Anthem Blue Cross Owes You NOTHING President Obama

http://www.dailynews.com/ci_14357792?source=most_emailed

By Erica Werner, Associated Press
Updated: 02/08/2010 10:45:44 AM PST

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Monday asked California's largest for-profit health insurer to justify plans to hike customers' premiums by as much as 39 percent, a move that could affect some 800,000 customers.

===============================================================

Question: Who is the President to tell a business in the private sector how much to charge for their services? What’s next? Is Obama going to go to Costco and tell them they are charging too much for paper towels? How about going to Yankee Stadium and telling them that the $8.75 beers are over priced? Where does it end?

This kind of stuff from the White House is the stuff of dictators.

This is Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the CEO of Anthem Blue Cross were able to call a press conference and tell President Obama straight up that Anthem Blue Cross does not have to justify ANYTHING to him? The CEO and his staff can run their company how they want to run it. They are accountable only to customers and shareholders, not to a despotic wannabe. Despite the best efforts of President Obama, the United States is still a land of laws – Laws that do not allow the president to bark orders. The last I checked this was still a representative republic, and not a monarchy, dictatorship, or empire.

President Obama – Keep your nose OUT of the private sector and worry about governing, not ruling.  Who am I to tell the president what to do?  I'm a citizen and voter, and that's enough.

USA Today Vote on Second Amendment

I had this message emailed to me today:

USA TODAY IS TAKING A POLL ON 2ND AMENDMENT - GUN CONTROL

Obama's new Attorney General, Eric Holder, has already said this is one of his major issues. This takes literally 2 clicks to complete. Please vote on this gun issue question with U S A Today. It will only take a few seconds of your time. Then pass the link on to all the interested friends you know. Hopefully these results will be published later this month. This upcoming year will become critical for gun owners with the Supreme Court accepting the District of Columbia case against the right for individuals to bear arms. Here's what you need to do:

VOTE

The Question is: " Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?"
Answer choices are: Yes or No or Undecided then click on V OT E now white tab!

Getting to the Heart of the Healthcare Debate

Millions of protesters at “tea parties” and town hall debates are an obvious indicator that there are clearly differing views throughout the American population regarding government provided healthcare.

Polls have indicated for quite some time now that more people are opposed to government provided healthcare than support it.

Whether against the present Obama-supported healthcare plan due to fear of high costs, poor performance, government intervention, or any number of reasons, in the end all these reasons really funnel down to one central idea – mistrust of government.

The debate over government provided healthcare in the United States is in essence a debate between people who generally trust government, and people who generally mistrust government.
The words “generally” in the statements above are crucial words. Few people always trust or always mistrust government. It is a general perspective of trust versus mistrust that is at the heart of this debate.

To the chagrin of big government supporters, the United States was founded under a purposeful mistrust of government. The United States Constitution was set up to give people maximum liberty precisely because the founders did not trust government. The second amendment to the US Constitution is a direct descendant of the founders mistrust.

The left may not like this built-in mistrust of the US Constitution, but unfortunately for them (and fortunately for the rest of us), the Constitution is the law of the land.

This idea of governmental mistrust is something that most liberals don't understand. The US Constitution is meant to err on the side of too little government, not too much. It is why the left is wrong in the healthcare debate.
Keep in mind that just because the left is wrong in this debate, does not mean that they will not prevail. For this reason, liberty-loving Americans need to continue to stand up to the anti-Constitutional socialization of America.

Healthcare Insurance We Have Now Is Not Insurance

The healthcare insurance debate rages on in the United States, with President Obama in the middle of the lion’s den…a place nobody belongs. He’s a statist and he just can’t help himself, but that’s a topic for a different day.

There have not been many posts on Liberty Alert of late. There are two reasons for that. One is business. The real life of a no-name blogger is definitely at odds with the blog. The second reason post have been sparse lately is that I want Liberty Alert to be a place for original thinking, not just retreads of the crap spewed by the main-stream media, and non-main stream talking heads. I’m not always successful at it, but I try not to be sucked into the trap of basing my opinions (and blog posts) on the points made and developed by others. I like to try to use my own original logic here. Again, I’m not always successful at it, but that’s the idea anyway. That does not mean that I can’t take ideas and learn from others. I just want to avoid repeating the babbling of others. This means that sometimes I’d rather write nothing at all, until I have something original in mind.

