This AP article is clearly designed to raise the scary specter of a government shut down: http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/09/battle_royal_over_health_care/4224/comments.html

The author speculates that the GOP could find the only way to stop the President’s agenda is to literally stop funding the government.  Then, oh my, the entire government could end up shutting down!  Apparently, from the liberal vantage point the single scariest thing that could happen in this country is a lack of government supervision.  Mass mayhem, dogs and cats living together, end times…  Only, um, it appears from the comments that most of the readers relish the idea of a government shut down.  By my count, nineteen of twenty commenters responded “go ahead, shut it down”.  From the vantage point of most folks, shutting down DC for a month or so would be a super way to cut 5% from the operational budget.  A couple of folks on the left chimed in pointing out that “highways won’t be built”, as though that is the most terrifying thing that could possibly happen.  Oh noes!  You can bet your last dime I’m a far more worried about the tourist trade in DC than I am about the potential of non-infrastructure, but I have a sneaky suspicion that a government shut down might actually HELP the tourist trade.  Thanks AP, one of the best reasons to vote GOP I’ve heard yet.

I suppose I’m sick of watching commentators speak about the Discovery Channel terrorist Lee.  Yeah, I called him a terrorist.  Why in the world won’t anyone call this guy what he is?  What I take away from the people I’ve watched speak on the issue is: this guy is clearly an insane person on the left, and we would never say most of the left can be painted with that brush.  Yet most on the left would say all people on the right are violent based on a single incident.  Thus, the left holds a double standard when it comes to crazy outliers.  When Obama took power, we heard all kinds of dire warnings that people on the right would become deranged sociopaths.  As it turned out, people on the right usually believe in the rule of law and didn’t set out with their torches and pitchforks and their guns, which have not yet been controlled.

People on the left essentially believe in forcing others to do what they want via government.  Similarly, people on the left typically believe there are no limits to the scope of government.  Why are we not at liberty to agree to disagree anymore?  The scope of government is such that there are defined punishments for disagreement.  If government was not involved with marriage at all, the right and left could disagree and think the other side is stupid without government intervening on either side.  Because of the size and scope of government, everyone with an opinion must take a stand or end up with whatever the government allocates their belief system.

Many of the core beliefs of the left are inherently hypocritical.  I will never forget watching Valerie Jarrett say she was still “sticking it to the man”.  Newsflash!  If you are demanding larger government Ms. Jarrett, you are trying to get the man to stick it to you.  What kind of an idiot believes she’s sitting in the White House and isn’t a part of “the man”?  When the lady who lives next to my mom told me that she’s a democrat, I asked her if she wants government to make more decisions for her.  She pulled back and said, “Of course not!”  To which I responded, “Then you’re not a democrat.”  If you want an inherently hypocritical position on the left, you need look no further than the immigration issue.  Liberals want government to regulate everything and then summarily oppose enforcement.  It doesn’t get more hypocritical than that.  Whenever I speak to someone who tells me they oppose the Arizona law on immigration, I ask them if we could strike a deal where companies ignore EPA laws as well as immigration laws.  I can’t give you their responses, because I have yet to meet a liberal who will respond.  This is the impulse that leads someone who says they are in favor of protecting the planet to strap something that is shockingly high in carbon like a bomb to their chest and threaten a place that is as far left as the Discovery Channel. 

The conclusion I draw is that it is surprising that more folks on the left aren’t behaving violently.  Their core belief system requires force, albeit government force.  At the same time they demand government force, they disagree with the rule of law.  It seems obvious to me that once the lever for government control is taken from them, they will resort to other methods of force to secure their demands.  I predict we will see more folks like Lee who feel the reigns of control slipping and will see their only venue for forcing their will on others to be violence.  We can clearly foresee that people whose core beliefs demand compliance from others will not sit quietly and allow that control to slip from their fingers.  When you compound that with the fact that liberals don’t mind being hypocritical in order to see their ends met, it spells disaster.  Thus, I am willing to say what those commentators refuse to say: people on the left are FAR more likely to become deranged sociopaths than people on the right and Mr. Lee is just the tip of the iceberg.

