ObamaCare - Response to a Liberal

This article represents the response of Stan C., our guest author, to a Liberal acquaintance – The latter a man who has turned so many corners that he has ended up where he began – confused.

Nick, how could you possibly not agree that the process is awful? For openers, the democrats in both the House and the Senate have voted NOT to produce the final legislation on the internet 72 hours before hearing it. What are they afraid of? I hope you remember that Obama categorically stated that he would do this in the name of transparency, and Nancy Pelosi agreed. They have not followed through on this promise on any of the bills they have passed. Max Baucus stated that it would take him 2 weeks to get the bill on line, therefore he voted against doing so. Let him give me the bill and I will have it on line within 24 hours. What a bunch of bullshit! Do you want people who are either lying or have no ability whatsoever to be creating legislation that affects your health?

Have you forgotten how the stimulus package was approved without the legislators having read it? Can you name a major bill passed this year that was published on the web and that citizens as well as members of the House and Senate had an opportunity to read?

Of course just about everyone agrees that some type of reform is needed, but we don't need a government takeover of health insurance. Do you think the government run post office is more efficient than UPS or FEDEX? How long do you think it would take the federal government to bankrupt the 1/6 of our economy represented by health care? Are you not aware of the looming bankruptcy of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security? Can you name a single government owned industry that runs efficiently and in the black? I can't! Why in the world would you want to turn any industry over to the government?

Do you really believe that Obama can cut $500 billion out of Medicare? If so, what is he waiting for? A legislative bill is not required to correct the fraud to which he refers. Why should those of us on Medicare be penalized and have $500 billion in cuts affect our quality of medical insurance? Are you foolish enough to believe that one-half a trillion dollars can be cut from Medicare, and that somewhere between 30,000,000 and 50,000,000 people are added to the health care rolls without any reduction in medical benefits? If so, perhaps you and I should talk about your buying Hubbard Park ( A park in Nick & Stan’s home town) from me for an agreed upon price!

Do you not think the already projected debt of $ 10 trillion dollars over the next 10 years isn't enough? How many more bonds are you willing to sell to China? How much more devalued are you willing to allow the dollar to become, before you say enough?

Thanks to those who voted for Obama and democrats in the House and Senate, the federal government now controls the banking industry, most of the insurance industry, and most of the automobile industry. They are now telling companies how much money their employees can earn? Do you wish to do the same for the health industry?

Do you think the present administration understands economics? Has it passed, or even recommended any legislation that would help the economy? I haven't seen any such legislation! What happened to "You must immediately approve the stimulus package in order to avoid Armageddon, and if you do we promise unemployment will not rise beyond 8%." Have you checked the unemployment numbers lately? And of course, Cap & Trade is a great example of legislation that has the potential to wreck havoc with our economy and cause a significant increase in energy costs? Do you think the energy providers are going to eat the additional costs? You know that they are going to pass them on to the consumers. As of this date it is estimated that at the least, Cap and Trade will add a dollar to each gallon of gasoline purchased by the American consumer. Am I to assume that is just fine with you and your Liberal friends?

Let me get back to health care legislation. Do you think it is fair for that those who have worked hard and have high incomes should be required to pay for others? Is there no limit to how much the government should be allowed to tax?

Obama's statement that the existing legislation does not represent a takeover of health care by the government is a flat out lie. I haven't read the most recent legislation because those that have created it refuse to make it available; but I have read previous versions. Please trust me when I say -- IT IS A TOTAL TAKEOVER OF THE HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY -- private companies will not be allowed to make a move without government approval. The government will determine what kind of procedures is appropriate and how much doctors and hospitals can charge for them.

Speaking of lies, have you noticed how the number of uninsured miraculously dropped from 50,000,000 to 30,000,000 during Obama's prime time speech. Can you explain that? I can! Even the 30,000,000 is inflated. It includes at least 6,000,000 immigrants (mostly illegal). It also includes about 10,000,000 people (mostly young and feeling immortal--Do you remember those days?) who are uninsured by choice. There are millions more who qualify for already existing programs. The real number of uninsured is probably 15,000,000 or less when one considers that many of these are eligible to be treated by existing Medicare and Medicaid programs.. Do we need to destroy the best system in the world to cover them? NO! NO! NO! Just about everyone agrees, so let's simply provide government subsidies for these people to purchase private insurance plans. We don't need a government run plan.

Congress should pass legislation that allows insurance companies to cross state lines. That would create competition. Companies should be required to offer a variety of plans. Insurers are allowed to sell automobile insurance across state lines, why shouldn't they be allowed to do the same with health insurance. With automobile policies one can purchase $500 deductible, $1,000 deductible, etc. One can choose the limits for liability and for collision. Why shouldn't an individual be given the choice of a policy only for catastrophic health problems? Must every health insurance policy cover every doctor's visit? Let the individual choose what is best for that person or family. Requiring health insurance policies to cover doctor's visits and all medications is comparable to having automobile insurance cover oil changes, and battery replacements.

