Author Archive

Earlier today a federal judge found the Defense Department in contempt of court for not video taping the testimony of a detainee in Guantanamo.

In June, Mohammed Al-Adahi filed suit challenging his detainment in at Gitmo, and in August, US District Court Judge Gladys Kessler ordered the military to “take all necessary and appropriate diplomatic steps” for Al-Adahi’s release. These steps included the recording of testimony which could be released, not to the court, but to the “public and news media.”

This is why these trials need a military tribunal. No means of leaking classified information, no leftist judicial activism.

This morning I was reading the April issue of Men’sHealth magazine. Those of you who know me personally might be asking yourself, “What does he do with a Men’sHealth, eat it?” But, I like to at least think healthy; that’s why I always get a Diet Coke with my Big Mac. But anyway…

There was a list polls conducted about health care, and there was one question that caught my eye: “Who should be responsible for health insurance?” And at first the response was surprising- 63% government and only 13% employer. Later after thinking about the staff of Rodale Publishing and the readers of Men’sHealth, the poll lost its shock value. But it did lead me to wonder “how many other people think this way, and why?”

Why should we depend on the government for health care. Do we depend on them for life insurance? Isn’t it just as important? What about car insurance? Again, just as important- and required in most states. Here’s something to consider - you will die, there is no maybe, the probability is 100%, and yet 77 million of us don’t carry life insurance. Why? Because, we’re dead, and the rest is left to the people left behind? When you buy life insurance, you shop around, look at 10,20,30 different policies, do you need term-life, whole-life, how much is enough, should I carry a common carrier clause, what about dismemberment? Here’s my point- you seriously shop around, trying to get the best coverage for the best price, because you can. You might get sick, the probability depends on several factors, age, diet, location, etc., but it’s not 100%, and if you do, you can get care – it’s the law. Yet we can’t imagine a day without health insurance. It’s so important to us, that were are willing to rob Peter to make sure Paul is covered.

Here’s another analogy. Car insurance; it’s required in most states, and yet we are forced to find our own, and if you file a claim, the insurance company can drop you at will. Why shouldn’t government be responsible for insuring all motorists? Have you ever wondered why they don’t? Perhaps it’s because were all crazies behind the wheel. The claims would bankrupt America; we make the choice to drive the way we want, risk life, limb, and liberty, and then shop around for the most affordable insurance. It’s a matter of choice; if we get a ticket our insurance goes up or we find another carrier.

Did hear Washington and supposedly the majority of Americans scream about not being able to afford life insurance when they want it or car insurance when they have to have it? Of course not, why? A whole lot less government intervention. Like those others, health insurance is a personal choice; if people don’t want it, don’t force them carry it, let them pay cash. If people want to pay more for hangnail coverage, give them the option – remove the regulations, let us shop across state line, give us ala carte options, and then get out of the way.

Michael Moore wants us all to go to heaven; at least I think that’s what he meant on Hannity last night. Hannity, interviewing Moore about his new movie, Capitalism: A Love Story (I haven’t seen it and don’t plan to), was introducing Moore, when he adamantly interjected that he was a Christian. So Michael, welcome to the family.

Moments later, while Hannity was trying to establish Moore’s wealth, and that he wouldn’t have been able to amass his millions without capitalism, Moore made these defining statements,

“I believe what Jesus said…Jesus made it very clear, ‘the rich man is going to have a very difficult time getting into heaven…we’re going to be judged on how we treat the least among us.”

See, he wants us all to go heaven.

Those in the religious left have a litany of issues that are in direct contrast to those on the right; but wealth distribution seems to be the issue of the day. With health care and the economic crisis now at the forefront, it is the social responsibility of the government to take from the rich, and like Robin Hood, give to the poor, because it’s ordained by God or that’s what Jesus would want.

But is it? Jesus taught us to sacrifice; where is the sacrifice in taking care of the needy through higher taxes? Where is the righteousness in the government taking my money and giving it to the “least among us?”

Well, Mike, thanks but I too believe what Jesus says, and that is getting to heaven is an individual thing. We will be judged on what we do individually, not collectively.

