The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Archive for the tag “Obamacare”

Obamacare – Robert Reich Wants SCOTUS To Commit Treason (It’s What He Would Do, Anyway!)

UPDATESupreme Court Commits Treason!!!!

With the United States Supreme Court poised to make their decision on Obamacare just hours away now (if you are reading this on Thursday, June 28 2012) there isn’t a single political pundit who has not yet weighed in with their thoughts on how the court will render its verdict.  Include Robert Reich (or Reichhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh for you Rush-a-bes out there) in that un-chlorinated cesspool of disease and squalor, rabidly infectious with misinformation and lies, called the MSM.  Reich is of the opinion the court will side WITH Obamacare, and he lays out several reasons why, all of which are both bogus and garbage.  But one thought he has laid out is absolutely treasonous, and for that, he ought to be fully excoriated and drummed out of America permanently.

What did Reich say that was treasonous?

Chief Justice John Roberts is — or should be — concerned about the steadily-declining standing of the Court in the public’s mind, along with the growing perception that the justices decide according to partisan politics rather than according to legal principle.”

Yikes!  Did Reich really say he hopes the Supreme Court will abandon its sworn duty to uphold, even acknowledge, the Constitution and decide in favor of Obamacare anyway (despite the fact that it is un-Constitutional) because if they don’t, the people might look upon them unfavorably?

Indeed, that’s exactly what Reich said.  And, to a degree, we can understand exactly where Reich is coming from – the MSM media, that is, which is more unpopular right now than it has ever been.  Never mind the actual quality of news content, it’s rating, ratings ratings!  So it must be all about ratings with the Supreme Court too, says Reich, and the Constitution be damned.

Reich thinks SCOTUS will be swayed by the few people in America who want Obamacare upheld in its entirety.  That may very well be true will Ginsberg, Kagan and sotomayor, all of whom are very liberal Justices, and judicial activists, and support looking outside the Constitutional, and even looking outside of American law altogether to what other countries are doing.  And while it is un-Constitutional for Supreme Court Judges to do that – that still doesn’t stop them.

The Supreme Court can’t afford to lose public trust. It has no ability to impose its will on the other two branches of government.”

Robert Reich, like everyone else in the lame-stream media wants the Supreme Court to take its marching orders from them, rather than what is actually written in the Constitution with regards to the powers vested to the Supreme Court.  What Reich won’t ever acknowledge, because it goes against liberal ideology and principal, is that the Supreme Court is not set up in the same way as say American Idol, the X factor, America’s Got Talent, etc.,  In other words, the Supreme Court is not a popularity contest, and it is not about acquiring the most, and highest, positive ratings.  The Supreme Court neither makes laws, nor does it decide laws based on how many people’s feelings will be hurt.  The Supreme Court was set up to ensure the Constitution was at all times upheld.  Period!

It doesn’t matter that a significant portion of the public may not like Obamacare. The issue here is the role and institutional integrity of the Supreme Court, not the popularity of a particular piece of legislation. Indeed, what better way to show the Court’s impartiality than to affirm the constitutionality of legislation that may be unpopular but is within the authority of the other two branches to enact?

Reich is absolutely correct when he says “The issue here is the role and institutional integrity of the Supreme Court, not the popularity of a particular piece of legislation”.  What is strange and confounding and damning is that the legislation in question is un-Constitutional, and Reich doesn’t seem to give a damn about that.  Or, to put it another way, how is siding with Obamacare, specifically the mandate that every American buy health insurance or face steep fines and penalties, upholding the Constitution?

As conservatives, and as Americans, we fully expect Obamacare to be struck down.  We also expect at least two Supreme Court Justices will side with Obamacare.  And for any Supreme Court Justice to side with a law that is blatantly and patently un-Constituitonal, that is, and must be, an impeachable offense.  It no secret liberals want Scalia thrown out.   Why shouldn’t we, as conservatives, demand tyrants that refuse to stay within the boundaries of the Constitution be dismissed, on their own power or ours?

Obamacare is an absolute mess, filled with new laws and powers bestowed upon government, granting it an extension of authority it was never designed to have, but which will have to be funded either through higher taxes on all of us, or through printing more and more money and tacking that expense onto the national debt .  We probably still don’t know every last disastrous detail.   Remember, we had to sign the bill into law first, before we could read it?  Remember who said that?

Is it really worth committing treason to uphold Obamacare?  We already know the purpose of Obamacare was not to ensure the health of all, or any, Americans.  Obamacare was set up specifically and directly to grow the size, the scope and the power of government, and to force us all to be that much more dependent on government and to become that much less independent for ourselves.  It’s un-Constitutional and its treasonous.  We’ll soon find out how many justices have committed treason shortly.  How stupid do we have to be to not see just how dangerous Obamacare is to America and to all of us?  As stupid as Robert Reich?

Psychopath Sandra Fluke; Her Spoiled Little Brat Syndrome

Being 30 years old has not stopped Sandra Fluke from acting a lot like a spoiled little brat.  You know, the child that doesn’t get her way so she throws a tantrum until she does get her way; the child who always points her finger to another person and lays blame on them for an accident she committed herself; the child who will lie and lie and lie until she gets her way.  That’s Sandra Fluke!

Sandra Fluke enrolled into Georgetown University for one reason, by her own admission, solely to make her case as to why the religious university ought to provide contraception to its students, and why it ought to be provided for free.  Sandra was smart enough (psychopaths generally have a high intelligence level) to know that Georgetown would rebuke, rebuff and flat-out deny her “request”.

Enter the contraception mandate and Obamacare.  An opportunity came along for Sandra to put Georgetown’s thumbs to the screws, so to speak, by engrossing herself in a public forum to humiliate and embarrass the university in front of congress, in a way she believed would cause Georgetown to fold and buckle under an immense pressure from the students of Georgetown, from congress and from the American public.  This flagrant display was intended to be her masterpiece.  Why then, did it not go as planned?

