POTUS Knows Best

The controversy over Obama's address to school kids may be a little overblown. What's wrong with the president telling kids to stay in school, work hard and achieve? It is certainly a message that my wife and I send to our kids every day by valuing their education and taking an active part in it. I'm not sure it would do my kids much good to hear the president tell them that though. They listen to me more than they would listen to a celebrity talking head on TV. And therein lies the problem.

Obama's speech to kids is an end-run around parents. In true Obama fashion, he feels that it's his job to help raise our kids. And that kids NEED to hear from this president about how important school is.

Don't misunderstand, some kids don't have involved parents who value their education. And in those cases, the more people they hear encouraging them in school, the better. But they already get that from an endless stream of vapid celebrity endorsers. It's less about helping kids than it is about showing the world that XYZ celebrity "really cares"— it's pure public relations. And Obama's no different. Just in his case, there's politics involved. And good public relations affects polling.

If he wanted to really affect change in how kids view school, he'd preempt the football game on Sunday and address the parents directly. Or better yet, just roll tape of Bill Cosby.

Dude, I can totally see your wiener.

As the press sits around marveling at Obama's fantastic new suit of clothes, the rest of us are left gaping at the spectacle of our naked emperor, fooling no one but himself. So I thought I'd do the gent a favor and point him out a few things — speak truth to power, as they say:

1. We know you picked Hillary for Secretary of State just to get her out of your way, but she's really bad at her job. Bring it up at her next performance review.
2. Your wife has horrible fashion sense. I'm just saying.
3. When you start a sentence "Let me be clear," we know you're about to lie. It's like a poker tell.
4. Without your tele-prompter, you're starting to sound erratic and gaff-prone, but...
5. ...good news, not as erratic and gaffe-prone as Joe Biden. Bring him around more.
6. It's possible that Robert Gibbs may be functionally illiterate — probably had someone else fill out the job application for him. You might look into that.
7. If your lefty base finds out Rahm Emanuel is Jewish, they're going to be really pissed.
8. The Supreme Court is not a Gap ad. You don't have to get one of each ethnicity in the photo.
9. Every time you point the finger at Bush, there are three more pointing back at you. They represent the deficit you tripled.
10. Afghanistan's a mess. You may have to soldier-up over there. Don't tell Code Pink.
11. You know that neighbor who's always giving you their unwanted cold remedies? You're kind of like that old lady. Keep your healthcare ideas to yourself.

Ten Great Reasons to Reject ObamaCare

There is a lot of information and misinformation out there about Hr 3200 — the healthcare reform bill. And much of it —the information and the bill — is confusing. I've read a fair amount (admittedly not all) of the bill. It appears to be written with the express goal of being indecipherable to the public. So let's skip a lot of the messy details (what exactly will the health advisory council's task be, will there be rationing or not, etc) and get right to the stuff of which we can be certain. There's a lot of good reasons not to like this plan. Here's my top ten:

1. Government does nothing efficiently. Why do we want them entrenched even more in our healthcare system?
2. The Supreme Court ordained the constitutional right to abortion stating that anti-abortion laws violate the sanctity of the private doctor/patient relationship. How can the Federal Government possibly get entwined in providing healthcare with any specificity? HR 3200 should be constitutionally dead-on-arrival.
3. Obama can't be trusted to play this straight. He's on record strongly preferring universal healthcare. No matter what this bill says, we must assume it moves the ball toward his goal.
4. There is no mention of Tort reform in HR 3200. Any plan that doesn't address the root of all waste in our health care system is worthless.
5. Medicaid/Medicare are about to go bankrupt — and those two quasi-public options are preferable to universal care. How, please tell me, can anyone possibly believe that ObamaCare won't end up costing 10 times the amount anyone is projecting?
6. Congress has repeatedly rejected moving their own plans to the "public option." If it ain't good enough for thee, keep it away from me.
7. This is a huge intrusion on States' sovereignty. No matter how praiseworthy the reform may be, it dramatically shifts healthcare policy to the federal government. And interstate commerce is a weak tool to justify this. The 10th Amendment isn't just a suggestion, folks.
8. It places insurance mandates on small businesses. This will crush profitability and drive up unemployment. There are better ways to get small companies to offer insurance — how about tax incentives instead of penalties?
9. The unions support it—why? Members of the largest unions already have health insurance via their collective bargaining extortion schemes. What's in it for the unions to "fix" the system? Be afraid. Be very afraid.
10. It's being rushed through. We shouldn't accept that any plan must happen in 3 months. The Democrats have been trying to pull this off for almost two decades — where's the crisis? Any problem worth solving is worth taking the time to solve right.

