Texas judge blocks Obama transgender rule

Once again, Obama Administration rulemaking has run afoul of a judge in the state of Texas. Judges in the Lone Star State have blocked Obama’s executive moves on immigration and transgender policy in the past and now a federal judge in Austin has issued a nationwide injunction to stop an Obama Administration order that expands protections of transgender students.

The current case hinges on whether the proposed rules violate the religious freedom of doctors. A coalition of medical organizations say that the rules could pressure medical workers to assist in transition procedures or abortions that conflict with their religious beliefs or medical judgment. The new injunction, which was issued on Saturday by Reed O’Connor, a federal judge of the North Texas District, prevents the Obama Administration rules from taking effect. The new policy would have become effective on Sunday, January 1.

As described by the Texas Tribune, plaintiffs in the current case, which was filed by Texas on behalf of the Franciscan Alliance hospital network and four other states, “are claiming that the federal government is redefining the term ‘sex’ to ‘thwart decades of settled precedent’ and impose ‘massive new obligations’ on health care providers.”

O’Connor agreed, saying in the ruling quoted by the Associated Press, “Plaintiffs will be forced to either violate their religious beliefs or maintain their current policies which seem to be in direct conflict with the Rule and risk the severe consequences of enforcement.” O’Connor also said that the rules place “substantial pressure on Plaintiffs to perform and cover transition and abortion procedures” without a religious exemption.

The Texas Tribune quotes the ruling further, “While this lawsuit involves many issues of great importance—state sovereignty, expanded healthcare coverage, anti-discrimination protections, and medical judgment—ultimately, the question before the Court is whether Defendants exceeded their authority under the ACA in the challenged regulations’ interpretation of sex discrimination and whether the regulation violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as applied to Private Plaintiffs.”

Last May, officials from the Departments of Justice and Education sent a letter to school districts nationwide that said, “a school may provide separate facilities on the basis of sex, but must allow transgender students access to such facilities consistent with their gender identity” according to ABC News. The policy did not permit schools to ask for a medical diagnosis or ask for documentation of the student’s gender identity before implementing the policy. The same judge issued an injunction on this separate case relating to school bathrooms last August.

With President Obama and his cabinet leaving office in less than three weeks, the future of the lawsuit and the Obama Administration policy is in doubt. Both President-elect Donald Trump and incoming Vice President Mike Pence are on record as supporting local solutions to the transgender issue rather than federal edicts. Trump’s position has been somewhat inconsistent though. He originally told Politico that transgender people should “use the bathroom that they feel is appropriate.”

Alison Kelley, a Fort Worth mom who opposed the Obama bathroom rules, summed up the opinion of many conservatives in a statement to Reuters. “I am not anti-transgender,” Kelley said. “I am anti big government getting into my backyard.”

Originally published on The Resurgent

Obamacare facts: You can’t keep your old insurance

In the rush to pass a government takeover of the health insurance industry, President Obama repeatedly promised that Americans would not be forced to change doctors or insurance. On several occasions, President Obama told voters, “If you’ve got health insurance [and] you like your doctor, you like your plan, you can keep your doctor [and] you can keep your plan.” In reality, millions of Americans will not be able to keep their old insurance policies.

The Affordable Care Act dictates that insurance companies add many coverages that were not previously mandatory. Part 1 Section 1302 of the law defines the “essential health benefits” that congressional Democrats have decided that every American must have. These include maternity coverage, preventive and wellness services, and mental health coverage. In the past, policy holders could opt of these coverages if they did not want them to save money. For example, a man or a woman who could not have children could have maternity coverage excluded. Now it must be bought and paid for even if the coverage is of no use to them. Cost sharing is also limited under this section of the ACA. This means that Americans can no longer choose a no-frills, high-deductible insurance plan.

Under the Affordable Care Act, the government requires health insurance companies to sell more expensive policies. The individual mandate requires that all Americans buy these new, more expensive policies or pay a tax. Obamacare does not allow Americans to choose a basic major medical policy with a high deductible to save money.

Additionally, Section 1302 also empowers the Secretary of Health and Human Services to revise the minimum essential benefits. This means that the HHS Secretary can unilaterally decide that all Americans should have a certain health insurance coverage and require all insurance companies to include it in their policies. As more coverage becomes essential, the cost of insurance is certain to rise.

Another aspect of the law is likely to cause many Americans to lose their entire current policy. A June 2011 survey in McKinsey Quarterly found that 30 percent of employers will definitely or probably stop offering group health insurance when the Affordable Care Act takes full effect after 2014. Among employers “with a high awareness of reform,” the percentage increases to half. More than 60 percent would look for alternatives to traditional group health plans.

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/obamacare-facts-you-probably-can-t-keep-your-old-insurance

News Item: Medcare May Go Broke By 2019

Medicare's trustees report that, if current trends continue, Medicare will go broke by 2019, eleven years from now. Medicare currently makes up about twenty percent of federal spending. This is projected to rise dramatically as more baby boomers retire. By 2011, Medicare is projected to pay out more than it takes in unless changes are made.

