The fact is that when you cover another 40 million people so that we and localities and so on don’t have to pay for uncompensated care — we pay for more than $100 million of uncompensated care through tax bills just in the 8th district alone — the fact is that when you cover another 40 million people, that’s hundreds of thousands of new jobs in the private sector for health professionals.

First of all, neither Moran or the website provides a source for the numbers.  They both name “data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services” without regard to a URL or even a report title.  I spent about an hour trying to locate any report with these numbers in them.  If you have a link to the ACTUAL report (not a summary or a news report quoting the report, please provide it in the comments).

Second, this statement fails the logic test.  If $100 million of uncompensated care is paid through tax bills, why would we even need healthcare reform?  Insurance companies, hospitals, doctors…pretty much any person within the healthcare profession have complained that the reform will cause costs to rise.  In fact the Government Accountability Office has released several reports stating that health care costs will rise!

Third, you ask any doctor what their largest costs in business are.  They will say two things: insurance and insurance.  It costs doctors thousands of dollars to file insurance claims.  Furthermore, doctors pay even more in malpractice insurance because the United States is the tort capital of the world.

What Moran and his like-minded drones do not realize is that health care is not a right!  ACCESS to health care is a right, but services are not.  No one should be denied the right to access a doctor or a hospital, regardless of their sex, religion, creed, etc.  But the very fact that health care is a limited resource, it cannot be given away.  It must be acquired.

It’s funny how Moran or the 111th Congress never took up tort reform.  It’s probably because lawyers gave him $119,000 during the last election, making them the third largest donor category (for the purposed of categorization, I combined all defense related categories).

Unfortunately, Moran is so entrenched in his office that the only way he’ll get out of the 8th district is if he retires.  Too bad basic math isn’t a requirement to be elected.

Congressman Moran:

I would like to let you know that I’m deeply disappointed and very displeased with your performance as my representative to Congress. Your sponsorship of HR 2324 (Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2009) is a prime example.

The FBI, Harvard University, among many other institutions have PROVEN that there is no such thing as a Gun Show Loophole in the way that the public understands it. Your failure to properly understand this and many other issues is why I will actively be pursuing your removal from office this November.

It is one thing for us to disagree on issues. It’s another to be completely misinformed.

Michael Soh

Alexandria, VA

I want him OUT OF OFFICE!  This guy has been nothing but a disappointment to the district and must be fired.  He voted for the Healthcare bill and the stimulus package.  This man has done more to hurt America than he has to help.  It’s time for him to be eliminated with extreme prejustice.

Violence has it’s time and place.  We as a people should only use violence as an absolute last resort.  I completely disagree with the notion that violence is only for “barbaric people” who can’t use words to express their ideas.  Sometimes violence, war, and blood are the only tools left to a society.  They feel so oppressed that their voice is never heard.  These people get labeled as “extremist” by those who oppress them so others can oppress them even more.  Thomas Jefferson once said that the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Obama’s favorite president Abraham Lincoln said:

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.

Congressmen all over the country are getting the full brunt of the anger that is brewing in the hearts of America.  And many of these people (myself included) feel completely left out of the conversation.  With Obama calling on his followers to report people who disagree with him to Pelosi calling protesters un-American, you can see why people are getting even more angry.

In an effort to help out my fellow conservatives, I’d like to offer some thoughts and questions you should ask your Congressmen.  Let’s leave the chanting and the angry mob outside the town hall.  If you have the chance to ask your congressmen questions, use the opportunity to ask them the hard questions, questions no one wants to ask.  Questions that the media should be asking but are too scared or too lazy to ask themselves.

