Friday, April 30, 2010

The Right to Be Safe; Except Arizona

Most the arguments and now protests against the Arizona state illegal immigrant law are disingenuous at best, but is another example that illegal immigrants have become a defacto protected class. The illegal immigrants that are in the US certainly have no right to demand that they not be approached by law enforcement and ask for evidence of legal residency. Most of these southern border illegal immigrants come from countries where the possession of documents of legal residency are required of all citizens; their right to not be contacted due to a jurisdictional dispute in the US carries no weight. Then you have resident aliens in the country legally. Since a condition of their legal residency in the US is they have their proof of legal residency or “Green Card” on their person at all times, the idea that they should protest law enforcement’s right to contact them and request their proof of legal residency goes contrary to the very reason they are mandated to posses their proof of legal residency. The persons that it would seem have the greatest investment, are American citizens that believe they will be racially profiled and constantly harassed by having to prove their citizenship. Those that are protesting Arizona law for this reason are saying they doubt the ability of law enforcement to not profile or to use the reasonable cause clause, both of which are mandated in the law.

The problem with the above argument is it is built on a house of cards. The current law of the land prohibits profiling and law enforcement use reasonable cause throughout the country for detentions and arrests. Those that are protesting this law, have a very skewed idea of how illegal immigration should be handled and do not understand the concept of reasonable cause. When anyone is legally contacted by law enforcement, the first request of the officer is for identification. If one produces valid identification, i.e. a driver’s license, a state ID card, or Green Card, then there is no legal residency investigation, because the investigation would lack reasonable cause. What would initiate an investigation? A reasonable cause investigation relies on a number of factors, with any one factor not being sufficient to make an arrest. Most of the following scenarios are legal behavior when taken by itself, but when combined with these and other factors, and depending on individual circumstances, could lead a law enforcement officer to make a reasonable cause arrest. 1) the subject produces counterfeit identification, a non-USA National ID card or no identification at all 2) the subject has limited English skills 3) the subject is driving without valid driver’s license 4) the subject is in the company of others with limited English and no valid identification 5) the subjects admits he is in the country illegally (very common) 6) the subject is known to law enforcement, has been previously deported and returned 7) there is a citizen complaint. Again, most of these behaviors are legal, but when combined with three or four together and depending on the specific circumstances of the lawful contact, there may be enough reasonable cause to make an arrest.

Very few would argue that ICE should not be enforcing immigration law and that is where the enforcement rightfully and constitutionally belongs. But the Federal Government has turned a blind eye to the Arizona/ Mexican border, where it is not safe for Arizonians and/or Hispanics to walk down the street (yes, most the victims are Hispanic). The Arizona law is identical in most ways, but is actually more restrictive; the federal law allows for contact on reasonable suspicion, without the need for a prior lawful contact. It is a crime that there is no Federal Immigration reform, but until the federal government lives up to their responsibility, Arizona is stepping up to protect its citizens. The protests simply want to defend the illegal immigrants as a protected class, which they believe have a greater right to safety than the Arizona residents. One of the basic obligations of our government is to keep the citizenry safe, nowhere does it say, except for Arizona.

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Arizona Seeks to End Illegal Immigration Slavery

The new Arizona law, making it a violation of state law to have entered the US illegally is based on the following law and case law.

(a) Any officer or employee of the Service authorized under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General shall have power without warrant-
(1)to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States;

Implied Authority (from the INA training handbook)

a. Implies authority is the authority to act, although it is not specifically stated in statue. For example INA 287(a)(1) gives authority to interrogate without a warrant any alien or person that is believed to be an alien about their rights to be or remain in the US. There is no mention of an authority to stop that alien. However, it is implied the officer must first stop that alien to interrogate that alien.

Yes, the above law makes it quite clear that law enforcement can now contact any person who's legal residency is in doubt. It appears to many to have racist overtones and is an open invitation to racial profiling; or is it? The truth is, INA 287(a)(1) is the federal authority given to ICE agents to detain and question suspected illegal aliens.

