Trojan Horse - Health Care Bill Breaches the Gates of Freedom

The Trojan Horse breached the gates of Troy and disgorged a legion of soldiers within the city to conquer it.

The Health Care bill the Obama administration is fashioning entices people with promises of lower premiums and out-of-pocket expenditures for themselves. It does not willingly reveal the cost to the society of an irretrievable and significant loss of freedom

I have struggled for some time trying to discern the motivation of the administration support for this reform. These people are not stupid. They no doubt read the analyses that show the economic and philosophical arguments against it. They are not moved by the arguments to change course. This means to me that either they willfully ignore the history of failure of such programs (Canadian and British health care systems) or they have an agenda masked by the claimed goals.

If they are ignoring past experience, they are willing to inflict dysfunctional and crippling regulations just to try again to achieve a demonstrably unattainable goal (i.e. magical thinking).

If they actually know better (this is my suspicion), they have another, hidden agenda. What can be achieved by burdening taxpayers with such a convoluted, expensive, controlling program? Possible answers:
1. Force citizens to become dependent on the government for fundamental needs, thus growing government and enhancing the power of those in office.
2. Redistribute wealth to make outcomes in life more fair and equitable.
3. Wreck the country's economy and systems to enable the administration to rebuild it the way they prefer.

The probable answer is that all three points of view are represented in this administration. Their adherents have somewhat different goals, but the means to reach them are the same, so they work in concert.

Independents of the world, unite! or there won't be any independence anymore.

Decline in Out of Pocket Health Care Spending Means More Out of YOUR Pocket Spending

According to the Washington Post, an analysis of the effect of cutting $500 billion from future Medicare spending indicates that "out-of-pocket spending would decline more than $200 billion by 2019, with the government picking up much of that."

Is this a naive observation or is it disingenuous? "The government" is we the taxpayer when referring to spending. So out-of-pocket spending is "picked up" by the government? That just means you are taxed more to provide the government with the funds to pay your medical expenses. So who cares, if the money goes to the same place, medical care?

Well, first the government collects the taxes - this costs administrative expenses. Then the government allocates the funds - this costs additional administrative expenses. Thirdly, the government decides where to spend the money. This costs you your freedom.

Pay to Play, the Chicago Way - taxpayer dollars pay off congressman for "Yes" vote on health care legislation

According to an article written by Major Garrett and Jim Angle of Fox News ("not, of course, a real news organization" according to the Obama Administration), a congressman from California sold his "yes" vote on the health care bill for $128 million of federal funding for the University of California medical school in Merced. Per the article, and I quote:

"California Rep. Jim Costa was wavering but told a local newspaper last week that his vote could be contingent on getting some federal money for a new medical school in his district along with help for local hospitals.

"When a constituent named Bob Smittcamp e-mailed him to complain about his vote for the House bill, the congressman explained he'd been offered the dollars he was looking for -- $128 million in federal money."

However, the article then quoted the congressman as saying:

"...that he did not like many of the elements there were in the legislation. However, he was able to procure $128m for the University of California medical school in Merced."

This sounds like a bribe to me. An editorial in yesterday's Wall Street Journal noted that "Mrs. Pelosi had to cajole and bribe her way to the magic 218, and the list of her promises must be stacked to the ceiling."

And what is worse, the congressman says he does not even like the bill. Another who hypocritically voted for it was Jim Cooper of Tennessee, according to the same editorial, which observed "It's nonetheless worth noting the surrender of that most vocal scourge of deficits, Tennessee's Jim Cooper, who voted aye on grounds that the bill can be improved in the Senate...Mr. Cooper has with a single vote made his entire career irrelevant."

The taxpayers should be provided with a complete list of which congresspersons received what quid for their quo. They are using taxpayer-provided funds to pay off congress members for a favorable vote on legislation that, according to the November 7-8 Rasmussen poll, 52% of taxpayers oppose. There oughta be a law against that.

Is Obama Hating on the Military?

How to interpret Obama's muted, diffident response to the Ft. Hood massacre.

