What if nobody wants to become a doctor?

Q: Is free healthcare a human right?

A: Yes.

Q: What if nobody wants to become a doctor?

- - -

Q: Should healthcare be profit-driven?

A: Of course not!

Q: So doctors must live at subsistence level, even denied enough salary to save for a rainy day, a nice vacation, or retirement?

A: Don't be silly! Of course doctors should be well-paid! They're valuable to society!

Q: How can that be accomplished, if their offices, or the clinics or hospitals they work at, can't turn a profit?

- - -

Q: Should drugs be regulated for safety?

A: Of course!

Q: Who should regulate them?

A: The government.

Q: Because drug companies want to kill their customers?

A: You never know. Corporations can't be trusted, or they'll make mistakes.

Q:  But government regulators can't be wrong?

A: Well, yes they can, but they're working for the public interest, not for profit.

Q: But when the government scientists are wrong, can consumers boycott that government and choose another one?

- - -

Q: Are drug prices too high?

A: YES!

Q: Should the government control their prices?

A: YES!

Q: So what if the government sets a prices so low that drug companies stop making them?

- - -

Q: Should healthcare become more affordable?

A: Yes.

Q: Should doctors be licensed?

A: Yes, of course! Are you crazy?

Q: Does licensing restrict the supply of doctors?

A: Well, yes, but licensing makes sure that they're good doctors.

Q: But if there are fewer doctors, they have less competition, correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Less competition means higher prices, correct?

A: Well, yes.

Q: So you don't really want prices to go down, do you? You prefer the safety in the knowledge that the doctors we do have are competent?

A: I guess so...

Q: So it turns out that maybe it's worth the high price, if the doctors are good?

A: Maybe...

Q: And we should keep the licensing requirements?

A: Yes.

Q: So it's better that a poor, underserved community has no doctor at all than an unlicensed one?

The Federal Government Has No Credibility

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/the-federal-government-has-no-credibility

Quote of the Day: "Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone." Frederic Bastiat

Is silence equal to consent? The incumbent politicians on Capitol Hill sure act as if it is!

You must make it CLEAR to them that you do NOT approve. There are lots of ways to do so. Some are effective; some aren't. Some are economical; most are complex and expensive.

DownsizeDC.org's "Educate the Powerful System" provides everyone with an address a SIMPLE method to withdraw consent. This PROPRIETARY system...

1. Allows you to send a letter to your Rep. and two Senators, simultaneously.
2. Makes sure that those offices know that they're hearing from constituents, which wouldn't be possible with a simple email.
3. Ensures that you are NOT alone. Other people who agree with you, are sending letters on the same issue.

The Downsize DC Team uses this system. You can too! Here are our most recent letters to our "representatives" and we encourage you to copy from us, or better yet, write your own letter...

"A Government With No Credibility Sees Its Credit Rating Lowered"

Read this "Cut Federal Spending" letter by James Wilson on the DownsizeDC.org blog.

S&P downgrade proves Debt Deal was a sham. Tell Congress to make REAL cuts in spending. #DownsizeDC http://bit.ly/qwpx6m
Retweet: http://twitter.com/#!/DDCDispatch/status/100926452425428992

"Poll Shows that Politicians Lack the Consent of the Governed"

Read this "Repeal Obamacare" letter by Perry Willis on the DownsizeDC.org blog.

Americans didn't approve. Still got bailout, Obamacare, and the "debt deal." Make your disapproval CLEAR. #DownsizeDC http://bit.ly/qcljRt
Retweet: http://twitter.com/#!/DDCDispatch/status/100934742060433409

"I'd Be Happy to Leave Afghanistan"

Read this "Get Out of Afghanistan" letter by Jim Babka on the DownsizeDC.org blog.

"If you don't want us, we're happy to leave." - Joe Biden to President Karzai. Make US happy Joe! Leave! #DownsizeDC http://bit.ly/q0K7Hf
Retweet: http://twitter.com/#!/DDCDispatch/status/100939105784954880

Choose one. Choose all. Send your letter(s). Tweet! Withdraw your consent, loud and clear.

