A First Amendment Lesson for the City of Houston

The impetus for this argument comes to us from the Great State of Texas, with particular interest focused on the city of Houston.  It seems that local leaders there have forgotten about how this Great Nation was founded, and the thought and precision that went in to crafting our Constitution that gave us our Republic (not a democracy, as many would lead you to believe, but that's a conversation for a different day.)

The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads this way:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (emphasis added); or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Apparently the city of Houston never read those parts of the Constitution when they joined up with our Union back in 1845.  Or perhaps those leaders did, but the notes they held on the rules they agreed to abide by have been lost.  How else could the recent actions of the Houston authorities be explained?

For those who have ignored all other sources of news over the last several months, Houston city officials subpoenaed "all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO, the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession."

In a rather fortuitous turn of events, I am not one of the pastors who were served with these subpoenas, because I would have broke many of the 10 Commandments in my response, I'm certain.

Under no circumstances does a governmental authority have any business meddling with or in anything that has to do with a Church or the content of the pastor's message (unless her/his words were to discuss a potential insurrection against the U.S. of A.)  It simply isn't part of the powers they possess, as our Founding Fathers (and unheralded Mothers) specifically exclude them from governmental control.

Mayor Parker herself stated "There's no question, the wording was overly broad."  She then attempted to deflect blame back on those who had been wrongly subpoenaed by stating that "I also think there was some deliberate misinterpretation on the other side."  Whether she is referencing church leaders who have (according to the same  city officials who issued the overly broad subpoenas) gathered signatures that were deemed invalid by city officials, or if she was insinuating that church leaders and attentive citizens the nation over had misjudged her obviously unbiased, 100% above the boards attempts to suppress voters' desire to challenge a governmental policy (the HERO law.  Governmental policymakers like to get cute when they come up with their acronyms.) in a legal manner.

Parker also stated that the purpose of the subpoenas was not bother with the question of "What did you preach on last Sunday?"  If that's so, then why did the subpoenas request

all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO, the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession.

If what Mayor Parker and her cronies says is true, why would the subpoenas not simply request materials that are germane to  their inquiry, specifically what instructions religious leaders may have given with regard to gathering signatures for the ballot initiative they were leading?  Mayor Parker and city staffers have an answer for that, too:  blame the 'pro-bono' lawyers who had been charged with drafting the subpoenas.  Houston city attorney allegedly stated that the subpoenas were issued without the Mayor's or city offical's knowledge or consent.

Uh, what?  What I gather from that is that city officials have been paying attention to the actions of our federal government and decided what's good for Washington is good for Houston, too.

Fortunately, many upright, intelligent citizens quickly responded to the government's overreach, however, the bigger problem is that in a world that can transmit news in a nano-second, this group of politicians still felt that they could outside the law.

Looking Back On Some ObamaCare Thoughts From 5 Years Ago (part 6)

 If you missed part 1 of this review of thoughts on the Obamacare Crisis, you can click here.  For part 2, click here, part 3 here, part 4 here, and part 5 here.  For those that have already read through, please continue on below.  As stated in part one, these thoughts were from about 5 years ago, and were originally published in a different place.

When we don't learn from history...

March 22, 2010 at 11:21pm

Let's just pretend for a moment that I earn $1 million per year. Let's further pretend that because I have some hefty spending habits, that my yearly outlays are $1.2 million. This would put me at a -$200,000 per year, which is a considerable amount of money. Fortunately for me, because of who I am, my credit is good, so it's not really a problem for me.

Still, I'd really rather be putting money away for the future (mind you, not for anything important, just so I can develop more extravagant spending habits at a future date without piling up too much more debt.) I look at the situation in a very serious matter, note that my income is not going to increase for at least the next 10 years, and come up with a plan: I simply am not going to pay any bills for 4 out of the next 10 years. Not one red cent will leave my pocket. So at the end of that 10 year period of time, instead of looking at a $2 million deficit, I am showing a profit of $2.8 million. To say the least, I am rather pleased with myself (never mind those pesky bill collectors, I'll simply ignore their phone calls and shred any mailings I receive.)