In several posts, I have referred to Obama as Premier Obama for his fondness of Europe and Europe’s fondness of him, and its socialist connotation. But, I have to admit, as Steve McCann points out, that’s not quite fair.

In the United Kingdom, the Queen is the head of state, the Prime Minster is the head of government; the same goes for Denmark, Spain, and a couple others. In Russia, the President is the head of state, and the Prime Minster is the head of government (reporting to the President); France, Italy, and a few others have a similar setup. Even Canada has a separation between the Prime Minister and the Governor General. The US is the only major democratic nation where the head of state and the head of government are one in the same – well, at least they are supposed to be. Obama has only accepted half of the constitutional roles – the head of state. Not performing as head of government, he has handed over health care to Nancy Pelosi; the economic crisis to Tim Geithner; and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to, well, the Taliban and Al qaeda.

Obama has accepted his role as head of State, however, with great passion and expertise – after all, the 2012 Olympics will be in Chicago, right? Yes, his majesty King Barrack I has done a tremendous job in wooing the world, speaking to the masses, appearing on late night talk shows, stumping for climate change, and apologizing for US indiscretion.

Welcome to the Kingdom of America – a monarchy, and not a constitutional one.

High five to Steve McCann.

Last week it was the Empire State Building all ablaze in red and yellow, and this week it’s the Dalai Lama. The spiritual leader of Tibet is supposed to visit Washington this week, but will not meet with his Excellency Premier Obama. Why, because we can’t upset China. Apparently (but not surprisingly) the Obama regime is more interested in securing funds to help stabilize “international institutions” involving China and gaining support for “global climate change” initiatives than it is about human rights and freedom.

from today’s Washington Post

Tonight and tomorrow the Empire State Building will be all lit up in red and yellow. Why? It’s the Chi-coms 60th anniversary.

Yes folks, we, on one of our national monuments, will be recognizing 60 years of communism in China, some 35 to 65 million political murders, religious and economic oppression, press, speech, and artistic censorship, family manipulation, forced abortions, Tiananmen Square, forced labor, nuclear and atomic espionage, aiding and abetting our enemies, and unethical trade practices.

On October 1, 1949, Mao Zedong established the Peoples’ Republic of China and the creation of a “peoples’ democratic dictatorship.” A “democratic dictatorship”? Is that like a government that says it represents the people, but makes its own rules, sets its own policy, and ignores the populous.. oh wait, never mind.

High five to Duane Lester.

“Hello, Mr. President, we honor you today;

For all of your accomplishments, we all do say, ‘Hooray.”

Does anyone recognize this tune? Yes, it’s the Battle Hymn of the Republic, and there’s another to the tune of Jesus Loves Me! And those on the left wonder why people are a little frightened of this man.

Here’s a little history on this great hymn. In 1861, Julia Howe wrote this poem while visiting a Union camp on the Potomac in middle of the Civil War. She was a great poet, a suffragette, an abolitionist, and the author of the Mother’s Day Proclamation of 1870. This hymn has been sung at the funerals of Winston Churchill, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, Robert Kennedy, and countless other national and international dignitaries. Do you think these poor students were told the significance of what they were doing? I think not.

While I agree the office of the President deserves a great deal of respect, and while Mr. Obama’s “accomplishments” are many, I don’t think they warrant changing the words to one of the greatest hymns in American history. Perhaps American the Beautiful and The Star Spangled Banner are next. After all, “whose gonna change the World? Barrack Obama!”

Battle Hymn of the Republic

John Dingell: 50 years; Robert Byrd: 46 years; John Conyers: 40 years. All are among the longest serving members of the US Congress; most of them continuously. Fifty years at one job is generally a blessing, and in today’s volatile work environment, it’s virtually impossible. But, fifty-year Congressmen are a curse and a disservice to the American people.

Over 230 years ago, the founding fathers knew that most people have an innate thirst for power. And so, when they created the Articles of the Confederation, the first Constitution, they suggested that Congressmen should “rotate”, serving in limited terms, and return to their constituents.

