If Health Insurance was Coffee

By Grant Davies

When our crack staff finds cool videos that our readers will want to see, we usually put them on the side bar and leave them for a few weeks so all can enjoy. Some however, are so good that we feature them right here in middle of the wisdom section.

Credit Carl Holzhowser with finding this one. He has been doing a great job lately and we are considering giving him a 50% raise over what he was previously earning on this swell gig.

So grab a cup of coffee and sit back and learn about health insurance in this new world of hopeless change.

You Really Must Buy a Chevy Volt

No, this isn't an ad for the new Government Motors car, the Chevy Volt. In fact, the idea that anyone (not intellectually impaired) would actually buy one of these $41,000 turkeys with their own money is preposterous to me. Unless, of course, they MUST  because it became against the law not to buy one.

The whole concept would have been ridiculous to even contemplate until just over a year ago. That is when the same government who took over GM, fired the president of the company, refused to pay off any of the bond holders who lent the company money, gave a huge ownership stake to their union buddies and started making political donations back to themselves decided that you really MUST buy health insurance as part of their takeover of the US healthcare industry.

Those of us who weren't consumed with excitement running up our legs over the recent election of Hopama and Company knew at the time that the whole scheme was unconstitutional (to say nothing of being completely immoral.)  But having seen GW Bush sign a clearly unconstitutional repeal of the first amendment (McCain/Feingold) and the Supreme Court of the US uphold the government taking of one lady's property in order to give it to connected real estate developers (Kelo v. City of New London), we also knew that the mere fact that something is unconstitutional doesn't mean much anymore.

That is, until yesterday when at least one rational federal judge decided that he agreed with us that the provision of the 2700 page Obamacare nightmare which mandated that citizens must buy government designed and approved health insurance was indeed unconstitutional. When Judge Henry E. Hudson made that ruling yesterday in the Commonwealth of Virginia's lawsuit against the federal government, he became the first stumbling block for the law on it's road to the Supreme Court of the US where the legal part of the citizens' resistance to the takeover will be decided.

So it occurred to me that while we wait for this legal drama to play out it might be time to think about what it will mean if the court decides that the government can force you to buy something it feels will be beneficial to others. Why not start with the (coal powered) electric car that Government Motors is pushing with $7,500 of taxpayer money in the form of tax rebates? I mean, even if it didn't help others, lots of people might buy a $41,000 car if they could get their neighbors to pay the first $7,500. But why take the chance that they might not when you can simply pass a law saying they MUST? (As in T. H. White's ant colony, "Everything Not Forbidden is Compulsory.")

After that the precedent will be set and the people may be forced to buy orange juice and health club memberships to supplement their health insurance. If so, they can drive to the mandatory health club in their mandatory Chevy Volts and live in mandatory good health until they finally die. Death being the only thing which is truly mandatory in a constitutional United States.

A Bad Night for Canadians

Freedom and lost futures were not the only casualties in the Shame of 2010  which occured last night.

Pre-shame America used to be the "steam control" valve for the world, a destination where anyone with some savings or grit could flee to when escaping from other formerly great or never great countries. Post-Shame America will no longer be that destination.

Have you ever heard of an American citizen who purposely traveled to Canada to take advantage of their healthcare system? How about Great Britain?

Where will the Prime Minister of Newfoundland flee to for his heart surgery when Florida hospitals are no longer an option? Danny "Millions" will be out of luck.

Do we think that California hospitals will be the destination for female Canadian politicians who find their lives in mortal peril from breast cancer? This was recently demonstrated by the departure of Liberal MP Belinda Stronach from Canada to the US for surgery. She was the biggest proponent of the government single payer system of that country. Where will they go now?

The people who were the single greatest cause of the real estate implosion are now in charge of disassembling the health insurance companies and healthcare providers. They will be replaced by a government run system. No problem if you want a mail sorter operating on your heart and a political appointee telling you what your options are.

Shame on you America, Canadians deserve better.

The Darkest Hour?

I have been contemplating a method for flying the flag at my home at half staff next Monday. It's got a fixed pole and there is not much room for lowering, so it might take some imagination to rig up. I hope I don't have to, but it seems it's more likely than not that the greatest country that ever existed will expire this weekend.

I'm not suggesting we surrender, ever. But in an effort to stay attached to reality, we must be prepared for what amounts to a twisted sort of coup d'état. (defined in part by Wikipedia as "the sudden unconstitutional deposition of a government, usually by a small group of the existing state establishment") The government "of the people, by the people and for the people" will have lost out to a permanent political class of rulers and their army of "gimmie" soldiers.

