If the question were whether or not the lift was good for public health, then the answer it seems would be that lifting the ban will help slow the spread of some diseases.  That, however, should not be the question.  The Constitution Party has a story about David Crockett that they use with some of their literature.  I believe the name of it is “Not Yours to Give.”  The question should be, does government have the right to force its citizens to pay for other Americans to have things?  To rephrase this question, does government have the right to redistribute wealth?

Government owns nothing.  Government receives its taxes, property, and consent from the governed.  Therefore, anything given to anyone by the government actually is forced giving from the citizens.  I, myself, have a problem with my money being given to drug users to keep them from getting deadly diseases.  Do I hope that they get diseases?  Absolutely not.  I wish that all disease were eradicated, but I have a problem with paying for it.  I also have a problem with the government subsidizing anything, much less something illegal.  What else are we going to subsidize?  How about we give materials for making meth labs safer.  Let’s make a law saying that you can cook meth in the open so as to not harm others?  Where does it stop? 

Lifting the ban will help people from contracting disease as easily, but it is and should be unconstitutional.  It is not yours to give.

Americans have come to expect very little out of our political leaders. Mark Twain had several quotes about Congress and our political system. He stated said that “… I never can think of Judas Iscariot without losing my temper. To my mind Judas Iscariot was nothing but a low, mean, premature, Congressman.” More famously he stated, “It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.”

Steve Chapman, columnist and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune, wrote an editorial entitled “The Other Prostitution Scandal” in which he wrote that “[p]olticians take people’s money with a promise to fulfill desires that supposedly can’t be attained any other way. Prostitutes do the same, though by reputation, they are more reliable in delivering.”

Ronald Reagan also stated, “It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession.  I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.”

Those who become involved in politics start out tainted because the American public is inclined to distrust our government because of the power government wields, but also because those running government are rarely virtuous.  George Washington said, “Government is not reason;  it is not eloquent; it is force; Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

Americans used to love their government.  Loosing the binds of the tyranny of Britain, the American patriots were able to construct a government that erred on the side of caution.  The Articles of Confederation was an experiment which was meant to allow power to remain with the states and a federal government weak enough to allow it citizens freedom from oppression.

After it became obvious to many of the leaders of the young republic, the framers met to construct a new document which would make improvements on the Articles of Confederation.  The Constitution was a document that not everyone could get behind.  The Anti-Federalists, with the likes of Patrick ‘Give me Liberty, or Give me Death’ Henry, Samuel ‘Father of the American Revolution and the Boston Tea Party’ Adams, George ‘Father of the Bill of Rights’ Mason, and Richard Henry ‘Father of the Motion to Separate from Great Britain’ Lee, were against the Constitution because they felt it did not protect the rights of people.

It is evident that there is a genuine distrust of government that has existed from the founding of our nation.  It existed due to the tyranny of Great Britain on the American Colonies, and it continues to exist today because of the deceitfulness of our elected officials at present.

The president of the Constitutional Convention of Philadelphia is the greatest iconic figure of American history.  That figure went on to an unanimous win in the first presidential election in our nation’s history.  George Washington is our equivalent to Zeus and is chiseled into our Mt. Olympus at Mt. Rushmore.  The myth surrounding the man is bigger than his life itself.  Probably incorrectly, the most famous legend of Washington is of him as a lad.  It is said that one day he cut down his father’s cherry tree.  When asked about the incident, he is said to have replied, “I cannot tell a lie,” and he admitted to it.  History tells us that this story is likely untrue, but this perception still sticks.  The greatest American ever is seen as a truthful saint.

The next American that even rivals Washington, himself the other bookend of Mt. Rushmore, is equated with truth also.  Honest Abe, as he is sometimes referred, is consistenly listed in the top 3 of greatest American Presidents lists.  Lincoln is treated as being a representative of truth as his name denotes.

It is not coincidence that the two men considered by most to be the two greatest Americans of all-time are known for honesty, whether through fact or just perception.  Honesty is a virtue that Americans long for in government.  Lying and half truths are not.  It is indisputable, however, that lies are tools of contemporary politicians.  Healthcare is one such area where the Left has consistently wielded deceit as a weapon and tool. 

Early on as the debate over health care raged, top Democrats stated that abortion was not a part of the health care overhaul plan.  Leaders of the Democratic Party stated that the Hyde Amendment of 1976 would not allow abortion to be a part of the health care plan.  Apparently that was a flat out lie.  Rep. Stupak (D - MI) offered up an amendment to the House health care bill which would place restrictions on abortion coverage in the health care bill.  The Stupak Amendment was not included in the Senate plan.  As a matter of fact, abortion is covered in the Senate plan.

