We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
ObamaCare is designed to become a government-controlled Welfare program for all, with insurance companies as back offices, check-paying services for a one-size-fits-all government program. Leviathan is always hungry. Freedom and free choice is the cost.
Are there really tons of folks out there who want the federal government in charge of their own medical care? Who really wanted this, except for government? And government employees are exempt from it, which just goes to show...
The politicization of medical help has only just begun. It's a feature, not a bug.
As an aside, recall that the Church supported Obamacare. Compassion, of course. Compassion without discernment is just vanity and foolishness.
The bigger the Big Government, the smaller everything else: First, other pillars of civil society are crowded out of the public space; then, the individual gets crowded out, even in his most private, tooth-level space. President Obama, Commissar Sebelius and many others believe in one-size-fits all national government – uniformity, conformity, supremacy from Maine to Hawaii, for all but favored cronies. It is a doomed experiment – and on the morning after it will take a lot more than a morning-after pill to make it all go away.
No president has behaved in anything close to this manner since FDR in the mid-1930s.\
This president is not Bill Clinton, or even Jimmy Carter; he is not Lyndon Johnson or JFK. He and his administration have broken with America’s trademark political mindset of gradualism and respect – however grudging at times – for the people. So why is the narrative by which his administration’s actions are explained the same one the MSM has used for decades? Why is this administration being interpreted on the same terms as its predecessors, when its actions and perspectives, in both domestic and foreign policy, are so very different?
I’m not sure I have an answer for that. But the outcome is consistent. The longer we go in this presidency, the less relation MSM headlines have to reality. If you asked a random sample of journalists at WSJ what the practical effect of Obama’s “retreat” on the contraception mandate would be, I’m betting more than 50% of them would get it right. The Catholics are still stuck with paying for contraception services. But the misleading headlines march on of their own accord, even at WSJ.
5:1 Naaman, commander of the army of the king of Aram, was a great man and in high favor with his master, because by him the LORD had given victory to Aram. The man, though a mighty warrior, suffered from leprosy.
5:2 Now the Arameans on one of their raids had taken a young girl captive from the land of Israel, and she served Naaman's wife.
5:3 She said to her mistress, "If only my lord were with the prophet who is in Samaria! He would cure him of his leprosy."
5:4 So Naaman went in and told his lord just what the girl from the land of Israel had said.
5:5 And the king of Aram said, "Go then, and I will send along a letter to the king of Israel." He went, taking with him ten talents of silver, six thousand shekels of gold, and ten sets of garments.
5:6 He brought the letter to the king of Israel, which read, "When this letter reaches you, know that I have sent to you my servant Naaman, that you may cure him of his leprosy."
5:7 When the king of Israel read the letter, he tore his clothes and said, "Am I God, to give death or life, that this man sends word to me to cure a man of his leprosy? Just look and see how he is trying to pick a quarrel with me."
5:8 But when Elisha the man of God heard that the king of Israel had torn his clothes, he sent a message to the king, "Why have you torn your clothes? Let him come to me, that he may learn that there is a prophet in Israel."
5:9 So Naaman came with his horses and chariots, and halted at the entrance of Elisha's house.
5:10 Elisha sent a messenger to him, saying, "Go, wash in the Jordan seven times, and your flesh shall be restored and you shall be clean."
5:11 But Naaman became angry and went away, saying, "I thought that for me he would surely come out, and stand and call on the name of the LORD his God, and would wave his hand over the spot, and cure the leprosy!
5:12 Are not Abana and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Could I not wash in them, and be clean?" He turned and went away in a rage.
5:13 But his servants approached and said to him, "Father, if the prophet had commanded you to do something difficult, would you not have done it? How much more, when all he said to you was, 'Wash, and be clean'?"
5:14 So he went down and immersed himself seven times in the Jordan, according to the word of the man of God; his flesh was restored like the flesh of a young boy, and he was clean.
If you are of the Muslim religion, you don't have to give all the new Obamacare healthcare reform regulations and penalties another thought. Because the concept of being compelled to participate in such a healthcare program offends Islamic sensibilities, Muslims are specifically exempt.