While the country waits to see what the final vote tally will be on this evil legislation, I will be waiting instead  to see if it comes to a vote. I am convinced that lame duck Pelosi will never bring it up unless she is absolutely certain she has the votes. If you hear it is going to a vote, you need not watch the tally.

The law, if allowed to stand, will signal the "end of the beginning" of the elimination of our rights and freedom. Nothing less. This battle is not about health-care reform. As John Wayne once famously said in a movie line, "If you believe anything, you believe that."

Every losing war starts with one lost battle. The end of individual liberty and personal responsibility could come rather quickly (on a relative basis) if this battle goes to the fascists. (Fascism is a system where property is privately owned but government controlled)

I wish I was just being purposely melodramatic. Although hyperbole can sometimes be a useful way to illustrate a point, it is not intentional on my part in this case.

This is truly America's darkest hour. But as we have heard before, the darkest hour is just before dawn. It's going to be a long, frightening weekend. Right now, our flag is still there.

No Teleprompter? Use a Stump Speech!

Who said the filibuster technique is useless now that we have a "nuclear option" and a "Slaughter rule"?

The art of filibuster is alive. But instead of the Senate using it, the President has taken over. If you have the stomach for it, you may want to watch this interview and see if you can count the times that a question is asked, but never answered.

The Presidents supporters will probably say; "Oh, it's just politics, they all do it."  Which, although true, is not OK.  So much for the most open and non-partisan administration ever.

(Extra credit if you can actually watch the whole thing.)

Paging Dr. Cynical, Your Injection is Ready

While taking my beautiful proof-reader out to lunch/wine the other day we were accosted by a ridiculous image on the TV over the area where we were seated. Although there was no sound enabled on the set, we could still easily figure out what was about to happen- in the same way that one understands what a mime is trying to impart to his audience.  But in this case it was like some bizarre home party version of political charades, minus the amusement. I guess my sense of humor was lessened somewhat by the consequences of this stuff because I used to find these antics hilarious instead of just mildly humorous.

The TV showed a group of people as they came marching out in single file from behind a curtain, all dressed in KKK outfits (minus the masks) in a preposterous spectacle which seemed like a re-enactment of the Von Trapp kids presenting themselves for inspection in the Sound of Music.

A reader of this blog left a comment yesterday (on my last article regarding the "nuclear option") which made the case that; "it's all theater." The point was well taken by me.

I guess the genius behind this piece of theater thought that people were so dim that they would see all these alleged doctors and heath-care workers and immediately conclude that physicians in general are all behind the President while he made his latest speech in his quest to take over one sixth of the US economy. (One of these Oscar wannabes even had a stethoscope hanging out of his pocket, a detail which should actually get the prize for "Best comedic prop in a political theater presentation"- It certainly made us giggle.)

Unfortunately, that notion is as wrong as the prop was silly. The truth is, according to a poll of actual physicians taken by the Investors Business Daily, (IBD/TIPP) a few months back, 45% said they would consider early retirement or other options if Obama-Care were enacted. If you think waiting rooms are fun now, just wait until you have to bring camping equipment to your appointment if this gets done to us.

Meanwhile, aside from having your intelligence insulted once again by the ruling party, the "doc and pony show" gave you a peek at the beta version of Obama-Care 4.0.- a fictional proposal which has never had an actual legislator put it forth and which is impossible using the "nuclear option" anyway. Apparently this magic law has all 2200 pages of the last diaper-load intact, but makes some "concessions" to Republicans.

As Charles Krauthammer reported this morning, that concession was that he might consider a "tort reform" section which would suggest "a few ridiculously insignificant demonstration projects amounting to one half of one-hundredth of 1% of the cost of Obama's health care bill."  His excellent article on this subject can be read here.  His piece ends with a quote that I would give plenty to say I wrote; "You can only be disillusioned if you were once illusioned."

As a new essay by Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute says; "Dropping a few Republican ideas into a government takeover of health care is like sterilizing the needle before a lethal injection: a nice thought, but the ultimate outcome is the same."

As my lunch (and life) companion commented concerning the "new" proposal, "a half a pile of crap is still a pile of crap." (I wish I had written that too)

One Last Attempt at Self Destruction

Not so long ago, I wrote a piece called The American Suicide Bombers. It referred to the political course of action that Pelosi, Reed and Obama were taking in an attempt to force their socialist takeover of our health-care down our throats (or up the opposite end of the anatomy) and what might happen to their political careers if they did.

