Car insurance is mandated!

Another fantastic straw man from the shameless promoters of universal health care. Here is the premise: It is not unreasonable to have a health care mandate, since it is good for everyone and is no different from auto insurance [which is mandated with penalties for non-compliance].

1. Auto insurance that is mandated by the [state] government(s) is to protect other people, not you. You are required to carry liability insurance to cover damages to other personnel or property, not yourself. Lenders however, require insurance levels, which protect their investment – the car. If you do not want to carry collision insurance for repairs, you buy your car outright and are the only owner. You can also choose the level of coverage, for example towing, rental reimbursement, and roadside assistance.

2. If you do not drive a car, you are not required to carry insurance. Urban dwellers, children, and the elderly who do not drive automobiles are not required to carry automobile insurance of any kind.

3. Most importantly, a health insurance mandate instituted by the federal government is unconstitutional. Auto insurance requirements are at the state level and such decisions are reserved by the state according to the Constitution of the United States. The 10th Amendment of the US Constitution states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Quote of the Day – 11/7/09

“Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience.”

–George Washington, The Rules of Civility, 1748

Healthcare is a right!

Just a few weeks ago, a dear friend of mine said those words to me in passing… My family and I were on our way back to Colorado and we were out of time for some great debate. I used my two flights across the country to not merely scoff at the idea (as would have been my initial response to her)… I decided to analyze it and see if it was a valid claim. As you will see, I think she might be on to something (she is a very wise individual).

To travel down this road we need to understand what a ‘right’ is. The Declaration of Independence states that each one of us, has certain unalienable rights, endowed by our creator, which under no circumstances can they be removed from us. The document goes on to say that when those rights are taken from us, we have the duty and right to remove ourselves from that government by whatever means possible.

To that end, our Founding Fathers, guided by an understanding of the intrinsic worth of every human being and understanding the fallibility of us all, created a government for the people, of the people, by the people. They knew just outlining the powers of each branch would not prevent people from the temptation of power and authority, but they had to place limits, rather overtly, on government, to ensure those unalienable, intrinsic, and inherent rights were protected from the tyranny of other people. They had been long told by the King of England and the British Legislature that they (in the UK) knew what was better for them than they did.

Quote of the Day 10/14/09

I never could believe that Providence had sent a few men into the world, ready booted and spurred to ride, and millions saddled and bridled to be ridden. -British colonel Richard Rumbold

UPDATE: Governor Lynch and the UN Part II

UPDATE: Now Governor Lynch’s Office Claiming He Did Not Sign UN Climate Change  Declaration

In a swift about face, the Governor’s Office is now saying that the Governor’s name was erroneously placed on the UN Declaration which Cornerstone first brought to your attention this past Tuesday.  Ironically, today’s story in the Union Leader (find HERE), claims that Lynch’s Office became aware of the “error” on Monday and asked that his name be removed in a CA press release (though it still remains on the United Nations web site in a nearly identical press release HERE).

Regardless, it is clear that many of you both called and wrote the Governor’s Office and let them feel the heat for what was an obvious error – intentional or not.

Cornerstone again thanks YOU for making a difference in the way policy should be influenced in New Hampshire – by the PEOPLE!

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
- Thomas Jefferson

Governor Lynch Signs on to UN Agreement

Governor Lynch Signs “Global” Declaration in Advance of Next Climate Agreement in Copenhagen!

In what can only be described as a sweeping unilateral decision, Governor Lynch recently signed the State of New Hampshire onto an international declaration aimed at engaging New Hampshire in a United Nations led effort to enact global policies on “climate change” on the state level.

For a time such as this…

A true lover of freedom, Representative Dan Itse has submitted legislation for this years session in New Hampshire – to reassert

Honorable Dan Itse

state’s sovereignty and push back on the massive authoritarian endeavor of Washington DC. Below, in full text, you will find that legislation (though draft form). In the coming months we will spend some time looking into this bill and it’s impacts for the great State of New Hampshire and our country. For now, I have bolded some key lines…

Findings
Whereas, the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 1, Article 7 declares that the people of this State have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled; and
Whereas, the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 2, Article 1 declares that the people inhabiting the territory formerly called the province of New Hampshire, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other, to form themselves into a free, sovereign and independent body-politic, or State, by the name of The State of New Hampshire; and
Whereas, each State acceded to the compact titled The Constitution for the United States of America as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: and

Why we are against physician assisted suicide…

House Bill 304, in it’s entirety.

