Without Feathers

The President did, quite specifically, say that the public option will be forced to make a go of it out of premiums, not the Federal Treasury.  No ambiguity about it.  It will be just like the USPS, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae… well, maybe those aren’t the best examples, but I get what he means.

He also said that the public option will realize its savings from being a not-for-profit entity (that should lower costs by about six percent) and by not paying the executives who run it — I don’t think that’s quite what he meant to say but, again, I get it.  And, since the program will only be available to those who seek it, there will be no sales, marketing or advertising expenses. 

No word on administrative costs or taxes, but it looks like the public option will enjoy about a 10% cost advantage over the for-profit insurers who will, no doubt, flock to the exchanges to scoop up the otherwise uninsurables for whom that will be the primary market.  What could go wrong?

I have mixed feelings about his assurance that we will no longer be paying the health care costs of the 12 million or so illegal aliens living and working in this country.  On the one hand, I don’t think that people who entered this country illegally should be given anything, let alone free health insurance, on the other hand, come on, we don’t want them coughing and bleeding all over everything while they’re here.  Anyway, I just don’t believe him when he says that they will not be covered in some way (<cough>taxes<cough>).  I’m not calling him a liar, you understand, just sayin’.

President Obama says that  “the Public Option” will be just one of a “basket” of options available to Americans who, if they like their private insurance coverage, will be able to keep it.  “The Public Option” will just be there, you know, sittin’ there and stuff in case there’s anything you don’t like about your private insurance like if it costs too much or requires co-pays or whatever.

There’s absolutely no truth at all to the suggestions that “the Public Option” is a “trojan horse” designed to sneak single-payer national health into the system or that it is in any way intended to undermine the private insurance market.  It will just be another competitor on the same level playing field as everyone else is all.  Nothing to see here.  Move along.

OK, just a few points I want to clear up and then I’ll sit quietly (for awhile, anyway) and let the grown-ups work out all this which is obviously way to complicated for my limited capabilities.

• Will “the Public Option” have to pay its way from premiums collected or will it be able to dip into the Federal Treasury if it is unable to pay claims out of its loss reserves and current cash flow?
• Will “the Public Option” have to pay its own administrative expenses or, like the Social Security Administration (which runs the Medicare program), will it be able to coerce health care providers through force of law to cover its administrative expenses out of the remimbursements they receive from it?
• Will “the Public Option” be liable for the same local, state and federal taxes as private insurers or, like Medicare, will it be exempt from all taxation?

Now we know that “the Public Option” will be under no pressure to make a profit — in fact profits will not be part of “the Public Option” at all, so there should be a cost savings of about six percent (the percentage of Earnings Before Interest, Taxes and Amortization enjoyed by the private health insurance industry); but I guess I’m also asking if there will be any pressure to break even?  Or will “the Public Option” just go to the taxpayers whenever it needs a cash infusion?

Because, you see, here’s the thing: If “the Public Option” doesn’t have to pay taxes and doesn’t have to pay its own administrative costs, and doesn’t even have to break even because it can make up the difference out of public funds; How can any private insurance plan EVER compete against it?  I mean, it just doesn’t add up — literally.

So what exactly is “the Public Option” and what exactly is the purpose of offering a “competing” plan that doesn’t have to, uh, compete?

OK.  I’ll keep quiet now while my betters do the heavy thinking.

One thing that gets me angry, truly, flames-coming-out-of-the-ears pissed off is when the mainstream media deliberately and maliciously misrepresents the words of a conservative for the corrupt purpose of advancing the liberal, Democrat agenda.  It should piss you off as well regardless of your political affiliations.  It should piss you off regardless of how much you loathe and despise the victim because it isn’t just political.  This sort of defamation strikes directly at the heart of civil discourse and reasoned dissent.

A couple of weeks ago Rush Limbaugh said of the new president:

“Look, what he’s talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care.  I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don’t want this to work.  So I’m thinking of replying to the guy, “Okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.”

I certainly see room for disagreement in that statement, but there is nothing whatever disloyal or un-American in vigorous opposition to a policy with which one does not agree.  Any rational reading of the entire statement, in context (and, in fact, there is even more relevant context surrounding the above quote), can only conclude that Limbaugh was speaking in opposition to a policy, not the President himself.