To me it seems like a long time since frat boy Kennedy's Massachusetts senate seat switched from hard left to soft left. Way back then (a few weeks ago) everything seemed like it was crumbling for the "agents of change". And, it seemed for those of us who cringed at the prospect of losing our American way of life, perhaps a reprieve.

It might have been a political life line for Obama, etal. They could say, " hey we gave it our best and it didn't happen." It worked for the criminal conspiracy called the Clinton Administration, so why not?

 Obama has now decided to blur the Constitutional boundaries even more than usual, write his own health care legislation  based on the same insane model (of the people who are actually empowered to legislate) and attach it to a different bill entirely. That would make the threatened Senate filibuster a moot question.

The process is called "reconciliation", but it actually means suicide. If they do this to an already irritated populace, the polite little tea party demonstrations we have been witnessing may turn into a mammoth bar fight. "Some losses" by Democrats and liberal Republicans may very well end up as a political massacre.

The last act of a group of progressive jihadists might be fitting now that suicide seems back in vogue after a deranged IRS hater pulled a mini 9-11 in Texas. But this time the "reconciliation plane" is headed straight at us instead of a building full of tax collectors.

Meeting at the Halfway House

Sometimes when your golf game is even worse than normal, the best thing you have to look forward to is the halfway house. Your team has lost every hole, and every "press" has been a disaster. Even worse than the money lost so far is the prospect of the 19th hole verbal drilling you are going to take from your opponents. Most of the fun is ripping your buddies anyway.

So even the watery beer looks pretty good by the turn. It also gives you the chance of washing down your pride along with the hot dog by trying to re-negotiate the wager. Only the guy who is losing big is willing to de-testosterone himself. It has to be a desperate situation.

So when a President tells his political opponents that he is "willing to meet them halfway" on the legislation that he couldn't even get his own partners to agree to, it's a sure thing that prospects for his "all in" bet are dropping faster than the putts are. But you can't blame him for trying.  His opponents (Republicans) have been chumps so many times in the past it's almost a given that they will let him off the hook again.

In this case, for the Democrats, meeting "half way" would mean that since everything they wanted in their bid for socialized medicine (and control of Americans' lives) was rejected, they will now be willing to settle for most of what they wanted without giving up anything. I guess they might be willing to say in public that sometimes the Republicans are reasonable people because they "negotiated" away some of the citizens rights in return for the avoidance of looking like obstructionists. Sweet deal for someone I guess.

If I was "down nine after nine" and asked my weekly nassau opponent, Gary, for a deal like that at the Halfway House, he would pretend he didn't hear what I said (because it was me who was mumbling for a change) and march out to the tenth tee driver in hand.

For our sake, I can only hope those in opposition to the preposterous health-care scam are as clever as Gary. Turning a deaf ear to nonsensical proposals is always a good way to stay healthy.

Choosing Both Sides - A Super Bowl Story

Assuming that there are no wardrobe malfunctions at half time, the biggest flap in Super Bowl XLIV is likely to be the controversy over an ad. The one in question has yet to be run (as this is being written) but the political sniping has begun anyway.

Tim Tebow, a college football star is making what many predict will be an "anti-abortion on demand" case  in the ad. Or at least a "please choose life" message. Naturally, that seems to demand a response from the "pro-abortion on demand" groups. (I always skip the spin descriptions "pro-life" and "pro-choice" titles of such groups in the quest for clarity.)

And so continues the debate that never ends and never will.

The interesting part in this particular round of the debate was the epiphany I experienced when the actual reason for the crumbling proposal of government run health-care became obvious to this not-so-casual observer.

It was the realization that all the people who are pro-abortion on demand, are the same people who oppose government control concerning health-care!  In a moment I'll tell you how that happened.

In the mean time, how did all the pundits miss this? I mean, simple minded folks like you and I aren't expected to make such difficult calculations, that's why we have CNN, MSNBC and FOX to explain it to us. But they didn't, so I discovered it myself while reading an article, "Planned Parenthood, Athletes Respond to Tebow Super Bowl Ad" which can be found  here on Fox news Internet site.

In that article a U-Tube video is discussed where some athletes, Olympic gold medalist Al Joyner and former NFL player Sean James, were trotted out to make the case for Planned Parenthood (another euphemism) just as Tebow was trotted out by the folks who paid for the commercial he appears in. Sean James made the case in part by saying; "My mom showed me that women are strong and wise," and "She taught me that only women can make the best decisions about their health and their future."

