Is getting sick because of ObamaCare covered under ObamaCare?

What a night!

I don't know if there's any time in US history where more Americans are talking about congressional procedure. With the passage of the senate-version of ObamaCare in the house, all that's left (small pun) is to tack on the house reconciliation bill in the upper house.

The final vote on the Health Care Reform bill (HCR) was 219 to 212, with the remaining 4 seats vacant. Amidst heated displays on both sides, arm-twisting, thin margins and a "Hail Mary" in the form of an executive order, one out of every seven dollars in the US economy just fell under gov't purview. Who cares about the substance of the bill - do you trust the gov't with that much capacity for economic turmoil? I don't think we've had more than a few presidents with enough wherewithal to handle that, and never has there been a congress (esp. a Dem one).

This morning you wont find ObamaCare commissars at your door asking for your excess bandages. It's doubtful the sound you hear is your piggy bank emptying into a MoveOn.org party fund. The world didn't end. In fact for some of you, long sought victory was finally achieved, a goal beyond reach since Russia started towards its own socialist revolution finally attained.

So what now?

Again, it's not the end of anything. Even if 14+% of the economy just found itself under a new slate of bureaucratic regulators, that still leaves the vast portion untouched. And most of you will retain your current health insurance coverage; others will switch of their own accord (when the mechanics go into effect). It's far too early to judge the impact either socially or economically.

Philosophically, however, we might see some dividends sooner. I caught part of an interview with the old Speaker of the House, retired Congressman Denny Hastert (R-IL), and it's his opinion, shaded by personal politics and a long career in DC, that November's elections will see a negative judgment from the electorate. Now, he didn't say "1994 Republican Revolution!" all over again; he's too smart and recognizes the different situations. I, for one, believe it's next to impossible for the Democrats to lose one house of Congress, much less all of it. The margins and "battleground states" are not quite as "in play" as pundits would have you believe.

But this marks the final countdown for any number of Congressmen. It's not that people don't want health care & insurance reform (I'd like it), but the way we cross the finish line is just as important as the goal itself. There's a big government pushback going on with these "tea party" demonstrations, and despite the media largely ignoring the size of the rallies, hundreds of thousands nationwide (probably several million all told) are ticked off. And those are the ones willing to take to the streets and march or attend bursting town halls. Nixon spoke of a silent majority, and while tea partiers are far from a majority, we can consider them more than a vocal few. It's a grassroots movement, and I think they'll hammer "big government" candidates come November.

No 1994 turnover. Sorry, my fellow GOPers. Our party hasn't so much inspired a changing of the guard as it has a quick flushing of the toilet. No one likes a mess, but you don't demo a bathroom to clear out last night's Taco Bell (pardon the crudity). Congress isn't going to suddenly shift back to the GOP because of the current equation: HCR + tea parties + incumbent disapproval. You'd need to multiply that by "Dodd Financial Regulation" or "High Unemployment Two Years After the 'Change' Election" to get some traction.

A few highlights:

*Childish "baby killer" heckle aimed at Stupak and his pained expression (what did this vote cost him mentally?)
*Boehner's fire-and-brimstone "And did you ever read it?!" tirade and the rising chorus of Democratic "Yeahs!!" each time he asked it, until he answered his own question with a booming "Hell no!"

*A bit of passion for a change
*Taking rhetoric to new heights and saccharine lows (didn't you want to slap the hang-dog expression off Steny Hoyer's face? I know I did.)

*The palpable (through C-SPAN's feed) tension as the numbers for and against both crested 200
*The "executive order" now has armchair legislatures rushing to Wikipedia to judge it's validity
*Ditto "reconciliation" as well as the Constitutionality of the bill.

Expect the next big story to come out of this to be the state lawsuits. Something like 37 state legislatures have pending motions to repeal the act or at least question whether it's the Federal government infringing on State powers, though many are no doubt in Democratic-held state houses. Virginia, South Carolina, Florida - potentially the first three. Is the law constitutional? Leftists, derided that question as you might, we had a Civil War a while back over related (states' rights) issues. I don't imagine something so divisive, sweeping and impactful won't receive a clamorous response from libertarians, small gov't "conservatives," the GOP, tea partiers, etc. etc., forever and ever Amen.

A parting thought: we can argue the ideology of what just happened, but I'd hazard a guess that most of you reading don’t wish active harm on your fellow man, and believe in helping the less-fortunate. Giving of your own free will is one thing. This charity-at-gunpoint another entirely. This is a medicine Obama and his party say we need to take, for better or worse. It'll make us better as a nation. We will take from the coffers, as largely filled by a small percentage of the country who are about to "give" even more, and distribute to those who do not Have. Progressive taxation has been entrenched in society, and flat taxes and the like don't get much traction save on book tours. Progressive health care, or an expansion of the welfare state, does - and not usually positive. The reason is not necessarily stinginess, but the desire to see our dollars judiciously directed. We give from pocket straight to a charity or a group that we know handles the funds properly. The federal government rarely fills that description, so far as the poor and underinsured are concerned.

