughly 50 employees waited in the building for hours until the fire department arrived to guide them out through foot-deep dust and rubble, through injured people, through total panic and devastation.  Every time I spoke to Steve, he was showing no concern for himself, with all his energy and attention going toward making sure our employees were OK – as OK as could be – amidst the chaos and destruction.

Most of our employees (more Steve’s than mine since he worked with them every day) found their way to the Staten Island ferry and worked their way home from there, either to New Jersey, Brooklyn, or elsewhere, often taking 8 or 10 or 14 hours to make a trip that’s usually under an hour. Cell phone towers were overloaded as people who worked near the towers and their families were trying to reach each other.

A couple of our traders had the misfortune to see people jumping from 100 stories up in a burning tower to escape the flames, despite certain death from the fall. Others saw body parts on the ground. It was one of the few bad situations where you can’t even say you wish you were there to try to help because you know that help was absolutely impossible.

My colleagues were quite shaken up for some time afterward. Of course, the New York office was closed, the entire area sealed off, so we ended up managing the New York and Philadelphia traders from the Chicago office for a couple of days. On the one hand, our traders were in a state of shock. On the other hand, you can imagine how insane the market was and we had to deal not just with trying to earn a living but with trying not to lose an enormous amount of money and our company. I have to say I have no recollection of whether we made money or not during those days. It wasn’t about that as much as it was about survival, more emotional than intellectual or financial. But I had to stay focused on the financial, primarily, and let Steve, Jimmy, and the other New York-based people help each other through the mental aspects of the murderous disaster.

In a way, I’m still not sure the true degree of the devastation has set in because I had to put up such a thick wall against it at the time just to get through the next several days. But, in truth, I only saw about it on TV and heard about it (admittedly from eye witnesses) over the phone. So no matter what, I realize that obviously I had it easy.  I will, thankfully, never know the true depth of fear, anger, horror, and shock that my colleagues and friends suffered – not just that day, but for a long time afterwards in the inevitable mental reliving of the events.

I can almost feel old wounds reopening just writing these words.

While it’s my nature to want to write a political tangent to this, I’m not going to.

Instead, I ask you to take a moment to remember those who, on this day 8 years ago, were killed by terrorist murderers, and to thank and honor those who died in heroic efforts to save others.  And I ask you to take a moment to remember and thank their families, whose suffering continues and is reawakened each and every September 11.

Obama Care and America’s Entitlement Kids

by Brian Schwartz | 1:30 am, September 11, 2009

Unfunded liabilities from Medicare and Social Security cost each U.S. household the cost of raising two children.  ObamaCare adds one-third of a “government kid.”

(Via Paul Gessing at StateHouseCall.)

Rasmussen: Michael Bennet Vulnerable, Running Even with Ryan Frazier

by Ben DeGrow | 9:28 pm, September 10, 2009

On the eve of Jane Norton’s official entry into Colorado’s U.S. Senate fray comes from Rasmussen Reports what figures to be the last poll of the race without her for awhile. In this survey, the top two early Republican contenders were paired up separately against Bill Ritter’s incumbent appointee Michael Bennet.
The biggest clear takeaway from [...]

Once Proud Freedom-Loving Gazette Backs Colorado Springs Tax Hike

by Ben DeGrow | 5:04 pm, September 10, 2009

Last week I pointed out that financial concerns might end up pushing the Colorado Springs Gazette to abandon its longstanding position as a beacon of limited government, personal liberty, and fiscal sanity. Well, buckle up, because it’s started happening really quickly.
Witness today’s Gazette editorial co-signed by publisher Steven Pope and John Weiss, publisher of the [...]

Healthcare main topic on Regis University radio show

by Jimmy Sengenberger | 3:11 pm, September 10, 2009

President Obama last night gave a, ahem, riveting speech to members of Congress and the American public advocating a set of “pressing” reforms to fix a system he has called “broken.”  “We know we must reform this system,” he said, and proceeded to advocate a government expansion plan that he tried to mask and triangulate [...]

Previously (VERY) Accurate Prognosticator says bigger 9-11 style attack Imminent

by Mr. Bob | 3:05 pm, September 10, 2009

#tcot #gwot #islam
From Deseret News; Earlier this year, quite by happenstance, I read a book written by Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter James B. Stewart.

Hat tip Yankee Sailor

“Heart of a Soldier” tells the story of two men who, well before it happened, foretold not only of the terrorist attack of 9/11 but also the 1993 bombing in the World Trade Center parking garage that preceded it.

One of the men, Rick Rescorla, was chief of security for Morgan Stanley with an office in the World Trade Center. He died on 9/11, but not before he shepherded all but six of Morgan Stanley’s 2,700 employees to safety because of a well-prepared and well-executed evacuation plan. He’d have made it out, too, had he not gone back in the building looking for those six.
The other man, Daniel J. Hill, is still alive.

