Grievance #1: The Government has refused (its) Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

as·sent [uh-sent] –noun

1. agreement, as to a proposal; concurrence.

2. acquiescence; compliance. 

Since his inauguration, President Barak Obama, his administration, and his cohorts in Congress have consistently and continually refused to abide by the laws of the land which have been put in place to protect the citizens and the economy of the United States. While the act of presidents and congressional members ignoring laws or trying to put in place laws from which they would be exempted is nothing new, the extent to which elected officials have recently gone against the will, and the good, of the people is unsurpassed.

As is typical with politics, the campaigns for the 2010 Congressional Elections began as soon as the president was elected in 2008. Along with that, the newly-elected president was implicated by some in being involved in negotiations to choose who would fill the Illinois seat in the U.S. Senate vacated by Barak Obama. According to the allegations, President Obama, through a surrogate, offered political concessions – or, things of value – in exchange for helping to direct the selection process of Obama’s successor.

After the Sestak allegations against President Obama came the push for the so-called “Health Care Law.” Using congressional rules that were intended to be used in the event of a national emergency – in other words, a time when the nation was about to experience financial collapse if budgetary bills were not passed – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi consorted with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to quickly get passed a bill that would increase the national debt by about a trillion dollars. They used the same process to pass other bills, too, that helped increase the debt by another trillion dollars – the so-called Stimulus Bill and others that have, to date, had a negative effect on the nation’s economy. These bills were passed so quickly, and even kept the Senate in session on Christmas Eve when Congress is usually snug in their home districts, that Speaker Pelosi even stated (about the Health Care Bill), “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it,” when asked what was covered by the bill that eventually reached over 2,400 pages; the bill was “finalized” early in the morning on the day of the vote, leaving Representatives literally only a few hours to read the 2,400 pages.

Shortly thereafter, further allegations of White House underhandedness in elections surfaced. President Obama was accused this time, again through surrogates, of offering Rep. Joe Sestak a “high-ranking” position in the government if Sestak would not run against Arlen Specter for one of Pennsylvania’s Senate seats. Just after celebrating his first anniversary in the White House, President Obama had been accused, for at least the second time, of not only violating Federal Law, but of trying to corrupt the most-basic and fundamental basis of the country’s founding – the right to free and fair elections.

Even as these allegations of illegal activity swirled, President Obama and his Attorney General, Eric Holder, began to quietly allow Voter Intimidation become acceptable in certain areas. In Philadelphia, members of the New Black Panthers were videotaped intimidating Caucasian voters at a polling station. Backed by the videotaped evidence along with statements by witnesses, the Justice Department managed to win a conviction through a Guilty ruling by the judge in the case. Despite this, before sentencing could take place, Holder, presumably at the direction of President Obama, ordered that the charges be dropped and the prosecution stopped, thereby giving those who had been convicted a “free pass” to continue their efforts to sway voting results. It should be noted that someone with the name of one of the defendants (a not-too-popular name) is reported to have made several visits to the residence of the White House surrounding the time of the decision by AG Holder to stop the prosecution.

Further thumbing their noses to the Rule of Law, the Environmental Protection Agency, whose director reports to the president, essentially ignored a court ruling that came out of the “Gulf Oil Spill” disaster. When the Court ruled that a moratorium against deepwater drilling was illegal, the EPA responded by creating new rules that, in essence, put the same moratorium in place. The Court later ruled again that the new rules were as illegal as the first attempt for the moratorium, beginning allegations of “Contempt of Court” against the administration.

The administration went even further when the state of Arizona passed a law requiring that law enforcement officials (police officers) check the immigration status of certain detainees under specific conditions. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials, including Secretary Janet Napolitano, joined by President Obama and AG Holder, immediately made defamatory statements about the new state law, despite having not even read the law or understanding what it stated. While AG Holder formulated a legal case against the state for attempting to protect its own citizens when the federal government refused to do so (despite being required by law to do so), Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director John Morton refused to deport illegal immigrants in violation of both state and federal laws.