Nothing so strongly impels a man to regard the interest of his constituents as the certainty of returning to the general mass of the people, from whence he was taken, where he must participate in their burdens.” —George Mason

So what is the problem with career politicians? Incumbency. Politicians become enthralled in reelection, making deals with special interest groups, constantly changing their views to match the latest poll, raising money for the next campaign, becoming more and more a part of the status quo; losing contact with their constituents.

One good example of the affect of careerism is Rep. Howard Coble. Coble was first elected in 1985 as a Reagan ally, reelected to nine more terms as a conservative voice in the Republican caucus. But recent campaign rants the War in Iraq, former president Bush, and CAFTA have indicated that Mr. Coble was more concerned about his career than his constituents. Another example is Sen. Richard Durbin. Sen. Durbin, a longtime liberal Democrat, admitted that he completely reversed his views on abortion in the 1980s after some personal soul searching; coincidentally during that time, NOW, NARAL, and other pro-choice groups began to increase their control over the Democratic Party and the liberal left.

“[T]he Representatives ought to return home and mix with the people [so as not to] acquire the habits of the seat of government, which might differ from those of their Constituents.” —Roger Sherman

There are some who suggest that term limits would hinder representatives from doing their job, from creating relationships with other members, and from developing the experience it takes to get things done in Washington; saying that it takes time to get things done on Capital Hill. Well, I agree. It takes months to pass a budget bill, everyone has to make sure they get their. In contrast, it took all of about nine hours to debate and pass the resolution that authorized using force against Afghanistan after September 11th. Congress has a way taking care of the important things rather quickly, then using the rest of its time creating waste and finding more ways to spend our money. The great George Will put it best when he said, “[Congress] does thousands of little things, but does none of the important things.” Many people talk about the brashness of a lame-duck President. Imagine how much can be accomplished with a lame-duck Congressmen.

“Even good men in office, in time, imperceptibly lose sight of the people, and gradually fall into measures prejudicial to them.” —Richard Henry Lee

“The power under the Constitution will always be in the People. It is entrusted for certain defined purposes, and for a certain limited period, to representatives of their own choosing…” —George Washington

For more information on term limits, check out Citizens for Term Limits.

In case you haven’t heard, yesterday, at his library in Atlanta, former president James Earl Carter, Jr., said Joe Wilson’s outburst was racially motivated. Now, Jimma, where in the wild world of sports did that come from?! Oh yeah, from James Clyburn, another member of the SC Congressional delegation; oh, and also from the Rev Al (Sharpton), Maureen Dowd, and countless others with a national audience… some have even added the “N” word to the end of  “You lie!”.

As a white southern conservative, this is a card game you can’t win – the race card trumps them all. Regardless of your history, regardless of countless misinterpretations, misrepresentations, and misunderstandings, once you’re branded a racist, you wear the scarlet “R.” Joe Wilson now is historically a racist, because he voted against moving the Confederate Flag while in the SC House, because he is a member of Sons of Confederate Veterans, and because he accused a sitting black President of being dishonest with the American people. Now, don’t get me wrong, I think Wilson’s outburst was epically inappropriate. But, had John Conyers, Sheila Jackson Lee, or better yet, John Spratt or Gene Taylor lost their cool, they wouldn’t have been called a racist. Well, Gene Taylor might have; he’s a Blue Dog.

Here’s the inherit problem, liberals think conservatives are racist simply because they’re conservative. The Rev Jesse (Jackson) admitted as much on MSNBC:

“… There is a struggle between the hope of going forward and the fear of going backwards and the word – the atmosphere is loaded with coded words. Hitler, socialist, un-American, not born in America, even indoctrinate our children, these are very heavily coded words. And the elephant in the room really is the big ‘C’– behind the big C-word, conservative, for some that means fiscal, for some, it means religious ethics, for some it means a code word for race…”

For these people, it has nothing to do with issues; if you go against the grain you’re a racist. Obama can’t be called a Socialist, because he has espouses leftist ideas; he can’t have his birth record questioned, because there is still a glimmer of suspicion; and he can’t be accused of lying for not telling the whole truth. His policies cannot be rejected simply on the basis of politics; if you’re a white conservative, you’re a racist; if you’re a black conservative, a la Michael Steele, you’re an Uncle Tom, a sellout.

