Say Anything Blog

How many times have leftist or statist bloggers or commenters come to this site, read a post by Rob and have a disagreement with his point of view?

Many of them repost what Rob wrote with their own comments on their blogs, thus “reporting” on what Rob said with their own perspective and opinions. 

Many comment here.  I have seen on a few occasions where Rob retracted incorrect information or clarified his position, or changed his own original opinion.

But, Rob could decide to ban the dissenting views.  As a private citizen, he’s fully within his rights to do so.  How would the leftists feel about that?  They’d likely post on their own blogs about it, which Rob would be powerless to stop. 

If Rob make a mistake or posts incorrect information on purpose, someone calls him on it.  Is that someone DocDave?  Would Wistler post a negative or dissenting view to Rob?  Less likely than Dino or Ellinas…  right?

Having a group of friends read your blog and never challenge your position is a bit to close to what is going on in the White House Press Corps. 

The placid and easily manipulated “friends” of the administration are LESS likely to call out the President on statements than a hostile media outlet would.

A hostile media outlet is the best “Friend” the CITIZENS of this nation have. 

How can this NOT be obvious??????

Seriously?!?!?  How?!?!

Regardless of FOX’s leanings, they are a news source, just as CNS news is a news source…  they report on the stories that they want to report on in the way that they report on them.  If they are factually inaccurate, they need to be called on to report the facts…  the Citizens will quickly leave someone who mis-reports the facts quickly enough.  Look at the NYT subscriptions for proof in this.  They lie, we know it, they lose their status and power. (more...)

I’ve been calling my quote/unquote Representatives in Washington to try and find out where the Constitution allows the Congress to interfere with health care.  I note that the Tenth Amendment prohibits any activity not specifically permitted.  So if it’s not specifically permitted in the Constitution then by helping to push fourth any health care bill, my representatives are breaking their sworn vow to uphold the Constitution.

Well, I called Ander Crenshaw today to ask his staff this question.  (interesting side note:  Not one of the staffers seemed to be all that familiar with the Constitution.  Most had no idea what the 10th said.)

Here is the e-mail response from Ander (Note, please, that my question is still not answered.):

Dear Mr. Yantiss:

Thank you for contacting me to express your opinions regarding the state of our nation’s health care system. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with me on this important matter. The health care debate in America is unprecedented and the final outcome will affect all of us.  While I normally attempt to be informative, yet brief in my responses to your inquiries, this issue demands a detailed answer.

Our health care system is in dire need of reform. Today millions of Americans in our country are uninsured, unable to go to a doctor’s office for the most basic of care. Without any insurance, they have no choice but to flood our hospitals’ ER rooms, where waits are long and care is rushed. Hospitals, which by law must care for anyone that comes in their doors but with more patients than beds and profits only at the slimmest of margins, have no choice but to rush them through and push them out. With conditions like these, it is not surprising that fewer and fewer medical residents are choosing to become ER doctors. The stress is too high, the malpractice insurance too expensive, and the hours too long.

Furthermore, because doctors only get paid for the services they provide, those doctors who order the most services make the most money. There is no reward for doctors who keep their patients healthy. While some doctors admittedly order services to excess, others do it to as a form of defensive medicine to make sure they do all they can so they will not get sued by a lawyer looking to make a quick buck. The Department of Health and Human Services estimates that $126 billion a year is spent on unnecessary tests and procedures ordered to avoid legal liability.

Still others order unnecessary services to cover insufficient federal government reimbursements. Testifying before the Senate Finance Committee, Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Douglas Elmendorf noted that in 2006, Medicare and TRICARE physician reimbursement rates averaged 20% less than private insurance levels; for hospitals, the disparity was 30%.  We should not force doctors to order unnecessary services just so they can keep serving Medicare patients or avoid frivolous lawsuits that ruin their career. 

