Tennessee Health Care Campaign
PRESS STATEMENT
For Immediate Release
March 21, 2010
Contact: Tony Garr, Cell: (615) 430-8319; E: tgarr@thcc2.org
Historic Health Reform Happens!
Hard-won legislation will improve freedoms for Tennesseans by offering choices
of affordable, quality coverage and stopping unfair insurance practices.
Nashville, TN (Mar. 21, 2010)-- The Tennessee Health Care Campaign (THCC) is thrilled that
the US House of Representatives, along with Tennessee’s Congressmen Steve Cohen, Jim
Cooper, and Bart Gordon, have made history by passing national health care reform.
“THCC has been working toward this moment for 21 years,” said Tony Garr, executive director
of the Tennessee Health Care Campaign. “It is only fitting that denying coverage for children
with pre-existing conditions should end immediately. Why it took so long is the real question.”
While the full reform will be implemented over a period of four years, Tennesseans can expect to
see the following benefits beginning day one of the law being enacted this year:
1. No more annual insurance caps on coverage;
2. End of rescissions, that is, eliminating the insurance practice of dumping sick people who have
paid their premiums;
3. End pre-existing condition exclusions for children and, over time, all pre-existing condition
exclusions would be eliminated;
4. Parents may choose to carry their children on their health insurance policy until their 26th
birthday; and
5. Begin to completely close the Medicare Part D Donut Hole through a $250 rebate to seniors.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has determined that reform will reduce the deficit by
$1.2 trillion over the next 20 years by including measures in the companion Reconciliation bill.
After passing the Senate’s health reform bill, the House passed a companion bill to the reform
called the Reconciliation bill. This bill amends the reform bill with additional deficit reduction
components. The Reconciliation bill now goes to the Senate, where it is expected to pass later
this week. The Tennessee Health Care Campaign calls upon both its US Senators to stand up for
deficit reduction and stand with the American people and vote in favor of the Reconciliation bill.
###
1103 Chapel Ave., Nashville, TN 37206
615-227-7500 • 1-877-431-7083 • (link...) • tgarr@thcc2.org
Media_Release 03-21-2010

Below is the list of the courageous and honorable Democrats in Washington that voted against the health care bill.

John Adler – New Jersey, 3rd District
Jason Altmire – Pennsylvania, 4th District
Michael Arcuri – New York, 24th District
John Barrow – Georgia, 12th District
Marion Berry – Virginia, 8th District
Dan Boren – Oklaholma, 2nd District
Rick Boucher – Virginia’s 9th District
Bobby Bright – Alabama, 2nd District
Ben Chandler – Kentucky, 6th District
Travis Childers – Mississippi, 1st District
Artur Davis – Alabama, 7th District
Lincoln Davis – Tennessee, 1st District
Chet Edwards – Texas, 17th District
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin – South Dakota, 1st District
Tim Holden – Pennsylvania, 17th District
Larry Kissell – North Carolina, 8th District
Frank Kratovil – Maryland, 1st District
Daniel Lipinski – Illinois, 3rd District
Stephen F. Lynch – Massachusetts, 9th district
Jim Marshall – Georgia, 8th District
Jim Matheson – Utah, 2nd District
Mike McIntyre – North Carolina, 7th District
Michael McMahon – New York, 13th District
Charlie Melancon – Louisiana, 3rd District
Walt Minnick – Idaho, 1st District
Glenn Nye – Virginia, 2nd District
Collin Peterson – Minnesota, 7th District
Mike Ross – Arkansas, 4th District
Heath Shuler – North Carolina, 11th District
Ike Skelton – Missouri, 4th District
Zack Space – Ohio, 18th District
John Tanner – Tennessee, 8th District
Gene Taylor – Texas, 18th District
Harry Teague – New Mexico, 2nd District

Eric Pearson, Democratic Party candidate for US Congress in the 5th district, Tennessee.

Site: (link...)

