The Truth of Health Care Reform Revealed

On Thursday, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released their preliminary cost estimates for the pending health reform legislation. Democrats lauded the reports findings, noting that the figures–cost of $950 billion and reduce the deficit by $150 billion over ten years–hit the marks President Barack Obama laid out when the health care debate began over a year ago. While these numbers may fall within the parameters dictated by President Obama–the New York Times does an excellent job of explaining how it was impossible for them not to–this battle has little to do with deficits or health care reform. In the end, it comes down to one word–”power.”

Regardless, it appears Democrats have the votes they need and passage is inevitable. Over the past couple of days, I’ve watched the reactions of several different factions involved in the debate.

As expected, members of the “Tea Party Movement” have expressed outrage at the bill and out of frustration have started directing their anger at the politicians involved with ramming the bill through. NBC reporter, Luke Russert, tweeted earlier that Tea Party activists were hurling racial slurs at  Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC), one of the more visible faces in the health care debate, and other Democratic politicians. It’s unfortunate that some people feel the need to resort to ignorance to voice their opposition. Clyburn and other Democratic politicians are making a huge mistake in supporting the current bill, but it has nothing to do with the politicians’ race, hurling racial slurs at politicians will not prevent the bill from passing, nor will it help reduce the size of the Federal government.

Another group I’ve followed reaction from is the intellectual elitist/Hollywood crowd. This group, largely made up of people who have made a lot of money from doing virtually nothing–either through trust funds, inheritance or bad art–feels guilty for having so much and doing so little. This creates a void in their life and they spend their free time–something else they have plenty of–searching for ways to give their life meaning, supporting health care reform gives their lives’ this meaning. After all, they believe everyone will now have free health care and that a perfect utopia cannot be far behind. This group is ecstatic. While I strongly disagree with this segment of society, they’re so far out of touch with mainstream American society that I cannot hold this instance of bad judgment against them. They lack the proper knowledge to fully understand the practical implications this bill will have on American society.

Without a doubt, the most smug group are the Democratic politicians. Power drives politicians. This goes for Republicans as much as Democrats, but the Democrats have control of both houses of Congress and are the party responsible for this health care bill. This bill was born out a hunger for power, but sold to the American people as a humanitarian necessity. Simply put, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama could care less how much the average American is paying for insurance premiums, nor do they have any real interest in the number of Americans currently without health insurance. These politicians care only about power and health care reform provided the perfect opportunity to control over a large portion of the American economy currently run by the private sector. This group is walking around D.C. right now, chest stuck out, nose stuck up, fake smiles chiseled on their faces, overjoyed that their dream is nearing reality, soon they will have power our Federal government has never seen.

Then there’s me. I’ve made it clear from the beginning that I don’t believe the Federal government has any role to play in health care reform, unless it’s removing itself from the equation altogether. While I do believe reform is needed, I don’t believe that the Federal government is the proper to agent to usher in that reform.

But what about the poor people without health insurance? Our nation is filled with the most generous people on the face of the planet. I have no doubt that, if provided with sufficient tax credits, American people would gladly increase their charitable donations to churches and other altruistic organizations. People run charities a lot better than the Federal government.

When I look at this health care bill, I am saddened by the unabashed bigotry of some of the bill’s detractors. I’m offended by the bravado of the elitists on the East and West Coasts of this nation, who look to the government to solve their personal issues, at the cost of millions of average middle-Americans. I’m disgusted by the egos of the Democratic politicians, so hungry for power, that they’re willing to totally destroy our constitutional Republican form of government, which has worked so well since the founding of our nation. Most importantly, I remain resolute that this socialism starter course will not take hold in the bowels of the Americans people, but rather be discharged as the filthy excrement it is. The first big BM? November 2010.

Conflicted feelings about seeing “Up”

I’ve never been one for boycotts.  I fundamentally disagree with many of the artists on the proper role of the Federal government and on the issue of American exceptionalism. However, I continue to consume their art. Indeed, a quick glance at my movie, music and book library and you’d be hard pressed to find any work by an artist I consider a political ally.

