Will The Center Hold, April, 2014, Part 2: Taking back Western Lands, Forcing A Balanced Washington Budget, and Georgia Protects the Second Amendment

Yesterday was the first in a series of posts that will update the status of state governments and citizens pushing back on an overreaching and increasing ineffective and wasteful Federal government. The issues involved are wide ranging and include, but are not limited to, gun rights, education control and tenets, Obama Care, and others.

The questions we have posed in light of these unprecedented push backs and resistance include: 1) What if Washington passed a law that few of the states and citizens actually obeyed and 2) if no one obeys Washington's dictates, does the center hold or does the union dissolve into separate government entities with little or no connection to a Federal government? Interesting questions arising from an unprecedented time in our country's history, the uprising of state government and state citizens against an overreaching and increasingly intrusive set of Washington laws and politicians.

1) Today we start off with push back that we have not discussed before in this series, namely the desire of many western states and their citizens to get the Federal government out of the land ownership business within their states. In many western states, the Federal government owns and controls a large amount of state land or in some cases, the majority of state lands.

This has caused a number of conflicts and sore points over the years as a result of the Federal government's large and imposing presence and influence within a state. Local citizens and governments feel, often rightfully so, that a faraway Federal bureaucracy does not have their best interests as a priority when establishing national laws.

This was vividly illustrated by a Salt Lake Tribune article from April 14, 2014. The article summarized a recent meeting held by local and state officials and politicians in Utah that was convened to discuss and find ways to reduce the Federal footprint of land ownership and governance within their state borders. In other words, how could the states take over stewardship of Federal lands and hopefully do a better job ecologically, economically, and administratively than the historic ineptness of the Feds. 

Highlights of the meeting, as described by the Tribune, include the following:

• More than 50 political leaders from nine states convened for the first time to talk about their joint goal, taking control of oil, timber and mineral-rich lands away from the Federal government.
• Utah Representative Ken Ivory, who organized the Legislative Summit on the Transfer for Public Lands along with Montana state Sen. Jennifer Fielder stated:"It’s simply time. The urgency is now.
• New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Wyoming, Oregon and Washington also were represented.
• The article points out that this meeting was scheduled long before this month’s tense standoff between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the Federal Bureau of Land Management over cattle grazing: "What’s happened in Nevada is really just a symptom of a much larger problem," an attendee and organizer said.
• Fielder, self described as "just a person who lives in the woods," said Federal land management is hamstrung by bad policies, politicized science and severe Federal budget cuts: "Those of us who live in the rural areas know how to take care of lands. We have to start managing these lands. It’s the right thing to do for our people, for our environment, for our economy and for our freedoms."
• Idaho Speaker of the House Scott Bedke claimed Idaho forests and land managed by the state have suffered less damage and watershed degradation from wildfire than lands managed by Federal agencies: "It’s time the states in the West come of age. We’re every bit as capable of managing the lands in our boundaries as the states east of Colorado."
• Attendees made the case that they see oilfields and other resources that could be developed to create jobs and fund education.
• The skyrocketing national debt was also seen as a reason to let the states have control of the lands to develop them since the Federal government’s debt threatens both its management of vast tracts of the West as well as its ability to come through with payments in lieu of taxes to the states. In other words, the states want to control their fates and no longer be dependent on the ability of the Federal government to pay for use of the lands, a probably wise position to take: "If we don’t stand up and act, seeing that trajectory of what’s coming … those problems are going to get bigger." 
• To be clear, the agreed to intent is not to take over those lands designated as national parks and wilderness created by acts of Congress Lockhart said: "We are not interested in having control of every acre. There are lands that are off the table that rightly have been designated by the Federal government."

Interesting times that for the first time ever there is such a widespread effort at the state and local effort underway to wrest control of major pieces of U.S. land away from the bureaucrats in Washington. Unheard of in the past. 

A push back on a major scale against a Federal government who has mismanaged the lands, possibly sub-optimized the lands for their economic value, and given the recent military type operation against Cliven Bundy in south Nevada, have become too heavy handed in dictating what happens locally throughout the west. Will the center hold if the states merely assert their control over the land where they live, ignoring the control the Federal government has asserted over the centuries?

