What Do Conservatives Want?

So, over at the HQ this morning, commenter jwest raised an interesting point.  His comment is too long to quote in its entirety, but the gist seems to be this:  Conservatives, especially in the blogosphere, are too ready to pull out the Long Knives whenever one of our allies (actual allies- a Perry, or Walker, or Cruz, or Lee) makes a tiny misstep.  So we should probably make some decisions, as a movement, about where we really stand.

So here are some areas he highlighted, and my thoughts on them (all quotes: sic; I'm not a proofreader).  I'll follow up with a couple more at the end.

1: Immigration/Border

On immigration, has anyone defined what the word "amnesty" means? We can't simply say "follow existing law", because than entails kicking in doors at 2am and dragging mothers away from their children (which looks bad on the evening news). It would be good to have a well written position on what true conservatives want.

Amnesty means "officially not administering just punishment for a crime."  Any "path to legalization" or "path to citizenship" is Amnesty.

Step 1 (before anything else) secure the border (or take real, substantive steps to secure it).  Step 2 Make explicit that illegal aliens are not eligible for any federal benefit, reduce Medicaid payments to States who pay State benefits for illegal aliens.  Step 3 Come down like "a ton of rectanular building things" on any employer- large or small- found to be hiring illegals.  Step 4 expedite deportation hearings, stop releasing illegals into their own recognizance.

2: ObamaCare/Health Care/Health Insurance

On healthcare, certainly everyone wants Obamacare repealed, but that's not a position. Never in the history of the U.S. has the government been able to give citizens free shit and then turn around and take it back. Those who think this is an option just aren't being serious. We need a conservative plan on what is going to replace Obamacare.

Burn it down. 
Scatter the stones. 
Salt the earth where it stood. 

The federal government has no authority over health care/health insurance.  The only space where the feds have authority is to end the prohibition on interstate sale of insurance.  Would consider making personal health insurance tax deductible, just like employer coverage... but that has issues (since I want the tax code to be much less complex).

3: Defense (esp. Defense Budget)

On defense, some are taking the position that patriotism can be gauged by how much we spend on the military. Others know that at some point, enough is enough. It's hard to make the case of being a budget hawk while handing out blank checks. We should nail this down so that voters know where we're at.

I'm sorry, Hawks, we don't have money.  I don't want to cut defense spending, but neither can we let it grow (or, at least, grow much).  Let's fix the procurement process, cut out the "diversity" stupidity, and see any other avenues available to make the defense budget more efficient.  If that's still not enough, *then* we can talk about more money.

4: Social Security

On Social Security, for decades the holy grail of the conservative side of the aisle was a plan to privatize SS. If this is still the plan, it could be marketed in such a way as to gain the black vote. Of course, our side needs to agree on plan first.

One-time payment of "your" SS money into an IRA.  Retirement planning is your business, not Daddy Government's.  For current or near retirees, we'll have to figure out a plan.  Some kind of phase-out will be necessary, but not sure exactly how that would work.

I'll add on top of that:

5: Taxes

A massively simplified tax code.  Flat tax, fair tax, even a progressive/graduated tax which is simple to understand would be far better than what we have today.  I don't think, realistically, we'll ever get a true "flat tax," and the "fair tax" scares me unless we can repeal the 16th Amendment.  Repeal the estate tax, drop corporate taxes to around 15%, stop taxing capital gains (and maybe dividends).

6: Budget

A balanced budget amendment is way over-due in this country.  Texas has one in our State Constitution, and it has contributed to tax surpluses (since people and especially businesses know that there aren't huge deficits, Texas is seen as very tax-payer friendly).

What are your thoughts?  Jwest is right- the sooner the *base* figures out our starting point, the easier it will be to judge when someone has deviated from it, and to what degree- thus (hopefully) preventing some of the circular firing squads which have led to the last two disastrous Republican presidential candidates.

Evil at the VA

Or: An early look at ObamaCare "Death Panels"

This Story is by Becky Oliver at Fox 4 here in DFW.  Go read it: seriously.

For those too impatient- a veteran noticed a lump under his arm, and tried to get care via the VA.  Because of their bureaucratic run-around, his treatment was delayed by 4 months.  That delay was in treatment of Melanoma- a very agressive cancer.  It is very likely that, had he been seen initially and treated with current treatment options, he would not be a terminal patient today.

There's no way to know that, of course, but it's highly likely.

Now, first off- if you notice a lump or an odd mole or anything like that, and the answer you're given when you seek treatment is "you'll have to wait several months?"  Yeah, seek treatment elsewhere.

That said- how has this evil infested the VA?  And why should we believe that it won't infest ObamaCare?  I am virtually certain that no one at the VA looked at this veteran's chart and decided to let him die of cancer.  I'm certain it was all much more banal than that.  Indeed, it is the very banality of the evil that makes it so terrifying.  If someone had set out to deny this man, and his family for that matter, care, then there would be someone who could be made to answer for this.  Someone could be called out and made to answer.  Instead, it was simply "the process."

This comes as the VA is under scrutiny in Arizona, which is itself merely a symptom of a wider problem.  Up and down the VA there are stories of delayed care, sub-standard care, and simple neglect.  Such a culture can only exist if the man at the top allows it.  In this case, the man at the top is not Secretary Eric Shinseki.  Given the amount of time this has been going on, and the fact that Barack Obama specifically ran on "fixing" the VA, the "man at the top" is Barack Hussein Obama, that stuttering clusterf*ck of a malignant traitor.

If the SCOAMT cared about our Veterans, he would already have demanded Secretary Shinseki's resignation.  If he really cared about our Veterans, he would already be working to correct issues like this.  Instead he tries to handle like a "fake scandal," and rallies the Democrats around him to decry the "faux outrage."

No, the SCOAMT does not care about our Veterans- they are of no use to him.  And so it will be with your health care under ObamaCare.  There will be delays and bureaucracy instead of consultations and treatment.  When confronted with the consequences, responses like those featured in the linked story will be issued.

One other party is responsible for this- Republicans in Congress.  It is they who have refused to act as a check on Barack Obama's worst tendencies.  At every turn they choose to "wait for a better opportunity" or not to investigate at all.  How many opportunities have the Republicans had to pull the SCOAMT up short?  And every time they have refused because someone somewhere might be offended.