With another Sept. 11 approaching I wanted to talk to The Man Who Predicted 9/11.
Although the primary focus in Stewart’s book is on Rescorla — a bona fide hero for his actions on 9/11 — I found Hill to be an even more fascinating character. Read the rest at Deseret News

Official Jane Norton for U.S. Senate Announcement to Come Tuesday AM

by Ben DeGrow | 2:39 pm, September 10, 2009

Update, 9/11: About 24 hours later, the Denver Post catches up — but does offer some more detail about Norton’s first day of scheduled appearances. Let the campaign good times roll….
Not that this news will shatter any earth, but you can say you read it here first: Jane Norton is making her candidacy official next [...]

Mandate, Not Public Option, Defines Obamacare

by Ari Armstrong | 1:39 pm, September 10, 2009

Rather than “hope and change,” Barack Obama offers a warmed-over Republican policy — Romneycare — that has already failed in Massachusetts. The core of Obama’s fake reform (described most recently in his address to Congress) is not, as many conservatives suggest, the “public option.” It is instead the proposal to force people to buy politically-controlled insurance. (For details on the Massachusetts fiasco, which Obama hopes to replicate on a national scale, see the articles by Paul Hsieh and Michael Cannon.)

It is the mandate that ties together the various tenets of Obamacare, particularly insurance controls (regarding coverage and pre-existing conditions) and expanded subsidies.

Regarding pre-existing conditions, I’ve pointed out, “Forcing insurers to ignore pre-existing conditions means allowing consumers to wait until they get sick to buy insurance… The logical consequence of forcing insurers to ignore pre-existing conditions is to force everyone to purchase insurance…”

Obama made the same point in his speech: “Unless everybody does their part [and purchases insurance under compulsion], many of the insurance reforms we seek — especially requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions — just can’t be achieved.” Just so.

Nevermind the fact that federal policies largely created the problems of uncovered pre-existing conditions.

Obama admits, “More and more Americans worry that if you move, lose your job, or change your job, you’ll lose your health insurance too.” But why is health insurance (and not any other sort of insurance) tied to employment for most Americans? It is because of federal tax distortions that drive expensive, non-portable, employer-paid insurance.

As I’ve noted (and again), the vast net of continuously changing insurance controls also helps to effectively outlaw stable, long-term policies that would remedy the problem of pre-existing conditions.

For more on this issue, please see Paul Hsieh’s outstanding article, “How the Freedom to Contract Protects Insurability.”

Obama wants to force insurers to ignore pre-existing conditions and also force insurers to cover preventative care (which would, incidentally, outlaw my high-deductible plan and force my wife and me to buy dramatically more costly insurance). The inevitable result of such controls is to jack up insurance premiums (leaving aside Obama’s fantasy that giving people more “free” health care will somehow curb costs).

Mandated insurance requires expanded subsidies. After all, you can’t force somebody to purchase a product that they literally cannot afford. If Obama follows the lead of Republicans, his “tax credits” will in many cases be direct subsidies.

Obama hopes to cheat a little on his mandate, claiming “there will be a hardship waiver for those individuals who still cannot afford coverage.” (Whether you can “afford” this politically-manipulated “coverage” will be determined by the federal government.) Apparently Obama would subsidize these “hardship” cases through some combination of tax-funded welfare and tax-funded insurance.

With or without the “public option,” the core of Obamacare remains the same: force everyone (or nearly everyone) to buy insurance, federally control what insurance people can buy (making it more expensive), and forcibly transfer more wealth to pay for health.

Health Czar

by Jon Caldara | 12:07 pm, September 10, 2009

From our good friends over at the Sam Adams Alliance…
An entertaining look at the ever-so-tough job of being a health czar.

NPR Struggles with the Idea of Individualism

by Jon Caldara | 12:04 pm, September 10, 2009

Listening to the NPR coverage of Denver’s Liberty on the Rocks (south metro) meet-up last night to watch Obama’s health care speech, you can hear how foreign Jeff Brady feels in such a pro-freedom environment. It must be difficult for a reporter from NPR to grasp that there are people out there who value [...]

Liberty on the Rocks, Meet NPR: Response to Obama Care Speech

by Ben DeGrow | 10:26 am, September 10, 2009

Over at Free Colorado, Ari Armstrong highlights the prominent role played by members of a local Liberty on the Rocks chapter in today’s NPR Morning Edition story (complete with audio).
Three LOTR members in particular responded to Obama’s speech last night on health care reform to a joint session of Congress. Quotes below…
Amanda Teresi on [...]

Liar? Was Obama Telling the Truth?

by Mr. Bob | 8:57 am, September 10, 2009

#tcot #obamacare #teaparty
-updated
Much has been made about Joe Wilson calling the president a liar during his speach last night. Rep. Wilson’s shout-out Wednesday night came in response to President Obama’s claim that illegal immigrants would not be covered by the Democrats’ health care plan.

