The True Cost of Sick-Care

Here at The Good American Post, we are very PRO-FREEDOM and PRO-CAPITALISM.  When it comes to Health Care, there are a lot of unsustainable and unfortunate measure that are now in place.

Aside from the doom and gloom, though, we really like to promote the positive things that WE CAN DO to make a difference.  One of those, is staying healthy and building our local economies.

Contributor, Tamrah Jo Ortiz has written an excellent post on “The True Cost of Sick Care”.

Now "This Is Change"

By Tisha Casida

Yesterday, history was made with a vote and a proposed overhaul of a system that will bankrupt my country, harm my small business, and set a precedence for unconsitutionality that we will not forget.  I am angry – so are millions of other hard-working Americans.

If “this is change”, then I cannot wait for WE THE PEOPLE to take our country back and remind those is Washington that this it THE PEOPLE’S STATE, NOT the politicians, and certainly not the majority party’s.

Last year we started this paper to be a force for our constitution and the free markets that make our Country thrive.  Today, this is a vehicle for ANYONE to use to make sure we vote out all of the representatives that have just ignored the people’s cries, and have challenged the governing document of The United States of America.

For our troops that have fought for this country, for our families who work hard to pay their bills and pay their taxes, and for the next generation who will have to pay for this ridiculous bill – we will fight until we restore our country back to what it is supposed to be – you have my word.

Health Care – POSITIVE and PRO-ACTIVE Solutions

By: Sean McCarthy

There is a truism in governance which states if you want to limit a particular behavior or activity then regulate it—if you want to severely limit it then tax it.  Consider the current “health care” debate this country is having.  Then reflect on the various “social engineering” initiatives this country has supported based on moral grounds:  Prohibition—alcohol; regulation and prohibition of various pharmaceuticals aka “drugs”; regulation of tobacco, and ever increasing taxing of its use; legalization and government funding of abortion; funding and support for various sex education programs for youth; government funding of planned parenthood, and single parent support initiatives.

The list above is but a few random selections.  Based on the examples I provided above, when the government both regulated and taxed an activity (tobacco use) the result was a dramatic reduction in the use of the offending product.  Those unable to break their habit pay a heavy tax to continue satisfying their urge.  Some may say this is an unjust taxation as typically smokers are from the lower strata of the socioeconomic status—we are penalizing the poor to fill government coffers.  What can I say?  What government tax or regulatory regime is fair?  When does it not take from one group and give to another group?  At least the behavior is legal and smokers are free to choose whether to pay the price or not, whereas many other tax schemes do not afford one a choice.  Note the failings of the other initiatives listed above—what do they have in common?  They are projects whose stated objectives are failing miserably.  It seems the more money we put into education, or child pregnancy prevention the worse the results.  There is no adverse tax, or regulation associated with those behaviors.  We don’t regulate or tax the activity—in fact we subsidize it and thereby encourage the behavior.

So, drawing empirically from the anecdotes above, one could surmise if you wish to limit a behavior, then you should regulate and tax it.  If you wish to encourage a behavior, then limit the regulation, tax, and cost associated with the activity.  (Hmmm, a paradoxical conundrum may exist; we publically deplore an activity, yet through our governmental action we are literally increasing the numbers of participants in said “bad” behavior.)

Applying this postulate to health care will allow an effective perspective to develop.  Let’s start by stating the goals for which we can all agree:

  1. Universal transportable coverage.
  2. Reasonable/affordable costs for both services and insurance.
  3. The best health services and medication available in the world.

We don’t want to see costs continue their rapid escalation; we don’t want to see rationing, or long waits for care; and we don’t want to see any degradation in the quality of care in our country as it exists today.  It is becoming readily apparent the various proposals being weighed in the Congress will not achieve the basic tenets we desire, nor will they guarantee no degradation of the current system we have.

