Erickson did a fantastic job on Hannity tonight.  He shut down the liberal panelist at least once.  Have you ever watched a liberal talking to a conservative on tv and seen the conservative not coming back with the best answers possible?  I suspect this was as close as I’ll get to transporting because Erickson actually said alot of the things I wanted to say.  He also shut the crazy lib up at least once.  Nice work!

This week Jimmy Carter explained that he lost re-election to Reagan because of the Iranian hostage situation.  http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9C0P1H80&show_article=1  In this AP article, he explains that he was unwilling to entertain a military attack on Iran because of the potential loss of the hostages as well as many Iranian civilians.  I’m surprised that President Carter still doesn’t understand what happened with Iran and how his compassionate posturing causes more bloodshed than it prevents.  This administration also seems to see the history of the Reagan presidency through the same lenses.

Apparently, the problem Carter faced with Iran was disproportionate knowledge.  Carter didn’t know what to do to get Iran to hand over the hostages.  He had many choices before him, but Iran rightly guessed that Carter would choose from the liberal playbook of getting many expert opinions and then doing nothing while sitting in quiet contemplation.  After being chastised into a single extrication attempt that failed, Carter couldn’t imagine what to do next.  So, he waited.  Iran rightly guessed that this would be the approach of the Carter administration.  When Reagan stepped into office, Iran was faced with another set of facts.  If the hostages weren’t handed over post haste, the leaders in Iran could be fairly certain they would be dealing with an invastion.  So, Iran handed over the hostages.  No bloodshed.  No ugly extrication attempt.  No childish bickering.  Just “Here, take ‘em.”

Liberals cannot seem to imagine that their methods don’t work.  In the minds of most liberals, their ideas are underwritten by all the best minds in academia.  Their ideas use large words and take up many important chapters in textbooks.  They have to be right!  As it turns out, they aren’t.  It seems that no matter how often history proves this,  liberals just rewrite history to make it seem workable.  The bottom line is obvious to even the most casual observer:  Iran was scared of Reagan and it wasn’t scared at all about Carter.  Iran felt certain that Reagan would do the one thing that Carter didn’t do: take action.

Just as Bin Laden voices in his own special way, Obama is “powerless”.  He is powerless because no one believes for a second that he will actually do anything if Iran steps over the line.  So, to Iran, the line is meaningless.  It always reminds me of that line where Sinbad is pointing at a woman in a car driving away screaming, “If you don’t stop, I’ll be standing here pointing.”  No one is in any doubt that Obama will take little or no action.  The world theatre has already watched him do nothing in the face of provocation, certainly no one will take action if they can be fairly certain that Obama will leave them hanging out to dry as he did with Eastern Europe. (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2184967/obama_scraps_missile_defense_in_eastern.html)

Obama takes a similar stance with Afghanistan.  Let’s all sit down and think about this.  Meanwhile, extremists in the region sense the ambivalence the President has towards Afghanistan, and they have stepped up their game.  As Obama sits and contemplates, Afghanistan disentegrates into chaos.  Wasn’t this the war he said was super important?  Meh, Afghanistan knows what Iran knows, but Jimmy Carter has yet to figure out.

Kurt Schrader, representative of the fifth congressional district in Oregon has an easy seat to defend.  Oregon is a truly blue state and the Democratic party has gone on record as being willing to pay to help re-elect the first term representative.  Scott Bruun has already entered the race as a Republican opponent.  Bruun is an attractive state representative who is known for his record of working across party lines.  Surprisingly for Oregonians, a different kind of conservative candidate has thrown his hat in the ring.  Fred Thompson, not the one married to Jeri, has decided to run for this seat.

Bruun’s website is very attractive, but it doesn’t outline Bruun’s stand on any of the issues.  One can surmise from his voting record several positions.  In stark contrast, Fred Thompson, retired businessman, lays out definite positions on most issues.  He stands in good position to claim an endorsement from the tea party groups in Oregon. 

I have heard some liberals who have gloated that this is the way to defeat Republicans in 2010: pit a tea party candidate against a Republican and the Democrat will be the winner (well, what else can they recommend themselves with?).  With my ear to the ground out here in Oregon, I have to admit that I believe this state will be a red state in December 2010.  Kurt Schrader is a Pfizer trust fund recipient who has the big sugar lobby as his largest campaign contributor to date (how many folks in the Pacific Northwest work on sugar plantations do you think?)  There is also great unrest in Oregon.  Oregon has implemented many eco-policies and raised taxes in the middle of this recession.  The results are predictable: the second highest unemployment in the country, a loss of businesses in the state, and en enormous government dripping with lobbyists, unions, and other sycophants drawing government dollars.  The question becomes: will a Republican who can unite conservatives and moderates be able to defeat the huge liberal tax funded machine in the state?  No matter who ends up running, this is an election to watch.

