Blogs

Do you believe that there is a need for reform of our health care insurance system? If not, why, and if so, what form would you like it to take?

Here is my take, stated as simply as possible.

1) The current system is unsustainable, on four levels.

• a) too many people cannot get health insurance (pre-existing conditions) or cannot afford it
• b) insurance company practices, like rescissions after years of paying premiums, are indefensible
• c) insurance premiums are rising much faster than inflation or income, which means (a) is just going to get worse
• d) our health care costs more than any other country, without producing commensurate increases in outcomes; without reform these costs are going to continue to rise

2) There is no free-market solution to this problem. Sound-bites like shopping across state lines and tort-reform are nonsensical non-answers.

3) Given that the private sector is failing, spectacularly, I'm happy to have the government intervene.

4) Currently, the ER, which cannot turn people away, is the primary care provider for million. If there is going to be reform, there are only two ways to fix this and to prevent free-riders: the mandate, or the wallet biopsy. I prefer the mandate, as I think the wallet biopsy is just too much to ask of medical professionals.

Yesterday chemjeff posted a blog entry characterizing HCR as enforced charity. I think that charity has nothing to do with it. I think the issue is the strain on our economy caused by spiraling healthcare costs.

What Will You Do, If Our Existence as the LORD GOD”s Tolerant English Speaking Red, Yellow, Black and White Judeo-Christian Nation, of One People, Out of Many People, Ends?  It will end if we do not stop Obama and his thugs.  His infestation of ‘Anti Anything Godly and Good for the USA’ is the ‘God Damn America’ Party of thugs who hates Our LORD GOD, Our Nation and Our Way of Life.

Red, Yellow, Black and White We Are Precious in GOD’S SIGHT, JESUS Loves the Children of the World.   www.troopusa.org  twitter.com/WorriedGranny  

blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm

www.google.com/hostednews/ap/slideshow/ALeqM5gfKew4vYLdAejdsWBQvaT0G2OFjQD9BV5JKO0

U.S. President Barack Obama bows as he is greeted by Japanese Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko as he arrives at the Imperial Palace in Tokyo, Saturday, Nov. 14, 2009. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

There is nothing here for the ‘enlightened’ progressive class in this, except perhaps poetic justice of a sort. They are about to be ground under the heel of an insatiable government in pursuit of a fanciful and totally unattainable poly-nirvana, along with the rest of us proles…or at least that’s how they see us. They just haven’t figured it out yet. Their heads are still stuck too far in the clouds, but reality is going to come knocking in a big way very soon.

This economic engine of ours is coughing and sputtering like a poorly tuned motor…and getting just about as good mileage out of the fuel which powers it. We’re not talking about the liberals’ other favorite mythical beast, energy, here. We’re talking about the greatest asset this country has. We’re talking about its people. We are talking about jobs. We are talking about an INSANELY obsessed government, totally and completely out of control, hell bent on destroying whatever economic power still resides in the people and the greatest driver in this or any economy, small business, entrepreneurship, and private investment.

The elite leftist is a creature of infinite contravention, espousing an ideology which by its very nature destroys that which produces the means that permits that  intellectual disconnect.

The rest of us see things in a much simpler context. We see our homes, our children, our livelihoods, our savings and our futures threatened by an unresponsive, irresponsible and punitive government in contravention of the very laws that frame its scope of governance. We have only the recourse left to us by the Constitution as a law-abiding people. At least for now. We have the ballot box and the ability to change the direction of the government and the country.

There IS a political sea-change taking place out there now, as an ANGRY and aroused citizenry become aware and educated to the depth and breadth of the betrayal of our trust by a rabidly left-leaning and TYRANNICAL CABAL within the highest reaches of our government.

There will be a huge reckoning in the elections of 2010. I don’t think the DeMarxists could moderate or change course now if they wanted too. They are like a truck on a steep grade which has lost it’s brakes. Fortunately for us, they are about to run into the wall of the American people.