Congressmen ultimately answer to you.  Here are some hard questions to ask:

1. When GM and Chrysler were begging for a bailout, Congress reamed them for flying in on corporate private jets.  However, the House recently approved $550 million to upgrade their own personal jets.  Why should the American people approve these private jets for congressmen but not for taxpayer-owned GM?  Furthermore, what will you do to correct this?
2. Obama has consistently said that the health care bill will improve health care.  If this is the case, why has no congressmen agreed to go on the public option?  Will you mandate, and not ask, all congressmen who vote for the bill to use the public option?  Why or why not?
3. Obama has consistently promised that public option health care will give people a choice, and not force people to choose the public option.  However, page 16 (section 102) clearly states otherwise.  Who should we believe? The bill or the President?  If the bill, why haven’t you accused the President of lying to the public and when will you draw up impeachment proceedings like congress did for President Bush?
4. Obama fired Gerald Walpin, a special independent prosecutor, who found fraudulent activity between Obama and a supporter.  Why hasn’t Obama been charged with hindering prosecution, which is a federal felony?
5. Obama has consistently broken many of his campaign promises and looks like he will have to raise taxes on the 95% of the people he said he would protect.  What will you do to prevent this from happening?  Additionally, why hasn’t any democratic congressmen charged Obama with this very fact?  He said “lobbyist will not have a job in this administration” and no less then 24 hours later a lobbyist has a job in his administration.  Why are congressmen, especially democratic congressmen afraid to confront this president when they were not afraid to with the last president?

There have been many reports of congressmen filling the audience with unions who support Obama.  And many of these reports show that these union thugs have become violent toward conservative protesters.  Due to this fact, I am recommending any protester who has a gun to go armed.  You should be prepared to protect yourself.  Since the White House has even encouraged violence, I expect these thugs to be even more violent in the weeks to come.  Remember the rule of self-defense: Do not shoot unless they threaten you.  Virginians: Our state is not a retreat state.  You may stand your ground if you are being threatened.  Do not be afraid of these thugs but at the same time do not be afraid to defend your self.

Please respect all laws in your state when carrying a weapon.

Enter Rep. Jim Moran, who represents me and my district in Northern Virginia.  This guy has never represented any of my views.  His responses are always the party line.  I don’t think this guy even thinks for himself.

I sent the form letter that was available on a website to Rep. Moran.  Here’s his “response”:

Dear Mr. Soh:

Thank you for contacting me to register your opposition to legislation (H.R. 2454) to curb greenhouse gas emissions. I appreciate your comments but regret that we may disagree on this issue.

There is almost complete consensus on the science of climate change. The International Panel on Climate Change states in its recent report that there is a growing body of evidence which demonstrates that increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, due to human emissions, have caused most of the warming observed over the past half century.

Both the spatial patterns and trend of warming can only be explained by the inclusion of human emissions. The rapid increase in global temperatures seen over the past half century could not have been caused by natural factors alone. The warming effect of human emissions is around ten times that of solar variations. I would encourage you to read the statements of the International Panel on Climate Change and the Academies of Science of the 11 largest countries in the world. There is also a good website with YouTube videos that effectively refute some of the more popular claims that global climate change is not occurring or the result of human activity: http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610.

If you accept that humans are the cause of global climate change, then it is hard not to argue that as the largest producer of greenhouse gas emissions on a per capita basis and the second largest by country, the U.S. should take a leadership role in reducing emissions. I believe we also have a moral obligation to consider what cost future generations will bear for our impact on the environment. Concerns about the cost to the economy should be secondary to the welfare of our children and future generations.

The legislation approved by the U.S. House of Representatives on Friday, June 26, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) seeks to reduce greenhouse gases below 80 percent of their 2005 levels by the year 2050. The act achieves this objective through a combination of mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from major sources, a clean renewable energy standard for electricity production, greater energy efficiency, and conservation measures and subsidies to support the development of carbon sequestration technologies. The mandatory reductions are achieved through a cap and trade program that is modeled after the market-based program enacted under the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. This program successfully reduced sulfur dioxide emissions from coal-fired plants that were responsible for acid rain that acidified lakes, destroyed aquatic wildlife and fresh drinking water sources. Within seven years of its implementation, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that compliance costs were 75 percent below those originally predicted by EPA and far below what opponents at the time of its passage claimed. EPA also found that within that seven-year period acid deposition in the eastern United States had declined by as much as 30 percent, resulting in marked improvements in lakes and streams.

There is no doubt that transforming to less carbon intense energy sources will have an impact on the economy. The Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act places the cost at less than 50 cents per family, per day for the first ten years. While there will be economic disruption and job losses, there will also be new jobs and industries created. We currently spend more than $700 billion annually on oil imports. By comparison, the total cost of the war in Iraq is estimated at $2 trillion to $3 trillion when the health care and retirement benefits of returning veterans are included. Bearing the cost of transitioning toward a less carbon-intense society is possible, appropriate and necessary.