Regardless of the facts in the matter, the  impartial, unbiased, objective mainstream media chose to pick four words radically out of context to support a media onslaught — clearly lead by the Democrat political machine — for the deliberate purpose of stifling legitimate political debate.  It doesn’t matter which side of the debate you are on, you should be furious and aghast at this attempt to misrepresent honest — and probably correct — dissent for clearly partisan purposes.

Let me be very clear about this: The mainstream media did not do this in an attempt to inform and enlighten.  The mainstream media did this for the express and only purpose of slandering the opposition in a futile attempt to silence dissent on behalf of the political party — the Democrats — that they (the mainstream media) prefer in power.

Well, what was I expecting?  As our esteemed commenter K once observed:

“Oh, that’s so cute. You were expecting accuracy in reporting?”

What Rush actually said, and I believe this is a case in which context is EVERYTHING:

And here’s a link to the complete transcript.

Seriously, think about this.  Is this really how you want to conduct the debate?

I am really of two (possibly three) minds on this one.  On the one hand, I firmly believe that there should be no arbitrary restrictions on otherwise legal activity.  On the other hand: What the hell is the government doing paying for abortions anyway? 

Is there a Constitutional right to abortion that must be protected at all costs?  No, there isn’t — don’t quote Roe v Wade to me which decided only the rather narrow issue of state governments intervening to impede lawful activity.  For better or worse, you have a legal right to an abortion in this country.  However, it is not apparent (to me, anyway) that you have a right to make me pay for it.

So how should a simple conservative boy, such as myself, view this?  A victory for liberty or a defeat in the struggle against pervasively paternalistic government?  I’m leaning towards the latter.

Oh wait, my mistake.  This is an entirely different matter altogether.  This is not about some Americans paying for abortions for other Americans.  This is about American taxpayers paying for abortions for people in other countries.  Foolish me.  There’s no civil liberty issue in this at all.  It’s all about sending my money out of the United States to support (admittedly legal) activity that a substantial portion of my fellow U.S. citizens find morally reprehensible.

I’m going to give the President the benefit of the doubt on this one, not just because I said I would give him the benefit of the doubt for his first 100 days, but also because this is, in principal, a genuine moral dilemma for me — except the part about sending the money to other countries, but that too, for better or worse, has been deemed legal by our very own Congress.  Have I mentioned today how much I loathe most of the members of the current Congress (but not the Congress itself)?

Believe it or not that admonition is intended not for my cousins of the blue state persuasion but for my brethern conservatives and that handful of brave souls who still adhere to the Republican banner (a white elephant lying feet up, trunk akimbo on a field of deficit red).

I am begging, pleading that my conservative chums and right-wingmen allay their partisanship through the next few days and join there adversaries in celebrating the most historic Presidential Inaugaration since the first in 1789.  Left or right, red or blue, black or white, Tuesday, January 20, 2009 will be a day for the ages.  And the oath sworn at noon today will mark a great turning point in the history of U.S. politics — if not the history of the U.S. itself.  So don’t spoil it by acting like a Democrat.

Barack Hussein Obama was elected fairly and squarely and by substantive — though not landslide — majorities in both the popular and Electoral College votes cast by the largest voter turnout in history.  For those who are not taking my point, let me more direct: Barack Hussein Obama is our duly elected President, the head of the Executive Branch of our government, and “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States” (so, please Will Smith and Oprah, stop refering to him as your Commander in Chief unless you have taken up a uniform of the U.S. armed forces). He is neither the pResident Select nor the Commander in Thief.  Like every other president before him (except probably JFK) he will become president legitimately and lawfully.

He will be my president as much any Democrat’s and I intend to give him a fair shot at it.  And I am asking my conservative and Republican comrades to do the same.  For the 100 days following the Inaugaration, he will have my unqualified support.  I will continue to give him the benefit of the doubt for the remainder of this year, but if he hasn’t solved all of my problems by the 2010 election, well, I will consider all Democrats indelibly tainted.