Having put together that little nest egg, I formulate a new plan for the next 10 year period: I'm going to pay my bills all the time, every year (based on the same numbers from paragraph 1.) I'm going to do so with one proviso, however: I'm only going to pay 70 cents on every dollar I spend (the bill collectors will be thrilled just to get a steady influx of cash, after the previous decade's escapades, right?) So now my $1.2 million a year spending habit is only costing me $840,000 a year, which means I'm banking $160,000 a year, leaving me with another cool $1.6 million at the end of the 10 year cycle, which is less than I made in the first decade, but still, it's nothing to sneeze at. Overall I'm up $8.4 million over 20 years ($4 million in debt forgiveness I gave myself, plus $4.4 million in banked money.)

It's really a rather ludicrous plan, is it not? Yet, it is exactly that type of bizarre accounting that our federal government is using in order to make it seem like their health care takeover helps to lower our budget deficit. For the first decade the plan is in existence, they only pay out benefits for 6 of those years. In the second 10 years, they have draconian cuts planned for doctors and other medical professionals that not only are insane, but impossible to even hope that they may be realized, yet, they are included as 'savings' for purposes of making the bill look like money is being saved.

Another bizarre accounting trick that is planned is to offload 50% of the 32 million new persons who will receive 'quality' "health care" because of this bill on to the medicaid program. The very same program that is already essentially bankrupt (states cannot afford to pay their share as it is, and it is nearly impossible for anyone with medicaid to find a doctor that will take them on as a new patient.) is being asked to absorb an additional 16 million customers. Stealing Social Security money and legions of other scams are crammed in to the legislation that makes War & Peace look like a church tract (if you find anyone who claims to have read every word of the bill, they are a liar. There is no exception to this rule at all.) It's double speak to the infinite level.

Maybe health care needs reform of some sort, maybe it doesn't, I'm not here to judge that (today.) I also will not delve in to some more sinister and cynical thoughts such as what happens when you or your kids or your grand kids are deemed to be living unhealthy lifestyles. Read 1984, put it on warp speed, and that may just start to scratch the surface. If I was a parent, I'd be hugely concerned with this legislation that has 'passed'.

For today I'd just like to say that anyone who voted for this bill and claims that it will reduce our budget deficit is a LIAR. This legislation will do many things, nearly none of which are good for the citizenry, but make no mistake, one of them will not be to reduce our deficit. Then again, for a nation already saddled with $43 Trillion in debt, what's another 2 or 3 (or 20 or 30) Trillion more?

A couple of final notes before we close this for today: Massachusetts, the state in which I reside, was seen as the 'pilot' program for the type of nationalized health care bill that has made its way through the U.S. House. Before you simply dismiss my thoughts as those of a rambling, bumbling idiot, consider the following words from Treasurer Tim Cahill (former Democrat who turned Independent in order to challenge Governor Deval Patrick this year):

Well, we have what David Axelrod referred to as the pilot program. It started four years ago in Massachusetts — universal health care to mandate, to cover everyone in the state of Massachusetts. It wasn't going to cost us a whole lot of money, so they said and it was going to work.

We have a public exchange that was going to match up private insurance with people who couldn't get insurance, small businesses. It hasn't worked out the way they said it was going to work out. And it has increased cost in just in Massachusetts of about $4 billion over when this program was started in 2006.

And just today, the governor himself announced there's an extra $300 million hole in our health care line items. So, it is bankrupting the state and would have bankrupted our state if not for the federal government being overly generous with Medicaid reimbursements over these last four years. They've really propped the system up to keep it in place.

and also:

I haven't read all 2,000 pages, but there's exchanges which is not supposed to be a public option but is functioning as if it was a public option in Massachusetts, because most of our people who have been covered have been covered with heavy subsidiaries or free health care. It's really serving as a second Medicaid program, this public exchange.

