I Wonder….

I am featuring a new segment on this provocative blog. It will be called “I wonder.” I may probe some of the strangest questions of current politics and culture.

In this first installment, I wonder… how Democrats can run on a platform against high healthcare costs? When Dems have run on healthcare over ten years, yet these costs are the direct result of their policies and actions.

Healthcare premiums and deductibles of have exploded, exponentially, while Dems claimed they were fixing healthcare. And how’d that work out for you?

Now Dems want people to support and vote for them based on those high healthcare costs.

I’m still wondering… and they are still wandering.

Right Ring | Bullright

Two Views Of Two Things

Two subjects front and center today are walls and nationalism. But lets look at them first from the Left’s “mainstream” perspective.

Nationalism is a dirty word to progressives and Democrats. You know why. It is now sufficient to state that as a fact. The left already does, they will tell you all the reasons they detest it. They’ve tried to rub it out or stigmatize it.

Well, except when the issue is about nationalism in a foreign country, then it turns to loftier, respectable terms. But for us it is a nasty concept.

The wall hardly needs any explanation now either. They hate it, and have no problems telling you that either. It’s a nasty thing that should be forbidden. It’s been called immoral. Yes, an object saddled with the symbolism of immorality. One prospective candidate said it kills people, and existing walls should come down. The stigma created is gigantic.

But before we put the two of them together, let’s look at the real view in the context of the US. Because, after all, we are talking about this country not some other place.

Nationalism is a pride in the country we live in. It is a sense of loyalty to this country –which I think one would get if one reads the oath of office. A love for the flag and simple pledge and anthem. Patriotism. Appreciation not apathy. Not supranationalism.

Walls are another welcome thing for a lot of reasons. They define boundaries and protect what is in them. The old saying was good fences make great neighbors. Walls haven’t always been bad. In fact, they are used for so many reasons that a wall-less world would seem pretty intimidating. And the walls we are talking about are not to keep people in, as has been suggested by critics. But then borders are another good thing too. Just saying.

Then we need to see it again from the same perspective what Leftists are doing with these two things – as much as they claim to hate them both.

Progressives are all about nationalizing everything. They want nationalized healthcare, nationalized programs and environmental policies on everything. They want nationalized policies that supercede state and local ones. And they want your obligatory pride in that.

They also want to nationalize us under the rubric of servants and serfs of the national government. It is hard to think of something the Left doesn’t want national government to control. All nationalized in one government. Finally, they want that national government controlled by progressives with the same ideological view. That includes the courts, where one court can intervene and control any national policy not satisfactory to the Left.

Basically, they believe in nationalizing everything from roads to healthcare, to diet, to mandates on ponds on your property And, as we saw with the Kelo decision, they want those property owners subservient to the national government authority for what it deems common use – even for more tax revenue.

The bill of rights should also be read only from the national government perspective, along with the notion that our rights are bestowed by the national government, which trumps everything. In fact, think about who is more the nationalist here. Just that they need to control it all. And, as we know, it really is all about control. Nationalized elections too.

But they want people then loyal to that government and more importantly under its nationalized thumb. They want a government, by government, for government. That is the nationalism they seek at all costs.

That wall they hate is a material, physical boundary. But they have plenty of walls that are not material, nevertheless they believe in these walls. These are walls to keep people in. They need walls around the Democrat party to keep people from leaving. They need walls to contain free speech zones, or walls behind which we can practice our faith – like prayer closets. And they want a thick wall of separation preventing people of faith from having any influence in that government. They want walls around Planned Parenthoods. Finally, they like real walls to protect them from other people and to preserve their private utopia, while they force others to live below standards set by their big-government dreams.

What a nationalist wants

Now I want walls to keep criminal elements and invaders out that we have no control over. I want the border to be real, not an imaginary thing. And not just some fictional boundary dishonored from both sides.

I want boundaries determined by geology not ideology. Not some borderless area of lawlessness. I also want laws that protect the nation’s borders, not open them up to meaningless interpretation defined by cartels, smugglers, invasions and radical groups.