When the aforementioned Health Care Law was found to be unconstitutional, President Obama and his minions continued with the implementation of the program. Again, their actions provided for calls of “Contempt of Court” as they seemed to ignore a ruling that had been handed down against them by a duly-appointed court. The actions of President Obama and of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) even prompted the judge in the case to issue an edict reminding the federal government of the time frame given for appealing his ruling.

Along with the items mentioned above, there are also the cases of Rep. Patrick Kennedy, Sen. Larry Craig, and Arizona State Senator Scott Bundgaard. All have attempted to use their positions as members of government to immunize them against prosecution for suspected crimes. Kennedy used his status as a U.S. Rep. to try to avoid a DWI charge in Washington, D.C.; he tried to say that he was on his way to a congressional vote (in the middle of the night) when he crashed his car near the U.S. Capitol (he later pled guilty to a lesser charge of DUI and was sentenced to a fine and community service). Craig used the fact that he was truly on his way to Washington, D.C., in conjunction with his duties as a member of the Senate to avoid charges in a scandal that alleged he attempted a homosexual tryst in an airport men’s room. Bundgaard has also used his status as a government “leader” to avoid charges in a recent domestic dispute for which his live-in girlfriend was arrested for domestic violence.

It seems that our government officials, at all levels and regardless of political affiliation, have developed an attitude that they are “above the law.” Even when chided by the courts for their indiscretions (on the light side) or outright contempt for the law, governmental officials seem to continue their actions and to ignore the good of the people or the foundations of the country.

One will notice that omitted from this post is any reference to what is possibly the greatest example of this subject – the Chappaquiddick Incident that involved Sen. Edward M. “Teddy” Kennedy. Unfortunately, there are enough examples without having to go into what some would call “ancient history.”

Injuries and Usurpations

The history of the present (government) is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

These are the words used in our country’s Declaration of Independence to show the causes that “impel(led) them to separation” from the rule of Great Britain. In reviewing the grievances that our forefathers were filing through this document, one can find a correlation between what they were enduring at the hands of the government and what today’s U.S. citizens also have to endure at the hands of the government.

This blog does not condone calls for a revolution of the nature as was experienced as a result of the Declaration of Independence. Instead, it seeks to explain to government officials that we, as citizens, are viewing their “rule” over us similar to that which caused the separation of the colonies from their rulers. This is, to an extent, a warning to those same officials that even maintaining the same level of tyranny over the citizens may result in a continuation of revolt by the citizens as was seen in the 2010 elections, on an even broader scale.

Below is the listing, taken straight from the Declaration of Independence and amended only in that “The Government” replaces “He” as references to King George of Great Britain, of grievances that were aired against the government of the day:

The Government has refused (its) Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

The Government has forbidden (its) Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till (its) Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, The Government has utterly neglected to attend to them.

The Government has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

The Government has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with (its) measures.

The Government has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness (its) invasions on the rights of the people.

The Government has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

The Government has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

The Government has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing (its) Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

The Government has made Judges dependent on (its) Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

The Government has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

The Government has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

The Government has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

The Government has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving its Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

The Government has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of its Protection and waging War against us.

The Government has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

The Government is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

The Government has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

The Government has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

While not all of the grievances above apply to today’s circumstances, it is chilling to realize how many of them DO apply. (Yes, you do feel a series coming on.) In the coming weeks, one will find posts that discuss each of the applicable grievances in detail, providing examples of how the grievances apply to today’s government and “ruling class” of politicians in Washington.

This is a conservative blog; and I have not even attempted to pretend otherwise. Therefore, it should surprise no one that most of the examples given will come from the Obama “reign” of presidency. One might be surprised to find examples of Republicans and Republican actions that contribute to the grievances.

In the meantime, review the grievances above, and realize how we have our own claims of Injuries and Usurpations against the government that could lead to revolt or even revolution if politics continue “as normal.”