So, we have regular Medicaid that's costing us over $10 billion a year. And then you have this connector that is matching people up and giving them coverage of which they're not paying anything for.

Much more from that interview here:

http://tinyurl.com/yhuhl4h

Or you might consider these words:

"There ain’t no rules around here — we’re trying to accomplish something. And therefore, when the deal goes down, all this talk about rules, we make ‘em up as we go along, and I’m here now 18 years...” -Alcee Hastings (D-FL)

or these:

Barney Frank (D-MA)- "There will be a public option, and it doesn't matter the size, because we will build on it going forward." (and they will, as they have with every public program since the beginning of time.)

There are very few chances to fix this mess before it becomes as ingrained as social security or any other ginormous, failing government program. Take all action that you can to help prevent this travesty.

Looking Back On Some ObamaCare Thoughts From 5 Years Ago (part 5)

If you missed part 1 of this review of thoughts on the Obamacare Crisis, you can click here.  For part 2, click here, part 3 here, and part 4 here.  For those that have already read through, please continue on below.  As stated in part one, these thoughts were from about 5 years ago, and were originally published in a different place.  This piece expands on the topic slightly.

January 16, 2010

While You Were Sleeping...

It's been a few weeks since the U.S. Senate passed their version of health care 'reform'. I'm sure you are aware that it went down now, but if you missed it when it happened initially, fret not, it surely was not your fault. Your U.S. Senator wanted to sneak this through when no one was paying attention, so the three votes that were required were scheduled during the week leading up to Christmas (including the final vote, which was held around 1:30 a.m. Christmas Eve morning.) Now regardless of religion, Christmas is still a pretty big deal in this country, even during the middle of our worst economic crisis in the last 30 years, and make no mistake, the 60 Senators who cajoled and connived to come to this diaphanous 'compromise' are aware of that. They knew that they could pass this in the middle of the night, and there hope had to be that by the time anyone knew what was going on, it would be too late. Which may still be the case. The compromise between the house and senate is not going nearly as quickly as the leadership team would like it to, despite the fact that the democrat's leadership team has excluded republicans for any part of the final bill.

One thing that the democrats would never have worried about was losing one of their votes in the Senate based on a special election in Massachusetts. The Commonwealth currently has 0 Congressmen/women that would identify themselves with an (R). We have not elected a U.S. Senator that was a Republican since the early 1970s. Ted Kennedy held his seat for the last 47 years of his life, and it was controlled by democrats since at least 1952, when his more famous brother, John, won the seat. Paul G. Kirk, a Kennedy family friend was appointed to take Kennedy's seat by Massachusetts' governor Deval Patrick.

This was not as easy a task as one might think, because five years ago, the legislature in MA was concerned about the consequences of Senator John Kerry defeating President Bush in the 2004 election. They did not want then-governor Mitt Romney (a republican) to be able to appoint a republican to fill out Kerry's term, so they passed a law that stated that when a seat was vacated, there had to be an election before the seat could be filled. The people had a right to vote was the logic used by the state legislature (which is in the neighborhood of 80 - 90% democrat.)

Fast forward to August of 2009, and Ted Kennedy dies, which creates a giant hole in the Dems plan to take control of every single facet of health care. Scheduling an election would take time (the law passed in 2004 required that at least 145 days pass before the seat could be filled), and there would be important votes that would require a 60th senator to make sure that the republicans would not filibuster the legislation. Not a problem in MA, the legislature simply reversed course and changed the rules. Again. They even took care to make sure that all their bases were covered. From the 2009 law:

(f) Upon failure to choose a senator in congress or upon a vacancy in that office, the governor shall make a temporary appointment to fill the vacancy; provided, however, that the person so appointed shall serve until the election and qualification of the person duly elected to fill the vacancy pursuant to subsection (a) or (c).

