Here is the response I received from her office this past week.

Dear Mrs. Selby:

Thank you for writing to me to express your concerns about healthcare reform. I appreciate the time you took to write to me, and I welcome this opportunity to convey my opinions on how we should reform our health care system.

I support reforming our healthcare system. The key is to find a healthcare plan that will provide coverage to the millions of uninsured Americans and keep premium costs affordable, while not adding to our nation’s unsustainable federal budget deficit. On December 24, 2009, I joined 59 of my colleagues in voting to pass healthcare reform legislation. The “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” passed by a vote of 60-39. The differences between the Senate bill and the version passed by the House of Representatives must now be reconciled.

I voted for the legislation because I believe it makes several important improvements while preserving the parts of our system that work well. Some important changes will occur immediately and others will be phased in. It will provide immediate assistance, including tax credits for small businesses and $5 billion to help subsidize coverage for some people who have been denied due to preexisting conditions. And the legislation would shrink the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap by $500. As these health reforms take place, Congress will be able to assess and adjust the programs to improve healthcare for all Americans. All of this is accomplished in a fiscally responsible manner, reducing the budget deficit and preserving the solvency of Medicare.

I am enclosing my statement on the final passage of the Senate bill. I understand that we may disagree on this issue, but please know that I will keep your comments in mind when this legislation comes before the Senate for a final vote.

Again, thank you for writing. If you should have any further comments or questions, please feel free to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841. Best regards.

Senator Dianne Feinstein

Statement on Health Insurance Reform
December 23, 2009

Mr. President– I rise in support of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009, which will reform our nation’s health care system.

This is our chance to fix a broken system. We tried in 1993 and 1994, and failed. Over 15 years have passed since our last effort. This may be our last, best opportunity before we are forced to wait another 15 years for real reform. And our country cannot afford to wait another 15 years. Our system is simply unsustainable.

Now this bill is not perfect, and without question, there are items I would like to change. I believe it is a work in progress. However, it accomplishes several important objectives.

o The bill is incremental. There will be time to make needed adjustments before it is fully effective.
o It expands insurance coverage and provides new consumer protections from insurance company abuses.
o It does all this in a fiscally responsible way, reducing the deficit and prolonging the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund.

Bill is incremental:
Throughout this process, I have argued that health reform should be incremental. I believe that in many ways, this bill is incremental. It leaves the best of our health care system in place. The majority of Americans with coverage continually say they are happy with their insurance. Under this legislation, they can keep what they like. The bill also will be phased in over the next several years. People in need of coverage will receive immediate help in many forms.

o Beginning in 2010, next year, the federal government will spend $5 billion to establish a high risk pool, which will provide subsidized coverage for those who have been denied private insurance on account of a pre-existing condition.
o Young adults will be able to remain on their parents’ health insurance until age 26. Many young adults currently lose their coverage as soon as they graduate from college; this will allow them to maintain their coverage while they find a job.
o Seniors enrolled in the Medicare prescription drug benefit will receive an additional $500 in drug coverage before they encounter the so-called “donut hole” coverage gap. This is the coverage gap that occurs after seniors spend $2,830 on prescription drug costs. They are then required to pay the full amount out of pocket, until their costs total $4,550. This additional $500 of coverage means that seniors will encounter a small gap in their drug coverage, and pay less out of pocket.
o There will be new limits on the amount of premium dollars that can be spent on non-health care expenses by all health insurance companies. This is very important. I have long worried that insurance companies spend too much on administrative expenses, like medical underwriting, claims processing, overhead, and profits and salary, and not enough on actual medical care.

(How is the government not going to have the same problem? Who will regulate them?)

Starting next year:
o Plans sold in the individual and small group markets must devote at least 80% of premium dollars to health care expenses.
o Plans sold to large groups must spend at least 85% of the premium funds they collect on health care services. This provision will give people the assurance that most of their premium dollars go to pay for care.
o Also next year, small business can receive tax credits to help cover the cost of covering their employees. These credits will be available on a sliding scale to employers with 25 or fewer employees, with average annual wages of $50,000 or under.
o Expansion of Community Health Centers. Beginning in 2011, the federal program that supports community health centers will begin to receive significant additional funding, totaling $10 billion through 2015.
This expansion of community care helps guarantee that we are providing not just coverage for medical care, but also access. A health insurance card does no good if no physician will accept it. These clinics provide care for all, and in many places, will be the backbone of a reformed health care system.