This lower reimbursement structure within the government-run plans has resulted in a rise in private health insurance premiums as physicians and hospitals shift their costs from public payers to private ones. A recent study by the consulting firm Milliman found a total of nearly $89 billion in cost-shifting from Medicare and Medicaid onto commercial payers. As a result, families with private health insurance spend nearly $1,800 more per year-$1,512 in higher premiums (paid by both employers and employees) and $276 in increased beneficiary cost-sharing-to cover the below-market reimbursement levels paid by Medicare and Medicaid.

In all, the inefficiencies in our system equate to Americans paying more for health care than any other country in the world-both per capita ($6,714) and as a percentage of GDP (16%). At $2.5 trillion, we will spend more on health care this year than the entire size of Great Britain’s economy. With millions uninsured, hospitals barely able to make a profit, doctors unrewarded for keeping people healthy, and consumers facing higher and higher costs, something must be done. We must increase coverage, decrease cost, and restore choice to our system.

I believe we need to cut the inefficiencies out of our health care delivery system by restoring free-market principles. As we bring more transparency and accountability to the system, true choice will breed competition which in turn will spur innovation and value. Specifically, I support reforms and initiatives that will cut costs and increase access by:

o   Erasing arbitrary rules that currently restrict consumers from purchasing across state lines.

o   Prohibiting insurers from discriminating against a consumer based on pre-existing conditions, one’s health history or future risk.

o   Making insurance plans portable so if you change jobs, you don’t have to change plans.

o   Mandating all insurance providers describe their plans with plain language so consumers know what they are getting.

o   Allowing small businesses, the self-employed, and others to band together and purchase health insurance at lower costs resulting in more coverage for more people.

o   Passing comprehensive medical liability reform that will prohibit frivolous lawsuits that cost our country $126 billion every year and allow doctors to freely provide the best care possible.

o   Offering immediate and substantial financial assistance, through new refundable and advanceable tax credits to the working poor.

o   Promoting prevention and wellness by giving employers and insurers greater flexibility to financially reward employees who seek to achieve or maintain a healthy weight, quit smoking, and manage chronic illnesses like diabetes.

o   Rewarding high-quality care, instead of encouraging health care providers to order more and unnecessary services.

These reforms do not raise taxes or the deficit by a single cent. When you introduce productive competition, increased consumer power, and efficiencies of scale into a market and eliminate billions of dollars of waste, you get lower prices and higher quality. Health care is too big of a problem to leave it in government hands and squash the vitality and innovation that has made our country so great. In the end, I stand on the side of quality versus mediocrity, affordability versus unsustainable debt, and freedom of care versus bureaucratic control.

This is NOT what Congressional Democrats put forth in their proposal.  They want a public, government-run health care plan that may be a good-faith effort, but will have tragic consequences on our system.  Their proposal will cost $1.2 trillion and increase our national debt by $239 billion over the next 10 years. “The way I would put it is that the [cost] curve is being raised,” said the CBO Director. That’s right; Democrats actually want to increase the cost of health care.

To pay for it, Democrats are taxing the very Americans who are the key to our economic recovery: small business owners. Since the mid-1990s, small businesses have created 60 to 80 percent of the net new jobs. House Democrats propose that if small businesses cannot afford to offer insurance, they should contribute as much as 8% of their payroll spending toward helping workers buy insurance on their own. The only problem is that small businesses often operate at the slimmest of profit margins-a third of all small businesses go out of business within the first two years. The Democrat plan would put small businesses in an impossible spot: provide health insurance and go out of business or do not offer health insurance and go out of business.

I am also strongly opposed to using taxpayer dollars to fund abortions, which is currently allowed in the Democrat-proposed health care plan. Many Americans do not want their hard-earned money to provide for abortion on demand. I will never vote for any bill that would result in the government forcing taxpayers to pay for the eradication of innocent, unborn lives.