Showing Their True Colors

Over the past few years, the GLTB (Gay, Lesbian, Transsexual, Bisexual) movement has gained momentum in trying to develop “equality” in society. The movement has led to same-sex marriage in several states, even if short-lived in some. It has also led to beginning of the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the U.S. Military.

These events have been based on the supposition that all are created equal, and should be treated equally, regardless of sexual orientation. They did not ask for special considerations to be made, only that everyone was treated the same.

While the methods used to achieve these gains may have sometimes been “in your face” to get to the end result, once the laws were enacted, the GLTB proponents have, for the most, simply moved on without making a big deal of their new-found freedom to express their sexuality, and without trying to impose that freedom of theirs on others. They accepted the societal accommodations that have been made for them, and have seemed to appreciate the adjustments others have had to make.

The same cannot be said, however, for two young ladies in Champlin, MN. Desiree Shelton and Sarah Lindstrom, two seniors claiming to be lesbians, have filed a suit against their school for not allowing them to walk together as members of the Snow Days Pep Fest Royalty Court. The two were admittedly attempting to make a political point about “gender roles” and to force others to accept their perceived sexuality.

Fearing retribution from other students against the couple – after all, advocacy groups have attributed the suicides of six (6) students in the past two years in the school district to the bullying of suspected gay students (even though only one was actually determined to be gay) – the school principal came up with a plan that would allow Shelton and Lindstrom to avoid becoming pariahs while also allowing them the same opportunity as other, non-GLTB students. He decided that the Court would enter singly, either alone or accompanied by a parent or favorite teacher.

This solution did not promote nor deny either heterosexuality or homosexuality, but allowed all students the same opportunity to participate without reference to their sexual orientation.

Equality, though, apparently is not enough for either Ms. Sheldon or Ms. Lindstrom. They have become, and have been allowed to become, the “poster children” for extremism. They have also provided another reason for concern when a person tries to further an “equal rights” cause, in that they have proclaimed that they want to be treated equally, but are dissatisfied when true equality is provided. Instead of equality, it seems that these young ladies want to make others submissive (no pun intended) to their own beliefs, instead of just trying to be accepted and treated equally.

By trying to be “in your face” with their sexuality instead of just accepting that they can do the same as others, Ms. Sheldon, Ms. Lindstrom, and the extreme leaders of various so-called “civil rights” movements, they are showing their true colors. It’s not a rainbow that blends colors; it’s making sure that theirs is at the top of the rainbow and keeping the others down.

Let Lawmakers Legislate

While I know that I promised to avoid “fads” and pop culture, this post does incorporate some of the hype surrounding MTV’s new show “Skins.” One will notice, though, that the discussion of this post is about the resulting hype, and not about the show itself; so, for those who want to say that my blog is supposed to be political and that I should keep it that way, please read the whole post before making such a pronouncement.

Apparently MTV didn’t stir up enough controversy with its series “16 and Pregnant;” so, they have now adopted the prelude series that shows how 16 years olds end up pregnant. From what has been written, their new series “Skins” apparently shows teenagers in various sexually-charged situations. The move has infuriated some to the point of calling for an investigation into the show for violations of “child porn” laws, most-notably the Parents Television Council.

PTC President Tim Winter has called upon lawmakers, as well as law enforcement, to “open an investigation regarding possible child pornography” on the show.

Mr. Winter and PTC are very correct in calling for an investigation, considering that descriptions of the show characterize it as showing teens engaged in sexual activities. There are various laws both at the State and Federal levels that cover child pornography and the depiction thereof. Based on a layman’s understanding of the laws, and according to the descriptions read, it seems that there is, indeed, a need for investigation to determine if any laws have been violated. So, there is no issue with the fact that investigations have been called for.

The issue is with those who have been called upon by Mr. Winter and PTC to conduct the investigation – lawmakers.

The U.S. Constitution set forth three separate branches of government. The Legislative Branch (the lawmakers, e.g. Congress) was set forth to enact or legislate (that is, to make) laws. The Executive Branch (the president and his administration) are charged with the enforcement of laws; this includes the investigation into incidents that may include violations of the laws enacted by the Legislative Branch.

