Saturday, October 31, 2009

National Healthcare: A 'Trekie's' Response to the Red Herring of Cost

I was recently sufing the web and came across this blog post by a compassionate Canadian: Marlene's Space: The real cost of Medicare. In it, Marlene laments the plight of the uninsured in America and their countrymen's apparent lack of concern. She recalls a scene of homeless Hawaiian women picking up soda cans who seem to bear the signs of untreated injury; then lodges the following complaint:

"It's hard for me, as a Canadian, to understand why so many Americans don't want everyone to have medical coverage. To me, it's totally illogical." (Actually the question is devoid of logic on so many levels, but that's another debate.)

To her query, a minimally informed American shipmate observes--I presume in perfect Kirk-ese--"Spock! (added for effect...) Spock! They think...the cost... is too high." (translation: "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.") Sadly, our sub-space yankee emissary misfires her phasers in reply. So I, generously, shot the missing logic into Marlene's space (compassionately, set only to stun).

'Marlene, are you suggesting that no one in Canada walks with a limp and the everyone there achieves the fulness of their human potential because of nationalized health care? Fortunately most Americans prize their liberty; both to succeed and to fail. National health care is an abominable infringement on that personal liberty--and on the free enterprise system as a whole--for Americans and Canadians alike. Your American friend is limited in her appreciation of the breadth and depth of the problem.'

'For the realatively few Americans who want health insurance and can't get it (about 12 million is the real number--excluding, in all liklihood, the beachcombers you mention as they are probably covered by Medicaid), nationalized healthcare is the equivalent of swatting a fly with a sledge hammer. Maybe a steam shovel! And there are simply no objective, empirical data to suggest that it (at least as presently proposed) will save one thin dime of cost.'

'Your compassion is noted and laudable. But your conclusion that nationalized healthcare is therefore the only solution, reveals the depth of your indoctrination in the concepts of collectivism. You simply can't imagine any alternative, can you? Personally, I'd rather be hobbling around Hawaii collecting cans than trapped in a mindset that had no room for individual liberty and personal responsibility or the virtues of industry, free enterprise and excellence.'

It's sad that Canadians as well as so many Americans look to the state for largesse before seeing solutions to our healthcare ills (and countless other woes) in unencumbered private ingenuity, industry, and enterprise. And that's rational.

Friday, October 16, 2009

Who's Racist - Obama or Limbaugh

President Obama may or may not be a racist as racism is a matter of the heart and there is but one judge of that. His behavior doesn't appear to make him one. However, one could reasonably conclude that he is less color-blind than Rush Limbaugh. It is very uncommon for Rush to comment on race one way or the other except in the context of an observer of how the race card is being played by those in power, either in politics directly or by the media. And there's no evidence in his persoanal associations or attitudes--at least over the last 30 years or so--that he sees the world through a racial prism or bears any personal racial prejudice; selected comments taken out of context, notwithstanding. In fact, rational people who actually listen to Rush regularly from whatever political pole, would be hard-pressed to argue otherwise.

Obama, however, sat for 20 years in Reverend Wright's militantly anti-white church. Wright is a deliberate racial radical and very divisive character. Obama recently jumped to an irrational, race-driven conclusion about a Boston cop investigating a possible break-in based, quite evidently, on nothing more than his own racial prejudices and opinions. There is doubtless more in his record as a politician and community organizer that would reveal racially driven policies, actions, and attitudes--however well-intentioned or even effective they might be. This doesn't necessarly make him racist, of course. But it does reveal a certain "beam in the eye" of some on the left (like Al Sharpton) who are quick to condemn a Rush Limbaugh on very flimsy grounds, while ignoring, if not upholding, the race-baiting or blatantly racist "sins" of those in their own camp.

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Seriously! No, Seriously?

Barak Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize. This one really cracked me up. Seriously! For what? Stopping the Iranians in their quest for nuclear arms? Negotiating North Korea out of their nuclear ambitions and stopping their provocative missile testing? Bringing about reconciliation of the Israelis and Palestininans? Crushing Alqueda and strengthening a democratic Afghan government? Winning the Olympic bid for his old hometown of Chicago? Oh wait. He hasn't actually DONE any of that. Come to think of it, he hasn't actually DONE anything to promote world peace (or anything else constructive). Oh, but we all HOPE he will and with Barak Obama, that counts far more than anything he actually does. In fairness, and to be rational, you've gotta give BO a few points for the way he accepted the dubious honor. He correctly acknowledged that he didn't deserve the prize but accepted it as a challenge or a mandate to accept the responsibilty to act in the interest of world peace going forward. Best you could expect in a patently absurd situation.

In other news, conservative talk show host, Rush Limbaugh is being crucified in the liberal press for racist statements attributed to him. Why? Because he has the audacity to want to spend some of his considerable fortune on a share of ownership in an NFL franchise. Well, shut my mouth! Seriously? Did any of these people ever listen to even one hour of Limbaugh? But here's the joke: Out of the thousands of hours of talk and thousands of pages of Rush's newsletters, books, and other writings over 30 years in the public eye, all they could come up with to "substantiate" their slanderous claims are two fake inflamatory quotes attributed to Rush by a liberal blogger in 2005. Hell, these things don't even sound like Rush! But let's be rational. If Rush were the race-baiting scumbag they say he is, spewing racist bilge day after day on the airwaves as they claim, shouldn't they be able to come up with a little more than that? Ok, as an afterthought, they are now tossing around a couple of genuinely provocative statements that are far from racist but instead, challenge the racial bias of the mainstream media. Let's be real. And let's be rational.

