Governor Mary Fallin vs. Bloomberg

Much can be learned by the reaction to the refusal of several governors to implement exchanges or expand Medicaid in their respective states.  I have written at length about the usefullness of Rothbard’s “cui bono” (“who benefits”) concept, to pull back the curtain in an attempt to find the real reasons for this or that government policy/action.  In other words, no matter what some government apparatchik proposes, look hard for the beneficiaries of that action and you’ll more than likely discover who was behind it.  

On the flip side and as a corollary concept, those who whine the longest and loudest when a government policy is not pursued, are those most likely to have benefitted, had the policy been realized.  The reaction of the corporate hospitals to Governor Mary Fallin’s decision to reject creation of an exchange and her refusal to expand Medicaid illustrates the validity of this and signifies a division in the “business” community that merits consideration.  I think Governor Fallin had to know this rift would result, making her decision all the more remarkable.  

Hospitals and insurance companies have as much or more support on the Republican side of the aisle as they do on the Democrat side, historically.  Many times, hospital CEO’s are treated as fellow “businessmen” by those in the business community.  The wild profits of hospitals are tolerated as regrettable but necessary.  Hospitals smooth this situation over by constantly treating anyone within earshot about how much care they “donate” or give away and their “contributions” to the community.  While the hospital-men (modern day highway-men) quietly prayed for Obamacare’s healthy future, other businessmen saw this legislation for what it was:  the most gigantic over-reach of federal power in recent memory and one that threatened the very existence of their businesses and enterprises.

Certain Republican legislators having long been in the pocket of the big hospital lobbyists and big insurance, have been in a jam.  They had to look like they were against Obamacare to the folks who voted for them, all the while knowing their corporate benefactors were counting on them to do their part.  As the governors contemplated nullifying this law, we heard…”..it’s the law of the land, now that the election is over,” and other such statements in an attempt to disarm the rebellion.  

In chapter 43 of Thomas DiLorenzo’s blockbuster new book, “Organized Crime:  The Unvarnished Truth about Government,” he writes the following:

"As common as it is to speak of ‘robber barons,’ most who use that term are confused about the role of capitalism in the American economy and fail to make an important distinction-the distinction between what might be called a market entrepreneur and a political entrepreneur.  A pure market entrepreneur, or capitalist, succeeds financially by selling a newer, better, and/or less expensive product on the free market without any government subsidies, direct or indirect.  The key to his success as a capitalist is his ability to please the consumer, for in a capitalist society the consumer ultimately calls the economic shots.  By contrast, a political entrepreneur succeeds primarily by influencing government to subsidize his business or industry, or to enact legislation or regulation that harms his competitors."

If you apply DiLorenzo’s distinction to the business community, two types of entrepreneurs certainly appear, the vast majority of those in the healthcare business falling into the “robber baron” group.  Imagine a chamber of commerce meeting where those political entrepreneurs in the various health businesses had to wear an “O” signifying their support of Obamacare, legislation that may represent the ruin of many others in the room.  Unable to satisfy the political and market entrepreneurs with her decision, Governor Mary Fallin sided with the free market bunch by rejecting the exchanges and refusing to expand Medicaid (which basically amounts to loading more passengers on the Titanic in the words of one legislator).  

Good for her.  She should wear as a badge of honor the various attacks she is receiving from the political entrepreneurs in the healthcare business sector.  Contrast the principle of her decision with that of New York’s mayor, who pulled his sword in defense of union workers, rather than accept the much needed non-union help in Sandy’s aftermath.  

G. Keith Smith, M.D.

Andrew Jackson, Central Banking and Obamacare

Thomas DiLorenzo writes in chapter 31 of his blockbuster new book, “Organized Crime: The Unvarnished Truth About Government” the following:

Concerning the efforts of Andrew Jackson to defund the Second Bank of the United States:

"In the same year that the Bank of the United States (BUS) was resurrected-1816-Indiana and Illinois amended their state constitutions to prohibit the BUS from establishing branches within their jurisdictions.  North Carolina, Georgia and Maryland joined in the battle by imposing heavy taxes on BUS branches that existed within their borders.  Their obvious intent was to tax them out of business."

The federal government sued and the chief justice John Marshall upheld the federal government’s position that the states did not have this taxing power.  The states, Ohio, in particular, remained undeterred.  DiLorenzo continues:

"The Ohio state legislature stated that it was aware of the ‘theory’ that the Supreme Court should be the lone interpreter of the Constitution-a theory that was invented by John Marshall, by the way.  But it also declared that ‘to this doctrine…they can never give their assent.’  The Ohio legislature quoted Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolutions to bolster its case that each party to a constitutional contract has an equal right to interpret the Constitution for themselves.  John Marshall was wrong, they said, and considered themselves to be under no obligation to acquiesce in his ‘ruling.’"  