As a matter of fact if you are Amish, American Indian or a Christian Scientist you do not need to participate or pay the taxes associated with healthcare reform. That means not having to be forced to buy healthcare insurance, not paying the taxes or the penalties if you don't get it.
Groupon released their first earnings report, and to say the least, they underwhelmed. I had shared some of my thoughts about Groupon several months ago. But something new is afoot.
In the last week, we've seen Facebook file for an IPO. It's been talked about incessantly, and there are many interesting things within the filing which have caused people to begin sharing opinions about it. Since Facebook is in my industry, I find this discussion intriguing and certainly have my own point of view, particularly since I use Facebook.
Originally, I didn't want to join Facebook. Several friends emailed me invitations to join in 2007. I wouldn't accept. Finally, I joined just to stop the invitations. At first, what I found fascinated me. It's actually a terrific picture sharing facility. On the other hand, as Betty White famously said on Saturday Night Live about when she was younger, "We hadPHONEBOOK...seeing pictures of people's vacations was a punishment."
Clearest explanation I've seen about Obamacare:The Real Trouble With the Birth-Control Mandate -Critics are missing the main point. There are good reasons that your car-insurance company doesn't add $100 to your premium and then cover oil changes.
One quote:
Notice the doublespeak confusion of "access" and "cost." I have "access" to toothpaste because I have two bucks in my pocket and a competitive supplier. Anyone who can afford a cell phone can afford pills or condoms.
Poor women who can't afford birth control are a red herring in this debate. HHS isn't limiting this mandate to the poor anyway. We all have to pay. The very poor typically don't have employer-provided health insurance in the first place. "Allowing women to space their pregnancies"? Was there some sort of federal ban on birth control before this?
It's not about "access" and it's not about "insurance." It's because Americans, when paying even modest copayments, choose to spend their money on other things. They prefer a new iPod to a "wellness visit" to the doctor.
As the HHS unwittingly admits: "Often because of cost, Americans used preventive services at about half the recommended rate." Remember, we're supposed to be worrying about skyrocketing health-care expenses. Doubling the number of wellness visits and free pills sounds great, but who's going to pay for it? There is a liberal dream that by mandating coverage the government can make something free.
Sorry. Every increase in coverage means an increase in premiums.
That doublespeak about access and cost is what I have been writing about. If it's a plan to pay for every medical cost, it isn't insurance in any ordinary sense.
When I was a lad, a tiny wee lad, my mother said to me, "Come see the Northern Lights my boy, they're bright as they can be." She called them the heavenly dancers, merry dancers in the sky, I'll never forget that wonderful sight, they made the heavens bright. The Northern Lights of Aberdeen are what I long to see I've been a wand'rer all of my life and many a sight I've seen. God speed the day when I'm on my way to my home in Aberdeen.
I've wandered in many far-off lands, and travelled many a mile, I've missed the folk I've cherished most, the joy of a friendly smile. It warms up the heart of the wand'rer the clasp of a welcoming hand. To greet me when I return, home to my native land.
Many Republicans are falling into a false dichotomy, between social and other issues, instead of focusing on the common thread that unites these issues, the gross overstepping and inadequacies of the Obama administration.
Astute commentators are pointing out that President Obama is strategically steering the national conversation toward social issues – inequality or contraception, as examples -- in order to neutralize his weaknesses in other areas. Republicans, it is said, are either playing into Obama’s re-election playbook or allowing themselves to be neutralized in stressing Obama’s failed economic and foreign policies, which are part and parcel with his social policies in undermining American and global freedoms.
The serial rallying of many conservatives to the non-Romney contender of the month is central to proving this point. Deep anger at the Obama administration fuels the desire for a more “red meat” candidate. This is largely unfair to Romney and fails to stress the commonality among Republicans on the core issues. Instead, it falls into the Obama trap of a false dichotomy between social and other issues.
Romney's campaign had tried to calmly sound the theme of competence in facing the common thread of the Obama administration’s failures: incompetence and ideology. Romney tried to remain the gentleman he is but, defensively, instead has had to fiercely attack his opponents who fiercely attack him. This has consumed resources and credibility, and detracted from the attractiveness of the core Republican issues: the gross overstepping of the Obama administration into personal lives, crony mismanagement of the economy, and alienation of allies left adrift by Obama fecklessness in facing anti-Western foes. The social policies of the Obama administration should not be faced in isolation, allowing Democrats to draw in social liberals, but be placed in their proper context of more indicators of class warfare that undermines the freedoms of all to succeed or to have private moralities untrammeled by Washington.
Democrats are smiling, as well they should. The Republican primaries are shielding them from the main thrust of the Republican message while Republican contenders for the nomination savage each other, weakening unity, and fall into the Obama traps on stressing social issues.
Newt Gingritch was a false vessel for conservative hopes. Rick Santorum, a more consistent and saner conservative, lacks the attractiveness to a wider audience of those on the cusp. Mitt Romney, however, while not a red-meat orator has the unique ability to present the Republican theme in a manner, with conviction and deep understanding of the intricacies, that doesn’t antagonize moderates. Romney is not charismatic but he is competent, and has the abilities to deracinate Obama’s pretensions and unify a majority around stopping the Obama administrations’ transgressions that weaken us in all ways. Romney may not be red-meat but he is meaty. It’s about electability, and that with adequate confidence that together with a Republican Congress a new administration in Washington will accomplish more Republican and American priorities.
Moreso than his opponents, Romney is what Republicans need to win, and what America needs to unseat Obama. I’ll vote for whoever gets the Republican nomination. But, I’m not happy at being part of many of my compatriots playing out a self-destructive temper tantrum that could lose the election.
Get over it: there is no Reagan available, nor was Reagan all that fond memories say he was.
The issue is not whether birth control and abortion are available. They are. The issue is whether the government should have the power to force your neighbor to pay for these things, and/or to require all insurance policies to cover them. Also, neither of these things are particularly expensive.
The insidious premise of the discussion is this: If it isn't covered, it's not available. But don't people buy their own Nyquil, Tylenol, heat pads, Viagra, divorce counseling, cosmetic surgery, toe fungus medicine, toothpaste, Botox, morning-after pills and Dr. Scholl's foot products?
Have people become so trained to expect somebody else to buy what they want that the premise has become distorted? I am a happy product of an unexpected pregnancy, and refuse to regard pregnancy as a disease. Pregnancy is health. If an unexpected pregnancy is a disease, then I am a disease. A tumor, or something.
In fact, I cannot understand why some medical insurances cover pregnancy at all, much less abortions. In my view, we all ought to be free to buy, or not buy, medical insurance of any sort with any sorts of coverage, depending on what makes sense for us. We ought to be able to bring a check list of what we want to the table, and see some nation-wide competition for our business. Get bids, like anything else.
Here at Maggie's, we tend to prefer high-deductible Major Medical coverages with our own choices of docs. Cheap protection from financial catastrophe.
Liberals are the aggressors in the culture war (and not always for the worse, as the civil-rights movement demonstrates). What they object to isn’t so much the government imposing its values on people — heck, they love that. They see nothing wrong with imposing their views about diet, exercise, sex, race, and the environment on Americans. What outrages them is resistance or even non-compliance with their agenda. “Why are you making such a scene?” progressives complain. “Just do what we want, and there will be no fuss.”
In the past week, we have had links about government (and doctors) advocating against salt and sugar. I don't mind my doctor giving me advice (I pay him for it), but when docs try to get governments to control what to do, I get annoyed. As I understand it, it is the job of doctors to offer advice, not to provide control.
From the same sort of academic busybodies who gave us the ever-popular global warming panic comes a new prediction of catastrophe. This newest ginned up rationale for enabling Liberal-Progressive-Democrats (L-P-Ds) to have more control over the behavior of ordinary citizens hasn't been given catchy name yet, so rather than wait for the mainstream media to compare notes on JournoList, let's all agree to call it...global sweetening!
Yes, my friends, President Obama's fellow travelers within the progressive movement have decided that they have to find a new excuse for imposing government controls since climate change (née global warming) failed to achieve their overarching goal of controlling the car you drive; the fuel you're allowed to use; the type of light bulb you are allowed to use; and, after they get the "smart grid" in place, how warm you'll be allowed to keep your home.
Mayor Bloomberg, of course, is the poster child for obnoxious Nannyism. Here's the ultimate governmental rationale for these sorts of controls: Ideology, not science. A quote from Dr. Keane's piece (from Australia):
It is extremely frustrating when reports of harm are used to justify forcibly overriding autonomy, completely ignoring the other side to the equation. In this regard, ‘promoting healthy lifestyles' is no longer enough; they are now being enforced whether you like it or not.
Internationally, the public health debate is somewhat more balanced than in Australia, as represented by Eli Feiring, an academic from the University of Oslo, Norway: ‘Given that respect for the autonomous choices of patients runs deep in modern healthcare, there are strong reasons to value the claim that competent and well-informed individuals are the best interpreters of their own interest and that they should be free to make choices others would regard as non-beneficial to them.'
Many academics demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the importance of autonomy.
Indeed. Experts tend towards arrogance, not towards autonomy (freedom). And, in the long run, academic experts usually turn out to have been wrong anyway.
What would this cost your kid in college? Or would they even offer it? This is an example of the New Education. How many Americans really know this stuff? Not many, I suspect.
If you can get through an American high school, much less an American college, without understanding our Constitution and its history, you cannot know enough to vote. Just my opinion, of course.
A few items from the Duncan Phyfe show at the Met. His workshop/factory in Manhattan copied, but simplified, the popular styles of the time. Not exactly my taste, but much in demand at the time:
Obama helped train NPA's leaders in Alinsky's bank shakedown tactics. Now, outrageously, he and the thugs he coached are demanding massive reparations for the damages that resulted from the lower underwriting standards that they demanded. Banks had better build up more reserves. This gang is not finished.
The American financial crisis was no more a failure of free markets than the European crisis was. Just as investors tried to signal that something was wrong with the euro, they tried for decades to show that something was rotten in American finance. The rot remains, but Washington has spent the past two years demonstrating that it would rather distort or block market signals than rely on them. This strategy thwarts economic recovery.
The financial system crashed in 2008 because vital checks on the financial industry had eroded long before. One of these checks was that the bondholders who lent money to banks had known that they would lose money if those banks failed and didn’t leave behind sufficient assets to pay their debt; only small depositors enjoyed government protection. But in 1984, the U.S. government saved a failing bank, Continental Illinois, from the normal bankruptcy process because its failure would have posed a threat to the global financial system. Thus was born the phenomenon popularly called “too big to fail.” Bondholders and other lenders to banks began to realize that in a crisis, they could count on intervention from the U.S. government, and they started lending to banks more and more carelessly—so banks grew still bigger and still more threatening to worldwide finance. Immunized by the government against losses, investors could no longer provide important market discipline for big banks.
"The core of Murray's book is that if you want to be happy, in the full sense of "eudaimonia" in Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics --that is, full human flourishing over a lifetime doing the right things in the right way at the right time -- you need to check in on four basic qualities. You need satisfying work, you need to be married, you need to engage in civil society, and you need to attend church once a week. Look at a community without the Big Four, and you will likely find only 10 percent of people "very happy." Look at folks with all four, and you will find almost 80 percent of people reporting themselves "very happy." Call it the American project: family, vocation, faith, and community. Rush Limbaugh talks about it every day: American exceptionalism. Here is Murray's line on it, from page 305 of Coming Apart.
Upper-class Americans live that way. They work, they get married, they are involved in their communities. They just don't seem to think it matters if other people don't, so they have legislated this monster welfare state that pays people not to work and not to marry, and that harasses them if they join a club or run a church. Our elitists insist on lives with meaning for themselves, but for everyone else, they think life begins and ends with a check: a welfare check, an unemployment check, a severance check, or a Social Security check. And they call that compassion.
Historically, Americans have been different as a people, even peculiar, and everyone around the world has recognized it. I am thinking of qualities such as American industriousness and neighborliness discussed in earlier chapters, but also American optimism... our striking lack of class envy, and the assumption by most Americans that they are in control of their own destinies."
After College, What?
Many Republicans are falling into a false dichotomy, between social and other issues, instead of focusing on the common thread that unites these issues, the gross overstepping and inadequacies of the Obama administration.