I’ve been doing some travel to the Caribbean island of Puerto Rico this past week. Although Puerto Rico is a part of the United States, it is not a state, and has a totally separate culture from the mainland. Therefore, it’s interesting to read some of the opinion pieces in the local newspapers to get a unique viewpoint on national matters, especially the current healthcare debate.

One letter-to-the-editor I read in a Puerto Rican newspaper raised an interesting point. The way we pay for healthcare is not insurance at all. We call it insurance, but it really is not. It’s closer to pre-paid healthcare than insurance.

This letter made me contemplate other insurances that we have. The most common insurance that nearly everybody uses is auto insurance. Think of the contrast between how we use auto insurance versus health insurance.
Auto insurance has a set premium based on how much of a risk you present. This premium can be raised or lowered based on the risk assessment of the insurance company. However, you have the freedom to shop around and switch at any time. With auto insurance, there is a deductible. The insurance is meant to cover catastrophic events, not everyday maintenance activities. The insurance company does not pay every time you enter the auto body shop. Does this mean you should stop doing maintenance like oil changes on your car? No, of course not. The driver is still responsible for the upkeep of their automobile. The incentive for the driver is to do the maintenance in order to keep their car running well longer.
When an accident occurs, the driver is free to address the issue as they please. They can take the money from the insurance company and leave the damage on the car, or they can use the money to pay for repairs at any garage or autobody shop of their choice.
In addition to insurance, most new cars come with warrantees. These warrantees cover unexpected mechanical breakdowns, but the driver is still responsible for general maintenance.
Contrast this insurance model to our current healthcare insurance model. In our current health insurance system, we expect insurance to cover every trip to the doctor. We expect to take no financial responsibility for our own healthcare. We have no concern toward cost (since insurance is paying for it), and we have restricted choice. In essence, we ask the insurance company to pay not only for accidents, but for every oil change, tire rotation, brake job, radiator repair, tune up, etc. regardless of our lifestyle choices and risk. This is not insurance. I’m not sure what one would call it, but insurance it is not.

Obama's First 100 Days -- Connecticut Political Leadership Phone Numbers

The Democrat's and the Obama administration have no respect for the US Constitution, and the people of this country know it.

In Connecticut (my home state), requests for pistol permits are at all-time highs. In the town of Southington, permit request have already surpassed the total requests for the past 2 years, and we are only in April.

Nationwide, gun and ammo sales are soaring.

You can fool some of the people some of the time, but the people of this country have already sniffed out the attack on the US Constitution lead by Barack Obama, specifically his plans for attacking our second amendment rights.

Don't stand idly by and let it happen. We can feel the assault on our rights is coming (based on the permit and sales data), so be sure to do something about it. Fight for your legal rights. Join the NRA. It's not expensive. You can find a link to the NRA in the "Favorite Links" area of this website. Your membership comes with your choice of 3 good magazines. There are 60 million gun owners in the US today, but only 4 million active members of the NRA. This needs to change.

The left is great at demonstrating, protesting, and working up firestorms for their favorite issues (think of the anti-war protests during the Vietnam war, and even more recently the protests of the Iraq war). It's much easier for the left to cause disruption because they don't hold themselves to the rules of respect, decency, or even law (think of the criminals that tried to disrupt the 2008 Republican National Convention, or the criminal that recently attempted to hit best-selling writer Ann Coulter with a pie while she delivered a speech at a college campus). However, it's time for us on the right-of-center to take action with our voices, actions, and money.

The NRA is not just about guns. It's about protecting our Constitutional rights. If one of our individual civil rights (the second amendment) can be attacked, repealed, or destroyed, what's to stop them from moving on to other rights they don't like, such as freedom of speech (think Fairness Doctrine), freedom of peaceable assembly (think of the total disdain on the left for the recent "Tea Party" protests), and on and on and on.