I want a nationalism of individual people who are in control of their government, not vice versa. Not mobs that hijack government from everyone else, for their own agendas. I want a Republic not a Mobocracy. And I prefer to keep it as long as possible.

Right Ring | Bullright

Obamacare has no cures

Now that the nation’s healthcare is hostage to the government, is everyone happy? Of course not. Those are the stakes, like it or not. It’s hardly debatable. Pardon the rant.

Who do we have to blame that on? Barack Obama and his pack of radicals. We tried to tell people 7 years ago, when they politicized the healthcare system, that it was a bad thing to do. No, they wouldn’t listen. So Obama and Obamacare weaponized the nation’s healthcare and used it against us. Our medical system is subservient to government.

So if you resented the idea of a government bureaucrat between your doctor and you, look out. Now you have the entire federal government between you and your healthcare. But that is exactly what progressive liberals and socialists wanted. The state will do with it what it wants. What does that make you? Why not just call it Serfcare instead?

The politicians are up to their eyeballs in your healthcare. What’s next, asking them if you can have that knee surgery? Yet the whole thing is considered a healthcare right.

The implications are far and reaching. That means every election is potentially a referendum on our healthcare. Each administration, or Congress itself, can take it upon itself to rewrite the nation’s healthcare. Sure, we used to think that was too big a reach for them to do. Not so anymore. To redo Obamacare may be an arduous task which gets easier the more it is debated and voted on. If changed, the next administration can change it back, almost like an Executive Order. Now we see the truth.

What effect does that have on the industry itself? Who knows. Doesn’t offer much for stability, does it? That is not a calming feeling to the people.

Bad enough that now we already have accountants doing yeoman’s work being questioned from customers about their individual healthcare tax implications. They have to tell people what their tax penalty is and the in and outs to comply with the nannycare system.

Now many pundits see the writing on the wall. Charles Krauthammer said that in a few years there won’t be any debate about government involvement in the system.

Krauthammer told Chris Wallace:

“I think historically speaking we’re at the midpoint,” Krauthammer answered. “We had seven years of Obamacare, a change in expectations. And I would predict that in less than seven years we’ll be in a single payer system.” – Blaze

Now I don’t want to accept that as point of fact. I don’t want to think single-payer is now inevitable. Certainly it has gotten closer simply because of the government usurping and controlling the whole issue. So he is right in that once that began, the game and paradign has shifted. We can try to get it back but that will just be our version of the government based/tied system. The next political leaders have a chance to have it their way. We’ve already had how many elections with healthcare at the center.

Could it be permanently fixed in that position? I mean every election, indeed political candidate decision, may be factored by your healthcare or medical situation. Is that what politicians want; what people want? Politicians have enough problems doing the job they are sworn to do now, but have each one be a de facto lieutenant for healthcare?

And that was the problem with politicizing healthcare in the first place. Then passing Obamacare and a federally controlled system etched it into a permanent political issue. We saw that coming. Did libs? Did they care? They only wanted a single-payer system anyway. That’s the problem. What will future townhalls look like?

The process we are engaged in is even worse. Every argument conservatives used against Obamacare7 years ago is now used by Democrats against Republicans. That’s absurd. You cannot argue the failing points of Obamacare against a new plan, when you gladly endorsed Obamacare despite all the lies and problems. Now Dems repeat 7 yr-old criticisms that were used against them. They dug up all the old valid complaints on Obamacare, including wanting to kill off people. I thought it was rich but it is an orchestrated campaign.

First, Dems claimed their protests were duplicating what conservatives and Republicans did in Tea Parties. Then they started to disrupt and mock politicians at townhalls, saying that’s what conservatives did. They claimed it was the beginning of their mid-term come back — right after election — calling it the resistance. Faux imitation is not flattery.

So all of it supposedly follows the Tea Parties’ formula. (much as libs delegitimized those) Sigh. Even to the floor of Congress when Republicans passed the bill singing “nah nah nah nah, hey hey, goodbye.” Confident, aren’t they? But it is not healthcare or issues they care about, it’s power and politics. Even as a minority they are adept. Healthcare is a ward of the state. Screw up the nations healthcare, and supposedly it is a political victory?

