Silk Purse Deptartment: Fixing the VA and ObamaCare in One Swoop

The VA. Obamacare. Every bit of news surrounding these issues is scandalous, especially so in a country with the best healthcare institutions and providers in the world. But, there's a silver lining, if our politicians and leaders are willing to roll up their sleeves and take a couple for the team.



The VA debacle, with the backdrop of Obamacare, is a very rare opportunity to fix a whole plethora of issues while putting government on an economically feasible course.  The backstory:



The US government has for a long time wanted to provide heath care (note I said care and not insurance) to those who cannot afford it. The government also wants to care for its veterans, but has for decades had a devil of a time doing so in what many believe is a proper fashion.  Most recently, vets have had to wait so long, placed on "secret" lists, that some died from lack of access to care that is supposed to be provided by law.



That's the problem; how does it get fixed, rather than swirled around in the clogged toilet that is now  Congress? I like to think I'm a fixer. So here're my thoughts on how to repair it all. Read the list to the end, because the changes are massive, the plan requires them all, and both parties will squeal like the pigs they are:

1. Repeal ObamaCare.
2. Do away with the VA, transferring all of its hospitals to the US Public Health Service, the USPHS (more later...).
3. Give (buy) health insurance to every US military veteran who qualifies for the VA - and it should be the same health insurance plan that is given to members of Congress. In terms of cost, this is actually about a net-net, because it costs the US government in excess of $10k per vet in the VA system, and a really good health insurance plan can be less than that, given the amount of insured vets we're talking. And if it's good enough for veterans, it ought to be damned well good enough for Congress. This should be codified, perhaps as a constitutional amendment.
4. Every US veteran and their dependents should have access to all military, USPHS and government funded hospitals, including NIH and the like.  This used to be the case in years past; not sure why that went away.  
5. The former VA hospitals, now in the hands of the USPHS, become the place where all uninsured go for care. In fact, perhaps it should be a place where every American taxpayer can go, but not required to go. The poor and uninsured don't receive insurance plans, which frankly cost too much for what they deliver; rather the poor receive direct care from the same institutions which provided care for our vets.  Again, if it was good enough for the vets...
6. Considering #3 above, just imagine the boost to the economy!

The government needs to realize that the only thing it even comes close to doing well is pushing paper.  It has never, and will never, be able to actually do anything even as close to as well as the private sector. Taking the steps above, I think this puts the government in its place, and taps the true power of the American health care system - not issuing insurance, but delivering the best health care the world has ever known. 



GOP leaders, whistle-blower join in calls to privatize veterans' care | Fox News

Republicans seek own policy cure to replace Obamacare - Yahoo News

The thing I don't get about covering the uninsured:

The Democrats have claimed there were around 30 million people without insurance coverage (note that does not mean health care, just insurance coverage; that argument remains for another time). So they went about remaking the entire health insurance and health care industry. This has resulted in BILLIONS of dollars in cost to taxpayers and the insured alike.

But would it not have been simpler and cheaper for the government to simply indemnify - cover - the health care for those 30 million, say, even to the tune of $2M per? That caps the cost at around 60 million. And the insured definitely could have kept your plan, period.

There was so much more afoot with the Democrats; there always is.

What did the GOP say? They think government should be out of it entirely. Sounds good to me!



Republicans seek own policy cure to replace Obamacare - Yahoo News

Obamacare and the Freedoms

In reading about challenges to Obamacare on First Amendment grounds, I am puzzled. The challenges are all about religious freedom. I think that's wrong. The First Amendment also is supposed to guarantee free assembly, and I think that's a better argument. It's also my major complaint about socialism in general and Obamacare in specific.
 
Free assembly means you have the right to choose your associations, be they personal or business. The Obama government is forcing you to make an association, one with an insurance company which you may not want, which in my view is clearly unconstitutional. Unless you're a lefty.
 
If you agree with me, feel free to forward this. I think maybe we need to show the lawyers - who seem immersed in the minutiae of law - how to get back our freedoms.

Stoners-R-Us

Family-owned Colo. marijuana shop wants to become 'Costco of weed' - Yahoo News



Sick of this.  I say, let people buy it without restriction.  But you have to sign a waiver on purchase that says you will no longer be eligible for any government benefits, such as welfare nor unemployment, nor will you be able to sue your employer when they require urine checks of all employees. Therefore, you truly "tune out" at your own risk. Consequences.
Isn't it lovely that liberals always want to do social experiments with other people's lives?  we know what Marijuana does. But eff it, have at it, stoners. 

Who knew Coolidge had it in him....

'I’ve got a pen': Obama raises hackles with executive actions

'I’ve got a pen': Obama raises hackles with executive actions



I think Pres O is going to keep me in material to write about for some time. I've been railing on his inability to act as an American, president or otherwise, and here is just more proof: He either does not understand, or ignores, the roles of government bodies and whole notion of the separation of powers. O is often referred to as "king," and the hits just keep on coming.  

Obama: Marijuana no more dangerous than alcohol | Fox News

Ok, here's another take on this: if Obama was  - just for the sake of argument - a Chinese mole, or maybe just a traitor, would he not encourage the use of drugs that would impair the productivity of the American worker? That in turn leads to the collapse of the US economy, which then allows external forces - for the sake of argument, the Chinese - to take over the US political system with out firing a shot.  Hmmm...?



Obama: Marijuana no more dangerous than alcohol | Fox News

What is President O?

Serendipity: I was just saying the other day about Obama, that he is not a true American.  He isn't an American patriot; he just doesn't behave like an American.  Americans believe in freedom and the rights of the individual, and despite Obama's claims of being a US Constitutional professor (adjunct instructor of a single course is more like it) , his policies and actions are so far removed from anything that is historically "American" as to be head-scratching.

This all makes sense when one puts together that Pres O, despite being born within the US, was raised outside of these shores. Further, he sought out and made associations with people who were far outside the American norm.  Bill Ayers (who for the life of me I cannot figure out why is not behind bars for attempted murder in the Weather Underground bombings), and Jeremiah "God Damn America" Wright.  It shows. He behaves like, at best, a  foreigner, and at worst, a traitor. If you've ever been overseas, you know what I mean; foreigners just don't understand us.  Their experiences are all about dealing with the government on an intimate level, and this includes the so-called more "enlightened" governments of western Europe. Americans want as little to do with government as possible.

If one takes a broad view of Obama's policies rather than looking at them piecemeal, one can surmise that he's trying to undermine the American Way, and he's doing it in the manner that clever Asians would do.  Which makes sense, since he was raised in Asia. He's undermining the American economy using the economy itself to do it - kind of an economic jiu-jitsu, where the power of one is used against him. How best to kill an economic system based on credit and trust than to trust an enemy with your own insurmountable debt?

I'm not sure how to sum this all up.  I usually like to offer a solution at this point, but the only one I can think of is to remove O from office.  But whoever thinks that will happen is buying swampland in Florida as we speak. Feel free to offer suggestions of a non-violent nature. But it's clear we need some form of revolution. More on that in a later installment...

Edward Said: The ‘Founding Father’ Who May Explain Obama’s Benghazi Errors | Video | TheBlaze.com

Woman sues FDA for right to not use a penis

So help me, if I could move to another planet, I would.  Here we have a lesbian who wants to become pregnant, but doesn't want to have sex in order to do it. And therefore there is ensuing idiocy involving the government, and her "right" to be inseminated by whomever she wants. Just not using a penis. 

Woman sues FDA for right to select sperm donor, bypass sperm bank | Fox News

Feds suspend immigration enforcement program after Arizona court ruling | Fox News

And now, it's a free-for-all. The US federal government, with support from the Supreme Court, is officially refusing to do its job. Arizona: you would be justified in secession from the USA. 

Feds suspend immigration enforcement program after Arizona court ruling | Fox News

The Mexican government

The Mexican government is so bad that it can't figure out ways to attract business that will keep it's people working. Mexican people then emigrate illegally to the US, where the people and the US government have created an environment where there is honest work.  But the emigrees keep their Mexican loyalties;  they and people on the American political left deride the US for wanting to keep American people working and avoid all the problems that caused illegal immigration in Mexico in the first place. Makes no sense.

Wealth and the Left

I was thinking the other day about how millionaires make their money, and about left-wing protesters who object to it.

We've heard a lot about Occupy - they object to folks on Wall Street making what they consider "obscene" amounts of money. Wage protesters also complain about folks in industries such as manufacturing and pharma as making too much money. Other millionaires seem to have escaped their scrutiny - billionaires such as George Soros, and that bastion of the left: Hollywood.

It's pretty clear that the protests are a political left versus right kinda thing.  However, there are so many problems with all of this.  For example, the Wall Streeters - who by the way need no sympathy from anyone - make their money by assisting others in making their own wealth.  It's how Wall Street works. The industrialists make their money in 2 ways: first they do it by creating a product, and then hiring others to make that product. Then they do the the same thing as the Wall Streeters - they help investors in their company attain wealth. The Pharma companies not only manufacture drugs, but they also create new ones that cure diseases, or assist in the maintenance of a good life if one has something that's incurable.

But what about other mega-high wage earners? What about Hollywood and pro sports? The Occupier types not wanting to take on their political own (eg Hollywood), what do these groups contribute to society.  Well, they entertain us.  That's good.  But isn't it a parasitic profession that only takes wealth, but doesn't create it all around?  It seems to me that the whole notion of "giving back", which is a phrase ultra-popular in the left - is more in tune with what Wall Street and conservative manufacturing does, rather than any other sector of large wage earners in our country.

And then in a special category of parasite is Soros - one of the most left wing people in the world, who is also one of the wealthiest in the world. Know how he makes his money? From currency exchanges and money manipulation. So, while he's basically a Wall Streeter, he's not they kind who helps others create wealth.  Rather, he's the kind who makes money off of the misfortunes of others. He's the kind the Occupiers are complaining about. Yet not a word from them about him.

It seems to me that if one is going to complain about high wages, he ought to do it across the board.  I've not heard the name "Soros" uttered by any of the left-wing complainers. I've only heard complaints about guys who get rich making other people rich.


Obama Keeps Bain In His Cross Hairs - WSJ.com