If there’s one thing we have in this nation – it’s an abundance of people willing to give us their opinion on what’s going wrong.  It’s much easier to sit on the sidelines of a game and criticize the players – than to actually work hard, take a few risks – and make the sacrifices required to be a player in the grand game.  In this post – let’s think about why each of us needs to get in the game and what needs to happen for our nation to halt our decline (judgment).

Since we’ve already discussed what’s really happening to our nation and why – let’s take some time and discuss what needs to actually change to turn our nation around.  As I’ve said before, first and foremost – we must ask God for forgiveness – individually and corporately.  There is no debate on this point.  Without God’s guidance and blessing – whatever we choose – regardless of our intelligence, planning, etc. – we will fail.  With God’s blessing – anything and everything is possible.  No national repentance - and our fall will continue without ceasing.  Other nations will continue to rise – and we will continue to fall.  End of story.

Let’s say that at some point in the future – we, the people of the United States of America finally recognize our spiritual condition and return to God.  As a result, He draws near to us and begins to heal our nation.  Let’s say that we (as a nation) now see our true enemy – how he has infiltrated and corrupted our government and religion - and decide to do something about it.  What is required?  Above all else – faith will be required. Why? We will need leaders who will allow themselves to be strengthened by God so that they can stand against our enemies. 

Courage and trust flow from faith.  Do I truly believe God is watching over me?  Do I truly believe that He will protect me against my enemies?  Even though I face insurmountable odds – do I believe that God will allow me to overcome those odds?  When enemies threaten and ridicule me – will I fear these threats or will I continue to follow God – advancing in the face of powerful adversaries?  Do you understand what I’m saying to you?  Without faith – we will not stand, we will give in to our enemies.  Why?  Because from a worldly standpoint – it will seem that our situation is untenable.  If God tells us that we will succeed by following Him – what is going to be our response when the world ridicules us and pressures us?  Will we join the coming world government or will we stand against it?  Will we remove secret society members from our government and financial institutions or continue to cower at their worldly power and influence?  Will we reject unbiblical doctrine (regardless of where it comes from) or will we accept demonic doctrines?  Are we willing to endure extreme hardship in this world – to inherit the kingdom of heaven in our next life?  You get the picture – we face an uphill battle all the way to the end of this evil age.  I’ve had my own three year battle with our spiritual enemy to get me ready for what is coming.  I haven’t always thought it was necessary and would have preferred another way – but I have come to the conclusion that every Christian eventually understands – if God is putting you through trials – He has a very good reason for doing so.  Are you prepared?  The bigger and more important question is – will you allow God to prepare you?

The bottom line is that if we do ask God for forgiveness and guidance – the war is just beginning for us.  Our spiritual enemy will bring his followers against us – very powerful political, financial and religious people in this world.  We must be prepared spiritually to do what needs to be done.  If we’re the only nation on earth that refuses to join a world government and evil world religion – so be it.  We can create our own monetary/economic system – independent of the world system and stay true to God’s Word.  We are – after all – Americans.  I think we’ve forgotten where we came from and what got us here.  Our ancestors traveled to America for freedom.  If we don’t stand up and fight for God – there will be no freedom in this world. Let’s be a true refuge in an evil world.  I don’t know about you – but I’d rather die standing for my Creator – than lie down and accept an evil world government and evil world religion and eventually face eternal judgment.  Besides, I believe it’s time we showed the world who we truly are – that the American people are honorable and fearless – unlike our current leaders.

I’m sure you’ve wondered many times about how we can turn around this current economic crisis.  The world’s leaders are going to offer us a ‘solution’ – but it will only lead to more bondage. Their solution will eventually include some type of global currency and a heavily regulated financial system.  At some point in the near future – you and I will be asked to swear some type of unbiblical allegiance to this world system in order to buy and sell.  This path will eventually lead to the ‘mark of the beast’.  Join this world system – and you gain access to money – and lose your soul for all eternity.

To truly get free, we must start by having the fortitude to do these three things:

1. Rescind the Federal Reserve Act and remove the Federal Reserve and its fractional reserve banking system.  No one can be debt free if their money is created by debt.  To get free – you must get free of the system that places you in bondage.  Since the international cartel that controls the central banking system knows very well that their true power is derived from this system – they will fight to the very end to stop this from happening.  Expect all types of slander, threats and even physical assaults against the people within the United States who are trying to remove them from power.  This will become a life and death struggle.  Ever wonder why no one in power ever speaks out against the Federal Reserve?  Because they know that doing so – will place their life in danger.  Again – you must have a strong faith to know that God is on your side in this battle.  When the U.S. begins to print its own money (based on a metal standard) and removes the Federal Reserve Notes from circulation – debt will vanish.  We can then institute a monetary system where money is created by value – not debt – and is sustainable.  We can create a monetary system where we live within our means and are not constantly under the bondage of debt.  There are many details we will need to work out – but it starts with the removal of the Federal Reserve – there is no other way out.
2. Rescind income taxes and estate taxes. Why are we taxed when we die?  It’s certainly not because we’re not taxed enough while we’re alive.  What is usually one of the first things that our Government does during economic downturns?  Tax breaks.  They obviously recognize that putting our money back in our own hands is good for the economy.  The obvious question is – if this is a good idea during down times – isn’t it good all the time? Why do we think that our government can manage our money any better than we can?  Have you looked at our Government’s finances lately?  Local, State and Federal taxes are out of control – and all they do is lead to bloated government and waste – just look at our Federal Government or the State of California – their budgets are huge – and in complete disarray.  Let’s put the money back in the hands of the people who earn it – and who will manage it effectively. Our Government should provide us with a military for protection, maintain our infrastructure and – stay out of our way.  Our founding fathers made it clear – government is by the people for the people – it should never dominate the people.  It should never become a buyer of securities and mortgages (Can anyone compete with something that has seemingly unlimited funds and creates our laws?), a bailout specialist (if firms fail – they fail – that’s the downside of free markets – deal with it – and besides, the government should not be in the business of deciding who survives and who fails), a provider of income (social security), a healthcare service provider (Medicare, Medicaid, prescription drug benefits), dictate how we educate our children, etc, etc.  If our President proposed that the U.S. become a Socialist country next week – there would be a public outcry as we’ve never seen before - we would march on Washington D.C. and demand this be stopped.  We’re definitely moving in that direction – only we’re doing it over decades – and very few people are saying anything.  Socialism does not work – regardless of what our new President believes.  Read the article below.
3. We must drastically reduce the size of our Government.  Less taxes = less government.  Imagine the savings if we didn’t need the Internal Revenue Service or the myriad of other departments within our government.  Again – private business will always manage money (revenue, expenses, investment, etc.) much better than government.  Why?  If your livelihood depends on doing a good job – you’re going to do the best job you can.  If you receive income whether or not you do a good job and are secure that you’ll be paid regardless of how well you perform – it’s not hard to see why our government is bloated and in disarray.  You don’t need a psychology degree to understand how humans behave. 

The end result of all of this is that we can either take the broad path that the world will take and join an evil world system – or we can choose the narrow path – and follow our Creator.  It is our choice – the same choice every human being has faced.  Which path will we choose?

JANUARY 9, 2009

'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years

By STEPHEN MOORE

Some years ago when I worked at the libertarian Cato Institute, we used to label any new hire who had not yet read "Atlas Shrugged" a "virgin." Being conversant in Ayn Rand's classic novel about the economic carnage caused by big government run amok was practically a job requirement. If only "Atlas" were required reading for every member of Congress and political appointee in the Obama administration. I'm confident that we'd get out of the current financial mess a lot faster.

Many of us who know Rand's work have noticed that with each passing week, and with each successive bailout plan and economic-stimulus scheme out of Washington, our current politicians are committing the very acts of economic lunacy that "Atlas Shrugged" parodied in 1957, when this 1,000-page novel was first published and became an instant hit.

Rand, who had come to America from Soviet Russia with striking insights into totalitarianism and the destructiveness of socialism, was already a celebrity. The left, naturally, hated her. But as recently as 1991, a survey by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club found that readers rated "Atlas" as the second-most influential book in their lives, behind only the Bible.

For the uninitiated, the moral of the story is simply this: Politicians invariably respond to crises -- that in most cases they themselves created -- by spawning new government programs, laws and regulations. These, in turn, generate more havoc and poverty, which inspires the politicians to create more programs . . . and the downward spiral repeats itself until the productive sectors of the economy collapse under the collective weight of taxes and other burdens imposed in the name of fairness, equality and do-goodism.

In the book, these relentless wealth redistributionists and their programs are disparaged as "the looters and their laws." Every new act of government futility and stupidity carries with it a benevolent-sounding title. These include the "Anti-Greed Act" to redistribute income (sounds like Charlie Rangel's promises soak-the-rich tax bill) and the "Equalization of Opportunity Act" to prevent people from starting more than one business (to give other people a chance). My personal favorite, the "Anti Dog-Eat-Dog Act," aims to restrict cut-throat competition between firms and thus slow the wave of business bankruptcies. Why didn't Hank Paulson think of that?

These acts and edicts sound farcical, yes, but no more so than the actual events in Washington, circa 2008. We already have been served up the $700 billion "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act" and the "Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act." Now that Barack Obama is in town, he will soon sign into law with great urgency the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan." This latest Hail Mary pass will increase the federal budget (which has already expanded by $1.5 trillion in eight years under George Bush) by an additional $1 trillion -- in roughly his first 100 days in office.

The current economic strategy is right out of "Atlas Shrugged": The more incompetent you are in business, the more handouts the politicians will bestow on you. That's the justification for the $2 trillion of subsidies doled out already to keep afloat distressed insurance companies, banks, Wall Street investment houses, and auto companies -- while standing next in line for their share of the booty are real-estate developers, the steel industry, chemical companies, airlines, ethanol producers, construction firms and even catfish farmers. With each successive bailout to "calm the markets," another trillion of national wealth is subsequently lost. Yet, as "Atlas" grimly foretold, we now treat the incompetent who wreck their companies as victims, while those resourceful business owners who manage to make a profit are portrayed as recipients of illegitimate "windfalls."

When Rand was writing in the 1950s, one of the pillars of American industrial might was the railroads. In her novel the railroad owner, Dagny Taggart, an enterprising industrialist, has a FedEx-like vision for expansion and first-rate service by rail. But she is continuously badgered, cajoled, taxed, ruled and regulated -- always in the public interest -- into bankruptcy. Sound far-fetched? On the day I sat down to write this ode to "Atlas," a Wall Street Journal headline blared: "Rail Shippers Ask Congress to Regulate Freight Prices."