Choose wisely

Here are some excerpts from the bill:

Initiating a Written Request for Medication. An adult who is capable and a resident of New Hampshire, or who is a patient regularly treated in a New Hampshire health care facility, and who has been determined by the attending physician and consulting physician to be in a condition of severe, unrelenting suffering from a terminal disease, and who has voluntarily expressed a wish to die, may make a written request for medication for the purpose of ending such person’s life in a humane and dignified manner in accordance with this chapter.

and then…

V. REQUEST FOR MEDICATION
I,………………………., am an adult of sound mind. I am in a condition of severe, unrelenting suffering from ………………….., which my attending physician has determined is a terminal disease and which has been medically confirmed by a consulting physician. I have been fully informed of my diagnosis, prognosis, the nature of medication to be prescribed and potential associated risks, the expected result, and the feasible alternatives, including comfort care, hospice care, palliative treatment, and pain control. I request that my attending physician prescribe medication that will end my life in a humane and dignified manner.

Fairly mundane, so it seems. A person who morally objects to suicide, could perhaps, argue that we all should have the freedom of self-determination and their own moral compass should not infringe on someone who sees themselves in this ‘plight’. Someone who is for fiscally responsible universal health care, argues this is a great way to control costs – and of course, it’s ‘humane’! Finally, a true freedom lover sees this as the freedom of self-determination who may or may not choose to exercise this ‘right’ on their own volition.

For the purposes of this article, I will focus on the logic of the third.

• If someone truly believes that self-murder is not a crime, then this law is further allowing the state to dictate it’s limits on freedom. Meaning, if I am a free man, free to murder myself, then I shall not have a law nor physician (or two as referenced above in the legislative language) tell me I can exercise my inalienable rights.
• A freedom lover must first decide if ANYONE at ANYTIME can commit self-murder. If the answer is yes – then they should be against this legislation as it is not liberty if it is granted by government. If the answer is no, self-murder is not a natural right, then they must be against this law as it frays the moral fabric which is required in our society outside the laws of the government. The secular libertarian has to recognize the requirement of an enlightened society to prevent tyranny.

Consider these points:

1. If I am free to self-murder – without there being a social fiber which is contrary to the practice – I could become depressed after running up tremendous debt, breaking up with a girlfriend, or losing a child and murder myself… I leave behind creditors, family members, other children, a life never lived and other essential parts of humanity. If I am thousands or hundred’s of thousands of dollars in debt, do my creditor’s have a say in my life? Do my children have a right to keep me here as their father as long as possible? What about the pharmacists – we are not talking about birth control, we are talking about death inducement – are they bound by the choice of one person and two physicians to end a life against their own moral convictions?
2. When, after being diagnosed with cancer can I determine that it is unrelenting and terminal? When can I ‘give up’ or decide I have had enough? Do I just need to find the ‘pro-death’, easy-prescribing doctors to sign off on my form?
3. So if I am so distraught over living… say I have been married for 60 years and my lovely bride passes on before me, and I have been heart broken – do I not have the same right as someone with a ‘terminal illness’? This law is now discriminatory and presents people as unequal before the law.

The idea of this legislation is authority over people. Period. It is not about dignity or humanity. It is a co-opting of some people who have known someone whom they loved – suffer at the latter stages of their lives… but it is mere co-opting. It is legislating the right to life (live) and the conditions one must follow for various ‘freedoms’ of self-determination. We all have a disease in life – it is called death, and no one is exempt.

Stimulus Quick Notes

$787 Billion was promised to be quickly infused into the country to save jobs and ‘turn the economy around’.

The Recession is Over!

$98 Billion has been paid out by the Federal Government – 12% in 200 days.

That is $490 Million per day.

At this rate, it will take 1,606 days to spend the stimulus or nearly 4.5 years.

The average recession lasts, all on it’s own without outside influence, 18 months.

(Right or Wrong,) The Federal Reserve Chairman and other ‘experts’ are saying while recovery will take some time, the recession is essentially over (making this particular recession, 20-22 months long).

Why are we burdening generations of Americans for something so unnecessary and unproven? No wonder American’s across the country have been saying ‘Enough is Enough!’. Perhaps we should bailout the newspapers next?

Eyes on MassCare…

One week after President Obama spoke to the nation about health care reform, polls are showing the speech had no effect and opinions are returned back to pre-speech levels. However, polls should not drive legislation – facts should. One can review an article from today’s Wall Street Journal, “Mandated Heath Insurance Squeezed Those in the Middle” for a real story about middle-America getting put in dangerous situations. Also in the original article are identified flaws that Massachusetts is dealing with and real eminent risks they have not yet cracked the code on:

Massachusetts has tried to prevent people from dropping private insurance for state-subsidized plans, something federal lawmakers also want to avoid. The state disqualifies people whose employers offer coverage from getting subsidies. That’s caused another group of uninsured to fall through the cracks.

Nestor Nunez, a 53-year-old driver for a private bus company, earns between $35,000 and $40,000. That would qualify him and his wife, Aymara, for a state-subsidized plan with $232 in monthly premiums, something he could afford.

But he has access to coverage through his employer. The problem is, those premiums would cost between $381 and $588 a month, more than he can pay, he says, so he goes without coverage. “The state doesn’t make me pay a penalty, so they admit I can’t afford this,” he says of the automatic waiver he gets based on his income and the premium he’d have to pay.