Thanksgiving 2013

As we gather around the table this year, there will be many, many discussions.  If the Liberals among us have their way, they will want us, the American People, to fall in step with their desires and outcomes.  In our house, I don’t think so.

President Obama and his supporters want us to tout the benefits of Obamacare (even though he no longer refers to the Affordable Healthcare Act by that name).  It doesn’t matter that the premiums are higher than what you have (or had), the deductibles are outrageous, or that the website that you are to sign up on is sicker than someone with congestive heart failure (I wonder if the website is eligible for treatment…)

Outgoing New York City Michael Bloomberg want us to talk about the evils of guns and why they should be banned.  Never mind that guns are not the problem as they are the tools of both criminals and law-abiding citizens alike.  Mr. Bloomberg neglects to tell us that while he wants us disarmed, he wants to be surrounded by bodyguards with…guns…of course for his safety.  As for the rest of us, not so much. 

To a lesser extent, President Obama has flip-flopped on his gun-control stance much like I thought he would.  If you remember, he (illegally) directed the CDC to research gun violence, and he didn’t get what he wanted:

president obama ordered the cdc to study gun violence and the results are in  President Obama Ordered the CDC to Study Gun Violence and the Results Are in...

The Senate Democrats would like us to laud them for their “leadership” in changing a long-standing Senate rule concerning using filibusters to block Presidential nominations to judicial and executive branch positions.  However, what they have done in reality is attack the rights of the minority party in opposing bad appointments.  From Richard Winchester’s article “America is One Step Closer to a One-Party Tyranny”:

By a 52-48 vote, the Senate voted to change the institution’s regulations related to the filibuster, thereby emasculating a political minority’s ability to thwart, or at least delay, majoritarian dictatorship.  A Senate minority can no longer thwart the president’s nominations of judges to lesser federal courts or of executive department officials.

The Senate, once said to be the world’s greatest deliberative body, has been reduced to the president’s rubber stamp.  Furthermore, if the Senate’s rules — originally written by Thomas Jefferson — can be changed at the majority leader’s whim, what is to prevent them being altered again, even to the point of eliminating the filibuster, which used to be called “the soul of the Senate”?

If Harry Reid’s assault on representative government, which was probably an attempt to distract public opinion from ObamaCare, remains in place, American politics will be forever changed…for the worse.

To comprehend the severity of the damage Reid and his minions have done, we need to explore the nature of representative government.

Whether the American regime is called a democracy — the most widely used term — or a representative republic — a less often used, but more accurate, descriptor — it must confront a dilemma that is virtually “baked into” this form of government: the inevitable tension between majority rule and minority rights.

We tend to forget that the Senate’s rule permitting extended debate was intended to be a formidable weapon against majority tyranny.

And the Senate via Harry Reid  is telling us that they did it to streamline the decision making for the good of the People.

Last on the list is the “deal” our esteemed Administration made with Iran.  I’ll let the following graphic say it all:

Photo: Let's make a deal........ugh

Folks, I am a Patriot, and I love our country.  I object to the way it is being run, and vote my conscience for the good of our Nation.  Thus –

“We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration.” – Hillary Clinton

Please have a safe and Happy Thanksgiving.

ACA Schadenfreude

Schadenfreude – “malicious joy in the misfortunes of others,” 1922, from Ger., lit. “damage-joy,” from schaden “damage, harm, injury” (see scathe) + freude, from O.H.G. frewida “joy,” from “happy,” lit. “hopping for joy,” from P.Gmc. *frawa- (see frolic).

To say that I am experiencing a little bit of Schadenfreude over the House and Senate Democrats increasing discomfort over the fallout of their reckless passing of the Affordable Healthcare Act (i.e. ACA or ObamaCare) would be a severe understatement.  Indeed, these clowns are getting every bit of Hell from their irate constituents that they deserve.  After all:

However, I am fully sympathetic to those people who are finding themselves between a rock and a hard place with cancelled insurance plans and trying to get new insurance plans that are higher in cost and deductibles.  The exception is for those morons who thought that they could get something for nothing – you folks are getting exactly what you voted for when you bought into the Liar in Chief’s promises.  For this, I have the following graphic & comment:

When will you learn that the “progressive” Liberal Democratic politicians do not have your interests in mind with their voting records?

Now I fully understand that the Republicans have their own set of problems and issues, but I haven’t really seen them try to overtly screw over the American people with such callous disregard as the current crop of Democrats.

But the problem lies with us, the American People, for we have grown complacent and lazy, preferring to believe the lie that Government will take care of us, and that the laws of the land and the politicians that write them will protect us.  Instead of taking an active roll in using three of the following four:

…we’re forced to have this…

…by allowing the politicians of both parties to do this…

Folks, we need to understand the following:

Folks, the only way to dig ourselves out of this mess is to vote for responsible candidates of either party whose stated purpose is to repeal the biggest disaster that our government has imposed upon the American People.  The second part is to hold them to their promises – no more of the “I had to lie to get elected” bullcrap.  Vote them out of office as fast as possible with someone who will get the job done and keep on their butts to do it.

Otherwise, the fourth box above might need to be used as an absolute last resort.

To Protect and Serve? Really?

In 1856, the U.S. Supreme Court (South v. Maryland) found that law enforcement officers had no duty to protect any individual. Their duty is to enforce the law in general.  In 1981, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Warren v. District of Columbia that official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection unless a special relationship exists.  Other court decisions concurred: the police have no duty to protect you, are not liable for failing to protect the public, and the only people the police are duty-bound to protect are criminals & other persons in custody for such problems as mental disorders.