One of the most often quoted complaints, is the new state law violates the 4th Amendment protections of unreasonable search and seizure (seizure including one personage) and the 14th Amendment of Due Process and Equal protection; i.e. profiling. This argument however is moot, as the federal authority has already passed Constitutional scrutiny. The usual profiling argument is mitigated by the legal standing that profiling and/or racism does not exist, if race is simply one element of an investigation, and not the sole reason. However, in an effort to address such fears, the writers of the Arizona law went further to guarantee these protections by including the wording, The attorney general or city attorney shall not investigate complaints that are solely based on race, color or national origin.

One has to ask, what part of the law is so overreaching, when the federal enforcement officers already have the same powers. Much has also been made of the necessity of those contacted and detained for investigation to provide proof of legal residency; this has been compared by some as similar to fascist Germany oppression of the Jews, regardless of the fact that federal law has always mandated temporary residents keep their immigration identification on their persons at all times. The Left of course, like to use Nazi comparatives when ever they can, regardless that they are the constant purveyors of anti-Jewish rhetoric, and continue to show their disdain for the Jewish people by setting the bar so low, that the holocaust is now their moral equivalent of a jurisdictional argument.

The opponents of this law continue to try color it as repressive by saying, "The law would require the police 'when practicable' to detain people they reasonably suspected were in the country without authorization" (NY Times). The description implies that the law allows a detention based solely on "reasonable suspicion" of being in the US illegally, which is false. The law states that a lawful contact must take place prior to any detention based on "reasonable suspicion". The prior description also gives the false impression that the Police will be pulling over Hispanics without 'probable cause' to check their immigration status. However, again the law states, Notwithstanding any other law, in the enforcement of this section a peace officer may lawfully stop any person who is operating a motor vehicle if the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe the person is in violation of any civil traffic law.

In the strangest of description, the AP says, It "would make it a crime under state law to be in the US illegally"; You think? This silly description explains the outcry against this law better than anything else I have seen, as it describes illegal immigrants from the US southern border as a protected class. The purpose of this is can only be to maintain the status quo so the Left can continue to use illegal immigrants as pawns in their progressive agenda. Far from being compassionate, maintaining an illegal immigrant protected class guarantees the maintenance of an underclass, where the left has become the new slave masters, while they accuse the Right of racism.

From the New American, "While, in general, our federal government tends to interject itself into many areas not specifically authorized by the Constitution (which is, itself, a violation of the Tenth Amendment) preventing illegal immigration is one area where the document does assign responsibility to Washington. Article IV, Section 4. of the Constitution states: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion.

Thursday, April 22, 2010

Obama and Neo-Leninism

The conservative pundits on Fox news and other conservative media has labeled Obama’s policies as Socialist and Marxist in nature. Even my blogs has likened Obama’s agenda, which is without doubt driven by a redistribution of wealth, as Marxists. I have also spent many words explaining how Obama’s movement toward socialism, is closer to what Ron Paul called “corporatist”, i.e fascism. However, neither Marxism nor fascism is really an accurate description of the Obama agenda. While the re-distribution of wealth is consistent with Marxism, Marx’s agrarian end game is totally inconsistent with Obama’s corporatism. Marx believed that the true evil was industry and capitalism. He therefore saw the purpose of the dictatorship of the proletariat was to move society back to its agrarian roots. This was the reasoning of Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge, who forced the entire population out of the cities of Cambodia to force an agrarian society on the people; the result of course was the death of 25% of the population. One could make an argument that Obama’s agenda using environmentalism has continued de-industrializing of America, but his corporatism is entirely inconsistent with an agrarian society. Hence we need to look somewhere else to better define Obama’s agenda.

