RSS

Monthly Archives: June 2012

Blunt Supports…

…everything the Healthcare Mandate was going to pay for, but not the Healthcare Mandate?!?

Michelle Malkin called out Senator Blunt:

(h/t TPM) GOP Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri, vice chair of the Senate GOP Conference, told a St. Louis radio station two weeks ago that he supports keeping at least three ObamaCare regulatory pillars:

  • Federally imposed coverage of “children” up to age 26 on their parents’ health insurance policies (the infamous, unfunded “slacker mandate”)
  • Federally mandated coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions (“guaranteed issue,” which turns the very concept of insurance on its head and leads to an adverse-selection death spiral)
  • Closure of the coverage gap in the massive Bush-backed Medicare drug entitlement (the “donut hole fix” that will obliterate the program’s cost-controls)

So, how are we going to pay for this Senator Blunt?  Sunshine and fairy farts?

Read more on Talking Points Memo.

If enacting the 3 main pillars of ObamaCare is the Republican’s main solution should the Supreme Court strike down the mandate, why are they even joining the fight?

Clearly, nothing has been learned from the 2006 / 2008 shellacking and the 2010 salvaging of the Republican Party compliments of the Tea Party Movement.  It’s still a party of milquetoast moderate solutions that will continue to bankrupt our country, create bigger government (albeit at a slower pace than Liberals), and destroy the fabric of what made America great… …the expectation that you go out and work for what you need and want.

NOBODY is talking about the real solution… …getting the Employer out of the Health Care business.  Yes, cross-state-line purchases, HSAs, and removal of 1st-dollar payments will help.  But, a huge portion of the problem is that the Employer is so involved in the Health Care business.

Under the current system, really only one person has to be satisfied with the Health Care Plan being offered to the company’s employees: the VP of Human Resources.  If he or she is happy (after getting laid, tickets to the finest suites of every professional sports venue, golf outings, boat outings, and gala dinners — trust me, I’ve seen it), then the Employer chooses their plan.  Maybe it’s the best of the three plans that the VP of HR had time to take a look at, but is it the best for 100% of the employees?  Of course not.

The government got the Employer into the Health Care business with wage and price controls during World War II and on occasion beyond.  They’ve got to get them out of the picture, so Health Care Companies work to keep their actual customer (the employee) happy — not Senior Management.

Then a market-based health-care exchange would make sense.  Ever heard of Kayak?  Priceline?  Oribtz?  Hotels.com?  Apparently, the free market can build a system where you can compare rates for travel cheaply and efficiently.  There’s no reason a free-market Health Insurance Exchange couldn’t do the same.

Then, the Employer can offer funding of a Health Care Plan… …and stay out of the CHOICE of a Health Care Plan.  The Employee is then responsible for choosing the best plan from a menu of options.  He or she can decide if they want to have the Appendectomy insured, or know that it costs $1500.00 (or whatever) and be prepared to pay for it.

If they choose not to have insurance, the Employer keeps the money… …and probably looks to hire someone more responsible.  But, the Employee now has the best option to find the most suitable Health Care solution for his or her personal situation.

That, my liberal Republican friend, Mr. Blunt, is a good starting point for Health Care reform.

 

Tags: , , ,

Foreign Policy And The Missouri Senatorial Debate

On 6/11/12, the Republican candidates for Missouri Senator debated in St. Charles, Missouri at Lindenwood University.  All three candidates, Todd Akin, John Brunner, and Sarah Steelman, performed admirably.  However, when looking forward to the race against the slippery and politically gifted Claire McCaskill, it’s clear that Steelman and Brunner are not really up to the task.

However, on the question of Syria, really the only serious foreign policy question that was asked, all three came up short.  Sarah haltingly opined something about exhausting diplomatic options and covert operations.  Akin basically wants to stay out of it on constitutional grounds.  And, Brunner offered no serious alternative (sorry John, I stopped listening to you about half way through).

I’m certainly no expert and don’t expect them to be, so let’s turn to John Bolton whom, yesterday, published a remarkable analysis of America’s situation, analysis of all the players including Russia and China, and his bold solutions for the problem.  It concluded:

Finally, in Syria itself, we should do now what we could have begun to do ten years ago (and what the Obama White House at least says it is doinh/t NROg now): find Syrian rebel leaders who are truly secular and who oppose radical Islam; who will disavow al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and other terrorist groups; and who will reject Russian and Iranian hegemony over their country. We will need some reason to believe that this opposition can prevail against not only the Assad regime but also the terrorists and fanatics who also oppose Assad. This must be not a faith-based judgment but a clear-eyed assessment of reality. Such is the kind of opposition that, assuming it exists, we should support, aiming for regime change in Damascus when — and only when — it becomes feasible on our terms. On this matter, too, we should tell our European allies that we want their support for something other than semiotic diplomacy.

Read more here

I’m a big fan of John Bolton, and many concerns were eased for me when he endorsed then-presumptive-nominee Romney back in March.  Anyone who gets called “the most controversial ambassador ever sent by America to the United Nations” for being to tough and conservative is a hero in my book!

 

 

 
1 Comment

Posted by on June 12, 2012 in Election, Republican

 

Tags: , , , ,

3 Million Missing Workers

It’s Just Not Working

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on June 8, 2012 in Economy, Election, Obama

 

Tags: , ,

Supreme Disappointment

I received an e-mail from a Tea Partier urging me to write the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States asking them to find ObamaCare to be unconstitutional.  I had never thought of writing the Supreme Court Justices previously on any issue as it seems the Constitution is quite clear on the role of government in our lives.  Thus, it would be folly to expect a member of this panel to be swayed by my impassioned plea.

h/t supremecourt.gov

However, I made the trip to the Supreme Court’s web site.  What a disappointment that (likely 20 million dollar) web site is.  Sections don’t overlay their background properly, calendar gives novice error messages, and colors make certain text nearly unreadable.  It’s clear that this web site was created with Obama Stimulus money.

But, the biggest disappointment is the entries on the calendar – or lack thereof.  As I write, we are in the 153rd day of the year on June 1st, 2012 – 41.9% of the way through the year.  To date, the Supreme Court has heard oral arguments on – wait for it – 27 days.  27 days.

On the day I visited the Supreme Court in 2010 and happened to get inside to witness 5 minutes of the arguments, they were done by noon.  I don’t think they started at 6:00am, but let’s assume they started at 8:00.  We’ll pretend they hear arguments for 4 hours per argument day.  That means of the 153 days of 2012, they have used 2.9% of the available hours to hear arguments.  If we assume a hard working 10 hour day, then they’ve only heard arguments on 7% of the hours available (I seem to work every weekend).

I realize there is much to do with each argument held on each case reviewed.  The process of selecting cases for judicial attention is a gauntlet.  But, 27 days.

To the urgings of my fellow Tea Partier’s, I did not find a method of directly contacting the Justices.  There is an address for general mail, but I do not get the idea that my logical arguments on any case will be under the Justices’ consideration… …which is probably the way things should be.

Can you imagine a country where laws are upheld based on the number of letters received in the mailbox?  Or, angry crowds surrounding the court house threatening upheaval if a case is decided against their wishes.

But, alas, here is their general mailing address:

Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543

 
2 Comments

Posted by on June 1, 2012 in Obama, Supreme Court

 

Tags: ,