Health Insurance For Illegal Immigrants

Congress has made a lot of statements about Health Care Reform and specifically providing a public option. People who have read the bills proposed have shown serious concern about supporting a bill that funds a government run health insurance plan, especially a plan that can be utilized by people who are not here legally. Here is the idea...

In a nutshell, not everyone benefiting from the plan will be paying taxes. In fact, quite a few will not be paying taxes. So those who are paying taxes (that's you middle-class) will be financially backing this plan and so naturally you might prefer the the idea that IF you are going to pay then you would rather limit your financial investment to only paying for people who are currently citizens or who have undergone the complicated, lengthy and costly process of earning the right to be here legally. Now... I have lost most of your at this point! Most of you either don't want the public option (because it has almost nothing to do with reform in reality) or don't want a plan that pretends to save you money on health insurance only to crank the cost back up again through new taxes! I get you!!! But stay with me.

As a protective measure to at least mitigate some risk with regard to paying for illegal immigrant health care a number of senators have proposed passing an amendment to any health care bill that closes the illegal immigrant loophole. Well, as reasonable as that sounds, Dems won't have it.

"I would find it extremely difficult to vote for any measure that denies undocumented workers health care," said Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, Illinois Democrat. He said undocumented workers should be allowed access to insurance coverage provided that they get no tax assistance.

This sneaky little health care quote above is from the Washington Times newspaper. Breaking his verbiage down, this is what he means:

• I would find it extremely difficult to vote for any measure that denies undocumented workers health care: the missing word here is "coverage." Nobody is talking about denying health care. If someone gets sick in America and they are not FROM America, we do not refuse them health care. What we don't do is pay their bill... well, in some cases. To date, many hospitals have philanthropic arms that "forgive" medical bills for people. So, nobody is really talking about refusing health care to anyone. The Illinois Democrat is simply making an emotional appeal here. What he really means is that he WANTS to allow people who are living here illegally the ability to participate in the public health care insurance option.
  
  
• He said undocumented workers should be allowed access to insurance coverage provided that they get no tax assistance : This means that the illegal immigrant CAN take part and sign up for a public option. What he doesn't want to allow is the Federal Government cutting that illegal immigrant a "tax credit" check that further subsidizes that public health care option provided by the Federally Funded Health Insurance Plan!!!

You see there are two moving parts in this plan. First, the whole plan will be funded through taxation (now basically admitted when Congress asked state Governors to sign a letter that committed states to help fund the Congressional Health Care Scam.. I mean Plan.) Secondly, in addition to the existence of a Federally run Health Insurance public option plan they want to cut checks to people (also paid by you in taxation) in the form of a "tax credit" to make the plan more affordable.

Note that this week Republicans are also going to present a plan to help control the rising cost of Health Care. This is a very limited plan with a number of reforms (many in the legal realm) that would likely lower the cost of health care due to reduced number of fraudulent lawsuits which would in return likely reduce the number of unnecessary butt-covering procedures that doctors have learned to employ to simply reduce their legal exposure but that do not help the person who is undergoing the procedure or bearing the cost of that procedure. Keep an eye out for that proposal and read up on it. It actually works to achieve the initial goal of Health Care reform!

Health Care Reform Passing The Bill

So in a revelation shared by the Washington Times newspaper Congress has asked state Democrat Governors to sign a letter to Congress promising to locally fund the medicare portion of the health care bill.

Basically, Congress can't find a way to make their health care plan affordable so they are hiding cost at the state level. What does this mean to us?

Well, first off it means that Congress can't balance the cost of this program. Secondly, it means that your local state politicians will have to raise money to pay for these programs. Said another way, Congress is looking to find a way to semantically claim they have an affordable plan while pushing program taxation down to a state decision so that they don't get blamed for it.

What is the outcome of this? Well in the case of a number of state governors they are either refusing to sign the letter or are getting vocal about the Fed not printing more funny money to pay for these programs we cannot afford.

So, let's add up the score so far. Dems in Congress can't balance the cost of the plan. A number of Dems have gotten vocal about refusing to support a plan with a public option. Other Dems don't think the cost is something American can wisely invest in right now. So Congress reaches down to the state level in search of more support and more than 25% of those politically aligned Governors are vocal about the fiscally irresponsible budget-busting nature of the Congressional plan. In my score book the American's are still loosing the Congressional Health Care Reform game!