I recently attended a game dinner held at a local church. The cost was $40 per ticket. The food started at 5:30 PM and did not stop coming until 10:30 PM. The menu included bear meatballs, venison steaks, venison lasagna, wild mushroom soup, pheasant, rabbit, goose, salmon, venison chili, and many other great dishes. It's one of the local highlights of spring in northwest Connecticut. I dare say there was possibly not one Obama voter in the crowd of 200+. If there was one, they would never admit it! The organizers of this dinner provided a list of phone numbers of local politicians so the voting public could remind our political leaders to honor the oath they took to uphold and protect the Connecticut and US Constitutions. I've provided a copy of the list below:

To Help Fight For Our Gun Rights Call:

1-800-842-8267 CT House of Representatives - D

1-800-842-1423 CT House of Representatives - R

1-800-842-1420 CT State Senate Democrats

1-800-842-1421 CT State Senate Republicans

1-800-406-1527 Gov. Jodi Rell

1-202-224-2823 U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd

1-202-224-4041 U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman

Hartford Tax Day Tea Party

Tea parties are popping up all over the country. There are over 400 tea parties planned for tax day, April 15th, to protest bloated government spending, overbearing government intrusion, and the continual attack on the rights of the individual.

In the spirit of 1773, when patriots also protested oppressive government, consider joining your fellow countrymen in a show of strength, liberty, and independence. Information below:

What: Tea party protest

Where: North steps of the Capitol building, Hartford CT

When: 12-2 PM, April 15th 2009

Hartford Tea Party Largely a Disappointment

I attended the "Hartford Tea Party" today during lunch. It was the first time I've attended something that might be classified as a political protest. I'm sorry to say that my worst fears were confirmed. Don't get me wrong, the people at the event were good people. I believe in the ideals of the event. However, the event was just not that well attended. There were maybe 200 people struggling with forced group chants. Although there are few people as anti-big-government as I, I have to admit I felt mostly silly standing there among the meager crowd of patriots adorned with signs, bells, and costumes. If this event was going to be effective, it would have needed closer to 200,000 people, rather than 200.

The purpose of the event was the protest "pork" spending. However, one problem is that so-called pork is not the only government over-indulgence. Even if all the pork were removed from the state and federal budgets, we would still be spending unseemly sums of money. Even with all the pork trimmed, the expanding reach of government would continue to tighten its grip on our personal liberties. We need more than a fat trim. We need a serious roll back of government. Unfortunately, we are getting just the opposite with the current administration and congress.

I, like many responsible citizens out there, fell helpless. That's why I went to the Hartford Tea Party. I thought, perhaps if we band together we can make a difference. It was reassuring to know that even in a deep blue state like Connecticut, there are still some sensible citizens out there. It was reassuring to hear people blow their car horns in support. The print, TV, and radio journalists were there to cover the event (with a special appearance by Jim Vicevich), so perhaps the message reached some new people. Maybe, but I fear that in reality it was just a waste of a lunch hour.

Government Violated A-Rod's Trust

Note: Author is a Red Sox fan.

Alex Rodriguez has a right to be mad. Out of 104 players that tested positive in the supposedly secret and anonymous 2003 MLB steroid testing, his was the only name leaked from the court sealed results.

The government and MLB is presently on a steroids witch-hunt with pending criminal investigations against retired star pitcher Roger Clemens and out-of-work star outfielder Barry Bonds, as well as actual charges filed against all-star infielder Miguel Tejada. However, investigation into the government leaks of supposedly anonymous tests that were sealed under court order have been slower in coming. Perhaps something is in-process on this, but thus far, not much is being mentioned about the lies told to players regarding the testing. The players union agreed to the testing under the auspices that the results would not be shared. This has clearly been violated. Furthermore, the court order sealing the results has also been violated.

This is not just a matter of embarrassment for Alex Rodriguez and the union. This will impact A-Rod financially. His name has been sullied which will certainly cost him endorsement money. If the travails of Mark McGuire are any indication, this could also cost A-Rod election into baseball's hall of fame. It's hard to come down on the side of illegal drug users, but even criminals have rights. This information should never have been made public.

Some may argue that A-Rod took the illegal drugs, so he's getting what he deserves. The argument is that regardless of how it come out, and regardless of the repercussions, in the end justice is served. To me, that's not the issue. A-Rod's rights were violated. He, and all the players in MLB were lied to. If the testing was truly for the purposes of understanding the impact of steroids, samples should have been collected without traceability, i.e. no identification should have been put on the samples to trace a particular sample back to a particular player. The samples should then have been destroyed. Major League Baseball, lead by the commissioner, has struck out on this one.

I rarely come down on the side of unions, but I hope the players union sues MLB for this violation.