What Sandra hadn’t counted on was the fact that conservatives in America are far more powerful, far more influential, far more organized than she ever gave us credit.  She also did not factor in that a majority of Americans oppose Obamacare, which includes the contraception mandate and forcing religious institutions to provide services and procedures that go against their moral and religious convictions.  (Psychopaths, while highly intelligent, are also exceedingly arrogant and full of themselves.  Too conceited to pay attention to, or look beyond, their own ego.)

This miscalculation, which has been a major backlash against Sandra, against Obamacare, against liberalism, has caused Sandra to become even more outspoken, and deeply entrenched in her own lie – that she is merely fighting for contraception for students who need it for health and medical issues like “ovarian cysts, hormonal imbalances, endometriosis”, which she reiterated at an event at Georgetown University.

But we are not talking about contraception for  “a lot of medical issues.”  That has never been the debate, and that has never been what Sandra herself has been fighting to achieve for female students at Georgetown.  Sandra has always been fighting for free contraception for use in promiscuous sex, which, sadly, many people engage in.  And while conservatives are not about to enter into a debate as to whether consenting adults, or even teenagers, ought to be prohibited by law from engaging in promiscuous sex (it’s futile and we recognize American citizens have the right have sex with whom they choose), we, as conservatives, are very willing to make certain that those men and women who do engage in sex, for the sake of sex, do so on their own dime and accept the consequences of that decision.

Sandra Fluke, among other liberals, opposes that.  She demands that, while consenting Americans of all ages have a fundamental right to have sex with whom they choose, they ought to have those choices subsidized by American taxpayers and institutions that provide healthcare and health related services, including religious institutions.  As conservatives, we obviously strongly and absolutely disagree with that.  In doing so, however, we are by no means attempting to say that women with health issues, clearly and specifically diagnosed by a professional and competent doctor, ought to unduly suffer because she cannot afford the cost of the medication she needs to help offset the pain and suffering.

But – is that really why these students/women are using contraception?  To offset enduring and persistence pain and suffering?  And, could there be some other medication they could take, other than contraception or birth control that helps alleviate and end the pain?

Here is the problem with that.  Sandra specifically targeted Georgetown University.  She enrolled in it, and paid the cost of tuition and all expenses included, which was over $40,000/year.  Why did she have to enroll and spend that much money simply to shed light on a compelling issue that affects not only female students at Georgetown, but millions of American women?  And – why Georgetown?  In other words, if all Sandra was trying to do was find a solution to how women with otherwise less of an economical means could pay for contraception and birth control and have it provided for them for legitimate and specific health issues – why the elaborate scheme of enrolling in Georgetown?  Why the long-about rouse of thinking she had to be a student of Georgetown in order to be heard?

Obviously Sandra had an ulterior motive.  It had to be a religious college, for one; and it had to be a prestigious one so that when it caved under public pressure (per Sandra’s plan) the smaller, less prestigious, less noteworthy religious colleges would feel compelled to cave as well.  And not only religious colleges, but all religious institutions that provide healthcare.  Sandra delved into this complex strategy to discredit religion itself.  What else makes sense?  That part of her plan failed.

And what do psychopaths usually do when a part of their plan fails?  They dig in deeper.  Sandra is no exception.  That is why she is back at Georgetown still insisting the college needs to provide contraception and birth control to students because:

Most students don’t realize that contraception coverage will not be on their insurance when they arrive at Georgetown.  We’re used to having contraception readily available.”

This is an another incredible statement coming from Sandra.  What she is saying is that “most students” are not researching Georgetown University as thoroughly as they ought to before they decide to send in an application for enrollment.  Is that really true?  Also puzzling, and damnably so, is the fact that if a student can afford the high cost of enrollment, why then could they not afford the small pittance of the price for birth control and contraception without having to beg for it to be subsidized by the university?  And why, if Sandra is only urging for birth control and contraception for “medical issues” is she not insisting, publicly, that she would accept Georgetown University’s prohibition on these when used only for sex?

Sandra is demanding Georgetown provide birth control and contraception, free of charge to all students, regardless of why they actually want it.  How does that make sense?  And who picks up the cost if Georgetown is forced to acquiesce?  Wouldn’t that have to be passed on to all Georgetown students in the form of higher tuition and other costs associated with being  a student as Georgetown?

Said Fluke:

“Prevention of pregnancy is a public health need.  When we’re talking about public policy, we need to look at reality, rather than [Church] ideology.”

In other words, Sandra is not really advocating for birth control and contraception for “medical issues” at all.  That is a cover story for her real intentions.  Sandra really is, and always has been, advocating for women to engage in promiscuous sex (all part of the women’s liberation movement and liberal feminism) and for “prevention of pregnancy” that often results in that sex, i.e. – abortion.  And she is demanding the cost for the “prevention of pregnancy” be picked up by Georgetown, which she has known long before she actually enrolled, opposed such a policy.  Sandra knew, long before she enrolled at Georgetown, that it is a religious college with a strong commitment to its religion.  Sandra sought to break that strong bond.  She is still trying.

Sandra has never once denounced the use of birth control and contraception for non “medical issues”.  If she was challenged directly to take a position; if Sandra was challenged to assert whether or not she is merely in favor of Georgetown University having a better health plan and coverage for those students who actually and legitimately are suffering from real “medical issues” like “ovarian cysts, hormonal imbalances, endometriosis” – would Sandra be willing to concede Georgetown’s right in prohibiting birth control and contraception for all other “issues”, like promiscuous sex and to end an unwanted pregnancy?  Knowing that, is where we can begin to unravel the mystery that is the psychopath, Sandra Fluke.  But only if we press her to answer the right questions.