One would think he would have been horrified by the deliberate and methodical killing of 13 soldiers and wounding of 30 others. Standing before the White House Tribal Nations Conference, Obama spent the first couple of minutes on welcoming remarks to the attendees and gave a "shout out" to someone in the audience with a laugh. Then he spent under 3 minutes on the bloody rampage in Ft. Worth and then went back to the conference agenda.

It seems that the priority for a Commander in Chief would be to address an attack on military personnel ahead of any other agenda topic. Certainly not sandwich it between light-hearted comments and boilerplate welcoming palaver.

There seems to be no energy in the notoriously hyperkinetic president to devote to military affairs. He cannot decide on Afghanistan, leaving our troops there in limbo and in danger. And now, he cannot even roust himself to be upset that military personnel have been murdered.

A little reminiscent of the Clinton White House reputation for hating on the military.

Obama Told Dems Soldiers' Hardships a Sacrifice, Losing House Seat Not

Easy for you to say.

Obama told House Dems to vote in favor of the monstrous Health Care legislation, lecturing them that soldiers endure sacrifice for the country. In comparison, casting a vote that might lose a Dem's house seat is insignificant. I quote:

"Participants also said Obama had referred to this week's shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Texas, in which 13 people were killed. His remarks put in perspective that the hardships soldiers endure for the country are "what sacrifice really is," as opposed to "casting a vote that might lose an election for you," said Rep. Robert Andrews, D-N.J."

While this observation is certainly true, it is astoundingly arrogant for Obama to scold lawmakers about not risking their careers when he himself is at no risk of losing his job. It is easy to be self-righteous when it only involves other people's welfare. But this is the trademark of liberals, to instruct other people to do what you would not do yourself, for the "greater good," of course.

The message of Tuesday's results is for Dems to DO MORE?

I quote Rep. Chris van Hollen, Dem of Maryland, who in response to the Republican sweep in Virginia, win in New Jersey and strong showing in New York, was "I think the message was we need to get things done."

Wow. The delusion of this summer that the Tea Party activists meant nothing and didn't know no better (being bubbas and all) continues with the current fantasy that the massive move of independents away from the Dems means the Dems are not doing enough. The argument goes that voters turned against the Dems in 1994 because they failed to pass Hillarycare, not because the voters hated it. Spin and delusion continue to abound in Washington Magicland.

Maligned Motives of Lefty Liberals and Disingenuous Democrats

I have been called out on the motives of Lefty Liberals (LLs) and Disingenuous Democrats (DDs) I attributed to them in my last post.

I wrote:

"In the name of "helping" the voters, who they (the DDs) evidently believe cannot think for themselves, the lefties are trying to set up a very complex plan that will ensnare everyone in the country in an inescapable funnel of rules, regulations, taxes and penalties that will devolve into a government-run, single-payer health insurance system. Private insurance companies will be driven out of the business (collateral damage to achieve The Greater Good?)."

My clear-thinking critic asked me if I really believed that the intent behind such big-government take-overs is malicious - i.e. self-aggrandizement, power acquisition and social restructuring - on the part of the LLs. As I told said critic, I do not believe most supporters of such programs are malicious. They are generally well-meaning but delusional about the actual outcome of these schemes.

There are some whose motives I do not trust, however. Career politicians do look to be re-elected, and the more goodies (government handouts) they can be seen to provide voters, the more votes they can expect to accrue. Some of them also believe in what they themselves call "social justice," which is an attempt to engineer equal outcomes (as opposed to equal opportunity) for all citizens. To achieve that goal, they have to take control of all inputs (fruits of your labor, which is to say, your income and assets) in order to redistribute them to those with less. I consider this motive also to be malicious in that they use the power of coercion by government to steal your possessions and give them to others.

I have struggled for a long time trying to fathom the thinking process that leads the LLs to believe it is their job to "lead" where voters do not want to go. Today, an excellent op-ed piece appeared in the Wall Street Journal that clarifies this question. Written by John Steele Gordon, it is entitled "Obama and the Liberal Paradigm." In summary, he says and I quote:

"The basic liberal paradigm hasn't shifted in a hundred years, while the world we live in has changed utterly since the late 19th century, when modern liberalism was born.