RightRing | Bullright

ObamaCare effects in process

Coming to a provider, clinic, doctor or hospital near you…at warp speed.

ObamaCare Takes Full Force in Next 18 Months, Americans Scrambling to Prepare

Tuesday, 16 Dec 2014 | Newsmax
By Newsmax Wires

Barring any new amendments, the massive new healthcare law dubbed “ObamaCare” is set to take full force in the next 12 to 18 months.

Most Americans don’t understand the new law and aren’t ready for its sweeping changes. These changes will impact everyone, seniors, small business, the employed, the unemployed, doctors, and medical professionals.

As a matter of fact, ObamaCare’s numerous provisions will soon alter:

• The cost of health insurance, medical treatment, and prescription drugs . . .
• The type and quality of healthcare available in the near future . . .
• Even the ability to get in to see a doctor (any healthcare provider, for that matter) . . .

In fact, ObamaCare adds more than 30 million Americans to the healthcare rolls.

The program will be a massive tidal wave and experts say it may even cause doctor and nurse shortages.

And one study found that up to 40% of doctors are leaving practices due to the punitive regulations under ObamaCare.

This could result in health-threatening delays just to visit a doctor, as well as potentially substandard treatment. Plus, seniors in particular can expect alarming cuts to their Medicare benefits.

That’s because ObamaCare literally robs Peter to pay Paul by cutting $716 billion from Medicare over the next decade to fund other services under Obama’s Affordable Care Act.

Worse, the law puts Medicaid on parity with Medicare, a fact that will likely weaken Medicare!

Given the election results, Americans are now seeking to prepare for these changes. Those who don’t could be hit very hard.

Right now, millions of Americans are desperately scrambling for answers as the new rules and regulations of ObamaCare begin to take hold.

ObamaCare could degrade the quality of your healthcare if you are not prepared.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com:  http://www.newsmax.com/MKTNews/Obamacare-changes-your-healthcare/2012/11/16/id/464481/

H/T to Pepp for the article.

These effects are coming just as predicted, and seemingly right on schedule from the master planners. I do get a little weary of the Left acting as if these are just little hiccups and accidents that can be straightened out… like how they ironed it out originally.

There are those net affects of stealing from Medicare to fund it coming to full bloom. Oh remember how they denied that one? That was at the very same time they blamed the GOP for trying to cut Medicare. All the ObamaCare sound bites — lies as we call them.

Getting and being prepared? Well, that is a little hard for most people given the scope of this. In any other reality this might give birth to the largest class-action lawsuit in history. Barring that, what change will we see brought about?

It’s doubtful they will want to fix anything until we feel the full affects from it. The Obama minions would cry ‘that is hypothetical like the death panels’. So when the naysayers of ObamaCare end up being right, who cares to point it out and correct the record? Think of all the people who were demonized for opposing ObamaCare.

PPACA: built on a mountain of lies that keeps on growing. Politicos always say “next election.” We’ve had 4 elections about this monstrosity but it’s gotten worse, not better.

A lie is a lie is a ______

What do the statements have in common?

“Read my lips, no new taxes” — George H Bush

“I did not have sexual relations with that woman” — BJ Clinton

“”I can say categorically that his investigation indicates that no one on the White House staff, no one in this administration, presently employed, was involved in this very bizarre incident.” Richard Nixon on the Watergate burglary

“Not even a smidgen of corruption” – Barry Soetoro, Barack Hussein Obama

“If you like your plan, you can keep it” – Barack Hussein Obama

“If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” – BHO

“No matter how we reform health care, I intend to keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you’ll be able to keep your doctor; if you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan.”

“If you like your current plan, you will be able to keep it. Let me repeat that: If you like your plan, you’ll be able to keep it.”

“If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.” – Barack Obama, June 15, 2010

Fuhgedaboudit! Of course, they would like us to forget these statements… lies. But people don’t tend to forget them, especially when constantly repeated, even by allies.

With respect to the first three, there was at least some accountability for them. Bush lost, the blue dress came out, Cinton was impeached in the House, and Nixon resigned.