“Nothing in any of the Democrat bills would require individuals to verify their citizenship or identity prior to receiving taxpayer-subsidized benefits—making the President’s promise one that the legislation itself does not keep,” the House Republican conference wrote in a “Myth vs. Fact” news release. Senator McCain disagrees though. READ THE REST

I think it was crass and in poor taste to yell at the president while he is speaking but I can’t argue with Rep. Wilson….he was right. The president is playing fast and loose with all the facts and in some cases…like ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS and ABORTION he is either completely ignorant or outright lying, either one is inexcusable.

Factcheck.org says the President is not telling the truth on the Abortion issue.
UPDATE:

Will health care legislation mean “government funding of abortion”?

President Obama said Wednesday that’s “not true” and among several “fabrications” being spread by “people who are bearing false witness.” But abortion foes say it’s the president who’s making a false claim. “President Obama today brazenly misrepresented the abortion-related component” of health care legislation, said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee. So which side is right?

The truth is that bills now before Congress don’t require federal money to be used for supporting abortion coverage. So the president is right to that limited extent. But it’s equally true that House and Senate legislation would allow a new “public” insurance plan to cover abortions READ THE REST

NPR Gets Liberty On the Rocks Reaction to Obama’s Health Speech

by Ari Armstrong | 8:21 am, September 10, 2009

NPR reporter Jeff Brady watched Barack Obama’s health address to Congress with members of the Denver Tech Liberty on the Rocks. He interviewed numerous participants and quoted three in his report.

Amanda Teresi, founder of Liberty On the Rocks, explained why forcing insurers to ignore pre-existing conditions runs contrary to the basic purpose of insurance: “The idea is that it’s health insurance. And the whole concept of insurance is that you get it before you get sick, or before something happens to you. It would be the equivalent of not having any car insurance, hitting a tree, and then calling Geico and saying you want to sign up. It doesn’t make sense.”

(I’ve written a first and second article on the topic.)

T. L. James suggested that Obama’s comments about tort reform won’t amount to much. James told Brady, “Tort lawyers fund an important part of the Democratic power base, their funding base for their elections. There is no way that he’s going to do anything that’s going to turn them away from the Democratic party.”

Finally, Orin Ray said he didn’t think Obama’s speech really changed anybody’s mind.

Brady did a nice job with his brief report. However, I wish he had mentioned the more fundamental issues. The fact that Obama wants to force everybody to buy politically-controlled insurance is a huge deal, as is the fact that Obama wants to expand subsidies. Nor did Brady mention the political causes of today’s problems in medicine, or that Massachusetts has already tried — and failed — to successfully implement Obama’s key “reforms.” (I discussed all of these issues with Brady.) Yet Brady didn’t have much time for his portion of the report, and he was basically fair.

Another Case of Jane Norton Deja Vu?

by Ben DeGrow | 7:58 am, September 10, 2009

Yesterday the official news finally rolled out that Jane Norton is getting into the U.S. Senate race. Today one case of deja vu follows another. Norton of course is most well-known for running on the 2002 Bill Owens statewide ticket and serving as lieutenant governor during his second term.
So (thanks to an astute reader [...]

Follow-up on Wednesdays Big Events

by Rossputin | 6:55 am, September 10, 2009

As I mentioned yesterday, Barack Obama’s rebranding of his health care snake oil wasn’t the only important event of the day.  (I may or may not get around to writing about that. It strikes me that lots of other people are doing a fine job with it.  I recommend THIS article and THIS article for those of you who need an antidote to the dominant liberal media’s fawning coverage.)

As for me, I spent a lot of time yesterday writing about and reading the transcript of the very important Supreme Court oral arguments in the case of Citizens United v FEC. It’s one of the most important political free speech cases in years and there seems to be a slim majority on the Court ready to take some action.

Please read my thoughts about the case and yesterday’s hearing at:

“Supreme Court Revisits “Hillary the Movie“, Ross Kaminsky, HumanEvents.com, 9/10/09
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33483

Anatomy of a Dick Wadhams Rumor: Nevada’s Chuck Muth Gets Last Word

by Ben DeGrow | 6:37 am, September 10, 2009

Last Friday, the Dump Reid PAC out of Nevada sent out an email update that included the following note about Colorado’s Republican Party chairman and a leading Republican contender to take on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in 2010:
Sources confirm that Dick Wadhams was in Las Vegas recently to meet with [Sue] Lowden and is [...]

Why Medicare is popular

by Brian Schwartz | 1:30 am, September 10, 2009

Advocates of more government-run health care point to Medicare as successful example.  “It’s popular!” they say.  Vince Carrol points out one likely reason in his Denver Post column:
“The reason for Medicare’s attractiveness to seniors is not hard to find,” writes Professor Mark Pauly of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania in his book [...]