Finally, in 2014, the full scope of the reform effort will come in place. People will be able to compare their coverage options in newly created Exchanges, and in many cases, they will receive tax credits to help them purchase coverage.

This allows plenty of time to see how reforms are working, and if necessary, for Congress, the Administration, and states to make adjustments to ensure that health reform is effective.

Insurance Reforms and Exchanges:
The bill contains several critical insurance industry reforms that will help cover 31 million additional Americans. I am convinced that our country’s for-profit health insurance industry operates with profits, not people, in mind. And this legislation will contain a number of new standards that this industry will need to meet.

o They will not be allowed to discriminate based on gender.
o They will not be able to take away coverage once a person gets sick.
o They will not be able to charge more, or deny coverage entirely, based on an individual’s health history or preexisting conditions.

Insurance will be sold in regulated markets called Exchanges, where consumers can easily compare their different insurance options. Websites allow Americans to easily compare prices when shopping for airline tickets, and this will extend the idea to health insurance.

These Exchanges will work on behalf of consumers, to negotiate lower prices and to ensure that participating plans meet high standards. Consumers will receive clear information about what is covered and how much it will cost. They will have several different levels of coverage from which to choose.

Every Exchange will also offer two national plans, overseen by the federal Office of Personnel Management. This office ensures that federal workers and members of Congress have good health plan choices. One of the included plans will be offered by a non-profit company. For consumers in highly concentrated markets with only a few choices, these national plans will provide a new option for quality coverage.

Most importantly, these Exchanges will consider the previous behavior of insurance plans. If a company raises rates unfairly over the next several years, Exchanges will consider this, and decide whether or not they should be allowed to sell in these new markets.

This is a strong incentive for plans to treat consumers fairly.

Fiscally Responsible:
All of this is accomplished in a fiscally responsible manner. The bill saves money, and it saves Medicare.
It is clear that we cannot afford to continue on our current path.
It expands coverage to an additional 31 million Americans while reducing the federal budget deficit by $132 billion by 2019. Deficit reduction increases in the second ten year period that the bill will be in effect.

(How in heaven’s name can we spend so much on this program and reduce the deficit? Where is the logic?)

Now this is a major point of contention. I continue to hear the other side say that this bill will cost $2.5 trillion over 10 years. Even the Republicans’ own analysis shows that the bill will reduce the budget deficit. The Budget Committee’s Minority staff released an analysis that examines the bill’s net cost and savings over the next several decades.

o The Republican staff projects that the bill will reduce the deficit by $176 billion from 2014 to 2023.
o This number grows to $1.032 trillion from 2020 to 2029.
o The total net deficit reduction, according to Republicans, is $1.165 trillion from 2010 to 2029.

Let me say it again: these are partisan estimates, produced by Republican staff. And they show significant, meaningful deficit reduction.

The bill also takes a first step at prolonging the solvency of the Medicare program. Without action, Medicare will be insolvent in 2017. That is 9 short years from now.

(The government that wishes to fix our healthcare system has destroyed the one they have had their hands on, Medicare. Insolvent in 9 short years? And somehow we are to believe this new bill will not face the same demise?)

This bill extends Medicare’s solvency by approximately 4 to 5 years. Make no mistake, more must be done. The Chief Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid estimates that it extends solvency to 2026. And I believe this bill lays the groundwork to help make Medicare more sustainable.

(More sustainable, but not corrected. This bill only pushes the problem back to 2026, for another generation to fix.)

o It contains a Medicare Commission, which will examine the program and make recommendations to Congress on an expedited basis.
o Creates Accountable Care Organizations, in which physicians work together to provide more efficient care for patients, while sharing in some of the savings they generate for the Medicare program.
Controlling Entitlement spending must be a priority, and I believe this is an important step in the right direction.

California Concerns:
Throughout the health reform process, I have emphasized the importance of a health reform bill that meets the needs of large and complex states like California.

My state, without question, has one of the largest and most complex health care systems. As a result, we face some of the most complex challenges.

Over 6.6 million Californians are uninsured. The state is experiencing an unprecedented budget crisis. And even after health reform, the state will still have as many as 2 million undocumented, which will continue to strain public hospitals, emergency rooms, clinics and other providers.

(We in California are paying for 2 million illegal aliens, carefully disguised in politically correct language as the undocumented. These are, according to Mrs. Feinstein, a strain on our “public hospitals, emergency rooms, clinics and other providers.” We in California now want to invite the entire nation to subsidize our illegal alien nation. Welcome aboard!)