I think there was a better way to get out of this insurance fiasco. While the end result would be, ideally, the same, the rollout could've been incremental - like feeding a infant first foods. You don't give a 5 month baby peas, apple sauce, rice cereal and haggis the first time out. You go one food at a time, seeing what works - and what causes fussiness, gas or the runs - and then proceed with that knowledge to the next food. "Progressive" and "hasty" need not be synonymous.

Let's hope that lesson isn't learned the hard way by our fair country.


Unreconciled,

-Erik

Read on, faithful few!

NPR or Administration: Who's flashing their bias?

A little snippet. I was listening to NPR's All Things Considered the morning Obama announced his budget, including the tax hikes on the "wealthy" among us. What struck me most, however, was a curious turn of phrase when referring to everyone else: "working Americans."

Those who will have their taxes remain roughly the same, based on last year's tax adjustments/cuts/extensions, were referred to as "working Americans" by the correspondant, undercutting either a bias at NPR or a wording in Obama's announcement.

From what I read in Obama's speech, he referred to those getting tax "cuts" as "middle-class Americans" (which means 95% of America is middle class...what balls this man has) and the rest as "oil companies, investment fund managers, and those making over $250,000 a year."

So I guess this means NPR views those at the top as non-working Americans, since the rest are obviously working (or unemployed, imprisoned, vagrant, etc.) and probably hard for all those dollars. Never mind the doctors or entrepreneurs who make over $250k a year. Lazy slacker fat cats!

I love how even the staid, boring NPR can get a dig in every now and again.

-Erik

Read on, faithful few!

Monopoly Money

Obama announced formally his plans to use $30bn of TARP repayment funds to support small business loans. There's only one big problem: the money isn't real.

We (US Citizens, through our gov't) loaned this money out on our own credit - not from some magical Scrooge McDuck vault of golden coins - pulling value from thin air as is our wont. So we extend credit, a loan, and then get that loan repaid (in some cases with interest). So dollar for dollar goes into the loan, and there might be some leftover, but it's again we should not consider it real because we still have outstanding red ink on our books and projects already approved without funding.

We're borrowing heavily (Keyensian economics; deficit spending; "spending like drunken Democrats") as a part of Obama's agenda, so any excess funds we receive from pre-existing projects should go to paying down said deficit before we splurge again on another binge of "stimulus" spending. Right?

Not exactly. This money - again, interest on credit - is being pushed right back out the door in another ill-though adventure in vote getting, I mean job building. We have nearly 2/3rds of the original "stimulus" bill still outstanding, but we can't draw from that pot, as it's tied up in to-be-determined pork projects in states where the DNC needs voter support.

No, we need to make a statement about punishing financial institutions - banks, brokerage houses, etc. We need to say "Here's *their* money, America, in *your* pocket!"

But it's a sham. We're just further draining the red ink wells on our collective desk and adding project after project to a "plan" of attacking unemployment that has so far seen job loss increase 2% more over the last year.

Ah well. Only so much damage can be done before the November 2012 correction. Markets have them; why not government?


-Erik

Read on, faithful few!

SOTU for you!

(Two in one week? There must be something in the water....)


Did you folks catch any State of the Union-ness (SOTU) last night? Like Justice Alito mouthing "not true" when Obama butchered a recent ruling while also lambasting it? That's fun stuff.

I only caught portions of it and the transcript of the GOP rebuttal. The latter was downright gooey for a Republican response, as Gov. McDonnell of VA (who won back in Nov., despite Obama carrying the state by 18 points or some ridiculous number) had a lot of open-arm comments and mentioned at least once "I agree with the President on...." A good speech that touched on a number of salient points and wasn't folksy or "country-slo" as Gov. Bobby Jindal's 2009 speech rebuttal was (the horror!).

Not as much of that in the SOTU, which had a slight crackling quality, like a brushfire about to explode in conflagration. Obama has faced a few weeks (months? Since inauguration?) of setback in his policies, despite the supermajorities, and the populist rhetoric is starting to take over. It's amazing how quickly we've forgotten health care (health what? Of that thing. I didn't like that anyway) or that there are still hundreds of billions left in the first stimulus unspent (as we gear up for another major stimulus package + jobs bill).