Apparently the teachers’ unions are boycotting the LA Times because the paper had the temerity to release information on which teachers are the best and the worst in the area.  The parting question here is, would you ask a district to move your kids to a different classroom if they were in a class with a poorly performing teacher?

http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/08/21/0027242/Union-Boycotts-LA-Times-Over-Teacher-Evaluation-Disclosure

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_susan_estrich/what_really_matters

Susan Estrich is a liberal commentator.  I have long been a fan of hers (flame away, I couldn’t care less), even though I disagree with her conclusions consistently.  Estrich does from time to time challenge my perspective as a conservative.  I feel strongly that I need intelligent challenges to my thoughts and I must honestly admit that one or two liberal commentators have changed my mind on certain issues. 

Her recent article “What Really Matters” on the Rassmussen Reports website is one of those “Now everyone calm down and remember why we’re here” articles that the left has been so excited to post lately.  The only thing she forgot to put into the article was any clear description of the topic.  What really matters?  She insinuates that there are serious enemies outside the US that should scare us more than the Obama administration does.  One must suppose the point to the article was to suggest citizens of the US have a great deal in common and we should be unified against outside enemies.  Yet, the article instead seems to say, “we won the election, now you have to sit down and shut up”.  This article lacked any version of diplomacy.  If we look at the actions of the Obama administration this week, one must believe the greatest enemies facing the US are the citizens of the US and Israel. 

This administration has chosen to attack Israel verbally in a way that one might have assumed would be reserved for Iran.  My impression of the left’s argument for Obama’s foreign policy was that he would be very diplomatic.  I can’t think of a single thing this administration has done that can be called diplomatic.  After ignoring the will of the majority of US citizens and forcing passage of a bill through questionable means in the congress,  the administration has ignored and attacked the citizens who put them in their positions in the first place.  When they aren’t admantly insisting that people need someone to tell them what to do, they are insinuating that peaceful protest should be limited to people who agree with them on all the issues.

Estrich apparently doesn’t realize that she SHOULD be targeting liberals with her comments.  This administration hasn’t missed a single opportunity to attack and demean anyone they disagree with and that includes the vast majority of citizens they purport to represent.  They have patiently explained that they will decide who is and who isn’t a news agency.  If we take this administration and congress at their actions, we must assume that their priorities (what really matters) and who they perceive as enemies do not allign with those of the vast majority of US citizens. 

Last year, I thought that I would see many of these kinds of articles coming out condemning the violence AGAINST the tea party protesters, but I was astounded that media in general and Estrich in particular couldn’t even summons up a condemnation of the intentional violence against peaceful protesters.  In one case, a man’s finger was bitten off by a proponent of the healthcare bill.  One might think that would rate at least a passing mention by liberal pundits?  Alas, no.  Frankly Ms. Estrich, if anyone gets serious hurt or killed during this political season, I would put the blame on your side of the aisle for your refusal to adamantly oppose selective law enforcement policy set down via this administration.

Let me take a moment to further pontificate on your topic of “what really matters”.  For most people in the US, this administration came into office on promises of eliminating fraud; being bipartisan by creating bridges between the parties; and creating transparency.  Most people in this country have been shocked at the complete disconnect that Obama has with the things he has promised.  In short, we were cheated.  He lied to get into office and most people are furious about it.  This healthcare bill is only the latest picture of his completely fraudulent campaign for the presidency.  If the intent of your article is to take a group of folks who were cheated and tell them, “too bad, that’s what happens when you’re stupid enough to believe liberal lies”, you shouldn’t be surprised when you are taken at your word.  I personally am shocked that more violence hasn’t erupted, but that can be easily explained by the fact that most conservatives realize that our best attack has yet to come.  We will voice our discontent at the polls.  I suspect you’ll have eight to twelve long years to think about what really matters before liberal commentary really matters again.