The various options all discuss increased regulatory oversight of all aspects of our system; they include various increases in the tax burden for both small business and the currently insured.  Remember, taxing and regulating limit a behavior; I think we want to encourage citizens and business to be responsible and pay for their own insurance and health care.  So, if the solution is to reduce regulatory burden and the tax burden to incentivize a desired behavior, what would it look like?  John Mackey’s “The Whole Foods Alternative to Obamacare” (WSJ, August 12, 2009) provides a CEO’s (Whole Foods, national grocer) perspective with several private sector solutions:

-Encourage HSAs (Health Savings Accounts).  Similar to IRAs, individuals can deposit money directly tax free, as well as accepting deposits from their employer into this same account tax free.  The monies roll forward year to year tax free which encourages savings to cover deductibles or health care costs directly.  This is a limit on taxes which encourages a good behavior.

-Ensure all health insurance plans are tax deductible.  Whether paid for directly by the individual or by an employer, we should encourage this.  Making the premiums tax deductible will definitely encourage everyone to buy an insurance plan.

-Reduce regulations regarding mandatory coverage.  Oftentimes many like to blame a failing of the market place when results are not desirable.  In this case years of mandated coverage by our well meaning government have increased the cost of coverage for all concerned.  Let’s allow the consumer/citizen to choose what coverage they need—not special interest groups and their lobbyists.  This is the practice in all other forms of insurance markets (i.e., auto, life, property, etc.)

-Tort reform.  No surprise here.  If my costs to insure my practice increase, I simply pass the cost to the consumer.  If I cannot recover the cost, then I cannot stay in business which limits the number of practitioners, increasing demand on the remaining service providers which further increases costs.  Some argue tort reform is a canard.  They say liability claims represent only 1% of the total monies spent in health care.  What they don’t discuss are the various extra tests, and costs associated with ensuring a practitioner is not vulnerable to a future claim of negligence.  Oftentimes a past law suit judgment against a doctor causes all others in the medical field to require additional procedures to ensure they are safe from potential nuisance suits.

-Transparent and timely costs.  Call a doctor or hospital and ask for their rate sheet on various procedures and they won’t be able to provide one.  Why?  Well, it depends on the method of payment, the insurance company, and several other medically irrelevant factors.  Why is this not the case with a dentist?  How about a Veterinarian?  If you get a cavity filled, or your dog has its regular check up, you know the cost and you pay it right then and there.  Let’s make routine treatment the same for our personal medical needs.  If you have to pay it, you will likely be more cost conscious.  If your doctor does not have to wait 60 to 90 days while fighting your insurance company for payment, then costs will be reduced.

You can see these are simple suggestions, but they are based on eliminating needless regulation and tax.  We should own our coverage and be responsible for the costs associated with our health care.  As with other areas of our life, when we have to pay the freight directly, we are more diligent in ensuring costs are low and quality is high.  What about pre-existing conditions?  If you owned your health care plan, and it was not tied to your employment, then this issue would be mollified tremendously. With few exceptions we could all get inexpensive health coverage plans when we are young. Similar to term life insurance, you would lock in an annual premium for life.  Regardless of sickness in the years ahead, your premium would remain the same.  If you lose your job, you don’t lose the coverage—analogous to life, property, and auto insurance.  Your employer can, and as your value to the firm dictates, should contribute towards your individual health insurance plan.  Again, this would be tax deductible and increase the savings for the individual plan holder.

Individual responsibility, limiting government involvement, and allowing the power of personal economics to govern one’s choice of coverage is the key.  Whatever difficult issue faces our country, it is, it will be, and it always has been better to solve difficult issues in our country by supporting individual choice, as opposed to arcane legislation.

A US ARMY Veteran who proudly served as a Cavalry Officer and  Airborne Ranger.  After his military service, McCarthy worked as an executive in the transportation industry providing transportation solutions for large manufacturing facilities.  Intrigued by manufacturing McCarthy was hired by the Trane Company in Pueblo as a production manager in 1995,  learning their innovative world class manufacturing processes.  This allowed him to run his own facility in Colorado Springs for a small door and window manufacturer.

Commuting, and working long hours for the benefit of absentee owners motivated McCarthy to start his own enterprise.  His affinity for “numbers” drew him to the mortgage industry.  On July 4th, 1997 he started his venture which he has run continuously either solely or with partners since.  He purposely started on that date to commemorate his own “independence” day.  McCarthy still owns and operates Castle Investment & Loan, an independent mortgage brokerage and private placement lender.