2) The Washington Times recently reported that the state of Michigan became the 19th state to officially call for a convention of the states under Article V of the Constitution, specifically and only for the purpose of forcing the Federal government and the Washington political class to enact and abide by a balanced budget every year. 

Thus, almost 40% of the states have stated that the current operation of the Federal government and its wasteful budgeting processes need to be corrected and the states will take the initiative in doing so since the politicians in Washington have proven they are incapable of doing so. This action is a little different than the other push backs that the states and its citizens have taken where they are simply looking for ways to nullify or ignore Federal mandates and laws, be they in the areas of Obama Care, gun control, Common Core, etc.

In this case, the states and citizens are telling the Federal government to get its budget house in order and if the Feds do not do it, then the states will do it for them through a Constitutional mechanism. This is not a push back against an overreaching Federal government, this is a push back against an incompetent Federal government.

3) In late March, 2014, the Georgia legislature voted in overwhelming manner to protect the Second Amendment rights of Georgia citizens to possess and carry firearms. This is just another state that is preparing to ignore or nullify any potential gun control or seizure laws that come out of Washington.

The main tenets of the legislation include the following:

•Remove fingerprinting for renewal of Weapons Carry Licenses (WCL).
•Prohibit the state from creating and maintaining a database of WCL holders.
•Create an absolute defense for the legal use of deadly force in the face of a violent attack.
•Remove of the sweeping restrictions on legally carrying a firearm with a WCL in churches and bars, leaving this decision to private property owners.
•Lower the age to obtain a concealed WCL for self-defense from 21 to 18 for active duty military, with specific training.
•Repeal the unnecessary and redundant state-required license for a firearms dealer, instead requiring only a Federal Firearms License (FFL).
•Prohibit a ban on firearms in public housing, ensuring that the right to self-defense should not be infringed based on where one calls home.
•Codify the ability to legally carry, with a WCL, in sterile/non-secure areas of airports.
•Include a provision that would have the state report those persons who have been involuntarily hospitalized or have been adjudicated mentally deficient while also providing an ability for relief through an application process to the court system for the purpose of restoration of rights.
•Under a declared state of emergency, all law-abiding gun owners will not have their Second Amendment rights restricted or infringed by executive authority through Emergency Powers protection.

Another state expressing its state rights under the Constitution to protect and do what is best for its citizens, regardless of what Washington and the Federal government want or do.

Will the center hold when many states and their governments and citizens demand that they be in charge of the land that is local to them but far away from the Washington bureaucracy? Will the center hold when the states demand that the Federal government gets is budgeting and financial house in order or the states step in to force them to do it? Will the center hold when state gun control freedoms that are enshrined in the Constitution and state law are in conflict with Federal and Washington political class gun laws?

Interesting....and dangerous times we live in, especially if the center does not hold and a revolution against inept Federal government behavior, bureaucracies, and politicians ever gain enough momentum. Stay tuned.

Our book, "Love My Country, Loathe My Government - Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom And Destroying The American Political Class" is now available at:

www.loathemygovernment.com

It is also available online at Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Please pass our message of freedom onward. Let your friends and family know about our websites and blogs, ask your library to carry the book, and respect freedom for both yourselves and others everyday.

Please visit the following sites for freedom:

Term Limits Now: http://www.howmuchworsecoulditget.com
http://www.reason.com
http://www.cato.org
http://www.robertringer.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08j0sYUOb5w

Will The Center Hold, Part 1: Americans and States Fight Back Against An Overreaching Federal Government

I am 60 years old. I have seen the debacle and divisions in the country caused by the Vietnam war and the resultant anti-war violence and activities during the Johnson and Nixon administrations. I lived through the lifeless and ineffective Carter administration. Since Reagan, I have seen numerous and useless U.S. military invasions and economic hardships that have tried the country’s patience.

However, throughout the needless wars, the protests, the economic downturns, the lackluster, corrupt, and criminal leadership in Washington, I do not recall us ever being so close to a severe Constitutional crisis. This crisis threatens to substantially divide the country along the lines of state rights and individual freedom vs. overreaching Federal government power, an overreach that often and lately has crossed over the line of Constitutionality.

