Obama's Thug Politics

Michael Barone has a great column out today about the Obama Administration's disgraceful bullying tactics against the health care industry. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius recently wrote a letter to the president of the chief lobbying organization for private health insurers, telling her that "there will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases." It seems that health insurance companies are raising their premiums significantly in response to ObamaCare, which imposes significant new costs and regulations on them. If anyone on Obama's team knew anything about how a free market economy works, they would be aware that forcing health insurers to provide more benefits leads to additional costs, which these insurers will pass on to consumers in order to stay profitable. Opponents of ObamaCare pointed out that this would be the inevitable result of the Democratic legislation for a year now. However, according to Sebelius, such premium increases are unacceptable because "according to our analysis and those of some industry and academic experts, any potential premium impact...will be minimal." Never mind basic economic principles -- the government has authoritatively declared that your costs will not go up!

So what exactly does "zero tolerance" mean? (Have you heard Obama's Administration use those words about Iran or Hamas or Hugo Chavez lately? Funny how American health insurers get less benefit of the doubt than Islamic terrorists and hostile foreign governments.) Well, Sebelius explains herself. She says that her department will issue regulations to force a "state or federal review of all potentially unreasonable rate increases." (That word "potentially" really narrows down the field!) And adds, "We will also keep track of insurers with a record of unjustified rate increases: those plans may be excluded from health insurance Exchanges in 2014."

Let's put Sebelius's Soviet-style approach in ordinary English. Here's what she's really saying: "We control health care in this country now. We determine who gets to participate in the health insurance market and who doesn't, and if you don't set the premiums we tell you to set, we will put you out of business. We know that raising premiums and telling consumers why you are raising those premiums is not against the law -- nevertheless we have a 'zero tolerance' policy for dissent or criticism of our legislation. We will let you know when the First Amendment applies and when it doesn't. Ground Zero Mosque - yes. Criticizing ObamaCare - no."

As Barone points out, "The threat to use government regulation to destroy or harm a business because the owners disagree with government officials is thuggery." Of course, this is the same administration that forced GM and Chrysler to reorganize outside of the normal rules of bankruptcy to protect their union allies, and the same administration that tried to bully Fox News by singling them out for exclusion from an interview with a Cabinet official. They are hungry for control -- of the media, the automakers, the financial services industry, the health insurance industry, the energy industry, etc. Control means the right to bully and intimidate people and companies into doing what you want. The Soviets would have been proud.

It's telling that while Sebelius is attempting to silence health insurers who are criticizing the health care bill, not a SINGLE Democratic congressman or senator in a competitive race is bragging about voting for the health care bill. According to Barone, no Democrat running for Congress has even praised or defended the bill since April. They wouldn't be running from it if they didn't know it was an utter failure. But if you're a health insurer, you'd better keep your mouth shut. Or else.

Medical care is not a right

In a 2008 presidential debate, Barack Obama declared that medical care is a right which every American deserves.

Well, I think it should be a right for every American. In a country as wealthy as ours, for us to have people who are going bankrupt because they can't pay their medical bills -- for my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they're saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don't have to pay her treatment, there's something fundamentally wrong about that.

In this article, Walter Williams exposes this notion for the nonsense that it is. Rights are traditionally understood to be things which one person is entitled to do which do not impose any obligation on another person, other than non-interference. In other words, my right to free speech does not diminish your rights. My right to assemble with other like-minded people does not diminish your right to do so or impose any other obligations on you.

Now, consider the "right" to medical care. In order to extend this "right" to people who cannot afford it, the federal government must pay the doctors and hospitals for their services. Contrary to popular belief, the government has no money of its own. Therefore, the government must coerce citizens -- through threats of imprisonment -- into paying for the medical care of everyone else through taxes.

Like Obama and other proponents of this bill, I wish that everyone could afford medical care. I wish that everyone could have a Corvette. I wish that everyone's every desire could be fulfilled. However, a wish is not the same as a right. We must deal with reality. People like Obama who insist that health care is a right which everyone deserves sound like insolent little brats who just want a PONY and want it NOW!!!

Now, I will address some other nonsense which politicians (including President Obama) casually toss around with impunity. Many people (including Obama in the above quote) seem to think that there is something wrong with insurance companies denying coverage for or refusing to pay for preexisting conditions. Maybe in Obama's wonderful world of free lunches and unicorns that poop Skittles, insurance companies could pay for this. However, we live in reality.

Insurance companies exist to make a profit. They are paid insurance premiums by their customers, and in exchange, they assume the risk that the customer will need medical care. Sick people are obviously a greater risk to the insurance company than healthy people, and if they are allowed to purchase a policy, they will probably pay higher insurance rates. This is no different from people with a poor driving record paying higher rates for auto insurance. Buying a health insurance policy after you are sick or injured would be like buying an auto insurance policy after you get into an accident. Insurance companies are not charities.

Are We On the Path to Permanent European-Style Socialism?

Mark Steyn answers a resounding "Yes" to that question in a chilling article about the likely consequences to our system of government if ObamaCare passes. If the Democrats succeed in ramming this health care bill through, they have won a huge and probably permanent victory for their big government ideology, regardless of the outcome of the 2010 elections. The upcoming House vote on ObamaCare is one of the most important votes in our lifetime. Please call your congressman and register your strong opposition to this government takeover of 1/6 of our economy!