California’s public hospitals play a key role in meeting these needs and care for the poorest of the poor. These hospitals rely on payments called Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) funding to cover their costs, both for the uninsured that they cover, and the very low reimbursement rates their receive from the Medicaid program. DSH funding accounts for, on average, 40% of public hospitals’ total funding.

I am pleased that the managers’ amendment has slightly reduced the annual cut to Medicaid DSH funding that California and other states that use their full allotments will receive.
Under the original bill, California would have received a 50% cut in Medicaid DSH once the rate of the uninsured in the state dropped by 45%.

o Under this version, the state’s allotment will only be cut by 35%.
o This reduces a $550 million cut to $385 million, for a savings of approximately $165 million per year to California.

States are now guaranteed to keep at least 50% of their current Medicaid DSH allotments, which will provide long-term stability to this critical program.

I am grateful to Senator Reid for making these adjustments, and I will continue to work with my colleagues in the House to keep as much of this critical funding intact as possible as the process moves forward.

The cost to California from the expansion of Medicaid remains a serious concern.
The bill will cover the full cost through 2016 generated by opening the program to all adults who earn less than $14,400 per year, which is 133% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). However, California will need to maintain this expansion, and will also have to find a sufficient number of doctors willing to take patients newly eligible for Medicaid.

This will cost money. Health reform should not bankrupt large states like California. Ensuring that health reform works for my state will be a top priority as this legislation moves to conference.
I am also concerned that the structure of the annual tax on the health insurance sector may have unintended consequences that will have a disproportionate impact on California. This tax will generate roughly $60 billion over the next 10 years.

The impact of this provision would be disproportionate on states such as California, which have a high proportion of fully-insured coverage. For example, 77 percent of the commercially enrolled population in California is enrolled in fully-insured health plans. This includes public employee plans such as CalPERS and the City and County of San Francisco.

The net result is that California would pay upwards of one-third more than the average state on a per capita basis. Many integrated non-profit health plans, some of which have been cited as models of efficiency, would face additional expenses and consumers would be impacted through higher premiums and limited choices.

(Article I, Section 9, (4) states: “No capitation, or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” In other words, Congress can not levy a direct tax that is not equal for all citizens. Is this not then unconstitutional for the citizens of California?)

Now, an exemption is provided for non-profit insurers in the managers’ amendment. For example, non-profits with an overall medical loss ratio of 90 percent or better, or non-profits in a state which regulates premium increases could be exempt from the tax.

But, this would have a limited impact in California and our two largest non-profit insurers (Kaiser Permanente and Blue Cross/Blue Shield) may not qualify for the exemption. And, because California lacks an entity to regulate premium increases, the only way non-profit insurers in our state will likely qualify for an exemption is by meeting the medical loss ratio requirements (set at 90 percent overall in the bill). This is a high hurdle to meet and I worry these additional costs could appear in the premiums paid by Californians.

Need to Control Premium Increases:
The most important component of successful health reform remains controlling health insurance premium increases. I remain concerned that companies will attempt to take advantage of the period of time between the passage of legislation, and 2014, when Exchanges are up and running with new consumer protections. We have seen this with credit card companies since credit card reform legislation passed, and I fear health insurance will be no different.

I proposed an amendment to create a Medical Insurance Rate Authority, and to ensure that all insurance companies are subject to some type of rate review.

The amendment asks the National Association of Insurance Commissioners to produce a report, detailing the rate review laws and capabilities in all 50 states. The Secretary of HHS will then use these findings to determine which states are capable of doing sufficient rate reviews to protect consumers.

o In states where Insurance Commissioners have authority to review rates, they will continue to do so.
o In states without sufficient authority or resources, the Secretary of HHS will review rates, and take any appropriate action to deny unfair requests.
o This could mean blocking unjustified rate increases, or requiring rebates, if an unfair increase is already in effect.

This will provide all American consumers with another layer of protection from an unfair premium increase.
The amendment would also require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a Medical Insurance Rate Authority as part of the process in the bill that enables her to monitor premium costs.

The Rate Authority would advise the Secretary on insurance rate review and would be composed of seven officials that represent the full scope of the health care system including:
o At least two consumers.
o At least one medical professional.
o And one representative of the medical insurance industry.
o The remaining members would be experts in health economics, actuarial science, or other sectors of the health care system.

