The state issues summarized

I plan to vote Yes on all three issues:

Issue 1. I have come to oppose any laws that restrict the choices of voters (subject to one qualification, coming up), whether it be age limits for judges or term limits. Raising the maximum age to 75 is a step in the right direction, but age limits should be abolished entirely. Even better is merit selection. Most non-lawyers vote on name recognition alone. Those who go to a bit more trouble will check what the Bar Association thinks. Merit selection allows us to vote a judge in, then decide every six years whether the judge is worth keeping. (Here is a concurring opinion favoring Issue 1 from Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor).

Issue 2. If you have read this blog more than a day or two, you know that I passionately support Issue 2,  limiting (but not abolishing) the collective bargaining rights of public employees. There are flaws that need to be addressed, but the financial situation in our state and local governments calls for an immediate response.

Issue 3. This is a Constitutional amendment to prohibit the feds from forcing Ohioans to buy health care. No one should be forced by government to buy anything.* Obamacare is blatantly unconstitutional, will interfere with patient-doctor relationships, and sets a dangerous precedent for future legislation. Vote Yes on Issue 3.

* Contrary to a popular belief, Ohio's financial responsibility law does not require Ohioans to purchase auto insurance, as long as the driver can prove that he can pay $25,000 in damages as the result of an accident. (Ohio Revised Code §4509.01(K)).

Message of the day

Happy Halloween from Ohioans for Healthcare Freedom (the folks who are supporting Issue 3). Their email message certainly is appropriate to the day:

Government involvement in your healthcare is creepy        

A video we have produced pokes fun at the idea of government involvement in your day to day healthcare decisions, and yes, its funny.  

It's meant to be funny (and a little creepy), but still make you think about the absurdity of good old Uncle Sam being involved in your day to day healthcare decisions. 

See Video of Uncle Sam involved in your healthcare here.  

If we couldn't laugh, we'd cry, so let's not lose our sense of humor in the face of the government takeover of healthcare.

   

Unfortunately, the truly scary part is that in federal or state based mandated healthcare - the government really can define your insurance for you. Bureaucrats start deciding what will and what won't be included in your newly government defined healthcare insurance.

And where previously, you had the option to switch insurers and get away from a plan you don't like, or even skip insurance altogether - now, you will participate in a government defined health plan whether you like it or not.

What does government defined insurance look like?

Well, that's the fun part - no one really knows the answer to that question. It's a moving target. What we do know is that - you don't have a say in the matter. 

And that's a huge problem. When government mandates are implemented - your freedom to choose goes out the door.

It's a slippery slope. Let's remind the government, when it comes to healthcare - three's a crowd.

Vote YES on ISSUE 3!

I support Issue 3, and urge you to share your support with others.

Why healthcare is too important to be left to the state

Doug Stewart at LibertarianChristians.com shows wonder at all the marvelous machinery and devices that occupy the rooms and halls of the modern hospital -- especially considering the risks taken by those who developed them that they might not succeed in the marketplace.
He warns that those who favor state-managed health care might kill off the desire to build new solutions to medical problems:

Despite the marvels of the marketplace advancement in health industry, there are two morally attractive but wholly dubious arguments regarding health care that we ought to guard against. The first is that health care is too important to be left up to the free market. Seriously? Take a stroll down the hallways of a local hospital and try to convince yourself that all this stuff can be produced through central planning, even if only for a single industry. If universal health care were indeed possible, its advocates take for granted that the marketplace itself provided the myriad luxuries provided in the medical industry. Universal health care is a direct result of the wealth created by the entrepreneurial spirit in the medical industry. Nobody was crying for “universal health care” 500 years ago.