President Barack Obama stated “the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegaly.”  On its surface, this appears to be truthful in both the House and Senate versions of the bill, but there is a loop hole.  The bills as they are now written expand and fund the expansion of Medicaid.  Medicaid does fund some health care for illegal immigrants.  In effect, the health care bill does fund illegal immigrants.  Rep. Joe Wilson was correct in his ascertation that Pres. Obama is a liar on the health care for immigrants issue.  In fact, Americans also cover the cost for illegal immigrants’ health coverage whenever we pay for any medical care.  Medical care that cannot and is not paid for by a consumer is spread out in costs to other consumers.

President Barack Obama has claimed he would not sign a bill for health care reform that is not deficit-neutral.  He has touted that the Congressional Budget Office reports that the bill will actually cut the deficit.  Matt Welch of Reason.com in “Obama’s Latest Health Care Lie” points out that the CBO must take what is said at face value, and the fact that Congress promises to make unspecified future cuts, the CBO must take those cuts into account, whether or not they are ever instituted.  He also points out Obama’s numbers are inflated from what the CBO is actually projecting.  Peter Suderman, another writer for Reason is referenced as reminding readers that cutting a deficit does not necessarily mean spending less.  Opponents of the health care plan have also pointed out that the bill double counts savings in order to achieve deficit-neutrality.  Label this a lie or half-truth from Obama as well.

The term “death panel” may be an exaggeration, but the fact is the idea of the so-called death panels exists.  The Independent Payment Advisory Board is a panel responsible for deciding how to cut and control costs.  This type of rationing in effect does make life or death decisions for a patient.  It may be decided that a patient with a certain disease may not receive the treatment that the patient and doctor decide on, and so the patient and doctor may need to seek a cheaper, less desireable option of care that does not work as well.  Any time that medical decisions are handed to bureaucrats, medical decisions are made more slowly and denied based on economics.  To say that the “death panels” are non-existent is more disengenuous than saying there are “death panels.” 

Two other misrepresentations that were parroted early on by President Obama is that you can keep your doctor if you like your doctor and you can keep your health plan if you like your health plan.  No doubt, these promises were made as a way of halting early talk that government health reform would take away your right to see your own doctor and keep your own plan.  This is another instance of a situation where things have a good chance of happening indirectly. 

Say you have a company.  You are paying a good portion of your employees’ insurance.  For representative reasons, let’s say you are paying $400 a month for each employee.  Now a new bill has passed and become law that says that you (as an employer) will be fined $200 a month for not providing insurance to employees.  Furthermore, there is an option that your employees can take if you do not provide them with insurance.  Obviously, you can save money and your employees do not have to go without insurance.  It is a win-win situation for you.  Unfortunately, the employee does lose out on their insurance plan that they liked as they are moved to the government plan.  Oh, and by the way, the government insurance isn’t accepted by the doctors your employees visit.  Think that is not coming? 

The public option is not included in the current health care plan, but it is next on the horizon.  If it is not included in the reconciled bill, it will come soon after this health reform bill is passed.  Several Congressmen are claiming that any bill that does not address the public option is unacceptable.  They also state the public option will soon be revisited.  Many supporters of the public option further hope that the public option will soon lead to a single-payer plan.  Though Pres. Obama seems to distance himself from the idea of a single-payer system as he did in speaking to the American Medical Association recently, he has said to both SEIU and AFL-CIO in two different settings that he is a proponent of a single-payer plan and that he did not think he could “eliminate employer coverage immediately.”  The Chicago Sun-Times quotes Pres. Obama as saying he was not pushing a single-payer system because our system is employer based, but he thinks “moving toward a single-payer system could very well make sense.  That’s the kind of system that you have in most industrialized countries around the world.”  Keeping your insurance and doctor is not as certain as Obama makes it sound with health reform.

After getting 60 votes for the Senate health bill, Harry Reid said that there was a lot of partisanship going around the health care debate, but he did not view it as 60 Democrats voting against 40 Republicans.  He saw it as 60 leaders who stood up against insurance companies and stood up for hard-working Americans.  He also stated that this is a declaration that health care is a right, not a privilege. 

A recent CNN poll showed that 56 percent of Americans were against the health care reform.  That leaves only 44 percent of Americans who are either for the reforms or are undecided about the reforms.  In effect, Harry Reid and the Democratic Senate is telling America that they know what is good for America and at least 56 percent of America is too stupid to understand.   