By the by, if anyone can tell me what a jobs bill is, they get a shiny quarter. I didn't think you could write legislation that created employment from nothing in the private sector, as the vast vast vast vast majority of stimulus dollar jobs have been state/gov't-paid positions (and not just all for Michelle O's personal staff!). Historically, legislation aimed at creating jobs in periods of economic hardship tend to be for gov't projects, like bridges, ditches and murals. A "jobs bill" would then be just more targeted spending aimed at weak Democratic districts, intended to shore up the crumbling dykes until November.

Or am I reading that wrong? I might be, my glasses are a little dirty.

A few other things that jumped out:

* He repeated that he hated the bank bailout (that Bush signed) despite his ardent support at the time. A small thing, more of that "populist rhetoric" the pundits talk about. Still a little hollow, considering his opinion back in the fall of 2008.

*Following on that, all but one (if I remember correctly) of the big banks that received money have paid back those funds - with interest. Why are we now seeking a fee on those banks again? It's not just because they're easy targets...is it? I'd hazard a guess he needs money for special projects in the pipe or for health care. In fact, that's genius! He can punish the banks while telling the people he's fining them to pay for their sound bodies! The stoopid plebes will buy that, right Barry?

*Speaking of special projects, the freeze on "discretionary spending" begins in 2011. So that's really awesome and great. I'm glad McCain playbook is being used (didn't know who you elected, did you America?). What I'm not so keen on is the year until this goes live, giving Dems and their majorities plenty of time to pass pork and pet projects without recourse.

*He mentioned small-business tax cuts and stopping capital gains taxation on "small-business investment." Could...we end the cap gains tax for all investment for a year or two? Or just cut it in half? More than just small businesses could use that break, especially since he's looking to nearly double cap gains, according to campaign promises, during his term.

*Why does Tampa get a freakin' high speed rail line? What the hell's in Tampa that deserves that, save some middle-of-the-road voters electing a Senator this year (oh yeah...)? Why not put a high speed rail line where it'll do some good, like in the east coast corridor, across the Great Plains with his hometown, Chicago, as a hub between Denver and Pennsylvania, or from anywhere to not-Tampa? Tampa?! C'mon!

*I liked how he didn't want economic expansion like we had in the previous "lost decade," built on housing speculation and whatnot. So, does that mean you want it based on the 90s' econ-expansion - the internet bubble, whose popping created a massive backslide in the markets?

*I want a SOTU address that doesn't use the word "fight" at all. Combative language plays great to town halls, but is just silly in adult debate like this. "I will fight for you! We must win this fight!" RAH RAH RAH! Silly.

*All the education talk: go back to Bush's last two or three SOTUs. Same stuff. SAME ****ING STUFF. It's frustrating that the ideas you support are only lauded when there's a (D) next to the speaker's name.

*I loved how he said that Congress acts like every day is Election Day, and that we can't afford to run a "perpetual campaign." Wait, isn't "Organizing for America," what his campaign machine became, exactly that? Hm....

*Big fan of how he reminded Democrats of their huge majorities, the unsaid being "Why the hell haven't you passed by stuff yet?!"

SOTU addresses are notable for their magnificent proposals that get forgotten in the next news cycle. Very little Obama spoke about will become law or even get out of sub-sub-sub-committee wrangling. Bush had a good four years of sold majority support in Congress and look at the nothing that was done regarding his wildly ambitious domestic agenda (remember his domestic agenda? What he ran on in 2000? Yeah, in print it's actually pretty sharp, and I rack my brain to figure out what derailed it).

So don't expect to suddenly see unemployment cut in half by a miracle bill, or pride parades on military bases. I don't envision a health care bill will pass that looks anything like what went through the House. And such stringent rules for lobbyists? That war begins at home; clean up your own house, Barack.

In the end, then, this was a pretty standard SOTU: so much through against the wall, with little sticking.

And for Obama, it was just another campaign speech in the election that never seems to end.

Until the primaries,


-Erik

Read on, faithful few!

Presidentin'

(Yes, I have returned.)

Thought to ponder: why should a president be scrambling to preserve/redo his party's political strategy after he's gotten into the White House and not in a Presidential election year? Wouldn't it make more sense to propose legislation? Pass executive orders? Do other presidential…things?

I find it off-putting that Obama has brought his 2008 Presidential campaign strategist (David Plouffe) back to his side to essentially help plan the 2010 mid-terms, as though that action is befitting a president's time. He can't be concerned with running his party's races for them. And there can't be legislative/agenda issues at stake, because if his proposed policies can't pass muster with Dem supermajorities, no amount of stopgap campaigning or spin over the next ten months will magically bring left-of-center dream bills to his desk.