Unfortunately, this amendment was not included, at the insistence of one member of our caucus. I look forward to working with conferees to find some way to ensure that more Americans are protected from unfair premium increases.

Conclusion:
With all the debate over offsets, CBO projections, premiums and matching funds, it is easy to forget that at the end of the day, we are talking about people. The bill we are debating, I believe, will save lives.

A lack of health insurance is more than an inconvenience, it can be deadly. Americans age 64 and under who lack health insurance have a 40 percent higher risk of death than those who have coverage (Dr. David Himmelstein/ Harvard Medical School Study, September 2009).

These are real people, who die earlier than they need to because of problems getting coverage, and problems with our health care system. Expanding health coverage is a moral issue, one that, I believe, reflects the character of our nation. In the richest country in the world, no one should die because they cannot afford health coverage.

(Mrs. Feinstein, give us one example of someone dying because they could not afford health coverage. In America, the uninsured get treated and the dying get needed medical help. The illegal aliens even get medical treatment, as you so clearly stated above. Don’t use the “Appeal to Pity” tactic, it does not become your position.)

For all of this bill’s imperfections, I am convinced that it will mean the difference between life and death for some people. And it is not every day that we can say that about a piece of legislation. We cannot pass up this opportunity. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Also, may I take this opportunity to wish you a happy and healthy holiday season. And may 2010 be a good year for us all.

Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

Just a few thoughts to chew on, while the President continues to sell us this “Bill of Bads” during the State of the Union address this week.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Today’s Opinions And Editorials (medicalnewstoday.com)
• Rep. Frank Pallone: We can’t turn away from health care reform (middletownmike.blogspot.com)

• It leads to delays where, as in the case of Canada, patients wait for 17 weeks on average from the time a general practitioner says indicates that something is wrong until one visits a specialist

• It leads to rationed care, where people not only wait for years for things such as hip replacements, but often find themselves forced to pay for such out of their own pockets in foreign countries

• It has a negative effect on mortality rates, as we see those who suffer from certain diseases such as cancer, surviving half as long in countries like England compared to patients in the United States

• It has been linked to “economic euthanasia,” in which individuals are allowed (or even encouraged) to die because they are no longer economically viable since they no longer pay taxes. That is exactly what happened to my own grandfather in England • It leads to no recourse, as government officials “apologize” for their negligence or horrible mistakes, but there is no viable way of pursuing damages

These are fairly obvious and well known and observed by medical and policy professionals around the world. In spite of how horrible they are, their proponents tell us that “socialized medicine is better than nothing.” In fact, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer used those words recently. Our indigent population is provided for better in our current and flawed system than those under socialized medicine, so the reasoning simply does not make any sense.

To make matters worse are those effects that are less noticeable. I do not want to sound like a conspiracy therapist, but their implications are far reaching and threaten to undermine both our robust health care system and, historically, the most vibrant economy in the history of the world.

Socialized medicine is part of a “cradle to grave” approach to governing that puts enormous financial strain on individuals and undermines individual responsibility. The mega rich can be taxed to pay for the cost of such programs and still have plenty of resources to do what they want with their money. They can still start enterprises, buy additional businesses, buy new toys, and more. But for the vast majority of individuals in the upper middle class and lower, such excessive costs can literally drive people into a lower income bracket in terms of quality of life and spending power purposes. Such costs make it all the more difficult for people to invest in new tools, to transition from employee to self-employed, and to pursue the climbing of the rungs of the ladder towards economic success.

In essence, these types of programs actually protect the very wealthy from aspiring entrepreneurs that are attempting to achieve economic success of their own, this is among the reasons the rich support big government programs. They might be an inconvenience to them, but are devastating for those who want to be rich. It should not be a surprise then that, in the last presidential election, the highest income group supported Obama 3 to 1 over McCain. It is not only because they can afford to support it, but because it is a small price to pay to stay “competitive.”

Related articles by Zemanta

• Does the GOP Share Blame for Obamacare? (girlpundit.com)
• Shhh: White House negotiating for public option behind the scenes (hotair.com)
• Democrats Vow to Resurrect Healthcare Bill (usnews.com)
• Two Dems to oppose party’s health bill strategy (msnbc.msn.com)
• League of Women Voters urges quick response to nation’s health care crisis (medcitynews.com)

The article points out that “Mr. Nelson, who faces re-election in 2012, backed the Senate health-care bill only after lengthy talks in which he won agreement that the federal government would permanently cover the full cost in Nebraska of expanding Medicaid, the federal-state health program for the poor.” His vote was crucial in getting the controversial bill through the US Senate. Nelson’s vote has drawn criticism from around the country and close to home. Sen. Lindsey Graham, a moderate Republican noted for his tolerance of liberal actions called Nelson’s vote “sleazy.” The Senator’s own governor, Dave Heineman, has been critical of the circumstance behind the bill’s passage, stating on Fox News that “The responsibility for this special deal lies solely on the shoulders of Senator Ben Nelson.” He is now said to be considering running against Nelson in 2012.

