The Fundamental Problem With Obamacare.



The Fundamental Problem With Obamacare.  There are good arguments on both sides of the Obamacare issue.  There are good intentions and motives that go both pro and con.  There is sound, fundamental logic that supports it and contradicts it.  Having said all of this, there is one fundamental problem with Obamacare…but we will save it for last.

Who amongst us hasn’t wondered at some point in our life….”In such a marvelous country, it is a crime that anyone should go without basic health care”.  We have wondered this when seeing a child in obvious poor health.  We have wondered this when seeing an elderly person making difficult economic decisions in order to balance health concerns with living needs.  It is a fact that a large, significant number of people in our society do not have adequate health care.  It is also a fact that both Democrats and Republicans agreed on this.  They probably agreed on two-thirds to three-fourths of the Affordable Care Act, but that is not the issue.

Social Security is a program that garners universal support.  It is a ponzi scheme, depending on the fees of new entrants in order to finance the benefits of existing members.  But the fact that it is a ponzi scheme doesn’t mean it cannot work.  As long as it is tweaked periodically with revisions to insure that it remains fiscally sound (eligibility age adjustments, etc.), it should continue to service our retirees for generations to come.  Unlike Social Security, Obamacare is a zero-sum game.  An insurance provider must be able to pay its indemnities, service its debt and administrative expenses, and make a profit for its owners in order to stay in business.  If you mandate what and who the provider must cover, then they will adjust their premiums accordingly.  If those least likely to draw indemnities do not enroll, those most likely to draw indemnities will not be able to afford the coverage.  This is the crux of Obamacare and the reason that the mandate is at the center of the ongoing storm.  Without the mandate, without the legal requirement for all adults to carry a policy, the premise will not float.  The non-indemnity folks must provide the profit necessary to carry the indemnity-receiving folks.  This is how it must be.  The Democrats, led by our president, say that health insurance is a fundamental right and it is therefore proper for our government to mandate participation in Obamacare.  The Supreme Court surprisingly supported this notion.  The Republicans say that health maintenance should be provided to all, but that the free market should determine the availability, the cost, and the level of that maintenance.  Both sides agree that health coverage is essential; they disagree on how people should obtain it.  Republicans see health insurance as a privilege that is earned and should be provided to those clearly unable to obtain it in a measured fashion.  Democrats see health insurance as a fundamental right that should be provided to all regardless of their ability to obtain it, and that the areas covered should be uniform to all, regardless of the coverage level.

Both sides see the problem: too many people with inadequate health care.  They agreed on 75 percent of the solution.  Now comes the problem; the sticking point with this whole mess; the gravel sticking in the craw of the Republicans and many others opposed to Obamacare.  No law or regulation, no matter how wise or well-intentioned, should be promulgated into law without some degree of bi-partisan support in our legislative process.  No law in the history of our nation with the sweeping nature of Obamacare has ever passed through Congress and been signed by the President without some support from both of our national parties.  When Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Obama schemed and devised an abnormal fashion in which to foist Obamacare on America, they did so on a strict party-line basis with not one single Republican vote.  They could have passed the bulk of the law with bi-partisan support.  They could likely have obtained a good portion of the remainder through honest negotiations. 

So whether or not you agree with the effort to defund Obamacare, you must understand how Obamacare came to be.  To call it “settled law” in any traditional sense is a stretch of reality.  When you force a law into play using extraordinary means, you must be prepared to defend it against extraordinary challenges.  I do not agree with the defunding option pursued by the House, but I can certainly understand why they have taken that approach.  The chickens have come home to roost.

The Insidiousness Of Partisanship.



The Insidiousness Of Partisanship.  Webster’s opinion aside, I have thought the term insidious described not only something vile and evil, but also something that had a creeping and worsening nature about it; something that might be festering at an alarming rate below the surface in such a way that nobody really notices until it is too late.  I think this accurately describes the current state of partisanship in our government.