I have heard it said that this generation of young adults is on a quest for authenticity.  If that is true, conservatives in Oregon have some of the best candidates ever presented. 

I was lucky enough to accidentally sit between congressional candidates at the 9/12 convention.  Happily, neither of the candidates tried to “glad hand” me (whew).  I took away interesting impressions of both of these candidates.  I had a chance to meet several others, but the only two I can claim to have spoken with about issues were Scott Bruun and John Kuzmanich from District 1 in Portland.  So, I will expound on both of them separately.

Look, the only benefit you get from reading a blog about someone who has met a candidate in person is getting the blogger’s impressions, so please excuse my liberal use of first person.  In my jaded youth, I worked on the Dukakis/Ferraro campaign.  I can remember thinking politicians reminded me of sales people: long on smiley, short on “real”.  I’m pleased to note that that is NOT the case any longer.  I’d like to believe that I can place responsibility with the tea party movement. 

I had a chance to seriously discuss a couple of issues with John Kuzmanich.  Whatever your impression of his positions on the issues, he is sincere in his beliefs and very able to intelligently converse about them.  If I hadn’t looked at his nametag, I wouldn’t have known he was a candidate at all.  He introduced his fiancée, who was equally pleasant to speak with. 

I was also in one of the breakout sessions with Mr. Kuzmanich.  He asked some great questions that made it apparent that he’s not just a serious candidate, but a thoughtful one.

In short, I have to admit that I was jealous of Portland at having this awesome candidate.  John Kuzmanich is what all of us hope for when we look for conservative candidates: smart, honest and saavy.

I promised to write more on the substance of the 9/12 conference I attended this weekend and I have plenty of things to say.  The biggest impact the conference had on me was that it reminded me of why I got involved with the Tea Party movement in the first place.

Have you ever said, “It’s always something” about a friend, co-worker, or a neighbor?  You’ve met people who are simply tiring?  That’s how I see this administration.

When Obama was running for office, he kept referring to ‘the failed Bush policies”.  He could never be specific about which policies he was referring to, but I feel certain most thought that he was just being a politician.  It seemed that Bush was the villain in one of those old Dudley-Do-Right cartoons.  After Obama was elected, he referred constantly to the “mess” he had inherited. 

It soon became apparent that the idea of Bush as the villain of his presidency wasn’t working.  Then Obama pulled out a new villain du jour.  Bankers!!  Evil bankers were getting huge largess in the form of bonuses.  This cannot be allowed!  Taxpayers bailed out banks and banks are clearly evil.  So, yet again disclosing only a single side of the argument, the President bade us get our pitchforks and torches for an attack.

During the healthcare debate, our President has trotted out lots of super villains: doctors surreptitiously stealing kids’ tonsils and chopping off their feet; them wascally Republicans; insurance companies; and fraudsters!!  He even asked us to take up arms against that “faux” news agency Foxnews.

With this guy, it’s all drama.  It’s always something.  Someone is super evil and needs all of us to come clobber him to make the President happy.  One can be forgiven for thinking “What now?”  Whatever.

I joined the tea party because it is something positive.  It’s we disagree with you, on these grounds, and we intend to do certain things to change things.  If the tea party movement was a group of the disgruntled complainers, I think I would be uninterested.  I have enough work on my hands, thanks.

Instead, I see a group of folks using words like “innovation” and “moving towards the future”.  I don’t hear that coming out of our liberal leaders. Any kind of a healthcare bill is childish NOT to start movement towards fixing this incoming wave of entitlement bankruptcy.  Paul Ryan’s budget suggests a way to deal with this within ten years.  It contains politically difficult pieces, and as a Libertarian, I think it’s too government centered, but at least it’s a way forward.

In my less than professional opinion, I think if you’re reading this, and you’re a liberal, you need to seriously consider putting down that pitchfork and joining in with the rest of us to try and pick out a way forward.  Unless, of course, you’re another of those who simply enjoys perpetuating the drama.