Back in the day (before Nov. 4, 2008) it was popular to bash any hint of politicizing of the White House. Everything Bush did was partisan and to advance the Republican right-wing agenda, right? Evil Karl Rove and Dick Cheney plotting to force unwed pregnant teen lesbians to have babies, marry men and register with the NRA. What's the big difference now? Are we so wrapped up in a cult of personality* that we can't see the spin?

Obama's first year as president, arguably, has not been stellar. Moreso than that, the third year of complete Democratic Congressional control (and the first of supermajorities) was nothing short of disaster. The situation can be summed up in two words: sore winners. Now that power had been firmly deposited in one party's greasy hands, and with margins that haven't been seen in quite some years, it was assumed Obama would get his wish list passed one item after the other. Bills would be rammed through GOP whining for the time was NOW! for the Democratic Liberal Ascendancy!

Not the case. Some Dems, it turns out, favor the middle of the spectrum. And those Republicans who have liberal leanings aren't about to exercise them to support legislation that their wounded party is rallying against (what's the point of being an opposition party if you don't stand firm against the other side…am I right, Democrats circa 2002-2006?). The votes were there…but they weren't. Moderates wouldn't go along with the nah-nah-nah proposed leftist agenda that completely left them and right-of-centers out of the loop. Bargains were tried, compromises, backroom chicanery (and all this amidst the "Transparent Administration"). Failure!

Now, after Mass., NJ and VA gave the Republicans amazing headwinds with strong recent victories where Obama won with double-digits only a year prior, the White House has decided to circle the wagons to redefine the partisan message for the year. Not the American message, nor the strategy for the whole country. But the Democratic Party's agenda. Because that's good presidentin'. That heals the wounds, brings John Edwards' "two Americas" together, or somesuch.

How am I to have faith that President Obama will keep my, a Republican's, best interests at heart when he is shutting out my party from the conversation? And what if I were a Conservative, Libertarian, Constitutional or etc. Party member from the middle/middle-right? Why is the White House trying to energize only one segment of the electorate this year? And it's a segment that, according to most recent polls, is diminishing with each month. (Less consider themselves Dems now than did a year ago, and more consider themselves Conservative than Liberal.)

I know, it's the mid-terms, and it's been done before. During his tenure with GWBush, you know that Karl Rove was involved in many national campaigns. But to me, this looks worse. It looks like a President stepping up his party's game for the sole reason of winning elections and not to enact meaningful legislation. Hiring a consultant to rattle sabers and rah-rah-rah your whimpering candidates is a job for the DNC, not the President of the United States.

This past year has been tough for Obama, and he's had many backed-in-the-corner moments. I don't blame him for the ills of the world any more than I blamed Bush. But what's he's doing now, the overt politicizing…it's disappointing to see. It's Italian politics, and you don't get much lower than that in the Western world.

-Erik

-----

*(Well, that cult of personality has been disappearing rapidly over the last seven months. Obama's had a 15+ overall approval swing down, below 50%, the worst first year showing for a President since these things have been tracked. Kudos for breaking another barrier!)

Read on, faithful few!

Interpreting Mass.

Let's dust off the Hoedown for a minute.


Tuesday saw "the impossible" happen: the Kennedy Senate seat in Massachusettes, Democractic for 57 years, went Republican. Scott Brown (R) pulled out a clear victory over Martha Coakley (D).


Pundits froth at the implications. Democrats wail and moan; Republicans strut and preen. The surface interpretation is that voters are fed up with Democratic Washington and have fired a shot at the bow letting the Administration know. Republicans are in then, right? Their agenda is preferred?


Not exactly. Tuesday's win was a big upset for the Democrats (Coakley was leading several weeks ago, or at least reasonably competitive), but not the sea change folks are making it out to be. To continue using nautical metaphors, it was a rogue wave, not the leading edge of a hurricane that will scour Congress of Democrats come November.


Voters are angry and fed up, but much of Tuesday's vote had to do with state politics. There were tax and corruption issues at play, and Brown was a charismatic alternative. Likewise, they can see nationally the failures of the Democratic leadership in DC as indication that maybe a supermajority in the Senate isn't a good idea. But that was second fiddle to local issues and personal magnetism. This is a storm in a bottle for Mass. Dems predominantly.


Republicans desperately want to think that their NJ and VA gubernatorial wins last fall and this big win mean great things come November. To be honest, Brown should not have won in Mass., no matter what your Democrat friends say about Coakley. It's a (D) state - almost more than any other in the Union - and a Republican win does indicate a lack of confidence in the "same old thing" - Democratic state shenanigans.


And after four years of Congressional control and a year of a Democratic White House to boot, the "same old thing" exists in more than just one state.