The damage for the bill has been significant. In Nebraska, a Dec. 28 Rasmussen poll showed Heineman, who opposes the bill, soundly beating Mr. Nelson in a theoretical 2012 match-up, 61% to 30%. This is devastating to Nelson, who is 68 years old and was last re-elected in 2006 with 64% of the vote.

The Democrats are in trouble when it comes to the health care bill in general and that legislation will likely serve as a referendum in the 2012 elections. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll in December found that 44% to 41% of Americans prefer the health system as it is to the Democrats’ health overhaul. The bill is so bad that they cannot even give it away for free in Nebraska.There will be much debate over the sudden decline in Nelson’s popularity. It could be because the people of Nebraska are like the rest of the nation who are opposed to rationed or socialized care. Some of them may understand the Constitutional obligations of a US Senator and believe he violated his legal mandate by supporting this bill that is without legitimacy. I believe that Nelson should have learned a lesson from George McGovern, the candidate who lost the 1972 race for the Presidency by a landslide. In the early part of 1972 McGovern was doing very well in his race against Richard Nixon, until he placed on his platform the redistribution of $1,000 to individuals who made less than $5,000 a year. $5,000 does not seem like much now, but at the time it was a huge sum of money. In fact, that described a majority of Americans at the time. But the vast majority of them believed they would make more than that some day. Furthermore, in spite of the weak morals of our elected officials and deep seated cynicism in the way they judge their constituents, I believe most Americans are not mere free loaders eager to get on the welfare dole. The people of Nebraska are hard working and do not want to be seen as dependents on the rest of the country. Nelson’s dim view of his voters will likely provide grim results for him in 2012.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Ben Nelson Working to Extend Medicaid Deal (dailykos.com)
• A money-making opportunity (washingtonmonthly.com)
• Making 2010 a Great Year for America (girlpundit.com)
• Cornhuckster Sen. Ben Nelson: We shoulda waited on Demcare (michellemalkin.com)
• Forcing a vote on Demcare’s constitutionality (michellemalkin.com)
• Who’ll Bell the Cat? (americanthinker.com)
• It’s on: Blanche Lincoln rips Ben Nelson for ObamaCare kickback (hotair.com)
• States Threaten Lawsuit Over Nebraska’s Medicaid Deal In Senate Health Bill (medicalnewstoday.com)
• Senator Nelson Defends His Health Care Vote (nytimes.com)

• If a majority of Americans support a massive increase in taxes, do tax increases become a good thing?
• If a majority of Americans want to severely limit access to firearms, is that a good thing?
• If a majority of American want to socialize medicine, should we be supportive of it?

Invariably, polls that do not support “our” position are dismissed as distorted, skewed towards certain population groups, or are simply wrong. It is not the numbers that are wrong, it is the idea of using polls to drive policy debates that is the problem.

Polls are the tools of demagogues and purveyors of mob rule. Polls are tools used by the majority and are designed to bring the minority, or the one, “in line.” One of my favorite quotes on the subject is from Ayn Rand who said, “The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.” The Founders attempted to make a country in which individuals ruled and the elected officials served to protect them (and not “provide” for them).

Our federal government was designed to do very little at all. Its primary objective was to protect individuals from other individuals and our nation from adversaries. Its seventeen enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8, gave the federal government a very modest agenda, with the vast majority of power being deferred to the states and (more importantly) individuals. Furthermore, the Founders created a convoluted form of government that made change difficult to achieve. This was not by accident, but design. While the so-called “French Republic” started years after ours, it has had five different governments over the last two hundred years. The British boast of a “Constitution,” but that is simply the evolution of law over centuries. Our Constitution was intended to mean something. It was meant to make government small, but strong. It provided the separation of powers — the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches — for the primary objective of making it difficult for laws to pass. It was meant to hinder, not foster, change. Our office of the President differs greatly from the Prime Ministers of Europe. The latter are mere extensions of the legislative branches and are meant to facilitate change. The former is meant to represent the interests of all the people and often resist the legislative agenda.