The trustees note that options are few. One possibility is that Medicare funding must be doubled through higher payroll taxes. Medicare is currently funded by the FICA (Federal Insurance Contributions Act) deduction on your paycheck. The Medicare tax is currently 1.45% from each employee and a matching 1.45% from each employer. Funding could also be increased by raising Medicare premiums or using tax revenues from the general fund.

Another option is cutting benefits. Medicare benefits have been reduced in the past, but this option is politically unpopular. Special interest groups can be expected to strongly oppose any such cuts. Benefits would have to be cut by about 50% to keep Medicare in the black.

If the problems with Medicare can be avoided, the United States will face a similar challenge from Social Security. Social Security also makes up about twenty percent of the federal budget and is also funded through a payroll tax. 6.2% of a worker's wages are deducted for Social Security and are matched by the employer. Again, as baby boomers retire, the Social Security program will pay out more than it takes in and will go broke.

President Bush campaigned on Social Security reform in 2004 and attempted a plan to allow voluntary privatization of Social Security accounts. The plan was demonized by Democrats and special interest groups such as the AARP. These groups were concerned that citizens who depend on Social Security payments would suffer. Others worried that private accounts would be more risky than guaranteed federal payouts.

In truth, the government program is proving to be very risky. Inaction on the part of the government will guarantee that the program goes bankrupt. Guaranteed returns from the government program are a paltry two percent. This is much less than the returns realized in private retirement accounts.

"The fundamental math is inescapable," said Treasury Secretary John Snow, head of the programs' trustees. "Inaction is not a responsible course. The longer we wait the more difficult the decisions will be."


http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004

The Problem With Clinton and Obama

The Democratic presidential primary is down to two leading candidates, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The party is split almost evenly between the two and the competition for the nomination is fierce. The nation is focused on who would be better for the party and who would be better for the country.

The two candidates are remarkably similar. They both lack experience in leadership roles and both have short resumes when it comes to government service. Both were elected to the senate in 2000 and re-elected in 2006. More importantly, the platforms of both candidates share many of the same ill-advised planks.

There are several areas in which the proposed policies of Clinton and Obama would be disastrous for the United States. The most obvious is that both candidates have repeatedly voiced their intention to end the war in Iraq.

The Iraq War can end in only one of two ways. The first possibility is that the United States can defeat the terrorists and create a free and stable Iraq. The second is that the United States can unilaterally withdraw and leave Iraq at the mercy of Al Qaeda and Iranian backed Shiite extremists.

If US troops leave Iraq, the war would not end immediately. The terrorist groups, which today are largely defeated and demoralized, would regroup. Fighting would erupt between Sunni terrorists and Shiite militias for control of the country. The war would most likely spread throughout the region as Saudi Arabian forces intervene to protect Iraqi Sunnis, Iranian forces assist Shiites and Turkish troops attack Kurds. The probable outcome would be that Al Qaeda or Iran would gain control of Iraq and it huge oil reserves. This would put the United States economy at the mercy of Muslim extremists as well as providing financing for either terrorist attacks against US targets or Iranian nuclear ambitions.

Clinton and Obama’s second problem area is with their proposals for government mandated health care. A government takeover of the healthcare industry would mean that the government is taking control of 17% of the gross national product. This is an unprecedented government foray into the marketplace.

The plans for federalized healthcare are based on the mistaken assumption that the government can solve the problem when in reality, as Ronald Reagan said, the government is the problem. Government mandates for health insurers have been a prime reason that health insurance costs have increased. If insurers were given the freedom to tailor policies to consumer demands, prices would drop and more consumers would choose to buy health insurance. Instead, state governments pass laws that force costs to rise. Some of these laws require that Viagra be covered, that insurance pay for chiropractors and massages, and that pregnancy coverage be provided regardless of whether the consumer wants it. Simple policies with high deductibles for major medical coverage are increasingly hard to find.

Similarly, current tort law makes it extremely expensive to practice medicine. Rising malpractice insurance premiums and large punitive judgments have driven many doctors into other fields and have discouraged many students from pursuing medical careers. In several states, OB/GYNs have almost been driven completely out of business. Even if a doctor stays in business, they often choose to run more tests than necessary to cover themselves in the event of a lawsuit.

People who see government action as a panacea usually do not think about the unintended consequences of government actions. To control healthcare costs, the government would have to impose price controls on the industry. When price controls are imposed, people will realize that they won’t be able to make as much money as a doctor and decide that the years of college and residency are not worth the low pay. When the supply of doctors decreases, it will inevitably lead to the rationing of healthcare and long waits for treatment. This scenario has occurred repeatedly in countries where the government provides free healthcare.

Nothing that the federal government does suggests that it would be able to provide healthcare more efficiently or more cheaply than private business. Instead, the opposite is true. Veteran’s Administration hospitals have been plagued by scandals of poor conditions and long waits for treatment. Other government organizations, from the post office to the DMV, are equally poor examples of customer service and efficiency.