And then, be sure to tell your friends about www.DownsizeDC.org

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

Do You Want More Rights? Really?

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

Once a "right" is asserted, the argument is supposed to end, with the person denying the "right" looking like the bad guy:

"People have a right to health care."

"No, they do not."

"So, you want people to die?"

But, how can it be a "right" when it is based on the assumption that there will be enough medical professionals to provide it? What if no one wants to be a doctor? Where is your "right" then?

Pelosi claimed they had to pass the bill so they could find out what was in it

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/pelosi-claimed-they-had-to-pass-the-bill-so-they-could-find-out-what-was-in-it

Quote of the Day: "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, twelve days before the healthcare vote

Well, they passed the healthcare bill, and now we're starting to know what was in it. The main features were bad enough, but members of Congress also used the bill to advance their petty agendas, making it even worse (see the sample letter to Congress below).

The Read the Bills Act (RTBA) would have rooted out this nonsense, in advance. Please send a letter to Congress demanding that they introduce and pass DownsizeDC.org's RTBA.

You may borrow or copy from this letter . . .

The healthcare bill was supposedly a well-intentioned effort to control costs. But now we know it was really about a Congress full of know-it-all busy-bodies who think they're better qualified to raise our families, run our businesses, and make our decisions.

In addition to the individual mandate and insurance regulations, the bill . . . http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/health/30fine.html

* funds abstinence education and provides counseling for pregnant teens - a federal takeover of "family values"
* disallows the use of Flexible Spending Accounts to purchase over-the-counter medications - which will discourage these purchases and prolong illnesses
* forces companies to allow regular breaks and furnish special areas for breast-feeding employees - a labor issue, not a government issue
* forces restaurant chains to publish calorie counts of menu items - an unconstitutional law (buying a Big Mac is not "interstate commerce")
* imposes a steep tax on indoor tanning - which will likely close businesses and destroy jobs in a struggling economy

My questions for you are . . .

1. Did you know of these provisions when the healthcare bill came to a vote?
2. If these provisions were instead separate, stand-alone bills, would you have voted for any of them?

If DownsizeDC.org's Read the Bills Act was in force . . .

* all bills would be as brief as possible, discouraging the inclusion of tangential or unrelated provisions
* you would have been required to know all of the contents of the bill before you voted for it
* you would have had enough time and opportunity to amend the bill and root out harmful provisions
* the public would have had at least seven days to review final bills and provide feedback

Supporters of the healthcare bill should welcome the Read the Bills Act because it would have improved the the bill. And opponents of the healthcare bill should now realize how the RTBA would give them more time and opportunity to expose and oppose hidden provisions of bad legislation.

There are no more excuses. Introduce and pass the Read the Bills Act.

END LETTER

You can send your letter through DownsizeDC.org's Educate the Powerful System.

We also invite you to add your blog or website to the Read the Bills Act Coalition. By joining, you help to spread awareness about the Read the Bills Act. In return, your site will be linked on our blog and be listed in a Downsizer-Dispatch with more than 29,500 readers. You can learn more and join the Coalition here.

Today we welcome one member to the Coalition:

* The "Kick Them All Out" Project

And finally, we have separate blog posts for bills Congress passed by month:

* January
* February
* March

James Wilson
Assistant Communications Director
DownsizeDC.org

You Can't Have It Both Ways With Original Intent

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

It is safe to say the Framers of the Constitution never intended the federal government to be used to compel individuals to purchase health insurance.

On the other hand, why should we bother with the "original intent" of the slave-owning, dead white males who drafted the Constitution? Didn't they deny women the right to vote? Didn't they consider an African-American slave "three-fifths of a person?"

These are good questions. It is more than fair to bring the "original intent" of the Framers into question.

But let's not be hypocritical about it. After all,

The "original intent" of these elitist, slave-owning Dead White Males was to create a strong federal government that didn't previously exist.

President Obama flunks test to become Doctor in Chief

President Obama's healthcare summit showed us how completely unqualified our politicians are to run our healthcare.