I am also opposed to a public plan because it will inherently squash private plans. Any government plan that does not have to rely on making a profit to stay afloat and receives taxpayer subsidies inevitably means that it can undercut private plans, running them out of business. What’s more, employers, recognizing the billion-dollar savings, would drop their employees’ current coverage and force them into a government plan. According to the Lewin Group, a nonpartisan consulting firm, over 100 million Americans would lose their coverage. As costs skyrocket with more and more enrollees, government bureaucrats will have no choice but to ration care just as they have in efforts to control the Medicare and Medicaid systems that face $86 trillion in unfunded obligations. As care is rationed, experts expect hospitals’ revenue to drop 5 percent and physicians’ revenue 7 percent, not to mention millions of Americans who are denied the care they need.

Rest assured that I will keep your views and thoughts in mind as health care reform legislation is debated in Congress. Again, I want to thank you for taking the time to contact me. Please feel free to contact me if I can be of any further assistance on this matter or if you would like additional information on this topic or other issues facing Congress, please visit my website at http://crenshaw.house.gov.

Sincerely,

Ander Crenshaw

Member of Congress

Great…  I thought I could count on Ander to uphold the Constitution…  Looks like that’s a no…

So, I called my Senator, Mr. Bill Nelson and asked him…  Well okay, I didn’t actually talk to him, but it was close…  Well, okay, it wasn’t even close.

I called Senator Bill Nelson’s office and the lady I spoke with was quite pleasant.  I asked her to tell me what provision of the US Constitution allowed the US Congress to create any sort of Health Care bill.  She said that she didn’t really know…  A sentiment shared by several of his staffers; but she did offer to take down my e-mail address and pass it along to the Senator with my question.  Here’s Bill Nelson’s response:

Dear Mr. Yantiss:

Thank you for contacting me about health care reform.

On October 13, I joined a bipartisan majority in the Finance Committee and voted to pass the America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009. This bill would allow those who are happy with their insurance keep what they’ve got, including veterans and seniors on Medicare. It also creates state-based exchanges where those without coverage, or those who are unhappy with what they have, can get coverage at an affordable price.

The bill also would hold insurers’ feet to the fire, requiring them to cover everyone and preventing them from dropping someone who gets sick. Additionally, it contains several measures aimed at reducing overall medical and prescription drug costs and eliminating waste and fraud in the system.

Among the improvements I added to the bill is a provision that would preserve benefits for an estimated 800,000 Medicare Advantage enrollees in Florida and another provision that would protect tax benefits for seniors who have high medical expenses.

As for a public-option, there were two similar proposals to establish a public insurance plan as part of the health care legislation. I voted for Senator Schumer’s plan because I believed it would offer help for consumers through fair competition to private insurers and stood the best chance of final passage. Unfortunately, it was defeated by the committee 13-10. Right after the vote, Senator Schumer promised he’d keep fighting to get his proposal included in the broader health care bill; he’ll have my backing.

The America’s Healthy Future Act will now go to the Senate floor, where it will be merged with another bill passed by the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee earlier this year. I am hopeful that a final bill will pass by the end of the year. Regardless of where anyone stands on the specifics, I think we all can agree that the system we have can be unfair and too costly, and needs reform. Again, I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue. Please don’t hesitate to contact me in the future.

Sincerely,
Senator Bill Nelson

P.S. From time to time, I compile electronic news briefs highlighting key issues and hot topics of particular importance to Floridians. If you’d like to receive these e-briefs, visit my Web site and sign up for them at http://billnelson.senate.gov/news/ebriefs.cfm

You might note, as I did, that the discussion of “what part of the Constitution provides the Congress the authority to do any of this”, is completely missing.  Oddly, yeah right, it fails to answer the question I posed.

Bill Nelson,  You swore to uphold the US Constitution as a VOW presumably before whatever GOD you fear.  You have failed to do so.  You should resign, NOW!  Do your VOW’s have any meaning?

Open Letter to Senator Bill Nelson of Florida

Sir,

When you were sworn in as Senator for the State of Florida, you took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.

I called your office last week to ask what Constitutional Amendment offered the provision for the Federal Government to mandate any modification to health care.

