Is it legal?

The new health care legislation requires individuals to purchase health insurance. Is this constitutional? Numerous organizations have threatened to file suit if the bill passes. In this bill, the government will force individuals to purchase a product from a private organization (or face tax penalties). There are subsidies, to help make it affordable, but that is not the point. Verbiage also in the bill states that the bill cannot be repealed or altered. How is that legal? I guess this is way over my head because it makes no sense to me how any of this can actually be happening. The bill also requires state to use their own funds to expand the Medicaid program, this is an unfunded federal government mandate to the states. Last I heard, that was illegal. The federal government can't write new laws requiring the states to pay for things that they don't have the budget for. States are in charge of themselves. The federal government isn't in charge of states or state budgets. I will be interested to see how the question of legality is answered.

Random News

I have been short on time lately, so for this post I am including some direct quotes from various news organizations on things you may want to know.

From the Wall Street Journal today an article mentioned a recent survey it had conducted in conjunction with NBC News. It said this, "In December's survey, for the first time, less than half of Americans approve of the job President Barack Obama is doing, marking a steeper first-year fall for this president than his recent predecessors."

From the Wall Street Journal today an article detailed some of the travel expenses reported by Congress. The article stated, "The cost they reported for such travel abroad was $13 million, a 70% jump from 2005, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of the travel records. Lawmakers don't have to provide the cost of domestic travel when the government pays. The $13 million didn't include the expense of flying on Air Force planes, which lawmakers don't have to disclose."

Fox News quoted Newt Gingrich when speaking of the possibility that Obama might bypass Congress and illegally enter into an international climate-change bill. Obama may go directly to the EPA to have them act without ever having the agreement ratified in Congress. Gingrich said, "Similarly he can't bypass the peoples' representatives in Congress by having the EPA pursue the same goals through bureaucratic totalitarianism."

More later...

More Healthcare Talk

I was reading a report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) on the costs of the healthcare legislation on citizens. For those not on employment based coverage earning over $90,000 (for a family of 4), the cost of insurance premiums would be $14,200. This family would not be eligible for subsidies that everyone keeps talking about. This amount represents 16% of that family's income. If they family chooses not to buy insurance, they will be fined a couple thousand dollars. In comes bigger government, out goes personal freedom.

For those on employment based coverage, 19% of us will have an excise tax of 40% of the premium exceeding a determined premium $ amount. This tax will affect almost 1 in 5 with employment based coverage. I have heard about this tax, but it referred to those few with "Cadillac" policies, so I assumed that it would probably apply to 2-5% of policies, because who has these amazing policies, right? But no, 19% of people with employment based coverage will fall under this new tax.

Where does the part come in about reigning in healthcare costs? It doesn't. This bill has nothing to do with healthcare reform and reigning in healthcare costs. It has to do expanding government. I would love to see a bill that helps reign in healthcare costs, but this is not the bill. This is a government expansion bill.

Climategate

I have always been a global warming skeptic. I have always believed it could be happening, but didn't believe there was conclusive evidence to support it. A few months ago a story came out when a scientist (who works for the EPA) told the press his article was suppressed by the EPA showing that global warming may not be happening. Now we find out that CRU, NASA have been manipulating data and there are countless stories of threats to scientific publications not to print studies showing data contrary to the theory of global warming. Yet many say all of the hoopla is being taken out of context. Data manipulated to show a trend should still be trusted because the emails were "stolen." I don't buy it. This is a conspiracy.

Al Gore stands to make millions on cap and trade, why wouldn't he fly around in his private jet talking about the need to reduce the use of fossil fuels and save the world from imminent destruction? "The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk," says Gore. "And even more -if more should be required- the future of human civilization is at stake. The answer is to end our reliance on carbon-based fuels." (Remember, never waste a crisis.) Maybe Mr. Gore should take the first step and stop using a private jet. Or maybe should sell one of his many homes. He alone uses more energy in a year than I would probably use in 10 years. That is the inconvenient truth Mr. Gore. The data was manipulated and you don't practice what you preach. It's up to everyone else to conserve, you are apparently above that. If you have money, it's okay to waste energy, if you have power, manipulating data is okay. I think I understand now.

Harry Reid Can't Be Serious

Harry Reid likens the fight for healthcare legislation to the fight for civil rights and women's sufferage. Equal rights is not the same as gov't provided/subsidized health insurance. Why is he so concerned about Republicans blocking the passage of the bill, when there is a Democratic majority and he doesn't need a single Republican vote to pass his bill? Lets not even get into the irony of his comparison of this situation to the (Dem) filibuster of the civil rights bill. Maybe he should worry about the fact that he doesn't have all of the votes of his Democrat buddies, or maybe he should worry about the state of Nevada. His constituents don't like what he's doing with healthcare. Maybe he should listen to them and the majority of Americans. Instead he took the more politically expedient road, and criticized all Republicans. He can't really think this is the way to bring about "change." He can't really be serious.