Liberal Women Paint The Killing Of Unborn Children With “Flowery” Buzzwords

Abortion, in America, is nearing its bloody end.  A bold statement perhaps, but liberals, and liberal feminists, are all too aware of what is going on in America, the political climate circulating around abortion and their inability to get around the fact that abortion is, always has been, and always will be – the killing of  an unborn child.  But that does not stop them from trying.

Abortion won’t end tomorrow, nor will it end immediately after Romney is sworn in as President.  But Americans are more pro-life (a term dreaded and despised by liberals) than they have ever been, and that trend will continue to grow.  To counter this shift, to delay it, to turn it back to the pro-abortion side, a new marketing scheme is underway to make you think that abortion is really all about “women’s health planning”.

Arianna Nation SS contributors, Vicky Kuperman and Erica Grossman write:

It’s [abortion] all about political “framing,” a term that is familiar to anyone who has even occasionally channel-surfed through C-SPAN. In the case of women’s rights, conservatives have historically excelled at cloaking their various agendas — primarily, their fierce opposition to abortion — in either sunny, feel-good terms (“pro-life” as opposed to “anti-abortion,” for example) or in graphic and shocking terms (“partial-birth abortion” as opposed to “late-term abortion”). In the end, these emotionalized buzzwords have enabled them to perfect a kind of moral hijacking, hitting their base in the gut, and rallying them through anger and fear.

Why would pro-abortion advocates have to go to such lengths to disguise abortion if a majority in America are pro-abortion?  We can clearly see how much Vicky and Erica disdain life in their mockery of the term “pro-life”, and how much they are in denial over the definition of “partial-birth abortion”.  Partial birth abortion is an exact term.  In other words, it describes exactly what is happening – the child is partially born (removed from the womb), but because its head is too large to fit comfortably through the birth canal, the doctor plunges a long, sharp probe into its skull and begins sucking out the brain and fluids, which deflates the head and makes for an easier passage.  That is what Vicky, Erica and every other damned, contemptible supporter of this procedure don’t want you to actually know or understand.  Hence, they “flower” the term and make it smell better to the unwary, the uneducated, the unknowing and unsuspecting people they have been able to brainwash.  “Late term abortion” they dub it.  Because most people who support abortion don’t actually know what abortion is, calling partial birth abortion simply a “late-term abortion” will not register with these people.

Liberals will indeed need a better marketing strategy if they want to continue brainwashing people into support the killing of unborn children.  What is ironic is, the more they attempt to distract and disguise what abortion really is with “flowery” rhetoric, speech, and buzzwords, the more they actually expose themselves and their agenda and how shady, how corrupt, how disingenuous they, and abortion, really is.

And if they think they can mask the killing of unborn children by calling it “women’s health planning”, this will be another surefire disaster for them.  They – liberals and liberal pro-abortion feminists – are engaged in a cover-up.  They are guilty of doing to, and for, abortion exactly what was being done for decades by the Catholic hierarchy with their pedophile priests in that each of the two realities – abortion and pedophilia  – were covered-up and disguised.  And just as abortion was re-branded and re-marketed, so too were the priests, who were moved from one parish to another, thereby creating a new and “clean” slate.  But the truth still lurked underneath the “flowery” revision of priest pedophilia just as much as the truth still lurks underneath the “flowery” renaming of abortion as “women’s health planning”.  A pedophile priest is still a pedophile priest; that he has been moved to another parish does not change that.  Abortion is still abortion; that it is called something else does not change that.

Of “women’s health planning”, Vicky and Erica say:

These words not only have the benefit of sounding neutral and caring, but they also checkmate conservatives from mounting a counterattack. After all, it’s hard to imagine Mitt Romney railing against a woman’s health and walking away from the podium intact.

Of course they could not be more deluded and more blinded by reality.  The “counterattack” has already been “mounted”, their agenda has been exposed as shallow and hollow, and they have been shown to be the frauds they are.  Conservatives can very easily promote women’s health without promoting the killing of unborn children.

Or – do Vicky and Erica, do all liberals, and pro-abortion liberal feminists, really believe that abortion, and having an abortion, promotes women’s health, and makes women healthier for having had one?  If they do, why aren’t they advocating that every woman have at least one abortion in their lifetime?   Mitt Romney is advocating against abortion in his Presidential bid.  Why isn’t Obama advocating for abortion in his reelection bid?

URGENT: Barack Obama To Usurp Power, Declare Himself Dictator (At Least It Was “Urgent” When Liberals Thought George Bush Would)

Remember when liberals were all in a tizzy because they thought George Bush was trying to usurp the Presidency and stay on as a third-term President without an election?  Remember when liberals wanted to arrest Bush and Cheney for war crimes?  Remember any of that?  Look here, here, here, here, this one’s interesting – But don’t forget to look at this video, and then reflect on who – Bush or Obama – is really trying to usurp power…

And it was Nancy Pelosi who said Obamacare was Constitutional.

Joe Biden, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, James Clyburn, and every other Democrat agrees with that assertion.  Who is really trying to usurp power?  Who is really abusing the privilege of elected office and of the Presidency?

Barack Obama and Democrats!  If you answered George Bush and Republicans – go back and review history.  If you answered Democrats could never usurp power – go back and review the videos.  What more does it take to convince liberals that Democrats have the greater thirst and the more ravenous and rapacious appetite for power and dictatorship?

Obamacare Has Been Defeated. Now What?

Whoa!  Hold your horses.  The Supreme Court hasn’t made its final decision yet.  Still…

And still…

And still more…

And still more (from the actual oral argument)…

Obamacare cannot legally stand up.  That does not mean it won’t.  It’s in the hands of nine Supreme Court Justices who are tasked with the very political and very politicized decision of doing the right thing, constitutionally, and angering some tens of millions of Americans.  Or, doing the wrong thing, and angering some more tens of millions of Americans, but in which every American will be unduly, unconstitutionally burdened.

