HELTHКAЯE ЯEFORM: The End?

Boy, has the new Health Care Reform Bill that the Democrats passed caused a stir or what? You'd think most of the population is against this thing. Aside from states filing suit against the new Nationalized Health Care System, there have been reports of broken windows, telephoned threats, gas lines severed... even photos of politicians and their children being run in newspapers. Some bloggers have gone so far as to publicly suggest that Washington - and the National "If Canadians like it, it must be Great" Democratic Party in particular - has lost touch with this country.

Now, a rational individual might expect a reaction like this, given the heated debate that has gone on for over a year, the poll results that have leaned consistently to the negative, statements from the President and Congress assuring the citizenry that it really doesn't matter what they think - the Democrats will pass Health Care Reform regardless, and the manner in which it was passed. But we aren't dealing with rational beings: we are dealing with Democrats. These are people who have no concept of how things get accomplished. Their idea is that if you want it bad enough - if you merely wish it... nay, demand it in the name of good intentions, it will just magically happen, be it war, internet access, or medical care. There is no such concept as Cause and Effect in the Democrat's world. This is how the party of slavery, Jim Crow Laws, and segregation has managed to sell itself as 'the party of the people.'

What really makes me sick is the cowardly reaction of these spineless bureaucrats. Ah, you thought perhaps I'd call out some of these folks who have suggested violence is the only answer. No. Now, I'm not advocating violence by any means, but we'll get back to that in just a bit. I have watched a regular rotation of politicians crying on the tube about how they don't feel safe after railroading legislation over the American people. What exactly did you expect after - in the words of your vice-President - you charted "a fundamentally different course for the country"?

[Let me interrupt myself here to state that little gem is difficult to track down. When one searches for a health care victory speech from the New Uncle Joe (FDR fans take note), there are 80 billion returns referencing the "This is a big f***ing deal" remark. Who cares? We know these are people of low moral standards and class. What was missed, ignored, or deemed uninteresting was this, in part:

History -- history is made when you all assembled here today, members of Congress, take charge to change the lives of tens of millions of Americans. Through the efforts of those of us lucky enough to serve here in this town, that's exactly what you've done. You have made history.

History is made when a leader steps up, stays true to his values and charts a fundamentally different course for the country. History is made when a leader's passion -- passion -- is matched with principle, to set a new course.

You can watch it all here.]

These people who know far better what you and I need than we ourselves do have charted a fundamentally new course for this country. Regardless of whether you approve of it or not, they have. They have stepped forward and acted on something they truly believe in. Well, maybe not truly - after all, they are exempt from participation unless Chuck Grassley has his way- but they feel pretty darned strongly about it. Two-hundred and thirty-four years ago members of the Continental Congress charted a fundamentally different course for this country by repudiating their government. This week our government repudiated us, and they were so sure of our subjugation that they are genuinely shocked by the reaction. It's as a shepherd crying out in surprise as the flock tries to run from the slaughter house. "But I want them to move forward!"

Doesn't that sting a little? I'm sure you've gotten an email detailing the horrible demise of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence. Whether those stories are true or not, these men did risk it all and plunged the colonies deeper down the course to freedom, and led a bunch of ignorant dirt farmers and tavern owners to fight the concept of the divine right of kings. Today, our representatives to our government are so sure of their unmitigated right to decide for us that they can not believe we would protest through civil disobedience, and haven't the backbone to stand up and take it. The character of this country - of the Western Man - is dead.

I say that it is dead because this health care bill will stay in place. I know there is a lot going on right now. There are arguments on the Hill, promises that a new majority party will repeal it, lawsuits in multiple states, individuals refusing to comply... and I love all of it! I truly do. But I also know how it will end. Read back over my other HELTHКAЯE ЯEFORM pieces. I've called it all along, not because I'm so damn smart (which I am), but because people are so damn predictable. I don't like it, I just know it.

Here's how they'll keep it in place:

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act won't cost you a dime - I already stated this way back in Part 4, but you need to hear it again. The fact is that the tangible costs are going to directly hit your employer, medical facilities and personnel, "rich" folks, and your insurance company. All of these costs, of course, will be passed down to you, but you won't really care about or even notice it... because you never do. When did you quit bitching about the "fees" (read: non-voted taxes) on your phone bill, for instance? Many of the provisions of this bill don't take affect until 2013 or 14. That is not so they have time to repeal or repair it. It is to give time for the anger to wear off so that by the time the tangible costs start trickling down on us, we will merely be shouting "Fix our nationalized health care system!"

Your insurance company was killing you - Have you noticed a recent jump in your insurance premiums? I know I have felt it. Most insurance companies really popped up prices over the last year. This was in part a continuation of the trend established by the congressional protection of malpractice attorneys in filing bogus suits, but it was also because insurance companies deal in money and understand what mandatory insurance coverage will require. With more non-workers being covered and sick people encouraged to seek "free" treatment, those paying the bills will have to pay more. It's as simple as that. So these prices have been driven up by the very system that calls itself the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Social Security is in trouble and needs to be replaced - This is old news... very old news. Anyone with a smattering of mathematical ability has known for years that Social Security is doomed. Congress has known it because they've been illegally "borrowing" from it for years. They even forced the railroads to help fund it. I covered the fact that the government intends to do away with it in detail in Part 5 and Part 7. But now you will hear about Social Security's problems more and more in the news. Because of some new discovery in demographics? Because of some outbreak of a premature aging virus? Because of a downward trend in new births? No. It's so you will embrace the new nationalized health care system. Articles just the other day revealed $1 million is not enough to retire on for the X-Generation because Social Security won't be there. Hey, my third grade teacher told me that 30 years ago! We've known it, but now congress can use that fact to scare us into supporting nationalized health care.