(c) GENERAL DEFINITIONS.—Except as otherwise

2 provided, in this division:

3 (1) ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE.—The term ‘‘acceptable coverage’’ has the meaning given such term

5 in section 302(d)(2).

It is important to note that here in the first pages of this legislation is where I have my greatest problems ideologically.  As long as government has the right to define “acceptable coverage” we’re going to butt heads.  See, they can actually pass this legislation and next week, when no one is watching, then they come back and say “acceptable coverage” must include abortion, sex changes, or any of a myriad of things that many would prefer not be in their tax dollars.  I haven’t chased this term down to it’s source yet, but if acceptable coverage is actually determined by a non-elected body, then we have more serious problems because the public doesn’t even get to have a voice and certainly doesn’t get to see the decision making on this.  Since I have promised this project a finite amount of time, I will make this piece a two part series.  Ponder how awful it is when four lines of legislation requires two or three hours to chase down.

One could be excused for suggesting that this legislation is intentionally confusing.  The fact that it is probably confusing without intent speaks to the specialized talents of the authors.  What is acceptable coverage?  According to the definition, it has the meaning that has been given to it in section 302(d)(2), where there is no definition.  Section 302(d)(2) tells us that if you have Medicaid, Medicare, VA, or military insurance, you are golden.  No worries, you have acceptable coverage.  This is odd on it’s face, as they intend to cut huge chunks out of medicare, btw…

The only other kind of acceptable coverage is “qualified health benefits plan coverage” defined as “coverage under a qualified health benefits plan”.  Super!  Now what is acceptable coverage?  Well, I suppose we have to look up a qualified health benefits plan.

That definition is on page 15.  Basically, that definition says a “qualified health benefits plan” is a plan that “meets the requirements for such a plan under title II and includes the public health insurance option and is offered by a QHBP offering entity that meets the applicable requirements of such title with respect to such a plan”.  Yikes!  What does that mean?  I suppose we have to look up title II to get specifics while realizing that if your insurer offers the plan they approve without being a qualified offering entity, your plan still might not qualify.  This seems like a lot of hoops to jump through to find out what most folks will want to know about this plan, namely, if their plan counts or will they have to jump ship or be tossed off.

OK, this is the **to be continued** spot.  Next time we will find out if the average health care plan (that would be mine) has “acceptable coverage”.

As you can probably tell, this diary is really about a layman (that would be me) interpreting the health care bill.  From time to time, I will be going off the reservation as I feel strongly about an issue at hand.

In my generation, the things that media reports don’t define them nearly as much as the things they choose not to report.  I will always remember that the mainstream media chose not to report on the ACORN scandals.  If it weren’t for Fox News, most would never have heard of the videos that were created by two young reporters.  The reasons mainstream media chose not to report were transparently political in nature.  It is incredibly revealing that there wasn’t even a serious attempt at spin on this motivation.  The mainstream media simply didn’t want to report anything that controverted their ongoing narrative regarding ACORN.

Fox News, in stark contrast, elected not to release the name of the accused shooter in the Ft. Hood shootings today until it was confirmed by the military.  I can see from other reports on blogs that other mainstream media outlets have released this name.  The reason that Shepherd Smith gave for not giving out the name of the suspect was that he didn’t want to irresponsibly do something that cannot be undone.  Fox News has consistently demonstrated honor in their dealings that is conspicuously absent from other news media.  I am impressed.

  15 (D) initiates shared responsibility among

16 workers, employers, and the Government;

17 so that all Americans have coverage of essential

18 health benefits.

According to the “Affordable Health Care for America Act” bill, it will initiate a shared responsibility for my healthcare coverage.  To me this illustrates a basic difference in viewpoint between liberals and conservatives. 

The other day at the local pool, one of the lifeguards mentioned that she liked the fact that I am always within eyeshot of my kids.  She said that she was surprised at how many parents of young kids let the lifeguards assume responsibility for their kids.  As often occurs when I talk to eighteen year olds, my eyes were glazed over until she said this.  What shouted at me is the inherent falsehood of that statement.  No one can truly assume responsibility for your children.  That’s ridiculous.

The reason is simple: my stake in my children cannot be equaled or surpassed by anyone except my husband and our G-d.  If my kids drowned while swimming in that pool, that lifeguard might be heart broken for some period of time, but fairly quickly, she would forget their names and move on.  I would be heart broken for the rest of my life.  Thus, we watch our young kids cautiously.  Similarly, if another young child drowned while we were at the pool.  I would feel horrible for some period of time wondering if there would have been something I could have done, but ultimately, it wouldn’t impact me the way losing my child would.