What do you think? Did I leave anything off the list?

A Message President. It's Just Not His Message.

I spoke with my first, genuine Obama remorse voter last week. When I asked her what she thought about Barack's healthcare reform plans, she shook her head and said "It's all just too much. We can't afford all of this." She said, "I voted for him because I thought it was time for a change. But what's going on now is not what he presented himself as during the election."

This woman is one of Barack's "sweet spot" swing voters. Evangelical Christian. Suburban mom. One of the "more feel than think" voters. And he's already losing her 6 months into his presidency.

Obama came into office after winning the election handily. Most of the mainstream media refrained from using the word mandate, but you did hear a bit of it. The mandate was for hope and change. The electorate had bit on his message: hook, line and sinker. And Obama opened his first term like he had a genuine mandate on the end of his line. Jerking legislation through Congress - hinted-at ideas from lightly-covered town hall campaign stops. Reeling in votes for dramatic policy changes that the media had hardly noticed.

But did the public really give his policies a mandate? Polls show that just weeks into office, people largely supported Obama much more than they supported any of his policy proposals. And that was his peak. Support has dropped off the cliff since.

This disparity seemingly makes no sense. How could the public support a man but not his policies? The only logical explanation is that their vote was sending a message. It just wasn't Barack Obama's message.

Obama, the man and what he symbolized, was the electorate's message. They still like Obama because they still like the message they sent to the world by voting for him: It's time for change. Anyone can be president. We're beyond the racism. It's that same old song: "Look at how open-minded I am. I voted for Obama." And that sentiment is still valid as long as Obama doesn't undo it pushing policy people don't like. In fact, if Obama were to accomplish nothing at all in his first term, he would probably end it with a 65% approval rating.

As Obama remorse grows (currently 63% of independent voters are against ObamaCare) the electorate has been sending another message. I wonder if they'll hear it in the White House over the braying of the mobs?

Democrats: A Party for the Risk Averse

Growing up we all knew one of those over-protected kids: the 12 year-old left standing on the other side of street because his mom wouldn't trust him to cross the street by himself; the kid wearing the ski hat with earflaps in 50 degree weather. Remember that kid? He grew up to become the Democratic Party voter.

Everything about the Democratic Party (probably since FDR) is about limiting risk for helpless and stupid American voters. Terrified that your retirement might tank? Don't worry, mama's here with your Social Security blanket. Afraid that shiny new condom might fail? Papa will dump that fetus in the garbage pail. Worrying your shares in GM might crash? Daddy Tim's here with some bailout cash. Fear you might get sick and your insurance won't pay? Berry's gonna take all the fear away.

Life's full of risk. That's why we have insurance in the first place. Something horrible may happen to you, and it may be expensive. So smart consumers buy insurance for — as the ads go — "Justin Case."

Health insurance isn't healthcare. It's a hedge against the risk of costs associated with becoming unhealthy. The fact that health insurance has become too expensive, or that some people can't get it, doesn't mean they will get sick. Or even that if they do get sick, they won't get treatment. Nobody in this country can be turned away for lifesaving treatment.

