As more and more Americans rally against health care reform as proposed by the Obama administration, those who support it are getting more and more desperate. Earlier this week, David Axelrod, Senior Adviser to the President, sent an e-mail off to several Americans in an attempt to counter the “lies and distortions” that we who care about our country have spread regarding Obama care. In the e-mail, Axelrod stated the following:

” At the end of my email, you’ll find a lot of information about health insurance reform, distilled into 8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage, 8 common myths about reform and 8 reasons we need health insurance reform now.”

Here is the list he is referring to:

8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage

1. Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.
2. Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
3. Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
4. Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
5. Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
6. Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
7. Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.
8. Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won’t be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.

Learn more and get details: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/health-insurance-consumer-protections/

8 common myths about health insurance reform

1. Reform will stop “rationing” – not increase it: It’s a myth that reform will mean a “government takeover” of health care or lead to “rationing.” To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies.
2. We can’t afford reform: It’s the status quo we can’t afford. It’s a myth that reform will bust the budget. To the contrary, the President has identified ways to pay for the vast majority of the up-front costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs; ending big subsidies to insurance companies; and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork. In the long term, reform can help bring down costs that will otherwise lead to a fiscal crisis.
3. Reform would encourage “euthanasia”: It does not. It’s a malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors. For seniors who want to consult with their family and physicians about end-of life decisions, reform will help to cover these voluntary, private consultations for those who want help with these personal and difficult family decisions.
4. Vets’ health care is safe and sound: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will affect veterans’ access to the care they get now. To the contrary, the President’s budget significantly expands coverage under the VA, extending care to 500,000 more veterans who were previously excluded. The VA Healthcare system will continue to be available for all eligible veterans.
5. Reform will benefit small business – not burden it: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses, provide tax credits to help them pay for employee coverage and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average.
6. Your Medicare is safe, and stronger with reform: It’s myth that Health Insurance Reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits. To the contrary, reform will improve the long-term financial health of Medicare, ensure better coordination, eliminate waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies, and help to close the Medicare “doughnut” hole to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors.

7. You can keep your own insurance: It’s myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them.
8. No, government will not do anything with your bank account: It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts. Health insurance reform will simplify administration, making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose. Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill, you can pay by traditional check, or by a direct electronic payment. And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand. The choice is up to you – and the same rules of privacy will apply as they do for all other electronic payments that people make.

Learn more and get details:

http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck

http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck/faq

8 Reasons We Need Health Insurance Reform Now

1. Coverage Denied to Millions: A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adults – 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market – were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years or dropped from coverage when they became seriously ill. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/denied_coverage/index.html
2. Less Care for More Costs: With each passing year, Americans are paying more for health care coverage. Employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have nearly doubled since 2000, a rate three times faster than wages. In 2008, the average premium for a family plan purchased through an employer was $12,680, nearly the annual earnings of a full-time minimum wage job. Americans pay more than ever for health insurance, but get less coverage. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hiddencosts/index.html
3. Roadblocks to Care for Women: Women’s reproductive health requires more regular contact with health care providers, including yearly pap smears, mammograms, and obstetric care. Women are also more likely to report fair or poor health than men (9.5% versus 9.0%). While rates of chronic conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure are similar to men, women are twice as likely to suffer from headaches and are more likely to experience joint, back or neck pain. These chronic conditions often require regular and frequent treatment and follow-up care. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/women/index.html
4. Hard Times in the Heartland: Throughout rural America, there are nearly 50 million people who face challenges in accessing health care. The past several decades have consistently shown higher rates of poverty, mortality, uninsurance, and limited access to a primary health care provider in rural areas. With the recent economic downturn, there is potential for an increase in many of the health disparities and access concerns that are already elevated in rural communities. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hardtimes
5. Small Businesses Struggle to Provide Health Coverage: Nearly one-third of the uninsured – 13 million people – are employees of firms with less than 100 workers. From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. Much of this decline stems from small business. The percentage of small businesses offering coverage dropped from 68% to 59%, while large firms held stable at 99%. About a third of such workers in firms with fewer than 50 employees obtain insurance through a spouse. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/helpbottomline
6. The Tragedies are Personal: Half of all personal bankruptcies are at least partly the result of medical expenses. The typical elderly couple may have to save nearly $300,000 to pay for health costs not covered by Medicare alone. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction
7. Diminishing Access to Care: From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. An estimated 87 million people – one in every three Americans under the age of 65 – were uninsured at some point in 2007 and 2008. More than 80% of the uninsured are in working families. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction/diminishing/index.html
8. The Trends are Troubling: Without reform, health care costs will continue to skyrocket unabated, putting unbearable strain on families, businesses, and state and federal government budgets. Perhaps the most visible sign of the need for health care reform is the 46 million Americans currently without health insurance – projections suggest that this number will rise to about 72 million in 2040 in the absence of reform. Learn more: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/assets/documents/CEA_Health_Care_Report.pdf

This list is nothing more than the very lies and distortions that it says it is fighting against. In our new  post series: Obama Care Propoganda, we will reveal these lies for what they are.

