Et tu, Republicans?

The Missouri State House Bill 609 passed the House by 157-0 on Thursday April 14^th to establish the Show-Me Health Insurance Exchange. HB 609's stated goal is to comply with the requirements of the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – AKA Obama care.  

Comply: —Synonyms 
1.  acquiesce, yield, conform, obey, consent, assent. —Antonyms 1.  refuse, resist.

Ayes 157  Noes 0

Ayes 157 Noes 0

Ayes 157 Noes 0

Not a single no? Not one dissenter willing to forgo the Federal Government’s bribe. Not one soul willing to stand up to the threat “if you don’t do it we will?”

Obama Care provides grants to states for them to create health insurance exchanges that must conform to future federal regulations. The law also threatens that the Feds will impose exchanges unilaterally if any state chooses not to comply by Jan. 1, 2014.

A mere few brave states have affirmed, to some degree, that they will refuse and resist. Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-La.) has joined with Gov. Sean Parnell (R-Alaska) and Gov. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) in battling to resist implementation.  (Haley Barbour is missing his chance to lead. He should be calling every Republican Governor and imploring them not to take the money. Instead he has complied also.)

Micheal Canon of the National Review reports that “states can impose harsher regulations than Obamacare requires and can choose who sits on the exchange board. That’s it.”  Obama and Kathleen Sebelius have communicated that states can opt out of Obama Care by creating a single payer system. How magnanimous they are!

Patriots from other states have noted the similar sheepish tendencies of their own politicians. The best observation I found comes from Idaho.

 “It’s difficult to imagine that the federal government would hand the states cash to develop health insurance exchanges but have nothing to say about how those exchanges operate. Having been down that path many times, it’s surprising that some of our lawmakers are willing to believe… (them) and once again play the part of Charlie Brown to the federal government’s Lucy.” POSTED BY WAYNE HOFFMAN    Idaho Freedom Foundation

Sadly, State Rep. Chris Molendorp, the Republican author of HB609 has worked up the same intensity as Charlie Brown. He has even used the typical red-meat line about state’s rights. Molendorp says HB 609 "is about state's rights and the exercise of our sovereignty. It's important that Kathleen Sebelius doesn't write our exchange." (Source : Robert Joiner –Beacon) 

This extraordinary twist in logic has solidified my doubts about the “state’s rights” throw-away line.

States do not have rights, only people have rights. The states have roles that they should perform instead of the federal government. The Constitution gives different roles and the “check and balance” system to protect the rights of individuals - not the states damnit. A state is meant to be a blockade against federal encroachment - that’s a blockade not a highway. 

On Jamie Allman’s radio show I heard a local State Rep proclaim that he voted “with his district” by refusing to amend the puppy mill legislation. His district voted in favor of the regulation on the state-wide ballot. That is an astute decision for a politician. Has he, and every other State Rep. forgotten about Prop C, the Health Care Freedom Act? It passed by 71%. I can tell you that neither I, nor my wife, nor I doubt any of the other sun baked volunteers, were promoting Prop C solely because of the idiosyncrasies of the ballot language. We worked and we voted to refuse and resist Obama Care. 

For over a year now patriots have been crying out for liberty. We have told them what we want at rallies and at the ballot. Republicans have claimed they’re with us, saying all the appropriate things.

Please imagine Winston Churchill giving one of his famous speeches. “We shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. … We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.”

“Oh and by the way, it will become mandatory for all school children to learn German. They will learn to speak German on our terms come hell or high-water.”

It wouldn’t make any sense, and neither does building the Obama Care infrastructure in Missouri. 

Update: HB609 has been reported to the Missouri Senate and referred to the Small Business, Insurance, and Industry Committee.

4/21/2011 - Executive Session Held (S) - SCS VOTED DO PASS

It has passed the Senate Committee Substititute.

The Bill can be brought to the Senate Floor at any moment by The Senate Leader - Including as early as tomorrow - Friday April 22nd.

Senator phone numbers

http://www.senate.mo.gov/11info/senalpha.htm

Unwinding The Debt Clock

Unwinding the Debt Clock

The steps, in no particular order:

· Craft policies to alleviate the debt crisis and give politicians an easy way to claim they are tackling the debt by making the policy risk free. Lob them a softball.

· Educate people, through the policy, as to what propelled the debt crisis. Proponents call it Progressivism, detractors call it Socialism, but whatever it is named it can be boiled down to simple neighbor robbing. “Neighbors” is defined broadly to mean your fellow Americans. Politicians are skilled at robbing neighbor Peter to pay neighbor Paul, but they’re even better at robbing Peter, Jr. Hence, the debt crisis.

· Give people altruistic motivation. One of the most perplexing ironies is that the Neighbor-Robbing-State grew, in part, because of altruism - albeit a lazy altruism.

For instance, we can apply these recommendations to Social Security. People want to know they will have Social Security for the duration of their retirement, besides they’ve paid in and they want a return. But there are many people who were thrifty enough. Allow them to give up collecting their Social Security for a year at a time. It could be like the check-box on you income taxes that asks if you want to pay more taxes. But unlike choosing to pay more taxes, the retirees will get to pick their beneficiaries directly, by getting to select two workers. The selected workers/neighbors do not have to pay Social Security for the same year. We may want to limit the number of years the same worker can be selected. That can be debated.

This actually will help the debt crisis (the huge unfunded-liability part) because of the worker-per-beneficiary ratio. In the 1950’s there were 16 workers per beneficiary, today there are 3. Because the thrifty and altruistic retiree can only select two working neighbors, the third is freed up. His contribution is now another step toward financial solvency for The United States.

At its worst, the proposal is a dud. But it causes little harm. At its best, it will open up people’s eyes as to why we have a debt crisis – the omnipresent Neighbor-Robbing-State.

It could be applied to other government sectors. It would also empower some Americans with the capacity to help save the Country.

Politicians will be faced with some tough decisions to avoid default of our debts and the calamity that will follow. Will enough politicians have the courage to make those decisions, or will they care more about their temporary political careers? We need more options.