In one chapter of the book, an entrepreneur invents a new miracle metal -- stronger but lighter than steel. The government immediately appropriates the invention in "the public good." The politicians demand that the metal inventor come to Washington and sign over ownership of his invention or lose everything.

The scene is eerily similar to an event late last year when six bank presidents were summoned by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to Washington, and then shuttled into a conference room and told, in effect, that they could not leave until they collectively signed a document handing over percentages of their future profits to the government. The Treasury folks insisted that this shakedown, too, was all in "the public interest."

Ultimately, "Atlas Shrugged" is a celebration of the entrepreneur, the risk taker and the cultivator of wealth through human intellect. Critics dismissed the novel as simple-minded, and even some of Rand's political admirers complained that she lacked compassion. Yet one pertinent warning resounds throughout the book: When profits and wealth and creativity are denigrated in society, they start to disappear -- leaving everyone the poorer.

One memorable moment in "Atlas" occurs near the very end, when the economy has been rendered comatose by all the great economic minds in Washington. Finally, and out of desperation, the politicians come to the heroic businessman John Galt (who has resisted their assault on capitalism) and beg him to help them get the economy back on track. The discussion sounds much like what would happen today:

Galt: "You want me to be Economic Dictator?"

Mr. Thompson: "Yes!"

"And you'll obey any order I give?"

"Implicitly!"

"Then start by abolishing all income taxes."

"Oh no!" screamed Mr. Thompson, leaping to his feet. "We couldn't do that . . . How would we pay government employees?"

"Fire your government employees."

"Oh, no!"

Abolishing the income tax. Now that really would be a genuine economic stimulus. But Mr. Obama and the Democrats in Washington want to do the opposite: to raise the income tax "for purposes of fairness" as Barack Obama puts it.

David Kelley, the president of the Atlas Society, which is dedicated to promoting Rand's ideas, explains that "the older the book gets, the more timely its message." He tells me that there are plans to make "Atlas Shrugged" into a major motion picture -- it is the only classic novel of recent decades that was never made into a movie. "We don't need to make a movie out of the book," Mr. Kelley jokes. "We are living it right now."

Mr. Moore is senior economics writer for The Wall Street Journal editorial page.

I’ll translate what a “kinder, gentler version of capitalism” means in the article below – socialism.  Do we really want to move toward the “European model” where we have “universal health care, a more generous system of social security and a general principle of almost free university education”?  Who will pay for all of this?  You and I will eventually pay for this in the form of increased taxes – just like the Europeans.  The governments of Europe do not give these services away for free – there is a price. Take a look at European tax rates if you want to see our future.  Along with higher taxes comes loss of freedoms – governments don’t just provide healthcare – they control it.  Do you want to wait weeks or months for healthcare and then see the physician that the ‘State’ tells you to see? 

Can everyone attend a university for free?  Of course not.  Who gets to go to college?  The government will decide for you.  Take a look at the current system in Germany and you’ll get a glimpse into our future.  You must take tests that determine whether or not you can attend college, technical school – etc.  You might want to work a little harder and attend a university – but I’m afraid that will not be your decision.  All of the rhetoric in the article below sounds good – but we’re not told the whole story – we never are.  Does a system that takes from those who earn a living and then disperses your money as it chooses sound like an economic system that is good for you (I won’t go into a discussion here on our current tax system in America)?  Does this sound like a system that rewards hard work and entrepreneurship? Would you be willing to take a few risks and work hard to start a business or develop a product if you knew that the government would take most of your profits from you?  Does this sound like a free economic system? It’s not even close. I don’t know about you – but I don’t feel like our current leaders (government) have any clue how to manage our nation’s finances, our nation’s military, our nation’s problems – our nation’s future.  We are being led by people who are only concerned about their own welfare – mere puppets in this game.  Why would I feel better about giving these same people – more power and authority?

If you stop and think about it – higher taxes and loss of freedoms are the end result of the “European Model”?  Do we really want government controlling everything?  You and I don’t – but somebody obviously does and they’re making it happen very deceptively.  If you remember – Hillary Clinton tried to implement ‘universal healthcare’ in America during the late 1990’s.  The American people rejected her proposal – so what’s happening now?  If you’ve really been paying attention, you’ll notice that someone is re-packaging socialism in the form of economic ‘stimulus’ packages and is trying to sell it to us as the only way to overcome the global economic recession.  Governments around the world are nationalizing banks, buying assets – basically getting their tentacles into everything – all under the guise of ‘bailing out’ the financial system.  If you think this doesn’t come with a loss of freedom, I’ve attached a 2^nd article below relating to government ‘restrictions’ for companies who take bailout money.  As I’ve mentioned before – the global elite behind all of this are very intelligent and very patient.  They’ve waited hundreds of years to get to this point – they have no problem waiting a little longer until we all finally buy into the socialism plan.

Barack Obama’s task in this grand game is to move us closer to the European model – which will eventually morph into full blown socialism the world over.  Don’t believe it?  Get ready to see what all of the economic ‘stimulus’ packages will get us – more government ownership of assets, nationalization of industries – and all of the ‘stimulus’ in the world will not prevent our financial collapse.  Imagine what’s going to happen when the next domino falls – when governments around the world finally go bankrupt.  Once the people behind this system bankrupt the world – we’ll then see the true face of the beast.

I recommend you read ‘Atlas Shrugged’ (a novel by Ayn Rand) if you want to know what socialism does to a society.  You might get ‘universal healthcare’ – but it will come at a very steep price. 

JANUARY 30, 2009

Europe Basks as U.S.-Style Capitalism Draws Fire

By JOELLEN PERRY

Wall St. Journal

DAVOS, Switzerland -- A day after Chinese and Russian leaders blamed a free-wheeling U.S. financial system as the source of the global economic crisis, Europeans here are taking comfort in what they see as their kinder, gentler version of capitalism.

José Manuel Barroso, opening European markets remotely on Thursday from Davos, said the U.S. is looking to the European model of capitalism.

"In Europe, we have a social-market economy," European Commission President José Manuel Barroso said in an interview. "We have universal health care, a more generous system of social security, a general principle of almost free university education. And we want to keep that."

For years, Europe's more-regulated model of capitalism has been maligned by many economists as a study in second-rate market economics. Now, as world leaders seek a way out of the crisis -- and aim to avoid repeating it -- U.S.-style capitalism is under siege and the European model is getting another look.

America may be stealing a glance across the Atlantic. In Washington, the Senate is gearing up for a debate next week on its version of the $819 billion economic stimulus package the House passed Wednesday.

"President Obama," Mr. Barroso said, "is moving toward a European-style model." Mr. Barroso, who runs the executive arm of the 27-nation European Union, cited the new administration's aim to boost health-care coverage, access to student loans and public-infrastructure spending as examples of the U.S's emerging European tilt.

After Wednesday's suggestions by Chinese and Russian leaders that the world might benefit from less reliance on the dollar, many here at the World Economic Forum said the crisis had dented the U.S.'s reputation. But few predicted the crisis would cost the greenback its status as the world's haven and reserve currency of choice -- largely because neither the euro nor the yen is seen as a viable alternative.

Others at the gathering spread the blame beyond U.S. borders. "Mistakes were made on both sides of the Atlantic. It's true, the crisis originated in the U.S. But it's also true that European financial markets had major exposure," Mr. Barroso said. "I don't want to get into a blame game."

Angel Gurría, secretary-general of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, agreed. "There was massive regulatory failure, massive supervisory failure, and massive corporate governance failures," he said.

Some economists here say Europe's model means it will fare better than the U.S. amid the crisis. "I expect the U.S. slowdown to be longer and deeper," said Kenneth Rogoff, a Harvard University economics professor and former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund. "Europe's financial system is not as compromised and it already had heavy social insurance. So I think the U.S. has more and deeper structural adjustments to make."

Some contend the Continent's extra social padding hasn't necessarily been a drag on growth. From 1998 to 2008, gross domestic product growth in the euro currency zone averaged 2.2% -- less than the U.S.'s 2.6% and well above Japan's anemic 1.1% showing, according to a recent Goldman Sachs report. When measured on a per-capita basis, euro-zone growth outstripped the U.S. over that period, coming in at 1.8% compared with the U.S.'s 1.6%.

"The U.S. has higher highs, but it also has lower lows," said Erik Nielsen, Goldman Sachs' chief European economist in London, noting that the ups and downs of the U.S. housing market over the decade damped America's overall growth rate. "The euro zone still comes out ahead."

But Thursday's Davos discussions also brought reminders of the Continent's structural vulnerabilities. "I don't think everyone wants to take responsibility for everyone else's problems," Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt said during a panel on European economic governance. "In that sense, we are still nation-states ... and I think that will not change in the short term."

—Daniel Hertzberg contributed to this article.

Write to Joellen Perry at joellen.perry@wsj.com

FEBRUARY 2, 2009

Firms Receiving U.S. Aid Face Pay Curbs

By DEBORAH SOLOMON

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration, seeking to improve public perception of the $700 billion financial rescue, is expected to announce this week tougher executive-compensation restrictions for some firms that get government aid.

Officials also are considering splitting off the Troubled Asset Relief Program from the Treasury and creating an independent entity, according to government officials. Some within the department think such a move could help improve the perception of the bailout, which has come under heavy criticism for being too secretive and not imposing enough rules and conditions on banks that get government aid.

The administration is working on a broad plan to bolster the financial sector and is expected to soon detail its efforts to help weakened financial firms. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, possibly later this week, is expected to give specifics of the administration's plan, including an effort to help homeowners in danger of foreclosure.

Wall Street has been anticipating the new administration's plans, including expecting President Barack Obama to ask Congress for more money. Many economists no longer expect the second half of the $700 billion, which Congress recently approved, to be enough to fix the ailing financial sector.

Before it announces those plans, the administration is trying to lay the groundwork with politicians and the public, who have grown weary of bailing out banks. The administration, realizing the public is expecting quick action, seems poised to announce some of its efforts in stages.

Its first move appears aimed at bolstering public support for the financial bailout by applying tougher rules to banks that get a substantial amount of money. Chief executives of firms that receive "exceptional" aid will be banned from receiving any severance payments and they, along with the top 50 executives, will see their bonus pools shrink by about 40% from 2007 levels.