For his part, Joyner explains; "My daughter will always be my little girl."  He goes on to say; "But I am proud everyday as I watch her grow up to be her own person, a smart, confident young woman. I trust her to take care of herself. We celebrate families by supporting our mothers, by supporting our daughters. By trusting women."

Except, of course, in all other matters concerning their health and lifestyle choices. For those decisions his daughter, mother and all other "strong and wise women" need government employees and political hacks making the tough calls. There is no way that these people could be so inconsistent in their views, right?

So the only conclusion a person can possibly arrive at is, all "pro-choice" people, including Planned Parenthood, oppose the government plan on health-care because women want choice on all health issues, not just abortion.

And that explains everything! No wonder Obama's dream scheme to take over the health-care industry has lately turned into a political nightmare.

So in the spirit of Super Bowl and the Yes we can (have it both ways) philosophy of life, I am choosing both sides to root for in today's contest. Can't it end in a tie? Can't Peyton Manning win again while the Saints still makes history for New Orleans fans? I mean, it would be so cool to have it both ways.

I suspect that if I am ever indicted for using sarcasm, this commentary will be all the evidence necessary to convict me.

Turning the Tide or Sleeping with the Enemy?

An upheaval of abnormal proportion occurred within the Democratic Party in one of the most liberal states in the union last week. None of you missed the news, but let's review the happenings for the sake of perspective.

The state was Massachusetts, (I know it's a Commonwealth, but so what) and the event there created a blizzard of op-eds and a cacophony of know-it-all-noise  from talking heads on TV and radio. Each of them had their own analysis about what happened in the special Senatorial election and where it might lead. And bloggers of all stripes have certainly not wasted the opportunity to add to the din. So why on earth would this blog feel compelled to chime in?

 Because despite the "no spin zone" approach claimed by others (who actually just add their own spin) I never miss an opportunity to add the pro-liberty spin anytime I think it has gotten short shrift.

Replacing the departed hero of Chappaquiddick with another elite feelgoodist was certainly predicted by pundits to be a coronation of a party-anointed liberal-of the day, not an actual contest with the candidate of the (almost invisible and largely irrelevant) Massachusetts Republican Party. That state party richly deserves those descriptions. Amazingly, an actual election occurred and one liberal was selected instead of the other liberal. For certain there are differences between the two, but there are even more similarities.

The one big difference was that the winning candidate promised to huddle up with national Republicans to deny the Democrats a filibuster proof super majority just when the President and his politburo were on the verge of shoving phase one of the nationalization of the health insurance up an unmentionable part of the American anatomy. It seems that even the perpetually -government is the solution- delusional in the bluest of states have temporarily regained their sense of rational thought long enough to turn the Washington green light into a yellow one.

Do all of these developments mean we can un-cap a Samuel Adams Boston Lager to celebrate the success of the nascent "Tea Partiers" in bean town?
Well, kinda, as long as you chug it instead of sipping it so as not to linger in an illusion of victory. If you think the battle is won, or that new Senator Scott Brown is a friend to the concepts of individual liberty and personal responsibility, you will suffer the hangover even while you are still intoxicated.

Any conception that the Democrats in that state have converted to the GOP is preposterous to me. Not to mention an even more preposterous notion that the majority of folks there are changing from liberal to conservative.

My advice is to clink your mugs together and toast the unexpected help from a most unlikely ally. Then get out of the pub and put your helmet back on. Using a war metaphor, this was just the success of a delaying tactic in one skirmish of one battle. That battle isn't even over, much less the war. We can hope this aid turned the tide and we will now prevail in the battle, but it is by no means certain. (In the Frank Capra version we win the war)

Scott Brown remains an uncertain ally in the effort to save ourselves from socialized medicine.
Many do not know that he supported and voted for the soon to be bankrupt Massachusetts twin version of national Obamacare. Brown admits this himself. "In Massachusetts, I support the 2006 healthcare law that was successful in expanding coverage, but I also recognize that the state must now turn its attention to controlling costs".

So, thank you to the people of Massachusetts for waking up momentarily and electing the soft left  big government advocate instead of the hard left socialist devotee.

And a word to Republicans; if your party thinks it's future lies in supporting more Brown/Chaffee/Snowe republicrats, you will retain the minority status you so richly deserved and along with it your moniker as "the stupid party."

Primum non nocere

A Latin phrase that means "First, do no harm."