I had the opportunity this weekend to attend the 9/12 conference in Turner, Oregon.  I will post a few more articles on the meat of the conference, but let me start with the fun fluff while I have it fresh in my mind.

After I sat down for the first session, Scott Bruun, candidate for congress and his staff assistant sat in front of me.  The candidate for District 1 sat behind me.  Since I tend to be a hermit of sorts, I guessed immediately that it just wasn’t going to be my day.  Fifty percent of the folks at this thing would have jumped in front of a bus to get a few minutes of time from these guys, so I figured I’d make the most of this stroke of luck (good or bad, you call it).  I will write later on my take away on the policy positions of these two candidates, but let me start out with, they are both fairly nice people.

As a former secretary, I am very aware that you can learn alot from a person if you watch the way they treat the people who work for them.  During the first morning break, we all left our seats to soup up on the coffee that was offered.  I got back to my seat and noticed that the young staffer with Bruun had gotten into an animated discussion with a very attractive young lady at one of the booths.  As they carried on their discussion, the young lady sat down in the chair that had the candidate’s jacket on it.  The next session began, and the two young folks were in the rep’s chair.  Well, Bruun came back a minute or so after the session started to find he had no chair. 

Of course, this is the moment people watchers adore.  It’s a character test to see how someone reacts to this sort of thing.  Bruun took in the situation in a glance, smiled for a moment, and then the intrepid congressman went in search of another seat. 

I pride myself on voting with my brains and always looking at policy positions.  In this case scenario, my vote may have been irrevocably changed by the hopeless romantic in me.  Lift up a glass with me to toast a chivalrous guy giving up his chair to a young couple.  Aaaah, spring…

Per Philip Klein at the American Spectator, Ben Nelson is saying that he didn’t intend to vote for the actual healthcare bill unless it had substantial changes to the abortion language.  The article presents a skeptical view of Ben Nelson’s clumsy attempts at explaining his wheeling and dealing to his constituents.  My impression is that Nelson felt that the bill was inevitable and worked to get the best possible deal for his state.  I suspect that Nelson thought he would be counted a hero.  To me it looks like one of those regrettable myopic things you do.  Like painting the bathroom bright purple with a floral border seems like a great idea until you actually have to shower there every day.  Nelson felt that it was only a matter of time before one of the Republicans crumbled, and so he worked the best possible deal he could work for his state.  A deal, by the way, that those of us in the reliable blue states are drooling after.

I also believe that Olympia Snowe believed that healthcare was inevitable when she voted for the Baucus bill.  I think she felt that voting for the Baucus bill was avoiding a much more liberal bill that contained a public option.  Instead, the liberal leadership used her vote as a platform to create a much more liberal bill.  Then, when the final senate version was being created, she wasn’t even invited to give an opinion.  I read somewhere that Obama contacted Snowe after the recent Massachusetts election.  I would love to have been a fly on the wall for that phone call.  After they knifed her in the back they casually call her to see what it would take to get her vote?  Are you kidding?

It seems to me that Democrats have made a bad assumption.  Their inexperience in business makes it clear that they don’t understand that when a business chooses a direction, nothing is inevitable.  If a policy is universally hated, it is eradicated.  That’s the only way you can stay in business.  This liberal congress is strangely inflexible on certain positions while simultaneously being strangely flexible with tax dollars.

It seems to me that a lot of people are assuming the healthcare bill is inevitable.  The only people who find this monstrosity inevitable are in DC.  The rest of us see the imminent demise of the liberal supremacy as inevitable BECAUSE of this bill.  Couldn’t happen to a nicer group of folks.

According to this article http://industry.bnet.com/technology/10005104/uspto-wont-accept-upside-down-faxes-demands-resends/, the US Patent Office cannot process faxes that are received upside down.  (h/t bizwriter at slashdot)

So, you’re telling me that the nameless bureaucrat who picks up the stupid faxes is too lazy to flip the freaking thing right side up, but must immediately write a form letter to announce their laziness?  I certainly hope this turns out to be some crank.  And I totally want my healthcare in the hands of these people.

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.