Now that provision shows just how politically savvy the democratic machine is in MA. We simply don't elect republicans in the Commonwealth, but just just in case we somehow managed to do that, the dems built in a stall, which may be the difference between health care 'reform' in its current iteration passing or sinking. Secretary of the State William Galvin has already stated that he would delay certifying the vote for at least 2 weeks (and some reports have it being held up until February 20th), which means that interim Senator Kirk (D) would still be the very much needed 60th vote should the negotiations be handled in a timely manner.

Still, through all of this, I see a glimmer of hope. For the democrats to have to pull out all the stops in order to win a special election in MA (our Shadow President©™ has recorded a video for YouTube, done a robo-calling to democratic/independent voters, and will stump for Coakley tomorrow {01.17.2010}...John Kerry has also taken up the torch for Coakley, and the DNC is allegedly in the middle of spending $4 - $5 million for her ad campaign), which will show people (at least those that are paying attention) exactly what health care reform is all about: controlling our lives. Already the legislation has been destroyed from the Utopian dream (their thoughts, not mine) in to just passing anything so that our Shadow President©™ can claim a 'victory' when he delivers his first State of the Union address (TBD.) Win or lose come Tuesday, the democrats will find themselves in a huge hole that they might not be able to recover from (and it's not that democrats are by nature more vile or evil than many republican politicians, it's simply that their brand of evilness endangers our nation on a much grander scale.)

Wow. That's a lot of rambling above. If you're still here, I'm impressed. A lot of what is written above may not make sense (and I'm not going back to edit), but they are a few of the thoughts that are currently running through my head.

The main point is this: on Tuesday, January 19th, 2010 I will get to cast a vote as a resident of MA that might actually change the course of our national history (not my single solitary vote, but combined with those who will vote in tandem with me.) To cast a vote that means anything in the state of Massachusetts is not an everyday occurrence, believe me. However, a more informed public, and a groundswell of voters who are concerned over what is going on in Washington, D.C. has turned this into a dead heat (polls that I would trust are all within the margin of error. There was one poll that showed Brown with as much as a 15 point lead, and one showing Coakley with the same lead. I discounted both of those.) For Lost fans, this is our Incident, our chance to set things right and force the politicians in Washington, D.C. to rethink how they are destroying our country. With one fell swoop, we could force everyone back to the table. Whether you believe that health care reform is needed (85% of those polled are quite happy with their current coverage) or you don't, I would hope that we could come to an agreement that what is being foisted upon us is not 'reform', it's politics as usual.

I'm hopeful that if it needs to be reformed, it would be done in a way that is not so politically motivated, that it would be considered, and that the consequences of soaking the American taxpayer for $2.25 TRILLION (conservative estimate) to negligibly 'improve' our health care system would be taken under advisement and not rushed through in order to beat an artificial political deadline (yes, Mr. Shadow President©™, Senator Reid (D-NV), and Speaker Pelosi (D-CA), I'm speaking to you and all of your subordinates. For what was supposed to be the most transparent and accessible government going, you've turned in to a joke. You have proven time and again that you will stop at nothing to ram through your socialistic, communistic ideals, even at the expense of their career. While I admire that sort of commitment, it is severely misguided. Their scheme will destroy this nation that we all cherish, and it will happen quickly (certainly much faster than Al Gore's prediction that 'global warming' will destroy Planet Earth.) It is an misguided attempt to take over an even greater portion of our lives than they currently have, and it is something that we must not allow.

For that reason alone, I urge all MA voters to go to the polls on Tuesday, January 19th, 2010 and cast a vote for Scott Brown. If you don't live in MA, but you know someone who does, please contact them and urge them to vote likewise. We are running out of chances to save our great nation, this may be our last, best shot.