What if we elected people who took the same oath our physicians take? If you said the result would be "a smaller, constitutional government that defended our rights (the actual ones, not the ones people keep making up) and didn't end up taking our freedoms while making things worse", go to the head of the class. (Jefferson's concise explanation found at the top of this page sums it up nicely.)

Alternately, if you said, "anarchy and ruin", well, as Bill Engvall says; "here's your sign".

Hippocrates might have been a good choice for a representative if he wasn't busy inventing medical practice. Hippocratic medicine was supposed to be humble and passive. Which is the same idea the framers had for governing ourselves after we kicked King George's royal arse back to England.  Good 'ole Hippo had a splendid idea that would apply equally to both practices. According to Wikipedia, the translation for the above phrase was roughly; "given an existing problem, it may be better to do nothing than to do something that risks causing more harm than good."

The impending first step to single payer government run health insurance (President Obama's unabashed and well documented goal for America) is only a few days away and qualifies as a perfect example of the above principle. It's only one of thousands of course, but it's the biggest one in the history of our moribund republic.

This isn't your run of the mill slippery slope folks. This is a fatal plunge off the precipice of Mount America. Nothing is as personal as decisions about your health and once you have abdicated that responsibility to people in government, every other decision will be essentially irrelevant. And it's easy, they don't have to forbid you from buying your own insurance, they merely have to make sure it is not available. And make no mistake, that is the plan. They wanted that result all at once, but even if they have to do it incrementally, it is the goal.

Absolutely everything one does can be in some way linked to their health. From what you eat, to how you travel, to what activities you engage in, it all can be "regulated" for the good of the people. And no individual can be allowed to engage in anything that raises the costs for the group.

A federal "Nurse Ratched" making your choices for you? Think I'm cuckoo? Over the top? Hysterical?
Perhaps, but I fear a day when you may think I was too timid.

Such a conclusion would show that, indeed, they "did great harm". Harm fatal to our way of life, and maybe even our life itself.

You Can't Handle The Truth

Those of you who do not check the Drudge Report might have missed this video.
There is no explanation needed.




It's your freedom Americans.
Election day is coming.

Let's Get Bombed

About a year ago we were blessed to be able to visit our daughter and some other wonderful people in the great states of Delaware, Maryland and Pennsylvania. On that trip we were able to do most of the things which I think make up a great vacation. Spend time with loved ones, see many historical sites, and eat fantastic food.

One of the historical sites was the City Tavern in Philadelphia, near Independence Hall, where Adams and Jefferson often met to enjoy "a feast of reason and a flow of soul".  It was great to have a good meal and a beer (made from Jefferson's own recipe, a tad heavy but, darn, it was good) in the place where the ideas and ale flowed at equal volume. It was there that the founders drank much and argued much on the way to building the greatest country on earth.

Now-a-days, lesser beings such as ourselves gather to feast on pizza while our souls are flowing as we try to hash out ideas in the same way. This time around, the same kind of anger is afoot, but instead of a slightly groggy, self confident group of action figures in attendance, it is a bewildered gathering of citizens who were so busy enjoying the fruits of abundance that they never saw the socialistic blindside coming from those who pretended to love freedom. People like George W Bush, who took about two seconds to throw conceptual free enterprise under the bus at the first sign of difficulty, and Barack H Obama who gleefully put the bus in gear and pressed the accelerator to the floor.

When I find myself in the conversations among us "bewildereds", I repeatedly hear the frustrated complaint that we are powerless as individuals to do anything about the sad state of affairs in all government endeavors, locally as well as nationally. And the frustration is more than understandable. "Who do I see about this?" is the question I hear most often, as if there was a hotline number where someone would actually care what we thought and make all the bad ideas go away.

I write on this blog in part because it gives me the feeling that I'm doing something to make the situation better, no matter how pitifully insignificant. I have had to tell people that I'm not sure what they ought to be doing. To say, "get involved" is a generalization without meaning. To say, "write to your elected representatives " is also meaningless in several ways since many (if not most) people don't even know who their representatives are, or the even more disturbing realization that those elitists could not possibly care less what you think even if you did contact them.

Imagine for a second the possible outcome of calling Dick Durbin's office and telling him you want him to vote against the two thousand plus page "Health Care Reform" monstrosity that he champions or the huge tax increase and job killing bill called "Cap and Trade" that he worships. (The latter based on discredited global warming nonsense)

Maybe it would work better if you called Tombstone Burris or Jan Schakowsky or Bobby Rush or the elder Dan Lipinski's nitwit son? I don't think so.

That leaves us few other alternatives. But you asked for it in those conversations, at least some of you did, so here is my suggestion for anyone who wants to feel a tad more empowered.