Every so often, an artist harbors such an abhorrent political ideology or personal beliefs that one must question whether or not it’s proper to contribute money to their art.  To this day, I refuse to watch Passion of the Christ or any other Mel Gibson film because of his anti-Semitic tirades.

I’m having similar hesitations when it comes to the new Pixar flick, Up, which currently sits a top the box office and has received great reviews. However, the movie features the voice of Ed Asner.  Regardless of the adjective you choose to describe Asner’s political views, it’s  clear that he is well to the left of center of the average American, as evidenced by his support of the Marxist rebels of the FMLN who fought against our soldiers in El Salvador in the 1980′s. I can tolerate a socialist; I can’t support a traitor.

With that said, I don’t want to act like the religious nuts that boycott everything that runs counter to Puritan values or Levitical law.  What do I do?

—————-
Now playing: Dixie Chicks – Not Ready to Make Nice
via FoxyTunes

Question for Obama Supporters #1

I’ve noticed that many people scoff at the idea of certain conservatives calling the current direction the Obama administration and the Democratic leadership are headed, “socialist.”

Personally, I think it’s a bit hypocritical for most elected Republican officials to use the term “socialist,” since the past 8 years were filled with government expansion, an idea often closely associated with “socialism.” However, I have no real problem with the semantics of applying the socilaist term to many of the policies being presented by the current administration. While they may not directly mirror the textbook definition of “socialism,” they do contain many of elements of “nationalization” and involve the intervention of the Federal government in the private sector.

It got me to thinking, if any use of the word “socialist” or “socialism”, as it relates to the current administration, will be viewed as simply a pejorative, what adjective, or what form of government, best describes the intentions of this current administration?

A few facts:

The previous administration began a policy of using the Federal government to engage in problems confronting the financial sector, part of the private sector. This policy was continued and expanded on by the current administration, including the use of Federal funds to prop up privately held financial institutions.

One sector, the automobile industry, received a lot of “hands on attention” from this current administration. Depending on where you get your news, this administration either forced one company (Chrysler) into bankruptcy or strongly suggested they consider it. Either way, the Federal government injected itself into the day-to-day business operations of a company in the private sector.

This administration and Democratic leadership has made clear its intentions to pass legislation regarding health care in the United States, specifically involving the Federal government in seeking out solutions for the uninsured or “under-insured.” Again, depending on where you get your news, this administration either wants to completly nationalize the health care industry or it seeks to establish some form of government run health care for those in need. Either way, it appears this administration and current Democratic leadership will attempt to expand the role of the Federal government in the health care indsutry.

While this may not fit your definition of “socialism,” it certainly does not fit the definition of “free-market capitalism.” My question to those sensitive to the word “socialism,” how do we describe these policies. Is there a particular term or phrase you would choose to use?

Searching for the political Cool Hand Luke

In the movie Cool Hand Luke, Luke Jackson serves time in a Florida prison work camp. From the moment he is introduced to the camp, Luke establishes himself as a fiercely independent spirit, challenging the authority of  the prison guards and refusing to accept the heirarchy of power among the prisoners established prior to his arrival.  One of the movies most memorable moments occurs when Luke (Paul Newman) challenges Dragline (George Kennedy), the self appointed leader among the band of prisoners,  to a prison yard fight.

Dragline uses his size and strength to pummel Luke. However, each time Dragline knocks Luke to the ground, he rises back up to take the next round of punches. At first, the other prioners cheer the fight on, but after a while they begin to see the extent of the beating and encourage Luke to either stay down or start bleeding so that the guards will stop the fight.  Luke refuses, rises to his feet and attempts a weak swing at Dragline who picks Luke up and throws him over his shoulder like a sack of potatos. When Dragline puts Luke down, he takes another swing at Dragline’s face. Dragline looks at Luke tells him “you’re beat” and to “stay down,” but Luke rises back up, as Dragline walks away.