Health care bill shows its pro-union intent

by Rossputin | 1:21 am, September 10, 2009

Over at the Washington Examiner, Kevin Mooney has done an excellent job demonstrating the pro-union intent of HR3200, the House of Representatives’ health care “reform” bill.  Like everything that comes from this President and this Congress, its primary aim is the growth of power of unions.

I’ve done a little digging into the bill myself, using some guidance from Mr. Mooney’s article, and found the following (much of which is duplicative of the article):

Section 123 creates a “Health Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced, and premium plans.”  The panel will contain 9 members who are not Federal employees but are appointed by the President, 9 members who are not Federal employees and who are appointed by the Comptroller General of the United States, and an unspecified even number (not to exceed Federal employees appointed by the president.  In addition to the obvious political interference caused by up to 17 panel menbers appointed by the President, the Committee also must include a representative of “labor”, i.e. a labor union.  Oh, it must also include at least one practicing physician.  Phew. These are the people who will decide what must be in your health insurance plan.

Similarly, Section 2261 creates  the “Advisory Committee on Health Workforce Evaluation and Assessment” which will conduct something like a census of the health care work force.  Anyone want to take a guess what the purpose of that is?  How about giving the union bosses the information needed to try to unionize one of the largest non-unionized sectors of the workforce (maybe the single largest)?  It’s no coincidence that we see this type of thing from the same group that wants to take over control of the actual census.  Of course, this Committee must include at least one representative of labor unions even though there is not only no reason for this entire provision but there is no reason other than trying to help unions grow to insist on union membership on the panel.

Section 2531 creates a multi-million dollar grant program to train nurses.  However, for an entity to be eligible for a grant it must be “jointly administered by a health care employer and a labor union”.  You get that?  If you run a hospital, you can only get grant money to train nurses if you bring in labor unions to help you run the place.  Any guess how that would work out for your bottom line?

In Kevin Mooney’s article, the Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner says that some may be “overstating the case concerning union appointees and their potential influence on health care.”  And while I usually agree with Tanner, I think he’s being rather naive given the source of this legislation.  The odds that legislation coming from this Congress with the support of this President is not intentionally designed to boost the power and wealth of unions regardless of the cost to society, to the health care system, or to anyone else except Democrats, is vanishingly small.

Obama Wrong About Mandatory Auto Insurance

by Ari Armstrong | 11:19 pm, September 9, 2009

I watched Barack Obama’s address on health policy tonight on television at Liberty On the Rocks at the Denver Tech Center. Both NPR and Fox 31 sent reporters to cover the speech and the free-market response to it. I’ll have more to say about the speech in coming days. For now, I want to correct but one of Obama’s remarks:

“That’s why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance — just as most states require you to carry auto insurance.”

It is simply not true that states “require you to carry auto insurance.” Rather, you must buy auto insurance (or face fines) only if you drive an automobile on politically operated roads.

For example, Colorado’s statute 10-4-619 states that “compulsory coverage” applies to “every owner of a motor vehicle who operates the motor vehicle on the public highways of this state or who knowingly permits the operation of the motor vehicle on the public highways of this state.”

In other words, if you don’t own a motor vehicle, or you don’t drive your vehicle on “public highways,” you aren’t required to buy auto insurance.

It is indeed interesting that Obama sees a politically controlled industry as the model for health care.

Obama’s proposal to force everybody to buy politically controlled insurance is not like the requirement to buy auto insurance for public highways. Under Obama’s proposal, there is no escape and no exception. If you don’t buy insurance that politicians and their appointed bureaucrats approve for you, you face hefty fines. If you want to self-insure, or if you don’t like the politically-approved insurance, that’s tough. You will be forced to buy it. Because Obama is all about choice, competition, and freedom. And two plus two equals five.

September 10 Update: Wesword’s Michael Roberts picked up on the NPR coverage of Liberty On the Rocks and also quoted this blog post. As I pointed out in the comments, this post made a delimited point quickly. I’ve written much more about mandated insurance elsewhere.

« go back — keep looking »

Featured Posts

• Judge Rules Americans Can Be Forced to Testify Against Themselves

  In order to protect our rights, our security must be protected. In order to protect our security, our rights must be invaded. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

• World Economic Forum in Switzerland: Global Elites Celebrating Hypocrisy
• SCOTUS decision on warrantless GPS surveillance produces an expected friend of privacy
• You didn’t want your Fifth Amendment rights, anyway, did you?
• Keynesian Economists Finally Catch Up and Agree: China to Have Hard Landing
• The Beauty of Private Property—from China?
• Regime Uncertainty, Regulatory Surge, and Unemployment Numbers