So really the whole healthcare debate ( and frankly the entire agenda of the DNC ) is about nothing more than the cushy, feel-good coddling of the American electorate. If Joe Voter is so sheltered from risk and harm that he can't contemplate the idea of crossing the street without holding Harry Reid's hand, he'll never vote to remove Reid from political office. This strategy is depressingly effective.

Imagine if the founding fathers had wanted someone to protect them from the risks of revolt against the King. We'd still be sipping over-taxed British tea on the docks of Boston Harbor.

As Benjamin Franklin might say, "He that's secure is not safe."

Why Isn't Clinton Smiling?

Bill Clinton was called in for pinch-hit diplomacy to rescue two American journalists imprisoned in North Korea on trumped-up charges. The result of his trip was seemingly a miracle. The message from the State Department is that the very presence of Clinton (along with a healthly dose of Obama's favorite medicine: apology) secured the women's release in record time. So why isn't Clinton smiling in ANY of the photos? Perhaps he knows something we don't.

Clinton's "miracle" trip to North Korea is clearly anything but a miracle. Does anyone really think that he would have gone over there if the journalists' release wasn't already a done-deal? Of course not. Bill Clinton isn't Jesse Jackson or Jimmy Carter — shameless self promoters who believe that there's no such thing as bad PR. Clinton, the king of "triangulation" is all about getting bang for his buck. He does not tilt at windmills — having learned that lesson the hard way early in his presidency. Someone high in government certainly had already secured the release of those women long before Clinton got on the plane to North Korea. Bill was diplomatic "cover" for Obama — used to make it appear that our State Department wasn't negotiating with Kim Jong Il, and hide what the price was.

I long ago gave up expecting our press to be curious when it comes to unexplained phenomena related to the Obama administration. But come on! Why isn't anyone seriously asking what we GAVE to that pot belly dictator in order to secure a bit of largess from one of this nation's most hostile enemies? Clearly Bill knows it will come out soon enough. And he's not happy about it.

When the artists turn on you...

This made my weekend. And it's only Friday.

I can't tell you how frustrating it is to see the art of the political dissent poster monopolized by Kool-aid drinking Marxist agitators armed with an iMac and a BFA from some elitist east coast art school. Graphic design annuals over the last 8 years have been clogged with hateful anti-Bush posters, often so questionable in design value it's clear they were selected for their political statement alone.

The conservative designer is a rare breed. I know of 3. So, in the "real news" vein of "man bites dog" — some artist out there isn't playing nice in the Marxist sandbox. This image from Tammy Bruce's website is making the rounds on Twitter. It's brilliant. Subversive. Hits at the heart of BHO's real problem. And I have no doubt this is the last time I'll see it in publication. The liberal-dominated AIGA crowd plays no favorites, except when it comes to liberal politics.

What the world needs is more of this. I'm inspired. Hand me my t-square.

Let's let the millionaires decide

Obama is trying to sell us a well-worn used car. Something beat up and retro-fashionable like a 1987 Cutlass. But instead of spray new-car smell, it smells more like class warfare. Obama wants us to believe that our wealthy can fully fund his socialized medicine scheme. Just raise their taxes enough, and it's all taken care of. Don't bet on it. Or maybe we should.

Maybe we should call his bluff. I propose a Millionaire Conventiontm. Let's get the country's wealthy together — a country club constitutional convention. Include anyone with over a million dollars in net assets and/or $350,000 in annual income. Let's give them a choice: vote to approve A) Obama's plan, and let the government tax you at whatever realistic rate will actually accomplish Obama's goal of funding health care reform — certainly more than Obama is telling them now, or B) give them the choice of donating money (with future pledges for ongoing funding) to establish a private, nonprofit health insurance company to solely provide market health insurance coverage to any client on a sliding scale. To sweeten the pot, let's toss in very generous tax deductions for their contribution, and a nice crystal wall plaque.