Many of my prior posts have been defining Obama's and the Democrats current policies as fascist. However there is a difference however between historic fascism and Obama’s corporatism and are significant enough to be in want of another defining principle other than fascism. Obama’s corporatism has been an exercise in sleight of hand. The best example was the Healthcare bill (now the law), where Obama continually made back room deals guaranteeing the Healthcare industry healthy profits while simultaneously demonizing the same industries publicly. Obama and the Democrats have embraced the “ends and means” tactics that many on the right have labeled Saul Alinsky like. There is much truth in this, as Obama taught the Saul Alinky’s Neighborhood Organizing principles in college. Obama and his cohorts learned to do their homework and find out what the current populist views are, then use the terms to describe their policies, regardless of the true intent. A good example of this was the House “Cap and Trade” bill, that Nancy Pelosi defined as a “Jobs, jobs, jobs”, when the bill was actually a tax on energy use. There is a problem with this Machiavellian tactic however as Martin Luther King Jr said, “This is where the non-violent movement would break with communism, or any other systems that argues that the end justifies the means because in the long run of history the ends is pre-existing with the means.” While this re-direction is no stranger to fascism, the demonization of corporations does not fit and places Obama squarely in the camp of Neo-Leninism.

In many ways, Lenin is the real father of the progressive left (I guess that makes Karl Marx the grandfather). Although Lenin believed in the workers struggle and the need for the re-distribution of wealth, he was also pragmatic. Lenin established a fascist style leadership for industrial enterprises to boost production and worker expertise. But more than this, he did not believe that the workers would develop a socialist consciousness on their own. He believed this would necessitate an “organization of professional revolutionaries” to lead the working class. These professional revolutionaries would lecture and create slogans, banners or whatever media that was necessary to lead the working class; these professionals were termed the Intelligentsia. The Intelligentsia is defined as a social class of people engaged in complex mental and creative labor directed to the development and dissemination of culture, encompassing intellectuals and social groups close to them (e.g., artists and school teachers). As Neo-Leninism evolved in America, the Progressive Left is firmly in the camp that believe people in general don’t know what is good for them and need to be guided in the right direction. There is no better example of this than Cass Sunstien, President Obama's Czar of White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.From my blog Cass Sunstein: Obama’s Truth Czar",

As a scholar, Sunstien is known for believing that “people” (not him of course) as a rule make bad decisions, so they need government to “nudge” them in the right direction, this includes all areas of their lives, such as“ education, personal finance, health care, mortgages and credit cards, (and) happiness..”; yes happiness, government knows better than you, what direction you need to be nudged to be happy. Sunstien also believes there are problems with the concept of freedom of speech. Sunstien believes that citizens with mutual interests, should not exchange ideas as “like-minded people speak or listen mostly to one another.” Sunstien basically believes that the government needs to control the information you hear and that he “doubt(s) whether, as interpreted, the constitutional guarantee of free speech is adequately serving democratic goals”.

As I noted before, those that view themselves as the Intelligentsia define themselves as a superior class. Their task is to oversee the betterment of the ignorant workers class. Their goal is to create and maintain a Neo-Leninist government that will be there to control the expanding rolls of the ignorant class that makes poor life decisions and can not take care of themselves. The Intelligentsia needs this undeveloped class to mentor and protect, as it defines paradigm of their existence. This makes for a contentious argument with those that believe that all men are created equal and have the right to determine their own destiny, since after all, that is the job of government, and the life blood of the Intelligentsia.

