If He Keeps Repeating The Same Lie....

...maybe you'll believe it's the truth. That's clearly Obama's plan. That's clearly Pelosi's plan. The President has spent a lot of effort with his multiple roadshows in an attempt to convince you that "nobody's talking about a big government takeover of health care". He's practically shrill with his repetition. The question is: Are you foolish enough to believe them? Let me take you back to the government and our speed limit. Back in the 70s, when oil skyrocketed and a number of other pet liberal issues came to the forefront, the federal government decided to force you to conform to what the elitists believed was proper behavior. In what way, you ask? The 55mph speed limit. But, you see, they couldn't actually tell states what to set their speed limits at. But here's what they did...they told the states that if they didn't drop their speed limits to 55 they would no longer be eligible for federal dollars for highway projects. The rest is history.

Fast forward to 2009. Most of the liberal Democrats have gotten bold enough to come right out (e.g., Barny Frank--the co-architect of our economic mess) and say they really want a Canadian-style, single-payer system. This means the feds would be the only way health care could get paid for and they would both determine what providers could charge and what services you would receive based on a kind of "return on investment" scheme. Here's how their 1000-page-but-nobody-has-read-it bill makes that happen. You create a Medicare-like pricing structure. You get creative in your funding by doing things like tax the private health insurance benefits of the same public you're now saying MUST have some sort of insurance. You tax behaviors you don't like. You add another tax on top of the regular income taxes your bilking the "rich" for. Then you low-ball the costs of your shiny new public health care insurance. Oh, did I mention that you fine employers and employees to choose not to have insurance? The result? Private insurance companies will be unable to compete, employers and employees won't be able to afford both a higher-costing private plan AND taxes levied on those same benefits to pay for the public "option" (yeah, right, option). How long do you suppose before people decide it's more trouble--and costly--than it's worth to hold onto private insurance and jump on the public gravy train? My guess is about five years. Private health insurance companies will fold, one by one, leading to more unemployment and government will never give up the power it has gained.

Now, once the government has you, do you actually believe that they will succeed in "keeping the cost down"? I mean, really? Has the federal government, in any program, ever kept the costs down? Nope. So, in order to keep this behemoth "free" health care system going they will have only two choices: increase taxes or reduce services. History being a great teacher, I'm confident they'll raise taxes first. Ah, but there's more to it than that. They will have an opportunity to do two things at the same time. They can justify reducing services by telling you what behaviors are acceptable and which are not. If they have studies that indicate that drinking sodas or eating red meat or smoking more often than not bring on certain physical conditions for which they would have to provide health services, then they may choose to deny you those services if you continue said behaviors. Remember the 55mph speed limit? They wanted to "make you a safer driver" and "make you conserve energy". So they found a way to get to their end game. It will be no different with health care.

What about the "return on investment" idea I mentioned? If they don't have enough money to pay for x number of open heart surgeries, they'll look at the "useful life" of the candidate. If it's between you, at age 70, and another person, age 45, who do you think will have a better ROI? Think I'm imagine this? Have you checked out Obama's Health Policy Advisor, Ezekiel Emanuel? Here's an excerpt from one of his articles:
"This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just alloca- tion of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future genera- tions, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia. A less obvious example Is is guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason."
Scary, huh?

Call your Congressional representatives and stop this evil!

Obama, Health Care and Smoke & Mirrors

The intricate web that President Obama and the Democrats are weaving to finally get their socialist/fascist utopia into being is a bit like watching a plane crash -- you can see how hideous it will be but can't quite avert your eyes because it's mesmerizing. They've been misleading you for months about who has "health care coverage" and who doesn't, and they trip you up by swapping terms as if they were truly interchangeable. Words mean things! I've read a number of posts by the shallow, mind-numbed Obamanistas who still think of him as some sort of messiah and can do no wrong. Their talking points are pretty consistent. They say "you mean conservatives don't want to reform health care" or "a higher percentage of America's GDP is drained by health care than Europe". The list goes on. Of course, they have no idea what they are talking about, and the President's advertisement for socialized health care was full of nice-sounding words, zero detail, and whining about how mean the Republicans are being to him. I swear, every time he brought up how this Republican wants to break him on health care or that Republican said this or that, I thought I was watching some little child tattling on his brothers! Grow up, man-child!