A second but related complaint is that some people shouldn’t get rich off of other people’s ailments. Never mind the obviousness that whatever wealth is acquired it is in the solving of those ailments! What troubles the anti-market health care enthusiast can be sufficiently blamed on the word “care” in “health care.” The additional word introduces concepts such as intentionality or purposefulness or planning. The patient (who is a type of consumer, by definition, regardless of our sentimental objections to the term) must be cared for by her doctors and nurses. Yet if we consider the economics of the doctor-patient relationship, we realize that the success of the doctor depends on the quality of care they provide, both medically and emotionally. It’s an enormous asset to have a genuinely caring physician. What’s more important is competence and honesty, something a market is equipped to facilitate?

Free markets in health care and health care insiurance (which would require the government to bug out -- including Medicare and Medicaid) will hold costs down and will facilitate a higher quality of care for everyone. I found it to be true years ago, and I have no doubt that it would be true now -- if we will just let the free market system work.

The truth is out

"Obamacare" is not really about health care. It is about giving political favors to the President's friends. The federal government has been handing out exemptions like candy to favorite corporations, and even to states like Nevada (home of Harry Reid, majority leader of the U.S. Senate).

Karoun Demirjian reports for the Las Vegas Sun:

Nevada’s Insurance Division had appealed to the feds to reduce the federal requirement that health plans serving people who buy insurance on their own must spend at least 80 percent of the money they collect on medical expenses. Under the national rule, companies that don’t spend that percentage of revenue on medical costs have to cut policyholders rebate checks starting this year.

Nevada asked that requirement be reduced to 72 percent for one year, arguing that top insurance providers would be so strapped to make the payments that they’d exit the state market.

Health and Human Services didn’t fully buy that argument, but did agree to reduce the requirement to 75 percent for a year, expressing concern about what might happen to people with policies from insurers Golden Rule and Aetna if they didn’t.

Warren Meyer, writing last November for the blog at Forbes magazine, summarizes the net effect of Obamacare waivers:

The list of beneficiaries is a mix of corporations and labor unions who have somehow wrangled special attention in Washington — in effect allowing just 111 lucky organizations out of 15-20 million US business to be allowed lower cost labor than their peers.  Does your restaurant compete with McDonald’s or Ruby Tuesdays?  Sorry, but through their political muscle, your competitors have received special exemptions from costly regulation, and you likely will not.

In founding this country, Americans explicitly rejected the institutionalized class divisions and hereditary aristocracy of most European states that handed out special privileges and exemptions to elite groups.  It is amazing to me to see children of the 1960’s, who fought against the second class status of blacks through the civil rights movement, take such positive steps to return the country to a system of tiered citizenship where different groups are subject to different laws. [Emphasis added]


This is how the corporate state works — while casting all its actions under an egalitarian veneer, the results are anything but egalitarian.  The politically powerful and connected now operate under different laws than everyone else.

Today, Michelle Malkin lists some 1,300 waiver recipients, and lists some of the more egregious examples of political favoritism in her post.

Those who believe that electing a new Congress and a new President next year will change this might as well believe in the tooth fairy. The kleptocracy killed the U.S. Constitution. It is (and it grieves me to write this) a dead letter. As a practical matter, it will be impossible to resurrect it; because the people are constrained by the late Constitution, but the federal government is not. The only way to regain sanity is reduce the national government to a scale that the people can control. The Republic of Ohio.

We need to set priorities!

Glenn Beck likes to compare President Obama to a magician by saying that we always have to watch what his other hand is doing. The powers that be have thrown so much at the liberty movement in the last year, that it is hard to know where to direct our efforts. This could be intentional. If we split ourselves into many different directions, none of us will be effective. 

One of my most persistent critics likens me to a "gerbil in a wheel, spitting out worthless posts about secession-is-just-around-the-corner almost daily," a comparison I find laughable, but one which could become apt if we fail to focus on priorities. 

As a business analyst, I have to recognize that there are three constraints to every project: time, cost, and people. You cannot cut all three at the same time. If you want something done faster, you need more people, more money, or both. If you cut costs or people, you will probably need more time. 

Applying this to Ohio's liberty movement, we need to ask – among the many urgent needs we have to regain our freedom, which should we tackle first?