Now I want to acknowledge up front that intense partisanship is a necessary evil for that core of party leadership that helps to insure the continuance of the two-party system in our nation.  While I am open, now more than ever, to entertaining the thought of a third national party (Libertarian?), the two-party system is essential to our form of government and someone, somewhere in each party must make certain that the party continues.  That being said, let us draw a distinction to those party members who serve because of their belief in the general principles espoused by that party, both current and historical; those people who accept the premise that you can compromise on practice, but never on principle.   Some of these folks are elected while representing their party.   Some of these folks help with the administrative chores of party continuance such as fundraising and membership drives.  Some of these folks are simply common citizens who choose to reflect their personal civic beliefs through party membership.  These people, who represent the overwhelming majority of each party, should not be expected to “toe the line” during every policy dispute.  They should not be expected to support a “win at all costs” strategy of no compromise and scorched earth.  They should not be expected to engage in the heated and “over the top” rhetoric commonly distributed by the party leaders.  Unfortunately, the line between these folks and the parties leaders has been blurred to point of irrelevance.  The parties leaders presume to speak for all members, while reflecting the hard-core attitudes that only they live, eat, and breathe.  Even more unfortunately, while many of the party members are disturbed by and disagree with this development, it has become accepted and de facto and the members are beat into submission, feeling helpless to change their party.  It has been coming for long time, at least since the early 90’s.  It has been promoted by the leaders of both parties.  It has been foisted in a sly and devious manner on party members who have been more concerned with the business of living and supporting their families.  It has poisoned our legislative capacity to the point where our government is literally dysfunctional.  It is insidious.   

This line must be re-established.  Party leaders must once again understand their primary functions end at a certain point and they must cede some of the authority they have gained through questionable methods back to the party members.  Once again, I emphasize that the elected officials of each party rightly belong in the category of member, not leader.   This allows them the latitude to actually debate in good faith, discuss with civility, and compromise with wisdom, while maintaining the general philosophy of the party.  The leaders must allow this to happen while doing their due diligence of party survivability behind the scenes.

Although both parties have been infected with this malady to a severe degree, I think it is a fair argument to say the Republicans have been beset a bit more than the Democrats.  I ascribe this almost totally to the basic nature of the party’s philosophies.  While the Republicans have a narrower and less adventurous vision of government that seems to somewhat restrict the conservative nature of their party, the bedrock tolerance preached by the Democrats presents their members with a naturally broader latitude for dissent and a greater cushion between continuing as a contrarian member and excommunication.  A Republican member can more readily identify an issue that might bring into question their membership because the view of government is smaller and less complex.  On the other hand, a Democrat member can likely find other party members who share their concerns about general party direction and it requires a bit more disgust with leadership to push them to a point where they consider the wisdom of their party loyalty.  Either way, it is clear that the fringe elements of each party’s leadership cadre has managed to wrest control of the party megaphone and dictate the primary policy positions over the last few years.  This is why I think there might be a window of opportunity for a third party.  Not if the new party simply copies the operating methods of the existing parties, but only if the new party is able to clearly define that “once clear and now blurred” line between the party leaders and the party members.

My Vote: Stick To Your Guns.



My Vote: Stick To Your Guns.  Well, they shut it down.  Where do we go from here?  For this one, small, insignificant guy…I say to the House of Representatives: Stick to your guns. 

First off, it is entirely reasonable to delay Obamacare; it is a colossal mess and given the length of time they’ve had to prepare for this rollout, the fact that it is so troubled is ominous indeed.  It was passed into law by extraordinary means by classifying it as a budget item.  It is only fitting that the first real challenge to it comes within the budget process.  Secondly, and as I have stated before in this little blog, our best government is sometimes is our least government.  For my money, we can stand some time with the bureaucracy frozen in time.  It has obviously become dysfunctional and there is apparently nobody in town who has any notion whatsoever of how to fix it.  Instead of letting it continue to tumble out of control, let’s put it on hold for bit; stop it in its tracks and see if that doesn’t provide some perspective on how to repair it.   

As usual, the mainstream media is carrying the administration’s water on this whole deal.  While there is plenty of blame to go around, all the press wants to talk about is how the Republicans in the House are approaching this crisis.  Is there no blame to be placed on a Senate who tells its co-equal partner in legislation: My way or the highway?  Ultimately, as Woodward has said, the blame rests with our president.  For better or worse, he is the leader of this nation.  He has more executive control than any president in recent memory and he has party control of the Senate; how can he not be held accountable for this fiasco?

For my money, the only real tragedy in this shutdown is the possibility that some of our good federal workers and military service members will not receive the paychecks that they rely on.  It is not their fault that we have elected incompetents in WDC who behave more like petulant children rather than statesmen.  They, like all other working people in this pitiful economy, live from paycheck to paycheck and when one comes up missing in part or in whole, it quickly puts a family’s economy in crisis. 

Oh, For Lack Of A Leader.



Oh, For Lack Of A Leader.  If there was any doubt about what motivates Obama and makes him tick, the answer was made abundantly clear on the day of the Washington Naval Yard shooting.  On that day of tragedy, our president made one of his typical partisan speeches, filled with venom and spite.  On a day that called for leadership and brotherhood, he gave us pettiness and narcissism.    The truly unfortunate thing is this: It has become so typical that hardly anyone noticed.

As poison as the water has become on Capitol Hill, there still exists the possibility for true statesmen to step up and get some government business done in a responsible and respectable fashion.  Ours is a marvelous model of government and for all of its weaknesses, its strengths are ever redeeming.  Where do we look for these potential leaders?  One can never be sure that Harry Reid even knows what day of the week it is, much less conduct Senate business.   “Let’s Make A Deal” John Boehner is much more interested in keeping his job than in promoting efficiency in government.   And the White House; well, the White House is what it is and shall remain for another 3+ years.  It is full of incompetent and inexperienced idealists whose grasp on reality is as tenuous as a spider web on your front porch.  And to make things even more discouraging, they are all led by a man who is likely the shallowest, most unprincipled and incompetent president in the history of country.  Can this government be saved?

Let’s look at history.  The political spectrum has to stretch out to great lengths in order to place Tip O’Neil at one end, Ronald Reagan at the other, and expect them to coexist in civil fashion.  Yet they somehow managed to pass some of the most significant legislation in history and preside over our country through some of its finest hours.  Bill Clinton and Al Gore came into WDC like a hurricane, blowing to the sound of Fleetwood Mac that heralded a new and shiny future in their vision.  But after his mid-term comeuppance, Mr. Clinton and Mr. Gingrich figured out how to win/win and actually balanced the budget of this government. 

It CAN be done; but WHO will do it?  Do you see a Republican out there now who can rise above this partisan gulf, win the nomination of the party, get elected, and then work across the aisles with Democrats to actually get things done?  What Democrat will have the courage to take the chance of destroying the winning strategy of Obama and his minions in order to run an honest presidential campaign?  The bad news is that Obama is with us for another 3+ years; the good news is that we have another 3+ years to try and find some true statesmen on both sides of the political spectrum to run this country.

Plays From The Book Of Whimsy.



Plays From The Book Of Whimsy.  There have been some very odd occurrences in WDC over the last few weeks; one must wonder exactly what playbook the quarterbacks are using.  Given the inexplicable, nonsensical, and illogical actions of our President, his minions, and our Congress, I am thinking they are all pulling their audibles from the Book of Whimsy.

Certain Republican members in the House continue to dwell in the kingdom of denial, failing to acknowledge that the Affordable Care Act is now the law of the land.  Instead of addressing their primary duties of passing appropriations bills, they continually obsess with crazy schemes to derail Obamacare.  Instead of addressing the critical debt ceiling issue that is rapidly approaching and threatening the very function of our government, they play to the press with odd comments about the bizarre foreign policy of our President.

What but whimsy describes the foreign policy decisions by Obama.  He has descended to a level where he addresses the nation and presents a one-on-one debate…with himself.  Not only is he facile, unprincipled, and clearly in over his head; he is also so clearly devoid of any actual strategy that he cannot express his own positions without contradicting himself within the same speech.  As many have written in the last week or so, this is what America gets when we put a community organizer in charge of our government. America must learn to elect office holders the same way we hire employees; select the best qualified candidate.

Obamacare was perhaps the single worst piece of legislation ever passed in this country; but it was passed.  Get on with the business of fixing it, in part or in whole, and quit trying to rewrite history.    And Mr. President, please swallow your pride and acknowledge your inadequacies.  Please find some people who you trust that are capable and competent to make foreign policy decisions and…wait for it…BEGIN TO LISTEN TO THEM.  The colossal mess Obama has made of domestic policy is causing great damage to the country and pain to many people, but it will be overcome in time; the healing aspects of a growing economy are amazing indeed.   As bad as it has been, this country will learn from Obama’s presidential tenure about how not to run a government.  But for heaven’s sake, do not continue to conduct world affairs using the same playbook.  The President thinks that the visions that dance through his head are somehow ordained and all the powers that be will see that they become reality.  Unfortunately, his naïve world view combined with his arrogance and ignorance has formed a deadly cocktail that is rapidly bringing our nation to the brink of global military confrontation.  If our President wants to be a liberal, then by all means, be a liberal; you did win.  But find some of the liberals out there that have some experience in foreign affairs and listen to their advice before you continue calling your audibles from the Book of Whimsy.

You Cannot Lose What You Do Not Have.



You Cannot Lose What You Do Not Have.  Following the ongoing discussion about whether or not Congress should support President Obama in a military strike on Syria, it appears to me that it comes down to one central point: Be he right or be he wrong, he is our president and we must therefore support him; to do otherwise will damage the credibility of our leader and our nation.  Say what?

Is there anyone out there, other than Eric Holder/Valerie Jarrett, who actually believes that our president has any credibility?  No Republican takes him seriously.  No Democrat takes him seriously, even though they will not publicly acknowledge this.  The nations of the world laugh at him…and not behind his back.  Putin treats him with such disdain that it is embarrassing.  The leaders of Middle Eastern Arab countries do not respect him, fear him, or even understand what he is trying to do.  Israel gave up on him long ago and, like the rest of us, is simply biding its time (hoping they have enough time) until he is gone and there is a new sheriff to deal with; someone perhaps a bit more competent.  After four plus years of weasel diplomacy, there is no respect for America or our president left out there; so what exactly do we have to lose?

Mr. Senator or Mr. Representative…if you have a fundamental belief that a military strike against Syria will in some form or fashion serve the national interest of our nation in a positive way, then by all means support this resolution.  But by all that is holy, do not do so simply because our president let his ass overload his mouth, painted himself and this nation in a corner, and is now seeking cover to wiggle his way out.  Do not let a string of bad decisions lead us into making another, much worse decision that holds the potential to take us into great harm and jeopardy.  Is it a bad thing for our country to be perceived by the world as split apart because our Congress will not support our president?  Yes, of course it is.  The only thing worse would be for our country to intervene where it has no security interest and put at risk the lives of our soldiers and other innocents, all because our leader is foolish enough to play fast and loose with his rhetoric, is too incompetent to play like an adult on the world stage, and too arrogant to admit when he has screwed up royally.

Stay The Hell Out Of Syria.



Stay The Hell Out Of Syria.  I have always said that when times are good, we get by just fine with poor and/or weak leaders; this country is strong enough to heal itself.  However, when times are tough, we need the type of leaders that can inspire, motivate, and make decisions; President Obama is not that type of leader.

Over the last few decades, through Republican and Democrat presidents, we have squandered the blood of our youth on Middle East causes that were sold to us as worthy and noble.    For one who has never fought in uniform or lost children to that cause, it may be cheap for me to make this call…but ENOUGH!  Stop the madness.  If America thinks a particular faction is the right one to rule a nation, then give them money, give them weapons, give them political cover, but do not give them our future.  The USA is not the epicenter of the globe any longer and we are certainly not in charge of policing for hall passes.

Our President has clearly demonstrated his incompetence to serve in the office to which he was elected; do we really want that proof to be extended to war time?  His penchant for using domestic affairs as grist for a term paper and foreign affairs as a means for apology will not serve us well if things in Syria do not go as planned…and they will not.  Is the use of chemical weapons despicable and immoral?  Yes, of course it is.  So is severing limbs from a living body with a musket ball.  So is the use of an IED to maim and destroy the human body.  So are the rape, torture, and slow death of invading hordes filled with ethnic hate and venom.  Whether it is waged with ball bats or chemical weapons, war is hell.  To attempt to quantify the degree of hell by examining the type of weapons used for the resultant destruction could easily be viewed as idiotic.

There are things in this world that America cannot control.  There are opportunities for America to influence foreign affairs in a manner that is calculated to work out in our best interest.  When our leaders choose not to influence or to influence in a counter-productive fashion, the final card in our hand should not be to bludgeon, burn, preach, bloviate, and leave our lifeblood on foreign soil.