A number of factors are contributing to this fissure between the people and their state governments on one side versus the political class in Washington on the other side:

1. Washington has tried to dictate to the states how a national health care program is to be run even though about two thirds of the states have opted out of the national program by not establishing their own state health care exchanges as stipulated by Osama Care’s tenets.
2. Washington, via Obama Care, has violated the First Amendment’s freedom of religion protection.
3. Washington has spied on every American and continues to do so, causing some states to rise up against this violation of the Fourth Amendment.
4. Washington has tried to squash Second Amendment rights with a blitz of actual and proposed gun control laws and edicts that do not sit well with many states and with a vast number of citizens.
5. Washington is trying to force every state, every school, and every citizen to adhere to a national Federal government mandated education curriculum called Common Core even though it has proven to be deficient in actually improving the education attainment in this country and has little flexibility regarding different needs of different students and states.

Washington is trying to force its control into states' areas of responsibility, as laid out in the Constitution, and into the states’ citizens’ lives. This is resulting in the following unique, severe, and aggressive actions being taken up by those states to protect their Constitutional rights and the rights and privacy of their citizens, a push back I have never seen in my lifetime:

1) The Education Action Group reported on January 29, 2014 that a Colorado state senator, Vick Marble, has introduced legislation that would push back the implementation of Washington’s Common Core education programs for one year. The purpose of the delay is create time so that a state task force would be able to study implementation of the Colorado academic standards, including the Common Core. The state task force would report its findings and make recommendations to state lawmakers and the Colorado State Board of Education by December, 2015.

Marble’s bill would also identify an outside group “to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of implementing the new standards and new tests.” What was Marble‘s reasoning behind creating the delay: “The bill is intended to give Colorado the time it needs to explore Common Core in all aspects instead of handing over our children to an experimental education program with no proven track record of success.”

Additionally, a member of the house of representatives in the state government is introducing similar legislation. Whether either effort gets anywhere remains to be seen but at least some people and citizens in Colorado are saying “slow down” before they blindly accept a program forced upon them by the Federal government.

2) In late January, Oklahoma state government Representative Mike Ritze introduced state legislation that would be similar to that of South Carolina's Obama Care’s “nullify” legislation. Both states’ legislation would essentially gut the Affordable Care Act in their state.

Ritze’s bill, HB2421, states that:

• "An agency, officer, or employee of the state [Oklahoma] shall not…engage in an activity that aids any person in the enforcement of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. [I.e. Obama Care]" 
• The legislation bars Oklahoma from setting up a state-run Obama Care health insurance exchange to support Obama Care.
• It prohibits the purchase of insurance from an exchange set up by a non-profit. 
• It also blocks any state agency or personnel from conducting involuntary home inspections as provided for in the Obama Care legislation.

This attempt to “nullify” this Federal law is being done under the auspices of the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution:

The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, and not prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The purpose of this amendment was to do prevent exactly what the Federal government and the Obama administration are doing now in so many ways, intruding into the rights and lives of states and citizens. This is Oklahoma’s way of pushing back along Constitutional lines and openly defying a national law passed in Washington.

What is interesting is that Oklahoma is not a solitary “renegade” state. News sources identify other states including South Carolina, Indiana, Tennessee, Missouri, and Georgia having also put forth their own efforts to nullify Obama Care.

Which raises an interesting question: what if the Federal government enacted a law and no one, state governments and citizens alike, ignored it? Or nullified it? 

3) News reports out of South Carolina in late January, 2014 reported on another worthy state effort to protect its citizens and Constitutional rights. It is no secret that the Obama administration has shredded the Fourth Amendment rights and privacy rights of every U.S. citizen by blatantly collecting and storing information on every conceivable electronic communication that every American creates.

These collection and storage processes are done without probable cause and without a properly obtained warrant from a proper court of law. It is a gross violation of the Fourth Amendment no matter how viewed. Saying this massive data collection is needed for national security is a farce, the data and information collected is far more likely to be used for political gain and revenge.

Which brings us to another uncharted frontier regarding invasion of our privacy. The U.S. has been a major user of unmanned drone aircraft around the war, using them extensively to bomb suspected terrorist havens around the world. Which has given rise to an new fear and threat to the Fourth Amendment: what if this same government decides to deploy drones to spy on Americans?