While all law enforcement agencies, including those run by the Executive Branch, are subject to the laws enacted by Congress, it is up to those agencies to investigate suspected violations of the law, except in specific circumstances set forth by the Constitution. The last time it was read, the Constitution contained no specific circumstances under which Congress should investigate a pop-culture TV show that might contain acts in violation of certain State or Federal laws.

Over the years, Congress has conducted uncountable investigations into law enforcement matters. Within the past 70 years, this has included the dubious “McCarthy Hearings” during which Sen. Joseph McCarthy searched for those he would consider communists, as well as the recent hearings into steroid use by Major League Baseball players. Under the guise of searching to see if more legislation was needed, these hearings were all held for a common reason – so that members of Congress could gain public notoriety, and to allow these same members to “hobnob” with stars and those with political and financial influence.

Congress needs to be reigned in and kept away from law enforcement investigations. By holding hearings to determine whether or not laws have been violated, even under the guise of determining if more legislation is needed, is contrary to the Constitution, the intent of the nation’s Founders, and a slap in the face to law enforcement. After all, if Congress is going to investigate, what need is there for the law enforcement agencies that were created in accordance with the Constitution?

By calling on lawmakers to investigate this situation, Mr. Winter and the PTC have abandoned those they seek to protect – the children – by calling for actions contrary to the foundations of this country. If they are concerned, Mr. Winter and PTC members everywhere need to do as was done with the other recent MTV hit show and contact law enforcement directly to file a complaint about a suspected illegal act.

In that case, which involved domestic abuse by one of the shows “stars,” law enforcement acted on the complaints in a swift but professional manner and have, in accordance with Law and the Constitution, kept the issue where it belongs – in a courtroom instead of a Senate Hearing Room. The same will hold true if laws have truly been violated in this case.

While the other show is not necessarily any more appealing than “Skins,” a great lesson can be learned from its aftermath – we need to let law enforcement enforce the laws, and we need to let lawmakers legislate.

Would It Work To His Advantage?

Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) continues to wish for a restriction on views that contradict his. He has once again called for a return to the “Fairness Doctrine,” which was originally installed in 1949 to ensure that all sides of controversial issues were able to be heard. The Doctrine was abolished in 1987 by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) as being outdated.

For those who are not aware, the Fairness Doctrine, enacted under President Truman in 1949, basically required broadcasters, which were limited in number at the time, to provide equal time to each side of a politically-charged issue. For instance, if a Republican was on the air for 15 minutes providing the “Right” side of the story, a Democrat was required to be allowed the same 15 minutes to provide the “Left” side. In 1987, with the rapid spread of cable television and an abundance of both television and radio outlets, it was determined by the FCC that there were sufficient outlets for both sides to present their cases without having to require broadcasters to air both sides; in other words, there were enough outlets that each side could garner its own following and present their message without having to have both presented together.

Since 1987, Democrats have periodically called for a return to the Fairness Doctrine for same perceived reason that they use to blame their reason major losses in Congressional elections – Democrats reject the fact that their message and agenda is being rejected by the American Public, and believe instead that simply do not have enough outlets to get their message across. In 1995, Rep. Clyburn used the Oklahoma City bombing to call for the return of the Doctrine, despite the fact that Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were seeking anarchy and not necessarily prompted to their actions by “right-wing” radio. Just last year, as anticipation built for the mid-term elections, Democrats again called for a return of the Doctrine, having had their primary radio voice, Air America, finally end after only six years of operation; realizing that they were not able to draw an audience to listen to their points of view on radio, they wanted to force Americans to listen and hear their points of view, no matter how much the listeners might disagree with these points. Now, after the Tucson Tragedy, Rep. Clyburn, following the libelous and false reports that Jared Loughner had been driven by “right-wing” radio to fire 32 shots at a rally for Democrat Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

While, as Rep. Steve King (R-IA) who sits on the House Judiciary Committee states, the Fairness Doctrine is “one of those nicely-named things,” the rest of his statement is true. “(It is) just completely wrong.”