Looking Back On Some ObamaCare Thoughts From 5 Years Ago (part 4)

If you missed part 1 of this review of thoughts on the Obamacare Crisis, you can click here.  Part 2, click here, and part 3 here.  For those that have already read through, please continue on below.  As stated in part one, these thoughts were from a little over 5 years ago, and were originally published in a different place.
 November 24, 2009 ·

Final Destination

The thing about national health care is that it's not even a new idea. Before Archduke Franz Ferdinand met his demise at the hands of Serbian terrorist Gavrilo Princip's bullet, there was talk of providing national health care, but the nation for the most part resisted it. All major government incarnations and attempts since then including medicare and social security, etc. have been an attempt to expand the scope of control that our government has over our lives.

In this moment that we currently live, democrats see an opportunity that they have dreamed about for generations to ram through "health care overhaul" at whatever the political cost. There are senators and congresspersons who are willing to lose their seats, because they understand the finality of this debate: if they are able to force through the government run health care takeover before anyone can stop them, they know that there will be no going back. If you don't believe me, go ahead, try and discuss social security reform and see how far that gets you.

The key aspect is that it is being proposed as "health care for all", but the problem with that stems from the fact that most Americans who are actual legal citizens of this country already are eligible for health care, whether they choose to participate or not mostly have the option of receiving health care. Some choose to not participate, but that is a personal decision (I for one choose to not have health insurance, though my company does make it available and foots the bill for approximate 60% of the cost of the policy), not something that government needs to involve itself in.

The other hook that has been pitched is that it will be "free" health care. Perhaps you had a grandmother like mine who advised that it is always right to assume that if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. She was also fond of pointing out that there was no such thing as a free lunch. Likewise, there is no such thing as free health care. Everything has a cost, and here our politicians are especially crafty. They rob from so many different groups and never intend to pay the money back, nor to use it for anything that really benefits our nation. It is simply a power grab, they do it because they can, and so that they can limit choices more than ever before.

Former Alaskan governor Sarah Palin has taken considerable flak ever since she went from political unknown to Senator John McCain's Vice Presidential candidate last year. Citizens should be thankful, however, for the fact that she stopped cold (temporarily, at least) the type of government control over end of life decisions that many of our European counterparts face.

Of course, what she did not do, nor has any other politician is to solve the issue of rationing of health care. Just this week there has been political trial balloons floated on pap smears and mammograms stating that they did not need to be done as often. On its face, this seems like an odd departure from what has been the standard operating procedure, which is to get tested early and often, to help prevent a possible life-threatening situation. If you are more cynical, you'll look for the sinister reason: less tests means less money spent, which means the politicians are that much closer to 'saving' the health care system without totally crippling our financial system (they will not actually save our health care system, and they will most definitely bankrupt our nation forever if they actually take over health care.)

For those of you who may think that the European socialistic system of medicine is the proper way to go about, I suggest you look into how long patients wait for routine and even specialized medical care. Another thought to consider is this: I have a friend who works for an international conglomerate, and some of his co-workers are located in England, one of the bastions for socialized medicine. Despite the enormous taxes that they pay for their "free" health care, these (and others that can afford it) take out separate private policies that guarantee that they will receive better care then there compatriots who have the public option only.

Which, to put it simply, means they have created a bigger system of haves and have nots then even we as Americans could conceive in the private market. Which means that the thought that our health care system will be improved is wrong. It will be decidedly worse for a majority of us (as a majority of us are not in the upper echelons of income earners), and those that are will have the same or better coverage, but will unfortunately pay more for the privilege. All so a couple of hundred politicians can publicly glad hand each other and pretend that they did the 'right' thing, while they meet in the back rooms to laugh at their citizenry, a citizenry that had the wool pulled over its eyes, and will now pay the cost for eternity. Or until the nation severs. Whichever comes first.

Other thoughts to not forget:

Senator Landieu (D-LA) "I will correct something. It's not $100 million, it's $300 million, and I'm proud of it and will keep fighting for it"...

this is the extra money that Louisiana and only Louisiana will receive in the Health Care take over bill...(the actual endowment comes on page 432 of the 2000+ page bill)...