There are also significant costs for doing nothing. And, we do not need to wait a generation to measure the impact of inaction. We have already begun to bear these costs. Arid subtropical climate zones have already expanded by about 250 miles, endangering native plant and animal species.  The European heat wave of 2003 is estimated to have killed 35,000 people. In 1998, floods in China adversely affected 24 million. The World Health Organization estimates that as of the year 2000 the annual death toll from climate change had reached more than 150,000.

Looking into the future, extraordinary heat waves, storms and floods will kill many people and harm many others, and this increasing toll of death and destruction will not be limited to developing countries. Tropical diseases will increase their range of infection and exact their toll in human lives. Changing patterns of rainfall and mountain runoff will lead to local water shortages and crop failures in California and the Southwest. Ocean acidification will destroy coral reefs and the chain of sea life they support, endangering a leading food source for up to one-third of humanity. If coastal ice shelves in the Antarctic continue to disintegrate, sea levels will rise several meters in a century. At such a rate, almost half of the world’s great cities will disappear. Large-scale human migrations in response to rising sea levels and other climate-induced stresses will impoverish many people. In general, an increasingly harsh climate will greatly endanger future generations’ life expectancy and diminish everyone’s quality of life. Some warn that mass extinctions of species may occur, leaving a far more desolate planet for our descendants than the world that we inherited.

While there are a number of provisions that cause me concern, this legislation sets in play an ambitious program to transform the way we produce and consume energy and moves us away from the precipice of environmental and ecological disaster. The current debate, which I welcome, is long overdue.

Thank you again for contacting me.

Sincerely,

James P. Moran

There is just so much wrong with these “facts”.  It’s been said that facts should never get in the way of political change.  And you, Mr. Moran, embody that.

Outside of the fact that many of the statements he made are soundbites from various organizations, not one of his sources are acedemic.  Since I’m enrolled in grad school, I did a quick search on scientific journals that contained articles showing global climate change as natural.  I found hundreds of sources — all peer reviewed and referried.

Here is my reply to Mr. Moran:

Mr Moran

I appreciate your reply, but I’m deeply troubled.

First of all, there is no complete consensus on global climate change.  If there was, there would be no scientific debate and there clearly is.  Many, many well-known organizations such as the Meteorological Association as well as renown scientists have shown that there is no causal link between carbon dioxide and global climate change.  Furthermore, data from the NOAA has shown that global temperatures have gone up and down throughout the course of history and have not significantly changed because of carbon emotions.  In fact a new study was released in the Journal of Geophysical Research that shows that that global climate changes are a result of naturally occurring elements such as southern oscillation than human-made carbon dioxide

I’m shocked and appalled that you offer YouTube videos as your evidence to global climate change.  And most of the sources you site are not academic.  In a quick search at my local university, I found numerous academic papers (which are not clouded by political gain) that show that changes in climate are natural.

Mr Moran, if you are using YouTube videos to vote on policy instead of listening to your constituents, you should not be a congressman.

I’m deeply troubled that you are failing to represent my views.  I hoped that you would be a politician that thought critically about all bills, and not simply went along with the party line.  I’ve looked at your voting history and you’ve voted with the party 97% of the time.  This tells me you’re a party candidate and not my candidate.  I’ve asked you to vote on my issues but you have repeatedly let me down.

Your re-election is fast approaching.  If you do not start representing my views soon, I will actively campaign against your re-election.

Sincerely,

Michael Soh

Mr. Moran is up for re-election next year.

Congressman Moran

I’m writing to you because of my deep disappointment of your vote to impose a 90% tax on people who received bonuses through the TARP.  Congressman, you voted for this for bill, which included NO oversight.  You agreed to bail them out, despite your constituents screaming no.

Instead of admitting the mistake, you decide to blame someone else.  The reality is your vote allowed this to happen.

I’m becoming deeply troubled by your voting record and will now openly admit that my vote for your re-election is in jeopardy.

Very respectfully,

Michael Soh