My bill of particulars is drawn in large measure from the criticism of the 43rd administration, much of which — it might surprise you to learn —  I agree with, to a degree.  But these should be no-brainers for the incoming administration:

• Put an end to the morally indefensible “Don’t ask don’t tell” policy governing the participation of homosexuals in the U.S. military. Why this is an issue is simply beyond me. Either homosexuality is such an impediment to discipline and good order that there shouldn’t be the least compunction about prohitibiting it. Or, more likely, it doesn’t make a damn bit of difference as long as unsolicited sexual advances are strictly off limits. In either case, this issue could and should be resolved with a simple and swift executive order.
• Close the Gitmo detention center – don’t just order it closed; don’t just lament its existence; close it.  Personally, I have always believed that it was a lousy response to a lousy situation, regardless of how bad the detainees are or were — and they were.
• Bring the troops home — don’t send them to the sinkhole of Afghanistan.  That war was lost the moment the Bush administration decided to engage in nation building.  Focusing on Iraq has had nothing to do with the failure of Afghanistan.  The misbegotten Afgan adventure — I mean beyond the routing of the Taleban — was doomed from the start no matter how many lives and how much treasure we squander on it.  Afghanistan, as a country, never existed before the 20th century and it never will.  The recipe for success there? Let it simmer in its own juices; bomb from time to time as necessary to remind them that there are consequences to bad behavior.
• Cure Parkinson’s, Cancer and AIDS. You can do it now that science will once again be unfettered and solidly on the public dole.  I don’t remember who, exactly, but I remember someone saying during the 2004 Democrat convention that “Christopher Reeves would be walking by [then] if Al Gore [had been] elected in 2000.”  Well, maybe not, but I’m expecting miracles from the scientific community now that there will no longer be restrictions on federal funding of human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research.  I expect Obama to reverse the Bush administration and return to the Clinton policy on hESC more or less immediately…er, um…maybe not the Clinton policy of no funding regardless of restrictions, but, you know, the policy Al Gore maybe, might have implemented had he been elected in 2000.
• End Gobal Warming! Well, the man-made part of it anyway.  The solar and geophysical trends of the last 20,000 years will just have to work themselves out.  Hopefully, once petroleum exhaust and cow farts are under control, all the other warming that’s been going on remorselessly since the last ice age will kind of work itself out, or won’t matter…or something.
• Save us from economic ruin.  Why should anyone have to suffer the consequences of their own irresponsible actions?
• If you can’t give us all free health care, at least make someone else pay for it, just like the Europeans and Canadians who get all the health care they can handle without ever seeing what percentage of their tax bill goes to “free” medicine.
• And while we’re on the subject of Europeans: Can we please let them pay a little more for their own defense?  I mean, does it seem right to you that these people should be forced to ally themselves with a corrupt empire like the U.S. just to keep the ayatollahs and Russians at bay? Think how much better they will feel about themselves if we just let them take care of their own security problems.

The list could go on, of course, but I’ll settle for just that little to-do list.  I would, however, like to remind the incoming administration of something that should not be overlooked:

Al-Qaeda is determined to attack inside the United States.  They might use airplanes or truck bombs or suicide bombers.  They might highjack airplanes and hold the passengers hostage or they might crash the airplanes into buildings or into other airplanes or for find some other nefarious purpose.

They might use the truck bombs against public or private buildings or just explode them in public places with a lot of people around.  They might do something similar with suicide bombers.  Or they might place cell phone triggered bombs on commuter trains or in hotel lobbies.  They might have guys with machine guns, hand grenades and satchel bombs attack airports, hotels and restaurants.

I don’t know how I can be more specific than this — I mean I’ve just detailed several scenarios that must surely be on AQ’s drawing board right now.  And anyone can imagine this happening at any time.  So President Obama, if any of this happens on your watch: It’s on you buddy — just like Bush is saddled with 9/11.

U.S. Presidents don’t “rule” they govern. This may seem a bit nitpicky, but it is an essential constitutional principal. And, by the way, the President of the United States does not “run the country.” The POTUS runs the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. An important job, to be sure, but not equivalent of a king.

Continue reading

This is a difficult election for me.  I have a longstanding dislike for “Maverick” John McCain and I find Barrack Obama very likable.  I didn’t want McCain in 2000, and he’s done nothing to change my mind since.  Obama is a very appealing candidate and I can think of several reasons to support him.

So what’s the problem?  Why is this so difficult for me?  In brief: A McCain administration, IMHO, will be just another disappointment for conservatives and further erode the credibility of the Grand Old Party; An Obama administration scares the bejesus out of me politically, but is likely to be at least competent in the execution of its agenda.

Continue reading