Our Constitutional Amendment process is so daunting; we have only had 27 amendments approved since 1789. Since that time over 10,000 amendments have been introduced and any where from 100 to 200 have been offered annually for the last several years. Of those 27, ten of them were ratified with the Constitution (they are our Bill of Rights) and were a prerequisite for the document being approved. Seventeen amendments over 200 years demonstrate a government adverse to change.

The Founders were opposed to most “change” when it came to government, because such was virtually always done at the expense of individual freedoms. Those who do not share such values continually discount the delays in our founding documents and often try to legislate through courts and bureaucracy. I, for one, believe it is time to go back to the principles that have worked and are found in the Constitution and not public opinion polls.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Finally, Someone is Discussing the Constitution (girlpundit.com)
• No Health Care in the Constitution (americanthinker.com)
• Obama’s First Veto (politicalwire.com)
• The Popular Disdain for the Constitution (girlpundit.com)
• Did Founding Fathers envision such wealth redistribution? (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Rep. Virginia Foxx: Health Care Reform Is A Distraction (alan.com)

“I was preparing to give my kids a brief over view of the Constitution, when in my preparation ran across this profound observation.” Mr. Scharpen said. “When I compared the composition of the House of Representatives in the Constitution with what we have today, I saw a big disconnect. Specifically, the Constitution says that ‘the number of representatives shall not exceed one for every 30,000,’ yet today we only have 435 reps, which equates to one rep for every 700,000 people. So I then asked the dangerous ‘Why?’ question.”

The result of this lesson in the Constitution is significant as a lawsuit against the federal government was filed on September 17, 2009 to rectify the unconstitutionality of disproportionate representation in the House of Representatives as per the Constitution and Federalist Papers 55 and 56 “which explicitly promised, without qualification, that there would be one Representative for every thirty-thousand inhabitants.”

The current average district size in comparison to that of the first Congresses is substantially disproportionate. According to Apportionment.US:

The average district size has increased substantially since the first census of 1790.

1790 – 1 for every ~ 33,000

1910 – 1 for every ~ 210,000

2000 – 1 for every ~ 647,000

2010 – 1 for every ~ 700,000 (projected)

Over the next few weeks, I will be exploring this subject and keeping the readers abreast of the lawsuit. As Scott has said, this will “bring about perhaps the most significant change in the federal government structure in nearly a century.” One can imagine, a change this substantial will be strongly challenged by the powers that be, however what the Founders penned in the Constitution can not be ignored.

In 1920 Congress, after one hundred thirty years of growth in the House of Representatives, a stalemate ensued over re-apportionment and Congress froze the number of the House to 435 members. This legislation is unconstitutional as it changed the Constitution without using the amendment process. The Reapportionment Act of 1929 is the reason that we now have 435 members in Congress and that states like Montana are grossly under represented. According to Approtionment.US

The inequality today is severe and unjust. The primary measure that the Supreme Court has used to determine voter equality is to compare the largest and smallest districts. According to the 2000 census, Montana was the most under-represented and Wyoming was the most over-represented. In simple terms, it took 1.83 Montana voters to equal just 1 Wyoming voter, which is grossly unfair. Using the math calculation as applied in the 1983 Supreme Court case Karcher v. Daggett, the collective deviation of the largest and smallest districts from the “ideal” district size was 63.38%. Interestingly, the Court declared as unconstitutional a deviation of 0.6984% in Karcher, which is over 90 times smaller than the current deviation!

One day after filing the case, Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Edith H. Jones, approved the request on Friday September 18th, 2009. If the plaintiffs prevail, the case will be moved to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Most are not aware of the under representation, though they most certainly feel it during election years, or in times such as these, when their representative turns a deaf ear to the voice of the constituent. The time is ripe for change as the American people have seen first hand what too much power does in the hands of 435. The Constitutional standard of “one person one vote” has not been practiced at the Federal level for well over a century and it is time to give the power back to the people through equal representation.

Related articles by Zemanta

• DeMint to force vote on constitutionality of mandate (hotair.com)
• Atheists challenge new Irish blasphemy law (msnbc.msn.com)
• Does the Supreme Court Still Sit? (americanthinker.com)
• A Progressive Constitution (americanthinker.com)
• Finally, Someone is Discussing the Constitution (girlpundit.com)
• Is Obama’s Handling of Honduras a View of Our Future? (americanthinker.com)
• Wanted: Another President like Grover Cleveland (girlpundit.com)

You can sign a petition in favor of his amendment here.

http://fleming.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=55?iontree=29,55

It’s very simple, takes about one minute!