But anger can trump ideology, and Brown benefited from extreme voter anger and dissatisfaction over bungled, backroom health care chicanery, ballooning deficit spending, expanding debt limits, bailouts handed out like fliers on a street corner - big government, in two words. Voters did say no to that.


Does this reaction mean Obama's agenda is in trouble, that his "base" is rebelling? Eh, not really. If you see his base as the liberal side of the Democratic party, they are still quite loyal. Unhappy that there's no single-payer system yet, but still loyal. Moderate Democrats and independent voters are streaming away, as indicated in not only the three major Republican wins these last few months, but most major polls since mid-summer 2009.


All that aside, this means "epic fail" for Health Care Reform, and you don't have Republicans to blame. House and Senate Dems were too stubborn or cautious or ambitions (depending on your read) to use their SUPER MAJORITIES to just pass legislation, too divided over what should be in, too afraid of filibuster (like Dems can't frame that in the national media to make Republicans look cowardly and small).


Obama has moved the conversation already. Now it's the banks that are the culprits, and he will fight them until his knuckles bleed and the heavens crack...or until the news cycle moves on to immigration reform, green energy, entitlements, hobbits in the workplace....


-Erik

Read on, faithful few!

Hope this finds everyone well.

The Den/Political Hoedown is on a bit of a break while it digests the double barrel blasts of childbirth and health care "reform." What, it's only a sixth of the economy. Let's tinker with it during a recession, see what happens. Sure it won't kick in for a few years, but we like pushing debt beyond the horizon. It's fun! And morally, it feels okay because we say we're helping people and saving them money...but not exactly, because we're enlarging yet again the welfare aspect of the state by essentially providing care $$$ vs. insurance $$$ (which is different), adding a further burden to the privately insured (personal or company plans) who will get no benefit. Unless the benefit is a lighter wallet, which I guess could help with the obesity problem.

Hmm....

-Erik

Read on, faithful few!

Getting Fixed

Cross-posted at The Exchange.


Much is being made of Health Care/Insurance reform of late. Look on any major news site, op-ed page or political blog and you’ll run into several pieces posted just this week covering the breaking news! over Blue Dog Dems dealing or Obama pushing or Republicans pushing back, not to mention the pontificating on both sides of the aisle over what “reform” really means for health care in America, co-op vs. public option…and the shouting at Town Halls! It’s more than part of the news cycle – it’s a key argument about our future.

It’s the first major legislative battle Obama has had to fight, and for the Democratic Party, it’s a chance to reverse a fifteen-year-old loss. More than these, it is a new theatre of war in the battle for our civil liberties.

The Bush Administration is still fresh in our minds. How many readers have lamented that since 9/11 (or afterwards, when the Patriot Act was passed), our civil liberties have been trampled on/infringed upon/lost? It’s a common topic that talks of the individual freedoms we hold valuable in our country.

(Less directly, those voicing dissent were also realizing a harsh reality: that these “truths we hold to be self-evident” and divinely-granted exist only due to the government’s benevolent, diverse structure and state.)

The thinking is this: we have a measure of control (freedoms) over our personal lives (and by extension, choices) that cannot be impugned by any governmental body. The most common freedom referenced is that of Speech, tying into the freedom to disagree with the government and its members.

So were our freedoms infringed upon over the last seven and change years? And how does this factor into health care?!

Short answer: 1) no, and 2) health care reform as exists in draft form (ObamaCare) is a direct interference in our lives, a diluting of our personal liberties.

Not-as-short answer, we’ll talk first about Bush (yay, that hasn’t been done a lot!).

Aside from the flag-draped coffins arriving in cargo planes, the biggest uniquely “American” tragedy of the recent Bush years is the “loss” of civil liberties/personal freedoms. But let’s take a look further. Yes, the TSA interrupted our travel, causing frustration. We were also limited in the quantity of cosmetics we could bring on planes (still no guns). Regarding dissent – freedom of speech in general – if anything, Bush’s time in office saw a flowering of free speech. Having worked in a book store, I witnessed firsthand the number of anti-Administration books that were published – harsh tomes that didn’t hold their punches and outright derided, accused and insulted most of the top officials. Few were spared. One novel, by Nicholson Baker, had its main character fantasizing about killing Bush (though he was talked out of it).

In the theatres, we saw the scathing documentary Fahrenheit 9/11, which took aim at the Administration’s run-up to and early execution of the War in Iraq (as well as the handling of 9/11 itself). “Critical” is an understatement. And how many times did we tune in to a left-leaning pundit, talk show host or guest lambasting Bush or Cheney or Rumsfeld as evil, fascist, corrupt, or at the least questionable in their morality?