Get Bombed with me. Tea Bombed that is.

Goofy?  Maybe, but not goofier than wringing our hands and continuing to co-operate with a truly screwed up political system.

Here's how it works;
Quit being a Republican. Quit being a Democrat. Go ahead, just do it, you will feel better. The first step on the ladder to recovery is to stop doing the things that are causing you the problems. So the next time someone asks about your politics, tell them you have left both political parties behind. In fact, maybe you should announce it even if they don't ask.
Become an Independent. You don't have to join anything, just quit being part of the problem.

Then go to the top of this page, watch the video if you haven't already, and then click on the Tea Bomb banner and learn about some ways to fire the idiots in charge and possibly hire some normal, freedom minded people (as they emerge) so we can start to find our way back to the right path.

The Tea Bomb is named after the "money bomb" method of raising contributions for candidates. The first "bombs" were for Ron Paul in his run against the Republican Party from within. They were designed to raise a large amount in a short burst for maximum media exposure, and they accomplished that goal better than anyone, including the current president. Now it is morphing into something different and is possibly being embraced by the "Tea Partiers", that group of former Democrats and Republicans who have reached the tipping point of disgust with the system that gave America the non-choices between; Obama and McCain, Bush and Kerry, Bush and Gore, Clinton and Dole.... ad-nausem.

So maybe it's time to get "bombed".  It couldn't work less than what we are currently doing.
Don't be afraid to pass this blog post around if you agree. I wouldn't mind if it registered my "greatest hits" in the web-site "unique visitors" stats so I don't feel like I'm mumbling to myself on this blog.

The American Suicide Bombers

The hardest enemies to fight have always been the suicidal. Those maniacs who are resigned to death in the quest to attain their goals, in the past and now, have something in common with each other, delusional visions of post mortem glory.

The Kamikaze pilots during what may ultimately prove to be a futile war against those who would change our way of life thought they would gain glory with the Emperor and their deceased relatives shortly after their fiery demise. They may have been the most effective weapons employed against us in that struggle.

The delusional Islamo-Facists who were merely copycats of that effort flew our own airliners into American buildings in an attempt to destroy freedom here with the idea that they would be rewarded with sexual adventures with numerous underage girls in some bizarre fantasy "heaven" for their sacrifice.

And now in our own country we have a group of legislators who, like the Bushido Japanese back then, see that they are about to lose their political lives and are willing to go out in a blaze of glory under the also delusional fantasy that their legacy will be the undying future admiration of millions upon millions of grateful recipients of government largesse who are delighted to have turned over the decisions about their own health to government employees. The "leaders" now feel so close to the ultimate goal of control for which they have striven for a century or more, that not even the prospect of political unemployment matters any longer.

Unless they are even crazier than I think, they now know that the orgasmic "twenty-somethings" and the mentally unhealed hippies of the sixties who voted them in while the "thrill was still going up their legs" have returned to less exciting pass-times like mourning Michael Jackson. Most have lost interest in going to the polls in hopes of change. Maybe the thrill has lessened along with their prospects for useful work.
The neo-socialists in congress and the White House are probably about to be "un-elected" in the face of actual 17% unemployment, and 34.5% unemployment among young black males. It's too late to turn back, so they have decided to blow themselves up with the nationalized health insurance bomb instead of merely dropping it on Americans.

With support dropping to 38% for the two thousand page monstrosity that none of them have read, and outright opposition going up faster than the price of gold, no rational person could deduce that Americans want this shoved down their throats. Even those who admire socialism conceptually (due to their belief that everyone must be as stupid as them and thus the government needs to "do something") are getting uncomfortable with the idea that a game-changing shift in national direction should be forced on the citizens with anything close to an even split. This isn't some tax policy or traffic law where a simple majority is sufficient. This is a fundamental change in that quaint old notion of the "American way."  And this one is opposed by more than a majority.

If you are entertaining the notion that everyone will fall in line in support of this after it’s rammed through, try that theory out by forcing a huge new change on your social club or church congregation with the support of 51% of the membership and see what happens the next year. Here’s a hint, it won’t be harmony, and it might be revolt.

The only thing we can do now is what our brave sailors did to the kamikaze crazies at the end of WWII -- help them along in their quest for oblivion, even if it means we have to temporarily re-elect the nitwit Republicans for a term or two in 2010 until a new way to select our representatives emerges.

To do anything else would be to commit national suicide.