Okay, having said all that, let me say straight out that I acknowledge that, generally speaking, health care does cost more than it really needs to. I have only to look at our local hospital, the Val Verde Regional Medical Center (a joke of a name, in my opinion). The common phrase around here is that you go to VVRMC to die...not to get better.

But, you see, I am trained in Lean Process Improvement, or what some call Six Sigma (which are different aspects of the general field), and what I realize that most don't is that all of the double-talk and misdirection coming out of Pelosi, Reid and Obama is focusing on symptoms in an effort to get your sympathies so they can take more control of another industry. But let's make some distinctions here. Health care and insurance are two separate animals. Access to health care and health care coverage are two separate animals. If you go to an emergency room I dare you to show me where they will turn you away because of inability to pay. We've got 10 million illegal aliens getting free medical care right now. You HAVE the access. And an overwhelming majority of our legal citizens do have some form of health care insurance. Even a percentage of those who don't have insurance still have -- and use -- health care services in a pay-as-you-go setup, often via Healthcare Savings Accounts (something I highly recommend). Many, if not most, even get to exclude what they pay into their insurance plans or HSAs from the taxable income. Of course, Obama and the Democrats call this "a government subsidy", which is nonsense. It's not their money to begin with, and they're not giving me a dime. They're simply not taking money from me for it. At least until this universal health care coverage legislation. They plan to pay for their bloated medical rationing program by taxing you--and your employer--on the benefits you have.

The solution is not a government program--no government program has ever handled something like this efficiently or even effectively. No, my friends, the solution is to take a cue from Toyota and apply some real problem-solving here. This starts with an accurate problem statement, followed by identifying the performance gaps, the target improvement and get to root cause analysis. Ladies and gents, I promise you that this hasn't happened. What you will hear are two difference symptoms constantly harped on by Obama. "Millions have no coverage" and "Health care costs are skyrocketing". To these symptoms the Democrats have been creating a vague system that provides "univeral health care" for everyone based on the false premise that "health care is a right".

The fact is, you do not have a right to health care. Shocked? You shouldn't be. Check the Constitution, show me where that's at. And let me explain why. Health care -- aka medical services -- are exactly that: a service. So, what does that mean to you? It's something produced/provided by one person that is consumed by another person. When Obama tries to say you have a right to health care, he's saying that you have a right to demand that a health care provider administer health care to you. Taken to its logical conclusion, folks, this is slavery. Telling a doctor, nurse, pharmacist, whomever, that they must provide you their services, regardless of cost, is not right. And when they do, they do so with the sword of Damocles hanging over them -- lawsuits -- if they make any mistakes. The Democrats have fought tort reform for years.

On the whole "GDP" front, it amazes me that people get all worked up over this. Our Gross Domestic Product is the sum and value of the goods and services we generate. Why should we worry if the health care industry (which is actually much broader and more diverse than you might even conceive, encompassing efforts that touch on much more than actual medical care) currently makes up 18% of our GDP? That's the demand an we have people and companies willing to supply it. What do you think happened when we hit the industrial age? What about textiles? Those industries quickly became the focus of our GDP (even if we were still on the gold standard). Having a heavier percentage of GDP generated by one or more inustries isn't in and of itself bad. It simply proves we produce and consume a lot in that area.

With a lot of medical costs so high, the thing to do is apply root cause analysis and find out why -- what are the drivers for costs? Part of it is all the ridiculous lawsuits. Part of it is the myriad of regulations that actually stifle competition (e.g., not being able to sign up for insurance in another state). Tort reform is another necessity. The need to unfetter major areas and apply oversight to others. Don't give me socialized medicine. Just examine the TRUE root cause for high costs.