Barney Frank (D-MA) -there will be a public option, and it doesn't matter the size, because we will build on it going forward (and they will, as they have with every public program since the beginning of time.)

Consider also what our Shadow President said back in July that he would go over the bill with any Congressperson who requested it line by line (read about Congressman Phil Roe's attempt to schedule a meeting with President at this link.)

Myself, I'm siding with Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) who stated that there would be a "holy war" if the bill that is currently up for debate passes. He also noted that while the American public is being sold an $849 Billion bill, that will actually cost $2.5 Trillion (clever accounting figures are used, and the period of time that the figures are gathered from are 2014 - 2024. There is also a plethora of stealing going on, as noted above, including $400 Billion or so from Medicare, which will force even more seniors into the government option.)

So concludes, for now, this long, rambling, occasionally incoherent I'm sure, rant against the public health care option. The option we have right now may not be perfect (and in reality, nothing ever is), but it is better by such a large magnitude in comparison to what is being offered that there is not a realistic comparison that I can conceive. More ranting and raving at a future date, promise.

Looking Back On Some ObamaCare Thoughts From 5 Years Ago (part 3)

If you missed part 1 of this review of thoughts on the Obamacare Crisis, you can click here.  If you missed part 2, click here.  For those that have already read through, please continue on below.  As stated in part one, these thoughts were from a little over 5 years ago, and were originally published in a different place.

September 21, 2009 ·

The Coming Crisis (Part 3)

It has been a while since we've discussed the health care crisis (and therefore, national crisis) that our Shadow President™®© and his cronies have anxiously been waiting to dump on us, but comments that he made just yesterday have forced us to once again take up the topic.

Before we move too far along, I think it is important that we get some vital background info here, and for that, I turn to the (mostly) delightful pages of Through the Looking Glass and our lovely friend, Humpty Dumpty who has the following exchange with Alice:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less"

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can</I> make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master--that's all."

With Lewis Carroll's words still reverberating around around skulls, let's head straight to the transcript between our Shadow President™®© and George Stephanopoulous on ABC's This Week (transcript borrowed from The Wall Street Journal):

Under Max Baucus's Senate bill that Mr. Obama supports, everyone would be required to buy health insurance or else pay a penalty as high as $3,800 a year.

Mr. Stephanopoulos posed the obvious question about this kind of coercion when "the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don't [buy insurance]. . . . How is that not a tax?"

"Well, hold on a second, George," Mr. Obama replied. "Here's what's happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average—our families—in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I've said is that if you can't afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn't be punished for that. That's just piling on. If, on the other hand, we're giving tax credits, we've set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we've driven down the costs, we've done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you've just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that's . . ."

"That may be," Mr. Stephanopoulos responded, "but it's still a tax increase." (In fact, uncompensated care accounts for about only 2.2% of national health spending today, but that's another subject.)
Mr. Obama: "No. That's not true, George. The—for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore . . ." In other words, like parents talking to their children, this levy—don't call it a tax—is for your own good.

Mr. Stephanopoulos tried again: "But it may be fair, it may be good public policy—"

Mr. Obama: "No, but—but, George, you—you can't just make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase."

"I don't think I'm making it up," Mr. Stephanopoulos said. He cited that dictionary's definition of "tax"—"a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes."

Mr. Obama: "George, the fact that you looked up Merriam's Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you're stretching a little bit right now. . . ."

Mr. Stephanopoulos: "I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase."

Mr. Obama: "My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I'm taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we're going to have an individual mandate or not, but . . ."

Mr. Stephanopoulos: "But you reject that it's a tax increase?"

Mr. Obama: "I absolutely reject that notion."

I honestly don't even know where to begin with The Shadow President's™®© ignorance, to say nothing of his arrogance. If George Stephanopoulos (a Democrat cheerleader if ever there was one) and Merriam-Webster aren't enough to convince him that his condescending attitude has lost grips with reality, I certainly wouldn't expect to be able to. He'd just call me a partisan and a racist, undoubtedly.