Your attendant responded by asking what provision prohibited such an action by the Federal Government. I responded with the statement “The Tenth Amendment.”

Your attendant mentioned that there are many other pieces of legislation that are equally egregious to the principle of the Tenth Amendment.

This may be true, but it does not make them right.

If you swore to uphold the U.S. Constitution, how can you, in good faith, vote for a bill that holds the Tenth Amendment in such contempt?

In case you have forgotten what the Tenth Amendment says, it states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

If there is no provision in the Constitution allowing for the Federal modification of health care laws, then by voting for the bill, are you not dismissing the Tenth Amendment of the document you SWORE to uphold?

Does swearing an oath mean anything to you?

Did you swear an oath to your wife? I imagine she’ll be particularly interested in knowing whether or not your vows have any meaning; whether or not your word is of any value.

To be fair, you have voted for a number of bills that we impermissible based upon the Tenth Amendment alone.

Your word, your oath, has no value anymore anyway… you might as well vote in favor of yet another affront to our Constitution, the document you SWORE to uphold.

Seth Yantiss,
Florida Constituent and landowner

So there I am at lunch waiting for a few coworkers when I overhear a woman on a cell phone explaining her Christmas buying decisions:

“Well, I got my mom that CD player.  I put it on my credit card and now I’m tapped out because I had to buy that part for my truck.  Next week, I’m getting the rug and the I-POD for my dad.  I’ll have to see what happens the week after.  I might have to wrap an IOU to my brother and see if he’ll let me take him shopping the week after Christmas.”

At that point, I had to leave, but I was surprised at the ire roused in my chest. 

This woman, who is obviously living paycheck to paycheck, would squander her earnings on lavish gifts for her kin in the name of a holiday created to commemorate the birth of Christ.  She, like so many others, seems to think that the celebration is about the gifts that she provides to others.  It’s not.

The Christmas holiday is about celebrating the gift Christ gave.  It’s about celebrating life.  It’s about relationships.  Baubles and trinkets cheapen the intent of the celebration, and pulling valuable resources to buy fickle material items misses the point, entirely.

If she’s maxed out her credit card, then she is already over-extended beyond her means.  She is borrowing from others to generate her gifts.

I’m no expert on the matter, but Christ espoused charity and, as far as I know, decried stupidity. 
Charity is giving of what you have.  If you have to borrow to give, then you’re not being charitable or smart.

Innovation has been the life blood of the American success story.  Diverse individual ideas are the driving force behind innovation.  But the legacy of the United States of America may be at its apex.

  We are dangerously close to a precipice.  The Federal US government determines more and more.  At some point, in the not-too-distant future, we will awaken to realize that we have become a socialized state. 

  Innovation, through the years, has allowed us to devote more resources toward solving problems.  Nowhere is this more evident than in agriculture.  Previous to last century, 80% of the population was devoted to the production of food.  Innovative techniques and tools have reduced this man-power expenditure to a scant 20% of the population, while we export more food than ever before.  When there were only 20% of us doing everything other than agricultural work, there would have been less scientists and researchers.  Now that 60% of us are freed up from food production, a lot more of us can pursue our passions.

Massive shifts in the labor market helped to cause the great depression.  Once the labor was reabsorbed and people learned new skills, new technologies began to arrive in earnest.  Suddenly, our society could afford for people to sit around and day-dream.  We encouraged it.  Then something went awry.

  At some time in the recent past, a large number of people in the US decided that security is more important than freedom.  They haven’t yet come to realize that you must sacrifice innovation when you opt for security. 

  I work for a large corporation.  I have had several innovative ideas that I have not pursued for the security of working for a corporation.  My ideas may have been successful, but they may have failed.  I didn’t try them because I feel that I can’t risk the failure at this time in my life.  This might be a prudent choice.  It might be a terrible decision.  Time will tell.  I will serve as an example to others one way or the other.

Insecurity is one of the problems that we humans try to solve.  We give security blankets to babies.  We created Social Security for those that didn’t or couldn’t save for a retirement.  We create new laws, daily, designed to protect us from problems.