The Fairness Doctrine follows governmental trends of the past three decades and tells business owners who to run their businesses. Television and radio stations are, indeed, businesses; otherwise, why would they have marketing and sales departments? The Fairness Doctrine tells these business owners who they must employ and what content they must provide to their customers.

If the consumers don’t want the product that is presented – that is to say, if the viewers and/or listeners do not want to listen to what some consider liberal propaganda – then the consumers will go elsewhere for the entertainment that they crave. Being in an industry driven by viewer- and listenership, broadcasters will begin to go bankrupt as their customers leave for modes of entertainment that do not force them to listen to “propaganda” that they don’t want to hear.

Rep. Clyburn justifies his call for a return of the Doctrine by equating the speech used in “right-wing” programming to yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. While declaring both equally dangerous to the public welfare, Rep. Clyburn fails to provide any instances where rhetoric has created similar chaos as yelling “fire” would do. As a matter of fact, most of the Conservative talk show hosts speak against violence of any sort, telling their viewers and listeners that, as dire as things have seemed for Conservatives, a physical revolution is not called for, that working within the political system is the best way to return the country to their ideals. Additionally, most have joined the “Left” by condemning the acts of violence that are supposedly committed in the name of furthering conservatism.

Despite his (false) justification for resuming the Fairness Doctrine, Rep. Clyburn faces opposition from President Obama who is on record as opposing reinstatement. Worse yet, he faces opposition within his own immediate family – Rep. Clyburn’s own daughter, Mignon Clyburn, a Commissioner of the FCC, stated during her confirmation hearings that the FCC should not be “in the business of censoring speech or content on the basis of political views and opinions.” (Maybe this is a situation where the child understands principles better than the parent.)

Air America, along with numerous websites and blogs, provides evidence for those who oppose the Fairness Doctrine. Air America showed that the matter is not that there is not a forum for the liberal message that Democrats want to spread, but, instead, that the issue is that the American Public does not wish to hear that message. For those who do wish to hear the Democrats’ message, there is the evening news on any of the regular broadcast networks (ABC, CBS and NBC), MSNBC, and CNN. Additionally, there are the talk shows on TBS (specifically Conan and George Lopez). The majority of Hollywood, which many Democrat constituents follow, also leans to the Left, and sometimes even falls over from leaning so far that way. Websites such as the Huffington Post, Media Matters, and MoveOn.org also help promote the liberal agenda. Democrats also have the print media through the leanings of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the Dallas Morning News, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, and the Washington Post, among others.

There are 16 outlets listed in the paragraph above where the Democrat agenda is described on a daily basis. What do the Conservatives have? Let’s see – FOX News (even though it’s “sister” network FOX leans liberal), FOX Business, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Neal Boortz, G. Gordon Liddy, Mark Levin, Michael Gallagher, Glen Beck, Bill O’Reilly, and Rusty Humphries. One will notice that this is a comparison of 15 networks or conglomerations compared to 11 mostly individuals.

While Democrats want the Fairness Doctrine to return so that their message is heard by more people it might work against them. If Rep. Clyburn gets his way, he needs to keep in mind that the conservative hosts will not be the only ones affected. Liberal hosts such as Joy Behar, Barbara Walters, Anderson Cooper, Wolf Blitzer, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow will have to be countered with reasoning and facts. This would immediately present factual repudiation of the opinion-based statements made by these personalities.

So, would re-enacting the Fairness Doctrine really work to Rep. Clyburn’s advantage? Either way, the principle is, as Rep. King stated, “just completely wrong.”

First Step - Medicare Reform

In an earlier post, “Congressional Action Items 2011,” challenges were put forth to Congress to review expenditures and cut spending. It seems that the “review expenditures” section could have been simplified to “review news reports about government spending” – for instance, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel detailed in a November 2010 article overspending by Medicare on wheelchairs.