Later that night, Luke manages to win most of the money in camp by bluffing his way through a hand in poker. Dragline looks at Luke and makes the comparison of the way Luke continued to fight him with “nothing” to the way he won a big hand in poker with “nothing.” This prompts Luke to issue one of the most famous lines in movie history, “…sometimes nothing can be a real cool hand.” As the movie progresses, we see Luke defy the authority of the prison guards and that of Captain, seeking to escape from both the literal and metaphorical chains they attach to him, refusing to allow the authority of the prison camp establishment intimidate him.

When I think of Cool Hand Luke, I’m reminded of what the Republican Party currently needs. In the current political clime, Barack Obama plays the role of Captain. Indeed, you can almost hear the words, “what we have here is failure to communicate,” coming out of Obama’s mouth. The prison guards represent Obama’s lackeys in the Democratic Party–Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, etc. Dragline represents the current “leaders” in the Republican Party–John McCain, Sarah Palin, Lindsey Graham. The other prisoners represent the Republican Party and Luke represents the figure the Republican Party lacks.

Yes, the Republican Party needs their own Luke, someone willing to challenge the authority of the political establishment, someone willing to challenge the Captain and his guards, someone willing to take the punches from those in the Republican Party who will tell him or her, “we’re beat, stay down.”  The Republican Party needs politicians,not with policy, but with swagger. The Republicans need someone to energize their party with their dissidence.

Congressman Pete Sessions (R-TX) understands this, but lacks the eloquence to properly express this philosophy.  Asking a political party to take lessons from a Paul Newman movie is far less controversial than asking a political party to take lessons from the Taliban. I might not agree with everything Sessions says, but I admire his bravado nonetheless. Earlier in the week, Sessions called out Barack Obama, saying that Obama wants to “inflict damage and hardship on the free enterprise system, if not kill it.”  After that remark, members of Sessions own party played the role of Dragline, distancing themselves from Sessions comments, submitting to the authority of the Democratic leadership.

Instead of standing up beside Sessions, lambasting Obama for his contempt of the private sector, accepting the punishment the White House would surely throw their way, the Republican leadership tucked their tails between their legs and said they did not agree with Sessions. They chose to cut and run, instead of staying and fighting.

We have seen this same cowardice since 2000. Every Republican politician has marched in line with the leadership at top. Every now and then, a few Republican politicians will have a moment of clarity and take a stand like Sessions; however, none of them go far enough.

For example, when Sessions made his accusations about Obama’s attempt to “kill” capitalism, he could have launched into a speech against socialism and took a chance to criticize many in his own party. 

The Republicans taxed and spent the past 8 year like there was no tomorrow and tried to force the government in arenas where the government has no business (gay marriage, Terry Schiavo, etc.). Yes, the few remaining Republicans in Congress are just like their Democrat counterparts. In the words of Bon Jovi, “it’s all the same/only the names have changed.” 

As much as I hate the Democratic Party, the Republican Party is actually more puzzling to me. Why is that they continue to push issues that many, if not most, Americans see as products of bigotry and misogyny. You don’t win elections by telling people “we think this group of people should have these rights, but not these.” They’re free to believe that, but don’t try to legislate it.

The best way for Republicans to win elections is to focus on the economy. “I’ll cut your taxes. I’ll decrease regulation of your business. I’ll let you make as much money as you want and spend that money the way that you want. Other than that, do what you want, just remember your rights end at your nose.” 

Instead, Republicans vote with Democrats on raising taxes, increasing government spending, using the government as a vehicle to fix mistakes made by the private sector. Let us not forget, a Republican president started the Federal bail out program. Three Republican Senators voted in favor of the Federal stimulus program. No wonder the Republican Party is at rock bottom, right now, it has no backbone to support it. Hopefully, before too long, the Republican Party will find it’s Cool Hand Luke and throw a wrench in the Democrats plan to turn the United States into a European socialist state.

Free markets and capitalism Part 1

For me, the NBA season ends when the Mavericks bow out of the playoffs. I’ll devote some time to the Mavs around the draft, but for now, I’d like to get back to some political discussions, specifically something that I have been thinking about a lot the past few weeks.