It won't be easy to upend a compensation system that is woven into the fabric of the U.S. financial system. Many Wall Street employees work under employment contracts that can't be unwound.

Defenders of the old system said it still is useful despite blowups that have made Wall Street look disconnected from political and financial reality. If the government imposes caps or other limits on compensation, some bankers worry that the most talented people will flee to firms that are less regulated.

The Obama administration hasn't detailed what qualifies as "exceptional" aid, but government officials say the rules will apply in cases in which the U.S. provides significant dollars, along the lines of what has been given to American International Group Inc., Citigroup Inc. and the Detroit auto makers.

Last week, Mr. Obama called it "shameful" that Wall Street firms awarded $20 billion of bonuses even as Washington was spending taxpayer dollars to help bail them out of trouble.

Still, the administration isn't expected to attach any new pay curbs to healthy banks that get money through the $250 billion Capital Purchase Program. That program, which has invested nearly $200 billion in more than 300 financial institutions, imposes some modest pay restrictions, including a ban on so-called golden-parachute severance payments for top executives.

The administration hasn't finalized its plans for the heart of the bank rescue. It is considering a series of steps that would inject money into financial firms while relieving them of their toxic assets. The administration is considering a two-pronged approach that would further help banks by having the government buy a portion of their bad assets while offering guarantees against future losses on some of the remainder.

The administration continues to wrestle with the details, including what the government should pay for the troubled assets that are hampering the balance sheets of financial institutions. Mr. Geithner has assigned teams of staff to explore alternatives and is expected to present a plan to Mr. Obama shortly.

—Aaron Lucchetti and Matthew Karnitschnig contributed to this article.

Write to Deborah Solomon at deborah.solomon@wsj.com

The assault on free markets continues.  Here we see the Australian Prime Minister issuing the same rhetoric as other world leaders – including Barack Obama.  You’ll notice that the message below contains similar language as we’ve heard from other leaders:

“Kevin Rudd…….called for a new era of "social capitalism" in which government intervention and regulation feature heavily”

"The time has come, off the back of the current crisis, to proclaim that the great neo-liberal experiment of the past 30 years has failed….”

“…it now falls to social democracy to prevent liberal capitalism from cannibalising itself.”

“Mr. Rudd writes in The Monthly that just as Franklin Roosevelt rebuilt US capitalism after the Great Depression, modern-day "social democrats" such as himself and the US President, Barack Obama, must do the same again.”

“….he argues that "minor tweakings of long-established orthodoxies will not do" and advocates a new system.”

“He [Mr. Rudd] advocates tighter regulation and policing of global finances”

This quote sounds like it came straight out of Atlas Shrugged:

"[Mr. Rudd advocates] a system of open markets, unambiguously regulated by an activist state, and one in which the state intervenes to reduce the greater inequalities that competitive markets will inevitably generate.”

It’s easy to believe all of this economic rhetoric when we hear world leaders constantly telling us what the problem is and how to solve it.  The rhetoric always follows the same line of reasoning and consists of some version of the following language:

1. It appears that the free market system (capitalism) is seriously flawed
2. Greed has compounded the problem (true enough)
3. The current crisis is a direct result of #1 and #2 above (let’s ignore the truth)
4. Anyone who advocates free markets is attacked (see article below)
5. At a minimum – we need more government intervention and regulation
6. #5 will probably not be good enough – so we’ll need a new, heavily regulated ‘system’.
7. The ‘system’ in #6 is usually described as a ‘New World Order’
8. The ‘State’ must be heavily involved in creating and regulating this ‘New World Order’

As we’ve learned previously, what’s really causing the problems we’re experiencing today?  A monetary system that is based on exponential debt and money growth.  It is the world’s monetary system (I say ‘world’ because we’re all on the same underlying system) that is causing the current economic ‘crisis’.  It’s not subprime loans or subprime borrowers.  It’s not ‘interest only’ or ‘option-arm’ loans.  It’s not a ‘liquidity’ problem.  It’s not an ‘interest rate’ problem.  It’s not a ‘financial derivatives’ problem.  All of these things are symptoms of an underlying disease that no one in power wants to discuss.

The hard truth that no one wants to admit to or research is this – the current economic crisis is deliberate and is being used to promote a new ‘order’ that is built on socialism.  We hear it promoted from leaders all over the world almost daily now – yet we don’t want to face the truth – so we stick our heads in the sand and pretend that the ‘stimulus’ packages will somehow save us from economic oblivion.  The ‘stimulus’ packages will not save us – but they will certainly contribute to the world’s bankruptcy as governments the world over eventually default under the weight of massive debt.

If you haven’t read the Bible in awhile – I recommend that you pick it up and start learning the truth.  The prophecies of Revelation are now screaming at us – and very few are paying any attention.

Time for a New World Order: PM

Phillip Coorey Chief Political Correspondent
January 31, 2009

KEVIN RUDD has denounced the unfettered capitalism of the past three decades and called for a new era of "social capitalism" in which government intervention and regulation feature heavily.

In an essay to be published next week, the Prime Minister is scathing of the neo-liberals who began refashioning the market system in the 1970s, and ultimately brought about the global financial crisis.

"The time has come, off the back of the current crisis, to proclaim that the great neo-liberal experiment of the past 30 years has failed, that the emperor has no clothes," he writes of those who placed their faith in the corrective powers of the market.

"Neo-liberalism and the free-market fundamentalism it has produced has been revealed as little more than personal greed dressed up as an economic philosophy. And, ironically, it now falls to social democracy to prevent liberal capitalism from cannibalising itself."

Mr Rudd writes in The Monthly that just as Franklin Roosevelt rebuilt US capitalism after the Great Depression, modern-day "social democrats" such as himself and the US President, Barack Obama, must do the same again. But he argues that "minor tweakings of long-established orthodoxies will not do" and advocates a new system that reaches beyond the 70-year-old interventionist principles of John Maynard Keynes.

"A system of open markets, unambiguously regulated by an activist state, and one in which the state intervenes to reduce the greater inequalities that competitive markets will inevitably generate," he writes.

He urges "a new contract for the future that eschews the extremism of both the left and right".

He mocks neo-liberals "who now find themselves tied in ideological knots in being forced to rely on the state they fundamentally despise to save financial markets from collapse".

He advocates tighter regulation and policing of global finances, and identifies the immediate challenge as restoring global growth by 3 per cent of gross domestic product, the amount it is expected to fall in 2009. Next week, as Parliament resumes, his Government will chip in with a second economic stimulus package.

Mr Rudd commits to keeping budgets in surplus "over the cycle", meaning deficits should be temporary. In a further sign the Government is not contemplating additional tax cuts, which would deliver a permanent hit to revenue, he stresses that stimulus measures have to be paid for when the economy recovers.

Mr Rudd singles out Thatcherism as a culprit, as well as the former Howard government. His essay implicitly attacks the Opposition Leader, Malcolm Turnbull, who this week urged the free market be allowed to dictate commercial property values as he slammed a Government measure to prop them up.

Mr Rudd's essay follows the blast Mr Obama gave Wall Street bankers yesterday for awarding themselves $28 billion in bonuses last year at the same time as they were being bailed out by taxpayers.

In a message to Mr Obama and the US Congress, Mr Rudd counselled against erecting trade barriers. "Soft or hard, protectionism is a sure-fire way of turning recession into depression as it exacerbates the collapse in global demand."

The message was reinforced in Davos yesterday when the Trade Minister, Simon Crean, described the "buy American" provisions of the new Obama stimulus package as "very worrying". "On the face of it, it looks like it contravenes commitments made to the World Trade Organisation," he said.

with Paola Totaro

Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan: Betsy McCaughey

Commentary by Betsy McCaughey

Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Republican Senators are questioning whether President Barack Obama’s stimulus bill contains the right mix of tax breaks and cash infusions to jump-start the economy.

Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department.

Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because they are dangerous to your health. (Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH, pdf version).

The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.

But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”

Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.

New Penalties

Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties.  “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541)

What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make.

The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.

Elderly Hardest Hit

Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.

Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).

The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.

In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision.

Hidden Provisions

If the Obama administration’s economic stimulus bill passes the Senate in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later.

The stimulus bill will affect every part of health care, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much hospitals get paid. The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181).

Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration’s health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. “If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it,” he said. “The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol.”

More Scrutiny Needed

On Friday, President Obama called it “inexcusable and irresponsible” for senators to delay passing the stimulus bill. In truth, this bill needs more scrutiny.

The health-care industry is the largest employer in the U.S. It produces almost 17 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. Yet the bill treats health care the way European governments do: as a cost problem instead of a growth industry. Imagine limiting growth and innovation in the electronics or auto industry during this downturn. This stimulus is dangerous to your health and the economy.

(Betsy McCaughey is former lieutenant governor of New York and is an adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. The opinions expressed are her own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Betsy McCaughey at Betsymross

As I’ve mentioned before – President Obama is moving us toward the European economic model – on many fronts.

The last few sentences of the article below sum it up nicely.

The late economist Mancur Olson explained the phenomenon. Starting with "The Logic of Collective Action" (1965), he showed how democracies are vulnerable to proliferating parochial interests that use government to claim an ever larger share of private wealth. Slow but clear decline follows once narrow interests take the wider polity hostage. Look at France -- or California.

"[Economic] success doesn't depend on natural resources and location as much as on the degree of stupidity of the policies and institutions of the country," Olson wrote. The 2009 debate over Big Labor's agenda is about whether we want to continue to be a dynamic, entrepreneurial nation, or slip into unionized decline.

MARCH 16, 2009, 5:51 A.M. ET

Wall Street Journal

Labor's European Model

First came the huge stimulus, then the huger budget, then the Obama universal health-care plan. But Big Labor, cheering each, was really waiting for this: The "card check" bill introduced last week and considered the missing link in the revival of unions in America.

The so-called Employee Free Choice Act would let unions organize a worksite once 50% of employees sign a card saying they support a union. No secret-ballot election would be needed. Supporters claim this is necessary because workers are intimidated by companies to cast a vote against the union in secret, but are only too happy to express their true feelings to a union steward. Right.

Welfare State

The bill also gives the government power to influence wages and benefits under its binding arbitration provision. The exact terms of a first contract between an employer and a new union would be set by a state-appointed mediator if parties fail to reach a deal by a state-appointed deadline. Unions would have every incentive to make maximum demands, knowing that an arbitrator would more often than not split the difference.