The problem is that a select few are solving these problems.  Is a group of 600 people more likely to develop, implement, and manage a solution to a problem than a group of millions?

When a few people are placed in charge of production and distribution, as with socialism, the drive to increase efficiency declines.  In my imagination, Jane Smith didn’t develop the new baby-wipe because one government bureau after another, just to get started, was too daunting a task.  But that’s what government intervention does to people; diminishes the drive to make things better.

If the government starts to control production (health care is a product, ladies and gentlemen) we will have shortages in supply or increase in cost.  Doctors are not robots.  The doctor’s staff needs to be paid.  When the government decides the price for the Doctor’s time, it is, in essence, stealing from the Doctor, and reducing the incentive for another doctor to compete based upon price.  This leads to a shortage in doctors and an increase in cost. 

Our way of life is under attack by those that, mostly with good intentions, have not thought through governmental control of our lives.

There have been quintillions upon quintillions of unique ideas through the passage of man’s time on Earth, and that’s probably a small estimate.  Some of these ideas were passed off as stupid but later were found to be great.  The personal computer was passed off on by the CEO of IBM as impractical because “no one would want one in their homes.  What would they use it for?”  Yet the PC has been the driving force behind the greatest technological and information boon EVER.  Ideas come from individuals.  Some take an idea, that others think is stupid, and find a market. Innovation is powered by diversity. 

Not the diversity of skin color, but the diversity of thought.  Each of us has a unique set of experiences and see the world in a unique way.  Each of these unique people has strengths and weaknesses that compliment those of other people.  Using the power of diverse thoughts and ideas, we solve problems better and faster.  We develop tools to make us more efficient.  We do this because individuals are empowered to solve problems.  Humans solve problems for two reasons: To make our lives or other lives better or easier; and to be more efficient.

The recent world-wide technological explosion was due, in large part, to the form of government set up by the founders of the United States of America. 

The framers of the Constitution figured that development and progress in the US was to be heralded by the masses, not from a single “decider”.  If “Average Joe” thinks he can make a better meatball sub, then he opens a restaurant to sell his subs.  Even if some people don’t like his subs, other people may. A better process or product might be created.  An environment where it is EASY to test a theory, more theories are tested.  Where it is EASIER for people to start a business, more businesses are started…  More innovation is attempted.

Socialism’s weakness is this lack of diversity.  Socialism is the system of government where the State regulates trade and property, restricting the ability of new business creation pending review by a select few.  This constricts innovation by making it harder for individuals to solve problems.  (As I read this, I realize how close to socialism the US has become.)

Governmental control over supply and distribution of goods does little to spur someone into making the process more efficient.  Government involvement tends to inhibit efficiency rather than foster it.

How many ideas have you had that you gave up on because it was too hard?  Our market environment is EASY compared to China (though, they are getting smarter about the market while we get dumber). 

This country has come far in 200 years.  Remarkably far in 200 years…  but the reasons for our progress are not due to the Federal Government’s involvement in our lives… it was precisely the opposite.

but the surprise is “why”...

From an e-mail today.

The Republican Party would be self-destructive (not for the first time, either) if they did not let the immigration compromise negotiated by Sens. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) and Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) pass and become law. The hopes of the entire Latino community are pinned to immigration reform and, if the GOP is seen as blocking it, the consequences for the indefinite future will be horrific. The Republican Party will lose Hispanics as surely as they lost blacks when Barry Goldwater ran in 1964 against the civil rights bill (even though a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats backed the bill in each house).

So Dick would rather disregard our laws and offer amnesty for the potential political gain.  This idea seems stupid to me for a few reasons.

1. Hasn’t Bush tried to extend the hand of friendship across the isle several times?  McCain-Feingold, NCLB, Prescription Drugs, etc… these were all Democrat ideas.  Bush thought he’d make friends, but after they passed, the Democrats used these programs to beat on the President.