I observe that we can express most of our requirements as pairs -- actions needed in Congress that can be complemented or replaced by state actions. I list these pairs below. Note that I am ignoring the state budget and SB 5 because both are certain to pass in some form, most likely in a way that will work in the direction of smaller government.

My question to my readers is, which of the following should we be pursuing first, second, and third? Please comment; even if it is nothing more than "1.x, 2.y, 3.z."

	Actions by Congress	Actions by the State of Ohio
a	Refuse appropriations for the Libyan war.	Governor Kasich to refuse deployment of Ohio National Guard to Libya.
b	Repeal national health care, or "Obamacare."	Nullify mandatory health care in Ohio (legislation).
c	Abolish the Federal Reserve Bank.	Authorize state and local tax payments in gold or silver: "Honest Money."
d	Balance the budget.	Intercept federal taxes (through the Ohio Department of Taxation) pending a state board or legislative ruling on the constitutionality of federal expenses.
e	Repeal the USA PATRIOT Act.	Nullify the use of body scanners and aggressive patdowns in Ohio airports.
f	Modify or repeal federal gun control laws.	Nullify gun control for weapons both made and sold in Ohio (intrastate commerce). (Note: link is to bill in previous General Assembly)
g	Repeal federal drug laws, particularly those related to marijuana.	Nullify federal prohibitions on the use of marijuana as a prescription drug.
h	Repeal federal food laws that affect intrastate commerce in farm produce.	Nullify federal regulation of farm produce both grown and sold in Ohio (Manna Storehouse – but note that Manna Storehouse was an abuse of state power).

Florida considering withdrawal from federal Medicaid program

For most states, Medicaid is the most crippling financial burden that they face. What if the states could tell the feds to keep their money and still run a program less expensively? The Florida Times-Union in Jacksonville reports that State Senator Joe Negron (R-Stuart) is suggesting just that:

The statement by Sen. Joe Negron, R-Stuart, underscored how serious members of the Senate say they are about reining in costs of the program, which provides health-care for low-income patients. Medicaid is expected to cost the state more than $22 billion in the coming fiscal year, which begins July 1.

While Negron shied away from the phrase "opt out," he was apparently referring to a provision of the federal law that allows states to leave the program altogether.

"If the federal government elects not to allow us to manage the program the way we believe is in Florida's best interests, then we'll operate our Medicaid program with our resources," Negron said.

If the state were to leave the Medicaid program, it would lose all federal funding, which covers more than half of the current system's bills. Negron said the state would use its own portion of projected Medicaid spending to provide what benefits it could, giving priority to "those on Medicaid that we believe are the most vulnerable and need the most assistance from us."

Negron stressed that he believes it was unlikely that the federal government would reject a waiver to institute the new plan. But he said the bill set to be rolled out Thursday would contain provisions that would limit the program to the what the state could fund if the federal government said no.

"We can't allow the federal government to commandeer our budget," he said.

Idaho House passes health care nullification bill

The Tenth Amendment Center has announced that the Idaho House of Representatives has passed a health care nullification bill (H0117) on the Tenth Amendment Center's model by a vote of 49-20. Idaho doesn't mince words, as this excerpt will show:

INVALIDITY OF CERTAIN PUBLIC LAWS -- PROHIBITION ON ENFORCEMENT.

(1) The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, P.L. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010), as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, P.L. 111-152, 124 Stat. 1029 (2010), herein collectively referred to as PPACA, having been declared unconstitutional by this Legislature, beyond the delegated powers of the federal government, and affirmed as such by the Court in State of Florida v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Case No. 3:10-cv-91-RV/EMT (January 31, 2011, N.D.FL), shall not be enforced by the state of Idaho including, but not limited to, any of its departments, political subdivisions, courts, public officers or employees thereof.

(2) No department, agency or political subdivision of 1 the state of Idaho shall establish any program, promulgate any rule, policy, guideline or plan or change any program, rule, policy or guideline to implement the PPACA.