We think workers have every right to form a union, and companies that get them often deserve their fate. (See: auto and steel makers, failure of.) But the goal of "card check" is to use federal power to tilt the playing field in favor of union organizers. Union rolls hit a peak of 32.5% of the labor force in 1952, then fell fast. As of last year, 12.4% of American workers belonged to a union. The share of unionized government employees has held steady for decades, but a mere 7.6% of the private workforce chooses to join a union. Unable to reverse the trend in the marketplace, unions have focused on electing Democrats who will rewrite national labor law.

And now they see their big chance. The House is almost certain to pass "card check," so the real battle is in the Senate. Six Senators who previously backed the measure, including Democrats from right-to-work states like Arkansas and Louisiana, are expressing new skepticism. But Big Labor's lobbying has only begun, and business needs to be wary of false compromises.

* * *

The larger union economic model here is Europe, where organized labor first led the charge to build welfare states. Then it concentrated on fighting back attempts to roll back costly entitlements and regulations once the bill of chronic debt, stagnant growth and stubbornly high unemployment came due. Margaret Thatcher defeated them in Britain, but successive German, Italian and French leaders have failed.

American political traditions are different, and Ronald Reagan stopped an earlier slide toward Europe. But complacency is misplaced. The Democratic Party sketched out plans for a Continental-like welfare model before Barack Obama burst into the White House.

In the last session of Congress, Democrats tried to: Raise the notice period required for certain layoffs at private companies to 90 days, extend health benefits for laid-off workers for up to a decade, and increase penalties for noncompliance (the expanded WARN Act); reclassify certain managers as employees who can be unionized, forcibly in non-right-to-work states (the Respect Act); facilitate class action suits for alleged gender-based pay discrimination (Paycheck Fairness Act); and much more. None passed, but now they might.

In the Obama revolution, unions are the vanguard force. Contrary to promises of moderation, the Administration has so far sided firmly with the union left. On the day after the Inauguration, the Department of Labor stopped the implementation of new union financial disclosure rules that provide greater transparency about union finances. A fortnight on the job, President Obama issued four executive orders, on federal contracting and political spending, demanded by Big Labor. Mr. Obama this month endorsed card check and vowed that it "will pass."

In Euro-terms, a "social market economy" offers state-provided health care, generous unemployment benefits, long holidays, various job protections and a prominent role for unions. Sounds good, you might say. But consider that the Europeans have spent the past two decades struggling to wean themselves off entitlements that are a huge drain on the overall economy. These welfare states leech off the productive parts of the economy through onerous taxes, debt and regulations.

Everyone ends up paying. Consider just one measure: the tax wedge, the share of labor costs that never reaches an employee's wallet but goes straight to state coffers. In Belgium, Germany and France, the tax wedge is around 50%; in America, it was 30% in 2007. (See the nearby table.) Not coincidentally, salaries and job opportunities are better here, especially for the least-skilled. The Obama budget, universal health care and now the union-revival effort known as the Employee Free Choice Act would steer America toward the Continent. That's good for the unions, but not for the public good.

* * *

The late economist Mancur Olson explained the phenomenon. Starting with "The Logic of Collective Action" (1965), he showed how democracies are vulnerable to proliferating parochial interests that use government to claim an ever larger share of private wealth. Slow but clear decline follows once narrow interests take the wider polity hostage. Look at France -- or California.

"[Economic] success doesn't depend on natural resources and location as much as on the degree of stupidity of the policies and institutions of the country," Olson wrote. The 2009 debate over Big Labor's agenda is about whether we want to continue to be a dynamic, entrepreneurial nation, or slip into unionized decline.

I’ve mentioned in a couple of posts why it’s a very bad idea to allow government to gain control of private companies – banks, the auto industry, insurance companies, etc.  Let’s disregard the dangers of socialism for a moment and simply think about what would happen if our government ran your company.  If you like a bloated bureaucracy that is inefficient, wasteful and never focuses on the long term health of your company (only short term thinking) – then you should be A-OK with our government’s plan to get into a myriad of businesses.  Just think about it – a never ending stream of committee meetings, summits and conference calls that delay any real decision-making. 

Think about what would happen to your company if you only planned for the next 2-5 years and never considered that your decisions today – could have serious long-term consequences – consequences that could eventually bankrupt and destroy your company.

The article below by John Gordon is one of the best I’ve seen on why government should never run private businesses. 

jg – May 21, 2009

Why Government Can't Run a Business

Politicians need headlines. Executives need profits.

Wall St. Journal

By JOHN STEELE GORDON

The Obama administration is bent on becoming a major player in -- if not taking over entirely -- America's health-care, automobile and banking industries. Before that happens, it might be a good idea to look at the government's track record in running economic enterprises. It is terrible.

In 1913, for instance, thinking it was being overcharged by the steel companies for armor plate for warships, the federal government decided to build its own plant. It estimated that a plant with a 10,000-ton annual capacity could produce armor plate for only 70% of what the steel companies charged.

When the plant was finally finished, however -- three years after World War I had ended -- it was millions over budget and able to produce armor plate only at twice what the steel companies charged. It produced one batch and then shut down, never to reopen.

Or take Medicare. Other than the source of its premiums, Medicare is no different, economically, than a regular health-insurance company. But unlike, say, UnitedHealthcare, it is a bureaucracy-beclotted nightmare, riven with waste and fraud. Last year the Government Accountability Office estimated that no less than one-third of all Medicare disbursements for durable medical equipment, such as wheelchairs and hospital beds, were improper or fraudulent. Medicare was so lax in its oversight that it was approving orthopedic shoes for amputees.

These examples are not aberrations; they are typical of how governments run enterprises. There are a number of reasons why this is inherently so. Among them are:

1) Governments are run by politicians, not businessmen. Politicians can only make political decisions, not economic ones. They are, after all, first and foremost in the re-election business. Because of the need to be re-elected, politicians are always likely to have a short-term bias. What looks good right now is more important to politicians than long-term consequences even when those consequences can be easily foreseen. The gathering disaster of Social Security has been obvious for years, but politics has prevented needed reforms.

And politicians tend to favor parochial interests over sound economic sense. Consider a thought experiment. There is a national widget crisis and Sen. Wiley Snoot is chairman of the Senate Widget Committee. There are two technologies that are possible solutions to the problem, with Technology A widely thought to be the more promising of the two. But the company that has been developing Technology B is headquartered in Sen. Snoot's state and employs 40,000 workers there. Which technology is Sen. Snoot going to use his vast legislative influence to push?

2) Politicians need headlines. And this means they have a deep need to do something ("Sen. Snoot Moves on Widget Crisis!"), even when doing nothing would be the better option. Markets will always deal efficiently with gluts and shortages, but letting the market work doesn't produce favorable headlines and, indeed, often produces the opposite ("Sen. Snoot Fails to Move on Widget Crisis!").

3) Governments use other people's money. Corporations play with their own money. They are wealth-creating machines in which various people (investors, managers and labor) come together under a defined set of rules in hopes of creating more wealth collectively than they can create separately.

So a labor negotiation in a corporation is a negotiation over how to divide the wealth that is created between stockholders and workers. Each side knows that if they drive too hard a bargain they risk killing the goose that lays golden eggs for both sides. Just ask General Motors and the United Auto Workers.

But when, say, a school board sits down to negotiate with a teachers union or decide how many administrators are needed, the goose is the taxpayer. That's why public-service employees now often have much more generous benefits than their private-sector counterparts. And that's why the New York City public school system had an administrator-to-student ratio 10 times as high as the city's Catholic school system, at least until Mayor Michael Bloomberg (a more than competent businessman before he entered politics) took charge of the system.

4) Government does not tolerate competition. The Obama administration is talking about creating a "public option" that would compete in the health-insurance marketplace with profit-seeking companies. But has a government entity ever competed successfully on a level playing field with private companies? I don't know of one.

5) Government enterprises are almost always monopolies and thus do not face competition at all. But competition is exactly what makes capitalism so successful an economic system. The lack of it has always doomed socialist economies.

When the federal government nationalized the phone system in 1917, justifying it as a wartime measure that would lower costs, it turned it over to the Post Office to run. (The process was called "postalization," a word that should send shivers down the back of any believer in free markets.) But despite the promise of lower prices, practically the first thing the Post Office did when it took over was . . . raise prices.

Cost cutting is alien to the culture of all bureaucracies. Indeed, when cost cutting is inescapable, bureaucracies often make cuts that will produce maximum public inconvenience, generating political pressure to reverse the cuts.

6) Successful corporations are run by benevolent despots. The CEO of a corporation has the power to manage effectively. He decides company policy, organizes the corporate structure, and allocates resources pretty much as he thinks best. The board of directors ordinarily does nothing more than ratify his moves (or, of course, fire him). This allows a company to act quickly when needed.

But American government was designed by the Founding Fathers to be inefficient, and inefficient it most certainly is. The president is the government's CEO, but except for trivial matters he can't do anything without the permission of two separate, very large committees (the House and Senate) whose members have their own political agendas. Government always has many cooks, which is why the government's broth is so often spoiled.

7) Government is regulated by government. When "postalization" of the nation's phone system appeared imminent in 1917, Theodore Vail, the president of AT&T, admitted that his company was, effectively, a monopoly. But he noted that "all monopolies should be regulated. Government ownership would be an unregulated monopoly."

It is government's job to make and enforce the rules that allow a civilized society to flourish. But it has a dismal record of regulating itself. Imagine, for instance, if a corporation, seeking to make its bottom line look better, transferred employee contributions from the company pension fund to its own accounts, replaced the money with general obligation corporate bonds, and called the money it expropriated income. We all know what would happen: The company accountants would refuse to certify the books and management would likely -- and rightly -- end up in jail.

But that is exactly what the federal government (which, unlike corporations, decides how to keep its own books) does with Social Security. In the late 1990s, the government was running what it -- and a largely unquestioning Washington press corps -- called budget "surpluses." But the national debt still increased in every single one of those years because the government was borrowing money to create the "surpluses."

Capitalism isn't perfect. Indeed, to paraphrase Winston Churchill's famous description of democracy, it's the worst economic system except for all the others. But the inescapable fact is that only the profit motive and competition keep enterprises lean, efficient, innovative and customer-oriented.

Mr. Gordon is the author of "An Empire of Wealth: The Epic History of American Economic Power" (HarperCollins, 2004).