For those of us whom will have to pay for this travesty, however, I'm hopeful that this latest outburst from 'the messiah' shows how dedicated he is to the one and actual true goal of his Shadow Presidency®©™: to bring our nation wholly into an socialistic lifestyle. We've been teetering on the edge for decades now, but have always managed to beat it back at the last moment. IF The Shadow President™©® was even one-tenth as smart or half the Uniter that he claimed to be, and his supporters swore he was during last year's campaign, he could have had everything he wanted. Instead, in a rush to gain total control of every aspect of our lives, he has severely miscalculated. The American public, as lazy as we have become, still have enough time in our days to watch news and read news, even on accident, to know that we are being lied to. Maybe we don't know all the details, but there is definitely a sense in each of us, call it intuition if you must, that warns us when someone is being untruthful, when someone is looking to do us harm, when someone is looking to control us. We should always listen to that voice.

And make no mistake, control is exactly what this faux health care debate is all about. If you think for one moment that anyone in our government gives a damn about whether or not we have affordable health care, you are sadly mistaken. They simply don't. Politicians care about two things: a.) power and b.) staying in power. Over the years we have all heard and witnessed politicians making claims that even a two-year old with an 80 word vocabulary would know were patently false. This instance is no difference, except for the scope. This nationalization of health care will be the literal needle that breaks the camel's back. Past government programs, many of them started with far more utopian ideas than this one have come back to haunt and cripple our nation financially (again, think Social Security, medicare/medicaid, and pretty much any other government program that pops into your head.) None of them have been a benefit to us as a nation, and in fact, each of them holds our nation as hostage, because before anything else, those monies have to be paid out, and the receipts simply are matching the outlays, and it will only grow worse as we move forward.

Nationalized health care is a bad idea, it's failed nearly every single place where it's been tried (I would assume that Cuba, shockingly, can lay claim to the fact that in a small, contained population, it could work) and we'll discuss that more the next time we bring this topic up. For now, the important thing to remember is that we are being treated like children, and our Shadow President™®© presumes to know more than all of us, therefore we should all trust him with our money and our lives. Count me out.

Looking Back on Some ObamaCare Thoughts From 5 Years Ago (part 2)

If you missed part 1 of this review of thoughts on the Obamacare Crisis, you can click here.  For those that have already read through, please continue on below.  As stated in part one, these thoughts were from a little over 5 years ago, and were originally published in a different place.

 

August 9th, 2009

The Coming Crisis (Part 2)

 

So in the first part of this little series we discussed some of the financial ramifications of The Shadow President's™©® health care scheme, and the possible ramifications that might be felt throughout the economy as a whole. We will discuss more about that in the next segment, but for today's discussion, I think it is far more important to discuss one of the basic tenets of the health care argument, namely coverage, and a person's ability to receive treatment if they needed it.

As is the case with nearly anything that is political, there are more lies and holes in this part of the argument than could possibly be counted, but let's start with the easiest one to refute: treatment. It is illegal under federal law (the actual name of the law is EMTALA -Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act) to refuse treatment to those who show up in a hospital and request it.

Treatment must be provided for anyone who asks for it, and also any ancillary services that would be available to the emergency department in order to determine if a medical emergency exists. Further, if an emergency situation is deemed to exist by the hospital staff, the hospital is obligated to provide further examination/treatment, or transfer the individual to another hospital for treatment, which is determined through the patient's level of stability.