MLB is one thing, but what's the government's culpability in this matter? The results were sealed under court order. Courts are part of the judicial branch, and the last I checked, the judicial branch is part of the government. In my mind, the players, specifically A-Rod, may have a case against the government. The government was responsible for keeping the results secret. They were entrusted with this data. They broke that trust. What if the blood tests showed a player had an embarrassing disease or condition not related to baseball performance that he wished to keep private? Would it be acceptable for that information to be leaked too? This situation is a great argument for the civil libertarians that are against the government collecting data on citizens. This plays into the whole government sponsored health care debate. President Obama is presently pushing for a program to digitize all patients health records to improve medical industry efficiency. Based on how well the government kept the MLB steroid testing data, would you trust this same government to keep your health records safe? Imagine your health records are leaked to your employer. Imagine your insurance company dropping you after getting a look at your government leaked health records. In the state in which I reside, they require a finger print in order to own a hand gun. I can understand the good intentions of such a rule, but I don't want the government to even have my fingerprint data on record. Who's to say that this could not be inappropriately used against me in the future? People scoff, but it could happen. I may sound a bit paranoid, but take a moment to consider all the corruption in government brought to light just in the last year (e.g. Blogo, Geitner, Dodd, Frank, Daschle, Hartford mayor Perez, former CT governor Rowland, ACORN etc, etc, etc). I may fall on the paranoid side, but someone who thinks the government is fully on the "up-and-up" is naive.

This is yet another example of why the government can not be trusted. They can not be trusted with our personal data, our medical data, or our dollars.

Governmental Erosion of Personal Liberty -- Connecticut Town Institutes Smoking Ban on Public Street

As Reported in the Hartford Courant: Bristol, CT -- Bristol Considers Smoking Ban On Public Streets

-

I'm not a smoker. I never have been and I never will be, so as far smoking goes, I have no horse in this race. However, I am a citizen that is concerned with governmental intrusion into our lives. Smoking is generally unpopular, so it's an easy target. When government over reaches it's bounds in any direction, it's dangerous for all of us. An attack on the freedoms of one group encroaches on the freedoms of all.

The town of Bristol, Connecticut has banned smoking on a small town road (Newell Road), and is considering implementing a smoking ban on all city streets that boarder parks, schools, libraries, and hospitals. Outside. A total ban. OUTSIDE folks!

Smoking generally does not bother me (as a non-smoker) as much as it tends to bother other non-smokers. I tend to agree that smoking bans in indoor public venues are generally a good idea. However, when is enough enough?! The nanny-state already "protects" us from ourselves with seat belt laws, transfat bans, indoor smoking bans, "unhealthy" snack bans in schools, and various blue laws. Now they are moving to smoking bans outside in public places?! We're not talking about an outdoor concert or the like where people are gathered outdoors in close proximity. We're talking about a general ban.

I've written about bans before on this blog. I don't like them. Bans are dangerous. My frustration is that the general public seems to willingly give up their personal liberties with nary a peep.

This smoking ban may be unconstitutional. What's worse is that it just makes no sense. Who is the mayor of Bristol trying to protect? With huge budget deficits facing the state of Connecticut, and perhaps the town of Bristol, perhaps the mayor should be concerned with real issues rather than attacking personal freedoms for political showmanship.

Bring on the Socialism!

After watching the second of three US presidential debates last night, it's clear that both candidates intend to move the country towards complete socialism.

In anticipation of the proliferation of socialism throughout the country, and using the logic laid out by politicians during this election season, I've listed three services that the new socialist government should provide.

New Socialist Government Service #1: Maintenance and Up-Keep of Homes
If I or my neighbor does not keep his/her house in good condition, neighborhood property values can be hurt. Through this most recent $700 billion bailout discussion we've already seen how the decline in housing values can lead to a financial-credit crisis. The government needs to take all steps necessary to bolster home values and avoid a financial crisis in the future. Therefore, the government needs to take over the maintenance of homes. This would include lawn care, painting, and general maintenance like leaky gutters, broken windows, etc. In a country with as much money as we have, our stability should not be held hostage by the laziness of a few. Also, imagine all the jobs that would be created with this new service. I'm already looking forward to the extra free time on my weekends and evenings!

New Socialist Government Service #2: Repairs to Motor Vehicles
The biggest complaint by educators and local governments regarding the "No-Child-Left-Behind Act" is that it's an unfunded mandate. No more unfunded mandates, such as the government burdening individuals with ensuring cars meet emissions and fuel economy standards! Global warming is such an immediate threat that it is too important to trust individuals with the up-keep of greenhouse gas-producing vehicles. Besides, I'm not a car expert. The government needs to take over car maintenance to make sure cars are running at peak efficiency (to limit our dependence on foreign oil), and as clean as possible. Plus, people are already burdened with such high gas prices that it would not be compassionate to expect them to shoulder the costs of repairs. Therefore, the government should take over auto repair to prevent the collapse of the economy, and the destruction of the earth.

