The Dirty Little Secret Behind Obamacare

Now that the health insurance bell is tolling for you and me, it is time to examine it. No, I am not going to go over the legions of problems with Obamacare. I am thinking about the cost of healthcare in general in the United States.

Et tu, SNL?

On last night's season opener, Saturday Night Live did a satire on Obamacare. It was quite funny, especially considering who it was. Well, not actually. It was one of those cases where the humor was so close to the truth that it was really not very amusing.

Is Our Healthcare Really That Expensive?

I was never convinced of this. We were regaled with scary-looking charts and graphs, showing how expensive healthcare is and that its skyrocketing costs were sure to send us into bankruptcy. I suspected that this steady increase in overall costs was due to the boomers retiring and getting old. It had nothing to do with insurance or medical delivery systems or anything else. And, in the past 3 years aggregate spending has gone down, not because of Obamacare but because millions are now unemployed and are not spending on insurance or seeking needed medical care. None of these are endemic to our medical care system, but rather the result of unrelated external forces.

The Secret

Young people in their 20's and 30's. You see, they are strong, healthy, and practically immortal. Since they almost never require medical care, it is traditional for them to go without health insurance. A risky strategy to be sure, but a reasonable one. I myself did the same when I was that age. Obamacare actually increases health costs, but this is balanced out by the young who now must buy insurance that they will never use or need. That is how Obamacare is designed to reduce costs.

OK, So Mega-Corporations Got A Reprieve, Why Not Us?

See the point above. Every company with more than 50 employees must offer health insurance or pay a fine. They got a one year delay, because this does not affect the finances very much. However, they must get a lot of young, healthy enrollees paying into the system right away, or Obamacare will collapse of its own weight and cost.

Remember–This Is Not About Quality Or Access

Obamacare is designed to reduce the cost of health insurance, nothing more and nothing less. The quality of our medical system or access by the needy is not the issue with Obamacare.

Do We Really Need It?

Probably not. I call your attention to the fact that we have 50 independent states, each with the problem of paying for healthcare by her citizens, and each with its own solution. Some states, like California, insurance is expensive to ensure that everyone that has it also has access to a smorgasbord of specified services, while other states have the equivalent of catastrophic insurance which is very affordable and designed to keep you out of bankruptcy from a huge medical bill. From my viewpoint, Obamacare is an expensive solution in search of a problem.

Wrong—a CR can defund Obamacare

I heard a commentator (he will probably want me to mention his name) state absolutely that a Continuing Resolution (CR) passed by Congress cannot defund Obamacare. Being an ex-OMB employee, he claims that a CR can cut discretionary funding, but not funding for programs/departments already ensconced in law.


This might be a folkway respected by the Reagan Administration, but is not a law or rule or regulation. Nice try, though.


The Senate website says that a CR is defined as:

Legislation in the form of a joint resolution enacted by Congress, when the new fiscal year is about to begin or has begun, to provide budget authority for Federal agencies and programs to continue in operation until the regular appropriations acts are enacted.

A CR can fund as much or as little of the federal government as Congress pleases. They are not obligated to fund the entire shootin' match.
Full stop.

question for Muslims

If it is acceptable for you guys to burn down Coptic Christian churches, why is it not acceptable for Christians to burn copies of the Koran (which have certainly been defiled by the hands of "infidels")?
Inquiring minds want to know.
FYI, I am Buddhist, and do not have a horse in this race.

NYT Editorial: Putin is Correct, McCain is Wrong

here are the relevant links:
Putin
McCain


Sigh...sometimes it stinks to be honest, and this is one of those times.
The president's idea to surgically bomb Syrian Assad's chemical weapons stores of sarin gas would be a mistake unparalleled since the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand (Google him, people) with potentially similarly tragic and regrettable consequences.
Putin's editorial comments made a few good points, McCain's tirade scored none. I shall admit ab initio that most of P's editorial is sheer, good old-fashion political rhetoric of little value or import, but a similar criticism can be applied to Mc.


Putin: "The potential strike by the United States against Syria...will result in more innocent victims and escalation..."
Probably true.
Syria has come to a situation that resembles a disgusting, if stable, state of quasi-equilibrium that resembles a simple if deadly civil war. Chucking US T-LAMs into the mix might upend the drink cart.


Putin: "Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy..."
Bullseye.
The autocratic leaders of Libya and Egypt were deposed to much adulation, but the new guys turned out to be much worse. The country is much worse off. How does that go? From the frying pan into the fire? They are not interested in freedom, liberty, or anything of the kind. They want to install pure, absolute, militaristic social and religious sharia law. Full Stop.


Putin: “We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law.”
Bullsh*t.
They are protecting their only warm water port in the Mediterranean at Tartus. Let us go on.


Putin: “I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is 'what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.' It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation.”
This statement seems to be what set off Mc and company.
Both P and Mc seem to miss the point of this principle. The US constitution's form of government had many precedents and descendants, yet all have failed. What makes our government work is the American character. Suggest you read Tocqueville. Contrary to any other society, Americans have an internal compass as to what is correct and what is wrong. This compass influences our everyday behavior, even at the cost of one's own treasury. This is unique behavior unknown to any religion or society I am aware of save the Tibetan Buddhists.


McCain: “Look, we’ve got to start dealing with Vladimir Putin in a realistic fashion for what he is. He’s an old KGB Colonel Apparatchik that dreams of the days of the Russian Empire...”
So what?
Kerry was a peacenik flower-child that marched arm-in-arm with fellow peacenik Jane Fonda. He told flat-out lies about the behavior of US soldiers because he hated war. He is now SecState. Either we condemn both as liars, or let it rest and continue.


McCain: “Most importantly, to me, of course, and should be to the world, is their continued support of Bashar Assad and the massacre that’s taking place in Syria, not to mention a number of other areas that Russia is basically showing us a total lack of respect.”
So?
Respect in the international community is something you earn by the righteousness of your actions, not a thing that is automatically handed to you because of your title. From my viewpoint, the current administration has not yet earned its stripes.


McCain: “We need to show more leadership, and that does not mean confrontation, but it means steadfast adherence to the principles that many presidents, since the end of the Cold War, since before, have stood for, that the rest of the world will respect.”
Does he understand that today's demons are not Kerensky, Stalin, Brezhnev, Castro, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, or even Ho Chi Minh? Try: Khamenei, Kim Jong-un, Mursi, or Nasrallah (Google them).

IN CONCLUSION

I dunno. My stomach hurts.

Syria – Obama Repeating His Egypt Mistake?

THE ARAB SPRING ISN'T

The “BO” administration has oft trumpeted same as the flowering of democracy in the Middle East.
Not.
In every country that has changed leadership, the new guys are terrorists. Yes, the old dude was a tin-horn dictator ruling the Islamic version of a Banana Republic. But, like medieval kings, their influence is limited and his true power to victimize his subjects is limited to his personal circle of advisers, which does not extend very far. The new guys seek to fundamentally rearrange society, reaching down into every last jock strap and pair of panties. And, oh yes, killing every last Coptic Christian they can find.

THE EGYPT MISTAKE

“BO” and his flunkees came up with a true boner when dealing with Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood won the elections, and “BO” heralded this as the green shoots of democracy, as the people finally found their voice. He gave his stamp of approval. Turns out that the new guys were even worse and more despotic than their predecessor, Mubarak. Any self respecting person would voluntarily eat crow at this point, but “BO” and his minions are too arrogant.

FOOT-IN-MOUTH PART 1

“BO” drew a “red line” in the sand, stating that Assad must not use sarin gas in violation of international law. He used it once. Nada. He did it again. “BO” deployed a total of 8 DDG-51s armed with Tomahawks, threatening to take out the WMDs. International support for such a surgical strike evaporated like dew in the morning sun. Had he submitted it to Congress for a vote, he would have lost by a country mile. This would have been a historic shaming of an American president.

FOOT-IN-MOUTH PART 2

Not to be outdone, SecState Kerry said all Assad had to do was give up his chemical weapons. Assad said hmm, OK. Putin heard this, and quickly jumped on this faux pas and said “OK”. They called Kerry's bluff. Now what?

RUSSIA TO THE RESCUE!!

It is quickly becoming obvious that the plan by “BO” to cruise-missile Assad's chemical weapons store would be a historic mistake. Not only would it not completely destroy the sarin gas stores, it would probably be the match that ignites major wars in the Arab world. Putin offered to be the hero by taking control of the chemical weapons in question, offering a fig leaf to “BO”, who has certainly committed a major error.

BARRY, IT IS YOUR MOVE

The issue of Syria's chemical weapons is now off the table. Yes, many details are yet to be worked out and there are doubts and suspicions on all sides. Still, does “BO” have the wisdom and strategic sense to admit that he has made a big mistake, and to take the solution being offered to him, allowing him to save face?

CONSULTING THE MAGIC 8-BALL

Intellectual horsepower is not the hallmark of the current occupants of the West Wing, so the final decision cannot be predicted with confidence.

Go Ahead, Bomb Syria...but is it legal?

What can possibly go wrong...besides World War 3?
Some, including UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, are questioning the validity under Article 51 of the UN Charter.
Let us examine whether military action against Syria by the US is justified.

Step 1: causus belli

Does the US have one against Syria? Did they attack us or aid in such an attack? Are we in imminent danger of being attacked? The answer is a firm no. What action did they perform against us or against our interests that would justify such an attack? Revenge, justice, a “shot across the bow”, or “sending a message” to Iran are not sufficient to invoke causus belli. Nor is the belief that Assad is simply evil and must be taken down a few notches.
Let us allow for the moment that a chemical warfare attack occurred in Syria. This is certainly a violation of international law. Does that qualify? First, we are not sure of our facts (I have heard it said that there is proof positive; yes? Then let us examine them openly and fairly). The CW attack could easily have been a roque general or Turkish partisans crossing the border, trying to provoke a military response that would destabilize Assad. See, the Syrian president is not the only one in the area who has access to CW weapons. We would need an investigation as to the guilty party, a trial in absentia at the International Court at the Hague, and then, if found guilty, a warrant issued for the guilty party's arrest.
Is this not the correct procedure according to international law?
And: at what point in the court proceedings does the chucking of Tomahawk missiles come in?

Step 2: is it moral?

There has not yet been a formal investigation: did the attack actually occur? Who was the perpetrator? Unless we have answers to these questions, simply tossing around a few cruise missiles is irresponsible and certainly immoral. Innocent people who had nothing to do with CW attack could get killed.
Even worse, the CW stockpiles have been dispersed among the population, making them human shields. A despicable action to be sure, but makes it even more imperative that we be absolutely sure of our facts before taking action that is certain to kill innocent civilians.
If there is irrefutable proof, then let us see it. Simply claiming it does not make it so (this was the mistake that Bush the son made in deciding to invade Iraq).

Step 3: will it be effective?

Difficult to see how this could be so. The sarin gas seems to have been dispersed. In order to make it impossible for Assad to use them again (assuming he was the culprit), we would have to get all of it. If only one stockpile survived, he would retain CW ability.

Step 4: some advice

In the 70s, it was a common sitcom joke to say to an anxious woman: dear, why don't you take a pill (quaaludes) and lie down? You will feel much better when you wake up.
I suggest that Obama, Kerry, McCain, et al, follow this age-old advice.