2. Should we abandon our principles for political gains?  In my mind this is what led to the Republicans defeat last fall.  They abandoned their core values in vote buying schemes that were completely transparent to true conservatives.

The Latinos that I have spoken with respect staying true to your values more than they respect appeasement.  Pandering to the illegals to buy votes is appeasement and I don’t think this will play out the way Dick thinks.

I’m hopeful that few senators listen to Dick…  but I hoped that the Republicans would maintain the “contract with America” too…

As head of the executive branch of the US Government, President Bush oversees the “enforcement” branch of our legal framework.  President Bush is responsible for the enforcement of the laws that govern our border policy.  The president is culpable in the illegal egress of millions of undocumented illegal trespassers.

Is there any doubt that the Federal government has completely ignored our border laws?  The 1986 immigration reform act was supposed to seal the borders.  That didn’t seem to work… did it?

There should be no legislation affecting the status of the people here illegally until the Federal Government stops the influx and the enforcement of the “return policy”. 

Senator Bill Nelson of Florida has been trying to impeach President Bush for some time.  His issue has been intelligence on Iraq.  I think he stands a better chance with ‘enforcement’ as his issue.

I’d rather that it not come to an impeachment… but I’d rather impeach the president than grant amnesty of our laws.

I’m not sure what to do with the people who are here illegally today, but that’s not my concern.  We need to get the borders under control.

If you feel remotely the same, please call your Senator and Representative!
Since Senators don’t represent the states anymore, they need to hear from you in order to form an opinion.

We need to start calling our representatives and senators (the other representative) about this:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Republicans and Democrats struggled Wednesday over the final details of an elusive deal that would grant quick legal status to millions of illegal immigrants living in the U.S. and fortify the border with Mexico.

They’re trying to get an amnesty plan through congress and it needs to stop.  I called my congresspeople and told them to 1. enforce the borders and 2. enforce the existing laws. 

I’m not sure they listened to me though…  maybe if all of you did that too?!?

Two big bombs in Iraq take out people on a bridge, the bridge and a couple of law makers.

The charges were dropped against the Duke Lacrosse guys…  Apologies are flooding the networks…  well.. maybe…

Anna Nicole Smith’s kid has a daddy, and it only took a month to figure out who it is…

We killed 35 suspected Talibani head-cases.

Musharraf’s guys killed 300 militants.

Imus was cut from MSNBC for a “racial slur.”  (what part of “knappy headed ho’s” indicates race?)

And I have made my decision about Mitt. 

NO WAY!

Mitt Romney is not my candidate.  No way, no how. 

(I’ll write in “Fred Thompson” if Mitt is on the ticket.)

From John Stossel

This week another politician said “enough” to politicians’ self-glorification. Probable presidential candidate Fred Thompson asked a legislator to withdraw his plan to name a stretch of U.S. Highway 43 “Fred Thompson Boulevard.”

I like everything I’ve heard from this guy.

I support the Fair Tax. 

Most of you know me as rational, right?   I don’t have time to post every reason for the Fair Tax, but I’ve put a lot of thought into it, and it would be the biggest boost to the US economy ever. 

Companies would fight to return to the US…

Innovation would sky-rocket…

The Stock Market would boon…

People would experience greater control over their future…

Americans for Fair Taxation are looking for 100,000 signatures on a petition to co-sponsor the bill.  Please sign it.

Thanks,

Seth

Most of us don’t have time in the day to read all of the details of news stories.  A lot of us get our “knowledge” from headlines. 

Headlines are designed to generate “feelings”. 
Feelings are the left’s best friend.

Decisions based upon “feelings” are often the wrong decisions.  The editors of the MSM know that feelings drive a lot of people to buy their products.

Most people don’t have time to read the whole article, but if the headline generates “feelings” you might buy the paper or watch a little more TV. 

The MSM can control the population to some degree with the wording of a headline. 

I’ve seen more examples of this on this blog than I thought were possible… and this blog doesn’t specialize in exposing this sort of manipulation.