The other major sympton is insurance. Not everyone WANTS insurance. If those who desire it have been declined due to a pre-existing condition, you don't need a complicated government program...just look at a reasonable bit of oversight. The fact is, it's when we run into a catastrophic condition that we can be financially devastated. So, why not focus on establishing rules for fair coverage in private catastrophic insurance. Isn't this what we do with the car insurance industry?

But I spoke of a web earlier. Let me draw your attention to some facts about socialized medicine as has been seen where it's been tried. Return on investment. If you have to limit overall program costs, historically decisions about who gets what treatments when have been made. We do it in our own household budgets. Does it make sense to replace the hip in a 40 year old or an 80 year old if you have limited funding? Also, if I'm setting regulations on how various health care products and services should be capped, at what point do you think that doctors, nurses, etc. will decide it's not worth being in the industry (hint: it's already starting to happen). Demand isn't changing, but as more providers leave and fewer new ones come into play, just what do you think availability of health care services will be? That's right, less. Which will absolutely lead to more rationing.

Here's where it starts to get scary. Did the mainstream media spend much air time sharing with you the new education legislation, designed to wipe out the college load debt of our young people in favor of 10 years of service in AmeriCorps or other non-religious public service entities? And how any student loan made by private industry that relies on a government guarantee will have similar requirements? How this new system will allow the government to direct who qualifies for the loans an who doesn't? Why is this important? Well, first, it begins to eliminate private financing for higher education. Second, it sets up servitude to the government. Third, the government could place stipulations that only provide loans if you are going into certain fields.

Hmmm. Let's see. If we create a bloated socialistic health care system that fewer and fewer medical professionals participate in, it would be nice to know that we can strongarm people into becoming medical professionals, wouldn't it? Our younger generation hasn't been taught that the USSR essentially dicatated what professions were needed and what products/services were produced. All for the good of the people, of course.

Couldn't happen, you say? We're seeing with the automotive industry. As major shareholder, the government is already starting to dictate what types of vehicles should be produced and what types shouldn't. Current czars that Obama has appointed---particularly his Regulatory Czar---is a big fan of "nudging". This is a concept where by you don't need to dramtically force people to do what you want them to...you simply nudge them to it by leaving them little choice. Reduce their choices and they make the decisions you want them to make. I was in a band that fell apart not because our tempermental lead guitarist decided what we would play, but rather would tell us what we would not play.

It's happening, folks. We're moving past socialism and nudging toward fascism. We have problems that need to be fixed, but Obama and the Democrats are 180 degrees wrong on what's broken and what's needed to correct the real problems.

You Will Be Assimilated

Let me run this definition by you-- Fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

The government owns the car industry, the banking industry and the insurance industry. Next up is the health care industry. The reasons all the Democrats use is that it's all broken and that the only way to fix it is for federal government to take it over. Can you show me ANYthing that government has taken over and then given control back? No, you can't. The filibuster-proof liberal Congress coupled with the Marxist Obama has already pushed the debt past $1 Trillion, all but solidifying the severe economic and social regimentation. The latest defense authorization bill now has a huge amendment to thrust a so-called "hate crimes" bill onto us. Of course, forget the FACT that the person for whom this bill is named was NOT killed because he was gay, but rather because it was a robbery. This is FACT. But just you wait, just as in Canada and in Europe, the result will be that you will ultimately be vulnerable to prosecution for simply saying homosexuality is wrong. This simply opens the door to other bills that will put restrictions on other types of speech, giving us effectively the suppression of opposition.

Back to health care. Have you seen the chart made that describes the disgusting juggernaut the Democrats are shoving down our throats? Most of your representatives are NOT reading the bill! Did you know that all employers will be forced to give you health insurance? Did you know that they will pay huge fines if they don't? Did you know that YOU will pay a fine if you don't purchase health insurance? Did you know that if you already have private health insurance the Democrats want to tax the value of your insurance? Now, do you think for a second if both you and your employer are going to be so heavily penalized by providing private insurance that both won't just drop private insurance you go under the socialized version?

My wife and I spent some time scuba diving with a young professional couple from England. The topic of their health care came up. Here's what they told us...if you need to go to the emergency room you're covered. If you don't care how long you wait, you can get most basic health care under their plan. Of course, this wait, according to them, is anywhere between three months to over a year! If you cannot wait they said they have no choice but to find a doctor who isn't tied to government health care and pay separately. Also, your ability to get some treatments sooner is affected by what they referred to as a "return on investment".

By the way, have you seen the tangled web Goldman Sachs has weaved to be so very tightly snuggled in bed with Obama and the Democrats? Where are all you people who jumped on the Haliburton bandwagon? Yeah, that's what I thought.


Wake up, people.

Sarah Palin's Resignation

I was posting back and forth with a friend of mine on Facebook who was distraught that both his wife and daughter love Sarah Palin. Now, I've always thought of my friend as Libertarian, so it surprised me the rancor with which he expressed his dislike of Palin, who also seems to have a bit of a Libertarian bent. What emerged from his statements were comments that lead me to believe that he'd rather support the Old Guard in the Republican Party.

I discontinued my membership in the GOP several years ago after President Bush all but turned his back (with most of the rank-and-file Republicans in Congress) on all the traditional values. The party became Democrat-lite. They solidified this turn by nominating the wet noodle known as John McCain. Then along came Sarah Palin. That turned out to be both a brilliant accident and a fatal mistake. She revitalized (though way too late) a dead campaign, but also overshadowed the Presidential nominee by being a conservative's conservative. She's beautiful and yet gutsy. She has more brass than anyone we've seen. Sadly, for those who were looking for someone who, off the cuff, had a wealth of wordly knowledge, Sarah wasn't their nominee. I would argue that neither does Obama, who constantly makes things up or buys into the latest fad in order to further his Marxist agenda. But that didn't matter since it was all about race with him...I will forever be convinced of that.

Sarah Palin, like her or hate her, has done something that I challenge anyone out there to bring up more than a hand full of peers who have done: Outlive her 15 minutes of fame. She was thrust out on the big stage and, true to what we'd come to know was her style, took ownership of it. Not afraid to stumble in public, and in spite of a McCain campaign of ignorant, tired, old-school limp Republican, she kept stepping out there. While the blubbering superficial masses fell all over themselves to forgive Obama's "William Shatner-esque" fumbling delivery when not on a teleprompter, they couldn't seem to muster a similar acceptance of Palin's clearly awkward delivery on subjects she --and everyone else-- knew were not her strong suit.

Yet, here she is. The putrid liberal bloggers have constantly unleashed barrage after barrage of baseless, disgusting attacks (as is typical of most liberals) on her and her family. Attacks even a tenth of that viciousness, if used on Obama and his family, would have been met with such an uproarious outrage that you'd have thought Armageddon was about to ensue. Months, now, after the election is long over the liberals in politics, entertainment and in the blogosphere have hardly let up. And, to make matters worse, a good many of the musty Republican guard have waged their own campaign of hate toward her.

So, she dicided to step down, saying that she will now be completely free to work for those who are like-minded. Her staunch supporters are all behind her. The conservative base is sort of behind her, but feeling somewhat let down. And the wishy-washy middle has no clue, couldn't support a real cause if their lives depended on it. As far as I'm concerned, they need to sit down, shut up and color...you're lukewarm and I spit you out of my mouth (look it up).

Was this a wize decision? To be honest, I don't know. She's keeping things close to the vest at the moment. This was a very unconventional move. I like unconventional. I wouldn't be surprised if she was taking a page out of the Rocky Balboa playbook and tossing out conventional wisdom and hitting the woodshed. It might be that she intends to go out, use her star power to raise $$ and support like-minded candidates. If she does this right, she could afford to spread herself across the world stage, building contacts, international exposure, awareness and knowledge--all the things the tired Old Guard complained she didn't have. In the process of working hard for the right movers and shakers, if she's able to draw the attention and support, she'll have quite a few people owing her. That would put her in a strong place to be a real contender.

If this nation actually survives four years of Obama Marxism, I'm convinced America will be ready to kick the bums out and will be looking for someone as different from him as you can get. That someone might be Sarah Palin. We'll have to wait and see if she was naive...or amazingly shrewd.