The Democrats and Republicans both stink on this issue.

We suggest sending Congress a letter, wishing them "a pox on both their houses."

You can copy or borrow from my letter:

The recent healthcare summit left me unhappy with both the Republicans and the Democrats.

First, how can the President reform health insurance when he doesn't even know what health insurance is?

He claimed that high-deductible plans aren't REAL insurance. This is like claiming that I don't have real car insurance if my policy doesn't cover oil changes.

With this one comment the President completely disqualified himself from having any further involvement in our healthcare.

Are my other elected representatives any better informed? Please be clear about this . . .

* Insurance is supposed to cover major events that people can't afford to pay out of normal income and savings
* This means that REAL health insurance is of the high deductible, major medical variety, whereas . . .
* The plans the President mistakenly thinks of as health insurance are really expensive pre-payment schemes

These pre-payment schemes aren't REAL health insurance. They only exist because of stupid federal tax policies, and corporate welfare regulations at the state level.

What our President, and many in Congress, mistakenly call REAL health insurance is actually the very root of the problem. As Cato scholar Alan Reynolds points out . . .

* A study by Amy Finklestein of MIT suggests that expanded health insurance coverage is responsible for nearly half of the increase in per capita healthcare spending http://tinyurl.com/ykpdmj9
* Which suggests that the pre-payment schemes the President mistakes for health insurance have driven up healthcare costs, while the high-deductible plans the President rejects would actually reduce costs

In fact, when it comes to scholarly studies, I would strongly urge you guys to pay more attention to some of the studies my taxes have funded. For instance . . .

A 2008 study for the Department of Health and Human Services shows that allowing consumers to bypass state-imposed corporate welfare mandates would make REAL health insurance affordable for more than 11 million Americans, WITHOUT RAISING MY TAXES OR INCREASING THE NATIONAL DEBT! http://tinyurl.com/yankt9h

And the RAND Health Insurance Experiment showed that consumers with the kind of pre-payment plans President Obama prefers used substantially more healthcare than those who had the kind of high-deductible plans the President dislikes -- with little difference in healthcare outcomes between the two groups! http://tinyurl.com/yg7af7l

In other words, the President's approach wastes resources and drives up costs -- they very opposite of what he claims to want!

The evidence is clear . . .

* You can insure more people at less cost,
* While also maintaining the quality of care,
* But you can ONLY do these things by reducing government involvement, NOT increasing it.

Instead of taking this approach, what we heard from the Democrats was a desire for government price controls. Sadly, the Republicans want to do similar things, like forbidding insurance companies from imposing caps on total payouts.

If the Republicans really believe in the free market, like they claim, they would be working to allow companies to offer a range of policies at a variety of prices, NOT dictating what companies can and cannot offer to consumers.

Both parties act as if they believe the political process is capable of setting prices and allocating resources better than the free market. My response to this is !@#$%!

Look, it's really hard to write respectful messages to you people when you keep providing new evidence that you are ignorant of how the world works and unwilling to consider evidence contrary to your preconceived political talking points. Frankly, I think the respect needs to run the other way. You guys are the ones threatening to use government force to dictate the terms of my existence. I cannot express how angry this makes me.

Please respect my right to control my own healthcare. Do two things, immediately . . .

* Allow consumers and employers to buy health insurance across state lines
* Expand Health Savings Accounts, so that individuals can buy coverage with the same tax advantages as employer-provided insurance

Do these things now. Do not wait. Do not hesitate. And above all, abandon your own coercive schemes to re-engineer my life.

END OF LETTER

You can send your own letter using DownsizeDC.org's Educate the Powerful System.

Please forward this message to concerned friends.

And please make a contribution to expand our reach.

Perry Willis
Vice President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

Healthcare: We Want Real Reform

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/healthcare-we-want-real-reform

Congressional Democrats are frantically negotiating the final version of the so-called healthcare "reform" bill. We think they should stop and start over.

Tell Congress we want a real healthcare reform bill.

You may borrow from or copy this letter . . .