"What is that [liberal] paradigm? The basic premise is that the population is divided into three groups. By far the largest group consists of ordinary people. They are good, God fearing and hard working. But they are also often ignorant of their true self-interest ("What's the matter with Kansas?") and thus easily misled. They are also politically weak and thus need to be protected from the second group, which is politically strong.

"The second group, far smaller, are the affluent, successful businessmen, corporate executives and financiers. Capitalists in other words. They are the establishment and it is the establishment that, by definition, runs the country. They are, in the liberal paradigm, smart, ruthless and totally self-interested. They care only about personal gain.

"And then there is the third group, those few, those happy few, that band of brothers, the educated and enlightened liberals, who understand what is really going on and want to help the members of the first group to live a better and more satisfying life. Unlike the establishment, which supposedly cares only for itself, liberals supposedly care for society as a whole and have no personal self-interest.

"This paradigm, while never wholly accurate and, of course, always self-serving (as political philosophies tend to be), had a basis in reality in the late 19th century. Then, industrial capitalism was being born and the rules needed to ensure that it worked for all, not just the capitalists, were only beginning to evolve.

"A few lived at an incredible level of affluence, such as can be seen in the summer "cottages" in Newport, R.I., and had disproportionate influence with government. In 1900 one-third of the Senate were millionaires at a time when a million dollars made you very, very rich. But millions of Americans lived in abject poverty, toiling long, dangerous hours as industrial workers or as sharecroppers in the impoverished South. These millions were indeed ignorant and weak.

"Between 1947 and the mid-1960s, the civil-rights movement overturned centuries of racial discrimination and greatly narrowed the gap between American claims of liberty and equality and American reality.

"By the 1970s, the percentage of Americans living in poverty had been greatly reduced and those still below the poverty line were receiving assistance such as food stamps, housing assistance, and refundable tax credits that lifted most of them above the line. Race was no longer a barrier to accomplishment. The majority of American families now lived at a level of affluence and financial security known only to a few in the early 20th century.

"The liberal revolution of the middle third of that century was, in short, one of the greatest—and most peaceful—political triumphs in history. And because of it, most of the sheep are now more than able to look out for themselves, having the means and education to do so. The wolves have been fitted for electric collars that largely keep them from straying into the wrong fold.

"Now if only someone would tell the shepherds about their own success."

Now I understand.

And they still need to be stopped.

Health Care Reform Bill = FISH TRAP

The disingenuous Democrats are trying to create a Fish Trap for the American people. In the name of "helping" the voters, who they evidently believe cannot think for themselves, the lefties are trying to set up a very complex plan that will ensnare everyone in the country in an inescapable funnel of rules, regulations, taxes and penalties that will devolve into a government-run, single-payer health insurance system. Private insurance companies will be driven out of the business (collateral damage to achieve The Greater Good?).

Max Baucus has proposed this latest addition to the inscrutable bill: that health savings accounts be limited to $2,500 a year. These funds are pre-tax, so limiting them limits how much income can be put aside tax-free for health care expenditures. This of course increases tax revenues to the extent that people would otherwise (as they do now) put aside considerably more pre-tax income for medical expenditures.

So instead of the individual putting the tax dollars on amounts over $2,500 towards his own health care expenses, he must relinquish them to the government, which then spends a percentage of the money on administration and then distributes the remainder in the form of paying for the same goods the taxpayer would have bought - health care! However, in addition to the inefficiency of burning up some of the money on administration costs, the remaining funds would probably pay for someone else's health care to boot, an additional insult.

So back to the fish trap. Government grabs tax dollars to pay for the health care program. It forbids taxpayers from paying for their own care out of pre-tax dollars beyond a minimal amount. It wants to mandate what coverage a private insurer must offer while at the same time requiring it to take all comers and undercutting with the government option the premiums private insurers must charge to survive. The government offers its own subsidized coverage. Voila - the private companies are bankrupted as the government underbids them to grab all the business. Classic fish trap. You can only go in one direction. Once such regulations are in place, it will be a steady erosion of private care to extinction.