Insurance companies should be required to create a pool for those with pre-existing conditions. Let all companies share the costs of such patients.

Individual citizens should be allowed to purchase insurance plans at the same cost as large corporations. Congress should do what it can to make individuals responsible for their own health care plans. Too many don't care about the costs because they never see them. The return to non-taxable medical accounts would help to stimulate this.

Portability should be required in all plans. Someone who is released from a job should be able to stay with the same plan while searching for a new job. Perhaps the company should be required to provide the same coverage for the released worker that is provided for other employees. This is a point where the government could reimburse the company for added expenses.

Nick, as you can see, I could go on for quite some time, but suffice repeat the some reform is needed, but we don't need to destroy the best medical system in the world, and we certainly don't need to add one more component to "government run."

One point I have not mentioned is the issue of including illegal immigrants in the health care plan. This is really a moot point. There is no doubt in my mind that the administration supported by the House and the Senate will pass an Immigration "Reform" Bill this year or next, and that it will provide a wide open door for moving illegal immigrants to citizenship, and do so in a very expedited way. Therefore more than 12,000,000 additional people will be added to the coverage. What will this do to an already overburdened, government run, inefficient system? The first thought that comes to mind, and it should come to yours also, is that it will make matters worse, and ultimately deny care to millions of people, especially those who are actually citizens.

Finally, if the proposed plan is so good, why has the president required that it not go into effect until 2013—a year AFTER his re-election bid? And if it is so good why have both the House and the Senate chosen to exempt themselves from the requirements of the bill?

I must say that although I appreciate your wanting to view all sides of an issue, I am quite surprised and disappointed that you would take any issue whatsoever with my statement that the present administration is following an awful process and that this is terrible legislation.

The Americas Jounal...

Date line…April 25, 3009…The Americas Journal

Filed from: Washonstan – Capital of the Americas

The Council on Human Elations (CHE) met today in Washonstan to discuss a recent development in the under developed parts of The Americas. The Director of the Council, Ibn Raan E-Manuelle, requested that the council meet in special session when he was informed that the middle countries of The Americas, formerly known as the Mid-West in the now largely uninhabited central part of the former United States, were demanding to be heard.

Council members were at first unwilling to meet given the relative unimportance of this part of The Americas. One member, Lesbie Frank, could see no reason to discuss anything even remotely related to the middle of this now desolate, minimally populated area of a financially and morally bankrupt country. Even more importantly she questioned why the Council should take the time to hear any request from the last area in the world that was home to those who still practiced what is generally alluded to as conservative values. Ms. Frank is the adopted, wonderfully Lesbian, great, great, great granddaughter of the now deceased Congressman, Mr. Barney Frank, and the leader of the “Gays in Banking Movement” during the 21^st century. Mr. Frank is also remembered as the fellow who started the “Who Need Morals?” movement. Lesbie Frank is proud to continue the “family” tradition of putting the Gay & Lesbian community’s needs before the countries needs, and if necessary placing Gay issues before any need, including the economy or safety of The Americas. [Note: The American Journal is planning an in-depth, detailed analysis of the role of the Frank family in the politics of the Western world. This will soon be available at http://www.theamericas-journal.com.]

Mr. E-Manuelle briefed the Council on the request sent to him in the form of a petition from the people populating the mid-western part of the former United States. Said petition demands that marriage between heterosexuals be recognized by The Americas. This group, Adults for Heterosexual Marriage (AHM), admits that men and women have been clandestinely marrying for centuries, in spite of the fact that heterosexual marriage was banned since 2059 in both the former United States, and The Americas.

This reporter has been told that some mid-westerners have chosen to marry both a member of the same, as well as a member of the opposite sex in order to pass the occasional inspections carried out by the Homosexual Marriage Protection Force (HMPF). Making matters worse for this group was the difficulty of hiding the occasional child born to the heterosexual couples. Prior to 3001, when asexual birth became possible, no one was to have a child without permission from CHE. This hardship, coupled to the fact that this group has somehow decided that heterosexual relations, especially sexual relations, were far more interesting when engaged in by couples owning different anatomies, has finally become too much to bear. Thus, the petition.

Mr. E-Manuelle will suggest to the Council that a Commission (some things never change) be formed to investigate this matter. His major concern is that this small group will act up to such an extent that they will perhaps galvanize any other radical pro-heterosexual marriage groups. Should this happen, The Americas could be facing a challenge to the status quo, and that could mean a decrease in the harmony and world view that has pervaded for some time now. Once the Commission’s findings are finalized they will be submitted to the New World Order Action Group. What action would, or could, be taken against these radical heterosexual conservatives is yet to be determined.