Written by: Andrew Foy, MD

The greatest expansion of American government and the social welfare state since the Great Society passed the House Sunday night. Opponents recognize that this bill violates the most important principles of American government, and as such, is immoral.

In a free society, does one individual’s needs constitute another individual’s obligation to provide? The answer is no; rather, it is the duty of free individuals to decide what and whose needs appear most important to them. In a free society, the individual is of supreme importance and should not to be used as a means to society’s ends. The individual has the right to order his actions and possessions in the manner most consistent with pursuing his own happiness and values. This view is consistent with America’s founding principles. The Declaration of Independence states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

The above rights are known as “Natural Rights,” and they protect the individual’s right to freedom, autonomy, and self-government — in other words, to take all the actions required to support the furtherance, fulfillment, and enjoyment of one’s own life. They provide no material assurances or particular opportunities to the individual, but rather set conditions that allow the individual to decide what use he shall make of the circumstances in which he finds himself — to act in his own best interest so long as his actions don’t infringe on the equally protected rights of others.

Based on this logic, government programs that involuntarily transfer or redistribute wealth are immoral because they violate the individual’s natural right to order his own actions and possessions. Theft is immoral. Likewise, theft via the government is immoral.

Karl Marx and Thomas Jefferson highlight the differences between collectivism and individualism. The philosophy of collectivism regards the individual as a means to society’s ends and is thus immoral, whereas individualism respects the freedom and autonomy of each member of society.

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” - Karl Marx, 1875

“A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.” - Thomas Jefferson, 1801

Another important question is: What constitutes a need, and who should decide? Should it be the patient in concert with his or her physician? This seems like the obvious choice. However, if society is paying the cost of whatever service is required to satisfy “the need,” then the provision of that service must be regulated to prevent overutilization and runaway costs. In other words, it must be rationed. In a free market, prices perform this rationing function. In the absence of a free market, some third party must ration based on a formula other than price.

Rationing by price is moral because this unbiased mechanism allows individuals to maintain complete freedom and autonomy. A patient who cannot afford a service that he deems a “need” is still free if he can pursue any course of action in order to meet that “need.” Likewise, a provider who feels that his patient “needs” a service is free if he can pursue any course of action in order to provide that service.

Some members of society today confuse the concept of true freedom or liberty with the concept of how many options are available to an individual, and this encourages them to advocate for collectivist schemes to help those who may be less fortunate.

“[Liberty] describes the absence of a particular obstacle — coercion by other men … the range of physical possibilities from which a person can choose at a given moment has no direct relevance to freedom. The rock climber on a difficult pitch who sees only one way out to save his life is unquestionably free … if [he] were to fall into a crevasse and were unable to get out of it, he could only figuratively be called ‘unfree,’ and that to speak of him as being “deprived of liberty” or of being ‘held captive’ is to use these terms in a sense different from that in which they apply to social relations.” - F.A. Hayek

Unfortunately, the only alternative to rationing through price is rationing through the government, and this is immoral because the decision of what constitutes a “need” is made by a third party with no personal connection to the individual or his circumstances. Ultimately, these decisions are made by those with the most political influence — a situation that inevitably breeds corruption. These governing bodies do not respect the primacy of the individual, but rather view the individual as a means to society’s ends. Bureaucrats don’t make decisions about health care according to an individual’s “need” or preference, but rather, they ration resources based on a social-driven calculus. As evidence of this, the health care bill under consideration has a Medicare board of unelected officials to determine the program’s treatment protocols as a method of limiting costs.

Theft is immoral. Likewise, theft via the government is immoral.

Once again:

(link...)

Plagiarism is theft. Lifting someone's entire work without permission and proper attribution is theft.

If you want to link to someone else's work, fine. Fair use dictates that you either (a) obtain permission or, failing that, (b) provide an excerpt.

Final warning, dude. At a minimum, you will begin finding lifted posts added to the moderation queue.

For your reference from the site rules:

Provide links to referenced news articles, and excerpts where appropriate. Don't copy and paste entire articles, or any other copyrighted materials such as photos without permission.