I understand there would have to be some rules. For instance, we'd have to allocate votes — say every individual in the wealthy family would get a vote. We'll give Bill Gates family a 4x multiplier just to be gracious. And we'd have to set up some laws governing the new nonprofit to ensure that the coverage it's providing is truly competitive, and that it is answerable to a board made up of its primary benefactors (sprinkle in a few politicians). The new nonprofit will be allowed to tap the public's largess through ongoing fundraising, and will be judged by future donors based on its effectiveness, efficiency and charity.

You'd never have to worry about competition. The for-profit insurance companies will compete at the margin for entry-level insured. And the increase in low-income patients with paying insurance will reduce costs across the board. It may even lighten the Medicaid roles.

It's a plan so crazy it just might work! At the very least, imagine getting a chance to see just how philanthropic George Soros really is when he's playing with his own money.

Waiting for Godot

The resignation of Sarah Palin leaves her potential for future office in question. Romney's prospects may have suffered a fatal wound due to the failure of his Massachusetts socialized medicine scheme. Jindal's first big national appearance went over like a lead balloon. Sanford self-destructed (bullet dodged there). Gingrich sold out to the "climate change" fascists. Where's that perfect ONE GREAT VOICE who will lead conservatives to victory — in 2012 to be sure — but more importantly in 2010?

The wait could be a long one. Much like the characters in Beckett's famous play, we may not have even met this great leader. And we may not even recognize him when we see him.

Conservatives struggle under a couple of competing priorities: 1) the need to win, and 2) the need to advance conservative ideology. In McCain, we thought we had #1, and were prepared to sell out #2 in order to get it. We ended up with zero. In Palin, Jindal, et al, we are pretty sure we have #2 covered, but #1 is highly suspect. To be sure, the recent tantalizing weakness of Obama is heartening, but then we thought the same thing about Clinton before he won his second election to Dole (the pre-McCain McCain).

And then there's that pesky problem bedeviling the GOP — a tendency to nominate the "next person in line." Democrats don't often do this. It's been said (by Will Rogers, most famously) that the Democratic Party is disorganized. And perhaps that's what protects it from that patrician instinct that gave us candidate Bob Dole.

But the Tea Party movement is unexpected. Something very untraditional for conservatives. The Tea Parties began as a true grass-roots movement and continues as same. Each city has a few organizers, but there is no single conservative version of NOW or ANSWER fanning the flames of the Tea Parties. They were seemingly formed from a loose group of outraged citizens tired of ceding the political discourse to politicians who ultimately let us down. And for the first time that I can remember, they are showing up in force to let politicians of both parties have a piece of their mind. At many of the early Tea Parties, organizers refused to allow politicians to even take the stage. Now that's CHANGE.

We are the ones we've been waiting for. Famous words. But unlike when Obama said it (he was being disingenuous. What he really meant was "I am the one you've been waiting for. Lucky you.") I mean it in its truest sense. If conservatism is to flourish, WE THE PEOPLE have to finally take the lead in voicing our ideology, deciding what issues we stand for, and really choosing who we allow to speak for us. The time of letting career politicians and political parties set our course has past. The search for the NEXT GREAT VOICE is over. We're not waiting any longer.

EPILOGUE: Here's Kevin Jackson's (theblacksphere.net) take on the Tea Parties, with credit due to St. Louis organizers Bill Hennessey and Dana Loesch, plus Americans for Prosperity, iheardthepeoplesay, and Americans for Fair Taxation.

So what if you don't have insurance?

At the Tea Party protest this week outside Senator Claire McCaskill's office, ACORN demonstrators were trying to give us the impression that a lack of health insurance equals a lack of health care. This didn't jive with what I know. So I decided to do a little investigation.

Missouri Baptist Hospital in St. Louis has an excellent maternity ward. My wife and I have delivered all three of our children there, all paid for (mostly) with insurance coverage. We could not have been happier with the care we received. So what kind of care would we have gotten if we didn't have insurance?