The assault on free markets and the middle class continues.  The economy is collapsing - but for some reason - healthcare is now a top priority for our leaders in Washington.  This bill will do nothing but continue to drive small businesses owners - out of business.  This type of government intervention is yet another example straight out of ‘Atlas Shrugged’ – tax the ‘wealthy’ and distribute the money into a bloated, bureaucratic government enterprise. 

From the article below:

“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unveiled the measure on Tuesday, praising it as a historic step toward insuring all Americans that has eluded lawmakers for decades. "This bill is a starting point and a path to success to lower costs to consumers and businesses," the California Democrat said.”

If we lived in a fantasy world where the impossible was somehow made possible, then I might believe Ms. Pelosi’s comments.  Since I live in the real world that requires a way in which to pay for spending – I tend to believe that our Nation is on the road to bankruptcy – and instead of every American having health insurance – none of us will. 

We are on a path that will take us from the wealthiest nation on earth – to one of the poorest.  It is leadership like we’re witnessing here that is making it happen.

JULY 15, 2009

Small Business Faces Big Bite

House Health Bill Penalizes All but Tiniest Employers for Not Providing Insurance

Wall St. Journal

By JANET ADAMY and LAURA MECKLER

WASHINGTON -- House Democrats on Tuesday unveiled sweeping health-care legislation that would hit all but the smallest businesses with a penalty equal to 8% of payroll if they fail to provide health insurance to workers.

The House bill, which also would impose new taxes on the wealthy estimated to bring in more than $544 billion over a decade, came as lawmakers in the Senate raced against a self-imposed deadline of this week to introduce a bill in time for action this summer.

Senators face a tougher battle because they are striving for a bipartisan bill. Key senators are weighing a combination of several more-modest fund-raising provisions, including some new fees on health-care industries.

Under the House measure, employers with payrolls exceeding $400,000 a year would have to provide health insurance or pay the 8% penalty. Employers with payrolls between $250,000 and $400,000 a year would pay a smaller penalty, and those less than $250,000 would be exempt. Certain small firms would get tax credits to help buy coverage.

The relatively low thresholds for penalties triggered the sharpest criticism yet from employer groups, who said the burden on small business is too high and doesn't do enough to help them expand insurance coverage.

"This bill costs too much, it covers too few and it has way too much government involvement," said Michelle Dimarob, a lobbyist with the National Federation of Independent Business, the main trade group for small firms. "Small business doesn't want any of those things."

According to 2006 data from the federation, businesses with between five and nine workers, representing about one million employers, had an average payroll of around $375,000 a year. A report from the Kaiser Family Foundation found that only about half of firms with three to nine workers offered health benefits in 2008.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unveiled the measure on Tuesday, praising it as a historic step toward insuring all Americans that has eluded lawmakers for decades. "This bill is a starting point and a path to success to lower costs to consumers and businesses," the California Democrat said.

The Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday calculated the cost of the House's plan to expand insurance coverage at $1.04 trillion over 10 years, and predicted the measure would eventually lead 97% of legal American residents to have insurance. That's in line with President Barack Obama's desired budget for a health overhaul and lawmakers' pledges for expanding coverage.

The estimate doesn't factor in the plan to pay for the bill, including the new tax on wealthy Americans, or certain changes to Medicare and Medicaid, all of which could affect the final price tag.

The House bill would place new taxes on the wealthiest people to help expand insurance coverage to the nation's 46 million uninsured people. The legislation calls for a 5.4% surtax on those with annual gross incomes exceeding $1 million.

Households with annual income between $500,000 a year and $1 million would be hit with a 1.5% surtax, and those earning between $350,000 and $500,000 would face a 1% surtax. Those rates could eventually increase to 3% and 2%, respectively, if the government doesn't achieve certain health-cost savings.

The 1,018-page initiative contains several components pushed by liberal Democrats that were long expected to be part of House legislation, but which face considerable opposition in the Senate. Most notably, the House bill creates a new public health-insurance plan aimed at individuals and small businesses that otherwise can't get affordable coverage.

The House measure would bar insurance companies from denying coverage to individuals who are sick, while also requiring most Americans to carry health insurance or pay a penalty equal to about 2.5% of their gross income. It would provide families earning up to $88,000 a year with subsidies to help them buy coverage. And it would expand health-insurance coverage through the Medicaid federal-state insurance program for the poor.

The Senate legislation is also expected to include mandates on insurers to provide coverage and individuals to carry it, although the details may differ. The bigger differences will come on the financing side, where many senators are cautious about introducing major new taxes on the wealthy to pay for health care.

The White House is pushing for action before the August recess in both houses of Congress to give lawmakers time to reconcile their two versions, pass that compromise through the House and the Senate and send Mr. Obama a final bill by autumn. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee could approve its health overhaul bill as soon as Wednesday.

That will get merged with a bill in the Senate Finance Committee, where lawmakers are trying to craft a bipartisan measure. Chairman Max Baucus on Tuesday was pitching his colleagues on a plan to finance the bill through a combination of more-modest tax increases. He is trying to fill a hole of about $320 billion over 10 years, after Democrats objected to a provision to tax upper-end employee health benefits.

The fresh package included a new fee on pharmaceuticals and other health-care industries, and stiffer corporate-reporting measures aimed at collecting a greater share of corporate taxes owed each year, two Senate aides said.

Under the first proposal, health industries including drug makers and insurers would be charged an assessment, with individual companies' fees based on their market share. It's not clear how large the total assessment would be.

The proposal also seeks to raise $75 billion to $100 billion over 10 years by giving states an incentive to issue bonds that would help offset the expanded federal share of Medicaid.

"The goal here is a bunch of smaller, less controversial items that can add up," one official said.

The package may still include a modified version of the plan to tax high-end employer-provided health insurance, though on a smaller scale, aides said.

Mr. Baucus spent much of the day meeting one-on-one with members of his committee, and he put on an optimistic face. "We're going to pass very significant health reform this year," the Montana Democrat said.

But the pre-recess deadline appeared in danger as Republicans expressed concern that the process is moving too quickly.

Sen. Olympia Snowe, a key Republican whom Mr. Baucus is trying to win over, said Tuesday that the legislation is far too complex to rush and that she saw little chance of moving a bill through the Senate before the August break.

"I frankly couldn't imagine at this point bringing it to the floor and completing our deliberations...before the August recess," the Maine senator said. She said "arbitrary, artificial time frames really are not realistic given the magnitude of the task we are assigned to do."

In addition to health care, the White House also hopes for action on energy and financial-sector regulation, both of which would consume time this fall.

At a White House meeting with top Democratic leaders on Monday, Mr. Obama pushed Mr. Baucus to produce legislation by Thursday.

Senators are now talking openly of keeping the chamber in session an extra week, though some say that is simply a tactic to discourage delay by senators who have plans for vacations, congressional trips and hometown activities.

A further complication is that if it looks as if the Senate can't or won't act this summer, many House Democrats are likely to hesitate about voting on a contentious issue -- including raising taxes -- for something that might never become law.

Write to Janet Adamy at janet.adamy@wsj.com and Laura Meckler at laura.meckler@wsj.com

The American people did not want socialized health care in the 90’s (promoted by Hillary Clinton) and they don’t want it now (promoted by President Obama).  As you now know – this isn’t just about healthcare – there is a bigger agenda at work here.  Everyone is beginning to realize this.  People in America are waking up.

This quote from the article below says it all:

One woman prompted a standing ovation by telling Specter: "I don't believe this is just health care. This is about the systematic dismantling of this country. … I don't want this country turning into Russia, turning into a socialized country. What are you going to do to restore this country back to what our founders created, according to the Constitution?"

A standing ovation.  Americans want what we’ve always wanted – freedom to choose our own way – and it does not matter what the issue is.  We do not want anyone (including our Government) making our decisions for us. 

The problem is that we no longer resemble our nation when it was founded.  Most of our current leaders have no idea what our founding fathers created (a Republic where we all have inalienable rights) – so they don’t understand when we say we want to return to the nation that our founders created. 

Instead, we get answers like this:

However, Specter also noted that overhauling the health-care system is about America taking care of all its people.

"In our social contract, we have provisions that see to it that you take care of people who need some help," he said.

Mr. Specter – the U.S. Constitution is not a ‘social contract’ – nor does it contain provisions that the U.S. Government should take care of everyone. Actually – it was created to do the opposite – to give us freedom to take care of ourselves.  I admit – providing healthcare to everyone sounds good on paper (as many things do) – but in reality – it fails (as many things do once they face the harsh test of reality).  It fails because you would force us to pay a bloated, wasteful, incompetent government to manage yet one more facet of our lives.  You are, once again, taking away my right to choose based on a free market.  Can a private enterprise that must play by the rules of finance (private healthcare) – compete with a massive entity that does not (our government)?  Over time – government healthcare will become our only healthcare (regardless of what you tell us) - a healthcare system where decisions are made for us - a healthcare system that we do not want.

Do we think the government does a good job with what it already manages?  No.  Do we think a government that has repeatedly shown us that it cannot balance a budget and has driven us to the edge of financial ruin can somehow manage another bloated bureaucracy?  No. 

Should we help people Mr. Specter?  Yes – we should.  But that is my personal decision.  I choose whether to give to my Church and charities, whether to help my family and my friends – whether to help someone who needs assistance.  I choose what to do with my money.  I do not want to give it to a huge bureaucracy and watch it vanish without any knowledge of how it is really being spent. Contrary to what you believe – my money is not yours to do with as you please. With all of the local, state and federal taxes I pay – I don’t want to give you any more of my money to mismanage.  Not one dime.

I believe that most Americans feel the same way I do – which is why people are angry about this universal healthcare proposal. As Americans, we do not like to have anything shoved down our throats – and this is exactly what you are doing. I have read that most of the town hall meetings have been highly tense affairs – with lots of shouting and accusations.  This may be a surprise to the people in Washington D.C. – but it’s not a surprise to me.  You are slowly taking away our freedoms – and we’re now noticing.  This isn’t just about healthcare Mr. Specter – it’s about the American people getting fed up with our incompetent leadership losing touch with the people who elected them. 

The American people have been lied to – about many things over the past few years.  We have been told repeatedly that all of these stimulus and bailout packages will revive our economy – but our economy continues to deteriorate.  Many of us are now realizing that most of the ‘stimulus’ is going to big banks and corporations – not us.  We see our government mismanaging our finances at the local, state and federal level – leading to massive deficits and budget cuts – which is accelerating our decline. 