Virginia And New Jersey Go Conservative

Sending a significant and critical message to Washington, both Virginia and New Jersey selected conservative leadership in their Gubernatorial elections. With a year-long Federal power grab led by the current Presidential Administration, selecting conservative governors (important for a state so strategically located next to DC and huge for a state as historically liberal as New Jersey) means defending states rights against an out of control and out of touch Congress and White House.

Just two days ago President Obama called incumbent liberal Governor Jon Corzine a "key component" in his ability to keep his campaign promises. according to the Associated Press. Tonight, according to CNN's political ticker White House aides claim that President Obama isn't even watching those same "key" election results roll in.

I guess that means President Obama can't keep those campaign promises?

Bill Clinton on Meet The Press

This Sunday on "Meet The Press" former president Bill Clinton spent some time talking about the continued war on terror. The conversation focused on efforts in Afghanistan.

He was asked the question "Will committing tens of thousands of U.S. troops to the war in Afghanistan make Americans safer?"

I found Bill Clintons response very thought-provoking.

'The answer to that is maybe..."

He went on to quote General McChrystal, "...we have to have an "Iraqi surge in Anbar."

Former President Clinton added "that worked well there... I think what the president is saying without saying it... is that an American surge in Afghanistan maybe be a necessary condition for success."

This is interesting for two reasons: political and for national safety.

Political:

All personal politics aside, I sometimes find it difficult to differentiate between someones ideological position and their political pandering. For example, nearing the end of the last presidential election cycle then-presidential-candidate Barack Obama stated his opposition to the Iraqi surge that then-President George Bush was supporting in the war effort in Iraq. When it was soon considered to be a success the press asked Obama how he felt about the surge effort and he remained steadfastly opposed to it, refusing to call it a success (is that ideological or political?) He could be legitimately ideologically opposed or he could have just been politically pandering.

We are now facing the fact that General McChrystal is recommending we learn from the successful surge effort in Iraq and have American forces "surge" in Afghanistan. According to Bill Clinton "that worked well there" and so we should do it because it may make Americans safer.

So what will Obama do? Was his previous opposition ideological? If so, we should see him challenge the General and oppose calling up more U.S. troops for service. That would be an ideological response. If he sends the troops in for an approved surge effort, then it wasn't ideological.

National Safety:

Some might object the premise of former President Bill Clintons arguments. Those individuals may not like the idea that any war effort is required to successfully protect Americans from Al Qaeda, which is what makes the follow-on question equally as interesting.

"What specific threat does Al Qaeda pose to the United States?"

Clinton responded, "They have proven that, alone, among all the non-state actors, they have the power to organize and execute leathal assaults far from their home base."

Clinton went on to say, "Since we've driven them into the mountains... in the ill-defined border between Pakistan and Afghanistan... their movements (and) communications have been constrained... and they've not been nearly as free to organize and mount such attacks."

The interviewer then quoted former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice saying, "If you abandon Afghanistan, you'll have another 9-11 in the U.S."

After briefly discussing the additional measures of protection in place around the world to stave off such attacks Clinton went on to say, "It's impossible to know that with certainty... but I would agree with her to the extent that if (Al Qaeda) have freedom of movement in Afghanistan, it will increase by some significant factor, the likelihood, that they will attack successfully, if not in the United States, somewhere else against people we consider our allies, that we have to be concerned about."

I really hope that Obama DVRed Clinton on Meet the Press. I think he should be taking notes because the man is doling out an education on foreign policy (and I am not even a Bill Clinton fan!)

In a conversation lasting less than 10 minutes Bill Clinton:

• Affirmed the Surge in Iraq.
• Made statements about the near impending necessity to surge in Afghanistan which would qualify him as a "war-monger" under the same criteria as other so-called war-mongering politicians.
• Affirmed that pinning Al Qaeda to the mountains of Afghanistan (a move in place since the "Bush Regime" .. no real progress since then) has been effective in hold down their efforts in terror.
• Affirmed the idea that a war on terror on foreign soil is in the best interest of Americans back in the United States (something people ideologically opposed to the war said was a false assertion coming from former president George Bush.)
  

If you are paying close attention former President Bill Clinton seems to be speaking quite freely these days. It truly appears he is willing to set down his political hat from time to time and discuss the war on terror without filtering for a political agenda or for partisan points. I mention this because I know people who were ready to vote for Obama simply because Obama appeared to not be a "war-monger" based on what had been his ideological stand against the war on terror.

Every day it seems that what was perceived as a commitment to ideology has been traded in for political pandering. From Iraq and Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay to invoking secrecy and non-open communication on various White House related fronts, it looks more and more like Obama was stroking the heartstrings of ideologists within a typical political agenda to romance would-be voters.

The point of sharing this isn't to call Obama a hypocrite. It is an effort to demonstrate that sometimes ideology in the hands of a politician is nothing more than political pandering. So I now mentally weigh the outcomes of the following two ideologies/panderings:

• John McCain was accused of fear-mongering when he would talk about the threat of a repeat 9-11 on U.S. soil and why fighting the war on terror seemed to be important. If he was ideologically defending the right to go find the self-proclaimed terrorists and bring them to justice, does that justify scaring people into that agenda? So, said another way, McCain show the threat without explaining, like Clinton, that there is no impending certainty, only an increased likelihood of attack, to justify going after self-proclaimed terrorists. Is leaving out the Clinton-esk differentiation of increased likelihood as opposed to perceived impending certainty fear-mongering? Maybe so.
  
  
• Barack Obama was accused of pandering to people fed up with the cost/risk/death of war for the purpose of winning votes, only to continue the same practices previously qualified as war-mongering. Said another way, Obama seems to be willing to talk against surges and war-mongering while being elected, but willing to take the same "war-mongering" actions that people elected him to stop. Is saying one thing to take a political stand with voters and then doing the opposite ideological pandering? I think so.

Which is worse? Scaring people into doing what you said you would do, or pandering to people but doing what you said you wouldn't do? Oh, I wish we didn't have to deal with either.

It seems that surging and fighting and defending to protect people from individuals or groups who are proactively threatening or have perpetrated terror is the definitive action of the president no matter who ends up being president. If you are ideologically opposed to that, then you have an up-hill battle to climb. And if you are looking to vote for senators in the coming election cycle who do not fear-monger or pander to your ideological position, well... good luck.

Watch video of the interview here:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

What Can We Learn from Obama’s Thoughts About His Respected Friends Arrest

Here is how I would like to do this. Let’s look at The Good, the Assumptions and The Outcomes.

The Good

Obama can be a compassionate and committed friend. He knew his friend as well as his friend’s reputation and came to his friend’s defense based on what he (thought he) knew. We could always hope for such a friend in our own personal corner of life.

Obama is an educated man and reflects on other external information to review situations in a larger context. A couple of times now a number of radio talk shows from NPR to independent national commercial radio programs have attached themselves to Obama’s reflections on studies that state the idea that Black and Latinos are disproportionately stopped by the police, inferring that this is such a case.

Obama admitted that he knew little about the details of the case. He prefaced everything he said with that statement. I would go so far as to say that it seems to qualify any following remarks in that context.

The Assumptions

Obama said what he heard.

He claimed to have heard that his friend was inevitable inside his home having presented his ID to the police officer who eventually arrested him.

He also stated the assumption that the Boston Police department acted “stupidly.”

The Outcomes

Nothing is resolved yet. We know a few additional facts that we did not previously know. For example, we know, according to Reuters that the man was arrested outside his home, not in it. This simply demonstrates that Obama new less than he previously thought.

We know that Obama jumped to some conclusions about the cause of the arrest, that being racially motivated. According to the admitting of Obama his bias was motivated by those external sources of information that he allowed to influence his line of thinking. Said another way, while he might be right about the event being racially motivated, he could easily as well be wrong and his assumption simply demonstrates that he is willing to jump to certain conclusions based on his bias in the absence of fact.

Before we jump on him for that, I will admit that I do this as well from time to time within my conservative bias. The point is, just as a judge must separate themselves from their bias and review facts in the light of president judgments and the constitution, can Obama successfully do the same in his role as President? Rather than allowing his bias to generate strawmen for the purpose of knocking them down, can he, as President, refrain from building a case for bias and instead demonstrate being a reasonable person willing to wait for the facts? I heard his story of what he thought had transpired. I also agreed with his response to that story. At the same time I also, like many others felt like I was willing to wait for the facts. I didn’t want to jump in and say, “I think that cop was right,” or “Man, that poor respected citizen abused by that policeman.”

Obama could have said, “If what I have heard is the whole story and ends up being true, well, then I think that that police officer acted stupidly.” Moreover, if it were racially motivated I might have used more severe and critical language than simply calling it “stupid.”

But that isn’t what Obama did. Instead he made assumptions and literally claimed the entire police force acted “stupidly.” I am far less a believer that such a statement will come close to being true in this case. Maybe the cop individually acted stupidly, but that leap was clearly irresponsible. I wouldn’t be surprised if we soon read about a detraction on that point; either detraction or a White House redefining of “what the President meant” by that, which is an excuse rather than an apology.

But Obama said he didn’t know much, didn’t he? Well, yes he did. And yet he made the declarative statements he made. In other words, he knew he didn’t know enough, and at that level of knowledge he willingly rendered a biased judgment. I know plenty of people who know the limit of their knowledge and aren’t willing to render such a judgment.

Is this a big deal?

Well in the scope of this situation, I don’t think it is as big a deal as people are making it out to be. It does however raise questions about how Obama comes to conclusions about certain facts or even decisions without the availability of facts.

We already know that Obama isn’t a big reader, so how much insight does the man demand before he is ready to render a decision on big stuff like… the economy, healthcare plan details, local education funding in the multi-billion dollars with unprecedented new federal oversight, cap-and-trade policy, new U.N. Treaties that give jurisdiction over local government at an international level, etc?

My assumptive guess, based on this demonstration of his response in-kind… he doesn’t require nearly as much insight into these scenarios as we previously might have imagined.

Leftist Ideological Spying

Just when you think you’ve heard it all. In the news at the moment is a recent revelation that Walter K. Myers, a State Department intelligence analyst, is defending himself in a court of law for spying, a.k.a. sharing intelligence secrets, for Cuba against the United States of America. As we know spying for Cuba means spying for the Soviet Union since they back the Cuban Government politically speaking.

So what is the key defense that Mr. Myers is using? Well, it has been reported that he has grown frustrated with U.S. Policies. What does that mean exactly? Well, he used to complain to his politically liberal neighbors who would agree with him about feeling appalled by “the Bush years.” This is crazy talk since G.W. Bush was only President for the last eight years in his 30 year spying spree. So what does that mean?

Probably no surprise to anyone at this point, Myers complained to his diary about “greedy oil companies”, inadequate healthcare and “complacency of the oppressed” in the United States. Does any of this sound at all familiar? Wow, that sounds like the Democrat Political platform… literally.

So what happened to Myer in the 1970s? He made a two week trip to Cuba where he was supposed to be making an academic trip as a part of a United Nations effort. Interesting. Once he arrived for this little United Nations trip he was met and led around by a Cuban Intelligence Officer. The story spins out into a series of moves where he was recruited and eventually joined the State Department Intelligence community explicitly to spy for Cuba. Myers says that his growing frustration on the above mentioned points culminated in his eventual inspiration for a new American revolution: Communism.

Let me say that again. His liberal ideals leading him to buy into the typical Democrat talking-points eventually brought him to the ideological conclusion that America needs a revolutionary move toward those ideals, and the government-type that most well embodied those ideals was… communism.

I am not remotely surprised that this definitive example of such an ideological connection now has a walking-talking face. The closer we get to over-simplified political arguments that demonize the concept of democracy, or free markets, or that value a social ideology over personal freedom, the easier it is to see how a country under pressure can move toward Marxist ideals. The biggest tell-tale in a move toward a Marxist ideal is when people who are already empowered to make a difference hand over their power to a leader that will now advocate for the general welfare for the betterment of all. Go back and read about the history of Russia, the communist revolution or the short book “Animal Farm.”

This is why it is so important that we don’t just look at where we are but where we have been and where we are going.

The Cap And Trade Market Is The New Wallstreet

The word on the street is that the Carbon Pollution (still only a theory and disproved more and more everyday by observed non-anomilic science) “Cap and Trade” is poised to make certain folks into quick billionaires. GE is one of those companies. There are many others. Here is how this will work.

For some time now a number of companies organized as a group called “USCAP” have teamed up to recommend how cap and trade works. The gist is, based on recommended levels for carbon pollution, companies in the US would be awarded credits. If you are beating the cap then you get credits and if you are exceeding the cap then you need to go out and buy credits due to your credit deficit. Over the course of the next 50 years those credits would be progressively reduced lower carbon pollution numbers (wait for it.) Here is the problem.

1. Carbon pollution is not science nor are the standards. They are manufactured "Caps" (I will explain how these Caps came to be in the next point.)
   
2. The USCAP group is recommending standards that stack the deck in their favor. If the government adopts their recommendation, then since those companies have a head start on adhering to the standard they would be awarded an inequitable number of credits.

As a result many other companies would have to go to them to buy credits. And companies like GE are then awarded in the billions of dollars. Years later after politicians are willing to agree with the current science debunking AGW and proving we are on a new cooling trend, rather than returning all of our money they will only claim we've now solved AGW at a globally and ecologically infeasible speed and now we can stop doing Cap and Trade and energy taxes... wait a minute, WHO AM I KIDDING?

If the government can crank up personal energy taxes, why would they EVER STOP? And if companies can OWN the Cap and Trade system before it even gets going, how hard will they lobby Congress to keep that cashcow alive long after Anthropogenic Global Warming pseudo-science is debunked publicly?

Well, the answer is, they won't stop. This is a new industry they are creating. And we are not talking about companies trading billions based on carbon credit trading alone. Here is where you are I come in.

Carbon Cap and Trade laws would very quickly affect the average American household at the rate of over $3,000 per year. This is already all over the news based on the plan being proposed. If you think you have a tight budget now, imagine finding another $3,000 per year to handle trickle down Cap and Trade economics. If you are single with a roommate renting a home, well then it will only be $1,500+ for you, but I am sure you are now doing the math. As energy costs go up, also due specifically to energy taxes, it is being estimated that people will retire older electronic devices and from who will they purchase those new devices? Two letters: G.E.

This also affects companies and communities. G.E. is not only a major participant in crafting the Cap and Trade recommendations to the US Government but it is the largest manufacturer of the purported consumer AND company AND community level “solutions”. Where will people buy windmills from? New generator? Updated "low polution" arcraft engines? G.E. And this is only one company in the mix.

Let's talk about oil. Since the beginning of AGW theories ExxonMobil has been quit public about disputing the science behind the claims. And while they have not publicly changed their position, they are surprisingly getting involved in USCAP to help shape those policies before they become laws. So they aren't debating the fact that they don't believe in AGW anymore today than they did yesterday. They are only reading the writing on the wall and grabbing a seat at the big table so they can be one of the key families in the new enviro-mafia.

So (like usual) let’s do the math:

Cap and Trade doesn’t solve any problems, it creates a new trade market.

Moreover it creates or IMPLEMENTS a scheduled problem for average Americans to which that same group “creating” the problem will then be the very group providing the solution. The last time I heard a storyline like this I think I was watching the movie “The Godfather.” I am just starting to really understand those funny new “Tea Parties” in the news these days. You know? Those blips in the news where the media tells you that a few people got together to complain about taxes? Well, historically, people got pretty pissed because England wanted to get more money out of the colonies, so while England controlled the tea being exported to the colonies, they saw an opportunity in controlling the taxes associated with them. To be fair, Cap and Trade is just a new Tea Tax. But in this case it isn't tea they are taxing, it is carbon - the most prevelant element in the known universe. Said another way, if America could tax you for breathing, comparitively they couldn't raise as much funding as the AGW carbon "polution" taxation market will be able to do.

So, am I nuts? Where do I get the guts to call Cap and Trade a planned ploy to create a problem and then pimp the only solution? Well, just follow the story for yourself…

OK, be a good American and read these two articles:

If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em: Industry owns Cap and Trade rather than really being about Green Legislation

…and…

Cap and Trade Slumlords: If going green is so altruistic, how did Al Gore go from a net worth of $2 million at the end of his vice presidency to over $100 million in only eight years due to the new green market?

...and if you prefer to watch video instead then check out...

Pretty Little Budget Book

Due to new rules in the government about adhering to a "more true" representation of reality the new administrations budget headed for Congressional approval had to be reprinted. Luckily enough I happen to get a glance at the current cover, and I have to say I like the design. The objection has far less to do with the design than it does with the word choice on the cover.

I have to say that I really like the font choice as well as some of the appointments and color selection. It says "classic" or "classy" but the font is definitely "fresh" and "contemporary.


On an even cooler note, I was able to grab a look at the new cover for comparison (consulting with the government has it's perks!) Notice that the presentation is fundamentally the same, while the copy has been "updated" to parallel a more realistic representation of the budget as well as current events. Have a look. I think they did an O.K. job!




(All applicable copy rights reserved: This post is for political purposes only. Any offensive element of this work of fiction is intended for the purpose of ribbing my friends who love Obama in hopes to provoke fun political banter because sometimes I really enjoy getting people going. If you have no response to this presentation whatsoever then you might want to look into changing your medication.)