We fixed it and made it good - I firmly believe Democrats will be swept from congressional power in November. I think this legislation will have something to do with it, though there is a modern trend in this country for the voting public to split the White House and congress by party. That's a good thing no matter who is in the Oval Office. But make no mistake about it: the Republican Party will not repeal this legislation. Instead, they will tweak it just enough to call it their own and tell us all that they fixed it for us. Government programs are never eliminated (hell, look at the V-22 Osprey): they are merely re-politicized. Look at T.A.R.P. and the bailout. Oh, I remember who was there when it all started, and I remember that Republicans didn't put in place any oversight or accountability. But as soon as Obama was elected they started blaming everything on the Democrats. Don't get me wrong: the worthless Democrats did just about everything wrong that they possibly could... but the Republicans weren't innocent. You wouldn't know it from their crowing, though. The PPAC Act will be used the same way, just you watch.

You must respect the law - Check out this article. I want you to note this quote in particular:

"I am surprised by the mobilization of the states. It does strike me as a kind of civil disobedience, a declaration that we're not going to follow the law of the land," said Mark Hall, a professor of law and public health at Wake Forest University.

"It doesn't make sense. The federal Constitution couldn't be any clearer that federal law is supreme," Hall added.

I wrote to professor Hall and asked him to clarify the quote:

Were you misquoted? Taken out of context? I'm not asking about your opinion on the health care issue, but doesn't civil disobedience, by definition, fly in the face of federal law in this case? These actions (by the states) are challenges to proposed federal law. You are - it seems from the quote - prescribing that the solution to the problem is to follow the problem. This is not logical.

I ask this because you are presumably educating our children. It would seem from this presentation of your views that your are teaching them policy rather than how to think.

Not surprisingly, he did not respond. But this outlines the attitude of the mindless liberal: I wish it to be, therefore it is, and you have no right to argue against it. These people have been in charge of education for decades, instilling this principle into our children. Your government knows what is best for you; therefore, you should not question it. If you disagree with your government, you should work harder at figuring out why you are wrong... or better yet, sit back and accept it.

But this time is different, you say. Believe me, I would like nothing more than to be proven wrong on this. Those of you who know me personally know that that is as unlikely a statement as will ever come out of me, but it's true. I would love to be wrong on this.

But I'm not.

HELTHКAЯE ЯEFORM Update

Progress in Senate Democratic health care talks

That's the headline from Yahoo! News this morning. It banners an Associated Press story written by Erica Werner. The article centers on the Democrats backing down from a proposed government-run insurance program, or Public Option, in order to gain key support in the Senate Healthcare Reform Bill. Hmm. This tactic seems familiar. Where was I forewarned of it? Oh, yes... now I remember:

This is not a “public option.” This is the government setting prices and packages throughout the industry, listing it for you, and letting you “choose” which option you want. In other words, a fascist health care system. The Democrats will have appeared to have backed way off of their demands and the Republicans will have appeared to have saved face. And all of us will be reaping the… well, I’ll let you characterize the results any way you wish.

You may remember that, too.  It was from the end of my Helthkare Яeform (Part 7) post. I predicted it. It's right there. Read it.

But this post isn't about my own self-aggrandizement (well, maybe a little). I want to bring your attention to a sentence in the seventh paragraph of this AP article:

New purchasing marketplaces called exchanges would make it easier for small businesses and people without government or employer coverage to shop for health insurance, and onerous insurance company practices such as denying coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions would be banned.

Did you catch that?  The "onerous" practice? Isn't this a tad editorial in nature? I will tell you straight out that this blog is most certainly slanted in one direction - MINE! But I make no claims to the contrary. The reader is free to recognize the truth or to disagree with me. But this article is from the Associated Press! Should it not be objective?

The truth is that I am not surprised to see it. I have actually fired off letters to the AP complaining about the poor quality of their writing in not only fact reporting but basic grammar. Pointless to do so, I know... but it allows me to complain that nothing is going to improve. It will only get worse, and here's why:

News reporting is not a lucrative industry.  With the number of cable stations and online outlets, news organizations have less and less money every year to spend on reporters. As a result, most of the reporters you see today are young, blond girls. (I know nothing about Erica Werner specifically, other than the fact that she is apparently incapable of objective reporting.) It is no coincidence that they look very much like the girl dancing in the lower corner of your screen saying something like, "At Adult Playground you can watch me as we chat online and..." These reporterettes are not hired because of their abilities... they are hired for their looks.

I know this sounds sexist, but I've been there and seen it. Sour grapes? Nope. I didn't enjoy my time in news organizations because of their unwillingness to dig deep and risk ticking off politicians (probably a good idea if Federal dollars end up being used to bailout - read: take over - large newspapers). So there's no sour grapes. I just hate seeing quality plummet. (One can be good looking AND smart... ehem. The issue here is the 'and.')

The only solution we have is to do it ourselves. My blog is more of an editorial page, no doubt. But what blogs have you seen that you feel deliver objective information? (Don't bother submitting Wikipedia, please.) Please comment with links to information blogs you enjoy. It might be your own. It might be Matt Drudge's, or whomever.

I want to gather a list of them, go through and find ones that dig for information, and provide that list for you to bookmark. Sort of a morning reading list. Instead of relying on the reporterette who interviews one professor at Berkley and suddenly becomes an expert on Global Warming, let's identify those individuals out there who have a passion for the issues that affect our lives. Let's dig into their heads and resources, and come up with a digest of credible, detailed, and objective sources.

Anyone game? Put your links in a comment, or email them to me if you'd prefer.

HELTHКAЯE ЯEFORM (Part 9)

THE GREATEST OFFER ON EARTH!!!

Don't wait! Sign up NOW!

Announcing the formation of the Home Appliance Cooperative. From this day forward you will never again have to worry about having to wash your dishes by hand, eat your bread untoasted, or heat your dinner on the stove. Sign up now and you will be part of the program. Here's how it works:

Each member will pay into the Home Appliance Cooperative a low monthly fee. This money will be pooled into a central account, so it is important that everyone participate. Anyone in your neighborhood who is not a member will be fined and that money will sift down into the account.