Eventually, and emboldened by the actions of the folks from Ohio, Kentucky, Connecticut, South Carolina, New York, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania turned on the bank, leaving the BUS no choice but to close.  

DiLorenzo closes this chapter:  ”President Andrew Jackson is generally credited with vetoing the recharter of the Second Bank of the United States, which he certainly did.  But he had a lot of help in his long, drawn-out political battle, and that help came from the people of the free, independent, and sovereign states who opposed any move in the direction of granting a monetary monopoly to the politicians in Washington, D.C.”

This pushback of the states against the tyranny and intrusion of the federal government has a long history and tradition in this country.  It is good to see that this sense of sovereignty is still alive and well as evidenced by multiple state governors rejecting the infrastructure and gallows of the health care plan.  Let’s hope this continues.

G. Keith Smith, M.D.

I have a dream that one day down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its Governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

-MLK J.R 1963

It all began with a choice

image

“I am sure that never was a people, who had more reason to acknowledge a Divine interposition in their affairs, than those of the United States; and I should be pained to believe that they have forgotten that agency, which was so often manifested during our Revolution, or that they failed to consider the omnipotence of that God who is alone able to protect them.” -George Washington

 

Read More

Although the surgeon may seem to have gone above and beyond the work included in 25447, this code actually covers all of these additional procedures, so you should not report them separately. 

 “Thumb carpo-metacarpal stabilization”, “Eaton procedure” or “LRTI” almost always refer to interposition intercarpal or carpometacarpal joints. These procedures can be billed with CPT 25477.

Psa 18:1-4

1 For the director of music. A Psalm of David the servant of ADONAI, who sang to ADONAI the words of this song in the day that ADONAI delivered him from the hand of all his enemies and from the hand of Sha’ul. 2 And he said:

I love you, ADONAI, my strength. 3 ADONAI is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust. My shield and the horn of my salvation, and my stronghold. 4 I call on ADONAI, who is worthy to be praised, and I am saved from my enemies.

 

 

Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

18:2 I love you, Adonai—This verse is not found in the song in 2Sa 22. It appears to have been added after the first composition of the psalm, either by David as expressive of his ardent love for Adonai in view of his merciful interpositions in his behalf, and on the most careful and most mature review of those mercies, or by the collector of the Psalms when they were adapted to purposes of public worship, as a proper commencement of the psalm—expressive of the feeling which the general tenor of the psalm was fitted to inspire. It is impossible now to determine by whom it was added; but no one can doubt that it is a proper commencement of a psalm that is designed to recount so many mercies. It is the feeling which all should have when they recall the goodness of God to them in their past lives.

18:3 And my deliverer—Delivering or rescuing me from my enemies.

In whom I will trust—That is, I have found him to be such a refuge that I could trust in him, and in view of the past I will confide in him always.

18:4 I call on Adonai—The idea here is, that he would constantly call on Adonai. In all times of trouble and danger he would go to him, and invoke his aid. The experience of the past had been such as to lead him to put confidence in him in all time to come. He had learned to flee to him in danger, and he had never put his trust in him in vain. The idea is, that a proper view of God’s dealings with us in the past should lead us to feel that we may put confidence in him in the future.

And I am saved from my enemies—Ever onward, and at all times. He had had such ample experience of his protection that he could confide in him as one who would deliver him from all his foes.

John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

18:4 And I am saved from my enemies—Which was founded on past experience of God’s goodness to him in distress, when he called on him, as the next words show.

Rashi’s Commentary

18:1 In the day ADONAI delivered him etc.—When he became old and all his troubles had already passed over him and he was delivered from them.

The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

18:3 Strength—Heb. rock.

View On WordPress

Daily Bread

"And David said in his heart, I shall now perish one day by the hand of Saul." —1 Samuel 27:1