We have been lied to about the events of September 11, 2001.  Many people have demanded an independent investigation of 9/11 (family members of those killed, many architects and engineers who view the events with a trained eye, many American citizens – thousands upon thousands of people).  To date – we have received no response.

The majority of Americans opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – yet off we go to fight two wars.  These wars are killing and injuring our sons, daughters, fathers and mothers.  These wars are separating us from our families – straining our marriages, keeping us from our children.  We don’t know when they will end.  We hear lots of talk of pulling out of these countries – but we see no action.

Mr. Specter – we are beginning to understand that our government is no longer by the people – for the people.  It now does what it wants – whenever it wants.  It is now for those special interests that have money and power.  It is no longer for us – it is for you – to do with as you please.  Many of us are losing our jobs – we are being forced out of our homes – we are struggling to afford food to eat – and while we continue to struggle, we see you giving more money to failing banks and financial institutions.  We see you approving $500 million for private jets so that our Congressional ‘leadership’ can travel the world.  I’m sure traveling to the South Pole or Mongolia is nice – I’m just not sure why I’m paying for it.

Mr. Specter, we do not care if Bank of America or Goldman Sachs fails.  These are large institutions that took huge risks in order to chase after profits.  They made horrible business decisions.  In a truly free market – if you make colossal mistakes – it is quite possible that you will fail. If you fail – others step in to pick up the pieces. If the entire system fails – then maybe it’s time for a new system that doesn’t favor a small group of powerful interests. We understand this – why don’t you?  You are taking my tax money and giving it to wealthy people who failed.  It surprises you that I’m angry about this?

Mr. Specter, small businesses support approximately 70-80% of the jobs in America – yet everything you are doing (proposed healthcare taxes, healthcare requirements, access to loans/capital, etc.) is hurting small business.  Based on your actions – it would appear that you are attempting to destroy small businesses while supporting large financial institutions and corporations.  It surprises you that I’m angry about this?

Mr. Specter, I will warn you and our President that the American people are waking up.  We are now realizing what you are trying to do – and we don’t like it.  We will tolerate some things – but we will not tolerate the destruction of our freedom.  We want less government – not more. We do not want you managing our businesses or our healthcare plans.  We want you out of our lives as much as possible. We want a Republic where our rights are honored above all else and our government actually listens to us.

Mr. Specter, if you insist on taking away more of our freedoms - then you will force us to act.  These town hall meetings are just the beginning. Maybe you think we’re soft and easily manipulated?  Maybe we have been – but no longer. Do I need to remind you what has happened in the past to those who have threatened our freedom in America?  This nation was founded because England tried to do – exactly what you are trying to do to us. We have never accepted oppressive government – and we won’t now.  Continue to threaten our freedom as you are doing now – and we will unite - and stand against you.  Make no mistake – we are not like you.  We will not give in easily to socialism and global government.  You are waking a sleeping giant.

Mr. Specter, if we allow you and our leaders in Washington D.C. to destroy this country – then everyone who fought and died to protect our freedom – will have died in vain.  We can’t let that happen.  We won’t let that happen. 

We will truly unite under God.  We will seek our creator and ask Him to forgive us for what we have become.  We will seek knowledge and wisdom from Him – not you.  We will ask for strength and courage from the Creator of the heavens and earth.  We will put away our prejudices and our differences and we will stand - against you and the global elite. 

Mr. Specter, we do not want healthcare reform – we want our freedom.  We don’t want the government running our lives – we want to remain free to choose. We want to be free of this international banking cartel that is destroying our economy and our nation.  We want strong leaders who will stare into the face of evil and not flinch – but stand for us.  We want leaders who are honorable and listen to us – and act in our best interests – not in the interests of a small minority. 

We want true leadership – and we’re not getting it.

Specter faces angry crowd at town hall meeting

CNN.com

Posted: August 11th, 2009 12:02 PM ET

LEBANON, Pennsylvania (CNN) — A hostile crowd shouted questions and made angry statements Tuesday at a town hall meeting on health care led by Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter.

At one point, Specter shouted into his microphone that demonstrators disrupting the proceedings would be thrown out.

"We're not going to tolerate any demonstrations or any booing," he said after one audience member shoved another making an unsolicited speech. "So it's up to you."

Many in the crowd identified themselves as conservative Republicans, with one man noting they had voted Specter to Congress before the senator changed parties earlier this year.

One woman prompted a standing ovation by telling Specter: "I don't believe this is just health care. This is about the systematic dismantling of this country. … I don't want this country turning into Russia, turning into a socialized country. What are you going to do to restore this country back to what our founders created, according to the Constitution?"

Specter responded by noting his support for the Constitution as a past chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee on issues such as warrantless wiretaps.

"When you ask me to defend the Constitution, that's what I've been doing," Specter said.

However, Specter also noted that overhauling the health-care system is about America taking care of all its people.

"In our social contract, we have provisions that see to it that you take care of people who need some help," he said.

Several people asked if a health-care bill would mean taxpayer dollars would pay for others to get abortions. Specter responded that any measure passed by Congress would allow people to choose a plan that didn't cover abortions.

The shoving incident occurred early in the 90-minute session, when a man started shouting that he had been told by Specter's staff that he could speak, but he didn't get one of the 30 cards distributed to people allowing them to ask questions. Another man stood up and shoved the protester, and Specter approached the men shouting for calm.

AUGUST 11, 2009

Obama’s Tone-Deaf Health Campaign

Wall St. Journal

By DOROTHY RABINOWITZ

It didn’t take chaotic town-hall meetings, raging demonstrators and consequent brooding in various sectors of the media to bring home the truth that the campaign for a health-care bill is, to put it mildly, not going awfully well. It’s not hard now to envision the state of this crusade with just a month or two more of diligent management by the Obama team—think train wreck. It may one day be otherwise in the more perfect world of universal coverage, but for now disabilities like the tone deafness that afflicts this administration from the top down are uninsurable.

Consider former ABC reporter Linda Douglass—now the president’s communications director for health reform—who set about unmasking all the forces out there “always trying to scare people when you try to bring them health insurance reform.” People, she charged, are taking sentences out of context and otherwise working to present a misleading picture of the president’s proposals. One of her key solutions to this problem—her justly famed message encouraging citizens to contact the office at flag@whitehouse.gov if they got an email or other information about health reform “that seems fishy”—set off a riotous flow of online responses. (The word “fishy,” with its police detective tone, would have done the trick all by itself.)

These commentaries, packed with allusions to the secret police, the East German Stasi and Orwell, were mostly furious. Others quite simply hilarious. Ms. Douglass, who now has, in her public appearances, the air of a person consigned to service in a holy order, was not amused.

Neither has she seemed to entertain any second thoughts about the tenor of a message enlisting the public in a program reeking of a White House effort to set Americans against one another—the good Americans protecting the president’s health-care program from the bad Americans fighting it and undermining truth and goodness.

She intended no such outcome, doubtless. That this former journalist, now a communications director, failed to notice anything amiss in the details of that communiqué is a bit odd but not altogether surprising.

Crusades are busy endeavors, the enlistees in this one, like those in every undertaking of this White House, concerned with just one message. Which is that the Obama administration is in possession of vital answers to ills and inequities that have long afflicted American society (whether Americans know it or not), and that those opposed to those answers and that vision are cynics, or operatives of the powerful vested interests responsible for the plight Americans find themselves in (whether they know it or not), or political enemies bent on destroying the Obama administration.

It shouldn’t have been surprising, either, that the tone of much of the commentary on the town-hall protests was what it was. There was Mark Halperin for one, senior political editor for Time, bouncing off his chair, Sunday, in agitation over all the media coverage of this rowdiness—“a horrible breakdown of our political culture, our media culture” and so “bad for America,” as he told CNN’s Howard Kurtz. “I’m embarrassed about what’s going on, as an American.” The disruptions and coverage thereof distorted serious discussion, he explained. Mark Shields said much the same on Friday’s PBS NewsHour, if with less excitation, pointing out that these events were “not good for the democratic process,” and were a breakdown of civil debate.

There was no such hand-wringing over the decline of civil debate, during, say, election 2004, when cadres of organized demonstrators carrying swastika-adorned pictures of George W. Bush routinely swarmed about, and packed rallies. There was also that other “breakdown of our media culture,” that will dwarf all else as a cause for embarrassment, the town-hall coverage included, for the foreseeable future. That would be, of course, the undisguised worshipful reporting of the candidacy of Barack Obama.

That treatment, or rather its memory—like the adulation of his great mass of voters—has had its effect on this president, and not all to the good. The election over, the warming glow of those armies of supporters gone, his capacity to tolerate criticism and dissent from his policies grows thinner apace. His lectures, explaining his health-care proposals, and why they’ll be good for everybody, are clearly not going down well with his national audience.

This would have to do with the fact that the real Barack Obama—product of the academic left, social reformer with a program, is now before that audience, and what they hear in this lecture about one of the central concerns in their lives—his message freighted with generalities—they are not prepared to buy. They are not prepared to believe that our first most important concern now is health-care reform or all will go under.

The president has a problem. For, despite a great election victory, Mr. Obama, it becomes ever clearer, knows little about Americans. He knows the crowds—he is at home with those. He is a stranger to the country’s heart and character.

He seems unable to grasp what runs counter to its nature. That Americans don’t take well, for instance, to bullying, especially of the moralizing kind, implicit in those speeches on health care for everybody. Neither do they wish to be taken where they don’t know they want to go and being told it’s good for them.

Who would have believed that this politician celebrated, above all, for his eloquence and capacity to connect with voters would end up as president proving so profoundly tone deaf? A great many people is the answer—the same who listened to those speeches of his during the campaign, searching for their meaning.

It took this battle over health care to reveal the bloom coming off this rose, but that was coming. It began with the spectacle of the president, impelled to go abroad to apologize for his nation—repeatedly. It is not, in the end, the demonstrators in those town-hall meetings or the agitations of his political enemies that Mr. Obama should fear. It is the judgment of those Americans who have been sitting quietly in their homes, listening to him.

—Ms. Rabinowitz is a member of the Journal’s editorial board.

The following is an article on Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel - health adviser to President Obama.  Anytime I see someone in our government who believes something like this – I immediately think – the socialism train continues to move forward.