According to the article in the November 29, 2010, edition, Medicare spends upwards of over $1400 more than it should on wheelchairs. In accordance with Medicare spending rules, the agency can only rent wheelchairs, and does so at rates up to $135 per month, for up to 13 months; that’s a cost of $1755. The same wheelchair that is being rented can be purchased for around $350. So, for each “high-end” wheelchair rented for 13 months, Medicare could have purchased outright five of those wheelchairs.

On the low end, Medicare rents wheelchairs at a rate of $40 per month, again for up to 13 months; that is a cost of $520. While that may not seem like a large figure for just over a year, the same wheelchair can be purchased for $100. That means that, again, Medicare could purchase five wheelchairs for the same amount of money spent renting just one.

Generally speaking, those on Medicare who are confined to a wheelchair end up using wheelchairs for at least several years, but get to “trade them in” almost every year for a brand new one since the lease is up after 13 months. Each new wheelchair that one of these patients gets represents at least eight that could have been purchased by Medicare.

The overspending on wheelchairs is just the beginning!

It is also reported that a 2009 audit of Medicare found allowances of up to $7215 for individual oxygen dispensers that could have been purchased for $587 each, an overspending of $6628 per dispenser. For the same amount of money that Medicare is allowed to spend on these dispensers, 12 could have been purchased, with money left over.

And it doesn’t stop there!

We all have seen the late-night ads for the “Hoveround” and other powerchair-scooters. After watching those, who doesn’t want a “Rascal”?

It’s no wonder that they are advertised as being sent to people with no out-of-pocket expense when the suppliers to Medicare are able to bill the government for almost four times what was paid for the scooter! Medicare pays up to $4,018 for each of these power wheelchairs, when their suppliers pay only $1048, a gross profit of $2970 or 283%. With that kind of profit, the suppliers can claim that the patient paid a co-pay or deductible, write it off, and still make a load of money.

In an age when many doctors are refusing Medicare patients because Medicare reimbursement does not meet the cost of the procedures performed, the agency continues to increase its expenses on supplementary items, to a level of paying 12 times what it should. The agency should focus is fiscal efforts on providing the care that Medicare recipients need, and not worry as much about the “after procedure” items. In many cases, money spent on the procedures that are actually needed may, ironically, relieve the need for some of the after care items such as wheelchairs, oxygen dispensers, and motorized scooters. In the long run, this would save literally millions of dollars.

Along with that, if the agency was allowed to purchase equipment instead of renting it, up to 12 times as much equipment could be purchased and made available to Medicare patients. The same time frames could be used; for instance, a wheelchair purchased for $350 could still be used for 13 months. At the end of the 13 months, the wheelchair could be sent back to the factory for refurbishing, which would, in most cases, be less-expensive than building a new wheelchair. Even if the refurbishing cost $200, using that refurbished wheelchair to provide to a different patient as a replacement at the 13 month mark would save an additional $150.

Medicare is not alone in the overspending of tax dollars for renting equipment instead of purchasing it. Nor is the agency alone when it comes to squandering resources that it already has. Federal agencies and offices at all levels routinely set an expected “life span” for almost all equipment purchased, leased or rented. When an item reaches the end of that span, it is “put out to pasture,” either returned, disposed of (thrown away), or sold at auction for well below its actual value.

With these kinds of fiscal “abuses,” it is no wonder that Medicare is considered by many to be bankrupt. The worst part is that the spending does not have to be this bad – many doctors look for the most cost-effective way to treat a patient; if this means that signing a statement that the patient needs a wheelchair instead of surgery that would prevent the need for a wheelchair, so be it; it’s on the taxpayers at that point.

Rule changes need to be implemented that allow – no, force – Medicare to purchase equipment instead of renting it when the long-term cost differential calls for it. The money that is saved can then be used to pay doctors a more-reasonable reimbursement for their services, that will, in turn, prevent the necessity of purchasing as much equipment as is currently rented. The final savings will allow Medicare to become solvent once again, and ensure that the promises of the program are met without having to burden other programs.