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

© Skip MacLure 2009

As recently as September Gov. Culver (D) had a 50% approval rating.  Now he is down to 40% approval rating and getting beaten by former GOP Gov. Brandstad by a whopping 24 points.  Brandstad isn't the only Republican leading Culver, perennial statewide loser Bob VanderPlaats leads Culver by 8 points. 

www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20091114/NEWS09/911150335/Iowa-Poll-Low-rating-for-Culver-reveals-vulnerability&theme=IOWA_POLL

Oh, did I say "right-wing"?  I meant "Nancy Pelosi".

I believe I have a moral obligation to help the less fortunate, but it is my decision on how I will meet that obligation.  I can help out family and friends.  I can donate money or volunteer my time.  I can work to improve myself, knowing that through self-improvement I'll be better able to serve my customers, coworkers, and bosses.  There's a limitless number of ways that I can decide to serve others.

Enter Nancy Pelosi & the Democrats.  They too believe that everyone has a moral obligation to help their fellow human beings, but they have decided to define what that obligation is for everyone.  To them, my obligation must include buying health insurance.  No exceptions.  Because my health insurance premiums will serve to lower the premiums of everyone else, thereby making health care more affordable.  (Maybe.)   

So why should I continue to serve my fellow man voluntarily?  The state is deciding for me how I must do so, under penalty of jail time.  Why should I spend my valuable free time helping the less fortunate?  Isn't that now what I do when I pay my taxes and, if Nancy has her way, buy health insurance?

The problem with the liberal welfare state is that it gradually turns its citizens into selfish bastards.  I no longer need to have charity in my heart; I can live the most self-centered life that I desire, and I can still have a clean conscience when I pay my tax bill.  Liberals blame excessive selfishness on capitalist consumerism, but that is merely a symptom, not a cause.  Why would a good person, with a big heart and a generous spirit, spend his hard-earned money on toys for himself instead of on the less fortunate?  He will, if he believes that his money isn't necessary, that the state is picking up the tab instead.  And that's what is happening as the state decides to become the nation's largest charity.  Slowly, those who are charitable in spirit lose that desire to help others through simple neglect of that part of their being,

   The debate over Net Neutrality is taking place below the radar because of the shear volume of words being dedicated to health care, but it is an important one that needs some more attention.  The Republican stance can be summed up in five words "no government regulation of the Internet".  I understand that this fits one of the core conservative principles, small government, and I don't disagree with it in general.  The problem is I think this issue is far too complex to be boiled down to a five word answer.  As I've considered it more, and I'll freely admit that I'm not an expert, there appear to be a few other issues involved that speak to the future of conservatism.

- The Republican argument is that the government should not be able to tell ISPs how they can do business.  The free market should be allowed to work and these businesses should be left alone to make the decisions they feel are necessary.  Again, I have no argument with the basic principle, but is the ISP market truly a free market?  How many Americans actually have alternatives when it comes to choosing an ISP?  Even for those Americans who have a choice, are the alternatives really apples to apples?  I'm one of the lucky few who can choose between a cable provider and FIOS.  This empowers me to switch providers if I feel one of them is making business decisions that I don't like.  Most people don't have this luxury.

- In our quest to keep the ISP market "free" are we potentially restricting the market for content on the Internet?  One need only look at the cable/satellite television market to see what happens when the people who control the delivery mechanism begin developing their own content.  Time Warner, COMCAST, and the rest have clearly taken actions intended to promote their own content and stifle competition.  Since they are doing this in a market that is similar to that of the ISPs (i.e. not as free as an economist would like it to be due to the restrictive options available to many consumers) they are able to warp the content market in ways that limit the choice of consumers.  Thus the issue of Net Neutrality appears to force conservatives to make a choice...we can have either a free market for the ISPs or we can have a free market for the content providers.  It's hard for me to think of a way we can have both, and the current approach appears to put conservatives in the difficult position of choosing one market over another.