Related articles by Zemanta

• One senator explains his healthcare vote (actionforbetterhealthcare.com)
• ‘Moderate’ Dems oppose Cap and Trade in 2010 (tech.bl0x.info)
• Nanny State Gone Wild: Defining dependency up (michellemalkin.com)
• Not quite understanding the word mandate (hotair.com)
• Finally, Someone is Discussing the Constitution (girlpundit.com)

Many Americans believe we have not had a problem with inflation in decades, but the reality is inflation has grown steadily at approximately 4 percent for years. For example, items that totaled $100 in 1988 would cost almost twice that today. Those higher prices did not go up because the items became more scarce or the ability to produce them had declined (in fact, the exact opposite has happened; technology and the ability to easily do business internationally should have drove pricing down), it is due to a reduction in the value of the currency itself. This is a cowardly form of taxation, with the government decreasing the value of all money by printing fiat dollars as a form of paying bills. It is much easier to do that than the government behaving in a fiscally responsible manner.

So we have had inflation for decades, yet it has largely gone unnoticed by millions of Americans who remember the double digit inflation of the 1970s and are too busy trying to make a living to notice the government chipping away at the value of all money today. Now the federal government is going much further in its efforts to devalue our nation’s money. We have got into the mode of adding $1 trillion to the deficit annually. Twenty years ago, this was the amount of the entire national debt and took almost two centuries to accumulate. The Obama administration has to do something in order to make this shell game of fiscal insanity work. There is no doubt Obama wants to raise our taxes and has moved aggressively in that direction. However, the US already has the second highest corporate tax rates in the world among industrialized countries according to the G-20. Unless the US wants to shut this economic machine down entirely, they will have to look for strategies beyond tax increases. One of those clearly include more inflation and it has already begun to happen.

On one day earlier this year, the United States took a chapter out of Zimbabwe’s playbook by pumping $1.2 trillion into the money supply in an attempt to pay off its bills. Many Americans have (rightly) been alarmed by the more than $1.5 trillion we have seen in bailouts. According to the Washington Post, these inflationary efforts have the potential of being much more far reaching, noting that “combined with the billions already deployed by the Fed, the new money dwarfs even the biggest government bailouts of financial companies.”

Historically, this type of monetary policy leads to the kind of inflation that we have seen in history books, where it is cheaper to use money for wallpaper than to buy it or it requiring a barrel of money to buy a simple loaf of bread. One of my favorite photos is a Weimar Republic sanitation worker in the days before World War II literally sweeping money in the gutter because it was both worthless and in excess. Printing worthless money will not sweep our problems away, but make issues we never imagined.

Related articles by Zemanta

• How to help finance the build up in Afghanistan (girlpundit.com)
• Time’s Person of the Year … not Obama? (hotair.com)
• Obama brings the Gitmolympics home (michellemalkin.com)
• Gold, dollar and euro: A love triangle into 2010 (investmentpostcards.com)

This is a big part of President Obama’s message. In a speech back in September on health care that he delivered to Congress he said “The plan I’m announcing tonight would… slow the growth of health care costs for our families.” More than for the President’s remarks, this speech is better known for a comment by Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC) in which he yelled that the President was lying in his speech. The Congressman was referring to the fact that the President claimed his health care bill would not include illegal aliens, but the lack of truth in Obama’s “advertising” does not end there.

John Stossel points out in a recent column at FoxBusiness.com that “health care costs have been rising just as fast in countries with government-run health care. Since 1990, per person spending on health care has risen 159% in the US. But in England, with its government-run system, costs went up 210% over the same time period. Spending was up 148% in France and 124% in Canada, according to OECD data.” The OECD is the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. So we see that government control has not contained costs and the methods used to keep spending down is the use of rationing health care. According to Canada’s own health care system, the average Canadian must wait 17 weeks from the time a general physician finds something wrong and a specialist finally sees him or her. In many cases, that is the time frame of an early detected cancer becoming inoperable.

Stossel goes on to note that “It’s true that we have always spent more on health care than countries with government systems. But that’s partly because we’re wealthier, and partly because other countries don’t respect our drug patents, free-riding on our medical innovation.” That innovation will decline with the undermining of our for profit health care system. I go a step further to mention that doctors in socialized countries do not have the liability issues that American physicians have. Doctors in this country recommend very expensive tests — even if it is highly unlikely that the patient might have the condition the exam seeks — in order to protect themselves from being sued by patients later. In socialized systems, it is virtually impossible to sue government doctors.

