So, lets assume that the wreck is on it's way, that ObamaCare is coming in some way, shape, or form.
How does the President hire enough paper pushers to fill all the offices that haven't been built yet?
Where do all the people come that will pursue a career in government service - and be unavailable to participate in the national economy?
One estimate has that 45 million, plus or minus, are uninsured. That ObamaCare disrupts everyone's health insurance while leaving 35 million still uninsured.
Are those 35 million uninsured to be drafted, to work civil service jobs and thus fall under civil service health insurance?
Remember, the government claims that unemployment is what, 9 or 10%? That is, not counting the additional 10% that aren't collecting unemployment because there aren't any jobs, but Washington, DC didn't like the numbers so they stopped counting them.
Unemployed and underemployed people are a problem for the economy - but they are also a vast and rich resource. Many are people that have educated and skilled backgrounds. As the economy improves, hiring should increase - will there be any left, after staffing Big Government, that will be ready to hire, ready to produce products and wealth that will feed families and pay taxes?
Will the managers and specialists needed to run the government's health care plan, by their absence, cripple companies wanting to increase production, to provide new services, to meet increased regulations?
Or is B. Hussein Obama planning to pull a gangster style packing operation, putting all his patronage chips in the hopper, putting all his cronies and ACORN and illegals and others into slots they aren't - and won't be for years - qualified to fill?
Monday, August 24, 2009
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Oath or convictions - choose, Mr. President
So, ok. We saw or read about or heard about the inauguration when B. Hussein Obama took an oath to uphold the US Constitution, and execute the office of President.
That is, he took an oath. A pledge, a promise. He gave his word. This was a big-deal ceremony - remember the tons of trash afterwards? Lots of trash to pick up - because he wasn't President until he finished with the oath.
So, now we have B. Hussein Obama doing what he thinks he should, acting as if he were President of the United States. As long as those in authority act like he is President, he has a certain cache in claiming the title, privileges, and responsibilities.
But what happens if there is dissent about whether he has failed his duties - or flat out broken his promise to uphold the Constitution?
I could point to the ex-CEO of General Motors, and claim that no President is allowed to step outside the prescribed authority of his office to do that. B. Hussein Obama has taken public and legislative steps to ban or restrict gun ownership, and also a few clandestine and underhanded moves. Recall the snafu a few months ago, when the Department of Defense told the ammunition manufacturers buying back the millions of pieces of brass - the leftovers after firing weapons in training - that they changed their procedures, and instead of being useful for reloading and selling at moderate expense to civilian shooters, the brass would now be shredded first.
The DoD shredded cartridge brass decision was changed, almost overnight. It turns out that that civilian market for less expensive brass - also supplied most training ammunition for many police and sheriff organizations. This clear intent to crater the market for ammunition was deliberately intended to drive the availability of ammo down, and inflate the price of ammo for shooters wanting to train or keep a quantity on hand.
When the President sets out to deliberately interfere with the amount of ammunition available to gun owners in America - is he in fact violating the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms? Arguably, preventing gun owners from obtaining ammunition pretty much blocks their ability to bear those arms. As they guy in Arizona said, if your gun isn't loaded, it isn't much good.
I still want to know what B. Hussein Obama did to cause Supreme Justice Souter to leave the bench. We know why - Obama wanted the cache of putting a chosen pick on the Supreme Court, and squandered that by selecting Sotomayor. Now-Justice Sotomayor has the advantage of being a liberal Democrat; her detractions include disparagement for the wording and history of the Court and the Constitution. There is likely room to be concerned about her competence in her chosen profession. Getting Sotomayor named and sworn in to the Supreme Court makes her a Supreme Court Justice. It does not answer questions about her competence, or whether she is an example of affirmative action, and not a symbol of the rise of someone based on overwhelming merit.
So, at what point is it imperative the question be asked - is B. Hussein Obama still true to his oath of office, and if not, does he actually hold that office?
That is, he took an oath. A pledge, a promise. He gave his word. This was a big-deal ceremony - remember the tons of trash afterwards? Lots of trash to pick up - because he wasn't President until he finished with the oath.