- One of the prime conservative complaints about the recent bailout of the car companies was that business is not risk free.  Companies make decisions.  If they work out they make money, if they don't then they fail.  Are we in danger of having this get thrown in our face on the issue of Net Neutrality?  The ISPs and wireless carriers had a business plan.  Spend money to provide the highest speed internet service we can so people can actually do things like download music, watch tv, play games, etc.  When people see what can be done they will want to pay for this service.  The problem now is that the plan worked too well.  More people want to take advantage of the power of the internet than the system can accommodate.  Are we allowing them to pull a "bait and switch"?  Certainly we're not bailing them out with government dollars, but could we not look at the McCain bill as an effort to protect them from the consequences of their business decisions?

  Again, in an effort to stave off some vitriol, let me say that I agree with the basic approach the Republicans are taking.  I agree that government regulation should be limited to that which is absolutely necessary.  The issue I have is with taking a complicated problem and reducing it to one that is simple.  There is danger in that approach because it ignores the consequences of the decisions made.  I'm interested in the thoughts of fellow conservatives on the issue of Net Neutrality that go beyond the five word answer.  I hope I've come to the right place.

What have the Chicoms seen about Barry Hussein that the moon-eyed crowd here, those that are left,  haven’t been able to get through their observedly addled craniums? Of course, in China they are used to a very heavy-handed government approach to life in general, so Mr. Obama really looks like the inexperienced lightweight that he is. If  he thinks he is going to negotiate anything out of them he’ll have to find another soothsayer, because the Chinese wrote the book on it thousands of years ago and Barry just doesn’t have what it takes, or even close to it, and neither has anyone in his administration.

It’s amazing how when things get a bit dicey at home, El Presidente always manages to prance off  in absentia when the criticism starts to fly. Maybe it’s because his teleprompters were made offshore, to jobs lost here in this country and therefore work best on foreign soil. Truth is, he just doesn’t want to be here to answer pointed questions, or as pointed as they ever get from 98% of that pandering White House news corps, or the equally DOA fringe media.

The two latest gorge spilling events have had to do with his Muslim Jihadist Army Major, massacring thirteen of our US Army troops ON AMERICAN SOIL, then having to listen to Barry and his spin doctor apologists in the Army itself, in his administration, and in the forever babbling fringe media, trying to turn this murdering scumbag into some sort of victim of ‘American’ oppression and harassment.

Meanwhile, the entire US Muslim population gears up to play the poor oppressed minority to a ‘T’, while many of their mosques preach hatred and  their charitable organizations pump money into terrorist jihadist organizations and causes. Hey Barry, what madrasa was it you attended when you were traveling in Pakistan on an Indonesian Muslim passport? You know, the one that showed you as an Indonesian citizen at a time when travel to Pakistan was barred to holders of an American Passport? Wish somebody would explain that one to me. I’ve got it! Must have been part of Barry’s Muslim outreach program.

Then there’s Eric Holder and the firestorm that has been ignited by the announcement that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and friends are being brought here for trial in a NewYork Federal Court. Let’s see, these are really creepy people… the kind that would set a little girl on fire to teach her father a lesson. Fact folks…that’s how these dudes operate over there. We are taking them away from military tribunals where they belong. Remember, these people don’t even rate the protection of the Geneva Convention.

Obama, because IT IS OBAMA, can’t distance himself from this one. He can’t travel far enough to be able to say, “Why, it’s my Attorney General just doing his job”. It won’t work Barry…your sheets have been pulled on this one too. It’s what you and Holder promised all along to your left wing Marxist kooks…to expose our intelligence operations through Soviet style SHOW trials here in the US. That’s plain to see.

What we also see, Mr Hussein Obama, is that you place our nation, our intelligence community, our armed forces personnel and the citizens of this country at great risk. You sir, abrogate your Oath and the Constitution of this country every time you open your lying mouth.

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

© Skip MacLure 2009

Normally hard assets such as gold track the value of the US dollar. When the dollar falls, stock price of companies with assets increase as does Gold which has gone up more than 10% in less than two months. Note the recent increase in gold price without the drop in the value of the dollar as Obama begins trip to China.

 Media Matters continues to try to provide cover for the public flogging ACORN has received as a result of investigative videos which showed ACORN employees giving advice on a number of illegal activities including human trafficking, child prostitution, bank fraud, illegal immigration and tax evasion. Meanwhile, the mainstream media has largely ignored a growing scandal that cannot be contained: ACORN is reportedly closing offices across the country, including the site of the DC undercover videotape..