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

No Mr Clinton, We the People Will Not Be Quiet

Apparently, ex-President Clinton feels that US citizens are "disoriented" if they feel that government must be stopped from bankrupting the country, by encouraging citizens to use peaceful and democratic means to demonstrate and “vote the bums out”. Our ex-President said, "I realized that there were lot of parallels between the early '90s and now, both in the feeling of economic dislocation, the level of uncertainty people felt, the rise of kind of identity politics, the rise of the militia movements and right-wing talk radio, with a lot of what's going on in the blogosphere now, and in the right-wing media." Here, our ex-President attempts to rewrite history and mitigate the responsibility he and Janet Reno have never accepted for Oklahoma City; namely Ruby Ridge and Waco. What the US faced in the “mid-‘90s”, was an overzealous ATF and FBI, who felt it was their responsibility to root out Second Amendment advocates that mistrusted the government enough to hold up in some out of the way place and tell the Feds to go away and not bother them. While most Americans know little about these two incidents, those with more interest know they ended very badly with the blame placed squarely on then President Clinton and his Attorney General, Janet Reno. Ruby Ridge was later determined by court hearings, to be the result of an out of control ATF, FBI and by proxy, the federal government. WACO was also shown to be mainly the fault of over zealousness and and impatient law enforcement, chasing hypothetical criminal activity. Dick Morse said later that Janet Reno blackmailed President Clinton to re-appoint her as the US Attorney General, or she would released, “the truth about Waco”.

So, when comparing the current Tea Party demonstrations, there are no parallels with the mid-90’s and Oklahoma City. The Tea Party movement is a constitutionally grounded movement, demonstrating for restrained and limited government, accountability and the rule of law. The incidents leading up to the Oklahoma City bombing, is like a countdown toward anti-government violence; 1992- Ruby Ridge, 1993- Waco, 1994- federal assault weapons ban, 1995- the Oklahoma City bombing. The first events threatened a small group of armed and extremely anti-government individuals, that resulted in the domestic terrorist bombing we know as Oklahoma City. No Mr President, there is no parallels here, only your attempts to silence those protesting our corrupt unresponsive government.

Ex-President Clinton said, "Fifteen years ago, the line was crossed in Oklahoma City. In the current climate, with so many threats against the president, members of Congress and other public servants, we owe it to the victims of Oklahoma City, and those who survived and responded so bravely, not to cross it again." The truth is of course, that we owe it to the victims of Oklahoma City, to maintain our First Amendment Rights, and to utilize our right to free speech when we disagree with your government; allowing rigorous and robust disagreement with the government is the very reason the First Amendment exists in our Constitution. No line was crossed, because our Constitution prevents the government from ever drawing such a line.

Finally Clinton warned "there is a big difference between criticizing a policy or a politician and demonizing the government that guarantees our freedoms and the public servants who enforce our laws." Again no, No Mr President! There is no difference! During the Bush (43) administration there were daily threats against the president; with books, movies and signs, calling for his assassination. Interestingly there was no call for restraint from Clinton, or any other Left leaning politician. Only when a group of peaceful Americans, with all polls showing them mirroring the beliefs of the majority of the county, use demonstrations to protest the policies of President Obama and the Democrat run Congress, has some line been crossed. Again I say No, there is no line here! The Tea Party is the physical manifestation of the American spirit, espousing its god given rights to freedom and liberty. Mr Clinton, the First Amendment says the government can not infringe on the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. In this great country, the people are the government and have not only the right but the obligation to take back their government when they deem it necessary.

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

The Real Costs of Medicare and ObamaCare

Medicare is often held up to show that socialized medicine is a good idea and works. Medicare also has the advantage that they can tell doctors how much they will be paid for their services and can bargain with drug companies for discounts (something private healthcare can not do). There is no doubt that Medicare has been good to senior citizens, but it is put together in a way that is not sustainable. Medicare costs double every 4 years and the baby boomers are now starting to reach 65 years. At its current funding, Medicare will go broke 7 years.

One of the most deceiving arguments is the comparison between the overhead costs of private healthcare at 20% compared to Medicare at 3%. But, when you look deeper, you find that it is one of those cases were statistics tell a skewed tale. You see, the 20% and 3% figures first comes from comparing the administrative costs per patient, to the cost of medical care. Medicare deals with senior citizens that require more medical costs per patient than the younger patients treated through private healthcare. Turns out private healthcare doctors have to see eight patients to equal the cost of one Medicare patient and it takes more money (i.e. administrative costs) to see eight patients than one, hence a difference in overhead. The second cause is even more damning. It turns out the government doesn't even administer Medicare. The government contracts this job to Atena and Cigna; the 3% figure is simply the cost or preparing a report for Congress every year. The real Medicare administration costs costs are hidden, and paid as fees by Medicare. This also explains the 12% of additional costs for Medicare Advantage; the 12% of so called waste, Congress just cut to pay for ObamaCare. There is also the fact that low administration costs are often blamed for the huge amount of fraud in Medicare, $50 billion a year, or $500 billion over 10 years.  It's called smoke and mirrors and now it's the law.