In the event that any member's appliance goes out, the Cooperative will repair or replace said appliance free of charge, immediately. Of course, there may be a little delay due to processing and determining which affected appliances get seen to first, but the Cooperative will have a system in place that will look at keeping the system as efficient as is likely given the complexity of the problem and nature of the issues involved and other things you really probably wouldn't understand and don't really need to know about.

Let it be known that all members of the Cooperative will pay the same monthly fee, regardless of the quality or age of their appliances. Of course, members who earn more than $500,000 per year will be subject to a small surcharge.

No one will be denied membership based upon the condition or age of their appliances, or their personal history of appliance failure.

Pre-existing conditions are not a factor for membership. This means that even if your appliances are very old, have had multiple repairs in the past, or have recently gone completely out, you are free to join the Cooperative at the standard membership fee; we will replace/repair those appliances.

There will be a governing board over all similar cooperatives. You do not have to remain with any particular cooperative for a set amount of time. For instance, if your stove goes kaput and you then join the Home Appliance Cooperative, your stove will then be replaced. You have no obligation to remain with that particular cooperative, even if you have only made one monthly membership fee payment. The membership fees of the other members of that cooperative will cover the cost of your appliance. You are free to go on to the Cooperative of Home Appliances, or any one of the many regulated private cooperatives, or you may choose the public option, GAC, although the membership fees for it are a bit higher.

And don't worry if this sounds more like a pyramid scheme than a cooperative; it's not insurance, either.

PS: My brother-in-law happens to sell home appliances, so all cooperative appliance purchases will be made from Chip's Home Appliances & Charity Bingo Hall. Chip assures me he will offer the best prices and highest quality... trust us.

HELTHКAЯE ЯEFORM (Part 8)

Ignoring all pleas and protests to the contrary, the House formally known as 'of Representatives' has passed a 1990-page Healthcare Reform Bill, ready for Senate approval. The final vote was 220-215, with 39 Democrats voting against it, and only one Republican voting for the bill. With numbers like that it is clear Nancy Pelosi is doing everything in her power to make sure the whole of the American public is behind this, and that nothing is ramrodded through Congress against the will of We the People...

I'll cover some of the highlights of the bill over the next few days, but for now, let's try to get a handle on this price tag: $1.2 trillion or, if you're not into the whole brevity thing, $1,200,000,000,000.00.

How much is that, really? What is that number? Well, it's what is going to have to be spent on this health care overhaul. It's the amount that is going to be added to our national debt; therefore, it's what your kids will be repaying. Remember those 7th graders from Part 7? Yeah, they're the ones who will have to pay. Well, just how much is $1,200,000,000,000.00? Good question. Let's put it into perspective.

Imagine that you were to be paid $1.00 for every second of the day. One dollar per second. In one minute you'd have earned $60.00. Pretty sweet, huh? In an hour you'd have earned $3,600.00. Really sweet, right? Let's expand that same rate on out a little further:

Day = $86,400
Week = $604,800
Month = $2,600,640
Year = $31,536,000

Wow! Now I would take that! Who wouldn't? Heck, that's about 1.5 times the $19 million that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is worth. It's hard to even imagine that much money, but that's what you would have if someone paid you $1.00 for every single second of the year. Enough to buy any car you wanted. A mansion. Jewelry. Servants. A second iPhone. Anything.

And if you paid that much - $1 for every single second of the year - toward that Health Care Bill? Why, you'd have it paid off in just 38,452 years.

38,452 years.

Say that out loud: Thirty-eight thousand, four hundred and fifty two years. Go on, say it again. In fact, say it out loud to your 7th grader: Thirty-eight thousand, four hundred and fifty two years.

I know, that's pretty dramatic. Nobody gets paid a buck a second. Well, that's not completely true. The apolitical Tiger Woods makes a little over $3 dollars a second, and Barack Obama's campaign manager Oprah Winfrey rakes in $8.72 per second. (It would take Oprah a mere 4,364 years to pay off the Health Care Reform Bill.)

Of course, statistics suggest that your little middle-schooler, as talented as he/she is, will not grow up to be either the greatest golfer or the biggest gabber of all time. In fact, statistically speaking, he/she will grow up to make $18.60 per hour, during the work week. That comes out to a yearly salary of $38,390.40. Not bad, but not quite enough to cover the $1.2 trillion tab in one lifetime. In fact, it will take him/her 31-million, 257-thousand, 814 and one-half years to pay off the House's health care reform. Go ahead and say that one out loud:

31,257,814 and 1/2 years.

Before you point out that it's the whole of the population and not just one person that will be paying the tab, consider that at the average salary it will take 400,177 lifetimes to pay it off, if every single cent of salary were put toward it. But given that the average worker doesn't put in a full 78.11 years worth of 40-hour weeks, but more like about 45 years worth, the total comes to around 700,000 lifetimes. Do the math... I've given you the links. Now, who works a lifetime with absolutely no personal gain, all of the fruits of their labor going to someone else? Slaves, that's who. It looks as though this bill will create the equivalent of three-quarters of a million slaves in this country. Which ones will it be? Mostly, the ones not even old enough to vote yet.

There are those who will pooh-pooh this blog, claiming that this country can't afford NOT to pass health care reform legislation. Now, I'm just a regular Joe, working a job and raising a family. My wife is a regular Jane doing the same. With the money from our two jobs we often use the phrase, "How are we going to afford...?" As in:

How are we going to afford Christmas presents for the kids?
How are we going to afford that repair on the truck?
How are we going to afford braces?
How are we going to afford propane for the winter?
How are we going to afford groceries next week?

We use those phrases often, but I can't remember one single time in my LIFE that I've ever used the phrase, "We can't afford NOT to..." I just can't understand that mentality, especially when talking about $1.2 trillion of our children's money.

Maybe I could understand it if I was worth $19 million.

HELTHКAЯE ЯEFORM (Part 7)

Continuing our discussion of Helthkare Яeform, I want to pick up where we left off yesterday: namely, concerning the government's inability to compete in any way with the private sector. I promised that I would provide you with a number of quotes taken directly from the guy overseeing our current $1.42 trillion deficit, and so I am.

It’s not that private sector workers are so much smarter than government employees (except in the case of that girl I had to deal with at the DMV), it’s that they are better motivated. Every business expense a private sector employee incurs comes from the same place as their potential earnings. The more they improve the end product, the more revenue the company brings in, and the more benefits said employee may enjoy. With a government employee: “Here’s some taxpayer money. Spend it all or we will give you less next year. Oh, and nobody can fire you.” The math is fairly simple.

And yet even the President seems to have a hard time with this arithmetic. He’s made some rather… well, remarkable statements, mathematically speaking:

We will pass reform that lowers cost, promotes choice, and provides coverage that every American can count on. And we will do it this year.

It will limit the amount your insurance company can force you to pay for your medical costs out of your own pocket.

No insurance company will be allowed to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing medical condition.

I have also pledged that health insurance reform will not add to our deficit over the next decade -- and I mean it.

Hmm. I’m going through this scenario over and over and just can’t come up with the answer he’s claiming. Washington is going to create a system that provides coverage to every American – coverage we can count on – even to the 47 million Americans that currently don’t have insurance coverage? And the government is going to lower costs while doing this? This system is going to be affordable to all of us, won’t put small companies or the insurance industry out of business, and is going to promote choice? It’s going to do all of this but not increase the deficit? Not at all? Really, Mr. President? Oh, I see that you did include ‘over the next decade.’

But still, that’s a pretty tall order, even if Congress does find a way to put off some costs until the current crop of seventh graders in this country hits the workforce. There must be something else to this math that Obama is using. Perhaps more quotes will help us out:

It will keep government out of health care decisions, giving you the option to keep your insurance if you're happy with it.

Actually, I have that option now, without government involvement. Kinda sounds like the Mafia protecting my business from being burned to the ground by the Mafia.

This isn't about me. I have great health insurance, and so does every Member of Congress.

That’s right. It’s not about you or the members of Congress. It's about today’s seventh graders, the ones that will get hit with the bill a decade from now. But still I am not seeing the math. How about one more quote… looks like this one may be for you old-timers, lest you think my theory about reform being aimed at eliminating Medicare and Medicaid is somehow misguided:

And it's about the fact that the biggest driving force behind our federal deficit is the skyrocketing cost of Medicare and Medicaid. So let me be clear: if we do not control these costs, we will not be able to control our deficit.

Seems pretty clear to me. How about to you, Herman?

This is a key clue to the Democrats’ position on a public insurance plan. They have no real desire for one… they are trying to get rid of those already in place to pay for this government control of the health care industry. But if you are going to negotiate with a party that fears (publicly, at least) the notion of ‘socialized medicine,’ are you going to start from the position of keeping the insurance industry privatized but controlled? No. You are going to present a hard-lined position that you will appear to back away from for the sake of compromise. Check out this little gem from July 22, 2009:

If you don't have health insurance, or are a small business looking to cover your employees, you'll be able to choose a quality, affordable health plan through a health insurance exchange -- a marketplace that promotes choice and competition.

This is not a “public option.” This is the government setting prices and packages throughout the industry, listing it for you, and letting you “choose” which option you want. In other words, a fascist health care system. The Democrats will have appeared to have backed way off of their demands and the Republicans will have appeared to have saved face. And all of us will be reaping the… well, I’ll let you characterize the results any way you wish.

HELTHКAЯE ЯEFORM (Part 6)

This is a continuation of a series, the fifth part of which can be found here. If you are like me and can't remember where you put your keys or what your middle name is, please go back and scan over it before continuing.

Let’s step inside the boardroom with the insurance industry leaders and the government health care reform bureaucrat:
“So, you want us to maintain health insurance plans for our clients’ employees even after retirement?”

“Yes, for this plan to work everyone will need to be insured, and why should an employee who’s had the same plan for twenty years need to go out and switch it just because he retires? Employers will need to offer these plans after retirement.”

“But surely we can increase the premiums after they are no longer with the company and enjoying the benefits of being part of a large group?”

“No, that would be contrary to keeping health coverage affordable. Don’t worry… the employer will still be paying his portion. You can increase his expense if you’d like.”

“But isn’t part of the government’s complaint that health insurance premiums are already too high. Isn’t this because companies pass the costs on to their employees?”

“We’ll cross that bridge when it comes up… if it ever does.”

“It says here that we will be required to offer insurance policies to everyone, regardless of previous health conditions.”

“That’s correct. As I stated, in order for the plan to work everyone must be insured.”

“Surely we will be able to charge higher premiums to someone who knowingly comes to us with, say, Stage III cancer or diabetes or heart disease? Their medical expenses are going to be astronomically higher than a healthy 22-year old single male’s.”

“No, the plan protects people from those types of discriminatory practices. That’s why we’ve had to step in for reform. The people demand it.”

“So we are, by law, hereby required to offer everyone health care insurance at the same rate, regardless of current or previous health conditions, regardless of whether they are part of a larger group or not, and provide said coverage for them from birth until death?”

“In a word, yes. It’s what’s fair… everyone deserves health care coverage.”

“But we can’t discriminate between healthy and ill and we can’t raise our rates or penalties?”

“Correct. In a free society everyone deserves equal access to life… and thus, health care insurance.”

“And just how are we supposed to stay in business?”

“I’m not an expert on matters of profit. That’s your job. We are here merely for the public good, not the insurance industry. Do you really want the government to start telling you how to run your business?”


With the help of one Republican vote (Olympia Snowe – ME) they are well on their way. That vote by Olympia Snowe assured the passage of a health care expansion bill through the Senate Finance Committee, and provided the Democrat Party the example of bipartisan capitulation… uh, cooperation they needed to turn the media back on to Helthkare Яeform. More about the meaning of Republican Olympia Snowe’s vote and others like it later.

I know that to many of you the example above seems rather far-fetched. You will hear politicians and reporters swear that those points are not in the health care reform bills and that this scenario could never happen. Do not be fooled by such rhetoric. Ask yourself questions, seek the answers, and you will see through this kaleidoscope called reform.

The big source of contention at this point, between and amongst the parties, is whether or not there will be a publicly funded, government run insurance plan available to compete against the insurance industry and keep it in check. In general, the Democrat Party, less the so-called Blue Dogs, believes there should be, while the Republican Party, again, in general, believes there should not be such an option. Let’s take a quick look at the idea regardless of whether or not it will happen.

The idea of government-run anything competing against the private sector is ludicrous. I’ll never forget a government class I took at Texas A&M, a very conservative school. The professor (I’ll call her Mrs. Hinkley) wore her hair in what my wife informs me is a short flip. This caused Mrs. Hinkley to look reminiscent of The Flying Nun, which was not conducive to maintaining my concentration. So, it was understandable that one day I really thought I misheard her in class. In fact, what I thought she said was so far removed from common sense, let alone empirical evidence to the contrary, that I couldn’t take another note that day… I sat and stared at my notes in disbelief.

That was in my uniformed days, and we were encouraged not to make any “scenes” in class, so I waited to see The Professor in her office later that afternoon. “I know that I misheard you so I came here for clarification. What I wrote down was, ‘The government handles only those duties that the private sector tried to fulfill and failed.’ Now, what was it that you really said?” That’s what I asked her, right there in her office.


“You heard me correctly.”

“Um… (pregnant pause) what… um… what did you mean (pause) exactly?”

“Just what I said. The government does those things that the private sector has failed at.”

“Surely you can’t be serious? What on earth could the… the private sector can… with failures in the government… how can you possibly defend such a position? Can you name one thing the government does better than the private sector?”

“Education.”

I didn’t mean to laugh in her face, and did a decent job of pretending to choke on a grasshopper. “Education? Private schools versus public schools? You can’t be serious.” Remembering that she was employed by a state university, I decided to change tack. “Can you name another?”

“The mail service.”

“‘When it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight?’ The mail service is a government-enforced monopoly. Currier companies in New York have been shut down for delivering letter-sized-”

“Did you have any further questions… I’m very busy.”

I got a B in that course. A government course! Me!

The fact is the government can’t compete in anything. If there’s any need to explore the differences in education you clearly did not attend private school. Mail delivery? In 230+ years the biggest innovation the US Postal Service has managed to come up with is Saturday delivery… which they continually try to get rid of! My blog host just sent this 1,281 word paper to you in… well, we don’t even talk about transmission times anymore – that’s how fast. This technology was originally developed 30 years ago by Xerox, a private company. And the government is going to compete? The people want the government to run the health care industry?

Seriously, though, pick anything you want. Defense? Weapons are purchased through contracts with private companies. Companies that make airplanes for visiting your grandmother in Boca Rotan. Inoculations? Vaccinations developed and manufactured by private companies, purchased through contract with your tax dollars. Transportation, entertainment, food preparation, hospitals – I know that many in favor of health care reform like to claim that veterans are very pleased with the V. A. and that seniors are pleased with Medicare based upon the number that use them, but it's hard to differentiate between satisfaction and complacency in the absence of options.


Tune in for tomorrow's continuation when I let guest blogger Barack Obama fill in while I go to a heritage festival and car show (didn't I mention I was from the south?) Actually, he won't be writing it, but I have included a number of quotes from him. Tune in!

Let's All Go To Washington!

What do you get when tens of thousands of Gay Rights activists march on Washington?

A multi-media blitz

What do you get when 2 million taxpayers march on Washington in opposition to public funded bailouts of private companies?

A story on page D5 of the Akron Observer

You may have heard that there was a demonstration in our nation's capital this past weekend. According to media reports, this latest human deluge consisted of both homo- and heterosexuals supporting President Obama in his efforts to end the controversial "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" military policy. A closer examination of photos and interviews reveals that the group was not necessarily there to slap this year's Nobel Peace Prize winner on the back. It seems the issues involved ran the gamut from gay marriage to establishing the rights of gays to eat in white diners.

I know, that last one confused me, too, but chairman of the NAACP Julian Bond was the keynote speaker, comparing gay rights to the Civil Rights struggle of the last century. I've never seen a homosexual refused service in a diner because he was gay, and I'm pretty sure blacks were allowed to marry, even prior to the Civil War. I know that homosexuals get looked down upon in certain social situations, but then, so do rednecks, bikers, lawyers, and Star Trek fans. As far as I can tell, the biggest deal in the protest was gay marriage. I just don't understand the homosexual fascination with marriage.

Look, that was not a prejudiced statement. I really couldn't care less if homosexuals want to get married or not: I'm heterosexual and I'm married, so I think it's too late for the existence of same-sex marriages to affect which category I'm in. I'm solidly pigeonholed by this point in my life. Besides, why would I care what someone else wants to do with their life? I know many fellow conservatives are pretty mad at that last statement, telling themselves and anyone within earshot that I am naive in my position. I'm not, and you're wrong.

Homosexuals can already have children. They can do it the natural way with a very understanding partner, or a cooperative Hippy Claus through artificial insemination, or just buying a few like Rosie O'Donnell did. By opposing gay marriage you are not going to keep kids out of the hands of gay couples. And besides, as far as child welfare is concerned, there are a lot worse things you can be than gay.

Others will argue that same-sex marriage will give gay partners all the benefits as spouses when it comes to insurance. No it won't. Insurance will or will not give them the same rights, and most are already doing it. And if the market demands it, the rest will follow suit. And shouldn't that be the way you'd want it, letting the market, rather than the government, decide how insurance benefits are paid for and distributed? I would rather have as many people as I could get in the group that shares expenses with me.

And as far as other "benefits," like estate planning: how many of you 'conservatives' were looking forward to raiding Elton John's closet when he bites the big one? I say let his significant other have at it. I'm not interested.

Now, to the gays out there who are fighting for legalized same-sex marriage: Are you dumb? Listen to a divorced man who has been rung through Family Court: there is absolutely no reason on earth to get married. Listen, marriage carries with it tax penalties, alimony, joint property, shared credit, sorrow, hatred, and madness. Why do we straight men get married? Because we legally can and we eventually run out of excuses. Oh how so many of us would love to be able to say, "Honey, you know I want nothing more than to marry you, but Sarah Palin won't let me."

If you want to get married religiously, go find a church that will do it... they're out there. If you're looking for legislation-mandated marriage penalties, pull your head out of your rear, quit marching on Washington, and enjoy your ability to walk away! Besides, Barack Obama just got paid $1.4 million for doing nothing. Do you really think your Sunday afternoon walk is going to get him moving?

HELTHКAЯE ЯEFORM (Part 5)

Barack Obama pulled it off: The Full Ginsburg. This little maneuver is named after William Ginsburg, Monica Lewinski's lawyer, who once took a damage-control tour of the five big Sunday morning talk shows. (It should be noted that The Full Ginsburg is very different in nature from The Full Lewinski.) So, Obama hoped to match the success of that tour - who doesn't have the utmost respect for M.L. today? - by attempting the same. Last weekend he hit ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and... Univision. Okay, so maybe it was ¿todo el Ginsburg?

This conspicuous absence from Fox News came as a surprise to some and a shock to none. It seems no one wanted to come to terms with Obama's blatant avoidance of the Republican-leaning network, but he really had no choice. For weeks the administration and media had built up the importance of his joint address to Congress in the fight to turn the reddening tides of Health Care Reform. Representative Joe Wilson put an end to that effort with just two words: You lie. Say what you will about decorum, tradition, and self-control, his outburst took every bit of the hot air out of the Helthkare Яeform balloon. I am not defending Joe Wilson because I don't know him and he is a politician, but I will state this move was - intended or not - brilliant.

So when Uncle Barack hit the airwaves he wanted to make sure no one had the opportunity to take away from his agenda by shouting out anything like the truth. [A little explanation here: In his joint speech to Congress Obama stated: The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally. This was untrue and that is why Wilson shouted you lie. The media reported that the President's plan does not endorse insurance for illegal aliens and therefore Wilson was wrong. Perhaps they are playing semantics like the President, but in a speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute he... well, I'll let him speak for himself (as reported by The Washington Times):

"Even though I do not believe we can extend coverage to those who are here illegally, I also don't simply believe we can simply ignore the fact that our immigration system is broken," Mr. Obama said Wednesday evening in a speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. "That's why I strongly support making sure folks who are here legally have access to affordable, quality health insurance under this plan, just like everybody else."

Mr. Obama added, "If anything, this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all."

It appears that in politicospeak both Wilson and Obama were right. People in this country illegally right now are going to be insured; people in this country illegally right now will be legal by that time. There - no illegal aliens will be provided insurance because there will be no illegal aliens. Gee, no wonder he chose Univision to round out his Modified Ginsburg.]

Back to Fox News. The President skipped appearing on Fox News to send a message to all you Red County rural people out there: The Democratic Party doesn't care what you think, what you believe, or what you have to say. We have the power and we will do what we want, and you slow-witted, homophobic, racist dirtballs are gonna take it.

I know it sounds as though I'm putting words in their mouths now, but consider these:

1. 
   
   Robert Gibbs on Presidential School Speech
   
   
   
2. Nancy Pelosi on Conservative Dissent
3. Jimmy Carter on Joe Wilson
4. Department of Health and Human Services on Free Speech

And that last one takes us to the main subject of Part 5 in this series: Medicare and Medicaid. The purpose of this health care reform initiative (aside from using U.S. taxpayer money to buy votes from the uninsured) is to eliminate Medicare and Medicaid... or rather, shift it to private insurance carriers. How do I know this as a fact? The central stated objective is to provide (read: force) EVERYONE in this country to have health coverage. Medicaid is coverage for the very young and the destitute. Medicare is for older folks who can’t afford the expenses associated with their advancing years. Private health insurance policies are for, seemingly, the people in the middle who can work and pay for coverage in the event of illness.

Currently, this is optional, as it should be. A healthy 22-year old single male really has no major reason to carry health insurance. Can bad, expensive things happen to him? Yes. Statistically, is that possibility worth him spending cash that could otherwise be used for education, professional training, or career advancement? No. Yet he will be forced to have health insurance. Why? Because that's the only way the system will work.

This same 22-year old will no longer need Medicare when he gets older: his employer-provided, mandatory health insurance will be there... into perpetuity. (Yes, employers, get ready to provide health insurance as a permanent - i.e.: post-retirement - benefit.) And his kids? They will have mandatory coverage under his employer’s policy as soon as they come out of the shoot. And if he isn’t employed? The government will ultimately assign coverage from a private insurer. [Please see Part 1 where I compare it to auto insurance, or listen to Obama's own recent comments where he confuses it with auto insurance (4 minutes and 16 seconds mark).] Why? Because Medicaid and Medicare are doomed and Congress knows this. For that matter, anyone with a smattering of mathematical knowledge should also know this. Let me explain:

There are approximately 8 billion Baby Boomers out there right now, steadily approaching the age of incontinence, with only about 47 Gen-X’s to pay the tab. (The totals may be a little off, but I stand behind the ratio.) There is no way for the members of Generation X to provide enough tax revenue to pay for the demands on the Medicare system of so many Baby Boomers. Turn the numbers any way you want. Have the GAO shift the columns in any magical way it chooses. Ask Congress to retroactively shift fiscal-year dates up and down. (These are all tricks the Federal Government regularly uses to convince Joe Public that the balance sheets are legitimate.) No matter how you stack it the system is grossly top heavy. But Medicaid and Medicare in particular are untouchable.

Remember when George W. Bush wanted to shift Medicare to private insurers? The AARP talked about marching on Washington with walkers and torches. “You want us all to die!” they shouted. Yes, actually, that’s what they are waiting for. But you refuse to comply. No politician will touch these programs because they fear reprisals from the voting block that the AARP represents. But if they shifted the burden onto insurance companies and employers, why, you'd have insurance coverage throughout your career and retirement, your kith and kin would also be covered, and only big, bad corporations would have to pay for it. [I've already covered the fallacy of taxing corporations - please go back and reread the second half of Part 4.]

There is a lot here to digest... and my lunch hour is over... so I will stop at this time and continue Part 5 over the next several days.

HELTHКAЯE ЯEFORM (Part 4)

"You Aren’t Going to Pay"

You, my fellow Americans, aren’t going to pay a dime out-of-pocket for this healthcare reform. The pharmaceutical and medical industries are fronting much of the money. The rest will come from tax increases on the wealthiest Americans, who paid a lower percentage of income tax during the Bush administration than they did 30 years ago. Isn’t it high time that corporate America (profitable under the Bush administration and controlled by rich people) starts covering its fair share of the insurance expenses of their employees? For far too long corporate America has acted irresponsibility when it comes to the welfare of the American working man, and now we are going to see to it that Wall Street steps to the plate to make sure all the children in this country have insurance coverage. You don’t want your children to be without medical care, do you? Washington is going to protect your children from the Bush Administration!!!... uh, I mean, Corporate America!

And there you have it… the reason you will ultimately go along with Healthcare Reform. I realize that you may know better, but for those who don’t: You means you.

While in the past Healthcare Reform has been slung around only during election cycles in order to split votes, now it is being pressed with but one objection: financial. This assures the passage of healthcare reform because any reason without a philosophical base can be overcome with lies and promises, and who is better at those than Washington? The politicians shall overcome your objections by assuring you that healthcare reform won’t cost you a dime. After all, don’t corporations owe their employees that much? They can afford it!

Of course they can… it’s all there on your paycheck. Go ahead and pull one out. You will see some "withholdings" from the money you earned. (That’s such a nice word: withholdings. So much better than "money you earned but are not allowed to lay your hands on… even for a second.") Amongst them are such entries as Federal Income Tax, FICA [which stands for the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (Social Security and Medicare)], and state income tax. You may see something like an occupational tax, if your county commission is completely out of control, and there may be a wage garnishment or two, depending upon the nature of your extracurricular activities. Somewhere on your paystub you likely will see an entry for health, dental, and possibly vision insurance. If you do not have some sort of insurance available through your employer you are probably in a very low paying, low skilled position. I don’t mean to offend; I am merely making an observation that you are refusing to make on your own.

You were probably ticked off the first time you saw deductions for FICA on your paycheck, and with good reason. After all, the federal government takes 6.2% of your wages to cover Social Security and 1.45% of the money you earn to help pay for Medicare, right? Wrong. What you don’t see on your paycheck is that your employer has to match those amounts. That’s right. The company you work for sends a check in every quarter for the same amount as those deductions in your paycheck. But that’s not all. He also has to pay state and federal unemployment taxes on the first bit of your salary, and he’s paying for part of that insurance you elected to get. He may even be matching your 401K contributions to some extent. That’s pretty nice of him, isn’t it? No, it’s just smart business, which is neither good nor bad. In order to attract the best employees a company has to offer the best package of salary and benefits. Matching funds and insurance policies are investments in personnel. And don’t feel sorry for The Company because of all those taxes it pays, either. Those taxes aren’t meant to punish the company, because a corporation cannot be taxed. Let me explain why.

A corporation, at its root, is merely a pool of resources provided by a number of different sources, all of whom would like to limit their personal exposure. Catch that? Read it again. Let’s look at an example:

You rebuild Volkswagen Beetle steering racks for a small company. You are good at it and could charge quite a bit of money for each one you refurbish. The company you work for makes money every time one sells. So why don’t you just rebuild them on your own? Any number of reasons: you may not be in a position to afford the equipment, the inventory, the proper tools, the facility, the liability insurance, advertising, or any of the rest of the financial investment required to start up a business. And then there’s the time. As it is you come in at 8:00 AM and do at least what is minimally required of you and leave at 5:00 PM. You don’t have to think about work at night, over the weekends, or during your vacations and time off. You don’t have to go through the hassles of finding customers and promoting the business. You don’t have to possess the drive to make the company successful. You have added value to the company (through the work you perform), have profited from it (through the salary and benefits you earn), and limited your exposure to just your performance reviews as they relate to the vitality of the company. Your investment: your skill and 40 hours per week.

The owner of that company you work for is the one who made all of those investments you were able to skirt. He likely started out on his own, working as a one-man shop, finding customers, doing piecemeal work, saving his profits to buy equipment, rent or buy a facility, struggling to buy insurance to protect his investments. You may say, "Well, his grandfather gave him that garage… if I’d had a place given to me I’d have-"

No! There are plenty of empty garages sitting around this country with nothing going on in them. The garage, or even the gift of a garage, does not pay for the energy, time, and drive put into the company by the man who started it. He shows up at 6:00 AM and leaves at 7:00 PM, thinks about the company all night long, can’t wait to get to work the next morning, and feels he’s betraying it when he’s away on vacation or taking a day off. His investment to the company, in addition to its creation, is his time, his skills, and his experience – which he uses to mentor his employees, passing down his knowledge for their advancement. His return is that he gets paid… after his employees. The small, start-up business owner often makes less money than many of his employees, and even the heads of larger companies can find themselves in this position due to performance-based bonuses. But by incorporating he limits his personal exposure (his retirement, his house, his cars, his children’s college funds) in the event that "it" all hits the proverbial fan and his business collapses.

Of course, he could keep more of his money if he just incorporated and didn’t hire you, but that’s not how his mind works. He built his reputation up to the point where he couldn’t keep up with orders. Rather than raising his prices a little and staying in that first garage, he started expanding. There was more work out there and he relished the challenge of taking it on, but recognized he would need help, so he hired his first employee. His profits didn’t double, but his headaches did. There were taxes of all kinds and at all levels, insurance (covering that employee in the delivery van, that employee’s work product, workers comp, etc), and other benefits, such as health insurance. Now, it’s true he may not be forced to provide insurance by federal law, but the market will at some point demand it if he wants to employ the best rack rebuilders.

That is the basic outline of a corporation. There are other folks involved, from investors to banks, but each is limiting his exposure through the nature of the corporate form. The only element missing are the customers. While all of these other parts are important, the customers are critical; the customers are the only source of income. That’s another one you need to read again. Sure there is the initial investment, there may be loans, and a public offering, but each of these is earmarked for start-up, expansion, or the purchase of the company from the original owner. The customers represent the only source of income for a true corporation. (Semi-private companies such as the United States Postal Service and nationalized companies like General Motors do not count here because they are so poorly run they depend upon income from the Federal Government in order to exist. They are, instead, excellent examples of how the government is incapable of running a business well or making sound market investments.) This concept of income is important: The Customers Represent the only Source of Income for a Corporation. Income is what pays for all of the expenses a corporation faces. Don’t worry, we’re not going to get into heavy accounting principles here, so we’ll simplify the definition of corporate expenses.

There are expenses for things like inventory, supplies, tooling, facilities, advertising, etc. Every accountant out there will cringe at this but for our purposes we’ll label all these as operating expenses. The corporation also has expenses related to you: your salary, taxes, and benefits, including health insurance. We’ll call these personnel expenses. Then there are insurance expenses for the company itself. And finally the ubiquitous tax expenses, which include corporate profits, property and business taxes, and the portion of your income and other taxes charged directly to the company.

Without getting too complex with our accounting we know that income is what pays for expenses. The money that comes in from customers has to cover all of those expenses: operations, personnel, insurance, and taxes. No money comes in from any of the expenses. Remember: income comes in only from customers. Of the expenses, taxes are not flexible; the government demands a certain amount or percentage, and the company has no choice but to pay what the government demands… in full, no room for negotiation. Insurance is almost as inflexible: you either pay for it and have it, or you don’t. The company can opt for different levels of insurance, but not opt out of it. Again, even when the company is not required to provide employee insurance, market conditions will usually demand it. The operating expenses are flexible to an extent, but the costs for parts, materials, facilities, etc., are set by entities outside the corporation. That leaves employee salaries, which are the most flexible of all of the expenses because they are the most negotiable, especially in a rough business cycle as more applicants are vying for fewer jobs.

Did you know that the underwire in a woman’s bra can produce enough static electricity to power a laptop computer for 3 minutes?

I felt you slipping away with the accounting talk; I hope that woke you up. It’s not important that you study any of that particularly closely as long as you generally follow what I said. In the event that any of the expenses rise with no corresponding increase in income (sales to customers), the corporation has no choice but to balance its budget by cutting other expenses. Make no mistake about it: a corporation has to balance its budget or it ceases to exist. (It is the drive for profits that keeps the corporation going and from being just a wash.) There is no savings account from which it can pull money for new benefits expenses. There’s no rich uncle’s will that’ll cover tax increases. There’s no Social Security column it can “borrow” figures from. And cutting operating expenses will threaten to reduce the company’s capacity to make sales. Where does that leave us? Your salary.

Now, XYZ Rack Restorers is making sales, covering operating expenses, paying taxes, buying insurance, and wants to hire you. The boss knows there will be expenses associated with hiring you, so he will determine what he can afford to pay you (what he pays you versus the amount of sales increase you represent), then reduce it by X (X being the sum of the income tax, other taxes, and benefits he will have to provide):

What You Are Worth – X = What You Are Paid

In the event any expense increases the company will have to raise prices and/or turn to the most flexible expense it faces: your salary. Picture an old fashioned set of scales: on the left is the income from sales; on the right, all of the expenses. When any of the expenses become a heavier burden on the company it must either increases sales (left), or eliminate some of the most flexible portion of the expense (right). There are limits to both of those, and when a company is forced past the limits of both it ceases to exist.

I have written all of this just to state this:

When the expenses on a business increase, only two parties pay: the clients through higher prices and/or the employees through lower wages.

If the federal government raises corporate taxes to pay for healthcare reform, you will pay for it. Even if it doesn’t come directly out of your paycheck because your employer is able to raise prices, you will pay for it through higher prices charged by the businesses from which you buy products. If companies are forced to purchase health insurance provided by the federal government (see: the United States Postal Service and General Motors), you will ultimately pay for the increase in expense and decrease in efficiency. Corporations cannot be taxed, fined, or forced; the customers and employees will pay… every time.

None of this, of course, should worry you or deter you from allowing – nay – demanding your government pursue healthcare reform. After all, who knows more about healthcare than Barak Obama? If there is to be a universal, comprehensive, all-inclusive, omni-present, all caring, all knowing, all loving healthcare system in this country, we are all going to have to be willing to make a sacrifice. Go ahead and say that phrase out loud. "We’re all going to have to be willing to make a sacrifice." After all, we’re all in this together. Go ahead, say it again. "We’re all going to have to make a sacrifice." There is no 'I' in team. One more time. "I’m going to have to make a sacrifice." There, now… wasn’t that easy? Now, go lie down and let your congressmen take care of the rest.