It is our understanding that findings will be presented to the Ruler of the Americas, King Barack Hussein Obama III.

Filed April 25th, 3009
The America's Journal

The Accidental Mulatto...?

For some time now the word “mulatto’ has been deemed politically incorrect. It is a mystery to me why this is so. In both the Webster dictionary and Wikipedia, a mulatto is defined as:

“Person who has one Black parent and one White parent... Popularly, any person with mixed Black and Caucasoid ancestry.”

Given this, why all the fuss over a Mulatto President, i.e. Barak Obama (BO)? Mr. Obama fits the criteria in the definition. As far as we know one of his parents is Black and one is White. Thus he is of mixed race, unless we have all been duped, and he is either 100% White or 100% Black. That seems not to be the case, notwithstanding his questionable citizenry, i.e. is he a natural born United States citizen, or is he a foreign exchange student? This latter question is not the subject here.

What is the question is whether the Liberal Socialist agenda he is pursuing results from his mother’s (white) influence or his father’s (black) background, or both? Let me stress we are not looking at this from a racial perspective but from a sociological one. The question before us is: Given the 50/50 mixture of Black and White blood in BO, is it not just as likely, from a purely statistical point of view, that he is the 44 president and he of white parentage, as it is that he is the 44^th President, and the first Black one at that? After all if he can be called the first Black president because of his ancestry, why not call him a White president based on the same spurious logic?

He is always, and let me repeat that, always, referred to as the 1^st African American or Black person to be elected president of the good old USA. Never is it mentioned - except in hateful Conservative blogs, or talk shows that he is actually the first Mulatto president of the good old USA. Why not? Being of mixed parentage would seem to have its advantages, as well as disadvantages. In the present case however, since BO is now president I am hard pressed to come up with too many disadvantages.

Politically Obama is a Liberal/Socialist who believes in big government, and in government’s ability to solve problems. He also believes in absolute power and in calling all the shots. Is any of this a result of his repudiation of his White ancestry, in favor of his Black ancestry? Has he developed his approach to life, and to politics, as a result of his Father’s Socialistic, attitudes, or his mother’s more Bohemian ones? Perhaps it is as simple as deciding that the advantages of declaring his “Blackness” would accrue to a political career - where he would have more opportunity to stand out in a crowd – a crowd of white politicians all doing pretty much the same thing? In other words was being an opportunist in this case the major reason why he chose to be Black, rather than “just another White?

Did he correctly surmise that the main stream media would rise up and become major supporters because they needed to have a new hero, and it would be much better if that hero were Black? Did George Soros, realize that the level of guilt in White America was such that here was a man who, if elected, would expunge that guilt? Did the DNC realize that they could not win on ideas, but they could win on nominating a minority, and on brainwashing those youth sober enough to vote? Did all these people choose BO, or did BO choose them along with his Blackness, as a colorful path to the presidency?

Is BO a true Black American or is he a Mulatto who is an Accidental Black rather than an Accidental Mulatto?

If he destroys our traditions, our constitution, and our beliefs in ourselves, will he be doing it as a Black man, a half White-half Black man or will it be that White man inside of him who put him up to this mischief?

God! I wish Huck were here to set us straight…

The Arrogance of Arrogance: The Joy of Hubris

I state: This is the article for which you have been waiting. Waiting I might add with great expectations during this election season. Now that I am here, clarity on this topic is guaranteed. I say this because before me, there was no one who could do this as clearly and definitively as I. Thus, it is entirely understandable that you see me, and only me, as the one able to lead you. I want to thank you for your willingness to appreciate me for whom I am – that person who will show you the way. What way, you may ask. The way I bring proposes a new vision of writing, a changed grammatical context, and a new paradigm whereby all who cannot write are supported by all who can.

Sound familiar? A few changes might make it even more familiar:

"This (pointing to himself) is the person for which you have been waiting. Waiting I might add with great expectations during this election season. Now that I am here, clarity on any topic or issue is guaranteed. I say this because before me, there was no one who could do this as clearly and definitively as I. Thus, it is entirely understandable that you see me, and only me, as the one able to lead you. I want to thank you for your willingness to appreciate me for whom I am – that person who will show you the way. What way, you may ask. The way I bring proposes a new vision of hope, a changed global context, and a new paradigm whereby all who cannot are supported by all who can.