Also, today another damning ACORN tape was released at Big Government. This time an ACORN member openly confessed to ACORN using non-partisan voter registration to secretly produce Obama votes.

Anyone paying attention knows accusations relating to voter registration fraud, illicit partisan activity and other chicanery often have been made against ACORN, with ACORN either denying all or any ACORN fault. In October of 2008, I testified in Pennsylvania regarding the illegal coordination between Barack Obama's Campaign and ACORN:

“A former staffer for Project Vote, a sister organization of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, testified at a hearing in Pennsylvania on Wednesday that the Obama campaign provided the group with a campaign donor list in late 2007 for their fundraising efforts. The former D.C. staffer, Anita Moncrief, said she still has a copy of what she called the 'development plan' she used to help her identify the maxed-out Obama donors for solicitation. The hearing was part of a lawsuit brought by the GOP seeking information and an injunction against certain ACORN activities in Pennsylvania.

“McCain-Palin campaign manager Rick Davis said in a statement, 'We now know that Barack Obama's campaign was working hand-in-glove with an organization reportedly under investigation by the F.B.I. and in more than a dozen states. In addition to funneling $832,000 to ACORN for get-out-the-vote efforts, the Obama campaign and ACORN have been sharing donor lists, encouraging maxed-out Obama donors to contribute to this unethical organization.'" (emphasis mine).”

The member caught on tape publicized by Big Government is another in a long line of “bad apples” for ACORN. As it becomes harder to hide behind poor minorities, ACORN appears to be on the run. Unfortunately, they are running to the White House. There Barack Obama, ACORN's “inside man,” seems poised to protect ACORN and even strike down its enemies. Andy Stern of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) serves as a close confidant of the President with over 20 visits logged in at the White House (he tops the frequent visitor list). Stern has every reason to expect this sort of access, as he not only funneled many millions of dollars into the Obama campaign, but also aligned with SEIU's sister organization, ACORN, to ensure that Obama was elected.

The screen shot is from an internal ACORN document from 2006. When combined with the admissions of the member, it provides additional proof that ACORN and SEIU - with the help of the Obama presidential campaign - intentionally took government and tax exempt donations through organizations like Project Vote to run a partisan voter registration drive aimed at electing Obama. Both the Federal Elections Commission and the media ignored the Obama donor list that was submitted as evidence in the Pennsylvania case and sworn testimony. But can they ignore the admission of someone saying: “I Am ACORN”?

As President ,Obama has paved the way for ACORN and SEIU to receive stimulus money and ACORN favorites to receive prime appointments to both executive and judicial positions.

Of course, Obama has admitted to limited ties with ACORN. But Americans have witnessed Obama run the country like one big ACORN office and trying to implement ACORN's radical agenda. Apparently being a community organizer is something that - like ACORN - is hard for Obama to shake. In 2001, a group of ACORN protesters broke up a community tenant meeting by shouting the words, “Yes, We Can.” Eight years later, ACORN man Obama rode to victory using the same slogan of those angry protesters.

With so much to lose, lawmakers are concerned about the lengths to which Obama will go to in order to protect ACORN. Congressman Steve King of Iowa released a statement today suggesting that a cover-up may be being executed under the guise of an investigation:

“Bob Bauer has a public record of defending Barack Obama’s relationship with ACORN. Bauer has acted as the agent between Obama and ACORN, and now he will be perfectly positioned to be tasked with erasing the tracks between Obama and ACORN. Bauer’s hiring appears to be a tactical maneuver to strategically defend the White House exactly one week after Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell raided ACORN's national headquarters in New Orleans and seized paper records and computer hard drives that may lead to the White House.”