McCarthy serves on numerous community boards in Pueblo; currently he is President of both the PCC Foundation Board of Directors, as well as the Pueblo Performing Arts Guild (PPAG).  He proudly advocates for Pueblo businesses, the downtown district (member Board of Directors Pueblo Downtown Assoc.), taxpayers, and the “Traditional Liberal” perspective of free enterprise, limited government, and fiscal prudence.   McCarthy can be reached at:

Taking Our Country Back

Well, folks, we better be ready to do whatever we have to if they are able to unconstitutionally pass this health care bill.  If they use the “slaughter rule” which is 100% against Article 1, Section 7 of the GOVERNING DOCUMENT of this great nation – we here at The Good American Post want to be part of the solution – to figure out how we are going to get our country back.

The slaughter rule ignores the voting procedure, and will allow for those who have worked so hard to take away our liberties and free-market to not take any responsibility for that (until election time of course).

What will this take?  New representation, new reliance on our communities, new reliance on our own micro-scale economies that have not been bastardized by the interference of the heavy-hand of government, and new media.  We will be a part of this, and we are looking for patriots around the country who are interested in doing the same.
By Tisha Casida

Constitutional Violation

We have been getting a lot of traffic on our previous post on the Slaughter Rule/Slaughter Solution, and rightly so.

If this procedure is used, it is a direct violation of our constitution – Article 1, Section 7:

“Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the United States.”

This is an unprecedented act by our so-called representatives, and if this does happen to be how this legislation passes, then we must make great strides in finding elected REPRESENTATIVES who will repeal such an terrible act against our country and instead FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION and listen to WE THE PEOPLE.

The Heritage Foundation has a more at-length article, you can read such here:

The Slaughter Solution/Slaughter Rule

A message to all members of 9-12 Pikes Peak Patriots, From Don Rodgers

I know this is a little long, but please take a minute to consider this. I believe it  is the most serious issue we have ever faced. Those that came to the caucus meeting Saturday heard the talk about the “Slaughter Solution” in passing the Progressive Health Care plan. In an article yesterday, the Denver Post said “9.12 members are more steeped in religion and more prone to conspiracy beliefs”. Really? The Speaker of the US House of Representatives is considering waving her hand to decree a bill passed without a vote in clear violation of Article I Section 7 of the US Constitution is no conspiracy belief; it is proof the Congress has no respect for the law, your family or the very foundation that America is a land of laws and not men (news articles on Slaughter Solution are below). We’ve asked you to do a lot over the last year in calling and faxing  on health care. But this is way beyond issues of single payer or forced mandates. The fact that lawmakers are actually even entertaining the “Slaughter Solution” rips at the very fabric of what makes America free.
Next week the House may try to bring the issue up for a final vote. I ask and I beg of you to make the calls and do the faxes again. Call Representitive Lamborn and tell him that the ‘Slaughter Solution” has no place in America and to shore up conservative resistance to the unconstitutional mandates and the fiscal disasters of this bill. Call Rep Markeys office and tell her we will work hard to remove her from office if she votes for either the actual bill or the “Slaughter Rule” Do the same with Rep Salazar.

Markey : Fort Collins Office:  Phone  (970) 221-7110
Salazar: Pueblo 719-543-8200  fax: 719-543-8204
Lamborn: DC Phone: (202) 225-4422 Fax: (202) 226-2638
Colorado Springs: Phone: (719) 520-0055 fax: (719) 520-0840

Even to consider a decree with no vote, shows how desperate and how much thirst for absolute power these people have. If you listened to Levin Thursday, you’ll have heard the argument below. If this occurs and the bill is signed into law, the Constitution will have been declared null and void, the power of Congress will be gutted and the President will have declared the Washington Progressive Extremists as Rulers of America.  Health care will be the hailed as the law of the land, but it will be a lie. There will be no law, there will have been no vote and there will have been no legal authority. It will not be law, but it will be martial law without the troops.

US Constitution:
Article I Section 7

“But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively”.

The fact that elected Representatives are seriously considering by-passing Congress and suggesting the President then force dictates on American citizens without the rule of law should be sending shock waves through the entire country. If done once, it will be done again for more and more destruction of our freedoms. It is time to pick a side and take a stand.