Some might say I am arrogant, or that it is my hubris that will destroy my candidacy as I strive to assume the mantle of President Elect of the United States of America. How can they say this with a straight face? There is no one but me to even consider. Actually there is a Vice President to chose, but he or she is really not that important as it is me who is going to bring peace and prosperity back to this country. Who am I that I can make these promises? I am Barack. I am the one who you need, and without whom you as a nation will flounder, and remain unloved. “

A great deal has been written in the past few weeks about Mr. Obama’s hubris, and his belief that he, and only he, can save us from ourselves. An exercise that is instructive in this regard is to enter the words “Obama + Arrogance” into Google’s search engine. Within a few seconds 1,780,000 references and articles are made available. Apparently I am not the only one concerned about this topic. In that regard, there is probably little I can add that is not already been addressed. Let’s face it. When the Boston Globe’s Blog has an Obama Arrogance watch, and the Washington Post publishes articles that question whether or not Obama is too taken with himself to actually address issue of national import, the Obama campaign has a problem. Before I add my perspective on this, here are a few takes that readers here may have missed.

Perhaps one of the clearest indications [my note: that Obama’s arrogance may be out of control] emerged last week from the world of late-night comedy. David Letterman offered his “Top Ten Signs Barack Obama is Overconfident.” “When Letterman is doing ‘Top Ten’ lists about something, it has officially entered the public consciousness,” said Dan Schnur, a political analyst from the University of Southern California and the communications director in John McCain’s 2000 campaign. “And it usually stays there for a long, long time.”

Following his nine-day, eight-country tour that effected the trappings of a presidential state visit, Mr. Obama has found himself in an unusual position: the butt of jokes. Even reporters joked about his assuming the mantle not only of the Presidency, but also of a savior. Jon Stewart teased that the presumptive Democratic nominee traveled to Israel to visit his birthplace at Bethlehem’s Manger Square. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd amplified the McCain campaign’s private nickname for Obama (“The One”). Even Susan Ostrich has opined” 'Arrogance Will Not Help Get Obama Elected'

The Washington Post reported reports that in a closed pep talk session with US House Democrats Tuesday evening, Obama talked about his triumphant visit to Europe and declared, "I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions." Other reports about this comment by Obama indicate that this amazing remark was rather disturbing to many. Perhaps the House Democrats were not ready for the Second Coming, at least not this soon.

[It is important to note that neither Stewart, Dowd, Estrich nor the Washington Post are Republican operatives!]

Obama is walking a fine line between confident and cocky. Once at pains to present himself as presidential, Obama now faces criticism for doing it too well.

Perhaps the best of all 1,780,000 Arrogance-Obama related pieces is that of Gerard Baker who introduced his piece as follows:

“And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.

The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow... “

History often repeats itself, and does so with boring regularity when politicians are involved. Obama and his devoted acolytes organized and carried out a “Triumph”, a triumph not terribly different from those organized in ancient Rome for military and political victories. Unlike Mr. Obama’s triumph, triumphs in Rome had to be approved by the Senate, and happened after a great victory, rather than before. It seems the Obama camp got carried away, and Mr. Obama and his ego were swept up in the frenzy.

Barack Obama is not the first politician to become infected with his own self worth. Perhaps the most famous of all politicians, one who rose from fairly poor circumstances, yet from a truly aristocratic family is Julius Caesar. What Caesar lacked in personal wealth was more than made up in genius, as well as ambition. That ambition took various forms. One example (Suetonius, “The Twelve Caesars” Penguin Books, NY,NY, 1979), but not necessarily unique in Caesar’s case, is his request to the tribunes of the people to be allowed to stand for Consul with Pompey while he, Caesar, was still in Spain, and thus unable to be in Rome as required for an election. Suetonius writes: “Their granting of this concession so fired Caesar’s ambitions that he neglected no expense in winning popularity, both as a private citizen and as a candidate… “

Fast forward to Caesar as he amasses power, manipulates the Senate, disposes of his enemies, and makes more enemies as he does this. Finally in 44 BC, he declares himself Dictator for Life. Or to put a more modern face on this, he declares himself the only person of political rank and genius to bring change and hope to the Roman Empire. Indeed he was a military genius – not at all similar to some current presidential candidates, and a person who believed in his own superiority – quite a bit like some political candidates.

His political platform consisted of many things, not the least of which was wealth redistribution, the break up of large land trusts, amassing a cadre of Senate colleagues who were loyal to him, and reducing the welfare roles. Unlike many of today’s politicians, he was smart enough to increase criminal penalties, introduce term limits of provincial governors, abolish labor unions, and destroy the existing tax system in favor of allowing provinces to directly collect taxes, and then pay the (federal) government tribute [Just like today!]

Comparing the new Caesar-like candidate who is the subject of this note to the original is difficult, if not impossible. In my opinion Julius Caesar, for all his faults, his chicanery, his tremendous political ambition, and his uncontrollable ego, was a true genius. While chicanery, political ambition, and uncontrollable ego are traits that fit nicely with the presumptuous Democratic candidate, the same cannot be said for genius.

___________________

ggda: August, 2008