Finally, Stossel points out something both obvious, but profound, “Someone will ration health care. In America, insurance companies usually do it. In most of the rest of the world, governments do. Costs skyrocket under both systems. Its time we tried the third option: let individuals use their own money to buy health care.”

I have been advocating “consumer driven health” long before it became a popular phrase in the insurance industry. The development of such an approach, seen in things like high deductible insurance policies and health savings accounts, have significantly reduced cost increases for businesses and individuals who have pursued such plans. The reason for this is simple, it gives the consumer (or in this case, the patient) a financial interest in the choices that are made in his or her health care. Individual responsibility should be the center piece of the health care debate, rather than abdicating health care to the government.

By Chairman Rob Gleason

President Obama and Democratic Congressional leaders continue to sell health care as fiscally responsible and fiscally sound, but the facts don’t support their talking points. Americans are wise to the Democrat’s sleight of hand. The last thing Americans want to wake up to on Christmas morning is a stocking filled with government run, taxpayer-funded health care that comes with a trillion dollar price tag still attached (Sorry, no returns or refunds). The White House may believe that poll numbers are paramount to ‘six year olds with crayons,’ however, it is becoming clear to Congressional Democrats: Support of this legislation means they will be ignoring their constituents and blindly following their leaders pursuit of a far left agenda. Even some in their own party are starting to recognize the shortcomings in the proposal, as some Democrats have even announced they would not support this crippling legislation.

The Democrats have all of the votes that they need to pass their health care legislation without any Republican support. Yet, they cannot muster the necessary votes. The reason is simple, the legislation is exorbitantly flawed. The health care legislation that the Democratic leadership is trying to push through is full of wasteful spending, new bureaucracies and higher taxes. This legislation has become so convoluted that no one understands what destructive impact it will have on the health care system or the economy in general.

At a time of great economic turmoil, Pennsylvanians are in need of great leadership. The Republican Party is aggressively recruiting outstanding candidates to oust the irresponsible law makers who refuse to do what is best for the citizens of the Commonwealth. Those candidates will fight to reestablish the necessary principles to put our country back on track to economic prosperity, such principles as lower taxes implemented by a smaller, more efficient government. Donate today and help us elect Republican candidates in 2010 who will fight against big government solutions and higher taxes.

Let your voice be heard:

Join our PA GOP Truth Brigade and help us spread the word about the Democrats efforts to advance their big government agenda. Email Deputy Communications Director Meagan Sweeney at msweeney@pagop.org to receive weekly talking points and themes for the news Pennsylvania Republicans are talking about. We have a responsibility to spread the word about the Democrats efforts. Join us today!

Related articles by Zemanta

• Lieberman open to running as a GOPer in 2012 (americablog.com)
• Michael Petrilli: Whole Foods Republicans (online.wsj.com)
• Democrats struggling on health care (msnbc.msn.com)

Hi, my name is Richard Clough, running for County Judge to serve the people of Tarrant County.

How can this campaign earn your vote? Trust! Trust commands results and results command rest. When there is an absence of trust, the result is unrest and discontentment. Could this be what we have going on with some of our elected leaders in Tarrant County?

The people need to regain their trust in Tarrant County government. I will work for the taxpayer to regain trust in county government by being a County Judge who is a listener, a servant and a voice for people from ALL walks of lives, cultures, classes and colors. Your vote for me will bring people together to make Tarrant County a better place to live and work. With your help, we will regain the trust of the people in Tarrant County.

Transparency

I am a man of integrity and honesty. There will be no hidden agenda or secret meeting.

Reduce Taxes

According to Forbes, Tarrant County has the 13th highest property taxes in the nation

Toll Roads

NO Toll Roads
820 North,183/121, I35W can be improved without raising your taxes or tolls!

Trans-Texas Corridor

No Trans Texas Corridor

Energy Independence

To help give America and its citizen’s energy, economic, environmental and national security.

Local Elections

All local elections should be held in November, except primaries.

Faith & Community

Improving relations with Faith based organizations will improve the quality of life in Tarrant County.

Healthcare

Better relationship and guidelines for JPS.

Eminent Domain

No taking of personal property for private investment

Celebrate Marriage

One Man and One Women