I find it funny when people attack capitalism and free markets, treating them as the “enemy” of  freedom and liberty. Barack Obama has made this way of thinking chic again, when the opposite is actually true—capitalism and the free markets are the guarantors of freedom and liberty.  Sure, as a young, idealistic college student, it’s fun to think like Mr. Obama, but once you graduate certain realities should start to take shape. 

It’s the free market economic system that allows you the very freedom to sit around and even consider whether or not some third world factory worker is exploited or not. Likewise, it’s the free market system that created and maintains the “middle class” Lefitsts talk so much about (but do so little for). If it weren’t for our free market economic system, you would be farming your own food, raising your own animals, sewing your own clothes and would have very little leisure time to sit around and think.
It’s our free market economic system, which some think exploits our citizens and other countries, that has paved the way for the ambition and innovation that has allowed for the technological innovations that allow you to write blogs, join social networking sites, write and send e-mails.

It’s our free market economic system, which some think exploits our citizens and other countries, that transformed our nation (and world to a certain extent) from a collection of isolated communities into a vast global network, where we are aware of the condition of those outside our own communities. Do you think Cubans are very aware of those outside of Cuba? Does the average Cuban have the luxury of sitting around, thinking about the condition of people in Darfur?

It’s our free market economic system, which some think exploits other countries, that, believe it or not, raises the per capita earnings of residents in Third World countries. Sure, a person working in a sweat shop in Vietnam makes a terrible wage compared to Americans, but compared to other people in Vietnam, they make a better than average wage. 

Unhappy Earth Day

I think this post from Earth Day 2008 is worth remebering this year, as a new administration tries to force the environmental agenda further down our throats.

 

 

One thing that has remained constant with me throughout my life is my bewilderment with “yuppies.” Why? Well, the “yuppie” tends to be easily swayed by fads, especially ones where they’re made to feel that they are making a positive contribution to society.

 

Perhaps no other movement has duped “yuppies” more than “global warming” and matters of “personal health.” It’s Earth Day, what better time to examine the role of a dubious science in courting the “yuppie” vote, not only on the national level, but on the local level as well. It is a tale full of sound and fury and all sorts of sordid characters.

 

Let’s begin with these characters, for it is their unholy alliance, not any real or perceived catastrophe, which has catapulted these issues to the front pages of our newspapers and as a major talking point on the cable news networks. In short, you have a group of opportunist politicians (i.e. Al Gore) who provide the power and political clout, the enviro-fasicists that constitute the “Big Weather” advocacy group and the yuppies who provide funding either directly, by donating to radical groups or politicians, or indirectly, by buying Big Weather’s merchandise (i.e. “environmentally friendly products”, mercury laden “energy efficient” light bulbs, etc.).

 

Now I don’t blame the Yuppie. The Yuppie life may be one I don’t completely understand, but I do think that most Yuppie’s have good intentions; many are just naïve and a tad bit gullible. They are truly a product of their environment. When you grow up in behind the thick, brick walls of sheltered suburban communities, you miss out on a lot of life, including a good dose of street smarts. If someone tries to sell them something and they present it with flowery language, citing scholarly and scientific studies, the Yuppie is inclined to accept and believe without question. Indeed, the Yuppie is the victim in this con.

 

Besides naivety, trying to keep up with the Joneses is probably the Yuppie’s biggest weakness. If they see that their neighbor is driving a hybrid, they’re going to want a hybrid. If Oprah tells them that they should be organic, well damnit, she is Oprah and she must know what she’s talking about. If everyone else in the gated community becomes obsessed with their carbon footprint, then of course you’re going to feel pressured to obsess over your own carbon footprint or else you might be asked to quit the Junior League.

 

Not only are they being conned and pressured, there is also an element of fear involved. I remember a “progressive” teacher I had in fifth grade. She taught us all about Earth Day, pollution, the green house effect and a little thing called “acid rain.” She made us listen to the song “Channel Z” (I’ve included the lyrics at the end of this post) by the B-52’s, to reinforce the harm that each and everyone of us were doing to this great planet Earth. I felt especially bad since I lived 30 miles away from the school, but hey, at least we car pooled.  This was in 1990, I can only imagine how bad things must be now for kids.