Well, in another attempt to nullify Federal interference in our lives, the South Carolina state senate late last month began considering a bill to virtually ban the use of drones without a warrant in its airspace. A similar proposal (HR3514) recently passed the South Carolina state house unanimously, with a vote of 100-0.

Details behind this worthwhile effort includes the following:

• House bill 3514 (H3514) would prohibit the operation of drones by any government agency unless it is “pursuant to a criminal warrant issued by a court of competent jurisdiction.”
• Although all of the sponsors of the legislation were Republicans, the unanimous support shows a strong bipartisan effort to block the Obama administration’s drone program. The The ACLU has weighed in on this domestic drone issue on a national level as well, warning that “unregulated drone use could pose serious threats to our privacy.”
• The South Carolina legislation does include some narrow exceptions to the warrant requirement to reduce the trepidations of state law enforcement entities who want to be able to act in emergency situations when a drone’s use might mean the difference between life or death.
• Even so, the bill still retains strict standards governing the use of a drone when authorized. 
• For one thing, the law would ban any sort of weapon from ever being mounted on a drone in South Carolina.
• Once a drone was used, law enforcement would have to keep records on the results of their surveillance. 
• Other sections of the bill would prevent law enforcement from retaining any drone-obtained personal information not relevant to a criminal investigation. 
• Amanda Bowers of Tenth Amendment Center was quoted in news articles stating that South Carolina could join a growing number of states putting strict limited on drone usage within their state borders: “Already, a number of states have passed similar bills into law, and we are expecting more in the coming weeks and months. From California to Washington State, and from New York to Missouri, legislators and the general public from left to right want to see a dangerous future stopped before it happens.”
• Similar laws apparently were signed into law in 2013 in Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia.

Interesting, dynamic stuff. States and citizens telling the overreaching Federal government to pound sand when it comes to dictating education standards, dictating health care standards and operations, and potentially violating the Fourth Amendment rights of citizens with the new technology of drones. All seemingly legal and above board according to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.

One has to wonder if Common Core had been a decent program, if Obama Care actually had a chance to work (it doesn't), and if the Federal government was not already grossly violating the Fourth Amendment and privacy rights of citizens if the state governments and leadership would have done anything as drastic as to invoke its Tenth Amendment rights.

Given that such action has not occurred to my knowledge over the past 60 years, I have to conclude that Common Core, Obama Care, and drone intrusions are really as bad as these states think they are.

Which gets us back to the basic question we proposed above: what if the Federal government enacted a law and everyone, state governments and citizens alike, ignored it? Do the ties that bind us together as one nation, as dictated by the Constitution, become the loosened and if so, to what degree? More on the rebellion tomorrow.

Our book, "Love My Country, Loathe My Government - Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom And Destroying The American Political Class" is now available at:

www.loathemygovernment.com

It is also available online at Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Please pass our message of freedom onward. Let your friends and family know about our websites and blogs, ask your library to carry the book, and respect freedom for both yourselves and others everyday.

Please visit the following sites for freedom:

Term Limits Now: http://www.howmuchworsecoulditget.com
http://www.reason.com
http://www.cato.org
http://www.robertringer.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08j0sYUOb5w

December, 2013, The Unfolding Disaster That Is Obama Care Update, Part 3: Nullifying Obama Care At The State Level, No Access To Top Hospitals and Other Smack The Mole Failues

This is a third in what is likely going to be a long series of updates and analyses of the unfolding disaster that is Obama Care. We have been doing these mini-series every month for the past four months for the simple reason that this legislation is so bad, that the bad news from its rollout just keeps on coming.

Millions of Americans are losing their jobs, their current insurance policies, access to their favorite doctors, access to their preferred hospitals, and possibly access to life saving drugs not covered in their Obama Care insurance policies. The monthly premiums are generally much than they were prior to Obama Care’s rollout and the deductibles are also escalating dramatically. The President’s promises that you can keep your insurance policy, your doctors, and your hospitals is turning out to be either the biggest lie in Presidential history or the biggest piece of ignorance about what was supposed to be his landmark legislation.