Medicare has two main avenues for reducing costs. The first is mandating hospital and doctor compensations and the second is working with Part D (prescription) insurance companies to negotiate drug costs with drug producers (Big- Pharm).Poor compensation rates has already led to widespread fraud, so it is doubtful the Feds will lower these rates any more. In order for a standard Medicare doctor to make $200,000 in gross income, they would need to see approximately 35-40 patients a day. This compared to a Medicare Advantage doctor, that see on average about 16-20 patients a day, to make the same $200,000 income. This, according to the Democrats is the waste and fraud that needs to be removed from Medicare. On the subject of Big-Pharm, the option to negotiate lower drug prices will not exists, as Pres Obama made a deal with Big Pharm that removes any negotiations for Medicare drug prices, as long as they did not oppose ObamaCare and pay the Senate Finance Committee $80 billion over ten years. This is estimated to double the cost of prescription drugs for Medicare from $250 billion over 10 years to $500 billion (minus $80 billion of course). President Obama has promised that the Health Care bill will be “deficit neutral”, meaning it will be 100% paid for by cuts in Medicare and new taxes. But this does not included theses added costs to Medicare, $500 billion that was counted twice, the so called doctor fix at $210 billion and $50 billion of discretionary spending to implement ObamaCare.

Now that ObamaCare has passed the real numbers are starting to come out. With a sudden surge or truth, the CBO is telling us that ObamaCare will add $2 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years; this means that by 2020 the debt could be $20 trillion or 90% of the GDP; $1 trillion @ year just to pay the interest on the debt. With these numbers there are 3 choices, 1) wait until we go broke, 2) cut 50% of government spending, or 3) a Value Added Tax (VAT). We now know why the President has been spending with abandonment, without a looming fiscal disaster, there was no way he could break yet another promise and tax the middle class and poor with a VAT. What did Rahm Emanuel say? Oh yes, "Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste".

Friday, April 9, 2010

Not Insurance, Pre-Paid Healthcare

As I said in my last blog, the Healthcare system prior to ObamaCare, was similar to auto maintenance and extended warranty plan. The maintenance portion of the plan has shown to be cost prohibitive to most buyers and of course there is a pre-existing condition exclusion. The more persons in a healthcare plan the better. Especially if a good portion of these persons are young with unremarkable health. Medicare, which deals with older and elderly patients, has shown 27% of the Medicare dollars go toward the last year of a person’s life. Obamacare figures all this in, mandating most citizens to purchase health insurance. This regulating of the healthcare system, combined with the private industry, the lack of competition and government mandates, is by definition an exercise in fascism. It has already been acknowledged, that if ObamaCare is to succeed, then doctors would necessary need to become government employees. In the Netherlands doctors are educated and employed by the state; docotrs are paid the US equivalent of about $50,000 a year to keep medical costs down. If we are to preserve our Constitution and the inherent right to be free of tyranny, we are going to need a free market solution.

The pillars of free market and capitalism are supply and demand and competition. While there is certainly a demand for health insurance, the supply can be limited due to pre-existing conditions, cost, and competition is non-existent. This is because the requirements of healthcare insurance are determined by the individual states and there is strong resistance from the states to allow the sale of health insurance across state lines. This is one place were Health Insurers would actually welcome this competition. Catastrophic health insurance is highly profitable, because unlike a maintenance plan, it is rarely used. This allows the Insurance companies to pay for those that utilize the insurance, with premiums by those that never do; this is how insurance is supposed to work, and why standard Health Maintenance rates continue to spiral out of control. For most persons a relatively inexpensive catastrophic plan, combined with a healthcare savings account, would provide the least expensive and most comprehensive plan. If structured properly, this care would operate seamlessly.