Upside Down Republicanism

When Ben Franklin was once asked a question concerning the type of government we ended up with after all the wrangling was finally done, he famously answered, "A republic, if you can keep it".  Well Ben, it looks like your fear/prediction has at least begun to come true. And I'm guessing the outcome from this point on will be, "not keeping it". It seems enough people would rather adore Obama and his socialism than heed Ben's most famous admonition, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

In the original version of our republican form of government, we select the people who will represent us, tell them what to do, and they go and do their best to see that the job is done.
In today's version, the perpetually re-elected decide what their agenda is, and then jam it down the throats of the sheeple. They invent the problems, sell us on the need for a solution, and then proceed to their goal of control.  They pit one group against another, vilify a faceless "enemy", use the politics of envy and class warfare, and then brag about their "accomplishments" in righting all the wrongs.

Perhaps my memory is failing faster then the number of the currently employed, but I don't recall having a conversation with anyone in the past about the coming catastrophy of a baked earth before Al Gore and a few other opportunists put that loaf in the oven to see if it would rise, along with their incomes. And I never heard anyone complaining about not having access to hip replacements or MRIs or even hospitalization itself. Or not being able to have sufficient choices in doctors or places to have myriad diagnostic tests performed.

What I did hear was grousing about how much their insurance cost and how quickly the mean old hospital administrators in cahoots with the cheapo insurers kicked them out of bed after surgery or childbirth. And in a disturbing trend of the last several decades, if people think something costs more than they wish to pay, they promise to vote for the first person who promises to intervene.

But back to the elected few who decide on our life choices for us. It would seem that in the system devised by our founders, any legislation that is being proposed would be properly disclosed to everyone, in all it's details, and then after comments by our representitives, they would return to the people who elected them, inform them properly of the contents, state their preference, and return to debate the issue with their opponents and only then vote yea or nay.

Instead, they purposely obfuscate, confer in private, then make the bill so long and unreadable for normal folks that it discourages all but the truly focused from understanding the ramifications or making their preferences known. Then they sneak a vote on it late at night on a weekend immediately after introducing it, without reading it themselves. Somehow, I don't think that is what old Ben Franklin had in mind.

The system has been turned on it's head and if they really wanted to "reform" something which is broken, they would drop the stuff no one asked them to do (except themselves and the socialists) and change the way things are done in Congress.

I propose a new law. (something I almost never do) Here's how it would go;

Congress shall pass no law without its having been presented in writing, in it's final form, for sixty days after the bill has been formally presented to the floor, to allow the people to inform their representative of their preference for or against it.

Think that will get out of committee?  Not even if you stand on your head.

The Economics of Medical Care

Dr. Thomas Sowell is well known to readers of this blog, but sadly, if you turn to the person next to you where ever you happen to be and ask them who he is, you will get the same look that you get from American teenagers in a Chinese algebra class. I guess that's not terribly shocking in a country where a huge number of those quizzed on the street about the name of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, answer - "none of the above". In fairness, given the prevailing preferences of what passes for the press in this country, they can't be expected to have heard of Sowell.

For those who are new to this site or to Sowell, the link found below contains a biography, but the content of the series of articles is the real attraction. It is a nine part series carried on the Op-Ed page of the Investors Business Daily and as a courtesy to my readers who do not subscribe to that excellent publication, but who do check on this site often, I will be adding a link on the right hand side each day so that we may together follow along on an economics lesson extraordinaire. As with all of his writing, it is perfectly readable.

The series is actually an entire chapter of his new book, "Applied Economics" and will be reprinted in its entirety on the pages of that paper. He has also recently written a book entitled "The Housing Boom and Bust" which will inform its readers of what actually happened during the recent meltdown of government "fixes" and the attendant economic crash.

I hope you enjoy it so you can roll your eyes (in an informed way) whenever someone at your favorite watering hole tells you how great it's going to be when "free" government healthcare finally arrives to save us from those enemies of the people, the insurance companies and drug manufacturers.

Healthcare in the Reich

A few days ago I subscribed to a blog I tripped over while walking all over the web. The name of the Blog is The Humble Libertarian and the piece which inspired me to create this post was about a guy who used to be the Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich.
Yes, the same Robert Reich who advocated a 100% death tax back in the days when he worked for the criminal enterprise now referred to as the Clinton administration. This man, who thinks that all property rightfully belongs to the state and should revert back to it after we are done borrowing it,  is now an adviser to Barak Obama. Why doesn't that surprise me?