Today’s insanity from Obama Care includes the following updates and crises:

1) Yesterday, we talked about the effort in the South Carolina state government to “nullify” an impact of Obama Care in the state of South Carolina. A piece of legislation to that effect has already passed in the House part of the state government, the state Senate will take it up early next year and if the Senate passes it, it will likely be signed by the Republican governor.

Well, it turns out that a trend might be starting to terminate the legislation since four state legislators in Georgia have introduced legislation in that state to do the same nullify action as South Carolina: 

• “The bill’s main thrust is to prohibit state agencies, officers and employees of the state from implementing any provisions of the Affordable Care Act, leaving implementation entirely in the hands of the federal government, which lacks the resources or personnel to carry out the programs it mandates,” said Rep. Spencer in a press release.
• Again, I am not a Constitutional lawyer or expert by an stretch of the imagination so I have no idea if this is a valid state government tactic to use. However, apparently this nullify option is a long-standing legal principle, the so-called anti-commandeering doctrine, and thus some in the legal profession think that both states’ nullify efforts are on strong legal grounds.
• In four major legal cases from 1842 to 2012, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the Federal government cannot “commandeer” states, forcing them to enforce or expend state level government resources to participate in Federal law or regulatory programs. 

So who knows, maybe the Constitution will save us from this disaster after all.

2) According to a recent analysis from the folks at Americans For Tax reform:

• Health and Human Services Secretary (HHS) Kathleen Sebelius recently provided an updated dollar amount for the cost of HealthCare.gov in Congressional testimony: $677 million.
• In addition to the $677 million spent on the Federal Obama Care website, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have already paid out a whopping $4.5 billion of taxpayer money to promote Obama Care on the state level.
• HHS also provided updated Obama Care enrollment results: 364,682 Americans have “selected a plan” from the Obama Care exchanges, the equivalent of putting an item in your online shopping cart and leaving it there. 
• Doing some simple math, we find that the taxpayer cost per potential “enrollee” is over $14,000 per potential shopper ($4.5 billion + $677 million = $5,177,000,000 ÷ 364,682 = $14,196)
• $14,000 to get one person interested in Obama Care. However, interest so far is not actually policy confirmation. Many of these people have not yet paid for the policy they may have selected on the exchange so there may be some “slippage,” i.e. people do not follow through and actually close the deal. In the presence of slippage, the cost per person would actually go higher than the obscene $14,000 per person.
• In fact, other news sources are saying only 30,000 people have actually paid for their Obama Care insurance policies vs. 365,000 of so who indicated they would. Thus, the cost for an actual paying Obama Care policy is more than ten times higher than the $14,000 (364,682 divided by 30,000 equals about 12).

How many businesses would be able to survive if the cost of acquiring a customer was hundreds of thousands of dollars? Not many but that is what the Obama Care legislation has cost us so far, billions of dollars for thousands of customers. Pathetic.

3) In a November 28, 2013 article we found out that the Obama administration was pushing back the ability of small businesses to comparison shop for small business Obama care insurance policies for twelve months because the government website to do so is still busted. 

One of the main selling points of Obama Care several years ago was going to be the ability of small businesses and their employees to get reasonably priced insurance via small buisness Obama Care exchanges. Due to gross incompetence of the Federal government, another Obama Care promise is broken and delayed. However, given how bad the non-small business/personal insurance side of Obama Care is turning out to be (lost coverage, lost access to favorite doctors, hospitals, and needed medicine) maybe American small businesses should be grateful for the broken promise.

4) According to a document put out by the Health And Human Services (HHS) Department in mid August, the Federal government is looking up to spend $7 billion dollars to find ways to reduce government incurred medical costs and expenses:

The purpose is to develop a Research, Measurement, Assessment, Design, and Analysis (RMADA) IDIQ [Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity] to respond to expanded needs of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care ACT (ACA) and Health Care reform ACT (HCERA). The work awarded under the RMADA will involve the design, implementation and evaluation of a broad range of research and/or payment and service delivery models to test their potential for reducing expenditures for Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and uninsured beneficiaries while maintaining or improving quality of care.

But weren’t we told that Obama Care by itself would reduce the cost of insurance policies, the cost of medical care, and the national debt by itself? Weren’t those the promises? Then why are we spending an incremental $7 billion (about $60 for every U.S. household) to do what Obama Care was billed to do? Something sounds very fishy or hypocritical or deceptive, or….take your pick of insanity.