So, what do we do? Keep fighting nationally, roll with the punches, and hope one day the rules change. BUT, mostly, keep pushing the ideas one on one. A good friend told me once, “When you drill down to the wallet, we’re all conservative.” (Bryan Calvert)

I suppose I am one of the many in the general public who has actually read all 1017 pages of HR 3200 (The “House Healthcare Bill”); it’s obvious that those touting it haven’t. Regardless, I had started putting together a list of the chief complaints of the bill: euthanasia, death panels, government rationing, etc, but then I discovered a professor at Duke did that just last week; leave it to Duke.

John David Lewis, PhD, visiting Associate Professor of philosophy, economics, and politics at Duke; August 6, 2009:

What does the bill, HR 3200, short-titled ‘‘America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,” actually say about major health care issues? I here pose a few questions in no particular order, citing relevant passages and offering a brief evaluation after each set of passages.

This bill is 1017 pages long. It is knee-deep in legalese and references to other federal regulations and laws. I have only touched pieces of the bill here. For instance, I have not considered the establishment of (1) “Health Choices Commissioner” (Section 141); (2) a “Health Insurance Exchange,” (Section 201), basically a government run insurance scheme to coordinate all insurance activity; (3) a Public Health Insurance Option (Section 221); and similar provisions.

This is the evaluation of someone who is neither a physician nor a legal professional. I am citizen, concerned about this bill’s effects on my freedom as an American. I would rather have used my time in other ways—but this is too important to ignore.

We may answer one question up front: How will the government will pay for all this? Higher taxes, more borrowing, printing money, cutting payments, or rationing services—there are no other options. We will all pay for this, enrolled in the government “option” or not.

(All bold type within the text of the bill is added for emphasis.)

1. WILL THE PLAN RATION MEDICAL CARE?

This is what the bill says, pages 284-288, SEC. 1151. REDUCING POTENTIALLY PREVENTABLE HOSPITAL READMISSIONS:
“(ii) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN READMISSIONS.—For purposes of clause (i), with respect to a hospital, excess readmissions shall not include readmissions for an applicable condition for which there are fewer than a minimum number (as determined by the Secretary) of discharges for such applicable condition for the applicable period and such hospital.“

and, under “Definitions”:

“(A) APPLICABLE CONDITION.—The term ‘applicable condition’ means, subject to subparagraph (B), a condition or procedure selected by the Secretary…“

and:

“(E) READMISSION.—The term ‘readmission’ means, in the case of an individual who is discharged from an applicable hospital, the admission of the individual to the same or another applicable hospital within a time period specified by the Secretary from the date of such discharge.”

and:

“(6) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869, section 1878, or otherwise of—…”

“(C) the measures of readmissions…”

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. This section amends the Social Security Act
2. The government has the power to determine what constitutes an “applicable [medical] condition.”
3. The government has the power to determine who is allowed readmission into a hospital.
4. This determination will be made by statistics: when enough people have been discharged for the same condition, an individual may be readmitted.
5. This is government rationing, pure, simple, and straight up.
6. There can be no judicial review of decisions made here. The Secretary is above the courts.
7. The plan also allows the government to prohibit hospitals from expanding without federal permission: page 317-318.

2. WILL THE PLAN PUNISH THOSE WHO TRY TO OPT OUT?

What the bill says, pages 167-168, section 401, TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE:

“(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—
(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over
(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer…”

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:

1. This section amends the Internal Revenue Code.
2. Anyone caught without acceptable coverage and not in the government plan will pay a special tax.
3. The IRS will be a major enforcement mechanism for the plan.