If you are interested in the 9-12 Pikes Peak Patriots, check them out here:

Updated Bill List – HR 4289 Colorado Wilderness Act of 2009

Already in our national and local versions of The Good American Post, you will find contact information for your representatives at the local, state, and national level.

We want to take this one step further by have information on LEGISLATION that is at the state and national levels that may affect our Constitutional Rights.  Let’s all look at the issues and make sure that our representatives are aware of how we feel about them.  KNOW WHAT YOU ARE VOTING FOR and keep your representatives honest!

HR-4289 Colorado Wilderness Act of 2009

Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2010 – Could either remove natural vitamins from the marketplace, or make them regulated to the point where they would HAVE TO BE SOLD BY A PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY.

HR-2454, American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009

HR-3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009

HR-2749,  Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009
– This one has already passed in the House!!!!

HR-875, Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009

HR-3458, Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009

HR- 45, Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009

USA flag grunge

What We Want – Part IX

By: Richard A. Correa Sr. SGT RIARNG, Retired

The current debate on Obamacare has led to the public, in the form of the TEA Parties, 9/12 ers and other interested citizens, to raise questions about how our legislative process works, and how it is supposed to work. We have seen the House of Representatives ‘create’ (notice I didn’t say ‘write’, which will be the topic of another offering) three bills which we assume morphed into the one passed by the house and the US Senate ‘create’ two bills that ‘merged’ into what the senate passed. The two bills are now undergoing the ‘reconciliation’ process, another process that is coming under intense scrutiny.

There are many problems with each of these bills, including the increase in existing taxes and the addition of new taxes that are contained in them. As many of these new taxes and tax increases are in the senate bill and not the house bill, the question ‘is this constitutional’ is being asked by many people.

Article I, Section 7 of the US Constitution states:

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Some may conclude that this provision of the US Constitution has indeed been violated by the process followed by the senate. Others will point out that the senate has been doing this for as long as the constitution has been in existence.

The senate even has a name for the product of this process; it is called a ‘Vapor’ or ‘Ghost’ bill.

The supporting argument for following this process is that this allows the senate to create its’ own version of legislation on an important issue and it speeds up the legislative process so that needed laws can be passed ‘faster’. They further point out that he US Supreme Court has made a decision (Twin City Bank v. Nebeker, 167 U.S. 196, 202 (1897)) that says doing this is constitutional.

But does this meet the intention of the founders on how raising taxes should be done?

James Madison said in Federalist Number 58:

This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any Constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people.1

It is obvious from this statement that James Madison, the father of the constitution, felt very strongly that keeping the power to raise taxes in the US House of Representatives was essential for the people to be able to control the taxation placed upon them and to control the spending the federal government does in their name. It can also be construed from this that this clause of the US Constitution clearly places responsibility for increases in taxation and spending on the heads of the members of the House of Representatives, the elected body with the shortest term in office, so the people can remove from office those that abuse this power as quickly as the law allows, and replace them with people that will be more responsible with the peoples money.

From the language of Article I, Section 7 of the US Constitution and the above one can draw the conclusion that the founders intent was that any bill that raises taxes should start in the House of Representatives and the US Senate must wait for the bill to be forwarded from the house to the senate before they can take any action on it, and those actions are limited to amending the bill from the house and they could not write their own bill on the issue. As there appears to be no further discussion of the topic in the Federalist papers, or the other writings of the founders’, one can say the topic was understood by all, and there was no disagreement on the subject.