Is this provocative newsmaking? Strict journalism? No, much of what was published, printed, screened or screamed by the cable punditry was personal opinion, heavily biased and often filled with fervent desire to see those in power toppled like an Iraqi statue, i.e., brought low by impeachment. While this never happened, “administration change” was a stated policy goal of many armchair politicians.

So freedom of speech. Freedom to (angrily) travel. Abortion and gay-related issues existed at the end of term where they were at the beginning, from a national perspective. Your taxes went down (yes, for all of you; a new lower bracket was even created). Your incomes may also have gone down, or your home values or 401(k)’s; insurance premiums did rise. But those aren’t “freedoms,” but rather a part of living in a capitalist, largely market-driven society.

More importantly, during this time your freedom of choice wasn’t altered. Choice to drink or smoke, to have a hamburger, to drive an SUV.

To not be insured.

We require our drivers to get car insurance, mainly to pay for repairs when that other guy hits you while turning left out of a Taco Bell parking lot. It’s a safety net for those responsible in traffic accidents, so they don’t go broke when their ’89 Civic rear-ends a Bentley. There are multiple parties involved.

Health insurance is a different beast. It’s about you and your body. It’s a choice you make about protecting that body and your pocketbook in case of injury or serious illness. We don’t cover ourselves to pay for cold medicine; as John Stossel said recently, insurance isn’t welfare, but instead coverage for a potential catastrophic incident. It secures against the potential maladies that can’t be solved by a trip to CVS or Walgreens, those things that cost a lot to fix.

But we still – as of this writing, and since insurance was invented – have a choice whether or not to buy it.

Our employers might cover us. They certainly don’t need to provide insurance. Tying your health care to where you work has shackled many to careers they’d rather not have. But we expect it, don’t we? It’s taken for granted that if you work for a major corporation, “benefits” will be included – benefits being medical coverage, dental, vision, emergency room service, etc. When it’s not offered, many throw their hands up and moan. What am I going to do? they cry.

In the case you don’t have employer-provided coverage, you can buy insurance (as the company is doing for its employees) from a provider, paying semi-annually to maintain the safety net against grievous injury or sickness.

But, again, you don’t have to; there is no requirement. If we’re not careful, however, there could be.

For lack of a better term, I’ll call what’s coming out of the Democratic Caucuses “ObamaCare,” and in its purest form it approaches a single-payer (that payer being the gov’t) system that many in America don’t understand, but also recoil from when it’s mentioned. As is being drafted currently, ObamaCare would include a requirement – punishable, if violated – for all employers to buy their employees health care and for all individuals to somehow have coverage, buying it if is not provided otherwise. A mandate.

So be healthy, or pay a fine. Or another way to look at it, Dear Leader says buy our healthcare.

It’s just a matter of time, if ObamaCare is passed, before the single-payer option is introduced in some pilot phase. We have a debate now between a government insurance program (the “public” option; run & owned by the gov’t and funded with your tax dollars) and the co-op (a member-owned group that uses their purchasing power to get lower costs collectively than alone).

(I’m more for the latter, predominantly because I think small businesses should have the option – should they choose – of collective bargaining that we think only unionistas are entitled.)

Public or co-op, under ObamaCare one way has to be in the bill to ensure “lower” cost insurance options, as we would all need to have something under pain of high fines. And here’s where the freedom of choice goes away.

We should not be forced by a governmental body to buy health insurance, something that affects solely the individual (if I punch you, and you need dental work, no health care plan of mine in the capitalist world would pay your bill). It’s our choice.

Many of those that are uninsured are post-college adults who either don’t have the job that supplies insurance or choose not to be covered, as they are young and healthy. Catastrophic risk is low for them, as relates to illness (we all can fall victim to accidents & injuries).

Why are we seeing a party that champions individual choice (we can cut to the quick with one word: abortion) refusing to allow the same regarding health care coverage?

This is a step toward a nanny state, and what do nannies do but take away the choices of the child.

If we are soon mandated to have health insurance, how long before fast food joints are fined for serving real beef burgers (too fatty!) instead of veggie burgers? Or bread producers (and their supporting farmers) ordered to make only gluten-free products, as some claim our bodies aren’t supposed to handle the stuff? Or regular pop – or pop in general, as diet might possibly in an alternate world lead to cancer! It’s all unhealthy, right? We shouldn’t consume these products, as they’d raise the potential for future maladies (and jack up costs)…right, Dear Leader?

What about the “legalize” movement, predominantly supported by the same left-leaning people who voted Obama into office? It’ll be a cold day before pot is legalized; in fact, it’s more likely that cigarettes face a 100% national tax – punishing smokers, isolating them, even more – on their way to an eventual banning.