Those poll  numbers are likely to slip further as Americans are upset at backroom dealing that came out of the compromise.  Sen. Ben Nelson (D - NE) was able to insure that Nebraskans would be exempt from paying for the increased Medicaid costs.  Louisiana also got kick-backs as did Connecticut.  In all, thirteen Democratic Senators received a pay-off for their yes vote on the health bill.  Not only are these pay-offs, but these are instances of Democratic senators opting their state out of parts of the health care bill.  Contrary to what Sen. Schumer (D - NY) says, not every state received a pay-off in the vote.  Sadly, Democratic leaders are even downplaying the buying of votes by saying it is minor and a part of politics.  What would happen if you did that to a judge or a Supreme Court Justice?

Furthermore, Reid’s assertion that health care is a right, not a privilege is not what this is about.  This bill is not about receiving health care.  In fact, Rep. Kucinich stated that the whole bill has become about insurance, not health care.  Also, the idea that health care and insurance is a right is not consistent with how we have view rights consistently.  People have a right to life and liberty, yes.  No one can kill us or take away our liberty.  The final part of our rights is our right to pursue happiness.  John Locke listed property.  We have a right to pursue what we want.  Yes, we have a right to pursue property, health care, and such, but we are not guaranteed to have these if we do not pursue them.  Americans have a right to seek health care and insurance, but we must work to obtain them.  They are not something government is supposed to give us.

While running for office, Obama talked about how the Constitution was filled with “negative liberties.”  He said the Constitution said what government could not do to us, not what it had to do for us.  In case he did not know, that was how it was meant to be.  Britain controlled many aspects of colonial life.  Colonists wanted liberty and freedom.  When government starts doing things for you, they also start taking liberty from you.  Thomas Jefferson stated, “Government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take everything away.”  Americans should have known then that he was going to increase the size of government by “gifting” things to Americans.

Now, what does all of this have to do with Obama’s State of the Union Address?  Barack Obama had to get this approved.  He has to get things moving on health care early in January.  If things fall apart in the House, Obama is in trouble.  Obama is banking on health care reform to be a success that he can talk about at his State of the Union Address.  He doesn’t want to dwell on sagging poll numbers.  He doesn’t want to fret about inflation and the devaluation of the dollar.  He doesn’t want to spend a speech discussing how terrible the jobless percentages are.  He doesn’t want to have to admit that nothing has been accomplished despite a Democratic House and a Democratic super-majority in the Senate.  Obama doesn’t want to spend his time wielding lies and half-truths as his only weapon. 

The truth is the health care bill currently under consideration is a failure based on what Democrats wanted.  It is not the last step.  Sure, most of it is unconstitutional.  Forcing Americans to purchase health insurance?  No way that can stand in the Supreme Court.  It is also likely that the House will be unable to rech a compromise.  To stop this mess, Americans must keep pressure on their representatives.  It can still be defeated.

I was returning from a conference yesterday evening. I was coming up on exit 23 near Greeneville and I was glad to be getting home because I hadn’t seen my kids for a few days. Exit 23 was in sight, but a little piece of crap truck (with a moron driving no doubt) had a bunch of junk in the back. Well, one of those pieces of junk flew out into the interstate. I didn’t have time to swerve and I clipped the corner of whatever it was (possibly a small engine or lawnmower tire rim). It bent my front driver tire rim, busted the tire, and bounced around underneath the car. I was attempting to get over and make sure nothing was happening right behind me as the thing shot out and went flying back into oncoming traffic before going off the side of the interstate when I noticed the moron stopped on the side of the road.

As I pulled near him, he must have noticed that my car was damaged because the guy sped off before I could get his tag number. Luckily the guys who were with me were a big help in getting my tire changed as I called the THP and Greene County Sheriff’s Office. Candice was at home calling the insurance company.

The guys got my tire changed and we continued to wait for the THP (mind you the truck weigh station is just on the other side of the median and everyone who passes there knows that THP is always there). Finally, I called them back and I preceded to go down the exit and pull of at Zoomerz. Finally the Greene County called and said I could get an report from them. As I was backing out, the THP arrived. Since everything had been taken care of I went ahead and left and took the guys home or to their vehicles and went on to get the report.

This morning we called the insurance claims people. They said it would have to wait until Monday, and my deductible is $250. Luckily I think I am going to be able to get a used rim and new tire for around $125 and just leave the insurance company out of it for now.

If you happen to know who the guy was in the little truck (maybe a small beat up maroon Nissan or something similar as it was dark and hard to tell) let me know.

Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”