Now a few words from Nixon:

“I was not lying. I said things that later on seemed to be untrue.” — President Richard Nixon, reflecting on the Watergate scandal in 1978

What really hurts is if you try to cover it up.” –President Richard Nixon at the beginning of Watergate.

“People have got to know whether or not their President is a crook.”

“I don’t give a s**t what happens. I want you all to stonewall–plead the Fifth Amendment, cover-up, or anything else. If that will save it, save the plan.” – Nixon to his subordinates during Watergate

Obama has his own theory: If you like your lie, you can keep your lie, period!

RightRing | Bullright

Insurance Health…not health insurance

Everyone is concentrating on Healthcare, non-Affordable Healthcare at that. Maybe we should first look closer at the health of insurance rather than healthcare insurance? To that end at least one person has dared to go there in this column.

The Only Obamacare Fix Is For Obama To Legalize Real Health Insurance

Paul Hsieh — Op/Ed | Forbes
11/17/2013 [a few excerpts]

The President has proposed a one-year “fix” to deal with the political fallout from his broken promise (or lie), “If you like your insurance plan, you will keep it.” Now it’s, “If you like your plan, you can keep it until after the 2014 mid-term elections. Maybe.” But the problems with ObamaCare go much deeper than cancelled insurance. As surprising as it sounds, most Americans never had real health insurance to begin with — and were not allowed to by law. And the only cure for our current health insurance mess is to legalize real health insurance.

What most people consider health “insurance” is actually genuine insurance combined with inefficient pre-paid medical care. Contrast that with standard car or homeowners insurance policies. Those plans protect us against unlikely but expensive events, such as a bad car accident or a house fire. But we don’t use car insurance to cover routine predictable expenses such as oil changes.

…/

Suppose someone today wished to buy an insurance plan that covered only serious illnesses and accidents (and otherwise pay for routine health expenses with his Health Savings Account.) For many people, that would be an excellent combination. Yet he would not allowed to by law. Because of legal mandates, insurers may not sell such plans, and individuals may not purchase them.

ObamaCare did not create these problems, but does double down on them. Hence, to fix those problems, we’ll not only need to repeal ObamaCare but also prior bad laws.

…/

In addition to specific policy proposals, we need a broader national conversation on the proper functions (and limits) of government. Hence, I was encouraged by this recent Chicago Tribune editorial editorial that observed:

Accept that government doesn’t know what’s best for everyone. That people can decide what coverage they need and can afford. A strong marketplace offers choices for every wallet. Obamacare’s rules curtail those choices.

Such discussion is a good step in the right direction. Instead of debating which new government entitlements to create, we should be vigorously debating which freedoms to restore.

The president’s proposed “fix” won’t work. The only lasting “fix” is freedom. Legalizing real health insurance would be a damned good place to start.

See entire column:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2013/11/17/the-only-obamacare-fix-is-for-obama-to-legalize-real-health-insurance/

What a novel concept, putting the health in insurance.

Poll: Majority in U.S. Say Healthcare Not Gov’t Responsibility

Gallup says: Republicans’ attitudes on this measure have changed significantly since 2000

by Joy Wilke | November 18, 2013

PRINCETON, NJ — The 56% of U.S. adults who now say it is not the federal government’s responsibility to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage continues to reflect a record high. Prior to 2009, a clear majority of Americans consistently had said the government should take responsibility for ensuring that all Americans have healthcare.

Attitudes across all three partisan groups have shifted away from the view that ensuring healthcare coverage is a proper role of government, but most significantly among Republicans and independents. In September 2000, 53% of Republicans believed the government should not be responsible for ensuring all Americans had health coverage; today, 86% feel that way, an increase of 33 percentage points in 13 years. Over the same period, the percentage of Republicans believing the government should ensure healthcare coverage for all has fallen from 42% to 12%.

55% of independents currently say the government should not be involved with healthcare — an increase of 28 points since 2000.

The percentage of Democrats who hold this view is now 30%, its highest level since Gallup first asked the question and an 11-point increase since 2000 — with the largest change in opinion occurring between 2006 and 2008.

More: Gallup