And then there’s that can of beer you drink while watching a game. Prohibition was a failure, and it was the result of a religious-backed temperance movement that saw it pass. Well, “health care reform” advocates want your body to be insured and in tip-top shape; liquor doesn’t factor into that equation. Look for higher sales taxes, more restrictions on purchases by individuals and establishments, neighborhood bar & grill closures.

Because you have to be as healthy as the government says. There is no more room for personal choice when it comes to our bodies, right? That’s what I’m hearing with ObamaCare. Health care reform is no longer an issue of children being without insurance or the homeless being denied care. We’re not talking about lowering costs so the woman working two jobs can afford coverage to combat her returned cancer.

No, we’re skipping the true “need” aspect of health care (that being low, market-driven costs with state restrictions eliminated, co-op pools for small businesses, et al) for the ideological stance of a small group of policy makers too enamored with the concept of “universal coverage” to realize the dread cost to the end-consumer or the country as a whole.

The potential for failure to reform health care – to make it affordable for all – is high. No one likes to hear the tragic stories where if they had coverage Bobby would be alive, or little Susie’s heart valve defect would’ve been detected in utero, avoiding frantic emergency surgery, or Ted wouldn’t have gone bankrupt paying for his wife’s caner medication and treatment. Those stories will compound if nothing is done.

But the right action isn’t necessarily the one presented, and I’m not saying it’s 100% the Grumbling Opposition Party’s way either. What I do fervently believe is that we need to be mindful of the individual’s right to choose – and the related personal freedoms that could be endangered should we lose that right.

Our civil liberties come in many forms. A woman’s right to choose is not the only heath care choice we have the “right” to make. If we want to create a society that lets the person and not the government make the choice in the vast majority of cases, we cannot allow ourselves to turn a deaf ear when protest is raised on a topic we feel strongly about.

Take a few steps back. Slow down the process. Reform the health care system, but don’t devolve our rights in the process.

-Hooper

Read on, faithful few!

TPH Returns - "Fiscally Conservative, Socially Realistic"

The Political Hoedown returns, now with no foolhardy attempt at regularity.

*Is there room in the US for a moderate party? Can self-styled "progressive" or reform Republicans (think Teddy Roosevelt or *gasp* Barry Goldwater?!) and, in their own way, "Blue Dog" Democrats (who're fighting DNC leaders about the Health Care reform bill as currently drafted) find a common slogan to rally behind?

*Palin-tology: the future of our maverick-y sled dog.

*Today's polls mean little for next year's mid-term. No big expansion on that point; just don't trust them. …okay, I'll expand a little.

***
I don't mean to alarm you, but there's a lot of partisanship these days. The situation isn't as bad as 2006; that was a bitter election year, especially with Iraq still in "quagmire" territory. Both sides emerged calcified and eager for a full-fledged electoral tussle in '08.

Now that we've had that brutal fight, with the GOP emerging battered and the "conservative" agenda at risk of fracturing amidst regionalization, you'd think the winners would be magnanimous. Not so, dear friends.

Legislation is veering sharply Left - for good or bad, as it veered Right during Bush's first term - and one sees the image of a steamroller driven by a donkey chasing an elephant. For nearly all bills can now be passed without a single Republican vote, and it's not healing the wounds of the last eight years to go about business as though 40% of the government doesn't exist.

And by ignoring the opposition, diminished as it greatly is, one also ignores its agenda items. Not every piece of conservative/Right/Republican policy calls for prayer in school while Gay heavy metal CDs are melted in a bonfire lit by Jerry Falwell's ghost.

So some Democrats are coming to remember.

They are called "Blue Dog" Democrats, and they represent the fiscally conservative, if socially liberal (or middle-left), wing of the DNC. There are currently 52 Blue Dogs between House and Senate: 16.6% of the total Dems in Congress, no small number. Currently they're up in arms about the Democrat-drafted health care reform bill and their objections are those of fiscal conservatives - traditionally the Republican stance.

In the Republican camp, there's been a war brewing for three years (or maybe since Teddy Roosevelt broke ranks in 1912) between those who place social conservatism ahead of economic conservatism and vice versa. Is this a time when a "Blue Dog" type Republican might emerge - moderate socially, economically Conservative? I, of course, refer to these as "Reform" or "Progressive Republicans," as these moderates have a forward view on science & technology, and the private lives of US citizens.

And if this other caucus-within-a-caucus is born, will our great Union witness another?