The actual HHS call for quotes can be accessed at:

https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=663626dbd2b100854c7b5ebc41d9a584&_cview=0

5) Two more stories were recently published by the Associated Press verifying that many insurance policies and companies working through the Obama Care exchanges are restricting access to some of the best doctors and hospitals in the country in order to reduce costs. The first story was about the Obama Care exchange policies in New York state, as described by the AP article:

• New Yorkers buying a health plan on the state’s new insurance exchange should read the fine print if they’re interested in getting care at some of the city’s top hospitals.
• Not all are participating in the new plans created by Obama Care.
• As of early December, not one of the plans for sale on New York’s health benefit exchange would cover treatment at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, one of the world’s largest and most respected cancer hospitals.
• That could mean that the 615,000 individuals and 450,000 small business employees expected to eventually get their insurance through the exchange would have to go someplace else for treatment, or pay the bill out of their own pockets.
• Other premier city hospitals are in the networks of just a few of the new plans.

A similar but slightly different situation was reported by the AP out in Washington state. While some hospitals are opting not to serve Obama Care insurance policies like Sloan Kettering in New York, in Washington, in order to keep costs down, it is the insurers that are preventing some world class medical facilities from being available in the Obama Care insurance policies:

• The Obama administration made it a priority to keep down the cost of insurance on the exchanges, the online marketplaces that are central to the Affordable Care Act. But one way that insurers have been able to offer lower rates is by creating networks that are far smaller than what most Americans are accustomed to.
• The decisions have provoked a backlash. In one closely watched case, Seattle Children’s Hospital has filed suit against Washington’s insurance commissioner after a number of insurers kept it out of their provider networks. “It is unprecedented in our market to have major insurance plans exclude Seattle Children’s,” said Sandy Melzer, senior vice president.
• The result, some argue, is a two-tiered system of health care: Many of the people who buy health plans on the exchanges have fewer hospitals and doctors to choose from than those with coverage through their employers.
• The last AP paragraph from the Washington state example starts to explain what will able happen in this country as a result of Obama Care. The more affluent, the wealthier people in this country will continue to have access to the best doctors the best facilities the best health insurance policies (e.g. gold, platinum), the full array of medicine. The rest of us will devolve down to the more cut rate doctors and hospitals, the more limited access to needed drugs and medicine, and less robust insurance plans (e.g. bronze and Medicaid).

This all because the Obama Care architects and writers never understood the root causes of the high health care costs in this country:

• Americans are obese.
• Americans eat too much of the wrong kinds of food. 
• Americans do not exercise enough.
• Americans smoke too much.
• Americans are getting older on average, resulting in more age related diseases and health care costs.
• There is a significant need for tort reform in the medical industry.
• There is a significant need to allow cross state border insurance company competition.
• There is a critical need to cut down the $100 billion worth of taxpayer that is paid out in criminal fraud and waste every year.

Obama Care never really addressed these root causes, the resolution of which would take major costs out of the health care business in this country. Instead, the have contrived a Rube Goldberg-like health insurance hidden ball trick that only moves costs and expenses around within the industry, not reducing the overall levels of costs and expenses. 

It’s like playing the “Smack The Mole” game at your favorite arcade. You can smack down a cost mole in one area but those costs just appear again somewhere else on the board. Smack down those costs, and another cost mole sticks his head up. As a result, we start to see the bifurcation of health care with the rich getting better care and the rest of us getting worse care. 

The cost moles and other calamities of Obama Care will pop their heads up again tomorrow as we continue to review the worst piece of legislation ever enacted by the most inept set of politicians Washington has ever seen.

Our book, "Love My Country, Loathe My Government - Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom And Destroying The American Political Class" is now available at:

www.loathemygovernment.com

It is also available online at Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Please pass our message of freedom onward. Let your friends and family know about our websites and blogs, ask your library to carry the book, and respect freedom for both yourselves and others everyday.

