Apparently, the Feelings are Mutual

In my opinion, when Fidel Castro praises you, it is proof that you are doing something wrong. But Castro seems to have a lot good to say about Obama (and a lot bad to say about the "racist" right).

But apparently there is a lot of love in the air recently. Liberal Representative Diane Watson is a big fan of Castro herself (and seems to agree on the racism thing).

So, the left and Castro can agree on a lot. Should we really trust them with health care - or anything else for that matter?

And go here for a disturbing look into what Cuba is really like.

Your "Justice" Department in Action

Federal prosecutors were ordered by the Federal Justice Department to end their investigation into alleged corruption in New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson's office .

U.S. Attorney Greg Fouratt said the ending of the investigation should not be viewed as an exoneration of Richardson and that his investigation indicated some wrongful conduct.

Remember the department and Eric ("nation of cowards") Holder also decided to drop an investigation into members of the New Black Panther Party that were charged with voter intimidation in Philadelphia during the 2008 election.

But that same "Justice" Department is going after CIA agents who unquestionably helped save America from further terrorist attacks by using enhanced interrogation methods on three known terrorists. Keep in mind that these agents were investigated in 2004 by CIA inspector John Helgerson, who declined to file charges at the time.

So, Holder closes investigations into Democrats and a radical racial group and reopens a 5-year old investigation into CIA agents who have kept our country safe. Seems Holder is much more interested in protecting terrorists than voters in Philly or the rule of law in New Mexico.

Good News, Bad News - Romney not Running

It's not much of a surprise, but former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney will not run to replace Senator Kennedy.

It's good news because it keeps him alive for the 2012 Republican nomination to replace President Obama. He currently holds a very slim lead in early poles among Republicans.

But, it's also bad news because he would have stood a strong chance of winning the seat (assuming the Democrats hold a special election like they should - a big assumption). He is still seen as a popular figure in Massachusetts and was the second-most trusted politician in the state according to a recent Rassmussen poll.

So, we'll see what happens in Massachusetts but at least we know Romney is still on target for the 2012 election.

Shameless Massachusetts Democrats

Back in 2004, when Republican Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts, the state's Democratic legislature passed a law that any senate vacancy would be filled with a special election. The Dems were afraid that John Kerry would win the election but that Mitt Romney would be able to appoint a Republican to the position. So, to protect their political interests, they changed the law to keep Republicans from picking up the seat.

Well now the Democrats are afraid of a special election following the death of Senator Kennedy. They aren't too sure the electorate will choose a Dem with the party's popularity crashing nationwide. Plus, a special election would be five months off, so the new senator will not be able to help push for Obamacare (or is it now Kennedycare?)Now that the governor is a Democrat again, they want him to get to pick again.

So, Senator Kennedy suggested changing the rules right before his death so that Gov. Deval Patrick could appoint a temporary Senator who would "promise" not to seek reelection when the seat is up.

It's a shameless and disgusting power play by the state Democratic party - flip-flopping election rules to ensure they keep control of the seat. At least when California flip-flopped between open and closed primaries, it was the voters making the decisions, not a power-hungry state political party.

Recession "Deeper and Longer than Expected"

President Obama's justification for increasing his deficit projection by $2,000,000,000,000(!!!) is that the deficit was deeper and longer than expected.

Don't panic about the new deficit numbers, says The New Republic. The recession was just worse than we thought it would be, but the new numbers are basically the same as the old numbers. This doesn't change anything.

Isn't this the same administration who told us that we were headed for another depression if we didn't pass the stimulus plan (but had a slim chance of making it through if we spent $787 billion dollars). Didn't Obama save the global economy from meltdown by telling all industrialized governments to spend more?

So, how could he have predicted a depression then, but now say that the deficit discrepancy is because the recession was worse than they thought it would be?

Either they didn't really think we were headed for depression when they rammed the "stimulus" bill through Congress or they are lying now about why they projected so poorly.

A Quick Thought on "Fundamental" Rights

There has been some talk lately about whether health care is a "fundamental right". The strange thing is that liberals claim it is - as if that buttresses the argument for universal health care.

But look back at The Constitution and the Bill of Rights and tell me what it says about fundamental rights. Basically, a fundamental right (like the right to free speech, free exercise of religion, due process of law, etc.) is something the government is not allowed to infringe (except when it is necessary to achieve a compelling government interest, but that test is not in the Constitution either).

So, if health care is a fundamental right (it is not protected by the Constitution or its Amendments so I have my doubts, but it would probably be rolled into the "privacy" right that was found in Griswold v. Connecticut and extended in Roe v. Wade), all that means is that the government is not allowed to infringe on your right to obtain health care - it does not mean that the government has to provide you with health care (any more than the government has to provide you with guns to avoid infringing your Second Amendment rights).

The only affirmative right is the Sixth Amendment right "to have the Assistance of Counsel" in a criminal case. No where in the Constitution does it say that there is a right "to have health care."

So, when a liberal tries to tell you that health care is a fundamental right, remind them that this does not support the argument for universal health care one iota.

Farewell to the Lion

I just heard that Senator Ted Kennedy passed away. He put up a brave fight, but sadly, the brain tumors were too much for him to overcome.

I did not agree with him on most issues, but he was a rare Senator who was willing to work in a bipartisan way (and by that I mean real bipartisanship instead of the Obama-type) to get something done.

His leadership would probably have helped in the current health care debate. He might have been able to keep Democrats from going down this insane path they are on.

Rest in Peace, Lion of the Senate

I Guess I Just See Bipartisanship Differently

Obama is now apparently considering foregoing Republican support and passing health insurance reform with only Democrats.

Seems he has been "bending over backward" to gain Republican support.

Apparently, the Democrats' view of bipartisanship is to cajole people into supporting your liberal agenda.

And because Republicans refuse to support Obama's far-left goals, they aren't acting in a bipartisan way.

But I see bipartisanship as using ideas from both sides to get a plan everyone can live with (if not a plan everyone is totally happywith).

For example, Republicans want tort reform, individual tax subsidies and cross-state competition. If Democrats would allow those provisions in the bill, Republicans would be more likely to support some of the things Democrats want, like doing whatever is necessary to insure everyone. Republicans would probably never consider a public option, but that is not the only way to ensure everyone is covered (expanding Medicaid would be just as effective).

But that is not the kind of bipartisanship Obama wants. He just wants everyone to agree with him. And as long as that is his goal, he will not win on this issue. He might succeed in ramming something through, but he will forever lose public trust and the Democrats will likely be swept out of Congress in 2010.

Or, the Delusional Side of the Argument

Obama has saved the economy, says E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post.

Of course, her article is short on facts and is based on the assertion of the Prime Minister of Australia, an unabashed Obama fan.

The only coherent point she makes is that it is hard to prove you prevented something from happening. So, the claim is that if Obama (and ostensibly George W. Bush, who Dionne will not praise, though she will repeat the praise of her new favorite Australian) had not acted, we would have been in a global depression. But since he "stimulated" the economy, we avoided such a tragic fate.

Of course, one must question the veracity of these claims.

1) we will never know if we would have been in a depression without government intervention. Many economists stated way back in September 2008 that we were not headed for a depression, even if the government allowed every bank and insurance company to fail.

2) Obama's "stimulus" plan appropriated $787 billion, of which only $70 billion have been spent - if $70 billion was enough to rescue the economy, why did we need a $787 billion bill?

3) Obama claimed the deficit would be $9.3 trillion over ten years if he had done nothing, and now admits that the deficit will be just as much despite his actions.

4) Obama promised that the stimulus plan would create 4 million jobs and would keep unemployment below 8% - it is now 9.5% despite Obama's programs.

5) When Obama went to the European leaders and demanded they all increase government spending to ease the economic problems, he was flatly rejected by France, Germany, Spain, China, etc. None of them could afford it. All of those countries are now showing economic growth over the last quarter. The US, which undertook more government spending, continues to see its economy shrink.

So, what has Obama done to save the economy exactly?

And Now for Something Completely Different

A great article by Mark Steyn in The Washington Times that is not (for the most part) about the heath insurance debate, but more about the deficit and the recession.

The recession is over in almost every industrialized nation except the US, Britain and Italy...so much for the stimulus, huh?

Obama's Budget Reality Check

Remember a couple weeks ago when President Obama held what seemed like his 20th press conference about health care, and he pulled out this whopper:

OBAMA: “If we had done nothing, if you had the same old budget as opposed to the changes we made in our budget, you’d have a $9.3 trillion deficit over the next 10 years. Because of the changes we’ve made, it’s going to be $7.1 trillion.”

He made that statement at a time when he was trying to get health insurance reform passed before the August recess. And he wanted to make it look like his policies had shrunk the deficit so that we would not need to fear the price tag on his latest boondoggle.

Well, now Obama has finally revamped his economic outlook.
He now says that he projects a $9 trillion deficit over the next 10 years.

Phew! It's a good thing he passed the budget that he did or we would have had a $9 trillion defi...oh wait...we're going to have it anyway? So, Obama accomplished nothing with his stimulus and omnibus spending bill? Well done Mr. President! Can I vote to reelect you now?

Response to President Obama's Lastest Article

President Obama says:

Each and every day in this country, Americans are grappling with health care premiums that are growing three times the rate of wages and insurance company policies that limit coverage and raise out-of-pocket costs. Thousands are losing their insurance coverage each day.

Without real reform, the burdens on America's families and businesses will continue to multiply. We've had a vigorous debate about health insurance reform, and rightly so. This is an issue of vital concern to every American, and I'm glad that so many are engaged.

But it also should be an honest debate, not one dominated by willful misrepresentations and outright distortions, spread by the very folks who would benefit the most by keeping things exactly as they are.

So today, I want to spend a few minutes debunking some of the more outrageous myths circulating on the internet, on cable TV, and repeated at some town halls across this country.

You are absolutely correct, Mr. President. It should be an honest debate. But you and your liberal friends are the ones engaging in willful misrepresentation and outright distortion. And instead of engaging in actual debate with conservatives and those who do not agree with your vision of reform, you and your cronies criticize Fox News, talk radio and town hall protesters. I don't know what your definition of vigorous debate is, but when you try to ram your ideas down America's throat without considering alternatives presented by the other side, that's not really debate.

Let's start with the false claim that illegal immigrants will get health insurance under reform. That's not true. Illegal immigrants would not be covered. That idea has never even been on the table.

Hmm...I wonder where people get that idea. Could it be from the fact that you claim there are "47 million uninsured" and that number includes illegal immigrants? If you are committed to insuring those 47 million people, then wouldn't illegal immigrants be covered? And you told Katie Couric that an exception might have to be made for illegal immigrant children. So, you're basically lying when you say illegal immigrants will not be covered. Now, it's true that children should not be denied medical care just because of their immigration status. And if you want to ensure all children have health insurance, just come out and say it - at least it would be honest. But saying illegal immigrants "will not be covered," is just simply untrue.

Further, though they are not specifically covered in the current legislation, they are also specifically not excluded from coverage. Democrats rejected a Republican amendment that would block illegal immigrants from applying for benefits. So, in the current language, there is no method for verifying the immigration status of an applicant for the public option. In addition, there is language that states that if one family member is eligible for benefits, the entire family (illegal immigrants and all) is eligible. So, you are either lying when you say illegal immigrants will not be covered, or you do not understand the bill.

Some are also saying that coverage for abortions would be mandated under reform. Also false. When it comes to the current ban on using tax dollars for abortions, nothing will change under reform.

If that is the case, then why did you tell Planned Parenthood that the right to an abortion is "at the heart of the plan," that you have proposed and that the public option would include coverage for all reproductive services?

Why did Robert Gibbs say that decisions on abortion coverage would be "left to experts in the field," instead of saying that abortions would not be covered?

Why have Democrats blocked Republican amendments that would specifically exclude abortions from federal coverage while also including the Lois Capps amendment that does subsidize abortions?

And as every credible person who has looked into it has said, there are no so-called "death panels" - an offensive notion to me and to the American people. These are phony claims meant to divide us.

Again, we have something that is not specifically included in the bills, but common sense says the legislation will necessarily lead to something of this ilk.

The will be government panels that make coverage decisions based on cost, taking into account the age and prognosis of the patient. You yourself stated that there will have to be a time when we decide not to give surgery but instead give a pain pill. Liberals have complained that 80 percent of healthcare costs come at the "end" of a patient's life - if your goal is to increase coverage but reduce costs, you will have to reduce such expensive care.

So yes, there will not be a "death panel" that looks at a patient's records and stamps the word "Death" on their form. But the decisions they make will deny life-saving medicine to some. And isn't that really the same thing?

And we've all heard the charge that reform will somehow bring about a government takeover of health care. I know that sounds scary to many folks. It sounds scary to me, too. But here's the thing: it's not true. I no sooner want government to get between you and your doctor than I want insurance companies to make arbitrary decisions about what medical care is best for you, as they do today. As I've said from the beginning, under the reform we seek, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your private health insurance plan, you can keep your plan. Period.

So which is it Mr. President? Are you lying now when you say the idea "scares" you, or were you lying to the AFL-CIO when you said this was exactly what you wanted? Why is it that prominent liberals say that this bill will pave the way for a single-payer system? And why have you and Nancy Pelosi undertaken a campaign to disparage insurance companies as evil, money-grubbing entities?

Now, the source of a lot of these fears about government-run health care is confusion over what's called the public option. This is one idea among many to provide more competition and choice, especially in the many places around the country where just one insurer thoroughly dominates the marketplace. This alternative would have to operate as any other insurer, on the basis of the premiums it collects. And let me repeat - it would be just an option; those who prefer their private insurer would be under no obligation to shift to a public plan.

There are two major problems with this assertion - first that the public option will not impact private insurers; and second, that it is a good way to increase competition and choice.

The public option will lead to the destruction of private insurance carriers. You are planning to offer great coverage at a lower price with low (or no) premiums and deductibles and no exclusions for pre-existing conditions. People will flock to that plan. Employers currently are able to offer affordable insurance to employees because of the number of people in the plan. When people leave these plans to pursue the public option, the rates will necessarily raise on those that stay in the plan because "they like their plan." The costs will rise to such a point that even someone who likes their plan will not want to stick with in when they can switch to the government option and save money. As more and more people flock to the public option to save money, more and more insurance companies will go broke.

Second, the idea that private insurers "compete" with the public option is laughable. The public option does not have to make a profit or even remain solvent - the federal government will subsidize any losses. It is not subject to malpractice lawsuits, which is probably the largest reason for cost increases in private insurance companies. The public option will cap consumer price and doctor compensation - two things that would be anti-competitive violations of the Sherman Act if done by private industries.

Sure, the public option is a "competitor" in the marketplace in that it will take customers from the private companies. But if competition is truly the goal, why not allow people to buy insurance across state lines? Instead of one new "competitor" in the marketplace of each state, there will be hundreds. If you think hundreds of new competitors won't reduce prices and won't offer inexpensive programs to help insure everyone, you are crazy. It is really the only way to increase competition.

So let me stress them again: If you don't have insurance, you will finally have access to quality coverage you can afford. If you do have coverage, you will benefit from more security and more stability when it comes to your insurance. If you move, lose your job, or change jobs, you will not have to worry about losing health coverage. And we will set up tough consumer protections that will hold insurance companies accountable and stop them from exploiting you with unfair practices.
We'll prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage because of a person's medical history. They will not be able to drop your coverage if you get sick. They will not be able to water down your coverage when you need it most. They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime. We'll place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because no one in America should go broke because they get sick.

There are much better ways than a public option and 1000 pages of new government regulations to insure these goals.

For example, if you give individuals the same tax subsidies that corporations get, they can purchase insurance without needing to rely on the public option.

Further, the insurance industry is already subject to such onerous regulations - part of the real reason prices and costs have skyrocketed. Subjecting the industry to even more regulations, in the guise of "consumer protection" will only make the situation worse, not better.

When companies can compete across state lines, they will be forced to offer good benefits to consumers without exploiting consumers. It will be the only way to stay in business in the face of hundreds of competitors. More regulation is not the answer - allowing free competition is truly the answer.

For example, if the market shows that insurance plans with lower deductibles and premiums are doing well, more insurance companies will offer those types of plans to remain competitive. It won't take government regulation to ensure such a thing exists.

And we will require insurance companies to cover routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies. There's no reason we shouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer on the front end. That makes sense, it saves lives, and it will also save money over the long-run.

Requiring insurance companies to require certain things is another factor that runs up costs. Many states have similar requirements and people end up paying for more than they use. Why would males want to pay for insurance that covers mammograms? Why would 25 year olds want to pay for colonoscopies or Alzheimers or other things that they won't begin to use for years?

Let insurance companies create programs for individual patients - certain procedures could be excluded to reduce the price. Further, the would be insurance plans that cover mammograms and colonoscopies for people who want those items covered - the market will require such a thing.

We know what a failure to act would bring: More of the same. More of the same exploding costs. More of the same diminished coverage. If we fail to act, the crisis will grow. More families will go without coverage. More businesses will be forced to drop or water down their plans.

So we can push off the day of reckoning and fail to deal with the flaws in the system, just as Washington has done, year after year, decade after decade. Or we can take steps that will provide every American family and business a measure of security and stability they lack today.

Even those "obstructionists" that are attempting to thwart your reform efforts, and those "un-American" "angry mobs" that speak out at town hall meetings agree that some changes to the system are needed. But 87% of Americans like the system we have. So why are we going to completely change the entire system to satisfy 40 million people?

We can make changes and improve the system. And there are some ideas out there that would accomplish your stated goals of cost and competition. So why not show some leadership and be the post-partisan president you promised you would be, meet with people on both sides of the issue, and find a way to bridge the differences and make some positive changes to the health insurance system?

It has never been easy, moving this nation forward. There are always those who oppose it, and those who use fear to block change. But what has always distinguished America is that when all the arguments have been heard, and all the concerns have been voiced, and the time comes to do what must be done, we rise above our differences, grasp each others' hands, and march forward as one nation and one people, some of us Democrats, some of us Republicans, all of us Americans.

And those who use fear and name-calling to promote the radical agenda they have put forward. At this point, not all arguments have been heard and not all concerns have been voiced. "The time for talk," is not over on this issue! A lot of people still have a lot to say. Instead of demonizing critics and opponents, maybe you should actually listen to what they have to say. Then we really can grasp each others' hands and get the work done.

This is our chance to march forward. I cannot promise you that the reforms we seek will be perfect or make a difference overnight. But I can promise you this: if we pass health insurance reform, we will look back many years from now and say, this was the moment we summoned what's best in each of us to make life better for all of us. This was the moment when we built a health care system worthy of the nation and the people we love. This was the moment we earned our place alongside the greatest generations. And that is what our generation of Americans is called to do right now.

If you act in a truly bipartisan way and work to improve the system without a radical overhaul and government control, this will be true. But if you insist on ramming your agenda through Congress without the support of the American people and pass a system that will completely alter the course of this country, we will look back many years from now and bemoan the loss of our Republic and the final indignant trouncing of the Constitution. It is truly up to you to decide which of these paths you want.

Open Letter to the President Follow-up

So, I sent the letter to "president@whitehouse.gov" and I got the following response:

Dear Friend,

Thank you for your message.  On behalf of President
Obama, we appreciate hearing from you.  The President
has promised the most transparent administration in
history, and we're committed to listening to and
responding to you.

In order to better handle the millions of electronic
messages we're receiving and respond more quickly,
we've implemented a new contact form on our website:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

Please note that this web form has replaced
comments@whitehouse.gov. That email address is
no longer monitored, so we encourage you to resubmit
your message through the link above.  Thank you for
using the web form and helping us improve
communications with you.

Sincerely,
The Presidential Correspondence Team

Hmm...I wonder why the president would no longer accept an anonymous email but now requires you to go to a website and enter your name, address, and zip code to send a message to "the most transparent administration in history." I bet anyone who uses statcounter or a similar service could probably answer that question.

Needless to say, I went to the website and submitted the comments. I have nothing to hide.

Politics as Usual 100, Post-Partisanship 0

President Obama claims that Republicans are blocking health insurance reform to gain a political victory, not because they are opposed to government run health care on principal.

I know I must sound like a broken record here, but does this at all sound like the kind of President that Obama promised he would be during the campaign?

Instead of recognizing that Republicans (and most Americans) might have a legitimate problem with his proposal, he plays the old game of denouncing our motives (since he obviously cannot win the fight on the issues). And let me tell you, there is not a single Republican proposal in the house version of the health insurance reform bill. Why would Republicans support something they had no hand in creating and is completely opposite to everything they stand for?

Four years ago, the Los Angeles Times ran an article in which Democrats in the California legislature admitted to blocking all of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's legislative proposals (including programs they claimed to be in favor of) just to keep him from getting any positive press - they didn't want him to win reelection. I wonder what Obama would have thought of that, since he is so opposed to it now.

On the other hand, there is nothing to indicate that this is what Republicans have in mind. They have very serious problems with Obama-Pelosi-Waxman-ReidCare that do not stem from political expediency.

And of course, these types of attacks are laughable since Democrats have a supermajority in both houses of Congress and a President eager to sign whatever bill they come up with.

So yeah, blaming Republicans just seems so lame, but Obama can't help himself. What a great leader we have!

An Open Letter to President Obama

Dear Mr. President,

I am very disappointed in you. You claimed during the campaign that you would be a post-partisan President and you would end the partisan bickering in Washington. You also claim lately that your most important concern in the health insurance reform process is increased competition and lowered costs in addition to covering the "47 million" uninsured Americans (it is a misleading number of course because you include people who could afford insurance but do not want it, as well as undocumented immigrants).

However, your actions lately show that both of these assertions are untrue. Republicans and conservatives have offered many reforms that would increase coverage, increase competition and reduce costs. If these are truly your goals, and you really are post-partisan, you would embrace some of these changes.

For example, Republicans want to allow people to buy insurance across state lines. This would increase competition and probably allow more people to be covered. There is no downside. But you will not even consider such a proposal.

Further, Republicans have suggested tax subsidies for individuals and small businesses that equal what corporations get to provide health insurance to their employees. This will also lead to more coverage. Again, there is no downside.

For some reason, you will not consider these options.

Instead, you seek something that requires much more government interference and may even lead to a complete government take over of the health insurance system.

You claim not to be in favor of such a thing, though you previously stated that you were. So which is? Are you concerned with costs and coverage, or are you far more interested in a single-payer system? I have a feeling it is the latter. The scary thing is that you are trying to enact reform that will lead to a single-payer system while claiming you are not doing that.

So why not just be honest about it?

I cannot think of a single campaign promise that you have actually kept - tax cuts for 95% of Americans? Nope. End the war in Iraq? Nope. Transparency in the White House? Nope. Lobbyists not finding a job in your administration? Nope. Post-racial Presidency? Nope. Post-partisan Presidency? Nope.

Since you have failed to do all of these things that you promised, can you please just do something right and be honest about your intentions? I think you owe this country at least that much.

I still have hope that you will change the tenure of your presidency, but that hope is very quickly fading.

Robbing Peter to Pay Paul

The Cash for Clunkers program is such a huge success that GM is increasing production for the rest of the year. Yippee!

Oh wait - the government owns GM. So, the government used the cash for clunkers to incentivize people to buy cars from the government and now the government has decided to increase production. Capitalism at its best!

Don't get me wrong - it is a good thing that car companies are selling more cars. But it is a short-lived improvement. Once the clunkers money dries up (or car dealers stop accepting trade-ins because the government is not reimbursing them), the car sales will dry up too.

Or worse - people are smart. They will think: why buy something now when I can stop buying and force the government to give me a cash incentive to buy? Maybe car sales next year will be worse than they would have been without the Clunkers program this year.

Buy hey, at least some of the government money is coming back to the taxpayers - government money goes to GM, GM improves, America wins - right?

"Better Off Taking the Pain Killer"

I've been looking for this clip for a while so I'm glad I finally found it. Thanks to "A Red Voice in a Blue State" for posting this.



Now, anyone who claims that death panels are a ridiculous notion is either fooling himself or is a liar. Government bodies deciding who is better off not getting the surgery and taking the pain killer? Sounds like a death panel to me.

In Defense of Pre-Existing Condition Exclusions

There is a huge problem with President Obama's healthcare plan that no one is talking about. In an Obama world, there would be no exclusions for pre-existing conditions.

I understand the motivation behind this ideal. It has got to be a crushing thing when your insurance carrier denies your claim because your medical condition supposedly existed prior to the insurance company covering you. It is unfortunate that such a thing happens.

But it is also a financial necessity.

Getting rid of pre-existing condition exclusions would be disastrous for the health insurance industry (hmm - isn't that really the plan of liberals after all?)

Getting rid of this exemption would be a negative incentive - it would give people an incentive not to have insurance until they are sick. Why have insurance before you get sick? There is no need.

Here's the thing - insurance companies make money by collecting premiums from people who don't use their services. This is true of health insurance, car insurance, home owners' insurance, life insurance, and any other kind of insurance you can think of. But how can an insurance company make money if the only people covered are sick? Imagine a system of car insurance where they could not deny coverage for a pre-existing automobile accident. You get in a crash, call an insurance company and get coverage to pay for the damages. Does that make sense to anyone?

But that is what we are looking at here! A system where healthy people see no need to get insurance so they wait til they are sick. How can an insurance company possibly hope to stay in business under such a system?

They couldn't of course. It's a no brainer.

So when Obama tells you that can keep your insurance if you like it, you really have to ask whether that is naivete or a flat-out lie. Insurance companies will be forced out of business because they will only be covering sick people.

I think part of the problem is that people forget exactly what "insurance" is for. It's for unexpected medical bills that you can't afford to pay. Car insurance doesn't cover a new transmission, it covers accidents and theft; home owners' insurance doesn't cover a new coat of paint, it covers fires and floods; health insurance shouldn't cover checkups and routine medical procedures, it should cover severe injuries and catastrophic illness.

But in an Obama world, none of this would be true. Insurance companies need to be destroyed because they are evil money grubbers (I can't believe they have the audacity to actually make a profit!). And getting rid of pre-existing condition exclusions in a sneaky way to do it.

Obama's Miscalculation

President Obama pushed the health care reform debate because he miscalculated the importance of his popularity and misinterpreted his own political capital.

He was elected with good numbers and had a high approval rating right out of the gate. And he believed he was elected to do all of the crazy liberal things he wants to do. In truth, he was elected because he was supposed to be post-partisan and a new kind of politician. But he obviously was not who he said he was. He has constantly picked on Republicans, conservatives, Fox News, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. But I digress.

Obama was NOT elected to govern as a tax and spend liberal or to greatly increase the size of the federal government as well as the deficit and the debt.

But Obama (or should I say Rahm Emmanuel, the one really running the country?) completely miscalculated.

He pushed through a "stimulus" bill that no one read, claiming that it would create 4 million jobs. Of course that hasn't happened.

He then moved on to tax and cap (getting it through the House) and health care. And of course, we all know how the health care debate has gone.

Obama has used all of his political capital on this one issue. And it was totally unnecessary.

Obama could have waited. The economy is going to recover eventually. Not because of the stimulus bill ($700 billion of which has not been spent), but just by not doing anything. But when that day comes, he could have taken credit (whether deserved or not) and made America confident in his ability to run the country. At that point, he could have attempted to gain passage of his signature item at a point when America trusts him.

But at this point, the stimulus has failed to work so people are already hesitant. And then he tried to push through the health care within a ridiculous time schedule - the failure of which has made him look bad. And now that people are starting to find out what is in it, they are really speaking out against it.

Obama brought all of his troubles on himself. He misunderstood what he was really elected to do and he also has a tremendous ego. He thought he could do what he wanted with impunity. Now he knows otherwise. The question is what he does with this lesson if and when he learns it. I think he has too much ego to change he tack, but maybe he is a smart enough politician to shift with the winds and try to actually give the American people what they want.

Rational Thought 1, Big Brother 0?

The White House has killed flag@whitehouse.gov

It's amazing it took so long. The President asked people to report anything "fishy" related to health care. It seemed like a terrible idea and another example of Obama's resemblance to the government in the book Nineteen Eighty-Four.

At least it gave us something else to talk about for the next two weeks.

But now the email address is dead. R.I.P.

Whole Foods Should be Praised, Not Boycotted

I have to admit - I don't regularly shop at Whole Foods Market...I never got into the whole "organic" or "health food" crazes - it seems like a little to hippie for me.

But Whole Foods market has a great health insurance system that could be a model for all other companies and the federal government.

Whole Foods CEO John Mackey recently wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal explaining changes he would make in the health care system and used his company as an example. His ideals don't include a public option or anything else to get liberals excited, but they are pretty common sense ideas - and ones every rational person should be able to agree with.

But liberals don't like people who say things they disagree with. So some liberal geniuses have decided to boycott Whole Foods Markets.

The Daily Kos writer says only one intelligent thing (about consumer power - a wildly underused power BTW) but the rest of the post and the comments are sadly ill-informed. Perhaps they do not realize that Whole Foods health care costs are very low and that a huge majority of employees are happy with the plan.

For a great article about the plan and its benefits, see John Stossel's piece written almost two years ago. If we had gone with a plan like this two years ago, the country would be in a lot better shape.

But all liberals see is a program without a public option and a CEO who doesn't support a government takeover of health care and so they boycott. And they are supposed to be the open-minded party. Can't they see something successful and take a lesson from it? I guess not.

P.S. As Glenn Beck says in his book Common Sense - if you know you are right, you welcome debate, because you know you will win it. Why are liberals so afraid of this debate?

Obama Backs Away from Backing Away

So, perhaps Obama is still pushing for the public option after all. Or he is OK without it. Or he doesn't know what he wants. Or he knows what he wants but doesn't know how to explain it. Or all of the above.

He claims that he is still very much in favor of the public option, but then says that Kathleen Sebelius did not misspeak when saying that it is not an essential element of the health care bill. How do we reconcile the two?

And does it even matter what Obama wants? If Senator Conrad is correct, there will never be enough votes for the public option in the Senate. Why spend so much political capital on something that won't happen?

That's probably why he is publicly downplaying it. If he doesn't get it, he can say that it was never that important anyway, and so it's not that much of a setback.

But anyone who is paying attention knows how much the public option means to liberals, so it will be interesting to see how Obama fares within his own party if he doesn't make it happen.

Obama Abandoning the Public Option?

Senator Kent Conrad stated on Fox News Sunday that the public option is all but dead in the Senate. At the same time, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius stated that the public option was not "the essential element" of President Obama's health care plan. Obama even seemed to downplay the hotly contested issue during a town hall meeting in Colorado, suggesting it was only a sliver of the overall package.

Perhaps all this downplay is in anticipation of removing the public option from the table. Obama in essence says, "hey, its not the big a deal - we're still doing a lot of reform even without the public option." He claims that cost reduction and public choice are more important to him than anything.

But this argument isn't going to fly with liberals, who have been planning on the public option as a gateway to universal, government-run health care. Some have said that they won't support a bill that doesn't have the public option.

And so Obama attempts to appease them too with a statement from Linda Douglass, communications director for the White House Office of Health Reform, who states that Obama still considers the public option as the best way to achieve cost reduction and consumer choice.

The question is whether Obama will allow public outcry over the specter of government run health care to change his direction. Without a public option, it will be much more likely to bring Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans on board. But abandoning it will mean turning his back on the liberal whom he has done nothing but placate during his tenure. Is Obama really able to do something that is really better for America even if it alienates liberals? If so, he might show that he has the political ability to let go of ideology and work to get something done. He might also save Democrats from significant losses in the midterm elections.

On the other hand, he might do what a lot of us expect him to do, keep pushing the public option, keep denigrating those who disagree with him, and risk losses in 2010 to get something that he totally believes in.

The next few weeks mark a very significant crossroads in Obama's presidency. The funny thing is that he placed himself here - he pushed the health care reform debate and has spent the past month defending his plan. If it sinks him and the Democratic party, he has only himself to blame.