The Democratic plans for the repairing the economy have a similarly utopian view of government action. There have been proposals for a freeze on mortgage interest rates, a moratorium on foreclosures, and a government bailout of homeowners and mortgage companies coupled with strict new regulations on lending. These plans again fail to realize that relaxed lending rules are partly the result of government desires to make home ownership available for more people.

The current economic problems are the result of a free economy in which mortgage companies made loans to people who were not likely to be able to repay them. The consumers who accepted the loans are equally at fault because they did not reconcile the terms of their mortgages with their ability to repay. In many cases, the mortgage problems are the end result of years of financing a lifestyle with debt. Both the mortgage companies and the consumers made bad decisions, but neither was forced to become a party to the mortgage.

This is what the free market is all about. If people and companies are given the freedom to choose, some will make bad choices. People and companies who make bad choices need to suffer the consequences of those choices so that they will learn not to make the same mistake in the future. To teach that the government will use the money taxed from people who made good choices to bail out people who made choices sends the wrong message. Such policies perpetuate bad behavior and cause problems in the economy rather than alleviating them.

Finally, Clinton and Obama are also alike in their desire to pay for their programs by instituting new taxes ostensibly on the rich. The problem here is that taxes hurt the economy as well. Over the past hundred years, taxes have been cut by Presidents Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan and Bush. Each time tax revenues increased in spite of the fact that tax rates were reduced. When taxes are increased, the opposite is true. The reason is simple. Tax cuts allow people and companies to keep more of their earnings and encourage productivity and investment, while tax hikes remove money from the economy.

Countries around the world are moving toward free economies and lower tax rates so it is ironic that one of the major parties of the United States is advocating a move toward the types of polices that have been proven failures in numerous communist and socialist countries. Many former Soviet bloc nations in Eastern Europe are experiencing booming economies due to their low flat taxes. The difference can even be seen from state to state in the US among states with high tax rates, such as Michigan, California, and New York, when compared with states that have no income tax, such as Tennessee, Texas, South Dakota, and Nevada. The high tax states have sluggish economies, high costs of living, and many are experiencing a decline in population.

When Americans go to the polls, they should remember that change in itself is not a worthy goal. Democratic policies can lead to higher gas costs, global insecurity, rising healthcare costs and declining benefits, higher taxes, and a shrinking economy. The United States should not repeat the mistakes that communist and socialist countries have made over the last hundred years. Instead, we should renew our commitment to free markets, lower taxes, and personal freedom, including the freedom to make your own mistakes, The best thing that the government can do for the economy is to get out of the way.

The Truth About Social Security

Social Security should not be abolished, but it should be overhauled and fixed. As the program stands today, it is not sustainable in the long term.

Thanks to our "nanny-state," many people do not have any retirement plan other than social security. To abolish social security for these people, many of whom are near retirement, would be disastrous. The government, rightly or wrongly, has made a commitment to these people and must keep it.

On the other hand, the country cannot afford to keep making the same commitment to future generations. Social security is a Ponzi scheme, in which retirees are paid out of the contributions of current workers instead of interest and earnings on their own accounts. Demographics show that social security, like any other Ponzi scheme is doomed to fail. Baby boomers are starting to retire and soon their SSI contributions will disappear. There are fewer workers in subsequent generations, called the Baby Bust or Generation X. At the same time, retirees are living, and collecting SSI payments, longer. Therefore, as social security payments increase due to more recipients living longer, the social security contributions of younger workers must grow larger and larger because fewer workers are contributing.

According to government data, in 1950 there were 16 workers supporting each retiree. Today there are only 3.3 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/social-security/) . As Baby Boomers retire over the next few years, we may reach a point where each worker is sponsoring his or her own retiree!

Social security is not a very good deal for retirees. A retirement plan administered by Galveston, Texas using nearly the same funding formula as traditional social security provides much different results. Both plans withheld approximately six percent of employee's pay, but the Galveston plan provides returns almost 400 percent better than social security. A Galveston retiree earning $17,000 per year would receive a monthly payment of $1,285 compared to $782 under social security (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/ archive/200502/NAT20050203a.html). The results are even more dramatic at higher incomes.

Many Americans have learned limited lessons about investing through their 401k or IRA plans. While not guaranteed, the stock market has historically provided much higher rates of return than social security. By allowing private companies to administer social security alternatives, the government would give employees control of their own money, allow them to earn a higher rate of return, and allow them access to the investment expertise of professional money managers.
Government entitlement spending is a ticking time bomb. If current trends continue, social security and medicare will account for over 70% of the federal budget by 2060 (http://www.socialsecurity.org/quickfacts/index.html #11). While the government should honor commitments made to current and near-term retirees, it cannot continue to pay out benefits indefinitely.

Americans under fifty should not count on social security for their retirement. Save for your retirement using diversified funds in your 401k and IRA. Self-reliance is the American way, especially when our elected officials cannot be depended upon to resolve such an important issue.