I have many friends who work in all different sectors of the medical community, or have a spouse that does, and one of those happens to be a nurse at a highly prestigious hospital in the Boston area (one of the most highly regarded hospitals in the world, in fact) and one of her chief complaints is the fact that they are required by this law to treat even illegal aliens -which by law are persons that have no legal standing in this country. Yet they cannot be refused top of the line medical care, which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that this legislation is nothing but a superfluous grab for power and political capital by those who are pushing it forth (namely our Shadow President™©® and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi) who have so much invested in this politically, that they have no choice but to keep pushing forward legislation that anyone who has had an opportunity to take even a cursory glance at knows it is destined to destroy our country, and our medical standards, but we'll get into more detail about that in the next installment. For today, the important thing to remember is that this legislation is not necessary, because no one, under no circumstances, can be denied care/treatment. It is simply illegal, and in today's sue-happy world, hospitals are not going to take that chance (bonus fact for the day: hospitals pass this treatment cost along to health care providers, who of course pass it along to those who pay for their own insurance/receive it through to the tune of $90 Billion a year. Again, more on this tomorrow.)

Lastly, for those who read the last installment but did not feel like clicking on the link provided, here is the information that it contained:

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov" (actual information from www.whitehouse.gov -the official administration website.)

That's right ladies and gentlemen, welcome to a world where you are being asked to spy on your friends, your family, and your co-workers for your government for having the audacity to dare exercise your 1st Amendment right and question something that has been put forth as gospel truth by this administration. Welcome to Communist China, or the USSR, or Orwell's 1984. This is what has become of America in just over 6 months.

Looking Back 5 Years on Some Obamacare Thoughts

With a new story coming every day about the travesty that is Obamacare, I thought I would take the time to look at some prognostications I made back when the argument was fresh.  Feel free to comment with your thoughts and opinions.  These articles were first published on a different space, in a different time, but they still feel relevant now:

August 6, 2009

The Coming Crisis (part 1)

The good news is, if you read the words that I'm about to post here, and you don't like them, you can feel free to report me to the federal government and agents will drop out of black helicopters and snatch me up, wherever I may be, and I'll never be heard from again (I wish I could say that opening was me being facetious, but alas, it is not.)

You can check out this link for the info I'm talking about, if you prefer to not click on strange links, I'll make certain to post the info at the end of tomorrow's blog.

There has been a lot of talk in the news over the last several months about how we have to "save" healthcare and how this is the "most important" issue in our nation today, and that if something is not done now NOW we will never have this opportunity again. Never mind that 85% of Americans are satisfied with their health care plans, or that the cost of this health care scheme that is being forced on us would cost conservatively $1 TRILLION in its first 10 years. One trillion dollars. To put that in numbers that might be understood, if you started at exactly year 0 (and I'll grant, there was no such thing at the time, but in hindsight we are allowed to go back to that time) and spent $1 million a day every day since then, you would have spent $733,787,000,000 (including leap years, and extending through 12.31.2009), meaning that you would still have $266,213,000,000 or nearly another 729 years of spending that $1 million a day to get what the government is going to spend to "fix" health care in the next decade -a system that by all reports is the best in the world and is enjoying rave reviews.

Now, it is being pitched as an altruistic idea, one that is designed to bring Americans together in a show of unity (despite the fact that according to polls only 36% are in favor of this scheme, while 46% are opposed) to help create a sense of fairness. I believe the important question to ask yourself here was when was the last time that the government was looking out for you, in an honest and true manner? Whom amongst us expects that government, especially on the federal level, is looking to give any of us a fair shake? I do not, for one, and for once, I believe that I may not be alone.

A couple of important questions to consider before we cut this short for today (there will be more tomorrow and perhaps Saturday, unless the knocking on the door is the harbinger of doom...then adios!)

• Are we going to trust our government, the very same government that has brought such stellar service to our men and women who have put their lives on the line to protect us to provide our citizenry with the same bangup service?
• 
  
• Will our elected officials opt out of their high-priced golden coverage (provided, of course, at taxpayer expense) and join the public option that the rest of us plebians are expected to enjoy?


• Do we really want to hand over 1/7 of our nation's economy to the same "leaders" who have brought us the running debacles that are medicaid, medicare, and social security? Are we really that stupid?