There is only one way to fix this culture of neglect and carelessness at the VA, and that is to remove the man at the top.  Not the Secretary of the VA- his boss.

Of Obamacare and the Private Sector

First let me get this out of the way: F*ck Obamacare and the horse it rode in on.

My employer's Open Enrollment period just began.  When I was hired in October last year, there were two plans- a "traditional" plan (the PPO that we've all come to know and love) and a "Select" (or something like that) plan- a High Deductible Health Plan.  As I was hired after open enrollment, I was not given an option, and was placed in the HDHP.  Given my family's medical needs this was sub-optimal, but we made it work looking forward to open enrollment when we could elect to spend a little more per paycheck and get a PPO plan with co-payments instead of the High Deductible plan.

Well, that got all blowed up.

Now, our CEO and CFO and all of those people went to great pains to tell us how the "Private Exchange" into which we've been entered is not a "Public Exchange" and therefore isn't ObamaCare.  It just *happens* to have a "Gold," "Silver," and "Bronze" level and they all just *happen* to be High Deductible plans (though the Gold Plan doesn't qualify as one for Health Savings Account purposes).  It also just *happens* that the least bad of the plans for my family would nearly double my current insurance premium.

I want it on the record that I do not blame my employer for this.  Health care sucks right now, thanks to Obamacare.  If I blame for anything it's for lying to their employees about the reasons for the sucky choices, and for hiding behind "MOAR CHOICE!" (Ooooh, we have 3 sucky plans instead of 1 good one and 1 bad one- oh, and more insurance companies.)  C'mon guys, at least man up and admit "Hey, for those of you who want/need the PPO, this is really going to suck."

However, I wanted to highlight this because of two things.  First, this is going to happen everywhere.  Where employers don't just drop coverage entirely, they are all going to be forced to move to these kinds of plans because the insurance carriers are going to have to raise rates for everything to cover their increased costs under Obamacare.  I would feel worse for the insurance companies, but many of them supported Obamacare.  Now my family and I are trapped in the middle.

Second is this: this was an entirely predictable occurrence.  Many of us on the right said this would happen, and we were told that we were being "scare mongers" and "conspiracy theorists."  The SCOAMT, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid forced this on the American People, and it's going to kill us.

"Yeah, that's old news," you say, and you're right.  That is old news.  So is this, but it bears highlighting as well-  Republicans are being way too weak-kneed about pushing for full repeal.  There is no "fix" here.  It must be utterly and completely destroyed.  As I've pointed out before, those "popular" provisions of the law are some of the worst.  Anything less than full repeal is unacceptable, because anything less than full repeal will *still* kill the best health care system in the world.

Obamacare:

Burn it down.Scatter the stones.Salt the earth where it stood.

Listen to the Difference

This video comes to me via commenter “Lauren” at the Ace of Spades HQ.  Lauren an a host of others went to Austin, TX this morning to help counteract the (largely astro-turfed) pro-baby-murder (wait, I’m supposed to call them “Pro Choice”) crowd.  You know, the ones who stood with Wendy Davis who, if her mother believed as she obviously does, would never have been born.

Hear that singing? It's "Amazing Grace." That's the pro-life group. Here that angry chanting? (I think it's supposed to be "choice! now!") That's the pro-baby-murder group.

Now, that would be bad enough.  I mean, really, “Choice! Now!” as though there is no “choice” in Texas at the moment?  Let’s look at this bill they’re “protesting.”

First, it would prohibit abortions after the 20th week.  Specifically it would prohibit “elective” abortions after the 20th week.  For the record, here are a bunch of ultrasounds of human babies at 16 weeks (4 weeks prior to that deadline).  I’m sorry, but at 20 weeks (well into the 2nd trimester) we’re no longer talking about a “choice.” 

Second, it would hold abortion clinics to the same health and inspection standards as Ambulatory Surgery centers.  Considering the risks involved (see the “complications” section of that second list) involved with D&C or D&E procedures, I would think women would want that level of sanitation.  Wasn’t the whole point of “safe, legal, and rare” that women were getting these abortions in “back alleys” and that’s bad because back alleys are, well, dirty?

Third, it would impose some limitations on doctors performing the butchery (sorry, “procedure”).  They would have to have admitting privileges to an actual hospital, among other things.

So, with the exception of the week limit, these are all for women’s health.  These changes make it more likely that women will even survive the procedure.  Taken as a whole, they will help prevent (or at least punish after the fact) any further Kermit Gosnells.

And, somehow, that’s a bridge too far for the pro-baby-murder crowd.

But they didn’t stop there.  Lauren also chimed in with this:

My Source* is a huge pro-abortion activist. So great, in fact, that she had knowledge of and and invitation to, the OWS tactics meeting that was held yesterday.  Basically, she went and was really disgusted by their tactics because she recognized them as the ones that were used against her when she was a precinct chair for Hillary 4 Texas. Obama's minions used these tactics way back then.

She says that she just got back from the tactics meeting, and instead of the "how to not get arrested" meeting that it was billed as it was actually a "how to cause as much disruption as possible without getting your hands dirty."

Basically and OWSer marks a random person as a target. This is usually someone in a position of power on the opposite side. The OWSer calls over the police and tells them that the target has been harassing them and demands an on the spot investigation.

The police oblige, and spend the next 30-45 minutes interviewing the target. Obviously this disrupts the opposition's protest and also, more importantly, it pulls police away from their duties which gives the OWSers room to do whatever nefarious deed they have planned.

*- Source was identified to me, but Lauren asked that I withhold the identification.  Also, this is an edited version of a lengthy email, I believe I have represented it in all material ways correctly.

So it’s not enough to attempt a “public’s veto” of a duly passed bill.  It’s not enough to claim that baby-murder (sorry: “choice”) is so important that we must not have the least amount of regulation and oversight of the facilities in which this butchery (sorry: procedure) will be done.  No, we also have to attempt to have the authorities interfere with the opposition, lest anyone hear their side of it.

Well, murder-bots?  Now our side is being heard.  Whether you like it not.

An Open Letter to Rick Perry

Honorable Governor,

I have written to you before on diverse subjects, though all linked by one theme: Liberty.  Thus it is not particularly surprising that I find myself writing again on the same subject.  Thomas Jefferson once said that "the Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."  I hope that he was mistaken.  I hope that the Tree of Liberty, once firmly rooted in good soil, will thrive without such a watering.

But even if I am correct, and Mr. Jefferson wrong, it requires good soil.

Governor, the soil around the Tree of Liberty is dying.  I, and those like me, have no power to correct this.  You, and those like you, do.  When people like me decide to revive Liberty's tree, we have only one option.  My mind shudders from that idea so violently that I dare not even name it.  Politicians however, especially Governors, have much more power.  With greater power comes greater finesse with which it can be wielded.

You may be wondering at this preamble.  Why would I take such a serious, even desperate tone?  It is to impart upon you the weight of my feeling.  And not just mine.  Uncounted, and perhaps uncountable, numbers of Texans see what is going on in the United States, and we want it stopped. 

You and the other governors have the ability to stand against this rogue regime which calls itself the Barack Obama administration and protect the American people.  Perhaps you even have the power to refresh the Tree of Liberty without blood. 

The offenses of this administration against Liberty are almost innumerable.  They began almost from the day Mr. Obama was sworn in in 2009, starting with the GM Bailout which subverted established law and stole rightful remuneration from secured bond holders, while giving power over a private US company to the union which destroyed it, and to the federal government.

The so-called "stimulus" bill was simply a way to steal money from taxpayers and funnel it to the President's allies and pet causes.  The Orwellian named "Affordable Care Act" threatens our very lives, placing them in the hands of unnamed, unaccountable bureaucrats.  The IRS and EPA leak sensitive data on disfavored parties.  The government suppresses speech it does not like- holding up applications for 501(c)3 and 501(c)4 status- making it harder for groups to raise funds.  If that is not enough, they then also target the President's enemies for audits and other harassment.  Anecdotal evidence suggests all federal agencies are in on this as well, from the FBI to HHS to OSHA.

Now, we learn that the federal government has retrieved, by warrant, the phone records of every domestic phone call on the big carriers.  It is true that the Patriot Act allows for some domestic spying under very strict circumstances and very specific cases.  That is fine for true national security needs.  However, the NSA spying via PRISM and the Telecom warrants would be massive violations of all Americans' rights, even if the warrants did not make all the data so gleaned admissible in criminal trials.

I am sure I do not need to tell you, but as this is an open letter, I feel the need to inform others who may read this.  A warrant is a legal document which, in essence, proclaims that the government believes a particular person to be guilty of a particular crime.  That is why, as the 4th Amendment to our US Constitution declares, "and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

This should make it clear that the warrants for all calls made on the Verizon, or AT&T, or Sprint networks are nothing less than the most massive fishing expedition in US jurisprudence history.  Whatever judge signed such warrant should be immediately impeached- though that is an issue for our US Representatives and Senators.

Combined with the above abuses, how can anyone call the current administration legitimate?  It is a tyrannical regime which seeks to silence opposition while raining favors on its cronies.  It is no longer a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

Governor, I beseech you- you, and your fellow governors who love liberty, protect us from this tyrant, this despot.

It is within the power of the State of Texas to provide legal safety for her People.  It is within her power to reject those laws and decrees from the federal government which are not in line with the constitution.  It is within her power shelter our Liberty.

There are 30 States with Republican Governors.  There are 33 States which are refusing to implement the Exchanges required by The Affordable Care Act.  I beg you meet with the governors of those states, along with our own Senators and Representatives to the US Congress- Re-assert the powers of the States.  Re-assert the powers of the People.  Destroy this tyrant state which has been built since the days of Franklin Roosevelt.  Burn it down.  Scatter its stones.  Salt the earth where it stood.

May God bless you, Governor.  May He bless you, the People of this State and this nation, and may God bless Texas.

 

In humble sincerity,

Allen Goodner

Arlington, TX

Nature Takes Its Course- CNN Money Astonished

CNN Money has an article today (probably "yesterday" by the time you read this) about Doctors increasingly seeking the dubious protection of Chapter 11 Bankruptcy.  Most of the piece is largely fluff- all emotion and "analysis" without ever really touching on the subject.  I will leave the speculation of why that's so to others, but I think I have some hints.

Here's the first one:

Five years ago, Plantation, Fla.-based bankruptcy attorney David Langley didn't have a single doctor as a client. Since then he's handled at least six bankruptcy cases involving doctors. Two current clients -- an orthopedic surgeon and an OB/GYN -- also are in bankruptcy. 

Hmmm... What could possibly have happened between 5 years ago and today?  I got nothin'.

Now, don't pay attention to this, as it's a Red Herring:

The weak economy has taken a toll on doctors' revenue, as consumers cut back on office visits and lucrative elective procedures, said Guy, a bankruptcy attorney in Nashville with Frost Brown Todd LLC. 

Why do I say it's a Red Herring?  Because all of the actual doctors cited in the article are doctors not known for their "lucrative elective procedures."  Mentioned are: an orthopedic sugeon, an OB/GYN, an Oncologist, and "Primary doctors."  Not listed?  Cosmetic/Bariatric sugeons.  If "cut[ting] back on... lucrative elective procedures" had anything to do with it, don't you think people who specialize in "lucrative elective procedures" would be at the forefront of bankruptcy filings?

So, back to finding hints about why CNN Money might have written a piece which was largely "human interest" and very light on actual facts.

Hint number 2 is here:

Doctors also blame shrinking insurance reimbursements, changing regulations, and the rising costs of malpractice insurance, drugs and other business necessities for making it harder to keep their practices afloat. 

I should note that in the linked article, those words "insurance reimbursements" (meant to make you think BlueCross, Aetna, and United are paying your doctor less) are a hyperlink to an article titled: "Medicare doctors' pay to be cut."  That article blames the (by then already) largely averted Sequester.  In reality, you can blame lower Medicare reimbursements on ObamaCare.

Wait, I said I wasn't going to speculate.  Whoops.

Refreshing Honesty

Here, go read this.  No, really, go read it.  I'll wait.

...
...

Nope, I'm still here.  You finish it.

...
...

Okay, back?  Good.

Now, I could go on all day about "well of course insurers are finding ways to avoid the costly increases in Obamacare."  I could even point out that that was the point of Obamacare (as it was advertised)- to make insurers do things to keep costs down.  It's just that in this case what they're "doing to keep costs down" is engaging in a little creative problem solving and avoiding the very law that was supposed to make things so super-duper inexpensive (but which is really making insurance rates explode).

But I won't.

I wanted to point out these little nuggets:

That may offer a short-term benefit for certain consumers and shield some of those individual policyholders from potentially steep rate increases. But critics say this maneuver could undermine government efforts to remake the insurance market next year and keep premiums affordable overall.

Wait... what?  I thought we were told that "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan."  "Government efforts to remake the insurance market" sure doesn't sound like "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan," to me.  Well, maybe I'm missing something.  Let's keep looking.

Some policy experts are expressing concern about this practice for fear that insurers will focus on renewing younger and healthier policyholders and hold them out of the broader insurance pool next year. Their absence could leave a sicker and older population in new government insurance exchanges, driving up medical costs and premiums there.

Wait... what?  I thought the people who couldn't afford insurance coverage were the "younger" crowd.  Isn't that why my insurance now has to offer coverage to my "dependents" until they're 26?  Because somehow this "younger and healthier" set couldn't get insurance.  I was told that they wouldn't really be subsidizing the sick and elderly, because the sick would go on exchanges, and the elderly were going to get Medicare anyway.  You mean that isn't happening?

"This could undermine the Affordable Care Act, and it opens the door for exacerbating potential rate shock in the exchanges," said Christine Monahan, a senior analyst at Georgetown University's Health Policy Institute. "The health insurers can cherry-pick some healthy people and it raises prices for everyone else."

You mean those exchanges that don't exist?  Yeah, I can see this being terrible for them.  Moreover, "cherry-pick[ing] some healthy people" does not "[raise] prices for everyone else."  Healthy people do not cause insurance rates to rise.  Sick ones do.

Beyond that, why should we be concerned about "undermining" any Federal Law?  Isn't the Federal Government supposed to serve us?  Shouldn't they be more concerned about undermining our Liberty?  It seems not.

Now, I could go on, but the real "problem" that's being danced around here is this one:

"We want to get as many people as possible into the exchange," Savage said. "I think having renewals go deep into 2014 is counterproductive to the goals of the federal healthcare law."

That's some refreshing honesty right there.  They want to destroy private insurance.  They want Government to run insurance   And once Government decides what care you can receive- far more pervasively than any private insurer could- Government owns you.

I don't feel like being owned.

Healthulu

ObamaCare is a mind-twisting, sanity killing nightmare of a law.  As I have said previously, it changes US Citizens into Subjects.  The moment the US Government seized control of Health Care, it seized complete control of our lives.

Don't believe me?  How else do you explain this?
The FDA says much of ObamaCare is aimed at helping Americans live healthier lives, and these proposed labeling requirements would help them do just that. In the text of the proposed regulation, the FDA states: "[The information] should help consumers limit excess calorie intake and understand how the foods that they purchase at these establishments fit within their daily caloric and other nutritional needs."

That's an FDA Statement about a Rule requiring grocery and convenience stores to provide nutritional information on "prepared, unpackaged food" they will sell you.  That would include your donut and coffee at 7-11 as well as that soup you bought at the soup and olive bar in your local up-scale grocery store.  It would include the prepared samples you can get at Sam's Club or Costco on the weekend.

Now, the Fox Article focuses on the cost issue.  It will cost grocery and convenience stores a great deal of money to provide the correct nutritional information.  As Food Marketing Institute regulatory counsel Erik Lieberman said:
Lieberman said failure to get it right comes with stiff penalties: "If you get it wrong, it's a federal crime, and you could face jail time and thousands of dollars worth of fines."

My point is much  more fundamental, however.  Look back at that FDA Justification: "The FDA says much of ObamaCare is aimed at helping Americans live healthier lives."  But it's not aimed at "helping."  From the Individual Mandate, to this rule, to rules beginning to hit school cafeterias, ObamaCare is quickly taking over every aspect of our lives.  It's healthier to walk or ride a bike than it is to drive- how soon before walking/biking to work is mandated to help "Americans live healthier lives?"  Getting 6 - 8 hours of sleep at night is healthier than working on short sleep.  How long before people have to keep sleep logs (like OTR Truckers already do) on pain of fines or imprisonment?

ObamaCare allows for these things.  As long as it is the law of the land, we have no defense against them.

Someone needs to pilot the proverbial Steam Ship into the maw of this beast.

Leviathan Government: "Feed Me!"

Bloomberg news is reporting that the SCOAMT thinks the US Government needs more of your money.  In related news, they are also reporting that water is wet.

The actual article is a smorgasbord of the SCOAMT being completely ignorant on the economy.  Ready for this America?  Just remember: you elected him.

1) Apparently increasing taxes will help grow the economy.  Every economist since ever says "Wha?"
2) Unemployment went up because "We cut military spending."  Well, yes you did, but you increased spending elsewhere.  And if "government spending" were what made jobs, we'd already be at ~5% Unemployment by now.  Did that happen and I just didn't notice?
3) Death Panels?  Yeah- they're real: "[SCOAMT] said the government can cut health-care costs..."

Seriously, this man has all the economic acumen of a grasshopper, and all the brains of a balloon animal.

Another I Told You So

Hmmm... what could possibly be wrong with diagnosing "grief and anxiety" as mental illnesses?  I mean, beyond the fact that's just stupid?

Oh, and over here I remember that the SCOAMT promised that his administration would crack down on the mentally ill getting guns.  Apropos of nothing, of course.

My mother often calls me a pessimist.  She says I look on the bad side of things and should really endeavor to see the good instead.  I tell her that Endeavour doesn't fly anymore.  After she rolls her eyes, I tell her that I'm not a pessimist.  It's not that I look at things as they are and say "Doom, gloom, and agony on me," rather I'm a cynic in that I always expect people to act in their own self-interest (that is: selfishly), and a realist in that I realize that is never going to change.

When I wrote that piece, I said this:

Do you know how easy it is for the DSM-V to be modified based on politics?  Congratulations, owners of multiple guns.  You can now be diagnosed as mentally-ill.

Okay, I know that diagnosing children as mentally ill is not exactly the same as calling any owner of multiple guns a psychopath, but they end up with the same result.  People who are not sick (most of them) being forever branded as "mentally ill."  Oh, and incidentally denied their second amendment rights as a result, at least potentially.

I do neither deny nor doubt that mental illness really exists, is a real thing, and that people with mental illnesses need treatment.  What I do reject is any so obviously fuzzy realm of science being given the authority of canon by way of a "manual."  Too many people look at the DSM-V as writ gospel regarding mental health, when we really know nothing about the brain.  We don't know why some medications work for some people, and not others.  Some medications for depression, if given to the wrong person, can actually make their depression worse.  Yet we are told by these same people that grief and anxiety (normal reactions to, say, the death of a loved one) are reason to be concerned about mental illness.

I'm not even going to say that there aren't times that someone's "grief" can go on too long and become a chronic thing that needs real help (though I'm guessing the times it needs to be treated with medication are few and far between).

What I am going to say is that this is proof that the DSM-V is a highly political manual.  It doesn't always and exclusively change because of advances in science; it frequently changes based on "best guesses" and, not infrequently, politics and a social agenda.

Which makes the SCOAMT's Imperial Pronouncements last week especially troubling.

Liberal Idiots

As BenK over at the Ace of Spades HQ says, "One Group Of People Getting Screwed By Obamacare That I Don't Feel Sorry For In The Least."

It turns out that many colleges and universities are cutting the hours of their adjunct (read: part-time) professors, to keep them below the 30 hr/wk Obamacare eligibility line.  Surprising absolutely no one with a brain, colleges and universities are moving to protect their bottom lines as much as possible.  However, this seems to have surprised the supposedly highly-educated college staff.

From the article:

“I think it goes against the spirit of the [health-care] law,” Mr. Balla said. “In education, we’re working for the public good, we are public employees at a public institution; we should be the first ones to uphold the law, to set the example.”

A couple of things with this.  First off, you are not working for the public good, and you are not public employees.  You are working for a paycheck, as proven by your grousing about a smaller paycheck, and you are a private employee.  This is true even of State system Universities.  Public employees are police, firefighters, and politicians.  You don't want to be a "public employee," Mr. Balla.

More important, though, is this line: "I think it goes against the spirit of the [health-care] law."  You see, Mr. Balla supported Obamacare (I'm guessing, but it seems pretty evident) because it would give "People" (read: "him") "Free" (read: Employer paid) health insurance.  He never once considered that employers, whether his beloved colleges or the local Stop-and-Rob, or the local burger joint, might look at the requirements of the law and decide the best way to protect their bottom line would be to have as few people eligible for insurance as possible.

Put simply, there is no such thing as "the spirit" of any law.  Laws are written down very carefully.  It is true that the more complicated a law is, the more loopholes and exceptions will exist.  But there is no requirement for any employer to keep people on at 30+ hours per week.  If you want to test this, do something that is technically illegal, but is within "the spirit of the law," for instance: speeding.

Traffic laws, especially speed limit laws, we are told are to "ensure our safety."  So it stands to reason that the "spirit" of speed limit laws is "drive a safe speed."  Well, on an open stretch of highway with no other traffic, a safe speed might well be 90 miles per hour.  Indeed, it might be safer than the actual posted speed limit of 65 or 70 MPH, because by driving faster you're actually on the road less, meaning there is less time for something to go wrong.  Try explaining that when the State Trooper pulls you over for doing 20 miles over the speed limit.

Laws are written explicitly.  Anyone who believes they can write a law, or that any law has been written, such that it will be enforced based on its "spirit" is a fool, a shyster, or both.  In this case, I believe Mr. Balla is both.  He's a shyster because he thought it was a nifty trick to get the government to force his employer to provide insurance despite his part time status.  He's a fool because he believed that would work.

That's Just Crazy Talk

Back in 2009/2010 when conservatives were pointing out the myriad problems with ObamaCare, one of the things we were assured would never happen would be that doctors would stop practicing or would move to fields which were less expensive to practice with similar repayments.  You know, like rational people.  "That's just crazy talk." 

Well, someone should tell the Windber Medical Center in Southwestern Pennsylvania that, because apparently they didn't get the memo.  As of March 31 they will stop delivering babies due to ObamaCare. 

The Windber Medical Center will stop delivering babies after March 31 because its obstetricians are either leaving or refocusing their practices, and because hospital officials believe they can't afford it based on projected reimbursements under looming federal health care reforms.

I'm surirpised by this.  Not that it is happening, but that this is the first one I've heard about.  I'm sure there will be more, and I would not be surprised to find out this isn't actually the first, just the first one to get national attention of any sort.  The fact is that ObamaCare is cripiling doctors and hospitals.  "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor," was a lie.  The SCOAMT knew, or should have known, that doctors would leave the feild in droves.  Which will be just another arrow in the Trannie's quiver when they're ready to fully Nationalize healthcare.

And it is coming.  All tyrannical regimes do two things first.  They nationalize healthcare, making you dependent upon the state for your health.  They disarm the populace, making you easier to control and incidentally dependent upon the state for your protection.  We're seeing a push to disarm the populace in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting.  ObamaCare is the vehicle by which the Trannies will nationalize health care.

Unfortunately, it may be too late to do anything about that.  So let it burn.

Small Business Owners React to Obamacare; Leftists Cry

H/T Gabe at Ace of Spades.

Let us stipulate, for the record, that no one enjoys seeing people further impoverished.  That said, I can't help but indulge in some schadenfreude, here.  If I had to guess, I'd say that the "single mother of three" was more than happy that she was going to be able to soak her bargain-basement employer for a high-speed health plan.  I wouldn't even be surprised to find out she was an Obama voter.

Across the nation, economic reality is rearing its inevitable head, and Leftists are crying that "it's not fair!"  Some are even threatening to boycott entire corporations because of the hard decisions franchise owners face.  They are shocked, shocked that small business owners are cutting part-time employees hours to avoid them suddenly being considered "full time" despite not working full-time hours.

What, exactly, did they think would happen?

Well, honestly, most of them didn't.  To most of them, especially rich actors, the economy is magic, and money is merely a talisman used to work that magic.  They have no understanding of the economy, and they believe that it is not understandable.  So when they heard "free health care," and "a right to health care," they never stopped to ponder economic realities like TANSTAAFL, or that the laws of supply and demand stem from the core fact of the scarcity of resources. 

But then there are those who did think about it.  Most of them, I will generously grant, really should have fallen into the first group.  They don't understand economic reality.  Unfortunately, they think they do.  So when they heard "employer paid health care" they thought, "Yeah!  Every worker deserves (oh, how I hate that word- DT) health care!"  To them, those business owners are all just greedy jerks who want to become rich "on the backs of their employees."

Some few, however, thought about economic reality, and understood it.  They are simply evil.  They understood exactly what would happen.  Indeed, they understood that this was the design of the law.  Small business owners, especially restaurant owners (either family restaurants or franchise owners), tend to work on very small margins.  That is, after they've paid their businesses' bills, including payroll, what they actually take home is fairly modest.  Anything that cuts into that margin poses a very serious threat of putting them in a negative feedback loop which would end in bankruptcy and (and this is important) the closing of their business.  What, exactly, do they think will happen to those workers?

See, the point of Obamacare is (as admitted by the Malignant Traitor himself) to be a "Trojan Horse" for single payer.  The Democrats want more people forced out of their insurance and onto the Exchanges.  That is the only possible outcome of all the mandates and fees baked into the law.  Once enough people are forced onto the "Public Option," they'll be able to cry, "See?!  We told you those evil capitalists were only in for the money!  They don't care about you!" and enact single payer.

And once the Government controls your access to health care, the Government controls every facet of your life.

Once More, With Feeling

Health care is not a right.

Do I need to say that again?  Health care is not a right.  Rights are Natural.  That is, they come from Nature (well, God, but this isn't a theological debate, so I'll stick with "Nature"), and they exist whether or not there is government, or even society.

Absent society, let alone government, I have the right to secure and protect my own life.  Absent society, I have the right to accumulate property.  Absent society, I have the right to do as I choose and pursue whatever endeavors I desire.  Those are rights.

Society arose, in part, to protect our rights.  In return, we sacrificed a small amount of that right to do as we choose (Liberty), and took on certain responsibilities.  I sacrificed my Liberty to shoot you at the slightest provocation, and took on the responsibility not to be a mooch.  Society and Government only work well when the vast majority of the population adheres to those limits on Liberty and upholds their responsibilities.

Then there are privileges.  Privileges are things that require a society, or even a government, or they have no meaning.  Privileges, in general, are "freedoms" in that they are things we can do with our right to Liberty, and they normally have no direct cost.  These are things like, in modern Republics and Democracies, voting.

Where rights have responsibilities, privileges have prerequisites.  It is a privilege to vote.  In the United States, I have to meet the prerequisites of being a citizen, aged 18 or older, with no felonies, and registered to vote.  It is a privilege to drive a car.  In Texas, I have to meet the prerequisites of having proof of ability to pay liability claims, be aged 16 or older (15 in certain cases), and obtain a driver's license.

Finally, there are products and services.  Products and services require a society to operate, but not necessarily a government.  If I cannot make or do something myself, that is a product or a service.  Products and services, beyond relying on a society to have any meaning, also submit to the laws of supply and demand.  If you can't provide it for yourself, then you must rely on someone else to provide it.  That means there is cost associated with it, and the more rare and/or valuable that product or service is, the more costly it will be, in general.

Now, into which of these categories does health care fall?  Does it sound like something that Nature provides you?  Well, perhaps in the form of dirt to "rub some dirt in it," but not really beyond that.  Does it sound like a privilege?  Not by our definition.  Health care is a combination of products (bandages, sutures, medicines, etc.) and services (administration of those products, consultation and diagnostics, health maintenance).

You cannot make it a right by wishing it so.  No matter what you do, health care will be a combination of products and services which are therefore subject to the laws of supply and demand.  One of the things demanded is human labor.  Doctors, Physician's Assistants, Nurses, and various technicians are all human beings who are selling their labor as health care workers to you, the consumer.

The Democrats are trying to make a big push (still? again?) to convince people that ObamaCare, which attempts to turn the product/service known as "health care" a right by forcing changes on the health insurance industry.  This ignores several problems, the most severe of which is the fact that no amount of human action can turn something into a "right."

But, they say, "It is a right.  Look at other 1st world countries."

Yes, with their ever ballooning deficits and forced austerity.  Not to mention waiting lists months or years long, ever shrinking pay for ever increasing work for doctors and so on.  But let's ignore that, for a moment, and consider something else.

In Europe, they claim to have made health care a "right."  But have they?  Do doctors and hospitals no longer get paid?  We have a word for forcing someone to work without paying them, and it isn't a very nice word.  If they do get paid, then what do you expect will happen if they stop getting paid, or suddenly decide that the pay is not commensurate with the stress and workload, and go into a different industry?  What will Europeans do then?  Can the legislatures of Europe grant everyone the knowledge and skill do provide their own health care?  Can the legislatures of Europe pass a law that enables someone to perform their own appendectomy or brain surgery?

Of course the answer is "no."  If there were a sudden shortage of doctors, many would do without health care, as they are already forced to do even in countries where health care is supposed to be a "right."

As an aside: Consider this: if the Government could mandate things to be "rights" does that not mean they could also legislate so that certain things are no longer "rights?"  Be careful what you wish for.

On Abortion and Rape: Why Are We Talking About This?

So, by now you know all about Representative Akin's remarks regarding abortion and rape.  If you live under a rock, the short version is that he said that women have a natural process which makes it harder to get pregnant when you're raped, so only those who are pregnant by "legitimate rape" should be able to get abortions.  Gah.

So, friend of the blog and twitter buddy @tsrblke who also happens to be a Ph.D. candidate in bioethics and a faithful Catholic sent me his thoughts.  I'll follow up with mine.

The question of abortion is rape is a moral quagmire, and frankly you’re not going to win over either side by trying to split the middle.  Frankly, an exception for rape and incest is a bit internally inconsistent if you truly believe that the product of conception is an innocent human life.  So what to do gets dicey at best.  It’s also a question the Catholic Church has had to deal with for years given its front line status operating hospitals.  So let’s look at the Catholic Ethical and Religious Directives (#36 specifically):

“36. Compassionate and understanding care should be given to a person who is the victim of sexual assault. Health care providers should cooperate with law enforcement officials and offer the person psychological and spiritual support as well as accurate medical information. A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum.”

Now many people will look at this initial response and go “OMG! Catholic Church!! Birth Control!!!!!!!” but read it again.  The church’s objection to birth control is the separation of the unitive and procreative functions of sex.  That’s really not at issue in rape. Some theologians have gone on to say that in the case of rape the sperm actually represent continued assault and the effect of that should be mitigated to the extent that it doesn’t harm and innocent life.

So how does this apply to the non-Catholic Akin?  The answer is simple.  When presented with the question you simply answer in much the same way: “The question of abortions in the case of rape is complicated. Rape is hard on the victims, but since I believe that life begins at conception it seems wrong to resort to abortion to solve these problems.  Furthermore, it isn’t helpful to rape victims.  The primary concern should be getting rape victims treatment they need, such as emergency contraception, as soon as possible. We need to strengthen systems that encourage reporting and help frontline care in hospitals.  In doing so we can prevent the pregnancies all together and avoid having to make the woman choose between two horrible options.”

Now my comments:  Why the heck wasn't Rep. Akin smart enough to keep his yap shut?  Let's say you believe in a complete ban on abortion.  Why on earth would you advertise that?  It even turns of a fair number of people on your own side.  And then it distracts from what this election should be about.

All due respect to tsrblke, here is my answer:

"Abortion is not the issue in this election.  People have differing views, and most of them are quite sincere in their beliefs.  Rape is a horrific crime, and the perpetrators of such crimes should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.  However, what is more important is that the health insurance law known as ObamaCare makes it harder for women with legitimate health needs- whatever those may be- to get the care they need.  Meanwhile, it balloons the budget beyond levels that are merely unsustainable.  Let us fix those issues, which have very serious implications for our survival as a nation, and then we can come back to the question of when abortion should be allowed versus when it should be disallowed."

Ladies and gentlemen of the GOP- this is an economy election, and as I've demonstrated here, every social issue has some hook that you can use to talk about the economy.

To quote the iconic Yellow Leader: "Stay on target."

Does Jonathan Alter Aspire To Stupid?

Is pre-experiment Charlie Gordon his hero?  Does he wake up in the morning and say, "Johnny boy, you can do this.  You can get through the day merely being stupid, and not advertise the fact you have the intelligence of a mentally retarded paramecium?"  Does he have sticky notes on his fridge with things like, "Think it, Believe it: 70 IQ?" Because if so, he just failed.

On MSNBC's "Ed Show" mental-Lilliputian Jon Alter said this:

"People will die in the United States if ObamaCare is repealed.  That is not an exaggeration.  That is not crying fire.  It's a simple fact.  If you have preexisting conditions and you are thrown off of health insurance, or if you get sick after you or your husband, spouse, loses the job, you're not going to go to the doctor as soon, you cancer or disease is not going to be caught as quickly, and your odds of dying are much, much increased."

Then, if you had any doubt that he was saying that ObamaCare would make you immortal, he followed up with this:

"ObamaCare will save, literally, thousands of lives."

Okay, for those with any doubt.  You are going to die.  One day, you'll be alive.  The next, or even the next hour or minute- you won't be.  No health insurance scheme is going to change that.  As for "early treatment," well, if you don't go to the doctor, that's your own fault.  It's that simple.

See, we already have laws requiring hospitals to provide life-saving emergency care regardless of ability to pay.  You can use a County hospital in place of a primary care physician if you can't afford your own health care.  The American people were already providing that, we didn't need ObamaCare for it.

Of course, his point wasn't actually that ObamaCare will save lives.  That's a transparent lie.  He wanted to double down on the "Mitt Romney has time-traveling cancer-ray eyes," add featuring Joe Soptic.  Don't believe me?  How about this quote:

"And they can bring death into the conversation and say, 'No, we're not calling Mitt Romney a murderer, what we are saying is that if he's elected president, a lot of people will die.' Those are two slightly different, but related issues,"

That's right.  Jonathan Alter isn't calling Mitt Romney a murderer, he's just saying he's responsible for the death of Joe Soptic's wife.

A New Low

I'm absolutely flabbergasted.  I'm one of the most cynical people I know, and this still surprised me in its cynical disdain for reality and decorum.  I'm going to recommend you just read the article, not watch the ad.

Now, I have no desire to "pile on" "Joe Soptic," but neither can I, in good conscience, let this pass unanswered.  Mr. Romney's campaign will not directly address the add, for good reason, so it falls to us in the New Media to do so.  I am in a special position to be able to address the ad, so I will.  Let's take it apart claim by claim:

1) Romney and Bain closed the plant. - False.  Mitt Romney had already left Bain Capital when the Kansas City GST Steel plant closed.

2) Mr. Soptic lost his health care. - False.  Mr. Soptic, at most, lost his health insurance.  Health insurance is most definitely not the same thing as health care.  Most importantly, every state in the nation has a way to receive tax-payer subsidized health care: from county hospitals which will see you regardless of ability to pay, to medicaid, to even private charities.  While I'm sorry Mr. Soptic lost his job and his insurance (by the way: he was eligible for COBRA for at least 18 months.  Did he simply elect not to take it?), that did not prevent him from seeking medical care.

3) His wife "didn't say anything because she knew we couldn't afford the insurance," - I don't know if that's true or not.  What I do know, as mentioned in point 2, is that it didn't matter.  Health care options were available to them.  If they were ignorant of those options, I'm sorry.  If they were too proud to accept them, that's on them.  Either way, it is neither the fault of Mitt Romney, nor of Bain Capital.

These are the three premises on which the final statement: "I do not think Mitt Romney realizes what he's done to anyone, and furthermore I do not think Mitt Romney is concerned," is based.  We've proven that at least two of the necessary assertions are false.  Given Mitt Romney's other behavior I tend to think he would care, though that caring about one family would probably not have stopped him from trying to make the best business decision possible.

The fact is this add wants you to react on a purely emotional level.  It would have you say that Mitt Romney should have kept that plant open just for the Soptics- so they wouldn't lose their "health care."  Simultaneously, it wants you to forget the fact that Bain Capital exists to make businesses profitable.  Among their success stories are Home Depot and Staples.  There are uncounted others.  Sometimes Bain failed in its goal to make a given business profitable, and those businesses would fail.  Chance of success entails a risk of failure.

Most importantly, though, is that Mr. Romney's response is correct.  Set aside the emotional appeal in the ad, and you realize it's based on nothing.  It is a distraction from the things we should be concerned about.  By any objective measure (trillion dollar deficits, 5 trillion dollars in new debt, rising health care costs, foreign policy debacles, etc.) Mr. Obama is a miserable failure, and lacks any compelling reason he should be granted a second term.

The Senate? No. Try the States

In the wake of the terrible Supreme Court decision on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare, ACA), many politicians have been telling us "We must retake the senate!"  In fact, you could probably add some more exclamation marks and an "eleventy" or two in, just to get the feeling.  The Senate, we are told, is the key to overturning Obamacare.

With all due respect, I call bull.  The last time I can find that a law was just repealed was in the 1920s.  Prohibition was repealed in the '30s, which did require the senate, but it had the force of the American people so far behind it that they were able to pass a Constitutional Amendment to repeal a previous Constitutional Amendment.  I don't think we have that level of outrage; there are just too many people who don't mind being slaves to the State, as long as the State "takes care of" them.

The problem with anyone running for national office is that they want to hold national office.  They want the power that august office brings, and they want to wield it.  The possibility that the Senate would repeal the entirety of Obamacare is remote at best.  Even House Republicans keep talking about "Repeal and Replace," when the only Conservative option is "Repeal and Remand(to the states)."

If we truly want to stop the ever growing behemoth that is the Federal Government, we must use the Federalist System put in place by the Founders of the Constitution.  The States must wrest their authority back from the Federal Government.  And "wrest" is the correct word; it will be a fight of epic, perhaps cataclysmic proportions.

Three essential steps that the States must take to begin taking their authority back:

1) Declare that any resident of the state is exempt from the requirements of ACA.  This will require the refusal of any state resources (money or personnel) for enforcement, as well as refusal to allow Federal Officials to enforce the law.

2) Begin weaning themselves off the governmental cocaine that is "Federal Matching Funds."  From Medicaid to Highway funds, the Federal Government exerts too much influence because of these funds.  Texas has already begun leading the way here, with our refusal to provide State Funds to Planned Parenthood, and finding a way to continue to fund women's services without Federal funds.

3) Repeat steps 1 & 2 with all Federal Laws which overreach Federal Authority.  From "Environmental Laws" to Abortion law, and, in fact, almost every facet of life, the Federal Government is reaching where it has no authority, whatever the Supreme Court has said.  The States must decide to take that authority back.

Bear this in mind: the cost must be counted.  The term "Constitutional Crisis" is not an exaggeration.  Of course, I would argue we're already in one.  This would be a violent upheaval, at least in the political sense.  It might cause a violent upheaval in the physical violence sense

While it is, indeed, vital that we retake the Senate, far more important are your State and Local races.  It is your States which must stand up to the Federal Government, and it is your cities which must then stand up to your State.  The Senate will not, cannot, save us from Federal Expansion.  As part of the Federal Government, it is an intrinsic part of the problem.  The Founders of our Nation were wise enough to see this, and so they instituted a Federalist system of government.  We need to return to that system.

 Two hundred and 26 years ago, on Wednesday, our Forefathers swore to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to defeat tyranny.  I don't think it's too much to ask that we swear our convenience, our baubles, and our luxuries to do the same.

Just Kill It, Already: Guaranteed Issue

So, today's offering at the Axiom Report will cover Guaranteed Issue.  In light of yesterday's horrendous decision on Obamacare, this is, if anything, even more important.  Already there are Republicans who want to repeal most of the law, but want to leave in these "popular provisions" we've been discussing.

Guaranteed Issue is poison.  Apparently no one in Washington, DC has ever heard the term "Moral Hazard."  Guaranteed Issue, without a mandate (which any repeal bill would remove), will kill the private insurance industry.

I'll update this post when the new article is up.

In Defense of Liberty

The Honorable Rick Perry

Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 12428
Austin, Texas 78711-2428

Dear Governor,

As you are no doubt aware, the United States Supreme Court just upheld one of the most egregious usurpations of State and Individual Liberty in American History.  By declaring the Individual Mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the Act) a tax, they did not merely uphold this tyrannical statute, they did so while directly contradicting themselves (if it were really a tax, rules state they cannot rule on the law until the tax has gone into effect) as well as the law itself (the word “tax” never occurs regarding the Mandate).

By upholding the Act, the Supreme Court has effectively decided that it is within the purview of the Federal Government to levy a tax on breathing.  The individual mandate, as you know, is not a tax on voluntary economic activity.  Rather it is a tax on voluntary economic inactivity.  Simply being alive and choosing not to carry an insurance policy is enough to force you to pay the tax.  This is not true of any other tax.  Income taxes are not owed if you make no income; they tax economic activity, not economic inactivity.  Sales taxes are not owed if you do not purchase anything; they tax economic activity, not economic inactivity.  Cigarette taxes and gasoline taxes are similar examples; to avoid the taxes, do not engage in the proscribed economic activity.

This is a perversion of everything our forefathers fought to achieve.  It is tyrannical and unjust.  The Act is blatantly unconstitutional, and the Court has ignored the constitution in deference to its precious “precedent.”

Mr. Governor, we, the people of Texas, have nowhere else to turn.  Our congressional leaders have failed us.  The Courts of the United States have failed us.  I humbly beseech that the State of Texas defend us from this tyrannical overreach.

To that end, I would ask that the State of Texas act in the following ways:

1)      That no State resources be used to enforce this act of tyranny.

2)      That the State would officially affirm, via legislation, the same.

3)      That the State act to shield those persons who refuse to comply with this tyranny from the Federal Authority.

Mr. Governor, I understand what I’m asking.  I understand that this would be a huge and possibly irreversible step.  I understand that it is a gamble and, to some extent, “asking for trouble.”  Nevertheless, I believe it to be the right course.  I believe that the Natural Rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are not outmoded ideas.  I believe the rights upheld in the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not antiquated notions.  And I believe that they must be vigorously defended.

With Sincere Respect,