The primary criticisms of this plan are two commonly held misconceptions. 1) Preventive care cost less then reactionary care. With the exception of pre- and post-natal care, this has been shown to be a fallacy. Study after study has shown that the price of preventive tests, far outweigh the price of treating the occasional disease. 2) If one has to pay directly for doctor visits, patients will forgo a doctor visit to save money. While there may be some truth to this, it turns out that there seems to be little difference in the actual number of doctor visits, between those that have maintenance heath insurance, and those that have healthcare savings account. Of the 43.6 million persons living in America with no health insurance (2002 numbers; it is estimated that 14 million or so, are eligible for government coverage such as Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), that simply have not bothered to enroll. Further, 11.5 million or more are illegal aliens. There is evidence that many illegal aliens would prefer to be uninsured by choice, rather that have wage deductions for Health Insurance. The United Farm Workers (UFW) has found this to be a difficult nut to crack. Driscolls is one of the largest berry growers in the World, yet the UFW has been unable to unionise the workers. Located in the coast region of central California, Driscolls is renown for fairness to it’s workers. Unlike the UFW, Driscolls gives it’s workers an option (not a mandate) to purchase low cost health insurance or keep the money.

So, in order for healthcare to be affordable and available, we have to first recognize that it needs to be divided into two basic needs; routine care, and catastrophic care. As I said before, health maintenance does not lend itself to an insurance model as insurance is design to cover occasional incidents, not maintenance. If one is going to use an insurance model, it is best used for catastrophic care. So the first step is to develop a workable plan to cover health maintenance, which healthcare savings account are best suited. An issue is always made of the need to provide healthcare safety net for those who traditionally can not afford or has limited access to healthcare, but it turns out State Medicaid is already in place for this need. Medicaid is a means-tested healthcare system that is paid for by both state and federal funds; each state has set up Medicaid program. Medicaid has shown to be a effective safety net, helping most who can not afford medical Insurance. This was evidenced by the year long ObamaCare campaign, where the Democrats scoured the country for anyone who has fallen through the cracks, and could not find anyone that was not picked up by some healthcare program. The Democrats also tried to show that lack of healthcare resulted in death; 45,000 @ year. Like many statistics this turned out to be a made up number, which was the result of computer modelling, similar to that used for sub-prime mortgage derivatives; garbage in, garbage out.

The Healthcare issues that remain are pre-existing conditions, portability, gaps in income and illegal aliens? Along these lines, there is the misinformation that healthcare maintenance plan decrease emergency room visits, but this has not been showed to be the case. In Massachusetts, RomneyCare (single payer state healthcare) did nothing to slow visits to Emergency rooms. The reason is obvious, it is easier to go to an Emergency room than make an appointment with a doctor, and since both are equally paid for, Emergency room visits actually increased once RomneyCare covered all residents. One of the key aspects of RomneyCare was a Healthcare mandate; a mandate that all residents have proof of health insurance; while this, as a state mandate, passes constitutional scrutiny, the jury is still out on the Obamacare federal mandate and it still doesn't address illegal aliens. However, without the mandate, it is difficult to address pre-existing conditions. There is also the issue of loss of employment or income gaps, where even if portability was not an issue, how would one be expected to continue paying healthcare premiums if they are not employed and earning an income?