I do not believe the healthcare bill is about reform. Reform would change direction in healthcare policy, whereas this healthcare bill continues on the failed path of increased government control.

Government control is actually the cause of our healthcare crisis. Consider that in 1960, the United States had the best healthcare in the world, even though . . .

* 75% of healthcare expenses were paid for privately
* There was no Medicare, no Medicaid, nor Ted Kennedy's HMO Act.

Since the federal government got more involved in healthcare . . .

* Federal share of overall healthcare spending jumped from 10.5% to 33.4%
* Instead of reducing costs, overall healthcare expenses jumped from 5.2% of GDP in 1960 to 16.4% http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/tables.pdf
* Healthcare is costlier and more difficult to obtain for more and more people
* Healthcare costs are expected to increase, Obamacare or not http://tinyurl.com/yaly7cq

Considering the giant leaps in science and technology over the past fifty years, health care costs should have remained steady or even decreased - despite an aging population. Consider the tech industry. It constantly creates innovative products that get better and less expensive over time.

The tech industry does this because they have no choice. They must please the customers or go out of business.

The customer should reign supreme in healthcare as well.

Instead, Americans are paying as much as $1.5 trillion more in healthcare than they should. This is a substantial drain on the economy and an impediment to human progress.

Real healthcare reform means lowering the price tag of medical goods and services. The more affordable healthcare is, the easier it will be for everyone to get the care they need.

And only free market competition, where the customer reigns supreme, can achieve this. There are several reforms that should be implemented, but two proposals that could drive prices down almost overnight would be . . .

* the expansion of tax-free Health Savings Accounts, which will allow more people to shop around for affordable providers and procedures
* allowing individuals to purchase insurance policies across state lines, which will create a national, competitive market for customers which will lower the price of insurance

A bill that increases government control is not "reform." Instead, pass a real reform bill that will make healthcare more affordable by placing power back in the hands of the consumers.

END LETTER

You may send your letter using DownsizeDC.org's Educate the Powerful System.

James Wilson
Assistant Communications Director
DownsizeDC.org

Healthcare Reform: It's about your liberty, not your party

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/healthcare-reform-it-s-about-your-liberty-not-your-party

As you know, the Senate voted to pass Harry Reid's boondoggle healthcare bill. You can see how your Senators voted here: http://tinyurl.com/yku2upu

But this isn't over. There are still differences between the House and Senate healthcare bills that can derail the entire project.

And so we continue the fight. Today, let's remind Congress that we oppose this healthcare bill because we believe in liberty. https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/campaigns/114

Here is my letter with talking points you may want to use . . .

I am very angry that the Senate passed H.R. 3590.

But keep in mind that my anger does not stem from partisan hatred. I am not a Republican. Democrats can't afford to ignore me, and Republicans shouldn't assume I have their vote.

My concern is my liberty, not my party.

I applauded when Democrats (though not nearly enough of them) opposed the Patriot Act and FISA Amendments Act. I agree with Franklin, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/1381.html

But I see now that even this (insufficient) Democratic opposition was neither principled nor consistent. For in their healthcare bill . . .

* the people will lose the essential liberties of privacy and freedom of choice
* as they will be forced to purchase insurance and enroll in a healthcare system they do not want
* in order to achieve a false sense of "safety" in a health coverage scheme
* which will be more costly and less effective than what we have now, and far worse than what we could have by restoring the free market

No supporter of this bill should be called a "civil libertarian" ever again.

While I applaud Republicans for staying united in their opposition, I recognize also that they have a large share of blame for getting us into this mess.

* Their corrupt and incompetent rule paved the way for the Democrats to take power and push this bill
* Their support of the Medicare Drug Benefit puts the lie to the notion that the GOP is a party of fiscal responsibility and small government
* Their support of barbaric measures such as medical marijuana raids underscores their hostility to our basic liberties

What Democrats and Republicans both must realize is that my body belongs to me, not the federal government. Not only should this healthcare bill be defeated, but Congress should reverse course entirely and leave me free to make my own decisions with my own life and health. Congress should . . .