I talked with a postpartum nurse who works at MoBap. She told me that roughly 10% of her patients are "private-pay" - meaning they come to the hospital without insurance coverage. I asked if she had instructions to treat these patients any differently than her patients with insurance. "Absolutely not," she said, "they get the exact same care as everyone else."

MoBap is very good about working with the uninsured. An insured patient typically incurs about $8000 in charges for a c-section delivery with a 4 day in-hospital recovery. But they offer drastically discounted pricing for private-pay clients. The same c-section might cost an uninsured patient only about $2500 (prices are approximate - I couldn't reach a billing representative at MoBap to confirm.)

I realize that $2500 is still a lot of money for a low-income family. But that price is just their "package" deal for the uninsured. They also offer other financial assistance.

From MoBap's website:

Every year BJC HealthCare provides more than $100 million in free care for uninsured patients....

I have firsthand knowledge of their largesse. After our second daughter was born, among all the confusion and sleep deprivation, we overlooked adding our daughter to my wife's policy within time to get the postpartum care covered. And then my wife quit her job and switched to my policy. We were left holding a $900 bill for 3 days stay in the hospital - and with only one income earner, we were strapped to cover it. MoBap worked with us - reducing the bill and giving us plenty of time to pay it off. No threats, no collection warnings.

And MoBap isn't the only hospital that offers top notch care for people who fall into the crack between insurance and Medicare/Medicaid. Most hospitals fund or otherwise support free clinics in urban and rural poor areas. And of course, no hospital can turn away a patient for emergency care for lack of ability to pay. Maybe not a utopian system, but still, the best in the world. And yes, if you don't have insurance, healthcare providers often offer steep discounts.

During a time when my mother was without health insurance, her doctor wanted her to get an MRI for a knee problem. The imaging company provided her with an MRI for $350. If billed to an insurance company, that same MRI would have cost about $2000. All my mom needed to do was ask. The help was there. No government forms to fill out. No bureaucrat sticking his nose into her file to determine whether the MRI was necessary.

Now don't get me wrong, these stories of quality care being provided to people without insurance are in no way intended as an indictment of private health insurance. I relate them only to put lie to the ACORN rally chant that lack of insurance equals no access to care. Any reform to our health care system should include a plan to encourage people (not force them) to carry insurance. It should also allow doctors, health care providers and insurance companies to profit from the services they provide in a way that encourages competition as the primary mechanism to controlling costs. Our current health care system built largely on private health insurance isn't perfect, but it's the best in the world.

So what of these ACORN agitators chanting "HEALTHCARE NOW!" - trying to leave the impression that without government intervention the best medical treatment in the world is behind locked doors? Perhaps they are just misinformed. Or perhaps they have another - unspoken - agenda.

NEXT: I interview a Canadian living in the U.S. and get his opinions on the contrast between our free market system and socialized medicine.

Obama: The Grudge President?

It's not likely that Obama's stupid comment about the Cambridge Police acting "stupidly" was based in racial bias on his part. If there were anything racial about it, it was more probably racial blindness -- Obama being blinded to any perspective beyond the racial grievance politics he's milked on the street and absorbed from the pew.

But there's another theory. We all know that his friends live on a knife's edge, fodder to be thrown under the bus to cushion the bumps of his presidency. Would a man who treats his friends so shabbily hold even more contempt for his enemies? Could he be a serial grudge-holder? That would explain a lot about his Cambridge fiasco.

Of course, the two could be related. The racial grievance mindset is largely built on an inability or unwillingness to let go of the past -- holding on to injuries and perceived slights until every incident becomes a thread in a warped tapestry of hate and mistrust.

Could it be that the same syndrome bedeviling liberal pie-in-the-sky solutions to the Arab/Israeli conflict is alive and well in the White House over something as trivial as a parking ticket? Maybe so. After all, it took months for Obama to call on a reporter from Fox News.