Americans want health insurance, and they want affordable and easy access to it, especially when the time comes they actually need it.  Obamacare does not do that, nor was it ever designed to.  Government run healthcare, whatever it is called, is unconstitutional.  The debate we all need to focus on after it is defeated is – where do we go from here?  And the immediate answer is that we need to look at the states, and removing the regulations that prevent citizens from buying insurance from other insurance providers in other states.  Doing that will have enormous benefits in helping to create more competition which will drive up quality and drive down overall cost, including the cost for pre-existing conditions, which absolutely need to be covered by health insurers at affordable rates.

Putting the onus and responsibility of paying for healthcare on all American citizens by mandating they buy heath insurance, and fining them if they don’t is not the solution.  Better and more tangible solutions can be found in the free market.  After Obamacare is defeated, let’s not waste time whining about it or blaming people for its defeat – it was doomed for failure because it is unconstitutional.

Be proactive.  Millions of Americans who don’t have health insurance need it.  Millions of Americans with pre-existing conditions, who cannot afford the high cost of premiums, need to be covered now, not after they are dead.  The free market can solve these problems.  Playing politics can’t, or won’t.  Or – do you want to roll that dice again and see what happens?

Healthcare Insurance Ought To Include Pre-Existing Conditions; Government Ought To Butt In, Then Butt Out – And Stay Out!

The cost of treating someone with an advanced illness is a tremendous burden on one’s family as well as on one’s finances.  Compounding the problem, most Americans cannot afford to buy their own health insurance, and that needs to change.  No American ought to be forced to go without healthcare because they legitimately cannot afford it.  And no American ought to be forced to endure the pain associating with illness that goes untreated because they have been denied health insurance due either to an inability to pay for it, or because of a pre-existing condition – or both.

Doesn’t it make more sense to treat an illness as soon as possible, both for the benefit of the individual who needs to be treated, and because the sooner an illness can be treated (which includes bringing a condition under manageable control) the less overall cost there is in treating the illness when it becomes more advanced and needs more specialized medicine, more tests, more doctor and hospital visits?  Why do health insurers discriminate so viciously against Americans with pre-existing conditions and what can government do to reverse that without taking over health insurance altogether, and at the same time lower the cost of healthcare for ALL Americans, including those with pre-existing health conditions?

The United States Supreme Court is in the middle of hearing arguments over The Affordable Care Act – Obamacare, in which the government is arguing it can mandate and force all Americans to buy health insurance.  The Supreme Court will overturn Obamacare on this issue, because it (and we all know it) is unconstitutional for government to force Americans to purchase anything they don’t want to, including health care.  Part of Obamacare also provides that pre-existing conditions must be covered, and that no American can be discriminated against who has a pre-existing health condition.  Once Obamacare is reversed, Americans are back to the drawing board with regards to healthcare, and millions of Americans who now have pre-existing health conditions, who thought they would finally be covered with the health care they needed to help them, will find themselves out of luck.

Health insurance agencies will not cover people with pre-existing conditions because the cost of the premiums would have to be raised in order not to lose money.  Remember, healthcare institutions are FOR PROFIT agencies.  Just as bad is relying on government to provide healthcare to all Americans, including coverage for pre-existing conditions, because in order to do that the cost for such an expensive undertaking would have enormous consequences – very dire, very negative for all Americans.  Government is a NOT FOR PROFIT body, but if it runs health care – it ain’t doing it for free.

1.  Taxes would have to be raised on everyone to pay for government-run healthcare.  So the idea that healthcare would be free flies in the face of reality.  How much taxes would be raised is hard to tell, but as usually happens, it is small at first, and then is progressively raised over time.  In any event, we would all feel it in our wallets and pocketbooks.

2.  Taxing the rich, and rich corporations either exclusively or at a larger rates might sound appealing to Americans who are already struggling to make ends meet, and who would have a harder time with an added healthcare tax.  However, as we all know, when businesses are taxed, regardless of the size of that business, that tax is passed down to the consumer, so Americans still get stuck with paying taxes for healthcare even if government does not directly tax them for it.

3.  However, when government burdens business with taxes, the smaller the business is the more harm there will be, as small businesses cannot stretch their budgets to the same degree bigger businesses can.  This causes small business to lay off employees, creating more unemployment, more overall anxiety, more tension and more call from Americans for government to step in and help even more.

4.  It also creates greater hardships for small businesses who need a certain amount of employees to keep their businesses running, without which they cannot stay in business.  A catch 22 for small business is thus in play, who have tax and debt obligations to pay, or be fined and forced to pay even more.  So, lay off employees to pay the tax and debt, but risk losing their business anyway because with fewer employees, they cannot meet their contractual obligations, resulting in slowing and dramatically decreasing their cash flow, their credit and credibility in the business community.

5.  Now we are back at square one again, and neither have we solved anything, nor have we learned anything from the mistakes we repeatedly make over and over again.  Namely – government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem. And the more we grant power to government to resolve our problems, the more problems are created.

6.  In the process of trying to ensure all Americans with health insurance, including those Americans with pre-existing conditions, mandated through government, and paid for by all taxpayers, directly and indirectly, we have caused more businesses to close their door, or lay off more of their employees, stop hiring, stop giving out raises and other bonuses, and we have brought our economy, which is struggling to crawl at the pace of a caterpillar, to a screeching halt.  And those Americans that needed health insurance, especially those Americans with pre-existing conditions, are again thrown under the bus.