Similarly, if my son was in a coma, and was refused an expensive treatment because a bureaucrat decided his death was imminent, that bureaucrat would doubtlessly feel badly in the same way the clerk who can’t refund your money when you buy a lousy product does, but I am the one with the true stake in the game.  I would likely sell anything I own to keep my kids healthy.  Bureaucrats are afforded the luxury of looking at the needs of a larger group rather than a small segment.  My child would doubtlessly be SSN# blah, blah, blah to them.  “Ms. Caswell, please bring me another ‘denied’ stamp for my paperwork.”

Liberals have the mistaken impression that you can simply wave a magic wand, or bill, or whatever, and transfer responsibility.  Poof!!  Now my employer cares about my kids as I do!  Poof!  Now you care about my business!  Poof!  Now you’re dying to organize your community into neat color-coded files.  Yet, even if they could transfer some of the community responsibility to themselves, they wouldn’t.  Studies suggest that conservatives give far more to charity than liberals do.  That’s because conservatives pay more than lip service to helping in their communities, they actually make themselves players in the overall game by putting their money where their mouth is.  In social services circles, they should call that becoming a stake holder. 

When we allow liberals power over our lives in the name of shared “responsibility”, we shouldn’t be surprised when they come up with insane ideas like this health care bill.  They have NO stake in the game.  When it actually comes to donating money to support crazy liberal ideas like socialized medicine, liberals come up short.  They only want these things if they can use someone else’s money, so they can guarantee they have no stake in the game.  Be honest, haven’t you ever just thought to yourself, if George Soros really wanted to insure all those people, he could just write a check, couldn’t he?  Maybe not a check to the DNC, but one to say, an insurance company.  Maybe they could pool their funds and buy an insurance company and take this crazy risk on by themselves?  No way!  They don’t really want a stake in the game.  They don’t WANT a share of the responsibility, just a share of the profits.

Once again, the health care bill states a disingenuous dream that is unachievable: shared responsibility.

OK, they gave it a shortened title (funny, it didn’t occur to them to shorten anything else within the bill…):

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the  ‘‘Affordable Health Care for America Act’’.

Does it strike anyone else amusing that they create a shortened name for this 2000 page bill?  It’s creepy.  Halloween was a good time to put this out.  It’s like an oxymoronic joke. 

Oh please!  Who do these guys think they’re fooling?  If this act is SO freaking affordable, why do they have to charge for it in installments for years before you actually receive any benefits?  It’s like the sinister negative of rental furniture.  Pay for it and if you’re really poor afterwards, we’ll let you have the benefit of your investment.  Wow!  That’s mighty big of you!  At least the eerie rental furniture places take their 70’s era couches back at the end of the contract, the health care bill shows no means of erradicating the government program that keeps on taking.  

I hate people who try to make something seem nicer by “prettying up” the language.  It’s not a bug, it’s an unadvertised effect.  No, it’s a bug.  Liberals seem to think so little of the people they represent that they believe people will buy into their name change advertising campaign.  Well, I bring news.  I suppose this can work for some industries, but I promise you that in most businesses, we are very aware that we are being cheated, no matter what you call this bill.

I am going to read the “Affordable Health Care for America Act” and make commentary.

To many, the goal of healthcare reform can be summarized in a single phrase: “Lower my premium.”  It might surprise many of those who want healthcare reform that the goal of the house legislation is not to lower healthcare costs.

To be specific, the goal as stated in the legislation is:

   Goal:   To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes.

It is important to note the goal of “reducing the growth in health care spending”.  I thought it was going to cause health care spending to lower?  Apparently not.  They don’t expect it.  This bill won’t cause it.  So, in answer to all of those who expect lower premiums because the helpful government has come to our assistance, that is NOT the goal of this legislation.  Their goal of reducing health care spending isn’t referring to personal spending, but public spending.  It would seem that the best way to reduce public health expenditures is to spend far more on it.  If this seems irrational, recognize that they don’t expect anyone to actually read this bill.  Thus, the words they use are unimportant to them.   

Additionally, the Speaker made it clear that this bill won’t provide health care for all Americans.  As that negates two out of three of the stated goals, rolling out the door, I’d like to hear a bit more about the “other purposes” they have in mind.  To bankrupt future generations?  To create state legislative chaos?  Or are those just incidental outcomes that go along with this stuff? 

Maybe they could have made this sound more nefarious, but I’m not entirely certain how.