 

You know how the story goes. The kid comes home from school, shares the story his teacher taught him and tells his parents how upset the whole thing makes him. Yuppies are protective, overly protective of their progeny and if it upset their kids they must do something about it. The Yuppie parent feels compelled to alter their lifestyle, drastically, all because of propaganda being preached by a socialist teacher.

 

But the fear and anxiety is not limited to the kids. Over the course of the past week, I’ve learned a new term—“eco-anxiety”. It is exactly what it sounds like, anxiety brought on by the fear that one is bringing on the end of the world by their lifestyle. There are people out there who are so sucked into this con, that they literally worry themselves sick about their carbon footprint and whether or not their life is “green” enough. I can say with almost 99% certainty that a majority of the people who “suffer” from “eco-anxiety” are Yuppies. In other communities, there are too many legitimate worries to concern one’s self with than Marxist propaganda.

 

It’s easy to see why some Yuppies might have some fears, you have eco-fascists like Ted Turner, pushing the issue even further. A couple of weeks ago, Mr. Turner appeared on the Charlie Rose program on PBS. When pressed about “global warming”, Mr. Turner had this to say, ““We’ll be eight degrees hotter in 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals. Civilization will have broken down. The few people left will be living in a failed state — like Somalia or Sudan — and living conditions will be intolerable.”

 

Fear is exactly the angle that Big Weather and the liberal politicians are aiming for, because with fear, people are willing to trade away freedom and liberty in order to achieve safety. This means more power for the politician, a fact not lost on European and American socialists, whose ultimate goal is to strip citizens of all their freedoms and convert us all to followers of the church of government. Al Gore doesn’t give a damn about the Earth or the Earth’s environment. Al Gore wants power(and money) and so he grows a beard (every great scholar needs a beard) and makes a Power Point presentation on pollution and polar bears and every suburban community in America is fighting to become the “greenest” of them all. Gore has had such an effect on the Yuppies view of environment that now even the Bush administration has to change their positions on the issue.

 

You see, when Yuppies get upset, not only do they talk with actions, but also with their pocket books. They will donate to the campaigns of candidates who talk about these issues (i.e. Obama) and they will buy any piece of shit with the words “green” or “organic” emblazoned on it. This serves to benefit not only the politician, but also the radicals who make up Big Weather.

 

So, I’ve come to wish you an unhappy Earth Day, because it’s evil and it’s a lie. It’s time that we all recognize the “global warming” con for what it is—a power trip for opportunistic politicians and eco-fascists that make up Big Weather. I urge each and every one of you to embrace your carbon footprint on this Earth Day—love it and nurture it. At the end of the day, come back here and share with all the readers of this blog what your carbon footprint was for the day. There’s a chance prizes will be awarded for the highest carbon footprint.

The role of the Federal government

The United States Constitution acts like a doctor’s prescription.  Instead of medicine, it intructs us on how much government is healthy.  Just as taking more medicine than a doctor recommends can cause harm to the body, so to having more government than the Constitution prescribes can and will cause harm to our great nation. The Federal government is good in the small recommended doses laid out in the Constitution.

The Obama administration seeks to expand the powers of the government outside the parameters set up in the Constitution and risk the health of our nation as we know it.

This is the reason for the Tea Partys.

Policy v. the people

 I’m amazed when I hear people describe a politician as being “for the people.” I heard it for 8 years during the Clinton administration and I’m sure people said it during the Kennedy administration, but it’s nothing compare to what I’ve heard regarding Obama. Obama earned his nickname, “The Messiah,” because of the cult of personality he built up around himself, supports actually believe(d) that this man would help them pay their bills, put gas in their cars and make sure there was food on their table.

 I don’t doubt that eventually the government in Obama’s Marxist mind could provide all these things. After all, Obama’s government aims to take from the rich, stockpile in the government and then redistribute among the poor. However, I do doubt that Obama dreams of this type of government for altruistic reasons.

 Obama desires power and to build a legacy for himself. He aims to do this the only way a Marxist knows how, through policy that will takes not only money, but power from the people, and gives it to the politicians in charge of the government. You see, Obama cares about policy and power over the people in this nation. With an approval rating hovering at 63% , I just hope more Americans wake up and see Obama’s true intentions.