“Dr. Emanuel is part of a school of thought that redefines a physician’s duty, insisting that it includes working for the greater good of society instead of focusing only on a patient’s needs”

Wouldn’t it be in the best interests of society to help individual patients?  Isn’t this why the Hippocratic Oath was created?  What, exactly, does Dr. Emanuel mean when he says ‘the greater good of society’?  The rest of the article gives us a few clues.

“In numerous writings, Dr. Emanuel chastises physicians for thinking only about their own patient's needs.”

Wow.  I don’t know about you – but when I go to the Doctor – I prefer that the Doctor is focused on me – not ‘the greater good of society’. I don’t want anything that isn’t required – and I would hope that the Doctor would only do what was necessary (using his/her knowledge and expertise to determine the best course of action). I don’t want to go to the Doctor and wonder if I’m getting the care I need because the best course of action for me isn’t best for ‘society’.

‘But Dr. Emanuel believes doctors should serve two masters, the patient and society, and that medical students should be trained "to provide socially sustainable, cost-effective care."’

I don’t believe Americans want Doctors ‘serving’ anyone or anything – least of all ‘society’ – and I feel reasonably confident when I say that I’m sure Doctors don’t want to ‘serve’ society.  Let me translate - by ‘society’, Dr. Emanuel means our government.  All of this socialism rhetoric is the same.  We need to serve ‘society’, the ‘state’, the ‘greater good’, etc. 

What we want is for our Doctor to give us an open and honest evaluation – and recommend a best course of action based on their expertise and some common sense.  What we don’t want to hear is – ‘I can’t perform that procedure or administer that treatment because – in the long term – it’s not socially sustainable’.  I don’t even know what that means.  What nonsense.

‘Dr. Emanuel argues that to make such decisions, the focus cannot be only on the worth of the individual. He proposes adding the communitarian perspective to ensure that medical resources will be allocated in a way that keeps society going:’

I’ll translate again – Dr. Emanuel proposes that our government will dictate to our medical professionals how to treat individuals ‘in a way that keeps society going’. What does ‘keep society going’ mean?  Let’s find out.

“Dr. Emanuel concedes that his plan appears to discriminate against older people, but he explains: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination. . . . Treating 65 year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not."

The youngest are also put at the back of the line: "Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments. . . . As the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin argues, 'It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old dies and worse still when an adolescent does,' this argument is supported by empirical surveys." (thelancet.com, Jan. 31, 2009).”

So, the health advisor to the President of the United States advocates a healthcare system that discriminates against the oldest and the youngest of us.  It doesn’t matter what the condition is – or what may be required – if you are older or younger than the general population – you are at the end of the healthcare line.  I imagine that the people who share Dr. Emanuel’s view must look at this issue with a coldness I do not possess.  The question I would ask Dr. Emanuel is this – if his infant son or daughter needed an immediate heart operation to save their life – but couldn’t get it because of this system – what would he do?  If his father or mother couldn’t get a needed operation to save their life because of this system – how would he feel then?  Would that same cold intellect remain or would feelings interfere? 

It’s easier to talk about healthcare discrimination from a 30,000 foot level – it’s much harder if we consider the real world consequences.  If my son or daughter’s life was threatened, I’m afraid that the ‘greater good of society’ would take a backseat to my child’s health.  In fact, my own life would take a backseat to the health of my child.  We need to value everyone’s life – regardless of age, race, etc. 

Knowing how the global elite operate and how they are pushing a socialist agenda forward around the globe – this type of healthcare discrimination rhetoric is only the start.  If we allow this – it won’t stop there.  Once you allow discrimination based on age – it’s a very small step to enact laws that prevent healthcare altogether to certain people - people who do not adhere to your unbiblical laws – who do not go along with your evil plans.  Remember – those who do not have the ‘mark’ of this political beast – will not be able to buy or sell – or be part of the world system.  A socialist healthcare system is going to be a piece of that system.  I assure you – the global elite at the top of this socialist hierarchy will not have a problem getting healthcare.  Once again – this isn’t simply about healthcare – it’s about control of the world’s population.

Once again we see that lies are trumpeted as the truth (below) to push an agenda.  Standard operating procedure.

“Dr. Emanuel's assessment of American medical care is summed up in a Nov. 23, 2008, Washington Post op-ed he co-authored: "The United States is No. 1 in only one sense: the amount we shell out for health care. We have the most expensive system in the world per capita, but we lag behind many developed nations on virtually every health statistic you can name."

This is untrue, though sadly it’s parroted at town-hall meetings across the country. Moreover, it’s an odd factual error coming from an oncologist. According to an August 2009 report from the National Bureau of Economic Research, patients diagnosed with cancer in the U.S. have a better chance of surviving the disease than anywhere else. The World Health Organization also rates the U.S. No. 1 out of 191 countries for responsiveness to the needs and choices of the individual patient. That attention to the individual is imperiled by Dr. Emanuel’s views.”

Before I decided to overhaul our healthcare system – I would start by researching the following things completely:

1. What is actually driving healthcare costs to astronomical levels?  I would like to see how a hospital charges patients and their cost basis for the products and services they provide.  A child of a friend of mine recently had outpatient oral surgery – no overnight stay.  The price was over $10,000.  Is it the products (anesthesia) or services (surgeon’s time) or both that are causing a bill this high?  Are bills being excessively padded due to other people who cannot pay?  How do pharmaceutical companies price drugs? Do they give any pricing consideration to high volume drugs or drugs that are crucial for some people – or do they exploit the system? I don’t know the answers – but if you want to really understand what’s happening – this is the place to start.

2. How much power and influence do healthcare insurance companies wield?  Based on my own experiences – I would say – a lot.  Are these companies actually trying to reduce costs and provide a needed service or are they using their power and influence to increase profits at the expense of the healthcare system?  Why should we be at the mercy of a huge corporation when determining whether or not we should undergo a certain procedure or whether or not we should receive a certain type of care?  Shouldn’t we have enough trust in our Doctors to let them make the decision based on our health and the most cost effective way to treat our problem?  Do I trust a huge bureaucracy or my Doctor? Do these companies have certain lucrative contracts that funnel products and services to certain providers, suppliers, hospitals, etc. – that may be more expensive to us and provide substandard care?  Why do we even need insurance for everything?  I don’t have the answers – but someone who is really trying to solve this problem – should.

3. From what I read, malpractice insurance rates seem to be increasing by ridiculous amounts – which I’m sure is driving up costs for everyone in the system.  How many malpractice lawsuits are filed each year?  What are the reasons?  Are the reasons valid?  How much of the money from lawsuits goes to the plaintiffs versus the lawyers? Are there lawyers who specialize in this (That would tell us something – either the lawyers are simply profiting from the healthcare system or we have a tremendous amount of incompetent Doctors in the system)? The overriding question is – are we filing lawsuits because someone intentionally caused us harm – or are we simply chasing after money?  If a doctor made an honest mistake – did the mistake cause significant harm requiring additional care and monetary assistance – or are we simply using the mistake to make some money?

5.  What is the relationship between Doctors, hospitals and medical (pharmaceutical, medical equipment, etc.) companies?  Are we prescribing more expensive medicine simply because we all make more money?  What types of incentives are being offered to Doctors and hospitals by these companies?  Are there monopolies in this business that are driving costs/prices much higher than necessary?  Are the pursuit of profits driving up prices unnecessarily?

You get the idea.  Instead of hearing knowledgeable debate on these issues – all we ever hear is – the system needs to ‘change’, many Americans don’t have insurance, healthcare expenses are out of control, we are some of the most unhealthy people in the world, etc. etc.

What we should be asking is – why does the system need to change?  Why do we need insurance for everything? Why are healthcare expenses out of control?  Why, as a nation, are we unhealthy?  Why don’t the people in Washington D.C. pushing for universal healthcare have the answers to these questions?  No one seems to want to dig into the details and find out the real reasons for these things.  No, that would require intelligence and hard work – we’d rather just change the system.

It seems to me that we all want better healthcare – but we’re not willing to do the things to be healthier (eat better, exercise) and we’re not willing to do our homework and find out the real reasons the current system is so expensive. 

Nothing in this world is easy.  If we want to really solve this problem – we need to work hard to solve it – and not simply give political speeches about it laced with sound bites that may or may not be true. 

What we don’t need – is a government ‘solution’ that will lead to even more bureaucracy.

AUGUST 27, 2009

Obama's Health Rationer-in-Chief

Wall St. Journal

By BETSY MCCAUGHEY

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, health adviser to President Barack Obama, is under scrutiny. As a bioethicist, he has written extensively about who should get medical care, who should decide, and whose life is worth saving. Dr. Emanuel is part of a school of thought that redefines a physician’s duty, insisting that it includes working for the greater good of society instead of focusing only on a patient’s needs. Many physicians find that view dangerous, and most Americans are likely to agree.

The health bills being pushed through Congress put important decisions in the hands of presidential appointees like Dr. Emanuel. They will decide what insurance plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have, and what seniors get under Medicare. Dr. Emanuel, brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research. He clearly will play a role guiding the White House's health initiative.

Dr. Emanuel says that health reform will not be pain free, and that the usual recommendations for cutting medical spending (often urged by the president) are mere window dressing. As he wrote in the Feb. 27, 2008, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA): "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality of care are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change."

True reform, he argues, must include redefining doctors' ethical obligations. In the June 18, 2008, issue of JAMA, Dr. Emanuel blames the Hippocratic Oath for the "overuse" of medical care: "Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness," he writes. "This culture is further reinforced by a unique understanding of professional obligations, specifically the Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of cost or effect on others."

In numerous writings, Dr. Emanuel chastises physicians for thinking only about their own patient's needs. He describes it as an intractable problem: "Patients were to receive whatever services they needed, regardless of its cost. Reasoning based on cost has been strenuously resisted; it violated the Hippocratic Oath, was associated with rationing, and derided as putting a price on life. . . . Indeed, many physicians were willing to lie to get patients what they needed from insurance companies that were trying to hold down costs." (JAMA, May 16, 2007).

Of course, patients hope their doctors will have that single-minded devotion. But Dr. Emanuel believes doctors should serve two masters, the patient and society, and that medical students should be trained "to provide socially sustainable, cost-effective care." One sign of progress he sees: "the progression in end-of-life care mentality from 'do everything' to more palliative care shows that change in physician norms and practices is possible." (JAMA, June 18, 2008).