A national third party is the dream of pundits, basically a massive monkey wrench in the gears of "politics as normal." There are two possible breakaways* that could be formed: the above mentioned "Fiscally Conservative, Socially Realistic" (moderate, in other words) party, similarly to Libertarians; and the "Moral Right," which is the Palin wing of the GOP along with a few "Christian Democrats," those who are part of the Religious Right but have a (D) after their name.

The Republican Party is in shambles, leaderless and objectiveless. Their only collective, coherent thought is to block Obama if at all possible. But as the Democrats found out in 2004, when they ran on an "Anything is Better than Bush" platform, hate doesn't drive success. Ideas (and Roveian campaigning) do.


*(of course, really four if you count the Independence movements in Alaska and Texas, stronger than they have been in years.)

***

Palinpalooza!

By now, we all know that Sarah Palin has announced 1) she's not running for reelection as Governor of Alaska and that 2) she will resign July 26th, handing the reins over to her Lt. Gov Sean Parnell. There's still well over a year of her term left.

What's shocking is that there are some out there who think she still has a chance at the 2012 Republican nomination. In fact, they say this move will help her chances. I hope I can pop this little bubble of electoral hope: she's finished.

Arguably more of a lightning rod during the last election than even Obama, Palin entered the national political stage in a whirlwind of pit bulls and hockey sticks and knocked-up teens. She would go on to win the hearts of a chunk of Americans and the scorn of many more. In a nutshell, she's divisive, seen as flighty and in no ways a candidate that can capture a national majority.

So she's done, effectively. While there will be people who rally to whatever cause she takes up, and as we gear up for the 2012 primaries, listen to her, the citizenry as a whole do not endorse a political future for this woman. Who she eventually supports will turn into the early frontrunner (I don't buy her as a kingmaker, but she will bring publicity), though that person will take on all the negative connotations of "Sarah Palin's Pick."

The resignation is good for all parties: she gets to reevaluate her life, spend time with family and maybe salvage her image. The DNC gets fodder for the mid-terms ("Why elect member of the party that chose a QUITTER for their VP?!") and media drones. The GOP clears an ugly debit off its books and can really go about reforming and reorganizing the party.

She's headed off to write a book, and after that stump for those candidates who share her views on certain issues (Democrat of Republican). How many times do you think she'll hear "Oh, I'm sorry, I can't make it" ?

***

Right, those polls. Rasmussen has Obama's "strongly disapprove" rating higher than his "strongly approve" (though his overall number is still greater than 50%); they also show (R)s leading (D)s in eight of ten key issues, with the gap closing on the remainder. This is a two-week running affair, the GOP getting the upper hand on issues, but it means next to nil.

We are a year from serious mid-term campaigning and two and a half years until the 2012 primary season. A lot can change. Look at the political landscape last year. Few could map that twisted path from Obama's Iowa blowout to the reversal in New Hampshire, McCain's gradual rise, the most drawn out Democratic presidential primary in recent memory, Sarah Palin, the economic disaster. There was no crystal ball for those events.

we need to remember that going forward. Follow the legislation that's been introduced since Election Day, the Obama-backed stuff. He'll sink or swim on the last eight months' worth of policy from his proxies and party. Health Care can get reformed, Iraq solved but if the economy is in ruin in early 2012 (or late 2011), he'll face stiff GOP opposition (with the winds of anger at their back) or potential insurrection in the DNC.

Democrats haven't had a dynastic period in the White House since FDR got in. Republicans have won all but three elections since 1968. They want to win, and Obama might pull a "I've accomplished all I set out to do" speech if the stimulus packages and spending choices (blunders) fall flat.

***

Next time...who knows?

-Hooper

Read on, faithful few!

AIG executives are a sore substitute for real justice...

(A guest piece!)

The persecution of corporations for exorbitant executive compensation (with or without government funds) is shortsighted and may in the long run hurt the movement for economic justice. While I am angry that executives are rewarding themselves for their foolishness, I recognize that retribution plays to my basest instincts. People interested in furthering their economic freedom have a better chance to get a stable economy by channeling their anger into a campaign around regulating financial derivatives and other unsound financial practices.

Indifferent government (yes, we're talking Democrats here too) enabled Chairman Greenspan and financial service and other corporate interest groups to thwart regulation of financial derivatives. Advocates have a prime opportunity to redirect public outrage away from executive compensation to the urgency of clipping the wings of executives greed: unregulated, unsound financial practices.

Corporate apologists who claim that regulation inhibits economic growth need no further shaming than to be shown the previous week's deflation of the asset-price bubble. These corporate apologists confused overcapacity with growth, for whose mistake you and I are taking a hit in the pocketbook. Let your Congressperson know you're mad.

-Matthew H Griffin

Read on, faithful few!