The reason he is back in the news, at least the internet version of the news, is that a YOU-TUBE video is now making the rounds which has him telling the truth about the government plan to take over your healthcare decisions. I'm guessing you won't see this video on any of the major networks unless they are forced to address it if it gets passed around enough.

The video was embedded on the above website along with some rational commentary by W. E. Messamore, the site owner, a person who I am unacquainted with, but who has an interesting blog. He posts "Spread this far and wide!" So W. E. , I'm doing my part.




Hearing comrade Reich's presentation to the Berkeley students is chilling for more than just what it reveals about true intentions on government health-scare schemes. It presents a peek into what a "fourth Reich" might look like if Americans go back to sleep. One which could end up being the "big sleep" if they do. Particularly if they are the "old people", who, he suggests, we should "just let die" because they are too expensive.
(Floridians take note)
 
With Halloween peeking around the corner, I wonder if a Robert Reich mask might not be the scariest one at the party.

The Best Place to be Poor

Have you ever been approached by a "poor" person on the street begging for help because of their desperate condition, only to notice the $125 Air Jordans they were wearing? To be fair, most beggars aren't dressed that way, but it's certainly not rare in downtown Chicago to see that sight.
That kind of story provides anecdotal evidence, a type that's extremely popular with politicians and other power seekers because it can be reliably used to mislead many people. And although the tales usually have an element of truth, you can't draw broad conclusions based on them because it might be like looking at the Mona Lisa as a profile picture.
Without the other half of her face, she would be about as compelling as the notion that most beggars prefer Nikes to Mad Dog 20/20.

Having said that, consistent observation by interested parties can turn the anecdotes into actual evidence, if not proof. And the evidence shows that a different type of begging is becoming a real problem in our current American situation.

In order to attain the objective of placing more and more of our private institutions under government control, (and even ownership) we are being bombarded by a nonsensical caricature of people without private health insurance. Many of whom, we are told, live in such frightful conditions that they cannot afford food much less healthcare.

A step back from the edge of that rhetorical cliff reveals a different tale, one that most people know intuitively. The actual story reports on the spending behavior of the very people who we are supposed to be saving from calamity by irreversibly changing our entire healthcare system and squashing the attendant rights we currently enjoy. So first, let's have a look at the "poor" people, sans the emotional response the "changers" hope we will have.

In 2007 Robert Rector updated his work on poverty using the most up to date government figures available, (many from the 2005 US census) and what it shows is that to be "poor" in America is the aspiration of the truly poor in the rest of the world. Here are a few facts he gleaned as he admired Mona's whole face:
(I paraphrase his work)

•A little less than half of all poor households actu­ally own their own homes, and that average home has three bedrooms, one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
•The vast majority, 80%,  of poor households have air conditioning. He notes that "by contrast, in 1970, only 36 % of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning."
•Only 6% of poor households are over­crowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
•"Poor" Americans have more living space than average individuals living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens,  to mention just a few cities. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
•Almost 75% of poor households own a car while 31% own two or more..
•97% of poor households have color television; over 50% own two or more.
•78% have a VCR or DVD player; 62 % have cable or satellite TV reception.
•89% own microwave ovens, more than 50%  have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.
His findings and their presentation, "How Poor Are America's Poor?" can be found here and are worthy of your time.

So as it turns out, the poor aren't as destitute as we have been led to believe, but more importantly, they not only have access to healthcare, and even health insurance (as provided by various failing state insurance plans for the needy), but they, like the rest of us, would rather spend the money they have on other things. And it seems they do just that according to Dr. Linda Halderman, who wrote an article concerning it for the Web magazine American Thinker.  Which brings me to the second thing we should have a look at, courtesy of her commentary.

Her article reveals much about human behavior while giving us a peek at what is in store for us if we allow "progressives" to jam socialized health insurance down our throats to help those who would rather spend their own money on Body tattoos, Botox injections, Boats, BlackBerrys and every other "B" necessity they perceive, while leaving the rest of us to pay for their true essentials.
I strongly urge you to read her first hand account of ABUSE OF SUBSIDIZED HEALTH CARE: THE VIEW FROM ONE EXAM ROOM as published in the Investors Business Daily on Oct. 5th.

As I pointed out in my earlier essay, the problem with health insurance in this country is that we want more from it than we are willing to pay for with our own money. And the "poor", with plenty of money for the above "B"s, are no different, except when being used as anecdotal evidence.

President Obama, who has confessed his preference for, and plan to get to a single payer system, says we need socialized medicine in this country to address the problems of the "anecdotal people", but with all due respect Mr. President, I BEG to differ.