* allow larger tax deductions through expanded Health Savings Accounts to decouple health insurance from employment
* allow purchase of health insurance policies across state lines, so we can each choose policies that best fit our circumstances
* repeal all federal laws and regulations that deny access to alternative, non-traditional healthcare providers, treatments, and drugs

With these steps, you will drive down prices and allow greater access to healthcare. You will stop rewarding drug and insurance companies and instead force them to compete. Greater freedom will bring about a healthier and wealthier society.

As long as I do not violate the rights of anyone else, Congress has no moral or Constitutional authority to control my life or health. Do the right thing. Oppose this tyrannical healthcare bill and replace it with a real reform bill that restores our essential liberties.

END LETTER

You can send your letter using DownsizeDC.org's Educate the Powerful System: https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/campaigns/114

And we encourage you to forward this Dispatch to friends and post it on your blog and social network pages. http://tinyurl.com/ybwu6j7

James Wilson
Assistant Communications Director
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

The Sixth Monopoly

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

A "self-governing" people aware of their own interests would seek to abolish or at least severely restrict these monopolies. The agenda of government today, however, is to institutionalize a sixth: the health monopoly.

Pelosi's Healthcare bill: an unprecedented attack on personal freedom

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/pelosi-s-healthcare-bill-an-unprecedented-attack-on-personal-freedom

Supporters of healthcare reform claim it's about accessible and low-cost health coverage for Americans. If that were true, they'd reject Nancy Pelosi's bill, HR 3962. Usually, critics write about the economic reasons. But there's another huge problem . . .

The bill is an unprecedented attack on personal liberty.

Please send a letter to Congress demanding they oppose Pelosi's bill.

Here's what I wrote:

HR 3962 will hamstring our finances. But it's also full of blatant attacks on individual liberty.

For instance, chain restaurants and vending machine owners will be forced to publish calorie information on their menus. That's not interstate commerce... unless the state line cuts through a McDonald's counter. Congress can't order private property owners around this way, and the Free Press clause of the First Amendment also clearly forbids this mandate. Calorie reports may be nice, but that's outside of the government's lawful scope.

HR 3962 also violates the broad 9th Amendment protection of individual liberty, and the 10th Amendment's requirement that federal power be limited to only those functions listed in the Constitution.

Even though the Supreme Court has blown a gaping hole through many Constitutional protections of economic freedom -- and blamed their lawlessness on the Commerce Clause power to regulate interstate commerce -- it's apparent that even this wide hole is too small for Congressional ambitions. Does anyone on Capitol Hill even know what interstate commerce is?

An example of this is the unprecedented, totalitarian attempt to force people to acquire government-approved insurance or face tax penalties. If Congress can force us to buy a particular grade of insurance, can it also force us to subscribe to "approved" newspapers?

The Supreme Court has ruled in Bailey v. Drexel Furniture (1922) that Congress can't use the tax code to regulate behavior it doesn't otherwise have power to regulate.

In United States v. Lopez (1995), United States v. Morrison (2000) and even Gonzales v. Raich (2005) the Court decreed that Congress cannot use the Commerce Clause to regulate activity that is NOT economic -- such as NOT buying, NOT producing, or NOT making something. NOT buying insurance can't be buying or making something.

That means, if you want to pay for this fancy plan, you'll have to steal the money the old-fashioned way -- a tax increase. You might want to review the matter in this Washington Post article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082103033.html

You swore an oath to obey and protect the Constitution. Please honor that oath. I insist that you stand up on behalf of liberty and oppose this bill.

END LETTER

You can send your message here.

And then share this message with friends:

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/pelosi-s-healthcare-bill-an-unprecedented-attack-on-personal-freedom

You can also keep up with DownsizeDC.org on Twitter and Facebook, where we provide links to news and commentary relevant to our campaigns plus additional interesting odds and ends.

You can follow us on Twitter here: http://twitter.com/DDCDispatch

And on Facebook here: http://www.facebook.com/pages/DownsizeDCorg/92777977517

James Wilson
Assistant Communications Director
DownsizeDC.org

The reason "the rest of us" aren't free

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer: http://partialobserver.com/article.cfm?id=3361

Excerpt:

I've seen it in Mexican restaurants in Chicago.