The dilemma we are faced with is that ALL Americans need health insurance, and ALL Americans need affordable health insurance, and that includes, and ought to include, those Americans with pre-existing conditions.  How do we get to that point, where ALL Americans are covered with affordable health insurance, including those Americans with pre-existing health conditions:

•  without turning healthcare over to government;

  without government mandating ALL Americans be insured, or face steep fines for not having health insurance;

  without risking the quality of healthcare because the cost to treat ALL Americans, including those Americans with pre-existing health conditions, is now more expensive to health insurers rather than the other way around;

•  without having the cost of healthcare rise dramatically and unexpectedly because the cost to insurers has become too much to bear, returning us back to the drawing board and having to look for more solutions?

It seems as though, if government would just butt in momentarily and remove the vast amount of restrictions, regulations and tax obligations, the bloated bureaucracy and other obstacles on both the healthcare industry itself and on investors and risk takers, all of which combined, are right now preventing them from either investing altogether in the health industry, or as heavily as they otherwise would but for the regulations and taxes, that would go a long way in helping solve the problem of how to attain quality, affordable healthcare for ALL Americans, including those Americans with pre-existing health conditions.  And just as quickly as government butts in, it ought to butt back out.

Two things are for certain.  One – Obamacare will be overturned.  Two – ALL Americans still need affordable healthcare insurance, including those Americans with pre-existing health conditions.

The only uncertainty is – how will we resolve this problem, how quickly can we resolve this problem, without wasting time about who pays for what, who ought to pay for it, who ought to pay more for it and why, and how to get around the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Obamacare and turn healthcare over to government anyway?

If we are determined to have all Americans insured with quality and affordable healthcare, including those Americans with pre-existing health conditions – who ought not be left out of the process – isn’t the main obstacle in making that happen that group of Americans who insist this cannot be done expect by government mandate?

We know government can’t make that happen without raising taxes on every American, and on every American business.  And we know that still won’t be enough money to cover the cost of ALL Americans, including and especially those Americans with pre-existing conditions.  We know government will have to print more money, incur more debt and create higher inflation, thereby weakening the dollar and making the problem of affordable healthcare, and everything else in America, much, much worse.

Isn’t it time we gave capitalism and the free market system a try?  What are we afraid of losing if we do?

Why “Affordable” Health Care Is, And Will Continue To Be, So Expensive For Us All

Sandra Fluke is one more reason why we, in America, need more affordable, and better quality, private health insurance, rather than what she, and many others, are advocating, which is public health insurance provided/mandated through a government system which monopolies the industry.  Monopolies, by their structure and their very nature, do not create incentives to better or improve upon anything.  Rather, they allow the few people at the top running the show to set the prices, which always goes up, and to disregard the quality, which inevitably goes down over time.  It also allows for greater corruption and abuse within the system as well as collusion to keep prices higher than they would be under a private system where competition was allowed to flourish.  Without competition, no ideas are offered, no alternatives are expressed, no solutions to current problems are brainstormed.  Why would this not also be true of a government monopoly on health care?

Sandra Fluke welcomes government stepping in and providing her, and everyone else, with health care.  But at what cost?  In other words, whether that cost of health care is low, or “at no cost”, the idea that it is actually free is deceiving.  The case in point is Obamacare, which will force all Americans, and all businesses in America, to buy health care insurance exclusively through the federal government or face steep fines, the amount of which only the 1% can afford to pay.  As damnable as Obamacare is, and as unconstitutional as it is, it would be far more advantageous and beneficial if it was a replacement to Medicare and Medicaid rather than and addition to an already overburdened over stretched health care system the debt and liability of which is scores of trillions of dollars and growing (out of control) at a substantial rate.  And with Obamacare, what is the point of Medicare and Medicaid?

This all begs the question – what does anyone have against private health insurance?  If you answer, “because I cannot afford private health insurance”, then the next logical question is – why?  In other words, what is causing/driving the cost of private health insurance to stagnate in a price range, it is assumed, is higher than most Americans can afford to purchase?  And, for which is why so many millions of Americans support Obamacare, or the idea of some form of government provided, “low-cost” health care insurance that is neither low nor is it the best alternative?  If anything, Obamacare, any type of government provided health insurance acts in the same way a comfort food does.  It satisfies us, but is not really good for us, and ends up costing us down the road in ways we either did not anticipate or want to anticipate.  But the consequences are there, and they will need to be reckoned with.

As for the so-called “benefits” to small business?  The only reason for that is because health care is so expensive small businesses, by virtue of having a limited cash flow to work with, cannot provide most or all of their employees with health insurance, or with the types of insurance coverage big business can afford to contract with insurance providers.  Therefore, small businesses are left at a disadvantage.  However, with affordable, private insurance, that issue is eliminated.  That won’t happen until government gets out of the health care insurance business.  That won’t happen until more Americans become more informed about the advantages to private health care insurance versus the horrors of government-run/mandated heath insurance.  None of that will happen until we change the leadership in Washington.  That will, hopefully, happen in November.

Sandra Fluke has a personal agenda she is setting forth and laying out.  Namely she desires all women have access to health care, including contraception and abortion coverage, and she supports the “Affordable Care Act” which is the initiative that, through government health insurance, would provide her and all women with what she wants.  There are two problems with this that someone as “emotional” as Sandra Fluke is – as opposed to rational – is missing.

First, it is not “affordable”.  Either every American taxpayer is going to see their taxes go up substantially in order to pay for this, or the cost will be tacked onto the trillions of debt we currently owe.  If the latter, then we will see higher inflation, and for a longer period of time, because in order to pay off just the interest on that debt, prices on everything will need to rise.  Government can, and does, create money simply by printing it.  And in order to pay for Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act, and all government health care run programs, government will need to continue printing money.  All that ever does is devalue the worth of  money which leads to higher and higher inflation, which leads to higher and higher costs on everything, including health care itself.  But also everything else we buy and need to buy, like food and gas.  So the idea that the “Affordable Care Act’ is “affordable” is ludicrous.  Women may be benefited, perhaps, but as monopolies go, there is no guarantee.  And as monopolies go, that benefit usually declines over time.  And while women are “benefiting” from “affordable” health care, they, along with the rest of us, are paying more for everything we buy in order to pay the cost of their “affordable” health care.

Secondly, if we actually devoted more time to debating the usefulness and advantages of private health insurance, it would do more to lessen and allay the negative stigma and fears so many Americans have about it.  It would also help to inform those people who are against it – because of its high cost – why more private health insurance will bring down that cost to levels that are real, rather than artificially, affordable, and why private health insurance promotes better and higher quality health care than government could ever do.  With private health insurance – and that means, for those who are unsure, health care we pay for ourselves and our family out of our own pocket, not our neighbors or fellow taxpayers – health insurance providers are forced (whether they want to or not) through competition to provide the people they insure with the best, the highest quality and most affordable health care they can offer, or risk losing their clients to another private health provider.  Is that hard to comprehend?

With private health insurance, there is no room for error.  Conversely, with public, government-funded health insurance, there is all kinds of room for error, and no incentive to correct any mistakes because the money being paid for health insurance, for the contracts, the salaries, the bonuses, of everyone involved in a government-run health care system, etc., will always be there, whether it is coming from the taxpayers or being printed out of thin air, to keep the system running.  That does not work in the private industry.  Hence, the money is real, it is worth something to the insurance providers, and worth more to them than money that is created artificially, and thus is worth the time, effort and energy to keep finding solutions to health related problems, finding better ways to provide health care and finding ways to keep the costs down and as low as possible.  Private health insurance encourages its providers to be and remain honest.  Government run heath care only encourages corruption.

Sandra Fluke, because of her advocacy for the “Affordable Care Act” is actually harming women more than she is helping them, and she is actually putting women’s health more in harm way, more at risk, than otherwise.  Whatever the “Affordable Care Act” will ultimately provide and cover will pale in comparison to what could be provided and covered through private health insurance.  Breast exams, cervical cancer exams, pap smears, colorectal exams, childbirth and all health issues related to women could be much cheaper, much less expensive, much more expansive in their service and quality, if private health insurers were better able to compete for new clients.  So long as the government has a monopoly, and a mandate on health insurance, that will not happen.

But if all Sandra is really seeking in the “Affordable Care Act is free contraception (for whatever purpose) and abortion coverage, which may or may not be covered by private insurance – and, in the case of abortion, may not be legal for any health insurer to provide  depending on its reason – then she probably does not care about the overall harm she is going to cause to woman down the road, or to all American.  Nor would she care about the cost, the burden of that cost, the effects of that cost on everyone, or how that cost is going to have to be repaid.

Sandra may be too emotional to want to listen to rationality and reality.  What about the rest of us?

Who Would Vote For A Mormon For President?

There is still that unnerving sentiment, that irascible fear, that inescapable twitching cradled deep within the conscience of conservative America that will not go away, that will not stop pestering our minds, that will not let us a moment’s peace, and it is driving us madly insane.  Or is it insanely mad?  We know Mitt Romney is virtually a lock as the 2012 Republican nominee to face Barack Obama.  We’ve known it for some time, but because of Rick Santorum’s popularity and charisma within mainstream conservatism, and particularly within Christian conservatism, (still a huge voting block within the Republican Party) we were thus able to deny reality for that much longer and go on believing in all those wonderful fairy tales we invented in our minds to appease our consciences.  Ladies and gentlemen – it is time to face that reality.  Mitt Romney, barring any last-minute gaffes of some monumental size and catastrophe will be the Republican nominee.  Mitt Romney, of the Mormon faith.  So what?

As Republicans, and especially as conservatives, we need to be united as we have never been united before in order to defeat Obama.  The Left is running every anti-Romney, anti-conservative ad it can, as fast as its puppets can put them together.  They know Romney will be the nominee; they accepted that long before most of us did.  The Left is just as deftly afraid of Romney as many conservatives are, but for very different reasons.  The Left fears Romney because the Left knows Romney can beat Obama.  On the other hand, could it be that is why so many on the Right still fear Romney so much as well?

Just as Democrats got over Kennedy being a Catholic, as did the rest of the nation, so too must Republicans and conservatives get over Romney being a Mormon.  He is not going to impose Mormonism on America and force all Americans to give ten percent to the Mormon church.  Nor is he going to grant unconstitutional powers to the Mormon Church, or special privileges to Mormons, or any such nonsense.  Mitt Romney is an American first, then he is a Mormon.  Most Christians are also Americans first, then Christians.  Where is the difference with regards to Romney?

That many Christians have hang-ups about Joseph Smith and the “origins story” of Mormonism is a terrible excuse for such divide within conservatism, and for any divide.  Democrats are solidly behind Obama.  And that includes well over 90% of Democrats who voted for Obama in 2008.  We don’t have a lot of wiggle room on our side to allow for squabbling and bickering over whether or not we feel comfortable voting for a man because he is a Mormon.  Romney is an American, and he is a conservative, and he espouses conservative principles.  Does Barack Obama?  Then why would any of us damn ourselves, our party, our nation by giving Obama a victory when we could elect Mitt Romney?

It is, after-all, Barack Obama we are trying to defeat, not ourselves.  By not getting solidly behind Romney we are giving that much more of an advantage to Obama and Democrats.  In other words, we are playing right into their hands.  There is talk on both the Left and the right of just letting Obama win so we can focus on the 2016 election – four years away.

What good does it do for conservatism, for America, to have such a defeatist attitude?  First of all, there is no guarantee the Democrats won’t find a strong candidate for 2016, perhaps someone we have not yet heard about.   Secondly, isn’t it better, for our side, to let the Democrats and the Left talk about the 2016 election while we keep our eyes on this year’s prize?  Let’s us, conservatives take back the White House, and let the Democrats be the ones scrambling to regroup, recover and regain their political composure.  As luck would have it, it may well take at least four years for Democrats to recover from such a stinging defeat, and imagine all the fun we will have mocking them (politely of course) at their expense.

Romney listed ten important goals he had for when he becomes President.  Among them was abolishing Obama Care, pushing through legislation in support of the Keystone XL pipeline, and cutting taxes 20% across the board on all Americans.  He also supports abolishing the alternative minimum tax and the death tax, and hopefully he doesn’t stop there.  Obama is dead set on raising taxes on everyone.  And raising taxes even on the rich is still a tax on the middle class and poor because the rich will just pass the cost of that tax down onto the rest of us.  Who doesn’t understand this?

Obama, his policies, his agenda, are the obstacle to American recovery.  Not Romney’s faith.  But if we make Romney’s faith an issue, if we make his faith an obstacle, it is perceivable Obama could run away with the election.  And once reelected the only obstacle Obama will face in getting the rest of his destructive agenda pushed through congress, and on to the American people, is the fact that he only has four more years with which to do it.  Knowing time is against him, Obama will naturally push all that much more harder, and be that much more tyrannical.  He’s already disregarded the Constitution by pushing his contraception mandate through.  What is to stop him from doing anything after he is reelected?

Besides that we have the Supreme Court to consider.  In the next four years it is highly conceivable Ruth Bader Ginsburg will leave.  As it is the responsibility of the President to nominate a replacement, do we, as conservatives, really fret over having Romney be that President which must select the best candidate?  When so many court cases are literally resting on but the vote of one Justice – and, yes, that damn well means Roe Vs. Wade – would we then still be so narrow-minded in our own bigoted judgements towards Romney because he is a Mormon?  Romney is pro-life.  Obama is pro-abortion.  Which person makes you more uncomfortable sitting in the White House?

Would we really stay home this November instead of going to the polls if Romney is our nominee?  The Democrats might want a definite answer to that question, by the way, because they will undoubtedly be putting in a lot of overtime working to manufacture phony voters.  But if they know the most of us (conservatives) will skip this year’s election because we just can’t abide having a Mormon in the White House, maybe they can actually win the election for Obama by playing fair and square.

Do you still need to think about for whom, and how, you will be casting your vote this election year?  Or is four more years of Obama style economics and Obama-care a better price to pay for keeping the Mormon out of the White House?

Abortion Is Murder; Abortionists are Murderers: Women Who Have Abortions Are Accessories To Murder – Plain And Simple

(Well, technically, from a legal standpoint, it’s only “killing”, not murder.  So, for those of you who are pro-abortion, yes indeed – abortion is just “killing”; abortionists are just “killers”, and women who have abortions are really nothing more than accessories to that “killing”.  From a “legal” stand point, anyway.  Is that more comforting?)

What is it with liberal Democrats always going around accusing conservative Republicans of wanting to kill everyone?  You’ve got Allen Grayson, Democrat, from Florida, giving his “Die Quickly”, speech, screaming that Republicans who opposed Obamacare wanted to kill Americans.

Now comes Nancy Pelosi, Democrat, from Planet California, on the House floor decrying and denouncing Republicans, who she believes are letting Women ‘Die on the Floor’ Without Medical Care because they are trying to pass a bill that would prevent American taxpayers from funding abortion, which would otherwise force religious hospitals to perform those abortions, and the legal “killing” (not murder) of an unborn child, and for which millions of Americans (those that value human life) find offense in supporting with their taxes.

Despite Pelosi’s incoherent blather, the bill passed in the House today.

There seems to always be a double standard with liberals in that while they demand all taxpayers be forced to contribute money which would be used to abort – kill an – unborn child, when Republicans try to pass another bill that has “choice” in it, a bill that instead of killing children is an attempt to help place them in a better education environment, like a school vouchers bill, those same liberals are dead set against that type of choice.  The reason?  Passing such a school vouchers bill would “conflict” with those Americans that are “uncomfortable” with their taxes going to religious schools.  But using tax dollars to kill an unborn child seems to not pose any moral “uncomfortableness”.

It’s a fact.  Conservatives value human life.  Liberals don’t.

Ladies and gentlemen – there are no Republicans, there are no hospitals in America, that would “let a woman die on the floor” of a hospital if her life was indeed, and legitimately – and really – in serious danger.  And if her life was in serious danger from complications due to a pregnancy, and the only way to save her life was to abort the fetus, than that clearly, in the minds of the vast, vast majority of all Americans (including fundamentalist Christians) is moral and proper and understandable.  With the exception of a very few crazies and crackpots, there is no one who would force, by law, or by any other means, a women to give birth to a child if that meant it would end her own life in the process.  Some women do this of there own free will, and that is a bravery to honor and to be commended.

What Nancy Pelosi is doing, which is what every other pro abortion organization does as well, by condemning Republicans who support and value human life, by throwing out phrases like “Republicans want to kill women” amounts to slander.  Nobody is suing, however.  It’s all political theater.  And not very entertaining.

The issue at hand is whether Americans ought to be forced to see their tax dollars go towards funding abortion, and whether religious hospitals ought to be forced to provide those abortion services against their religious beliefs, including non life threatening, abortions, and the reasons that compel a woman to seek an abortion rather than carry the child to term, give birth, then give it up for adoption if she really cannot psychologically or financially cope with raising the child herself.

Nobody condemns a woman for giving up her child, and nobody (except the very few crackpots) condemns the woman who has the abortion.  It is abortion, the act itself, which we condemn.  And we certainly condemn those pro abortion organizations which behave, and act, in irresponsible ways when it comes to disseminating information to women about their unborn child; that are quick to rush a woman to an abortion clinic to kill that child rather than find alternative solutions which allow for the child to at least be born; that put financial motives and gains ahead of everything else, especially the emotional needs and concerns of the woman being told to have the abortion.

In other words, what Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW and the gang are doing to women is an absolute act of betrayal to them.

Yes, abortion legally is just “killing”.  But morally and ethically it will always be murder.  And regardless of what one calls abortion, it still takes away a human life that might have had an opportunity to live.  That is what we in the pro-life movement are fighting for, and will continue to fight for.  Life!  And the high value we place on life.

What is the “high value” pro abortion groups place on abortion, and having an abortion?

Obama’s Lies; Obama’s Damned Lies; Obama’s Damnable Lies! – Part 2

UPDATE:  Obama wants a second term “badly”.  Hasn’t the damnable lying going on long enough?

Here is the link to Part 1 of Obama’s Lies; Obama’s Damned Lies; Obama’s Damnable Lies!

In President Barack Obama’s latest lie he asserts that:

Republican vision of government would “fundamentally cripple America.”

It must then be asked, what is the “Republican vision of government”?  Why does Obama say this vision will “cripple” America?  And why is this really nothing more than another Barack Hussein Obama lie, mmm, mmm, mmm?

The Republican vision of government, and of America, is very simple – a government that taxes less; a government that is smaller; a government that does not interfere so heavily in states rights and the personal freedom and liberty of all Americans as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

Why is the Republican vision of taxing less “crippling” to America?

Obama, Democrats, liberals – they all assert that when taxes are cut this somehow equates to less overall revenue generation and this screws the poor.  In their minds, less money coming into government means less money for all the social programs they create and fund – and want to create and fund (and expand) – they say are intended to help “less fortunate” Americans.  They further attest that when taxes are raised, especially on the rich, this creates the new revenue necessary in order to provide for these programs.  Conversely, when taxes are cut, the money allocated for their social programs dries up, and said programs wither need to be cut or abolished.

This is yet another Barack Obama lie!

Whenever taxes are raised, whenever new taxes are created, whenever more money is taken out of the pockets of taxpayers this actually stifles revenue growth.  The reason is simple to anyone with a clear mind.  Rich people, in sound economic conditions, will invest capital in new projects; new innovations and inventions; research and development of new drugs and products that benefit everyone; the growth and expansion of their businesses, including the hiring of more employees, higher and more competitive salaries and benefit packages for those employees – all of which increases, not decreases, tax revenue.  The programs that Obama touts are absolutely unnecessary, absolutely useless, and are only there to tighten the grip of poorer Americans and ensure they keep voting Democrat.

Barack Obama hates entrepreneurship, in particular the non union, private business sector.  Obama hates wealth, as wealth equates to being independent of government.  What other explanation is there for someone who has waged a war on the American business sector?

Why is the Republican vision of less government “crippling” to America?

With all the red tape, bureaucracy and roadblocks in getting legislation passed, one would naturally assume a smaller government would also be a more efficient government.  Not liberals.  Not Barack Obama.   They demand an even larger, more encompassing government that reaches into the lives of all Americans, American business and American lifestyle.  Obama insists on the creation of new programs, like Obamacare, that has added trillions of dollars in new debt, and will continue adding trillions of dollars in even more debt for years to come.  More government programs to ensnare and entrap more Americans into government dependency.   More departments, more agencies, more government employees, more government in of itself is not the solution to poverty in America, nor is it the solution to economic growth and prosperity.  Obama says that it is.

This is also another Barack Obama lie!

More government creates more problems and allows for more money to “disappear” into thin air.  More government allows for more money to be hidden into obscure programs which either don’t really exist or are used merely as a front to payoff groups and organizations that voted for, and helped elect, a specific candidate.  More government allows huge sums of money to be transported virtually, if not completely, unseen, until long after it is too late to recoup it.  More government strangles economic growth, freedom and prosperity, individual liberty.  More government gives more power to politicians, and unelected governmental bureaucrats, who would desire to use that power in unethical and immoral ways to create artificial chaos for the purpose of tricking Americans into believing they need more government.

What would happen, for example, if the Department of Education, created in 1979, was abolished?  All that means is that the control, decision making and policies and funding of all public schools reverts back to the individual states.  It means states, and local communities, have greater power and influence and more flexibility to change what’s not working and become even more competitive, thereby becoming that much more attractive to parents wishing to relocate to another state and another community.  What’s wrong with that?  Only liberals, only Barack Obama, would see that as a problem.

Why is the Republican vision of more personal freedom “crippling” to America?

Expect for liberal’s, and Obama’s, insistence that women have “more personal freedom” to kill their unborn child, there is not much support for “personal freedom’ among Democrats, liberals or Barack Obama.  The government must control everything and everyone, because only government knows how best to guide our lives  and our decisions.  From healthcare to education; from gun control to food safety; from the cars we drive to the gas we buy for those cars – Obama believes government must have its hand – and his hand, by extension – in everything.

This, too, constitutes, another Barack Obama lie!

More government oversight, more governmental regulations, more government control into our lives and businesses is what is “crippling to America”.  Our economy is worse now because of Obama and the Democrat Party, and because of more government, more governmental regulations, more governmental programs and scams, more out of control governmental spending, etc.

“Evil” rich people are holding onto their money because the risk of losing it, of not making a profit on it, is much too great as a direct result of Obama and his draconian economic policies.  “Evil” rich people are not growing their businesses, are not hiring new employees – are laying more employees off – because the demands for their products and services has dropped, in direct correlation to Obama’s rigid economic policies.

It is Obama, the Democrat Party and liberals that are “crippling to America”.  It is Obama, the Democrat Party and liberals, their vision of government, that is “crippling America”.  It is those Americans who accept higher taxes, more government, less personal freedom out of ignorance or a true hatred and snobbish attitude of wealth and the wealthy in America, that is “crippling to America”.

It’s not Republicans, conservatives, the Tea Party that is “crippling to America”.

Post Navigation

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers

%d bloggers like this: