Ready for your Physical Jerks?

You’d better be, because there will eventually be a fine tax for not exercising!

‘Thirty to forty group!’ yapped a piercing female voice. ‘Thirty to forty group! Take your places, please. Thirties to forties!’

Winston sprang to attention in front of the telescreen, upon which the image of a youngish woman, scrawny but muscular, dressed in tunic and gym-shoes, had already appeared.

‘Arms bending and stretching!’ she rapped out. ‘Take your time by me. ONE, two, three, four! ONE, two, three, four! Come on, comrades, put a bit of life into it! ONE, two, three four! ONE two, three, four!…’

Nineteen Eighty-Four, by George Orwell

Think it’s fantasy? Think again! With the .gov now in charge of our health care, and able to fine tax us for doing and for not doing anything, this latest study is the final knock that swings the door wide open.

A lack of exercise is now causing as many deaths as smoking across the world, a study suggests.

The report, published in the Lancet to coincide with the build-up to the Olympics, estimates that about a third of adults are not doing enough physical activity, causing 5.3m deaths a year.

That equates to about one in 10 deaths from diseases such as heart disease, diabetes and breast and colon cancer.

Researchers said the problem was now so bad it should be treated as a pandemic.

With the .gov running health care, and managing responsibility for the costs, how long do you think it will take for daily exercise to become mandatory, with a fine an increased tax burden for those who fail to comply?

Those who value freedom understand that Obamacare must be repealed, today. Unfortunately, I have little confidence that it will ever actually happen. We are well into the “panem et circenses” phase of our Republic, and I fear its decay and eventual collapse has become inevitable.


[Source: Nineteen Eighty-Four, by George Orwell. Excerpt retrieved from Project Gutenberg Australia on July 18, 2012. Use of this excerpt falls under Fair-Use guidelines, and all proper attribution is given herein.]

[Source: BBC News Health article, retrieved 7/18/2012]

Quote of the Day – 2012-06-28

From Divemedic, commenting at SayUncle’s on Chief Justice Roberts’ decision to uphold Obamacare.

The next Republican who tells me that the Supreme Court nominees are a good reason to elect a Republican, I am going to be sorely tempted to punch them in the face.

No s#@t!


Quote of the Day – 2012-03-15

From Robb:

[N]obody seems to listen to those of us who constantly harp on why limiting government is so important. […] You want to stop the government from doing things you don’t like, stop giving them the power to do it. […] Because each time you tell a misrepresentative that yes, you would like them to be able to control the other side, eventually that other side gets their turn on The Levers of Making You Do Shit.

Exactly. If you want to mandate that the non-promiscuous must provide free birth control to the people who can’t keep it in their pants or can’t stop spreading their legs at the drop of a hat, don’t be surprised if, when it’s their turn at the reins of power, they mandate that everybody must wear a chastity belt and the government gets to control access to the keys (in order to keep costs down, of course). If you mandate that the government must provide “free” health care to everyone, don’t be surprised when the other side uses that to say you can’t drink coffee or smoke weed because the effects on your health make providing that “free” health care cost more. If you open the door, don’t be surprised when the person next to you steps through it.

In other words, as many of us have been saying for years, consider every proposed law as if it will be enforced by your worst enemy – because eventually it will be.


The Health Insurance Birth Control Debate…

And a good proposal for a solution by Jennifer.

(Also, I’ve added In Jennifer’s Head to the blogroll. Welcome aboard!)


In the tank

I’m sitting at lunch watching CNN on the restaurant’s tv, and they’re doing a story on the “hidden benefits” of the rising gas prices. They are talking about things like reduced fatalities and reduced obesity, and states getting more money from taxes.

So the fact that I have to pay more to get to work, and have that much less to spend on luxuries must be a good thing, right?

ObamaCare ruled unconstitutional in Florida

This was the big case, with 26 states suing the Feds over the insurance mandate.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson agreed with the states that the new law violates people’s rights by forcing them to buy health insurance by 2014 or face penalties. He went a step further than a previous ruling against the law, declaring the entire thing unconstitutional if the insurance requirement does not hold up. [emphasis mine]

That last bit is big – the judge in Virginia’s lawsuit stopped short of voiding the whole act, even though removing the mandate essentially guts the main parts of it (but not all the little things that we were told “we have to pass it to find out” about).

Another good quote is this:

“Or, as discussed during oral argument, Congress could require that people buy and consume broccoli at regular intervals,” he wrote, “Not only because the required purchases will positively impact interstate commerce, but also because people who eat healthier tend to be healthier, and are thus more productive and put less of a strain on the health care system.”

Exactly right. This law, if upheld, is an open invitation to the federal government to interfere in every aspect of our lives – it effectively nullifies the last vestiges of the gutted Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

This is still at the District Court level, so it – like the Virginia case and the two where the judges upheld the law – still has to go through the Circuit Courts before going to the Supreme Court.  Still, this means step one is done.

[Source: AP article on Yahoo! News, retrieved 1/31/11]

Health insurers plan hikes, blame Obamacare

Gee, I never expected this!~

Health insurers say they plan to raise premiums for some Americans as a direct result of the health overhaul in coming weeks, complicating Democrats’ efforts to trumpet their signature achievement before the midterm elections.

And as a bonus, it’s going to effect the people who can least afford it!

The rate increases largely apply to policies for individuals and small businesses and don’t include people covered by a big employer or Medicare.

About 9% of Americans buy coverage through the individual market, according to the Census Bureau, and roughly one-fifth of people who get coverage through their employer work at companies with 50 or fewer employees, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
[emphasis mine]

Isn’t this exactly what the Democrats said wouldn’t happen with the Health Care Reform bill? (You know, the one they didn’t actually read before they voted for it?) What everyone with two brain cells to rub together said would happen because of the “cover everybody no matter what” provisions?

Not unexpectedly, the administration is quick to claim shenanigans on the part of the insurance companies.

President Barack Obama’s top health official on Thursday warned the insurance industry that the administration won’t tolerate blaming premium hikes on the new health overhaul law.

“There will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases,” Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a letter to the insurance lobby.

Of course, being the government, they have to back this up with threats.

“Simply stated, we will not stand idly by as insurers blame their premium hikes and increased profits on the requirement that they provide consumers with basic protections,” Sebelius said. She warned that bad actors may be excluded from new health insurance markets that will open in 2014 under the law. They’d lose out on a big pool of customers, as many as 30 million people nationwide.

That’s practically a threat to drive them out of business. The question is, who gets to decide who the “bad actors” are?

Really, the rate increases would seem to be a logical progression, to me.

Although the law’s big expansion of coverage under the law won’t take place until 2014, several new benefits go into effect starting later this month. Lifetime dollar caps on coverage are abolished, and plans must allow parents to keep their children on the policy up to age 26. Many plans will also have to guarantee coverage for children regardless of a medical condition, and provide preventive care with no cost-sharing for the patient.

Insurers are being required by law to add benefits, extend coverage for 4-5 years for children, and to provide coverage for people they know will cost them more than they will recover in premiums. When you drive up their expenses, they will respond by raising prices to maintain their profits. That’s called good business sense. Don’t be surprised when people who are in the business of making money adjust their prices so they can continue making about the same amount of money. Don’t be surprised when they raise prices to make more money than they have been in order to hedge against anticipated future losses – like in 2014 when the health care “reforms” come into effect full force.

If I were in the insurance business right now, do you know what I’d be doing? Raising rates to increase my profits (and income) now, while quietly preparing to get out of the insurance business and start doing something else by late 2013.

[Source 1: Wall Street Journal article, retrieved via Yahoo on 9/9/10]
[Source 2: AP article, retrieved via Yahoo on 9/9/10


This story was linked to by Joseph in a comment to a post at View From The Porch about new efforts to enforce – I kid you not – New York’s sliced-bagel tax.

It was back then that the giraffes who were running the National Health Insurance program found out that they were spending way too much money taking care of people with diseases nobody was likely to cure for some time. The stroke and heart patients were the worst. With the presses at the Treasury working overtime and inflation getting wild, it got to the point where they either had to admit they’d made a mistake or do something drastic. Naturally, they got drastic.

The president declared a health emergency and Congress passed something called the National Health Maintenance Act which said that since certain citizens were behaving irresponsibly by abusing their bodies and thereby giving rise to chronic diseases which resulted in consumption of more that their fair share of medical care at public expense, it was resolved that, in the public interest and for the public good, certain commodities would henceforth and hereafter be either prescribed or strictly rationed. Or something like that.

Foods high in cholesterol and saturated fats headed the list. Next came tobacco and any alcoholic beverage over 30 proof.

But you know what’s really frightening?

[Editor’s note: This story was first published in 1978 by F. Paul Wilson. Then it was probably considered rather “out there”. Today it’s a prescient look at what is close to becoming a reality as the Food Police continually try to foist their “good-for-you” policies on individuals. We’re pleased to bring this story to our audience.] (emphasis mine)

That’s right. The government taking over health care and the resulting attempts to legislate people’s eating habits that we’re seeing today were predicted 32 years ago.

If the consequences are that predictable, do you really think the .gov is going to stop trying? Do you really think it’s going to stop with New York City or California? Government-controlled health care is yet another tool for wannabe tyrants to try and control people. Watch and see.

Consequences of the Health Care “Reform”

Some insurers stop writing new policies for children

Some major health insurance companies will no longer issue certain types of policies for children, an unintended consequence of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul law, state officials said Friday.

What do they mean by “certain types of policies?”

The major types of coverage for children — employer plans and government programs — are not be affected by the disruption. But a subset of policies — those that cover children as individuals — may run into problems. Even so, insurers are not canceling children’s coverage already issued, but refusing to write new policies.

Why would they do such a thing?

Starting later this year, the health care overhaul law requires insurers to accept children regardless of medical problems — a major early benefit of the complex legislation. Insurers are worried that parents will wait until kids get sick to sign them up, saddling the companies with unpredictable costs. [emphasis mine]

Who could have anticipated that?.~ Why wouldn’t parents pay for insurance when they don’t need it rather than waiting until they do? It’s only money.~

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida issues about 9,000 to 10,000 new policies a year that only cover children. Vice president Randy Kammer said the company’s experts calculated that guaranteeing coverage for children could raise premiums for other individual policy holders by as much as 20 percent.

“We believe that the majority of people who would buy this policy were going to use it immediately, probably for high cost claims,” said Kammer. “Guaranteed issue means you could technically buy it on the way to the hospital.”

This “guaranteed coverage” that was in the “reform” bill is just ripe for abuse, and the insurers know it. One of the first things I said when this idiocy was passed was that if I were in the health insurance business I would be getting out of the health insurance business as fast as possible. I’ll be surprised if there are more than a couple of private health insurance companies left in five years, and I wouldn’t be surprised if there were none at all.

Which may have been the point of the bill in the first place.

Lazy Linky Sunday

Not feeling bloggy today, but here are a couple of good posts from around the intertubes from the last couple of days.

Bob S. at 3 Boxes of BS has some disturbing video of the O’s latest recess appointment, who will be in charge of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The most disturbing quote?

Any health care funding plan that is just equitable civilized and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is by definition redistributional.

He couldn’t be any clearer about his goals if he said “To each according to his need, from each according to his ability, comrade.”

Jenn at A Conservative Shemale linked my story on the latest 2nd Amendment suit against Chicago.

Tam and The Firearm Blog have found an incredibly stupid “non-lethal” weapon concept from – where else – Europe.

SayUncle reminds us that, despite his claims to the contrary, Obama is not a friend to gays.

Robb at Sharp as a Marble pegged everybody’s Rage-O-Meter with a story about an elderly man who is being charged with multiple felonies for defending his property against thieves, while the thieves go free – even though one has confessed to the crime. Nicki at The Liberty Zone picked it up and doesn’t hold back on her rage.

Nicki also notes the stupid statists in San Fransisco, where they are considering banning the sale of all pets except goldfish.

That’s all for now. Maybe more later.

%d bloggers like this: