Thursday, January 28, 2010

The Voice of Experience


A False Unity


As I watched His Majesty, King Hussein Obama the First, deliver his State of the Union address, I got the feeling that instead of hearing a speech on the problems facing our great nation, I was witnessing a man on the verge of a nervous breakdown.  My discomfort grew with each pathetic attempt of His Majesty to win back the favor of his assembled minions and the nation's serfs with such bromides as:


·         We must answer history's call.

·         We do not give up.

·         I do not accept second place for the United States of America.

·         Let's try common sense.


And my personal favorite:


·         It's time the American people get a government that matches their decency


I would not have been shocked if His Majesty would have finished his speech by reminding everybody to brush their teeth before they went to bed.  Of course, the utility of the advice would have been somewhat limited considering that the majority of the viewing audience was probably already asleep by the time His Majesty mercifully stopped talking.


The King's address contained something for everybody.  If you're a fiscal conservative, the King announced a spending freeze.  If you're a wacked out liberal, the King urged the Senate to pass the cap and trade bill.  Do you need a job?  Don't worry.  The King wants a jobs bill, right now.  Concerned about Iran?  The King's on it.  Are you a gay American who wants to be all you can be?  No sweat.  His Majesty will fight to end the military policy of "don't ask, don't tell."  Yes sir, the King's address had something for everybody, even though a number of these policies are contradictory


By the end of the King's speech, I was so numb that I could barely get up from my chair.  Responding to it in any coherent fashion would have simply been impossible.  The numerous commentators and reporters who have since pointed out all the distortions, half-truths, and out-right lies in His Majesty's rambling, convoluted speech deserve our sincere thanks for performing this yeoman's task of dissecting his confusing oration.  My purpose today is simply to add the following observation, which as of this writing has not been discussed.


Near the beginning of His Majesty's address, the King reached back into our nation's history to provide examples of how American's have met and overcome great challenges. 


It's tempting to look back on these moments and assume that our progress was inevitable – that American was always destined to succeed.  But when the Union was turned back at Bull Run and the Allies first landed at Omaha Beach, victory was very much in doubt…These were times that tested the courage of our convictions, and the strength of our union.  And despite all our divisions and disagreements; our hesitations and our fears; America prevailed because we chose to move forward as one nation, and one people.


Now I can certainly forgive His Majesty lacking a full understanding of American history.  After all, I don't know a whole lot about the history of His Majesty's native land of Kenya either.  But you don't have to have a doctorate in history to know that it was impossible for our nation to move forward as one nation after Bull Run because the country was split in two at that time and engaged in a civil war.


At this point, I'm sure royalist defenders of the King would point out that this observation is mere sophistry.  The King was not referring to the entire country but simply the North or in other words, that part of the country that remained in the union.  But even in that argument, these royalists would be wrong. 


From the beginning of the war, Lincoln faced a strong and determined opposition within the North.  He once said that he was more concerned with opposition behind him than the armies that were in front of him.  Lincoln was savagely attacked.  He was called a buffoon, an ape, a butcher.  Probably no American president was ever subjected, been or since, to such virulent and sustained criticism.


With each Union defeat, this opposition, known appropriately by the name of Copperheads, grew stronger.  By 1863, this opposition had grown to such strength that riots broke out in New York City, a notorious Copperhead stronghold, over the draft.  By 1864, Lincoln feared that he would lose the presidential election to former Union General George McClellan, a Democrat running on an anti-war platform.  And Lincoln had good reasons to worry. 


The Army of Potomac's march to Richmond stalled at Petersburg.  The army's commander, General Grant, suffered disastrous defeats along the way, including the loss of 5,000 men in less than an hour at Cold Harbor.  The Army of Northern Virginia, under the command of General Lee, was entrenched outside of Petersburg and all of Grant's effort to break through the Southern lines had failed.


In the western theater, the Union armies under General Sherman were on the move through northern Georgia but failed to gain a decisive victory.  Lincoln feared that he would be the last president of the United States.


Only Sherman's smashing victory in Atlanta in September saved Lincoln from defeat.  He won a clear victory in the Electoral vote but in the popular vote, a substantial percentage of the public voted for his opponent.  Lincoln received about 2.2 million votes.  McClellan received 1.8 million votes.  In other words, about 45% of the country did not pull together as one, did not support Lincoln and the war, and were willing to vote for a man who would have negotiated for peace with the South.


By the way, after the Union defeat at Bull Run, Lincoln's response was to call for 500,000 new recruits to serve for up to three years.  And he didn't tell Jefferson Davis that this army was going to fight as hard as possible until 1862 and then quit.  Lincoln's exit strategy was simple:  victory.


His Majesty calls for unity but it is a false unity.  Some ideas simply cannot be reconciled.  In the antebellum period, the belief in a strong federal union was incompatible with the belief that the nation was a loose confederation of independent states.  The belief in enslaving human beings could not exist indefinitely side by side with a belief in freedom and equality.  As Lincoln famously said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand."  One set of beliefs or the other set had to triumph.


We find ourselves in a similar situation today.  His Majesty's continuous draining of the Treasury is incompatible with our belief in fiscal restraint.  His Majesty's belief in socialism and regulation cannot be reconciled with our belief in the power of the free market.  His Majesty's undying confidence in the power of government to solve all of our problems cannot coexist with our belief in allowing the individual to choose their own path in life.  One set of beliefs or the other must ultimately guide our public policy.  With the recent series of defeats the King and his royalist forces have suffered, it's becoming increasing clear that the people prefer our belief in freedom to His Majesty's belief in despotism. 

Friday, January 22, 2010

The Voice of Experience


How's that Narcissistic Rage Working for You?


The hippy's broken tambourine lies silent on the ground next to a wilted flower.  College professors whisper softly amongst themselves, wondering why the seeds of radicalism they so carefully planted in their students failed to bloom.  The unionist slams his fist against the wall, cursing the wimpy egghead who promised hope and change.  Camelot lies in ruins, a smoldering pile of shattered dreams.


So what's next?  Perhaps the answer lies in a fascinating article by Dr. Sam Vaknin entitled, "Barack Obama – Narcissist or Merely Narcissistic?"  Dr. Vaknin has studied narcissists extensively since 1996 and in this article, most of which he wrote before His Majesty's coronation, Dr. Vaknin methodically lists the main characteristics of a narcissist and explains how His Majesty possesses them.  Then he discusses the usual life cycle of a narcissistic leader.  I think we're just about here on His Majesty's life cycle:

The pacific mask crumbles when the narcissist has become convinced that the very people he purported to speak for, his constituency, his grassroots fans, the prime sources of his narcissistic supply - have turned against him. At first, in a desperate effort to maintain the fiction underlying his chaotic personality, the narcissist strives to explain away the sudden reversal of sentiment. "The people are being duped by (the media, big industry, the military, the elite, etc.)", "they don't really know what they are doing", "following a rude awakening, they will revert to form", etc.

When these flimsy attempts to patch a tattered personal mythology fail - the narcissist is injured. Narcissistic injury inevitably leads to narcissistic rage and to a terrifying display of unbridled aggression.

On Friday, His Majesty, King Hussein Obama the First, delivered an address to the assembled serfs at a town-hall meeting at Lorain County Community College in Elyria, Ohio.  After the usual lies and distortions, His Majesty tries to explain why his healthcare destruction bill failed.


The long process of getting things done runs headlong into the special interests, their armies of lobbyists, and partisan politics aimed at exploiting fears instead of getting things done. And the longer it's taken, the uglier the process has looked.


Sound familiar?  This speech marks the beginning of His Majesty's "desperate effort" to explain why the serfs have turned against him.  And in a naked revelation of his narcissistic personality, His Majesty said:


But this isn't about me. It's about you. I didn't take up this issue to boost my poll numbers or score political points - believe me, if I were, I would have picked something a lot easier than this.


Here's the video from His Majesty's remarks.  Skip ahead to the 11 minute mark and watch the change in his personality as he delivers the above remarks..  The King is not happy.  He got beat and he knows it.  His Majesty tries to laugh it off but his wounds lie open for all to see.


The assembled sycophants in Ohio might cheer His Majesty but the vast majority of Americans are not fooled.  What will happen when the King realizes He's lost the people?  When will His narcissistic rage explode?


Scott Brown's victory represents a tough blow to the liberal hydra.  The Republicans beat His Majesty in one of the most liberal states in the nation.  But Brown's victory only means that we have killed the liberal hydra's most beautiful head.  With the desperation of a wounded animal, she'll turn her ugliest face towards us and unleash all her anger.  The banking industry appears to be the first victim of her rage, threatened with unjustifiable, confiscatory fees.  Don't be surprised if conservative talk radio is the next target, beaten down with the "fairness doctrine" or "localism."


Now is not the time to celebrate but to work harder than ever to defeat His Majesty.  We must march forward, buoyed by the knowledge that the King can be beat, but realizing that He's not beaten yet.  His Majesty retains significant power.  The royalist majorities in the Congress are still imposing.  We must dedicate ourselves to defeating the King's minions this November.


A Republican victory this November is the only way to stop the King from inflicting more damage to this great nation.  We will have to work for years to fix the damage He's already wrought in just one year.  I can't imagine how much more damage is yet to come this year.  And I shudder to think of the wholesale destruction this man could cause if He has four years of largely unchecked power. 


Now is our chance to effect real change and we must boldly seize it.  Never forget these words from President Reagan:


Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.

Saturday, January 16, 2010

The Righteous Lib


A Bigger Man


Until yesterday, I never even thought to question a single decision my man Barack has made since he became President but his appointment of that racist, flat-earther Dubya to lead the relief effort in Haiti is a real head scratcher.  Sending Dubya to help the Haitians is like sending Jack Daniels to an Alcoholic Anonymous meeting.  Didn't Dubya kill off enough of my brothers and sisters in the City of New Orleans?  Why should we give this incompetent boob a chance to finish off a whole country?


At least my initial outrage was tempered by the appointment of former President Clinton as his partner in leading the relief effort.  I'm sure Bill will be the real leader of the relief effort.  Dubya is so stupid that he doesn't even know where Haiti is.  From what I hear, when his racist handlers shook him out of an alcoholic stupor to inform him of his appointment he said, "Hate E?  Who's E and why should I hate him?" 


I'm sure the Haitians are thrilled to have Dubya in charge of this effort.  I heard a rumor the Haitian government considered breaking diplomatic relations with the U.S. once they heard about it but that turned out to be untrue.  What actually happened was that the Haitian government filed a formal complaint with the World Court about being forced to work with a war criminal.  Dubya probably won't do anything to help the Haitians anyway.  I'll bet you that he'll spend half his time in Haiti looking for a place to construct Gitmo II.


When I first heard about this I was so mad that I broke some guy's surf board and threw some old lady on the ground who got in my way as I ran off.  To cool off, I took a walk down the beach.  As I walked along, I noticed Diamond Head looming in the distance.  I thought about that massive, old volcanic cone.  How it dwarfed all the modern hotels that the rich tourists stay in..  Diamond Head was there long before the hotels and will be there long after they're gone.  And I got to thinking.


Most people in Barack's place would have thrown that loser Dubya in jail the first day they took office.  That's what Dubya would have done to him.  You can bet on that.  But Barack's bigger than that.  He's like Diamond Head; strong, silent, majestic, towering over all the racist, flat-earthers like Dubya.  Every day he punishes Dubya by proofing he's the best President we've ever had, a claim that Dubya wouldn't dare make.  Even he knows that he was the worst.  That's why he's drunk all the time.  So instead of slamming the guy like the rest of us would, Barack mercifully gives Dubya another chance, a chance he doesn't deserve, to get something right for once.  And to save his sorry ass from his own incompetence, he teams him up with somebody else who can actually do the job right.


After thinking this through, I've learned my lesson.  I'll never doubt my man Barack again.  If he says it's dark in the day and light at night, I'll believe it.  If Barack says dung is nutritious, I'll eat it.  If Barack says CO2 is a pollutant, give me a gas mask.  I'll wear it.  And if Barack says he can reform healthcare without ruining the finances of this nation, I'll back every backroom deal and payoff he has to make to get it done.  In short, I'm done thinking.  I'm putting my faith in Barack.

Thursday, January 14, 2010

The Voice of Experience


An Open Challenge to Liberals


Regardless of whether His Majesty, King Hussein Obama the First's healthcare destruction bill passes, you can be sure that liberals everywhere will continue to attack our nation's health insurance companies.  In fact, if this bill passes, those attacks will probably increase in intensity since the King's bill will probably be beneficial to the insurance companies.  As many friends and foes of this bill have already noted, including myself in a previous post, ,since this bill provides subsidies to purchase insurance for those people who couldn't previously afford it and mandates coverage of those people who have pre-existing conditions which prevent them from purchasing insurance today, our nation's health insurance companies will probably gain millions of new customers.


If you're not a wacked-out liberal, you might wonder, what's wrong with our nation's health insurers?  Sure, they can be bureaucratic and filing out their forms can be a pain but are they really that bad.  Most people in this country don't think so.  According to a survey released in 2006 by ABC News, USA Today, and the Kaiser Family Foundation, hardly right-leaning organizations, 89 percent of Americans are satisfied with their own personal medical care.  Besides the obvious good news contained in that statistic, we can also infer that the 11% of unsatisfied Americans represents the upper limit of the hard left in this country.  (For you mathematically challenged liberals out there, 100 percent designates the whole of the population so 100 minus 89 equals 11).


So what's the liberals' big problem with our health insurance companies?  Their main arguments are as follows:


1.  Health Insurance Companies Refuse to Cover People with Pre-Existing Conditions.


Liberals love to use this one.  What could be worse than refusing to help somebody with cancer, or a heart condition, or an incurable disease try to get medical care?  This argument pulls the insurance companies down to the level of Dickens's Scrooge who, when told the poor people were starving, coldly replied:


Good.  It will help reduce the excess population.


Of course, liberals never offer a reasonable explanation of why the health insurance companies have uniformly adopted this policy.  The usual argument is that these companies are afraid of incurring medical losses or more precisely "medical losses" with the quotation marks added to emphasize the cruelty of this refusal to provide insurance.  Liberals, who can see the good in murders, rapists, and child molesters, only see evil in the actions of the insurers.


2.  Health Insurance Companies Try to Deny Coverage To Their Customers.


Liberals are notoriously cheap so they really hate this one.  After all, what could be worse?  You pay an outrageous premium for coverage and then when you actually need to use it, the big, mean insurance company drops a huge, unreadable contract in your lap and says, "See, right here in section 156351(e).  You're not entitled to coverage for this procedure."  And unlike the previous argument, liberals have, for them, a perfectly reasonable explanation for this practice.  the health insurers are motivated by profit.


To liberals it makes perfect sense that the health insurers would try to deny coverage whenever possible because this practice would increase their profits.  These profits flow through to that other group of evildoers, the company's stockholders.  And to square the liberal circle, this argument only makes sense because everybody knows that the stockholders are only interested in the bottom line.


Left unsaid by the liberals is how the health insurance companies could get away with this practice, which runs counter to business practices used in every other industry, and still retain their customers.  Imagine if Ford or Chrysler sold cars that broke after two weeks.  Would anybody buy their cars again?  I guess liberals would.  Treating customers like garbage is usually a characteristic of a monopolistic business, like say, government. 


3.  Health Insurance Company Executives Make Too Much Money


Most liberals are barely qualified to run a paper route and they certainly couldn't run a Fortune 500 company.  When they see an executive from one of these companies, including the health insurance companies, making tens of millions of dollars, their blood boils.  To liberals, these outrageous salaries are just one more reason that health insurance is so expensive and one more indication of the harsh business practices of these companies.  How could a health insurer on the one hand deny somebody coverage for a medically necessary procedure and then turn around and give some MBA, who is probably a son of privilege, educated in our nation's elite institutions, millions of dollars that they probably don't even need?


Once again, left unsaid by liberals is that these high salaries are the norm for the executives of these types of large businesses.  We could argue another day about whether these salaries should be higher or lower, but that argument would not change the current reality of these salaries being at this level.


4.  Health Insurance Companies Make Too Much Money.


Profit is a dirty word to liberals.  The modern liberal looks at profit as unnecessary, a needless addition to the cost of a product or service.  And in the case of healthcare, profit is akin to extortion.  To liberals, the health insurance companies are cruelly extracting a profit from a public that desperately needs medical care.


As you might expect, liberals never offer a suggestion as to what a reasonable profit might be.  Furthermore, liberals never explain why other people with capital haven't been attracted to that high profit and formed a competitor to try to make a similar profit.  Isn't this practice common is our capitalist society?  Why would you invest in industry X when the profits in industry Y are twice as great?


In short, for liberals, health insurance is a major problem.  And I say to them:  where some people see problems, others see opportunity.


Years ago, the only way to communicate with somebody without talking to them was to send a letter.  Then Samuel Morse perfected the telegraph.  This invention allowed people to communicate over great distances but required the use of Morse's Code, a cryptic system for converting the letters of the alphabet into dots and dashes.  For many people the telegraph was good enough but Alexander Graham Bell thought we could do better.  While still a young man, Bell quit his job and worked solely on inventing a new device for long distance communications:  the telephone.  Generations of Americans, especially teenage girls, could not imagine life without this simple device.


From the beginning of time, human affairs were governed by daylight and the absence of daylight.  Men used candles and oil lights to provide some light at night but the light from both were poor.  Most people didn't complain about this lack of light and planed their affairs accordingly.  Thomas Edison thought we could do better.  Using the theories of others, Edison worked tirelessly, trying a thousand different methods, to perfect an incandescent light bulb.  In 1879, Edison successfully tested his invention, which provided light for 40 hours.  Generations of Americans, especially the residents of Las Vegas, could not imagine life without this simple device.


I could go on and on but I think you get the point.  Where liberals see a problem, I see a lucrative business opportunity.  Accepting the liberals' arguments, you have an entire industry that:


1.      Refuses to sell its service to some customers

2.      Provides bad service

3.      Pays its executives too much

4..      And charges too much in order to generate outrageous profits.


If the liberals formed their own health insurance company that didn't deny coverage to people with pre-existing coverage, didn't deny care to people who needed it, paid its executives less money, and charged less for its insurance because they could accept a lower level of profit, that company would attract millions of customers and its liberal backers might get rich to boot.  How could it fail?


Of course, the liberals would offer up a million excuses for why they couldn't start such a company.  It would be too hard to start an insurance company they'd say.  But how do they think we got the insurance companies we have today?  Did they fall from the sky?  Of course not.  Somewhere, at some time, somebody had to form these companies.  The evil health insurer CIGNA, for example, traces its roots back to a group of prominent citizens of Philadelphia who formed the Insurance Company of North America in 1792.  If a bunch of racist, white guys can start an insurance company, why can't a group of enlightened liberals do the same thing?


Oh, it would cost too much money.  True, nobody claimed it would be cheap, but didn't the late election of the King prove the ability of liberals to raise large sums of money?  Back in 2008, the liberals told us that the King was able to raise so much money because millions of people donated to his campaign.  Supposedly, over two million people gave money to the King's campaign.  If each one of these people would buy, on average, $250 worth of stock, the liberal insurance company could start with a capitalization of half a billion dollars.  Granted, that amount would pale in comparison to the equity of a giant like CIGNA but who knows, maybe a few rich liberals might through in a few extra dollars.  Does the name George Soros ring a bell?


So I challenge the liberals to put their money where their mouth is.  I'm not asking for much.  Just start a health insurance company in any state and I'll be satisfied that you actually believe what you say.  After all, health insurance is regulated at the state level so it would only make sense to start the liberal company at that level.  And this conservative approach fits in well with the liberals' well-known policy of prudence and restraint.  I couldn't imagine liberals just jumping into something, spending money like crazy without regard to the consequences.  That would NEVER happen.



Wednesday, January 6, 2010

On the Lighter Side with Limis Ward


The System Worked


His Majesty's Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, has been taking a lot of flak lately for her recent comments about the failed Christmas Day attack on an Amsterdam to Detroit Northwest Airlines flight.  More specifically, she claimed that the fact that the attack failed showed that "the system worked."  Conservative commentators couldn't believe that His Majesty's servant could make such a claim in light of the fact that:


  1. The terrorist's father had warned American embassy staff several times about his son's radical intentions.
  2. The terrorist was subsequently placed on a terrorist watch list but was allowed to board the plane anyway without any additional inquires or precautions.
  3. The terrorist was able to smuggle his bomb onto the flight.
  4. The plot might have failed because either the bomb the terrorist tried to use was defective and/or he didn't know how to use it.
  5. The plot also might have failed because heroic passengers and crew members, who probably don't work for the TSA, stopped the terrorist before he could activate the bomb.


Here at Delta-Man, we try to be fair.  So before you pile on this poor unfortunate servant of the King, consider the following historical examples of systems working:


1.  After the nuclear attacks on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Japanese deployed anti-nuclear attack shields in both cities.  Neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki was nuked again during World War II.  At the surrender ceremony, Emperor Hirohito declared, "The system worked."


2.  After the RMS Titanic hit an iceberg in the North Atlantic, ship captain Edward J. Smith ordered the iceberg deflectors to be deployed.  During the remainder of the voyage, the Titanic was not hit by another iceberg.  Prominent passenger John Jacob Astor's final words were, "The system worked.  Gurgle, gurgle…"


3.  As the LZ129 Hindenburg burst into flames over Lakehurst Naval Air Station, the crew smartly activated the airship's extensive sprinkler system.  The Hindenburg subsequently landed at the air station.  Radio reporter Herbert Morrison famously exclaimed, "The system worked."


4.  After aviatrix Amelia Earhart landed safely on a remote island in the central Pacific Ocean during her around the world trip, she turned on her newly invented anti-lost system.  As long as she lived on that island, Earhart was never lost again.  As she strolled along the beach of that unknown atoll, she cried out, "The system worked."


5.  After Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria was assassinated while riding in an open car, security guards put on the car's bullet-proof bubble.  Archduke Ferdinand was never assassinated again.  Austria-Hungry spokesman Robert Gibbs von Idioto told a group of reporters that "The system worked."


6.  After marauding British troops burned the White House during the War of 1812, President James Madison issued Executive Order 3, an order to ban all British citizens from the White House grounds.  To date, the White House has never been burned again.  Underneath his signature on the order, Madison wrote, "The syftem worked."


7.  After the great world war, President Woodrow Wilson worked tirelessly to create an organization of nations to prevent future wars.  This organization was called the League of Nations.  Wilson's will instructed his burial tomb be inscribed with following phrase:  "The system worked."


8.  After the collapse of the South Fork Dam and subsequent flooding on the city of Johnstown, PA, municipal officials issued buckets and one mop to each city resident.  The city of Johnstown is now dry.  Industrialist and South Ford Dam owner Henry Clay Frick's lawyers released the following statement on his behalf:  "The system worked."


9.  After the destruction of over 490 city blocks by fire caused by an earthquake in San Francisco, the city council unanimously passed a law providing that all city residents be provided with free healthcare.  Street performer and homeless advocate Flower Feldman spelled out the following slogan on the steps of City Hall using biodegradable, earth-friendly paints:  "The system worked."


10.  In 2008, Senator Barack Hussein Obama of Illinois/Kenya defeated Senator John McCain of Arizona in the race for the Presidency of the United States.  Liberals everywhere shouted to the heavens with one voice, "The system worked!!"

Tuesday, January 5, 2010

The Voice of Experience


Simple Questions About the Current Healthcare Reform Bill


In our justifiable zeal in attacking His Majesty, King Hussein Obama the First's irresponsible attempt to reform our nation's healthcare system, I think that sometimes our attacks fail to hit the mark due to their overly technical and detailed nature.  Perhaps it would be wise to step back from tearing to shreds the various aspects of the King's plan and instead ask a few simple questions.  In this way maybe those members of the public who might not be following this issue as closely as we are might come to realize why the King's healthcare reform is so wrong for this country.  So next time you're talking to somebody about healthcare reform, ask them the following questions:


1.  Why doesn't the healthcare bill require coverage until 2014?


Ever since that impish loser Al Franken was sworn in as the Democrat's effective 60th vote in the Senate on July 7, 2009, the King and his minions have been demanding that healthcare reform measures be enacted immediately.  His Majesty, for example, issued a decree that a bill reforming healthcare be on his desk by August 1, 2009.  Once this deadline passed, our sovereign leader summoned a Joint Session of Congress on September 9, 2009 and told them and the nation that:


            The time for bickering is over.  The time for games has passed.  Now is the season for action.


Now that the Senate has passed a version of the healthcare reform which needs reconciled to the previously passed House version, we're told that it must be passed by His Majesty's State of the Union Address, which usually occurs in late January or early February.


Now if you're a wacked out liberal you'll certainly understand the need for passing this sweeping reform as soon as possible.  His Majesty, for example, stated in the aforementioned address that every day 14,000 Americans lose their healthcare coverage.  One of his baronets, Senate Majority Leader Sir Harry Reid shared the following dire statistic on the cost of delay with the public in his remarks on the floor of the Senate on December 21, 2009:


Much of our attention this year has been consumed by this health care debate.  And a Harvard study found that 45,000 times this year – nearly 900 times every week, more than 120 times a day, on average every 10 minutes, without end – an American died as a direct result of not having health insurance.


And if you really want to step out onto the wacko fringe, Florida Democratic Congressman Alan Grayson cried out the floor of the House during a debate on September 30, 2009 that:


I call upon all of us to do our jobs for the sake of America, for the sake of those dying people and their families.  I apologize to the dead and their families that we haven't voted sooner to end this holocaust in America."


Pretty strong stuff.  So if you take all these overblown claims at face value, why do the Democrats want us to rush like mad to pass their reform bill and then sit back for nearly four years and watch another 20,020,000 people lose their health insurance and another 171,600 people die?.  Sounds like Rep.. Grayson will have a lot more dead people to apologize to in the next few years.  (Note for all you mathematically challenged liberals out there, the preceding figures assume a passage of the bill on February 1, 2010 and implementation of its provisions on January 1, 2014.)


Of course liberals will tell that that this is a complex process and it takes time to set up properly and it has to be done right and blah, blah, blah, but none of these types of concerns seemed to trouble them when they enacted the phony stimulus last February.  At that time, His Majesty and his minions said we needed to dole out the money as fast as possible.  But now that people's lives are at stake, it's more important that some bureaucrat makes sure they cross all the T's and dot all the I's than saving some serfs' lives.


Not to be cynical but my own answer to this question is that the King and his minions would love to stand before the voters a few times as the enactors of healthcare reform before the actual effects of that reform, which might not be as great as they are claiming, are felt by the voting public..


2.  Why is the majority party having such difficulty passing this bill?


The royalist majorities in the Congress are impressive.  Currently there are 58 Democratic Senators along with the socialist senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders and the former Democratic Senator, independent Senator Joe Lieberman who both caucus with the Democrats to give them a filibuster proof total of 60 votes out of 100.  In the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi commands a force of 256 Democrats versus a meager 178 Republicans, with one seat being vacant.  These majorities are on par and arguably better than the majorities former President Bill Clinton had in 1993 when he tried to pass a healthcare reform bill.  At that time there were 258 Democratic Representatives plus the socialist Sanders, who at that time was in the House but only 56 Democratic Senators after the election of Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison in June 1993.  So unlike our current sovereign, President Clinton needed Republican help in the Senate to avoid a filibuster..


So with such commanding majorities, why has so much of the discussion of the past several months focused on various parliamentary procedures and vote buying to get this bill passed?  In a roll call vote on the House's healthcare reform bill, Speaker Pelosi lost 39 Democratic votes, or in other words, 15% of her caucus.  The bill needed 218 votes to pass.  It got 220. 


Once that bill went to the Senate, the liberals immediately started sweating blood over the prospect of a filibuster despite their filibuster proof majority.  Democrats initially floated that idea of using a process called "reconciliation", which is a procedure used for filling out the details of the federal budget that can't be filibustered, in order to pass the bill.  The use of this procedure would have been unprecedented for a bill like this one and was ultimately dropped.


Instead, the Democrats settled on a well-worn and proven strategy for obtaining votes:  buying them..  Anderson Cooper of CNN reported that Nebraska Democratic Senator Ben Nelson got a provision put into the bill that would make the federal government pay for any Medicaid expansion in his state caused by this bill, something no other state received.  He also reported that other senators received a deal.  Who are some of these others?  How about Independent Senator Joe Lieberman?  He got the Democrats to drop a provision in the bill that would have allowed uninsured Americans aged 55 to 64 to purchase Medicare coverage, an improvement in the bill that will make the many insurance and pharmaceutical companies in his state of Connecticut very happy and generous in their donations to Lieberman..  Or perhaps Louisiana Democratic Senator Mary Landreiu?  She got a quick $100 million by getting a provision in the bill to increase Medicare subsidies for "certain states recovering from a major disaster."  Remember Hurricane Katrina?  Yep, this provision only applies to one state, Louisiana.


And now that the Senate has been bought off, the Democrats are worried about going through the normal process of reconciling their version of the bill with the House's version.  And what's their worry?  What else, it would take too long!! 


Once again, the liberal will have an answer.  The legislative process is inherently messy.  It's like watching someone make sausage, right?  And don't think that Republicans haven't bought votes too you know..  Everybody does it.  All of which is true but hasn't healthcare reform been a signature Democratic issue for decades?  Remember when Senator Edward "Ted" Kennedy died last year.  All the liberals told us was that poor old Ted had been fighting for healthcare reform for over 40 years and now we had to pass it in his honor.  So now that the Democrats have a golden opportunity to pass it, what's the big hang-up?


It's really quite simple.  A solid majority of the American public is against His Majesty's plan.  Remember the ear beating His Majesty's minions got back in August when they tried to take their case to the people?  Mobs of serfs descended on the townhalls that Democratic Congressmen held and demanded that the public option and the death panels be removed from the bill.  The Democrats seem to have given in on these issues but are pressing ahead with the rest of this bill despite the disapproval of 52% of the public for the current bill.  Furthermore, only 37% of the public thinks that the healthcare system will be better after His Majesty's bill passes.  No wonder the King's own poll numbers are sinking like a rock.


3.  Why is Medicare reform included in the bill?


Well that's an easy one your liberal friend will say.  Medicare is part of our healthcare system and it needs reformed.  That's true of course but I thought the whole point of this legislation was to provide universal health coverage for all Americans.  Medicare already provides universal coverage for all Americans 65 and older so what does it have to do with this problem? 


Strip out all the bells and whistles and extraneous provisions and the King's plan consists of two basic parts:  raising taxes and imposing fees to offset the cost of providing health insurance for those who can't currently afford it and those who are currently uninsurable due to pre-existing medical conditions and reforming Medicare.  Both of these parts of the bill present big challenges and would be tough enough to solve separately.  Putting them together, to paraphrase that lovable M*A*S*H doctor Hawkeye Pierce seems to be like piling mounds and mounds of fertilizer on the problem in the hopes that something beautiful will grow.


Once again the answer is pretty simple.  As I explained in a previous post , the only way for the King to pretend that his healthcare reform is budget neutral is to assume unrealistic savings from reforming Medicare.  To summarize, the King's plan assumes savings from Medicare reform in 2010 through 2019 of $438 billion and savings in 2020 through 2029 of $2.582 trillion!!  These are pretty big numbers and greatly exceed the projected reductions of the budget deficits in 2010 through 2019 of $132 billion and $1.3 trillion in 2020 through 2029.  So what's the difference?  It's the gap in the King's revenues raised from taxes and fees versus the payments for insurance coverage.  Without these Medicare savings, His Majesty would have to increase these taxes and fees over and above their already oppressive scheduled rates which might prove fatal to the King's popularity.


4.  Why doesn't the bill include healthcare cost savings except for reductions in Medicare?


Another easy one, your liberal friend will say.  The unruly mobs of "birthers" demanded that our cost savings measure, the public option, be dropped from the bill.  To briefly summarize, the public option was supposed to hold down healthcare costs by creating a government run insurance company to compete with private insurers.  The liberals hoped that this "competition" would drive down healthcare costs.


Without discussing the merits of this warped economic theory, let's just assume the liberals are right.  The public option would have reduced healthcare costs.  So if that's correct, then why are they rushing to enact a flawed bill?  It could be argued, in fact, that this bill will increase healthcare costs by pumping more money into the healthcare system in a manner similar to the federally funded college loan program.  I'm not the only one to think this way.  When the Senate healthcare bill cleared the first filibuster attempt in late December, thereby signaling that it would pass, insurance company stocks hit 52 week highs.  And why do you think that occurred?


Basically the Democrats are backed in a corner.  By traveling down this road of trying to enact a politically unpopular reform, they have left themselves open to suffering a crushing defeat at the polls this November.  But if they don't pass this bill, not only will all the conservatives and moderates still be mad at them, the wacko liberal base of their party will be furious because once again, they blew a golden opportunity to reform healthcare.  So it's crucial that the King and his minions pass something, really anything, that they can claim to be a reform of healthcare.  Which leads to our final question...


5.  What's next?


After such a bruising and protracted battle, you'd think the last thing the Democrats would want to tackle would be another round of healthcare reform.  If you thought that, you'd be wrong.  Consider the comments of Colorado Democratic Senator Michael Bennet who calls the bill a "step in the right direction", or how about Iowa Democratic Senator Tom Harkin, who describes the healthcare bill as follows:


What we are getting here is a starter home.


Or how about this from commentator and author Joseph Lazzaro  who echoes Harkin's starter home comments and says:


there is no credible evidence that suggests that a market economy in the modern era can achieve universal health insurance while simultaneously keeping costs low.


I could go on and on but I think you get the point.  Once the King and his minions get their foot in the door with this bill, we will be traveling down a path to a single payer healthcare system.  Just imagine the arguments some future liberal, who is probably getting high or doing some "blow" at this very moment, will make in 2025.  He'll say:


Yes I know we've increased healthcare coverage but look at the cost.  The federal deficit is exploding and the insurance companies are getting rich.  We need to stop this madness and pass this 10,000 page bill which will provide free, governmental provided healthcare for everyone.


And the Democrats of that day will drag His Majesty, the Father of Healthcare Reform, from whatever hole he's in at that time to once again rally the masses with his stirring rhetoric.  As he's doing now, he'll once again promise hope and change if only we'll trust him to do the right thing.  As they say, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice…..