Repeal...but Why Replace?

Screeching to a crowd in Warren, MI, socialist and regular guest on Russian Television, Bernie Sanders, declared "Know we are saying to our Republican colleagues: We will not allow you to throw up to 30 million Americans off of health insurance". First, where does the 30 million people under coverage from the Affordable Care Act come from?  Not even the Obama administration used that number.  This is simply Bernie trying to incite political fear.

According to an article by the right-leaning Heritage Foundation, ACA covers approximately 16.5 million people or about half of Sander’s claim.  Some 84% or 13.8 million members of the ACA are on Medicaid and 2.7 million on private insurance.  Of the Medicaid enrollees, about 60% or 8.2 million would qualify for Medicaid without the ACA, this according to Jon Gruber, the MIT professor who was an architect of Obamacare.

So the net number of enrollees attributable to Obamacare is about 10.9 million . . . not 30 million or even 20 million.  Remember too, that when the ACA was enacted about 6 million people were thrown-off their health insurance plans, which President Obama dismissed as – a drop in the bucket – in the overall healthcare market.

So, where to go from here?  First to recognize that all the layers of government in healthcare are the problem.  Second, to start dissolving the layers toward directly connecting the man who gets the service, as the consumer, and the man who delivers the service, as the provider; i.e. the free market where the price mechanism can kick in to drive access, choices, quality, and affordability . . . as it always does.

Currently, health insurance companies are not providing free market insurance, but highly regulated and taxpayer subsidized cash management.  Whatever the government doesn’t directly controls, it indirectly controls.  The more control, the worse the system.

The Republicans have replacement plans that are better than the ACA, but all still have government subsidies.  The real solution is to dissolve the ACA in its entirety along with many other government health care programs and regulations. However, as this is not on the political horizon, here are six suggestions to replace the ACA with less government intrusion while keeping the policy to deny no person coverage and no reimbursement cap:

1. Dismantle the individual mandate with its tax penalty, the requirement that companies have to provide health insurance for employees who work more than 30 hours a week, and any minimum requirement on health insurance coverage
2. Let health insurance companies compete anywhere in the country to sell any type of policy at a risk adjusted price to increase the types of policies, prices and competition
3. Let people annually put the greater of $10,000 or up to 10% of their pre-tax income in a Health Savings Account (HSA) and let the HSA build tax free, with no taxes when withdrawals are used for medical costs and insurance premiums
4. Put a cap on pain and suffering tort liability to help control the large insurance premiums that doctors and hospitals pay
5. Permit 100% individual tax deduction of health insurance premiums (just like companies)
6. Remove the restriction on health insurance companies that requires them to spend 85% of premiums on medical reimbursements to enable health insurance companies to make investments, like life insurance companies, and build assets than can be used to mitigate premium increases

The above will be better than the ACA, but the Left will argue that tens of millions will be without health insurance.  But in their quest for noble compassion they ignore an ACA in collapse that risks hundreds of millions of people who could be without health insurance from a “death spiral” of uncontrolled costs.

Obamacare is another failed socialist experiment to coercively redistribute income and make the many pay for the few. It is better public policy to kill this beast, which has never had the majority of public support, than submit taxpayers to the civil slavery of the ACA that takes their hard earned money and delivers nothing to them in return.

We need a Statesman, Not a King

When former President Barack Obama was elected, history had granted him an opportunity to become one of the great presidents.  But instead he chose rigid partisanship and grand arrogance.  He believed himself an infallible emperor, rather than a statesman president.  He could not transcend the poison of politics and parties, and instead rendered himself to divisiveness and dreadful decisions.

History is once again granting an opportunity.  President Trump’s inaugural speech proclaimed he was returning the power of rule to the people from the D.C. elites.  Trump may not realize that the Constitution is a grant of power from The People, but he at least understands that for the past 80 years a relentless and, often unconstitutional, power grab by government has been underway.

We hope Trump addresses this issue, but as a statesman president.  Party politics demands that for one party to win the other has to lose.  In this conflict the voters are pawns.  Rather, Trump should work toward pragmatic compromise.  We have seen his tireless energy and hope he now directs this to the hard work of bipartisan legislation.

The people, through the electoral process, have spoken.  Trump is president.  But he should keep in mind that he is not a king.  Trump cannot legislate, he can only sign legislation he agrees with that passes both chambers of Congress; and for that he will need the consent of at least eight Democratic Senators.

Let’s Just Watch the Game

Today, this Super Bowl Sunday, let’s put down the protesting signs and just enjoy some football!