Please visit the following sites for freedom:

Term Limits Now:http://www.howmuchworsecoulditget.com
http://www.reason.com
http://www.cato.org
http://www.robertringer.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08j0sYUOb5w

December, 2013, The Unfolding Disaster That Is Obama Care Update, Part 2: Insurance But No Medicine, More Identity Theft Problems, The Nullify Crusade and More

Yesterday, was the first in what promises to be a long series of posts that document and analyze the latest fiascos being spawned out of the Obama Care legislation. It seems that every day another bombshell disaster is uncovered, caused by a piece of legislation that the Washington class did not read, did not understand, and probably did not write, delegating that job to lobbyists and insurance companies.

We also learned that many Americans, even if they have Obama Care health insurance coverage, will not be able to see the doctor they want to see and use or will not have access to some of the finest hospitals in the country. In order to reduce costs as much as possible, the legislation allows insurance companies to restrict insurance coverage to less costly and quite possibly less quality doctors and hospitals. We also learned that many, many doctors are voluntarily not joining Obama Care exchanges or are retiring early to avoid the hassles of Obama Care.

The bad news continues today:

1) The National Journal recently reported on a investigative report done by station KSTP, a Minnesota ABC station. They found that many state-run ObamaCcare health-care exchanges are vulnerable to a certain type of Wi-Fi hacker attack that enables computer hackers to intercept usernames and passwords.

The findings come from a Mr. Mark Lanterman, the CEO and chief technology officer of Computer Forensic Services. His company ran simulated hacker attacks for KSTP. They found that state-run Obama Care exchanges in Minnesota, Hawaii, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, New York, Maryland, and the District of Columbia are vulnerable to hackers and identity theft criminal elements, just one other serious worry when it comes to the failed legislation known as Obama Care. 

2) First, millions of Americans found out that they could not keep their current insurance policy as promised by the President. Then many Americans found out that they would not be able to keep their favorite doctors in an Obama Care world. Then the found out that they might not get access to their favorite hospitals in an Obama Care world.

Now, according to a recent report in Forbes, they may not be able to keep getting access to their needed medicines in an Obama Care world. Apparently, in an attempt to keep health insurance costs down, many of the Obama Care health insurance policies are not carrying the full array of medicines that current policies are carrying: 

• “If you like your medicines, you may not be able to keep them under Obamacare,” health policy analyst Scott Gottlieb wrote in a Forbes column. “Health plans are cheapening their drug formularies – just like they cheapened their networks of doctors. That’s how they’re paying for the benefits that President Obama promised, everything from free contraception to a leveling of premiums between older (and typically costlier) beneficiaries, and younger consumers.”
• And even if the health insurance company carrying the Obama Care policy does agree to pay for certain drugs, you may have to opt for a higher costing policy like the Obama care silver level policies to get your medicines paid for. If you only have the cheapest, bronze levels policies you may still be shut out of the drug you need.
• Apparently, you can appeal your case to the Federal government if a needed drug is not covered by your policy, but according to Forbes, that appeal process can take years. During that time, you can either go without the drug or pay for it yourself. If your appeal fails, you are on the hook for 100% of the medicine’s cost.
• As an added insult, if a person has to pay for a drug not covered by their Obama Care insurance policy, that cost does not even help reduce their deductibles or out of pocket limits.

Just another example of the adage where the operation was a success (i.e. the person was able to get health insurance coverage) but the patient died (i.e. their policy did not pay for the medicine that person needed to stay alive). Pathetic piece of legislation.

3) On December 9, 2013, CBS Morning News reported on another troubling aspect of Obama Care, first reported by the Wall Street Journal: skyrocketing deductible levels, that level at which a insurance policy holder has to pay 100% of medical costs up to that deductible level before getting financial help from their Obama Care insurance policy. 

Key findings of the CBS report and Journal report include:

• The average deductible level in Obama Care insurance policies is $5,081 a year. In other words, after paying monthly deductibles for the privilege of having an Obama Care policy, you then have to pay at least another $5,000 before seeing any benefit from that policy.
• The Wall Street Journal article detailed how the analysis from HealthPocket Inc., a company that compares health-insurance plans for consumers, analyzed the health care plans in 34 out of the 36 states that haven't set up their own exchanges under the Obama Care legislation. 
• Their report also proved that the $5081 average cost is "42% higher than the average deductible of $3,589 for an individually purchased plan in 2013 before much of the federal law took effect."
• The Wall Street Journal writers also noted how "'cost-sharing' subsidies to help pay deductibles are available to people who earn up to 2.5 times the poverty level....[but] the cost-sharing subsidies for deductibles don't apply to the bronze policies."