"In the next decade every country will face very hard choices about how to allocate scarce medical resources. There is no consensus about what substantive principles should be used to establish priorities for allocations," he wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine, Sept. 19, 2002. Yet Dr. Emanuel writes at length about who should set the rules, who should get care, and who should be at the back of the line.

"You can't avoid these questions," Dr. Emanuel said in an Aug. 16 Washington Post interview. "We had a big controversy in the United States when there was a limited number of dialysis machines. In Seattle, they appointed what they called a 'God committee' to choose who should get it, and that committee was eventually abandoned. Society ended up paying the whole bill for dialysis instead of having people make those decisions."

Dr. Emanuel argues that to make such decisions, the focus cannot be only on the worth of the individual. He proposes adding the communitarian perspective to ensure that medical resources will be allocated in a way that keeps society going: "Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity—those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations—are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Covering services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic, and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia." (Hastings Center Report, November-December, 1996)

In the Lancet, Jan. 31, 2009, Dr. Emanuel and co-authors presented a "complete lives system" for the allocation of very scarce resources, such as kidneys, vaccines, dialysis machines, intensive care beds, and others. "One maximizing strategy involves saving the most individual lives, and it has motivated policies on allocation of influenza vaccines and responses to bioterrorism. . . . Other things being equal, we should always save five lives rather than one.

"However, other things are rarely equal—whether to save one 20-year-old, who might live another 60 years, if saved, or three 70-year-olds, who could only live for another 10 years each—is unclear." In fact, Dr. Emanuel makes a clear choice: "When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get changes that are attenuated (see Dr. Emanuel's chart nearby).

Dr. Emanuel concedes that his plan appears to discriminate against older people, but he explains: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination. . . . Treating 65 year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not."

The youngest are also put at the back of the line: "Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments. . . . As the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin argues, 'It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old dies and worse still when an adolescent does,' this argument is supported by empirical surveys." (thelancet.com, Jan. 31, 2009).

To reduce health-insurance costs, Dr. Emanuel argues that insurance companies should pay for new treatments only when the evidence demonstrates that the drug will work for most patients. He says the "major contributor" to rapid increases in health spending is "the constant introduction of new medical technologies, including new drugs, devices, and procedures. . . . With very few exceptions, both public and private insurers in the United States cover and pay for any beneficial new technology without considering its cost. . . ." He writes that one drug "used to treat metastatic colon cancer, extends medial survival for an additional two to five months, at a cost of approximately $50,000 for an average course of therapy." (JAMA, June 13, 2007).

Medians, of course, obscure the individual cases where the drug significantly extended or saved a life. Dr. Emanuel says the United States should erect a decision-making body similar to the United Kingdom's rationing body—the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)—to slow the adoption of new medications and set limits on how much will be paid to lengthen a life.

Dr. Emanuel's assessment of American medical care is summed up in a Nov. 23, 2008, Washington Post op-ed he co-authored: "The United States is No. 1 in only one sense: the amount we shell out for health care. We have the most expensive system in the world per capita, but we lag behind many developed nations on virtually every health statistic you can name."

This is untrue, though sadly it’s parroted at town-hall meetings across the country. Moreover, it’s an odd factual error coming from an oncologist. According to an August 2009 report from the National Bureau of Economic Research, patients diagnosed with cancer in the U.S. have a better chance of surviving the disease than anywhere else. The World Health Organization also rates the U.S. No. 1 out of 191 countries for responsiveness to the needs and choices of the individual patient. That attention to the individual is imperiled by Dr. Emanuel’s views.

Dr. Emanuel has fought for a government takeover of health care for over a decade. In 1993, he urged that President Bill Clinton impose a wage and price freeze on health care to force parties to the table. "The desire to be rid of the freeze will do much to concentrate the mind," he wrote with another author in a Feb. 8, 1993, Washington Post op-ed. Now he recommends arm-twisting Chicago style. "Every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the health-care reform agenda," he wrote last Nov. 16 in the Health Care Watch Blog. "If the automakers want a bailout, then they and their suppliers have to agree to support and lobby for the administration's health-reform effort."

Is this what Americans want?

—Ms. McCaughey is chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former lieutenant governor of New York state.

Obama’s healthcare ‘reform’ is just one more way we are deceptively being moved to a socialist system of wealth distribution.   We continue to pay more and more money to the government to redistribute as they see fit.  Income taxes, social security, Medicare, all of the recent ‘stimulus’ and bailout packages, this proposed healthcare reform, etc.

This deception is always presented as something that must be done to ‘help’ us.  The banking system is failing – so the government must now decide who gets help from our taxes.  People can’t afford health insurance – so the government must somehow provide for them.  Our auto industry is failing – so the government must take over. As government provides more and more ‘services’ – it continues to grow – taking more and more money out of the hands of private individuals and corporations. It will function for awhile – but eventually – the government will take such a large percentage of our income – the system will collapse on itself (couple this with the eventual collapse of our monetary system and you’ve got some catastrophic problems brewing).  Government doesn’t create wealth and inspire us to take risks and work hard.  Government destroys wealth (through taxes, waste, etc.) and kills innovation. Why work hard when I’m just going to give it away?

As I’ve said before – socialism fails because the government eventually sucks the life out of private enterprise and individuals.  As we are taxed at higher and higher percentages over time – people eventually give up trying to earn a decent living (starting new businesses, creating jobs, taking risks, working hard to provide a better life, etc.) because no one wants to give away their hard earned income to a bloated bureaucracy that will waste a large percentage of it and then re-distribute what remains to others.  People eventually say ‘enough’ and give up trying to do the right things – which is exactly what world leaders want.  Slowly, over time, they are killing our rights as individuals.  They are trying to ensure that we are eventually dependent on the government for everything.  Once we are totally dependent on the world’s government – the people of the world will be led like sheep – and we already know how this ends.

Since none of us want to pay a large percentage of our income to the government – these programs must come with all kinds of stipulations.  Take a look at what will be required for this healthcare system to work:

“Like the homeowner who waits until his house is on fire to buy insurance, younger, poorer, healthier workers will rationally choose to avoid paying high premiums now to subsidize insurance for someone else. After all, they can always get a policy if they get sick.

To avoid this outcome, most congressional Democrats and some Republicans would combine guaranteed issue and community rating with the requirement that all workers buy health insurance—that is, an "individual mandate." This solves the incentive problem, and guarantees that both the healthy poor 25-year-old and the sick higher-income 55-year-old have heath insurance.

But the combination of a guaranteed issue, community rating and an individual mandate means that younger, healthier, lower-income earners would be forced to subsidize older, sicker, higher-income earners. And because these subsidies are buried within health-insurance premiums, the massive income redistribution is hidden from public view and not debated. “

This is typical of most government programs.  The program cannot stand on its own in the market – so the government must enact all kinds of mandates to try and make it work. 

I believe I can do a much better job of deciding how to spend my money than our wasteful government – and I think most Americans would agree.

As I’ve said before – we don’t need socialized healthcare.  We need to look closely at the current system and determine the real causes of our problems.  Regardless of how we decide to improve our healthcare system – it needs to stay private.

If we truly want to remain free – we need to significantly reduce taxes – not increase them.  We need to live within our means – not continue to spend money we don’t have (on healthcare or anything else).  We need significantly less government – not more. 

We need to give power back to the people of the United States to run our nation.

jg – September 28, 2009

Health 'Reform' Is Income Redistribution

September 28, 2009

Wall St. Journal

By MICHAEL O. LEAVITT, AL HUBBARD
AND KEITH HENNESSEY

While many Americans are upset by ObamaCare’s $1 trillion price tag, Congress is contemplating other changes with little analysis or debate. These changes would create a massively unfair form of income redistribution and create incentives for many not to buy health insurance at all.

Let's start with basics: Insurance protects against the risk of something bad happening. When your house is on fire you no longer need protection against risk. You need a fireman and cash to rebuild your home. But suppose the government requires insurers to sell you fire "insurance" while your house is on fire and says you can pay the same premium as people whose houses are not on fire. The result would be that few homeowners would buy insurance until their houses were on fire.

The same could happen under health insurance reform. Here's how: President Obama proposes to require insurers to sell policies to everyone no matter what their health status. By itself this requirement, called "guaranteed issue," would just mean that insurers would charge predictably sick people the extremely high insurance premiums that reflect their future expected costs. But if Congress adds another requirement, called "community rating," insurers' ability to charge higher premiums for higher risks will be sharply limited.

Thus a healthy 25-year-old and a 55-year-old with cancer would pay nearly the same premium for a health policy. Mr. Obama and his allies emphasize the benefits for the 55-year old. But the 25-year-old, who may also have a lower income, would pay significantly more than needed to cover his expected costs.

Like the homeowner who waits until his house is on fire to buy insurance, younger, poorer, healthier workers will rationally choose to avoid paying high premiums now to subsidize insurance for someone else. After all, they can always get a policy if they get sick.

To avoid this outcome, most congressional Democrats and some Republicans would combine guaranteed issue and community rating with the requirement that all workers buy health insurance—that is, an "individual mandate." This solves the incentive problem, and guarantees that both the healthy poor 25-year-old and the sick higher-income 55-year-old have heath insurance.

But the combination of a guaranteed issue, community rating and an individual mandate means that younger, healthier, lower-income earners would be forced to subsidize older, sicker, higher-income earners. And because these subsidies are buried within health-insurance premiums, the massive income redistribution is hidden from public view and not debated.

If Congress goes down this road, health insurance premiums will increase dramatically for the overwhelming majority of people. Even if Congress mandates that everyone have health insurance, many will choose to go without and pay the tax penalty. If you think people are dissatisfied with health care now, wait until they understand that Congress voted to mandate hidden premium increases and lower wages.

There are wiser and more equitable ways to ensure that every American has access to affordable health insurance. Policy experts and state policy makers have experimented with different solutions, including high risk pools and taxpayer-funded vouchers subsidized for those who are both poor and sick. Medicaid, charity care, and uncompensated care provided by hospitals cover some of these costs today.

These solutions are imperfect, but so are the reforms being proposed in Congress. Congress should be explicit about who will pay more under its plans.

—Mr. Leavitt, former secretary of Health and Human Services (2005-2009), has served as the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and a governor of Utah (1993-2003). Mr. Hubbard (2005-2007) and Mr. Hennessey (2008) served as directors of the White House National Economic Council.