Boys and girls of preteen or early teen years taking orders and working the cash register in the evening.

I had no doubt they were the children of the owners. I don't know if there was an "offspring in a family-owned business exemption" to child labor laws. Even if there wasn't, no one seemed interested in cracking down on such places.

Maybe regulation enforcers just look the other way when it comes to family operations, and they should. But the double standard is maddening. The injustice is that the labor market has cut off other children who are willing to work. There should be freedom for immigrant family businesses, but why isn't there freedom for the rest of us?

Whose Body Is It?

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/whose-body-is-it

We received some negative feedback to our most recent Drug War Dispatch.

Yet, no one would admit that the Drug War is successful. No one claimed the Drug War has lowered drug availablility, drug use, or drug addiction.

Instead, what the critics fear is that ending drug prohibition would lead to more use and addiction.

That might happen. It's also possible that drug use would . . .

• Spike briefly but then fall back to historical levels
• Decrease

After all, drugs will be in the pharmacy and off the streets and school grounds. Pushers won't be giving out free samples to hook people.

Overall, we believe any possible increase in self-harm (addiction) will be more than offset by the reduction of harm to the innocent. And there will be more resources to treat addicts who seek help.

In any case, this concern boils down to fearing the consequences of individual freedom.

If we feared individual freedom, DownsizeDC.org might as well close shop.

Individuals should be responsible for their actions. If their actions cause harm, or violate the rights of others, they should be held to account in civil or criminal courts. If their self-harm, such as addiction, leads them to commit crimes, acts of negligence, or to break contracts, they should likewise be held accountable.

If there are public-nuisance problems associated with drug use or other activities, they could be addressed at the state or local levels.

But when government tries to prevent negative outcomes by restricting freedom, what we get is more negative outcomes, not fewer. The Drug War epitomizes this reality.

The purpose of our campaigns is to leave each individual with more resources, more discretion, and more control over his or her life. We believe greater individual freedom will lead not only to greater human progress, but is inherently more just.

For instance, we believe it is unjust for the government to deny a person the right to make decisions regarding his or her own health. This includes the choice of the medical professionals he or she chooses, the types of treatments and medications he or she chooses, and the prices he or she is willing to pay.

It would be unjust for the government to prohibit a certain treatment you want, or to force you to pay for an insurance plan you don't want. This is why we demand consumer-controlled health care.

Your body belongs to you. It doesn't belong to your doctor, or an insurance company, or the government.

Even if you make bad decisions with it, your body still belongs to you.

Even if lots of people make bad decisions, such as taking up smoking, their bodies belong to themselves. They don't "owe" the government longer life or greater productivity from not smoking.

Likewise, it is not the government's business to prohibit the food you want to eat, the beverages you choose to drink, or what drugs you might want to take. This is important . . .

• Some now-illegal drugs, and not just marijuana, may provide relief for pain or psychiatric disorders.
• Since the drugs are illegal NO ONE can benefit from these potential uses
• And there is no legal recourse for the victims of tainted, impure, black-market doses

If the drugs were legal, doctors, pharmacists and consenting patients would be free to experiment with them in a controlled way. Respected businesses would develop consistent batches, and fewer people (the very people drug prohibition claims to help!) would be harmed by impure, black-market substances.

There simply is NO line that can be drawn between health freedom and drug freedom. The federal government has no authority over our bodies. We should be more concerned about those who are victimized by the loss of freedom than with those who choose to abuse themselves.

Understanding the bills

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/understanding-the-bills

Quote of the Day: "If Conyers, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, needs a lawyer's help to understand the health care legislation, what chance does the average citizen have of deciphering the bill?"- Press-Enterprise editorial (Riverside, CA)

Subject: Understanding the Bills

Many Americans are doing what Congress won't do -- they're actually reading the healthcare bill!