3. WHAT CONSTITUTES ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE?

Here is what the bill says, pages 26-30, SEC. 122, ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE DEFINED:

“(a) IN GENERAL.—In this division, the term ‘essential benefits package’ means health benefits coverage, consistent with standards adopted under section 124 to ensure the provision of quality health care and financial security…

(b) MINIMUM SERVICES TO BE COVERED.—The items and services described in this subsection are the following:
(1) Hospitalization.
(2) Outpatient hospital and outpatient clinic services…
(3) Professional services of physicians and other health professionals.
(4) Such services, equipment, and supplies incident to the services of a physician’s or a health professional’s delivery of care…
(5) Prescription drugs.
(6) Rehabilitative and habilitative services.
(7) Mental health and substance use disorder services.
(8) Preventive services…
(9) Maternity care.
(10) Well baby and well child care…

(c) REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO COST-SHARING AND MINIMUM ACTUARIAL VALUE…

(3) MINIMUM ACTUARIAL VALUE.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The cost-sharing under the essential benefits package shall be designed to provide a level of coverage that is designed to provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to approximately 70 percent of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the reference benefits package described in subparagraph (B).

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. The bill defines “acceptable coverage” and leaves no room for choice in this regard.
2. By setting a minimum 70% actuarial value of benefits, the bill makes health plans in which individuals pay for routine services, but carry insurance only for catastrophic events, (such as Health Savings Accounts) illegal.

4. WILL THE PLAN DESTROY PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE?

Here is what it requires, for businesses with payrolls greater than $400,000 per year. (The bill uses “contribution” to refer to mandatory payments to the government plan.) Pages 149-150, SEC. 313, EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF COVERAGE

(a)”IN GENERAL.—A contribution is made in accordance with this section with respect to an employee if such contribution is equal to an amount equal to 8 percent of the average wages paid by the employer during the period of enrollment (determined by taking into account all employees of the employer and in such manner as the Commissioner provides, including rules providing for the appropriate aggregation of related employers). Any such contribution—”

(1) shall be paid to the Health Choices Commissioner for deposit into the Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund, and
(2) shall not be applied against the premium of the employee under the Exchange-participating health benefits plan in which the employee is enrolled.

(The bill then includes a sliding scale of payments for business with less than $400,000 in annual payroll.)

The Bill also reserves, for the government, the power to determine an acceptable benefits plan: page 24, SEC. 115. ENSURING ADEQUACY OF PROVIDER NETWORKS.

5(a) IN GENERAL.—A qualified health benefits plan that uses a provider network for items and services shall meet such standards respecting provider networks as the Commissioner may establish to assure the adequacy of such networks in ensuring enrollee access to such items and services and transparency in the cost-sharing differentials between in-network coverage and out-of-network coverage.

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. The bill does not prohibit a person from buying private insurance.
2. Small businesses—with say 8-10 employees—will either have to provide insurance to federal standards, or pay an 8% payroll tax. Business costs for health care are higher than this, especially considering administrative costs. Any competitive business that tries to stay with a private plan will face a payroll disadvantage against competitors who go with the government “option.”
3. The pressure for business owners to terminate the private plans will be enormous.
4. With employers ending plans, millions of Americans will lose their private coverage, and fewer companies will offer it.
5. The Commissioner (meaning, always, the bureaucrats) will determine whether a particular network of physicians, hospitals and insurance is acceptable.
6. With private insurance starved, many people enrolled in the government “option” will have no place else to go.

5. DOES THE PLAN TAX SUCCESSFUL AMERICANS MORE THAN OTHERS?

Here is what the bill says, pages 197-198, SEC. 441. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS

“EC. 59C. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.

(a) GENERAL RULE.—In the case of a taxpayer other than a corporation, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) a tax equal to—
(1) 1 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $350,000 but does not exceed $500,000,
(2) 1.5 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $500,000 but does not exceed $1,000,000, and
(3) 5.4 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $1,000,000.“

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:

1. This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code.
2. Tax surcharges are levied on those with the highest incomes.
3. The plan manipulates the tax code to redistribute their wealth.
4. Successful business owners will bear the highest cost of this plan.