As recently as 1990 it seems the US Supreme Court is also in agreement with the strict interpretation of this clause in the US Constitution. In the US Supreme Court decision in United States v. Munoz-Flores the court stated:

In the case of Bills for raising Revenue, § 7 [of the U.S. Constitution] requires that they originate in the House before they can be properly passed by the two Houses and presented to the President.  . . . The principle that the courts will strike down a law when Congress has passed it in violation of such a command has been well settled for almost two centuries.2

However, if you look back a little over 100 years before the United States v. Munoz-Flores the US Supreme Court appears to be schizophrenic on the subject. In the US Supreme Court decision in Twin City Bank v. Nebeker:

Revenue Bills are those that levy taxes in the strict sense of the word, and are not bills for other purposes which may incidentally create revenue.3

And this interpretation of the process is in fact the problem. From this interpretation the senate can come up with its’ own bills that raise taxes on the people with out restriction by making those tax increases ‘incidental’ to the purpose of the legislation. The fact that the senate has the longest term for elected officials under our federalist system exacerbates the problem. This is clearly a deliberate circumvention of the intended process when it comes to raising revenue and taxes and, though it does not violate the ‘letter’ of the law, it clearly violates the ‘spirit’ of the law.

Many will say the senate has always worked this way or it’s OK, or why would we want to change this now? We should force them to follow the process correctly because every successful attempt to circumvent the intended process in the constitution is how people usurp power from where it belongs and transfers that power to where it was never intended to be. It sets precedents that make it alright to not follow the supreme law of the land and validates the attitude that congress can do whatever it wants and it does not have to abide by the constitutionally set boundaries on the power they are allowed to exercise. In essence, allowing this to continue institutionalizes disobeying the law.

Some will say that to enforce this will inhibit the senates’ ability to; legislate that is completely false. The senate would still be able to add amendments to any legislation that originated in the house, adding or removing taxes as they see fit. But, enforcing this would make the process more ‘transparent’ and it would make it harder to hide the added taxes, which is always to the publics’ advantage.

So how would changing this benefit you? Whenever any legislation is being considered that raises revenue for the federal government, increases the rate of an existing tax or adding a new tax it will have to originate in the US House of Representatives and no ‘parallel’ bill on the same issue could be generated in the US Senate. As we TEA Partiers/9/12 ers are political animals, and are now in the habit of watching the shenanigans of the congress, we could all focus on what is happening in the house without having to be concerned with watching the senates’ activities at the same time. Support for or against the new revenue measures will be directed at our representatives, without having to direct any effort toward the senate, yet. This will increase the effectiveness of the pressure we place on the members of the house because they won’t be able to misdirect our attention to the senate.

Once the bill reaches the senate it will be easier to see who is trying to pick out pockets as the senate will be limited to amending the bill from the house, not creating their own bill. As amendments to a bill by their nature are smaller it will be harder to ‘hide’ new taxes and tax increases, as well as who made the amendment and who voted for these new taxes making senators more vulnerable for their actions.

So what do we want? We want the Congress of these United States to adhere to the spirit, as well as the letter, of Article I, section 7 of the US Constitution.

1 The Federalist No. 58, p. 359 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961)

2 Munoz-Flores, 495 U.S. at 398 (1990)

3 Twin City Bank v. Nebeker, 167 U.S. 196, 202 (1897)

Bill List – Keep Your Eye on Constitutional Rights!

Already in our national and local versions of The Good American Post, you will find contact information for your representatives at the local, state, and national level.

We want to take this one step further by have information on LEGISLATION that is at the state and national levels that may affect our Constitutional Rights.  Let’s all look at the issues and make sure that our representatives are aware of how we feel about them.  KNOW WHAT YOU ARE VOTING FOR and keep your representatives honest!

HR-2454, American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009

HR-3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009

HR-2749,  Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009
– This one has already passed in the House!!!!

HR-875, Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009

HR-3458, Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009

HR- 45, Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009

Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2010 – Could either remove natural vitamins from the marketplace, or make them regulated to the point where they would HAVE TO BE SOLD BY A PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY.

USA flag grunge

In Sickenss & In Health by Taxes

Unquestionably, there is progress.  The average American now pays out twice as much in taxes as he formerly got in wages.  ~H.L. Mencken

Here at The Good American Post, we believe in less taxes.  Why?  The government is getting quite a bit of money from us taxpayers already, and they have not done a great job of budgeting this.  They haven’t even done a bad job – it is actually criminal what they have done.

The current health care bill raises taxes on people that our current administration promised to protect.  See a great synopsis of the debate going on right now at: Americans for Tax Reform.


Big or small, we’ve got a solution when you need it. Our advanced service and support tools provide step-by-stepinstructions without being put on hold or waiting in line.