(3) No department, agency or political subdivision, public officer or employee of the state of Idaho shall enter into any agreement or any obligation to implement the PPACA.

(4) No department, agency, political subdivision, public officer or employee of the state of Idaho shall provide assistance or resources of any kind to any agency, public official, employee or agent of the federal government related to any attempted implementation or enforcement of the PPACA.

(5) No department, agency or political subdivision of the state of Idaho shall accept or expend moneys related to the implementation of the PPACA.

(6) No order of judgment, writ or levy of execution shall issue or otherwise be enforced upon any property or against any person in the state of Idaho to collect any amounts adjudged due or assessed against the state of Idaho or its residents for failure to comply with any provision of the PPACA.

(7) Any aggrieved person shall have a right to injunctive relief against any person violating the provisions of this section, with an award of attorney fees and costs to the prevailing party.

Ohio has three bills in committee, all of them much weaker than Idaho's. They are summarized here, along with The Ohio Project's Constitutional amendment.

Breaking news: U. S. Senate defeats measure to repeal Obamacare

From CBS News, via Repeal the 17th Amendment:

The Democratic majority in the Senate late Wednesday voted down a GOP measure to repeal the health care law. The vote was 47-51, largely along party lines.

Senate Republicans, who are unified in their desire to repeal the bill, have known all year they had virtually no chance to pass a repeal measure. But Republicans campaigned in the midterm elections on a promise to "repeal and replace" the law, and they have been eager to show they are trying to follow through on their promise. The Republican-led House passed a repeal bill last month.

Read the rest of the article here.

 This is why we need nullification.
       

Health care ruling: Victory or Trojan horse?

Judge Vinson's opinion has been published, and is available here. While many hail it as a victory for conservatives and liberty loving people, it is too soon to call it a victory. The decision, as I noted yesterday, is virtually certain to be sent up to the U.S. Court of Appeals and to the U.S. Supreme Court.

However, the Tenth Amendment Center adds another cautionary note in a news release issued today, reposted below in full. (The release was e-mailed to The Ohio Republic, but you may view a similar blog post on the Tenth Amendment Center site). The Center believes the ruling, by accepting federal authority over health care in general, is not going far enough to protect us from government intrusion, and may actually be a "Trojan horse:"

While many conservatives laud yesterday's ruling by U.S. District Judge declaring the federal health care bill passed last year unconstitutional, analysts at the Tenth Amendment Center displayed significantly less enthusiasm, calling the ruling a Trojan Horse.

“According to Vinson – and just about everyone else in the federal judiciary – the federal government actually does have the authority to control, reform, and regulate the health care industry. They’re just going about it wrong,” TAC executive director Michael Boldin said. “This is seriously dangerous for those who believe that the founders’ Constitution needs to be followed: every issue, every time, no exceptions, no excuses.”

As James Madison explained, the commerce clause was intended to make trade “regular” between the states, primarily to prevent interstate tariff wars. Madison wrote:

“It is very certain that [the commerce clause] grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government.”

In other words, the framers never envisioned Congress regulating entire industries.

“The feds are authorized to make commerce in health care across state lines, 'regular' – that’s for sure. But this power is far less than anything that’s been proposed by either political party in….well, probably about forever,” Boldin said.  

The Center's director pointed out a "better option" for those yearning for just a little decentralized freedom.

“State nullification of the federal health care law – every single word of it, as it should be.”

In fact, 11 states have bills before their legislatures in an attempt to do just that.

As reported earlier, a bill has already been introduced requiring the Ohio General Assembly to approve any expenditures by a state agency in support of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (HB 11); and the Ohio Project continues to gather signatures on its petition.

Perhaps a sounder and more efficient strategy would be for the Ohio General Assembly to pass an act similar to the one introduced in those 11 states.