Think about a young kid/college grad just starting out in their career. He or she cannot afford a higher priced Obama care plan, they have to struggle with a so-called bronze plan, likely not being able to afford anything above bronze. Not only are the monthly premiums a strain on their budget but now they will get no help in covering their deductible costs which are now 42% higher going forward under Obama Care than they were prior to Obama Care. How does that make sense?

Makes no sense except for the fact that Obama Care was set up to screw the younger generation so that they pay more to subsidize older folks who do not have health care insurance and to pay for Obama Care mandated elements of health insurance, e.g. contraception and pre natal care, for many people that have absolutely no need for such coverage. 

4) An interesting effort is gaining steam in South Carolina’s state government. Lawmakers in South Carolina are pressing forward with state government legislation that would eliminate Obama Care in the state. The “South Carolina Freedom of Health Care Protection Act” was introduced in April and passed in the state’s House of Representatives by a 65-34 vote in June. The pending legislation is expected to head to the state Senate around Jan.14 where if it is passed, it would then go Republican Governor Nikki Haley to be signed into law.

Central to the pending legislation is a prohibition of state agencies, employees, officers and employees from implementing any part of Obama Care. The bill would outlaw state health-care exchanges and would instead issue tax deductions to individuals instead of the tax penalties they would face for not complying with the ACA. 

I am not a legal scholar so I have no idea if this attempt to “nullify“ Obama Care, which I understand has some standing and chance of success within the tenets of the Constitution, will succeed. However, the state politicians in South Carolina recognize what a lousy piece of legislation this truly is, how it is negatively affecting every aspect Americans’ health care lives, and are willing to take this unprecedented effort to shield their constituents from the negative fallout of Obama Care.

Which raises an interesting issue for both the short term Obama Care issue and the longer term central government format:

• What if the 35 states or so who said no to Obama Care state run exchanges do the same nullify thing and simply ignore Obama Care’s requirements and tenets? 
• And what if the courts uphold the states’ rights to actually nullify Federal law? 
• Does the law then collapse from the non-participation of two thirds of the country? 
• Longer term, can the states then begin to pick and choose what Federal laws they want to obey or not obey? What if the Federal government imposes draconian and un-Constitutional gun control laws on the land? Can the states then nullify that Federal law?

Fascinating scenarios, all because the Washington political class put together a historically pathetic and severely deficient piece of legislation. A piece of legislation that may lead to a state rights Constitutional crisis. 

Enough for today. What depressing lessons did we learn today about Obama Care:

1. It is still an identity thief’s paradise since industry experts have proven that many of the state Obama Care exchanges can be easily attacked via Wi-Fi networks.
2. It is now obvious that while one can get health care insurance via Obama Care, there is an increasing probability under Obama Care that your new insurance will not pay for certain, usually expensive, life saving drugs you or your family might need.
3. A Wall Street Journal analysis has shown that even if you can afford Obama Care health insurance, you may not be able to afford the additional high deductible levels that Obama Care insurance policies come with, negating the monthly premium payments you are paying.
4. The bill is so bad that at least one state is taking the unprecedented move to go down the “nullify” road to totally block Obama Care’s implementation in its state, a move likely to spread to other states. eventually end up in the courts and likely to create a Constitutional crisis in the country.

Wow, identify theft crisis, Constitutional crisis, high deductible crisis, and lack of medicine coverage crisis. Yeah, this is not going to end well or neatly. More Obama Care crises tomorrow.

Our book, "Love My Country, Loathe My Government - Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom And Destroying The American Political Class" is now available at:

www.loathemygovernment.com

It is also available online at Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Please pass our message of freedom onward. Let your friends and family know about our websites and blogs, ask your library to carry the book, and respect freedom for both yourselves and others everyday.

Please visit the following sites for freedom:

Term Limits Now:http://www.howmuchworsecoulditget.com
http://www.reason.com
http://www.cato.org
http://www.robertringer.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08j0sYUOb5w