·support our
troops, support Bush, support Cheney, support victory in Iraq, support victory in Afghanistan,
Clinton Liebrary, http://PoliSat.Com
, PoliSatDOTcom, Salute America's Heroes, Fallen Heroes Fund, oppose Gore's Global Warming theory, support milblogs, Michael Yon, Pat Dollard, BlackFive, MilBlogs, MilBlogging, Michael Yon, Mudville Gazette, HotAir.Com, JawaReport, PajamasMedia , VictoryCaucus , VetsForFreedom ,
FreedomsWatch , DayByDayCartoon , WrennCom.Com , Video , Political Satire, Politics, News, oppose MoveOn.Org, oppose Code Pink, oppose DailyKos, oppose ANSWER, support PoliSat.Com, support WrennCom.Com, ·
Meet
the Mob Opposing ObamaCare; Meet the Mob Supporting ObamaCare and Meet Barack
Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi-- Oops, last clause is redundant.·
By
Jim Wrenn,
Editor and Washington Bureau Drawer Chief at PoliSat.Com.
August 7, 2009--
.
Indeed, a visit to the OB-Gyn exposes obfuscation of ObamaCare
proposals for government-plan pre-emption of private health-care plans or
insurance consistent with Barack
Obama's July 21, 2009, admission that he's "not familiar" with key
provisions of the plan he, Pelosi and Reid want to have enacted
before the August, 2009, Congressional recess. Some sources indicate the
legislative proposals for ObamaCare may
be on the verge of reaching critical mass before the August recess
despite "conventional wisdom" that Pelosi and Reid don't have the
votes to enact it before then. Scroll down for video of a visit to the OB-Gyn
exposing such obfuscation.
Despite the attempts at obfuscation, there are sources
for accurate information about the status, intended effects and
likely effects of proposals for ObamaCare. Among the more ridiculous
aspects of the current debate over "reforming" our "health care
system" is the left's mantra that one of the greatest needs is to
"eliminate" exclusion of "pre-existing conditions." No
one seems to be willing to counter this argument by pointing out that the
problem of "pre-existing conditions" was created by the government's
enactment of legislation decades ago in the form of social engineering though
manipulation of the income-tax laws to discourage individuals from acquiring and
maintaining their own medical-care insurance by incentivizing employers to
provide health-care coverage to their employees. That's what caused the
"pre-existing condition" problem in the first place-- i.e., when an
employee changes from one job to another, the new insurer quite naturally
doesn't want to insure a "pre-existing condition."
If the government were to have left the free market alone decades ago,
competition would have generated availability of affordable medical insurance
marketed to individuals as their own policies, under which circumstances an
individual's change of employment would have no effect on such individual's
medical insurance coverage. Are there current proposals to remedy this
problem? Of course there are.
Currently, too little attention is being paid to free-market proposals for
transitioning to such a system under which each individual employee would become
the "owner" of any insurance coverage currently being provided by an
employer with the funds being paid by the employer being deemed funds owned by
the employee and with income-tax laws adjustments to exclude such funds from
taxable income (but sensibly treating the employer's payment of same as
deductible just as any other form of income paid by an employer to an employee
is deductible from the employer's gross income).
Why are none in the media focusing on such common-sense proposals?
Could it be that the dominant media has a "dog in the race" in that
the dominant media is as ideologically in favor of "government" health
care (single-payer) as are Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the rest of
the leftists in Congress. No wonder the dominant media don't want to shed
light on common-sense proposals?
What should voters do? They should instruct their representatives and
senators to "take a deep breath" and defer consideration of proposals
for "health care reform" until after the 2010 elections. By
then, enough people would have had enough time to read the thousands of pages in
the current proposals to understand that they don't want anything remotely like
what Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the leftists in congress are currently
attempting to ram down the country's throat.
Obama's
political ideology stands at war with the "new mindset" for family
values and personal responsibility he espouses to NAACP..·
By
Jim Wrenn,
Editor and Washington Bureau Drawer Chief at PoliSat.Com.
July 17, 2009--
If Obama were able
willing to apply to his own political ideology generally the "new
mindset" he recommended to the NAACP on July
16, 2009 as excerpted in the CNN video below, he would be a
limited-government "conservative" instead of a collectivist. He
thus could become a great president rather than one attempting to drive the
nation pedal-to-the-metal over the edge of the free-market/personal-liberty
plateau and into the bottomless pit of collectivism.
.
But, of course, he's unwilling to do so. No doubt he's intellectually
capable of recognizing the patent disconnect between the "new mindset"
he recommends to the NAACP and his own leftist/collectivist/statist/socialist
political ideology that he also naively applies internationally as
Jimmy Carter on steroids
melanin. Nevertheless, instead of embracing the
limited-government principles inherent in, and intrinsic to, the "new
mindset" he recommends in his July 16, 2009 speech to the NAACP, he
embraces and seeks to implement a "redistribution of wealth" political
philosophy in all three branches of government -- legislative,
judicial
and executive--
as though it were a benevolent philosophy rather than an inherently totalitarian
ideology.
Since one can't reasonably doubt that he understands such disconnect, how can
one explain his embrace of a political ideology that is virtually antithetical
to the "new mindset" he advocates to the NAACP? Even his
staunchest critics would concede that barring some "Sanford-type"
secret, Obama's handling of his marital and parental responsibilities admirably
exemplify the "mindset" he recommends to others. What's so sad
is that a leader who appears to personify loyalty to "family values"
embraces a political ideology so plainly hostile to promotion and preservation
of, and respect for, such values in the form of the free-market/personal-liberty
paradigm that made the country he "inherited" from George W. Bush the
greatest force for human liberty in all of human history.
What makes it tragic is that he's in the process of squandering that legacy in
pursuit of what seems almost indistinguishable from the long-discredited 18th
Century utopian philosophies which Marx later sought to describe, and prescribe,
as a form of evolutionary "science." No wonder the person
Obama selected as his "science" czar is a person whose political
philosophy is at home in such 18th Century Utopian thought as it would be on
Animal Farm or in a fascist
or Stalinist or Maoist state.
--Jim
Wrenn, Editor at WrennCom.Com; also Editor at PoliSat.Com.
By Jim
Wrenn,
Editor and Washington Bureau Drawer Chief at PoliSat.Com.
July
17, 2009.
.
·support our
troops, support Bush, support Cheney, support victory in Iraq, support victory in Afghanistan,
Clinton Liebrary, http://PoliSat.Com
, PoliSatDOTcom, Salute America's Heroes, Fallen Heroes Fund, oppose Gore's Global Warming theory, support milblogs, Michael Yon, Pat Dollard, BlackFive, MilBlogs, MilBlogging, Michael Yon, Mudville Gazette, HotAir.Com, JawaReport, PajamasMedia , VictoryCaucus , VetsForFreedom ,
FreedomsWatch , DayByDayCartoon , WrennCom.Com , Video , Political Satire, Politics, News, oppose MoveOn.Org, oppose Code Pink, oppose DailyKos, oppose ANSWER, support PoliSat.Com, support WrennCom.Com, ·
. 