Breaking News: Obamacare ruled unconstitutional

The San Francisco Examiner and the New York Times report that Judge Roger Vinson of the United States District Court for Northern Florida has ruled the entire Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act unconstitutional, because the provision to require individual purchase of health insurance is unconstitutional, and cannot be severed from the rest of the Act, according to reporters who have seen the decision. Judge Vinson rejected the claim that the states were "commandeered" to implement the Act, stating that however impractical to notion may be, the states could opt out of Medicare.

This is a victory for the 26 state Attorneys General who filed the suit; however, it is certain to be appealed by the Obama Administration.

The full text of the decision is not yet available.

As Nike says, "Just DO it!"

Update Jan. 26: My good friend Teri Owens advises me that the same bill has been introduced in Texas (HB297), Montana (SB161), Indiana (SB505), Oregon (SB498), Maine (LD58), Wyoming (HB0035), and Oklahoma (HB1276). Now it's our turn.

The Hill reports that Nebraska, with some prodding from that state's Campaign for Liberty, has introduced in its State Senate* LB 515, a bill to nullify Obamacare simply and completely. Section 3 of the bill reads:

Sec. 3. (1) The Legislature declares that the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is not authorized by the Constitution of the United States and violates its true meaning and intent as given by the founders and ratifiers and is hereby declared to be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, is specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.

Part (3) of Sec. 3 is even more interesting:

(3) Any official, agent, or employee of the United States or any employee of a corporation providing services to the United States that enforces or attempts to enforce a federal act, order, law, statute, rule, or regulation of the United States government in violation of the Federal Health Care Nullification Act is guilty of a Class IV felony.

State officials who enable the enforcement of Obamacare will be guilty of a Class I misdemeanor.

Some members of Ohio's liberty movement have expressed the concern that our HB 11 is more of an end run around nullification by implying that parts of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act are constitutional. At the same time, The Ohio Project's amendment only addresses mandatory health care. What we really need is a complete and blanket nullification of the law all in one place, as Nebraska has proposed.

* Nebraska has a one-house (unicameral) state legislature, which is known as the Senate.

Obamacare is a Constitutional right?

Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Houston, Texas) said so on the floor of the House yesterday, as reported by American Spectator:*

“The Fifth Amendment speaks specifically to denying someone their life and liberty without due process," she said in a speech on the House floor moments ago. "That is what H.R. 2 does and I rise in opposition to it. And I rise in opposition because it is important that we preserve lives and we recognize that 40 million-plus are uninsured.

She continued, "Can you tell me what’s more unconstitutional than taking away from the people of America their Fifth Amendment rights, their Fourteenth Amendment rights, and the right to equal protection under the law?”

Jackson Lee mentioned the names of several people who she said would be helped by the national health care law, including a schizophrenic, a dialysis patient, and somebody whose mother cannot otherwise get dental care. “I know they would question why we are taking away their rights,” she said.

She went on to declare, “I’m prepared to stand, extend a hand of friendship, standing on the Constitution to enable us to provide for all the citizens of this country. This bill has been vetted. This bill is constitutional and it protects the Constitutional rights of those who ask the question: ‘Must I die? Must my child die, because I am now disallowed from getting insurance?'"

So according to Rep. Jackson-Lee's logic, we have to keep all our entitlements, because to take them away is to deny people their Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. And when the federal government finally acknowledges its bankruptcy and has to cut back or eliminate some of these entitlements, how would the distinguished Congresswoman from Texas reconcile her interpretation of the Constitution with fiscal reality?

* I am reporting from the American Spectator because it has the most complete account, but it has also been reported in the Dallas Morning News blog, FoxNews, NewsBusters, and other sites.

Ohio Project update

Commenters to my post on Wednesday about HB 11, to require General Assembly approval before implementing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") were disappointed that no bill in the Ohio General Assembly has yet addressed the mandatory purchase of insurance.

I anticipate that there will be several state sovereignty-related bills in this session of the Ohio General Assembly. There seems to be some opinion there that the Ohio Project should be left alone to complete its petition and place it on the ballot, which is shared by the Ohio Freedom Alliance, the lobbying arm of the liberty movement in Ohio.

As of Nov. 17, the Ohio Project has collected over 250,000 signatures, not including a blitz last Election Day. They are required to have 385,245 valid signatures, and have set a goal of 577,868. They have collected the minimum 5% of the vote from the 2010 gubernatorial election in the requisite 44 counties.

The 2011 Legislative Program

Last year, we set five goals for the 128^th General Assembly:

1.  Gradually repeal the Ohio income tax (HB 400).
2.  Redirect federal tax funds to the Ohio Department of Taxation (on the drawing board, details).
3. Enact an Honest Money initiative (on the drawing board).
4. Enact a Constitutional amendment to nullify mandatory participation in a federal health care program (HJR 3, SJR 7, HB 489, SB 244).
5. Nullify federal law for weapons manufactured in Ohio (HB 315).

The partisan division of the General Assembly between a Democratic House and a Republican Senate resulted in the smallest legislative output in many years. In addition, legislative research on the second goal has failed so far to produce a practical solution to the problem.

We are no longer advocating the state sovereignty resolutions. They were valuable two years ago as educational tools to help the legislators and the people understand the concept of state sovereignty; but they were symbolic in character. Largely spurred by the Tea Parties and the federal health care initiative, we have moved on to asserting that sovereignty through nullification bills.

Here are the goals we recommend for the 129^th General Assembly:

     

1. Gradually repeal the Ohio income tax.
2. Enact an Honest Money act to facilitate the use of gold and silver in payment of taxes, thus encouraging their use in everyday transactions.
3. Enact a Constitutional amendment to nullify mandatory participation in a federal health care program, which would accomplish the objective of the Ohio Project’s petition campaign.
4. Nullify federal law for weapons manufactured in Ohio.
5. Rebuild the organized state militia, to protect Ohioans from illegal immigration, terrorism, and egregious military actions against the people of Ohio by the federal government.

Items 1 and 3 will strengthen our state’s economy. The other items are necessary to protect the rights of our people, and are critical elements to making good a declaration of independence, if all else fails.

Additional information on pending liberty-related legislation is available in the Ohio Liberty Council site.

Mandatory health care deemed unconstitutional

I am breaking my own hiatus to amplify what everyone has undoubtedly heard, that the Federal District Court for Eastern Virginia has ruled as unconstitutional section 1501 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (commonly and inelegantly known as "Obamacare"). What is newsworthy is that the decision itself is a very clear and readable statement expressing the limits of Congressional power under the Constitution. My .pdf link to the text is provided by the Wall Street Journal.

Judge Henry E. Hudson acknowledges that the case will be appealed two more times -- to the Fourth District Court of Appeals and to the Supreme Court of the United States; but because the issues were so clearly those of law, and because of the clarity of this decision, there is much room for hope that his ruling will be sustained.

If you do not have the patience to read the entire ruling, start with section VII on page 32 and read the remainder.

No longer will we stand idly by!

The Tenth Amendment Center has been holding a series of rallies across the United States called "Nullify Now!". As the name suggests, their purpose is to motivate citizens in every state to support resolutions and acts (such as The Ohio Project on health care) to reduce the size and scope of federal government.

This speech (including a video) by Andrew Nappi, of the Florida Tenth Amendment Center, summarizes the moods of many liberty-loving Americans. I quote the beginning as a teaser:

Isn’t it incredible that, despite all the historical evidence to the contrary, that anyone can still believe that the founders would’ve fought a long, cruel, bloody war just to exchange one central, overpowering government for another? And yet, these guys sitting on the courts want to define the limits of our freedom for the extension of greater government control. That is not the founders’ legacy. That’s not why we’re here today.

For these out of touch elitists, the Bill of Rights is just a historical curiosity – it’s quaint and doesn’t mean anything. But we know that the Bill of Rights is the very essence of state sovereignty. That’s why it was created, and that wasn’t lost on the founders.

The entire speech is well worth reading.