The way health care ought to be…

As Barack Obama gathers the greatest minds in health care together, I thought I would share my personal experiences with the medical community in hopes of helping solve the health care crisis. 

I grew up in rural East Texas, in a town where literally everyone knew your name. I couldn’t wait to get out of there and I’m glad to live in the city now, but there are several aspects of that small town lifestyle that I miss, especially my doctor.  The small medical clinic in town provided health care for three generations of my family. There was no need to take medical histories, the same doctors that treated me had treated my grandparents, parents, aunts, uncles and cousins. There was no need to waste a lot of time feeling out paperwork, as soon as you walked in the door the office staff pulled your file and you were on your way to being treated. 

Once you got inside the examination room, the doctor came by, inquired about the problem and made a diagnosis. Again, there was no need to check any guidelines or recommend any superfluous tests, the doctor made a diagnosis based on the empirical evidence in front of him.  Before you left, the doctor asked about your family and eased any concerns you may have about your visit.

I didn’t realize how unique this situation was until I visited the doctor for the first time in Dallas. 

True story, two years ago I was trying to flush the toilet and broke the plastic handle. The sharp edges sliced my thumb wide open and since it was a Friday evening I decided to go to an urgent care center. I gave the office staff my insurance information. They informed me that since my carrier was closed for the evening I would be responsible for the entire cost of my visit and they would file claim on my behalf later.

An hour later, I was led back to the examination room. A physician assistant examined my wound, gave me a shot and stitched me up. It wasn’t until I got ready to check out that I experienced the most painful moment of the evening. For an examination by a physicians assistant, some stitches and a tetanus shot, I owed the urgent facility well over $500, out of pocket. I knew that I would get reimburshed for a majority of the cost, but I was still appalled that I had to pay the same price to see P.A. that I would to see a M.D. 

So what does this have to do with the current health care problem and what can we learn about the health care I received in my small town?

In my hometown, I was more than just a patient. I had an established relationship with my health care providers, something non-existent in the heavily regulated world of urban medicine. I can only imagine how impersonal health care would be if the Federal government had even more control over it.

What about costs? Obama’s people will tell you that health care costs are outrageous and even I just shared how I get ripped off by an urgent care facility, thankfully I have insurance–crappy insurance, but insurance all the same. When you have a personal relationship with health care provider, money becomes a secondary factor to your care. The clinic that housed my health care providers was very flexible with payments. You and your health care provider figured out what you could pay and how you could pay for it. Again, if and when the Federal government seizes control of the health care industry, they will attempt to destroy this personal relationship with health care providers.

I don’t expect everyone to be able to find health care like I’ve been blessed to have. However, I do think my story illustrates that the health care industry is not as out of control as those on the Left will have you believe. There is very little regulation, in fact many of the health care providers in my hometown violate many of the Federal regulations in place, and the health care I received there is far superior to anything I have received since living in Dallas. If anything, I think it proves that less regulation can lead to a better relationship between patient and health care provider, which in turn will lead to better treatment.

Obama’s health care summit

So Chairman Obama has gathered together members of the medical community and politicans from both sides of the aisle to discuss health care.This is another step towards socialized medicine.

If you ever want to know what a business would look like it were socialized, look no further than the post office. I walk into the post office and the customer service is non-existent. The lines are always long, the postal service refuses to use operate all of their windows, on more than one occasion I’ve been in a long line when the postal worker decided it was time to take a break, regardless of the lengthy of the line. When you finally make it to the front of the line, the postal worker who assists you makes you feel like you are the biggest burden in their life.

The United States Postal Service does not exist to make a profit. They exist to provide a government mandated service and the postal workers do their job only to draw their government check. Indeed, the U.S.P.S. seems to reward “bad business.”

So the next time you think it would be nice to have the government pay your medical bills, just remember the post office, because if Chairman Obama gets his way, your local doctor’s office will operate in the same manner. This is a bad idea that must be stopped.