Mark Levin Speech - Follow-up

Sorry it has taken me so long to follow up on my previous post last week about my opportunity to hear Mark Levin speak at the Churchill Dinner in Washington, DC. It was so encouraging to spend an evening with like-minded people who care about our Constitution and want to see our country prosper as a free society instead of a socialist republic. There were probably around 350 people in attendance, and after a delicious dinner the Hillsdale College President Larry Arne spoke for about 30 minutes, followed by a 30 minute speech by Mark Levin. Pat Sajak, the host of Wheel of Fortune and the Vice-President of the Hillsdale College Board of Trustees, gave a hilarious toast to Winston Churchill to close the evening.

Both Arne and Levin gave great speeches, and the basic message of both was similar. There is a serious attack currently being launched against our Constitution and against the individual rights and freedoms guaranteed to us in the Constitution. This attack is being perpetrated by our president and by our Congress, as well as unelected judges. The essential fight is between liberty and tyranny, between constitutionalism and statism. It is a brazen attempt to transform our country from a constitutional republic into a socialist state. The real power in a constitutional republic rests with the civil society, which is made up of free individuals pursuing their God-given rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Its constitutionally-limited government is the servant to the people, whose rights are guaranteed by their Creator. The real power in a socialist state rests with an all-powerful federal government, which takes most of people's money through taxation and then distributes it back to its citizen-slaves as it deems best. The people's rights are "guaranteed" by a government that provides cradle-to-grave entitlements and regulates their every activity, reducing them to virtual slavery and trampling on the Constitution. Our country, though founded as a constitutional republic, has been steadily moving toward socialism for many years, starting with Abraham Lincoln and accelerating in this direction under FDR. Obama and our current Congress are more brazen about their socialist/Marxist intentions and more determined to utterly subjugate the American people under the federal government's control than any of their predecessors. Their two biggest power grabs at the moment are health care "reform" and "climate change" regulation, both of which strike at the heart of individual liberty.

What our country needs -- desperately needs -- right now is for individual citizens to step forward and "take back" our country by electing representatives who treasure our constitutional freedoms. Levin and Arne seemed optimistic that this will happen in future elections. I wish I could say I am as optimistic as they are. When I look at our country I see generations of people who, thanks to our government-run schools, are ignorant about American history and traditions, ignorant of the Constitution and the Founders, and ignorant of the Bible and our Judeo-Christian heritage which provides a basis for the dignity and worth of the individual. I see a country populated with people who have already become dependent on the government and who demand equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. I see lazy citizens who think that they owe their country nothing and that their country owes them everything, including a good education, a good job, good health care, and a comfortable life. I see a population that largely seems to reject moral absolutes and deny even the possibility of truth, that views its own existence and the existence of the universe as a meaningless accident of nature, and that seems incapable even of logically deducing the consequences of ideas. Maybe I'm too harsh in my assessment, but how can such a citizenry take back our country? It is likely that in the short-term, people's economic misery will drive them to elect new representatives in 2010 or 2012, but for any lasting change to take place there must be a change in people's hearts, beliefs, and attitudes. I pray this will happen, but it will take a miracle.

Levin closed his speech (and his book) with a quote from a president who truly understood liberty, Ronald Reagan: "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."

Compassion & Government

My pastor preached an excellent sermon yesterday on Jesus' parable about the Good Samaritan and emphasized our responsibility to show compassion and generosity to the poor. It was an important reminder for me to make sure that I am not closing my eyes and my heart to the needs of people all around me and that I am willing to give to others as the Lord has given to me. It also got me thinking about how this principle of Christian compassion relates to political issues, such as ObamaCare.

I don't have time to write much on this topic now. But I think it is often very problematic to take biblical commands directed to individuals about compassion & charity and attempt to apply them directly to the government. Don't get me wrong -- the government must stand for justice, and so obviously it must take action to prevent corruption and oppression of the poor. But government charity is something entirely different -- that is the government taking some people's money and giving it as a handout to another group of people. I'm not saying I'm against some sort of safety net for truly needy people. I'm not opposed to programs like welfare, food stamps, and Medicaid -- provided that there are incentives built into those programs to encourage people who are able to take responsibility for their own lives to do so. In the case of medical care -- we need to look and see who are the people without health insurance who really need it and what can be done to get targeted help to those people.

The problem is that government is a massive nameless, faceless collection of bureaucrats that cannot see people as individuals and cannot target help to their specific needs. Therefore it cannot really show true compassion in a biblical sense. Despite their sanctimonious attitude, politicians are not being compassionate by spending other people's money to help the poor. Government generally establishes a "one-size-fits-all" government program that operates inefficiently and wastes taxpayer money without really helping the people it is supposed to help. So much of poverty in this country today is really encouraged by the government. People become dependent on the government to take care of them and don't take responsibility for their own lives. Many people in this country today feel they have a "right" to certain things (a good job, health care, education, etc.) but they are not willing to work hard to get those things. They think these things should be guaranted for all by the government. And this situation creates anger among people who have worked hard and taken responsibility for their own lives, only to find increasing amounts of their hard-earned money taken from them in taxes to give to others who have not worked for it. The more extensive this wealth redistribution becomes, the fewer incentives people have to work hard and the less free, responsible, and productive a society becomes. France and the Scandinavian countries are excellent examples of this.

In the case of ObamaCare, I think compassion is only the ostensible motive. The real motive is increased government power, which explains why Obama & Congress have been so deceitful on the details of the plan and have worked so hard to push something quickly under the radar of public scrutiny. If 80% of Americans are generally happy with the quality of our country's health care system, there is no reason to do a radical overhaul of the whole system. There should simply be small, incremental changes made to try to lower costs and help the neediest people. The fact that Obama and Congress are instead pushing for radical, comprehensive changes that a majority of Americans oppose speaks volumes about their real, more sinister intentions.