Congressman King has reason to worry. The Democrat-controlled Congress has given ACORN plenty of time and warning to prepare for these “investigations”. In March of this year Michigan Representative John Conyers backed down from a call to investigate ACORN after several witnesses testified about the 2008 elections and ACORN. Portions of my Pennsylvania testimony regarding ACORN's illegal activities in 2008 were read into the record and hundreds of pages of evidence were submitted by GOP Attorney Heather Heidelbaugh. In explaining his flip flop, Conyers cited “the Powers that be.” As the “Age of Obama” unfolds, it's not hard to guess who "the powers" are.

Obama is willing to make small, symbolic concessions like removing ACORN from the Census, but his Justice Department remains oddly complacent with ACORN. The bailout hungry media covered up the Obama/ACORN story  and continue to ignore damaging stories like the IRS dropping ACORN from its list of VITA sites.

Mainstream newspapers and online liberal “news” sources appear content to continue to play the “race card” and paint conservatives as obsessed about ACORN because ACORN purported to help the poor. ACORN may be Teflon as long as Obama is in the White House. Charges of tax evasion, child prostitution, voter registration fraud, illegal immigration, bank fraud, etc. may not stick to ACORN.

With 2010 rapidly approaching, a look at ACORN's cookie cutter statements on its voter programs tells us what ACORN plans for America.

Fortunately, Big Government caught one of those “highly trained” ACORN organizers on tape. How many more "bad apples" does it take before it is generally realized that ACORN itself is rotten to the core?

Chris Dodd has a polling profile reminscent of NJ Governor Jon Corzine. He's behind, he's been behind for a long while, and the poll internals indicate he's likely to stay behind.

Given that the election is less than a year away, how could Dodd eke out a victory?

Have an opponent with high negatives. Thankfully for him, one is already in the race.

Five Republicans are in the race now. Former Congressman Rob Simmons has yet to run TV ads, but has residual name ID in central and eastern CT from his days in Congress. He is leading  Dodd by 11 points.

Former Ambassador to Ireland Tom Foley has run TV ads . He is leading Dodd by 7 points.

The other three candidates--Linda McMahon, Sam Caligiuri and Peter Schiff--all are in effective dead heats with Dodd in the 43-41% range.  So they are equal, right?

No. McMahon is the weakest of the lot.  Neither Caligiuri or Schiff have spent dime one on TV ads, while McMahon has blanketed the state--even running ads on NYC TV. Yet she fares no better than the more frugal candidates in the race.

The secret here is while McMahon is buying name recognition, much of it is already negative. 

According to Quinnipiac Simmons's image is now 40% favorable , 10% unfavorable. His rating with unaffiliated voters is 42% favorable- 7% unfavorable.

Linda McMahon did not make such a good first impression.    She rates at 20% favorable to 13% unfavorable.  14% of unaffiliates and 15% of men already have a negative impression of the wrestling mogul.

Amazingly, more people in CT dislike Linda McMahon after a few weeks in elective politics than dislike Rob Simmons after nearly 20 years at  the trade.

The rule of thumb is that a challenger's early numbers usually have to run 2 to 1 favorable to have a shot at an incumbent. McMahon's slick campaign ain't getting the split she needs. And Lord knows what's going to happen if and when Dodd unloads some negatives on her. Sure she'll have plenty of cash to respond, but methinks Chris Dodd will enjoy the mudfest. It's not like his numbers can go much further down.

Now one would think Dodd's dream---a rookie opponent with high and rising negatives--couldn't come true. But it might due to the quirks of the CT GOP and our geography.

Rob Simmons is very well known in eastern CT, which does not have many registered Republicans.  But he is not well known in heavily Republican Fairfield County, which is served by NYC TV.    McMahon's been on those stations; Simmons never has.

I suspect the reason the ballot test for the CT primary is now 28% Simmons - 17% McMahon is heavily due to Simmons having low visibility in the southwestern part of CT.

So all of McMahon's millions got her the same ballot test as the candidates not spending money, and the highest negative ratings in the Republican field.

I suggest CT Republicans take a long hard look at these poll internals. When a candidate makes a tepid first impression, it usually doesn;t improve by just pouring resources into the same suboptimal message.

And if Linda McMahon isn't ahead of the weakened Dodd now after spending millions, why would she be when her negatives inevitably rise?

Let's not do Chris Dodd any favors, please