Cheers

Protesting Without a Cause

Civil rights, Vietnam, voting rights, free speech are all ideas that youth rallied about and protested.  Focused and arguably just, these were the fights of our grandparents and parents.

Fast forward to Millennials.  What are their causes?  Reproductive rights for women?  That already exists.  Wall Street greed?  That seems an oxymoron.  Women rights?  Please name a right that is missing or is not already codified?

Many generations in their youth have been labelled “rebellious” and “socially extreme” as they made moves to insight change.  Marches on Washington, masses of people gathering in one place to promote a single or defined ideas of change, are nothing new.  However, unlike previous generations, this millennial generation seems to be made of protestors without a cause.  Occupy Wall Street and the Women’s March on Washington lack a cohesive message and are not enduring.

In these massive swaths of people there are collections of signs and chants, but not one idea or one cause.  Yes, there is power in numbers, but that impact is lost when there is no one single idea or point of change that can be articulated.  It is demeaning when celebrities stand to speak nonsense, then put on a show.  Contrast to the 60s when Blacks hoped to get out of their marches with their lives.

If Millennials are to effect change they first need to be effective.  And to be effective, there needs to be a focused purpose for their protest – not just protesting for something to do. 

What do you want?

Do women’s rights matter? Yes. Do black lives matter? Yes. Do blue lives matter? Yes.

Frankly the lives and the rights of all lives matter…so the question is: what do you want?

In the recent nationwide Women’s March many celebrities behind microphones touted the importance of women.  Crowds raised hand-made posters with different slogans.  They say they are fighting for women’s civil rights, for human right. Ok, well what rights don’t we have?

Unlike the 1960s civil rights movement, which had a clear message and defined points of change, the recent protests seem to be a fight without a cause.

As a woman, I cannot think of a right that I am missing. Quite the opposite, my limitations are those imposed by me and those of a government that over-regulates and suppresses liberty.

But women can do what they want and achieve their loftiest of goals.  There are women entrepreneurs, CEOs, politicians, media personalities, etc.  Women can be professionals, mothers and wives.  We can pursue the lives we want to lead.  So, I ask, what are women protesting?

If it is the election of Donald Trump, then what are they asking from him?  To notice that they are there?

It seems the protest is more of the continuation of the Left’s temper tantrum for the outcome of the election than a protest of substance on an issue.

If these protesters care to inform the public of something that women lack, then by all means, please enlighten us and present a scope of public policy.  Until a clear message and some consensus in demands are defined though, these protests resemble the Occupy Wall Street protesters . . . all bluster and no substance.

As we said in the previous blog.  The fight is in public policy.  In reasoned fact based debate.  Differences of thought are good and to be embraced.  There is no participation trophy for sore losers who simply showed-up at a rally.

"Always Forward"

Why is the media still lingering about the results of this presidential election? The Left, especially, looks to delegitimize Trump’s win, when, in fact, the results have been legitimized. 

To say Trump is not legitimate is a non sequitur.  It is time now to do away with petty party politics and look to the future.  It is time for the Democrats and their media allies to accept Trump as President.  Their fight is now in Congress and matters of policies.  This is our system.  Accept it.  If they want to make Trump a one term president, as Mitch McConnell said of Obama, then let them do such.  Voters, at the ballot box, will ultimately decide if they agree with these efforts.

The MSNBC far left crowd has their tag line of “Lean Forward”.  We suggest they instead take a lead from the Marvel character, Luke Cage, from the show of same name, and start to “Look Forward”.  Fight the future of public policies and not the results of the election.

2016 – A Massive Hang-Over for Democrats & Hillary

2016 was an incredible year of political upsets.  Brexit, Italy and, the whopper of them all, the historic defeat of Hillary Clinton.  Immediately following her loss President Barack Obama, the Democratic Party and media allies, who were all repudiated, have been on witch hunt to blame everything other than failed people and polices.  Their bogymen have been fake news, Russian hackers, James Comey, and voters who practice bigotry and intolerance.

The Clinton loss was based on the collision of political rhetoric and reality.  For the past eight years the public was told all is getting better, unemployment is low, the economy is growing, Americans have racism in their DNA, ISIS is jayvee, Syria best not cross the red-line, and the government can give everybody healthcare with low to no premiums.  However, reality was different.  The average wage went down in an economy with anemic growth.  Many people had to work two part-time jobs because employers cut-back on full time workers.  Global foreign policy collapsed.  Health insurance premiums became more expensive.  And voters who were not for Clinton saw themselves not as sexists and racists, but decent Americans who simply gave-up on the policies of the past eight years.  So people in 30 of the 50 states cast their popular vote for a change.

*****

If Clinton never had an email server and conflicts with her Clinton Foundation then, odds are, she would have been president.  But she, and she alone, chose her path to conceal communications during her entire tenure as Secretary and create the pay-for-play scenario.  Then, when caught, she lied as to why she did it, how she did it, and actively worked to cover-up the affair.  This has been her history of concealment, disregard to rules she believes don’t apply to her, and just bad judgment.

It was not Comey, as he was pursuing her emails – her fault.  It was not the Russians, as they exposed factual communications of the DNC, CNN, and Clinton campaign.  This was not fake news, but embarrassing news that exposed media bias and bigotry in and around the Clinton organization.  It is no concern that Russians had nothing to say about Trump, as that was left to the U.S. media who put Trump’s taxes, tapes, talk back, and a litany of other items front and center for the public.  

Now Democrats are “shocked” that the Russians would attempt to interfere, as if that had anything to do with Clinton’s defeat.  Or that the Russians or any number of foreign governments had not been pursuing hacking for years – and the U.S. to them as well.  Mind you, we are not advocating for the Russians, but simply pointing out that this was not the cause of Clinton’s loss.

Hillary Clinton and the far left are now calling for legislation to protect people from the “harmful” effects of false news and investigations into Russian hacking.  It appears, once again, that people need protection from themselves, and high minded liberals are there to protect the irresponsible.  To give the “truth” as such truth is determined by liberal interpreters.

But let’s recall some of those high-minded liberals who sought to influence presidential elections without the help of Russians.  There was Senator Harry Reid who, in 2012, said that Mitt Romney hadn’t paid taxes for 10 years.  After Barack Obama won and Reid was confronted with his statement Reid admitted it was a lie and crowed: It worked, didn’t it?!  In another presidential election, Dan Rather on the CBS TV show, 60 Minutes, published a story with fake evidence on George W. Bush.  When Rather was caught with false evidence he did a follow-up story only to say he got the facts wrong but the story right.  Rather was fired shortly thereafter by CBS.

*****

Beyond these issues was Hillary’s own contradictions.  Claiming she was for the common man just did not ring true with Hillary as an elite.  She roiled against Wall Street but accepted lavish payments from same for her speeches to them.  Her slogan was “Stronger Together” but pronounced she would put coal mines and coal workers out business and out of jobs.  So which was the real Hillary?

Hillary touted her experience to be President and Commander In Chief but her experience was more like a participation trophy.  She was First Lady, as if that made her qualified to be president.  And during her time as FLOTUS she was embroiled in Travelgate, dead Vince Foster, the Rose Law firm missing billing records, a dubious commodity trade, and the failure what was HillaryCare.  Then, as Senator from NY she had no major legislation to her credit.  And as Secretary of State her crowning achievement was traveling a lot.

Nowhere in her resume was a list of noteworthy accomplishments, but there was a list of failure and bad judgment.  Secretary Clinton oversaw the failed Russian reset, failed Syria policy, Benghazi debacle that lead to the deaths of four Americans, and her email server that, at the worst, exposed secret information to unfriendly foreign nations and, at its best, was “extreme carelessness” (as categorized by Comey).  While the Left touts there were no criminal charges, they fail to note the Inspector General report that her email server was not authorized and against policy.

*****

With the election over, it is sheer hypocrisy that Clinton and the Democrats now, after deriding Trump for having the audacity to say he would questions the results of the election, want to change the results of the election.  After beating the drum for the peaceful transition of power, these people, who thought the election was in the bag, called for the electors to “vote their conscience” and not vote for Trump.  They demanded 37 electors change their vote, even if that meant violating state laws that bind the electors to the popular vote.  However, what has to be the greatest irony of all, was only two electors switched their vote from Trump, but eight attempted to switch from Clinton!

Hillary Clinton lost because she was a bad candidate, with an ineffective message, an ignorant Electoral-College strategy, a legacy of lies, and an inability to excite women, minorities and millennials that she depended upon to vote in large numbers.  She lost because of inadequate economic growth caused by the Obama and Democratic policies she supports.  She lost because she had a trail of failure and bad judgment.  She lost because she took the election for granted by thinking it was now “her turn”.  Fake news, Comey and Russian hackers are nothing more than a ruse.

For 2017, Democrats and the liberal media are better to take stock of the last eight years.  Instead of crowing that Hillary won the popular vote and, therefore, the country is really behind Democrats, it would be wise for them to understand the larger reality.  Democrats have been turned-out of the majority of elected state and federal legislative and executive offices, and the liberal media has essentially been ignored in the bulk of the country.  Trying to blame something or someone other than liberal people and policies may bolster self-esteem but not acceptance.