The thought of David’s heart at this time was a false thought, because he certainly had no ground for thinking that God’s anointing him by Samuel was intended to be left as an empty unmeaning act. On no one occasion had the Lord deserted His servant; he had been placed in perilous positions very often, but not one instance had occurred in which divine interposition had not delivered him. The trials to which he had been exposed had been varied; they had not assumed one form only, but many—yet in every case He who sent the trial had also graciously ordained a way of escape. David could not put his finger upon any entry in his diary, and say of it, “Here is evidence that the Lord will forsake me,” for the entire tenor of his past life proved the very reverse. He should have argued from what God had done for him, that God would be his defender still. But is it not just in the same way that we doubt God’s help? Is it not mistrust without a cause? Have we ever had the shadow of a reason to doubt our Father’s goodness? Have not His lovingkindnesses been marvellous? Has He once failed to justify our trust? Ah, no! our God has not left us at any time. We have had dark nights, but the star of love has shone forth amid the blackness; we have been in stern conflicts, but over our head He has held aloft the shield of our defence. We have gone through many trials, but never to our detriment, always to our advantage; and the conclusion from our past experience is, that He who has been with us in six troubles, will not forsake us in the seventh. What we have known of our faithful God, proves that He will keep us to the end. Let us not, then, reason contrary to evidence. How can we ever be so ungenerous as to doubt our God? Lord, throw down the Jezebel of our unbelief, and let the dogs devour it.

Morning, Oct 17

And David said in his heart, I shall now perish one day by the hand of Saul.
— 1 Samuel 27:1

The thought of David’s heart at this time was a false thought, because he certainly had no ground for thinking that God’s anointing him by Samuel was intended to be left as an empty unmeaning act. On no one occasion had the Lord deserted his servant; he had been placed in perilous positions very often, but not one instance had occurred in which divine interposition had not delivered him. The trials to which he had been exposed had been varied; they had not assumed one form only, but many—yet in every case he who sent the trial had also graciously ordained a way of escape. David could not put his finger upon any entry in his diary, and say of it, “Here is evidence that the Lord will forsake me,” for the entire tenor of his past life proved the very reverse. He should have argued from what God had done for him, that God would be his defender still. But is it not just in the same way that we doubt God’s help? Is it not mistrust without a cause? Have we ever had the shadow of a reason to doubt our Father’s goodness? Have not his lovingkindnesses been marvellous? Has he once failed to justify our trust? Ah, no! our God has not left us at any time. We have had dark nights, but the star of love has shone forth amid the blackness; we have been in stern conflicts, but over our head he has held aloft the shield of our defence. We have gone through many trials, but never to our detriment, always to our advantage; and the conclusion from our past experience is, that he who has been with us in six troubles, will not forsake us in the seventh. What we have known of our faithful God, proves that he will keep us to the end. Let us not, then, reason contrary to evidence. How can we ever be so ungenerous as to doubt our God? Lord, throw down the Jezebel of our unbelief, and let the dogs devour it.

Sent from Morning & Evening app for Android:

1 Samuel 27:1 And David said in his heart, I shall now perish one day by the hand of Saul.

The thought of David’s heart at this time was a false thought, because he certainly had no ground for thinking that God’s anointing him by Samuel was intended to be left as an empty unmeaning act. On no one occasion had the Lord deserted His servant; he had been placed in perilous positions very often, but not one instance had occurred in which divine interposition had not delivered him. The…

View On WordPress

Verse

"And David said in his heart, I shall now perish one day by the hand of Saul."

1sa 27:1

Thought

The thought of David’s heart at this time was a false thought, because he certainly had no ground for thinking that God’s anointing him by Samuel was intended to be left as an empty unmeaning act. On no one occasion had the Lord deserted his servant; he had been placed in perilous positions very often, but not one instance had occurred in which divine interposition had not delivered him. The trials to which he had been exposed had been varied; they had not assumed one form only, but many-yet in every case he who sent the trial had also graciously ordained a way of escape. David could not put his finger upon any entry in his diary, and say of it, “Here is evidence that the Lord will forsake me,” for the entire tenor of his past life proved the very reverse. He should have argued from what God had done for him, that God would be his defender still. But is it not just in the same way that we doubt God’s help? Is it not mistrust without a cause? Have we ever had the shadow of a reason to doubt our Father’s goodness? Have not his lovingkindnesses been marvellous? Has he once failed to justify our trust? Ah, no! our God has not left us at any time. We have had dark nights, but the star of love has shone forth amid the blackness; we have been in stern conflicts, but over our head he has held aloft the shield of our defence. We have gone through many trials, but never to our detriment, always to our advantage; and the conclusion from our past experience is, that he who has been with us in six troubles, will not forsake us in the seventh. What we have known of our faithful God, proves that he will keep us to the end. Let us not, then, reason contrary to evidence. How can we ever be so ungenerous as to doubt our God? Lord, throw down the Jezebel of our unbelief, and let the dogs devour it.

Devotional provided by Heartlight®
© 1996-2014. All rights reserved.

—  Thought for the morning of Fri October 17, 2014
Text
Photo
Quote
Link
Chat
Audio
Video