U. S. House Minority Leader signs Ohio Health Care Freedom Amendment petition

... and here's the photo to prove it. Congressman John Boehner (R-West Chester) signed the petition to place on the November 2011 ballot an Ohio Constitutional amendment forbidding anyone from forcing Ohioans to purchase health care insurance.

From the Ohio Liberty Council:

West Chester, Ohio, September 19, 2010 – Congressman John Boehner, who represents Ohio’s 8th District, has joined thousands of other Ohio voters in signing a petition to allow Ohioans to vote on the proposed Ohio Health Care Freedom Amendment. Boehner, the Minority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives, signed the petition while in his home district.

The Ohio Health Care Freedom Amendment would free Ohioans from the individual mandates of Federal health care legislation. The amendment would preserve the right of Ohioans to choose their own health care and health care insurance coverage, and make their own medical decisions. As a Constitutional Amendment, it would specifically protect health care choice as a right of all Ohioans.

Twenty states have filed suit against the federal government to restore the rights set to be stripped from their citizens by provisions of the federal legislation, and several states have taken other measures to protect the rights of their citizens. Since the governor and legislature of the State of Ohio refused to act to protect their constituents, the Ohio Liberty Council, a volunteer group of conservative citizens, proposed the Ohio Health Care Freedom Amendment and has led the effort to place it on the ballot for a vote by all Ohio citizens. Not only did Ohio fail to act, but the citizens’ group was forced to obtain a ruling from the Ohio Supreme Court to stop Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner and the Ohio Ballot Board from blocking the petition effort by what many Ohioans consider an abuse of their powers.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Obamacare will benefit big insurers

Investor's Business Daily reports that regulations being developed to support the national health care plan will have the effect of decreasing competition and increasing costs.

Starting in 2011, insurers serving the individual or small-group market — i.e., companies with 100 employees or less — must have MLRs of at least 80%. For large groups, it's 85%. Violate those minimums and an insurer must rebate the difference to policyholders.

An MLR is "medical loss ratio", or the percentage of health premiums used to pay medical costs. The difference is used to pay administrative costs and advertising. While at first this might seem like a reasonable regulation, it is one that can be met only by a few of the largest insurance companies. The effect of the regulations will be to drive smaller (but often more innovative) companies out of the health care business.

"What we need is lots of creativity and innovation in payment processes and new ways of managing care," said James Capretta, fellow at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center. "Instead, what we're getting is a regulatory process that is ratcheting down on creativity and innovation in a way that is dangerous."

The Department of Health and Human Services has asked the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, the organization representing state insurance officials, to study MLR guidelines used by the states. Interestingly, Ohio (according to the article) sets an MLR of 80% for health insurers in all markets -- which might explain why so many Ohioans are unhappy with their health insurance.

If these regulations are implemented, it appears likely that things will get worse; but then, it only supports a pattern we have seen for some time: big government supports big business at the expense of the taxpayers.

Lost in the maze

This is a roadmap of the new national health care system, passed by Congress March 21, from The Ohio Project.

Click on the map to enlarge it. (Note: it is a .pdf file. Further enlargement can be done within Acrobat Reader).

I would have put this up sooner, but I got stuck in a traffic jam between the GAO and the PCORI Methodology Committee...

The purpose of Obamacare isn't ... healthcare?

Not to Casey Myers at Facebook, whose explanation actually makes more sense:

Yet another reason that excessive regulation has caused me to be determined to hire an absolute MINIMUM of employees in my future business ventures. Apparently big government doesn't want us businesses to hire - they want as many people possible unemployed, desperate, on welfare and hopeless, so they'll be more likely to vote for more liberals and feed the cycle.

Let that sink in a minute. Think about Ohio's high unemployment rate, then read this editorial from the Columbus Dispatch.

And people wonder why I'm a secessionist...! Dear reader, it's not going to get any better until we reject conventional politics, either by electing people who are not Democrats or Republicans; or by shaking off the bands that tie us to the District of Coercion. Or both.

"One nation indivisible" is one nation irreparable.