Cash for Clunkers is yet another example of the government worsening our economic situation. at first glance the bill might seem plausible. The program gives citizens the option to trade in their old “gas guzzlers” in for a newer, more fuel efficient car. Those who participate can receive a rebate of up to $4,500 to $5,500 towards the purchase of a a new fuel-efficient car. So far the program has spent $1 billion that has led to the sale of 250,000 new vehicles. Now the Obama Administration is pushing for a $2 billion expansion of the program.

There are certain factors of society that the U.S. Constitution forbids government to interfere with, such as the free market. The reason being that it is a danger to the welfare of America. The Constitution set borders for our government, and when government oversteps those borders, bad things happen.

This program has been causing Americans to sell their American cars and trade them in for foreign ones. The Department of Transportation has reported that the top five trade-ins are all American cars, while six of the top ten (as well as  four of the top 5) of the new cars are foreign.  So instead of stimulating our economy, this new bill has helped to stimulate foreign country’s economies such as Japan. And in doing so has taken American cars off the road, and has replaced them with foreign cars. Obama is not stimulating our economy and producing jobs, he is only worsening our economic situation.

Many are afraid that the Government might one day make the trade in of fuel inefficient cars mandatory. I wouldn’t put it past them to do so. We the people have to keep in check corrupted politicians who try to pass legislature that takes freedom away from the people, and gives it to the government. We haven’t done a good enough job in the past, and have allowed our government to take away some of the freedoms granted to us by the Constitution. Mark Levin, in his book: Liberty And Tyranny, explains how our government has overstepped Constitutional limits in several areas of society. Liberty and Tyranny is a great read for any Conservative who wants to know how far our country has come from its Conservative roots, and how we can bring it back.

Calvin Lyman

In 1791, the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution were written. These ten amendments are referred to as the Bill of Rights. These were designed to limit the power of Government, and ensure continued freedom and liberty for the people. The First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The intention of this amendment is obvious: To make sure hat the U.S. Congress shall not make any laws with the intention of either favoring a specific religion, or discriminating against someone of another.

However, in the past century, the first amendment has been radically reinterpreted by legislative powers such as the U.S. Supreme Court, who have oppressed the new interpretation down on the American people as law. This is the way in which the first amendment has been reinterpreted: That the first amendment has in fact set up a “wall of separation” between the Church and State that extends through all forms of Government, and prohibits all levels of Government from promoting or hindering a religion/religious organization in any way at all. For example, in the case: Everson vs. Board of Education, a local taxpayer, Arch R. Everson, challenged a New Jersey law that permitted State funding for the transportation of the students of local private schools to and from schools, of which 96% were Parochial Catholic schools, under the grounds that by giving money to reimburse parents and students for the cost of transportation to and from the school, the State was giving aid to the religious organization, and in doing so was violating the New Jersey Constitution, as well as the First Amendment. Everson lost against the New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals, which at that time was New Jersey’s highest court, so he brought his case to the U.S. Supreme court, under federal grounds. The ACLU(American Civil Liberties Union) a far-left organization founded by Roger Baldwin in 1920, was in favor of Everson’s case. During the case, the ACLU stated that the New Jersey law that provided state reimbursement for the transportation of students to and from parochial schools, “constitutes a definite crack in the wall of separation between church and state. Such cracks have a tendency to widen beyond repair unless promptly sealed up.” This metaphor: “wall of separation” is used a lot by those who have such radical ideas on how the first amendment should be interpreted. This metaphor was used by our third President Thomas Jefferson, who used it in writing a letter to a committee of Danbury Baptists. At the time, America had just passed through the Presidential contest of 1880. The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority, and had been worried by claims made by Jefferson’s Federalist foes, who called him an atheist. The Danbury Baptists had sent a letter to President Jefferson congratulating him on his victory to the Presidency. Jefferson sent this reply: Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Those who support a separation of church and state that extends through all levels of government, and prohibits things as trivial as the State funding transportation of students to and from parochial catholic schools, as well as prohibits the leading of a prayer during a City Council Meeting, have adopted this metaphor to wrongly define the extent and purpose of the first amendment. One example of such behavior was displayed in Everson vs. Board of Education, in the statement made by the ACLU that I mentioned earlier. The Supreme Court made their decision in favor of Everson, and in so doing accepted the radical far-left’s false interpretation of the first amendment. The point of this article is to show that the Supreme Court has legally reinterpreted the first amendment to stand for the very thing it was meant to destroy. In a later article I will show in more detail what Jefferson’s “wall of separation” stands for. I hope that this article has helped you to better understand the dangerous myth that is the “wall of separation” between church and state.

Calvin Lyman