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

US Government Can't Manage Spending

MSNBC reveals that over $6 Billion in financial aid intended for the Pakistani military has been squandered over the past 6 or 7 years, never reaching its intended destination. Once again, the US proves that neither the executive nor the legislative branches of the Federal Government have the discipline or know-how to manage the trillions of taxpayer dollars entrusted to them. Was there no hands-on oversight to this funding? No requirement of accountability on the part of Pakistan? No rational person can conclude, against the Everest of evidence to the contrary, that the Federal bureacracy of the United States is a worthy steward of the fortunes of her people. It's time to bring this government under control by denying it the untolled wealth, not only of the living electorate, but of the yet unborn. Yes, it's time to dramatically REDUCE the size and power of the Federal Government by cutting its purse strings. It's time to reinstate states rights and the sovereignty of the individual citizen and reenshrine the libertarian and federalist principles of the Founders. For more on this story, click the link.

Monday, October 5, 2009

Is Obama Deliberately Tanking America?

I'm no economist and I haven't taken time to research all the numbers...yet. There certainly are plenty of them being tossed into the legislative salad. But let's think rationally for just a minute:

What Federal program/s are operating efficiently and in-budget today? I've never heard of one. Certainly no entitlement program fits that description. So how can anyone argue that healthcare will be different? Really?!

How may trillions in deficit, debt, and unfunded obligations can the economy sustain before the "tilt" buzzer sounds? And if Bush's deficits and overspending were bad, why are Obama's exponentially expanded deficits and debt ok? Each child born in America today gets slapped on the butt with a $150,000 mortgage with Uncle Sam holding the paddle. Are you ok with that?

How, exactly, does government spending stimulate the economy? Which spending is considered stimulative and which is not? Is the spending the government is doing now stimulating anything other than fiscal conservatives' ire? If you think so, I dare you to prove it!

See the bottom line is, the program isn't working. And since it violates nearly every fundamental of free market capitalism (not to mention common sense) it can NEVER work! At least not to increase prosperity and liberty in America. Which begs the question: Why are President Obama and the leftists in Washington AND ON WALL STREET promoting financial policies that are destined to fail? Why are they promoting a fundamentally anti-capitalist policy agenda?! Is that rational in the world's most productive and successful economic power?

Only if the result you're getting is the precise effect that you intend. Could it be that Barak and his buddies are...dare I say it...actual anti-capitalists? Are they doinig exactly what they're intending to do--plunge the U.S. economy into a desperate state of dysfunction?

Naturally, the very proposition begs the question, 'why would they do such a thing? What could the end game possibly be? Surely the President of the United States is not deliberately trying to destroy the country!'

Destroy it? Perhaps not. But Barak Obama has clearly stated his intention to fundamentally"transform America." On the surface, if you're a Bush-hating Democrat or Independent weary of the war in Iraq and opposed to the nation's ostensibly worn out welcome on the international stage; or even a disgruntled conservative 'hoping' for change, transformation plays well.

Unfortunately, Mr. Obama has long been short on specifics about what he means. Transform it from what to what? In his campaign, the Presidential hopeful routinely attacked the policies of his predecessor. Fair enough. But he has also assaulted the institutions of capitalism; the wealthy, the banking industry, the energy industy, the healthcare industry, and more. Not that these institutions don't merit some criticism and even measured reform, but in the context of anti-American radical associations from the violent anarchist, William Ayers, to self-avowed communist, Van Jones, to race-baiting radical preacher, Jeremiah Wright, Obama's transformation portends more. Much more!

Under Obama's watch, the national deficit and debt have exploded. Investors have buried their capital in the sand while they wait in fear for some indication that it's safe to go back in the water. Meanwhile, since private investors have parked their cash, the government has taken over the job of spending. Cash is as available as the nearest federal printing press and the more the Fed prints, the more worthless the currency becomes. It's a no-win tide that unless stemmed, can only result in a rising watermark of inflation as the value of the dollar dips deeply behind it. Ultimately can there be any other outcome than the dollar's demise?

But the question looms...WHY? That's a topic for another post.

Saturday, October 3, 2009

"The Ego Has Landed"

I'm not sure if this headline originated with Rush Limbaugh or whether he was quoting someone else but it gave me an immediate chuckle. His O-ness landed in Copenhagen yesterday with an extraordinary taxpayer-supported entourage (cost estimates for the excursion range between $1 and $2 million), presumably to ice the deal for the 2016 Summer Olympic games for Chicago. From all reports, it was a lay-down. The NY Times editorialized that the bid was 80% in the bag. All Obama had to do was tip it over the top and tote home the prize.

But the inflated expectations and hopes were snuffed in a hurry with the gale of a first-round elimination for the Windy City. The shock and awe on the faces of Second City hopefulls was as palpable as that of the Republican Guard on launch of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

So let's consider this rationally: The President and his O-sciples seem quite convinced that the power of his personality and presence combined with the eloquence of his oratory and the supremacy of his ideals are sufficient weaponry to bring any adversary into line. And why not? His chant for "change" and histrionics of "hope" certainly entranced independent-thinking Americans into obeisance during the recent campaign.

But reality is harsher. Now, one might give Obama credit for the attempt. He took an enormous risk and if correctly calculated and productive of a winning bid, could have stiffened his softening prowess with the American electorate. What a photo op! But there was a lot at stake. A misfire might emasculate the cocky Chief's swagger even more.

Obama thrust home only to find that his steel was neither sturdy nor sharp enough, not only to carve out the victory, but to stave off a cutting rebuke from the IOC. Who can rationalize that Chicago's humilating first-round elimination was anything less than a deliberate political swipe at America and its First Executive?

Obama's decision to go to Copenhagen was rational if A) He had solid reason to believe he would prevail or B) He had political debts to pay to his Chicago election machine. But here, too, is the rational fact: If A, the President was either seriously misinformed or shamefully naieve. If B, he was commonly political or fundamentally corrupt. Neither is complimentary but you be the judge.