* On September 2, a team of 38 people took part in a public reading of the bill in Scranton, PA.
* And Hearthebill.org allows people to hear the bill read online

These efforts are well-intended, but how many people can actually understand what they read? One individual read the bill but couldn't understand it, and went to a Town Hall meeting to get answers. He came away from the meeting saying the bill was "still foggy" in his mind.

How about you -- would you understand the bill if you read it? See for yourself.

Here's just one section:

SEC. 162. ENDING HEALTH INSURANCE RESCISSION ABUSE.

(a) Clarification Regarding Application of Guaranteed Renewability of Individual Health Insurance Coverage- Section 2742 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-42) is amended--

(1) in its heading, by inserting `and continuation in force, including prohibition of rescission,' after `guaranteed renewability'; and

(2) in subsection (a), by inserting `, including without rescission,' after `continue in force'.

To understand this provision you'd also need to know what 42 U.S.C. 300gg-42 says. And this isn't an isolated case; the United States Code is referred to or revised a whopping 439 times in a 1,017-page bill!

Fortunately, DownsizeDC.org's One Subject At A Time Act (OSTA) has anticipated this problem. OSTA's main purpose is to prevent unrelated, unpopular bills from being bundled together with popular or must-pass bills. But it also contains a provision requiring all bills to include the full text of any part of existing law that will be amended by the bill.That way both Congress and the public will know exactly what's being changed.

Please send Congress a letter asking them to pass DownsizeDC.org's "One Subject at a Time Act."

Use your personal comments to mention that citizens all over America are reading the healthcare bill and finding it impossible to understand. If you want, you can cut and paste the SEC. 162 example into your message. Tell them this kind of thing makes you doubt that they really understand what the healthcare bill would actually do. Point out that OSTA would solve this problem by requiring all bills to include the full text of any part of existing law that the healthcare bill amends.

You can send your message here.

We also recommend that you send a second message to Congress. Demand that they introduce the Read the Bills Act. Remind them that this issue isn't going away, and that they'll really feel the heat if they pass a healthcare reform bill without reading it. You can send that message here.

Read the Bills Act Coalition. This week we welcome seven new members to the RTBA Coalition:

• Conservative Libertarian Outpost
• Patriot Resistance
• River's Ramblings
• National Seniors Council
• Liberty!
• Mrs. Paddy
• RightMarch.com

Click here to join.

Thank you for being a DC Downsizer.

James Wilson
Assistant to the President
DownsizeDC.org

The Dirty Little Secret

Posted at DownsizeDC.org: http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/the-dirty-little-secret

The Candidates and Health Care

I posted this at the Downsize DC blog.

Necessary There, Illegal Here

An ABC news report tonight featured two doctors from Baylor and some other American doctors who were in Lesotho providing care. There's just one pediatrician per 133,000 children there, as opposed to one per 940 in America. With AIDS and so many problems there, the Americans say much of their time is spent training local people to provide care.

Which is all to the good. I admire them for going there to take on this challenge.

So, when there is a genuine crisis and a genuine shortage in Africa, it is permissible for doctors to train laypersons, even without the schools, textbooks, degrees, and tuition, on an ad-hoc basis. But are MD's allowed to train people in America outside of accredited medical schools? Can Americans practice medicine without a degree and a license? Wouldn't this make medical care more accessible to more people, and drive down the price?

Apparently, we can't have that in the U.S. because Americans deserve the quality care only a licensed, advance-degreed doctor can provide. If we can't have that, we shouldn't be allowed to have any care at all.

Funny how what is necessary in Africa is illegal in the U.S.

The Tenth Amendment is the Best Medicine

This is my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

Surely, if poorer countries can afford universal health care, the United States should, right?

But that's asking the wrong question. Consider that while all nations of Europe have some form of government-run health care, the systems vary in the different countries; there is no one-size-fits, European Union program.

We shouldn't be asking, "Why doesn't the federal government provide universal health care?" but rather, "Why doesn't California? Or Georgia? Or Ohio, Mississippi, Vermont, Nebraska, or Wisconsin? If the people in those states, or any state, really wanted such a system, they could certainly afford it, because other countries of similar size and less wealth provide it.