New Socialist Government Service #3: Babysitting of Children
We all know that there is nothing more important than our children. They are our future, and there is no amount of spending that is enough for our precious children. We need to give them the best of everything. The government already controls education, and has their hands in regular daycare. However, how can we in good conscience trust our children to local teen aged girls to watch our children when we go out for dinner and a movie?! These local babysitters are largely untrained in early childhood development, and emergency medical response. This is unacceptable. Think of what damage could be done to our children's self esteem if they are continually subjected to such untrained personnel. Therefore, for the future of our country, the government should provide babysitters. The government should initiate a training program to qualify all sitters. Any parent that leaves their kids with a non-government certified supervisor should expect a visit from the local department of children and families. The stakes are just too high! Just think of the risks we are taking entrusting our children to people with no government oversight!
Come to think of it, there is no governmental oversight or training for parents either...

These are just 3 of many new services the government could, and should, offer in the near future.

My friends, we need to embrace this socialist movement. We are on the cusp of a Utopian society where we "average citizens" no longer have to worry about anything because the government will take care of it for us. The future looks bright.

Latest Target of the Nanny-State: Plastic Bags

The nanny-staters are at it again. Westport, Connecticut has become the first community on the east coast of the United States to ban plastic shopping bags. The ban, done in the name of “green”, will levy a $150 fine to any merchant that offers a plastic bag to shoppers. No word yet if there will be a solicitation fine for any customer that asks for a plastic bag.
Starting in 2009, Seattle, Washington has instituted a $.20 per bag tax on all plastic bags, again in the name of protecting the environment.

Are plastic shopping bags really the scourge of our pristine environment? Even the liberal machine MSNBC has questions about paper versus plastic. Anne Thompson writes that the debate of paper versus plastic in not so clear-cut:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18538484/

================================================

Plastic bags
— Each year, an estimated 500 billion to 1 trillion plastic bags are consumed worldwide.
— Plastics do NOT biodegrade. Rather, they photodegrade, a process in which sunlight breaks down plastic into smaller and smaller pieces.
— It can take up to 1,000 years for a high-density polyethylene plastic bag to break down in the environment.
— Plastic bags are on the top 10 list of most common trash items along the American coastline (both on land and in the water).
Paper bags
— Paper bags generate 70 percent more air pollutants and 50 times more water pollutants than plastic bags.
— 2,000 plastic bags weigh 30 pounds, 2,000 paper bags weigh 280 pounds. The latter takes up a lot more landfill space.
— It takes 91 percent less energy to recycle a pound of plastic than it takes to recycle a pound of paper. It takes more than four times as much energy to manufacture a paper bag as it does to manufacture a plastic bag.

Sources: reusablebags.com, NRDC and International Coastal Cleanup 2005 Report from the Ocean Conservancy
================================================

Paper bags use trees. Trees require a significant amount of energy to harvest. The machines that harvest, transport, and convert trees into paper burn evil fossil fuels. Where’s the research backing the ban of plastic bags? Where’s the evidence that they are a public hazard?
Once again, liberal policy falls into the trap of unintended consequences.
I suspect a lot more anecdotal data was used over hardcore scientific research by the banning lawmakers in Seattle and Westport. Politicians have locked onto plastic bags as a cause celebre, using it to perpetuate the image of doing something, rather than actually accomplishing something useful. Image and intentions are everything to liberals.

Who is the city government to tell a merchant what they can and cannot give away to their customers? Who is the city government to burden merchants with keeping track of the number of bags they give out in order to support their tax collection? Talk about an unfunded mandate!

What if you owned a business selling plastic bags to merchants? Who compensates you for the loss of your livelihood? Isn’t the government supposed to promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Once again, I guess the Constitution does not apply to liberals.
Banning in general is the juvenile solution to problems. It’s the governmental equivalent of the crying child on the playground taking his ball and going home.

Bans rarely address the root of the issue, often are triggers of multitudes of unintended consequences, and generally reduce the liberty of the public. We should demand more from our lawmakers.