So, now we have B. Hussein Obama doing what he thinks he should, acting as if he were President of the United States. As long as those in authority act like he is President, he has a certain cache in claiming the title, privileges, and responsibilities.
But what happens if there is dissent about whether he has failed his duties - or flat out broken his promise to uphold the Constitution?
I could point to the ex-CEO of General Motors, and claim that no President is allowed to step outside the prescribed authority of his office to do that. B. Hussein Obama has taken public and legislative steps to ban or restrict gun ownership, and also a few clandestine and underhanded moves. Recall the snafu a few months ago, when the Department of Defense told the ammunition manufacturers buying back the millions of pieces of brass - the leftovers after firing weapons in training - that they changed their procedures, and instead of being useful for reloading and selling at moderate expense to civilian shooters, the brass would now be shredded first.
The DoD shredded cartridge brass decision was changed, almost overnight. It turns out that that civilian market for less expensive brass - also supplied most training ammunition for many police and sheriff organizations. This clear intent to crater the market for ammunition was deliberately intended to drive the availability of ammo down, and inflate the price of ammo for shooters wanting to train or keep a quantity on hand.
When the President sets out to deliberately interfere with the amount of ammunition available to gun owners in America - is he in fact violating the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms? Arguably, preventing gun owners from obtaining ammunition pretty much blocks their ability to bear those arms. As they guy in Arizona said, if your gun isn't loaded, it isn't much good.
I still want to know what B. Hussein Obama did to cause Supreme Justice Souter to leave the bench. We know why - Obama wanted the cache of putting a chosen pick on the Supreme Court, and squandered that by selecting Sotomayor. Now-Justice Sotomayor has the advantage of being a liberal Democrat; her detractions include disparagement for the wording and history of the Court and the Constitution. There is likely room to be concerned about her competence in her chosen profession. Getting Sotomayor named and sworn in to the Supreme Court makes her a Supreme Court Justice. It does not answer questions about her competence, or whether she is an example of affirmative action, and not a symbol of the rise of someone based on overwhelming merit.
So, at what point is it imperative the question be asked - is B. Hussein Obama still true to his oath of office, and if not, does he actually hold that office?
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Reducing traffic accident health care costs
I got an email this morning, complaining about how fragile the new Smart Car looks in heavy traffic.
I didn't get the date, but the ambulance is from the West Jefferson Medical Center Ambulance Service in Marrero, Louisiana.
I suppose this is another concept, like abortion and end of life counseling, that B. Hussein Obama expects to use to keep health care costs down.
I didn't get the date, but the ambulance is from the West Jefferson Medical Center Ambulance Service in Marrero, Louisiana.
I suppose this is another concept, like abortion and end of life counseling, that B. Hussein Obama expects to use to keep health care costs down.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
ObamaCare end of life counseling
First - the gross mis-statement. What I am calling ObamaCare is not health care, and does nothing to care for anyone but insurance companies and B. Hussein Obama's good buddies.
But - end of life counseling, that has been touted as euthanasia and an excuse to withhold care for the elderly or grievously injured or ill, this is supposed to be an implementation of living wills.
Living wills go by several names, my mother has one, my father did before he died. This is where you make a legal, binding request that hospitals not make any "heroic" intervention or effort to resuscitate or revive you, if you are close to death.
People do choose this kind of restriction on their doctor. Often the ventilator, the vegetable coma, the impairment and pain of partial successes seem so daunting, that one chooses not to. For many, they struggle for all the breaths available, and wish for every chance for another day. That is, they choose, or refuse to consider or choose the matter, which is another kind of choice.
What some families have faced, though, is hospitals, nurses, and doctors that refuse to follow clear and legal instructions. Instead they impose their particular morality - without accepting the legal, moral, human, and financial consequences.
One summary of end of life counseling as expressed in the House-passed version of the bill today, is that this means the physician discusses wishes and options, about every five (5) years for the elderly or infirm. I would compare this to counseling women before performing an abortion - bring care giver and patient together for a review of options and to confirm the patient's choice.
In either case, abortion or end of life, it would be immeasurably sad to overlook an alternative that would have been reasonable, beforehand, to the patient.
In both cases, though, government participation raises a spectre, a shadow of grave concern. Just as liberal forces have played our elementary schools to inflict their social engineering on our nation's children, there is the real likelihood that someone at some level - local, regional, national - will use the counseling provision to slant the message. To recommend, refuse to discuss, or demand one choice or another. That federal programs will introduce intimidation, denial of services, or harassment to bias "choices" in a preferred direction.
It is guaranteed that the "counseling", when implemented by the government, will expand the scope to include additional provisions, etc. Governments hire bureaucrats that only advance within government circles, and most often by expanding the scope and range of their organization.
If end of life counseling and abortion counseling were recommendations of the American Medical Association - and every American visited a family physician regularly - I would be much happier about this topic.
I am much happier that Mom talked to (the late) Dr. Frink about resuscitation, about heroic interventions, than to the IRS agent at my last audit. Dr. Frink never, to my knowledge, lied to a patient, or made up problems.
For one thing, doctors make money prescribing medicines and caring for patients. Government agents advance by keeping costs down. I know which influence I trust to waste less life and cultural experience.
Would a young doctor tomorrow, briefed on the legal requirement for end of life counseling, be affected by how the government presents the program? I cannot imagine otherwise. Would that doctor's patients then be influenced by the government procedures and representations? Yep.
The concept, or possibly even the intent of the ObamaCare end of life counseling provision might be well intentioned. Stuff happens. But I do not trust a government intervening into the discussion between doctor and patient. There is already too much intrusion.
But - end of life counseling, that has been touted as euthanasia and an excuse to withhold care for the elderly or grievously injured or ill, this is supposed to be an implementation of living wills.
Living wills go by several names, my mother has one, my father did before he died. This is where you make a legal, binding request that hospitals not make any "heroic" intervention or effort to resuscitate or revive you, if you are close to death.
People do choose this kind of restriction on their doctor. Often the ventilator, the vegetable coma, the impairment and pain of partial successes seem so daunting, that one chooses not to. For many, they struggle for all the breaths available, and wish for every chance for another day. That is, they choose, or refuse to consider or choose the matter, which is another kind of choice.
What some families have faced, though, is hospitals, nurses, and doctors that refuse to follow clear and legal instructions. Instead they impose their particular morality - without accepting the legal, moral, human, and financial consequences.
One summary of end of life counseling as expressed in the House-passed version of the bill today, is that this means the physician discusses wishes and options, about every five (5) years for the elderly or infirm. I would compare this to counseling women before performing an abortion - bring care giver and patient together for a review of options and to confirm the patient's choice.
In either case, abortion or end of life, it would be immeasurably sad to overlook an alternative that would have been reasonable, beforehand, to the patient.
In both cases, though, government participation raises a spectre, a shadow of grave concern. Just as liberal forces have played our elementary schools to inflict their social engineering on our nation's children, there is the real likelihood that someone at some level - local, regional, national - will use the counseling provision to slant the message. To recommend, refuse to discuss, or demand one choice or another. That federal programs will introduce intimidation, denial of services, or harassment to bias "choices" in a preferred direction.
It is guaranteed that the "counseling", when implemented by the government, will expand the scope to include additional provisions, etc. Governments hire bureaucrats that only advance within government circles, and most often by expanding the scope and range of their organization.
If end of life counseling and abortion counseling were recommendations of the American Medical Association - and every American visited a family physician regularly - I would be much happier about this topic.
I am much happier that Mom talked to (the late) Dr. Frink about resuscitation, about heroic interventions, than to the IRS agent at my last audit. Dr. Frink never, to my knowledge, lied to a patient, or made up problems.
For one thing, doctors make money prescribing medicines and caring for patients. Government agents advance by keeping costs down. I know which influence I trust to waste less life and cultural experience.
Would a young doctor tomorrow, briefed on the legal requirement for end of life counseling, be affected by how the government presents the program? I cannot imagine otherwise. Would that doctor's patients then be influenced by the government procedures and representations? Yep.
The concept, or possibly even the intent of the ObamaCare end of life counseling provision might be well intentioned. Stuff happens. But I do not trust a government intervening into the discussion between doctor and patient. There is already too much intrusion.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Obama's lustre fades
Lissa at Looking For Lissa ponders, I wonder what moderate Obama supporters think now?
Lissa then lists a few errors B. Hussein Obama has made, some campaign stands ignored, and broken promises. And wonders how those that supported Obama because his campaign made sense to them feel now.
Bill of Billlls Idle Mind has been watching this turnaround, the way the national average consensus has shifted.
For instance, the car window written "You don't see Obama Stickers on cars driving to work" - one very bitter sentiment.
http://billllsidlemind.blogspot.com/2009/08/working-for-living.html
Bill notes that although the recent jobless rate is reported as "encouraging", in June the Labor Department dropped some 796,000 jobless from the reported number, as being "discouraged". This made the July jobless rate look better - but doesn't reflect the way the number of jobless continue to shrink the ability of America to produce, or the increased burden they represent to America.
http://billllsidlemind.blogspot.com/2009/08/job-market.html
Back about July 9, I saw a chart that showed the proportion of people strongly supporting B. Hussein Obama had fallen below those that strongly opposed him by 8 points - reversing the sway supporters had held until shortly after June 6, 2009.
http://www.lifenews.com/nat5148.html
That trend continued, now about -7 (support minus oppose percentage)
Note on the chart, that this measures the intensity of the support and opposition - letting the intensity of support dwindle is more important than general support numbers.
Lissa then lists a few errors B. Hussein Obama has made, some campaign stands ignored, and broken promises. And wonders how those that supported Obama because his campaign made sense to them feel now.
Bill of Billlls Idle Mind has been watching this turnaround, the way the national average consensus has shifted.
For instance, the car window written "You don't see Obama Stickers on cars driving to work" - one very bitter sentiment.
http://billllsidlemind.blogspot.com/2009/08/working-for-living.html
Bill notes that although the recent jobless rate is reported as "encouraging", in June the Labor Department dropped some 796,000 jobless from the reported number, as being "discouraged". This made the July jobless rate look better - but doesn't reflect the way the number of jobless continue to shrink the ability of America to produce, or the increased burden they represent to America.
http://billllsidlemind.blogspot.com/2009/08/job-market.html
Back about July 9, I saw a chart that showed the proportion of people strongly supporting B. Hussein Obama had fallen below those that strongly opposed him by 8 points - reversing the sway supporters had held until shortly after June 6, 2009.
http://www.lifenews.com/nat5148.html
That trend continued, now about -7 (support minus oppose percentage)
Note on the chart, that this measures the intensity of the support and opposition - letting the intensity of support dwindle is more important than general support numbers.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Who owns the history of Nazi Germany?
ABC News' Political Punch tells the story of criticism by a Jewish group, that denies Congress, commentators, and concerned people the right to pull images and similarities to historical events in explaining and warning about current events. From the story:
I see two flaws in Rabbi Foxman's argument. First, that though the Jewish people were horribly targeted by Hitler's Germany, that other groups - the mentally handicapped, the Polish, other religions, etc. - also have cause to consider Naziism as a particularly personal cultural bogeyman. The atrocities committed under the Nazi flag do not cede that era and those events to the custody of the Jewish peoples alone.
Nazi Germany fouled and affected the civilized world.
The other flaw I see is that we, as a nation, do not benefit if we ignore the lessons of history, when we see the mistakes of the past being repeated today, and do not heed the historical and inevitable consequences.
Mr. Foxman assumes that all of the accusations and comparisons of B. Hussein Obama, his ruthless ride on the backs of the sycophantic Congress over the will of the people of the United States, and in disregard of the Constitution of the United States - Mr. Foxman assumes that all criticisms comparing today's turmoil to the events leading to the juggernaut of Nazi Germany to be mere hyperbole, mere rabble rousing speech - and not honest fear and trepidations.
The Obama administration shares another characteristic of Adolf Hitler in his rise to power - a fragile ego, a narcissistic taste for adoration, and an eagerness to identify and punish opponents.
Does B. Hussein Obama deserve being called another Hitler? Has he moved to make himself dictator, to dismiss constitutional bounds on his authority? Arguably he has already overstepped the authority of his office, and has yet to be called to account for those misdeeds. This particular slippery slope above an abyss of anarchy and despotism is troubling, as Congress repeatedly violates strictures to honor states' rights.
I understand that some have taken the names of the past, and identified individuals with them, that in some sense the atrocities of the past may be treated lightly in today's discourse. It is that very horror of the past, that degree of atrocity, that speaks to the fears of speakers against B. Hussein Obama and Congressional leaders. I may not comprehend, personally, the consequences of the socialist agendas of the past, but I can and do fear they are being brought to renewed life in specific detail in today's Washington, D.C.
Rabbi Foxman, please do not lightly dismiss the fears of honest citizens, when you criticize comparisons of a United States President taking actions that I can not distinguish from those of a socialist reformer. The very Constitution that protects your right to criticize, to defend your beliefs, is the same Constitution threatened by today's Congress and President.
---
In writing this piece, I have no criticism of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, other than the specific topic above, criticizing the comparison of certain political statements and actions with the historical Nazi period.
I was interested to find that visiting the ADL web site, www.adl.org, was difficult. Four times out of five, the site timed out rather than allow me to visit. I never did get the contacts page to load. Perhaps access is blocked from North Central Oklahoma, United States. I hope Rabbi Foxman's apparent trust in the administration is well placed.
“Regardless of the political differences and the substantive differences in the debate over health care, the use of Nazi symbolism is outrageous, offensive and inappropriate,” said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director and a Holocaust survivor.
I see two flaws in Rabbi Foxman's argument. First, that though the Jewish people were horribly targeted by Hitler's Germany, that other groups - the mentally handicapped, the Polish, other religions, etc. - also have cause to consider Naziism as a particularly personal cultural bogeyman. The atrocities committed under the Nazi flag do not cede that era and those events to the custody of the Jewish peoples alone.
Nazi Germany fouled and affected the civilized world.
The other flaw I see is that we, as a nation, do not benefit if we ignore the lessons of history, when we see the mistakes of the past being repeated today, and do not heed the historical and inevitable consequences.
Mr. Foxman assumes that all of the accusations and comparisons of B. Hussein Obama, his ruthless ride on the backs of the sycophantic Congress over the will of the people of the United States, and in disregard of the Constitution of the United States - Mr. Foxman assumes that all criticisms comparing today's turmoil to the events leading to the juggernaut of Nazi Germany to be mere hyperbole, mere rabble rousing speech - and not honest fear and trepidations.
The Obama administration shares another characteristic of Adolf Hitler in his rise to power - a fragile ego, a narcissistic taste for adoration, and an eagerness to identify and punish opponents.
Does B. Hussein Obama deserve being called another Hitler? Has he moved to make himself dictator, to dismiss constitutional bounds on his authority? Arguably he has already overstepped the authority of his office, and has yet to be called to account for those misdeeds. This particular slippery slope above an abyss of anarchy and despotism is troubling, as Congress repeatedly violates strictures to honor states' rights.
I understand that some have taken the names of the past, and identified individuals with them, that in some sense the atrocities of the past may be treated lightly in today's discourse. It is that very horror of the past, that degree of atrocity, that speaks to the fears of speakers against B. Hussein Obama and Congressional leaders. I may not comprehend, personally, the consequences of the socialist agendas of the past, but I can and do fear they are being brought to renewed life in specific detail in today's Washington, D.C.
Rabbi Foxman, please do not lightly dismiss the fears of honest citizens, when you criticize comparisons of a United States President taking actions that I can not distinguish from those of a socialist reformer. The very Constitution that protects your right to criticize, to defend your beliefs, is the same Constitution threatened by today's Congress and President.
---
In writing this piece, I have no criticism of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, other than the specific topic above, criticizing the comparison of certain political statements and actions with the historical Nazi period.
I was interested to find that visiting the ADL web site, www.adl.org, was difficult. Four times out of five, the site timed out rather than allow me to visit. I never did get the contacts page to load. Perhaps access is blocked from North Central Oklahoma, United States. I hope Rabbi Foxman's apparent trust in the administration is well placed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)