What is needed is to re-focus on the affordability of healthcare, and encourage and subsidize coverage through the states. Depending on ones income, the subsidy would be in the form of discounts and/or tax deductions The key rational behind healthcare reform has always been a medical problem should not result in bankruptcy, yet the focus continues to be on maintenance. This plan is based on a privatized state Medicare model. First there would be a pool of state insurance companies, offering an basic catastrophic healthcare insurance, similar to Medicare Part A, that would be available across state lines. This insurance would be subsidized by the state on a sliding scale as previously mentioned. While not an entitlement, the subsidizing of this plan would make it available to almost anyone who is employed. Next there would be a Part B insurance that would be available through the same insurance pool, but would rely heavily on medical savings accounts. Those that could not afford a basic Part A or Part B plan, would be financed through Medicaid. Another component is pre-exsisting conditions. With this plan, pre-existing conditions would be handled two ways. First, there would be no restriction on pre-existing conditions, however, you could only initiate a plan during an open enrollment period that would be the month of your birth. This would not apply if you are reducing or increasing your coverage. If you have no insurance by choice, but need catastrophic care, you will be assigned an insurer in an assigned risk pool. You will then be required to purchase at a minimum a Part A insurance policy for the next 3 years at the assigned risk rate, after which you can decide to drop your insurance, or continue purchasing insurance through the standard pool at a standard or subsidized rate depending on your circumstances. Back in the 1980's the Heritage Foundation presented a similar plan, but with mandated catastrophic coverage; the reasoning being that the insured will get a taste of health insurance and will want more, however the Heritage Foundation has since walked back the idea, as any mandated insurance, not matter how well intended, runs counter to the free market and gives too much power to the government.  Finally there is the illegal alien situation. Illegal aliens will not be eligible for either Part A or B. If an illegal alien needs medical care they will seek it, as they have been, in an emergency room. Since immigration is the responsibility of the federal government, then any costs incurred by a hospital treating an illegal alien will be billed to the federal government.

This of course is not the totality of the plan. Tort reform would also be a necessary component. This would include a basic matrix of care, primarily for diagnoses (this would not be used to preclude a test if a doctor thinks it is necessary), that if followed, would relieve a doctor of liability. Further, like workman's compensation, attorney fees would be set at 10-20%. The stated purpose of malpractice insurance would be to compensate a patient for damages caused by incompetence and not following established protocols; compensation would not be intended to compensate patient for a rare condition that was difficult to diagnose.

Subsidizing good wanted behavior has shown to be very successful in areas such as mortgages, where buyers are motivated by tax deductions. The plan also uses free market capitalism, as it creates an insurance policy for catastrophic care and a secondary maintenance plan where healthcare providers could give discounts for healthy lifestyles. If someone loses their job or their income is reduced, their care would be dialed back, but it will not disappear. The federal governments part in this plan, will be to continue to subsidize state Medicaid and pay for the care of illegal aliens. This is a workable plan that is designed for affordable coverage and what I believe is a governmental obligation (but not an entitlement) for healthcare.

Tuesday, April 6, 2010

Obama's Post Racial Society Another Broken Promise

The Democrats have become a one trick pony; disagree with their tax and spend policies and you’re a racist. Keith Olbermann said, “If racism is not the whole of the Tea Party, it is in its heart.” This of course, this was in reaction to Congressman John Lewis reporting a Tea Bag Party protester screamed the N-word 15 times as he passed. A review of the video showed the protester yelled, “Kill the Bill” 15 times, but what Lewis heard was the N-word; the country is still waiting for a retraction or apology. The value system of the left is now, more than ever, being seen for what it is; a belief the status quo is immoral and a free society must progress from a free market system toward a more perfected system of wealth re-distribution. The President is telling us to every one below your economic station, you owe reparations; this is the bases for Obamacare, amnesty for immigrants that enter the country illegally and cap and trade. All are a more perfected form of wealth re-distribution. Any impediment to this progressive agenda is a form of imperative racism. As Janeane Garofalo said about the Tea Party, “This is racism, straight up”. But like the term "Nazi", "racism" has become stale and lost it’s sting; it has simply become a euphemism for any opposition to the left. So in a way, the promise that a black president would usher in a post racial society has come true, as the term itself has become meaningless due to it’s overuse for political expediency.