In other words, the police are under no legal or Constitutional obligation to protect the individual or the public from criminals or mentally ill people. 

Please keep the above in mind as you read the rest of this post.

For the past five years, President Obama and the Democrats have been promoting the benefits of an overhaul to the healthcare and insurance industries.  Promises of lower costs and better coverage were some of the many perks promoted by a governmental takeover of the health insurance and healthcare industries.

And yes, no matter what President Obama and the Democratic Congress have stated to the contrary, it is a governmental takeover of this most critical part of the average American’s lives with implications that are only now coming to light.

The rollout of the Affordable Healthcare Act’s website has been nothing short of a disaster.  This is after over $500,000,000 of our tax dollars and 3 1/2 years of work.  The experts digging into the shortcomings of the website to try and fix it are shaking their head in disgust – the website appears to have been coded by a bunch of amateurs, and not very good ones at that.

But despite the shortcomings of the website, the real impact of the laws are being felt across the nation.  Businesses are not hiring because of the associated mandated costs of employees, hours of part-time workers are being cut to less than 30 hours a week, and those full-time employees who can be forced to work part-time are seeing their hours cut to the same level.  Insurance companies are cancelling policies that do not meet the ACA’s requirements even though they meet the individual person’s needs.  Replacement policies are much, much higher in cost for the individual with less coverage unless the individual qualifies for subsidies.  And there is a predicted doctor shortage due in part to the expected lower reimbursement rates for doctors & higher costs of dealing with more government regulations and paperwork.

This whole debacle is nothing but a massive Liberal shell game based on fraud and deception.  Excerpts from Charles Krauthammer:

Hundreds of thousands of cancellation letters went out to people who had been assured a dozen times by the president that “If you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan. Period.”

The cancellations lay bare three pillars of Obamacare: (a) mendacity, (b) paternalism, and (c) subterfuge.

a) Those letters are irrefutable evidence that Obama’s repeated you-keep-your-coverage claim was false. Why were they sent out? Because Obamacare renders illegal (with exceedingly narrow “grandfathered” exceptions) the continuation of any insurance plan deemed by Washington regulators not to meet their arbitrary standards for adequacy. Example: No maternity care? You are terminated.

So a law designed to cover the uninsured is now throwing far more people off their insurance than it can possibly be signing up on the nonfunctioning insurance exchanges. Indeed, most of the 19 million people with individual insurance will have to find new and likely more expensive coverage. And that doesn’t even include the additional millions who are sure to lose their employer-provided coverage. That’s a lot of people. That’s a pretty big lie.

b) Beyond mendacity, there is liberal paternalism, of which these forced cancellations are a classic case. We canceled your plan, explained Jay Carney, because it was substandard. We have a better idea.

Translation: Sure, you freely chose the policy, paid for the policy, renewed the policy, and liked the policy. But you’re too primitive to know what you need. We do. Your policy is hereby canceled.

c) As for subterfuge, these required bells and whistles aren’t just there to festoon the health-care Christmas tree with voter-pleasing freebies. The planners knew all along that if you force insurance buyers to overpay for stuff they don’t need, that money can subsidize other people.

Obamacare is the largest transfer of wealth in recent American history. But you can’t say that openly lest you lose elections. So you do it by subterfuge: hidden taxes, penalties, mandates, and coverage requirements that yield a surplus of overpayments.

The endgame of this law is that after totally wrecking the health insurance industry, the Liberals in Government will introduce ACA 2.0, which is a single-payer system which puts the government pays for all healthcare costs.  This would mean that every taxpayer will fund the monster, and if any of the current expected costs are an indication, will result in higher taxes for everyone.  

It would also mean that government would be in charge of determining the levels of healthcare that would be funded to a person for an illness.  With an insurance company, there is a contract that pretty well defines coverage.  With governmental bureaucratic mish-mash, who knows what changes would be made without your knowledge?

Let’s take this statement from President Obama when he was asked if an old person should receive a pacemaker to save her life and improve the quality of living:

“I don’t think that we can make judgments based on people’s ‘spirit.’ Uh, that would be, uh, a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules that, uh, say that, uh, we are going to provide good quality care for all people. End-of-life care is one of the most difficult sets of decisions that we’re going to have to make. But understand that those decisions are already being made in one way or another. If they’re not being made under Medicare and Medicaid, they’re being made by private insurers. At least we can let doctors know — and your mom know — that you know what, maybe this isn’t going to help. Maybe you’re better off, uhh, not having the surgery, but, uhh, taking the painkiller.” – President Barack Hussein Obama, June 2009

Now if this is the President stating that a person should just take a pain pill instead of having surgery, what do you think that a faceless, nameless, unelected, and unaccountable bureaucrat is going to say?  The implications are frightening when one takes into consideration that there would be a very slim chance of overriding the decision either by appeal to higher up the food chain.

Likewise, appealing healthcare decisions in the courts would most likely be a fruitless effort.  Remember, the Courts are Government.  And I will bet that, like the various Supreme Court and State Court decisions to absolve the police from liability or responsibility to protect the public or individual from criminals, the bureaucrats will be protected from responsibility and liability in court cases where their decisions to limit healthcare to individuals resulted in pain, suffering, and death.

That, my friends, is the real nightmare of a governmental single-payer system.

a society that puts equality before freedom will get neither a society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.