6. DOES THE PLAN ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO SET FEES FOR SERVICES?

What it says, page 124, Sec. 223, PAYMENT RATES FOR ITEMS AND SERVICES:

(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed as limiting the Secretary’s authority to correct for payments that are excessive or deficient, taking into account the provisions of section 221(a) and the amounts paid for similar health care providers and services under other Exchange-participating health benefits plans.

(e) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed as affecting the authority of the Secretary to establish payment rates, including payments to provide for the more efficient delivery of services, such as the initiatives provided for under section 224.

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

The government’s authority to set payments is basically unlimited.
The official will decide what constitutes “excessive,” “deficient,” and “efficient” payments and services.

7. WILL THE PLAN INCREASE THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS TO SCRUTINIZE OUR PRIVATE AFFAIRS?

What it says, pages 195-196, SEC. 431. DISCLOSURES TO CARRY OUT HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE SUBSIDIES.

“(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, upon written request from the Health Choices Commissioner or the head of a State-based health insurance exchange approved for operation under section 208 of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, shall disclose to officers and employees of the Health Choices Administration or such State-based health insurance exchange, as the case may be, return information of any taxpayer whose income is relevant in determining any affordability credit described in subtitle C of title II of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. Such return information shall be limited to—

(i) taxpayer identity information with respect to such taxpayer,
(ii) the filing status of such taxpayer,
(iii) the modified adjusted gross income of such taxpayer (as defined in section 59B(e)(5)),
(iv) the number of dependents of the taxpayer,
(v) such other information as is prescribed by the Secretary by regulation as might indicate whether the taxpayer is eligible for such affordability credits (and the amount thereof), and
(vi) the taxable year with respect to which the preceding information relates or, if applicable, the fact that such information is not available.”

And, page 145, section 312, EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS EMPLOYEE AND DEPENDENT COVERAGE:

(3) PROVISION OF INFORMATION.—The employer provides the Health Choices Commissioner, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of the Treasury, as applicable, with such information as the Commissioner may require to ascertain compliance with the requirements of this section.

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:

1. This section amends the Internal Revenue Code
2. The bill opens up income tax return information to federal officials.
3. Any stated “limits” to such information are circumvented by item (v), which allows federal officials to decide what information is needed.
4. Employers are required to report whatever information the government says it needs to enforce the plan.

8. DOES THE PLAN AUTOMATICALLY ENROLL AMERICANS IN THE GOVERMENT PLAN?

What it says, page 102, Section 205, Outreach and enrollment of Exchange-eligible individuals and employers in Exchange-participating health benefits plan:

(3) AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT OF MEDICAID ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS INTO MEDICAID.—The Commissioner shall provide for a process under which an individual who is described in section 202(d)(3) and has not elected to enroll in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan is automatically enrolled under Medicaid.

And, page 145, section 312:

(4) AUTOENROLLMENT OF EMPLOYEES.—The employer provides for autoenrollment of the employee in accordance with subsection (c).

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. Do nothing and you are in.
2. Employers are responsible for automatically enrolling people who still work.

9. DOES THE PLAN EXEMPT FEDERAL OFFICIALS FROM COURT REVIEW?

What it says, page 124, Section 223, PAYMENT RATES FOR ITEMS AND SERVICES:

(f) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review of a payment rate or methodology established under this section or under section 224.

And, page 256, SEC. 1123. PAYMENTS FOR EFFICIENT AREAS.

“(C) LIMITATION ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869, 1878, or otherwise, respecting—

(i) the identification of a county or other area under subparagraph (A); or
(ii) the assignment of a postal ZIP Code to a county or other area under subparagraph (B).”

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. Sec. 1123 amends the Social Security Act, to allow the Secretary to identify areas of the country that underutilize the government’s plan “based on per capita spending.”
2. Parts of the plan are set above the review of the courts.

John David Lewis, www.classicideals.com

Regardless of whether you’re an Obama supporter or not, there are major problems with this legislation. Granted, they’re are some good parts, not many, but some. Why not rework the bill and eliminate the problems rather than ram it down our throats?