The Man Who Would Be King

How many times have we heard Harry Reid and other Democrat “leaders” scream and whine that ObamaCare is the law of the land and Republicans had better not mess with it?

Is what’s good for the goose good for the gander?

In July of 2013 President BO (the amateur president) rewrote the employer mandate that is in the ObamaCare law. He ordered the date of the statute changed. It was the law of the land, but he chose to rewrite it. Can he do that?

Now he has changed the “grandfather” issue in the law of the land, ObamaCare by saying, “I’m going to extend the “grandfather” to some of these plans that people got after 2010.” It was the law of the land, but he chose to rewrite it. Can he do that?

When Congress tried to pass bills to deal with these issues by law, the same changes President BO (the amateur president) ordered changed, he threatened to veto them. Does he want them dealt with or doesn’t he?

This is the same guy who, during his campaign, said, “I believe in the Constitution, I taught the Constitution for ten years and I will not be doing an end run around Congress.”

Does all of this mean that if Congress passes a bill, the president signs it and it becomes law, the president can change some parts of the law if he wants to? Is that the way we work now in America?

Suppose a Republican gets elected president? Will it be OK for him to change the content of laws he does not agree with or that have issues? Will that be accepted by Democrats?

Are we to abandon the legislative process in favor of a presidential decree process?

Whatever you call that, its acting like a monarchy, not a representative Constitutional republic.

President BO is now President (the man who would be king) BO.

GONE FOR THE DAY. ENJOY YOUR TIME ON THE OBAMACARE WEBSITE!

SUNDAY RESPITE-Great is the Lord

IF IT'S NOT BROKE, DON'T FIX IT

"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan...period."

""hat was not a lie. I just didn't know what was going to happen.

"I said if you like your plan, you can keep your plan if it hasn't changed?"

"Even though I didn't add that part in my previous statements, they were not really left out. It's in the bill (which we didn't get to read until it was passed)."

"OK. It didn't work and that's on me (even though it is really on the American people, who could not understand that I was including things in my first statement that I did not say and now I have to fix it)."

So, if it was a good plan, and if President BO (the amateur president) knew what he was doing, and if millions did NOT get to keep their plan, but it was a good plan and was working like it was supposed to, (except for where it wasn't)...

WHY DID HE HAVE TO GO ON TV TODAY TO TELL US HE WAS GOING TO FIX IT?

YOU DON'T FIX SOMETHING THAT ISN'T BROKEN. 

IF YOU HAD TO FIX IT, 

IT WAS BROKEN!!!!

A comment by Mustang sums it up: The president’s announcement (and his response to questions) tell us two important things. First, the president’s proposed administrative fix is completely impractical, suggesting that Mr. Obama is out of his depth in understanding simple frameworks. Six states have already changed their laws to conform to ACA rules and regulations. For the citizens of these states, there is no “going back.” For everyone else, state insurance commissioners, who have largely completed their regulatory and oversight work for 2014, will now have to reopen the files and take another look at what can even be done, given that insurance companies have already begun to implement new state rules. The second thing we learned is that Obama has only attempted to give himself (and all the other communists who passed ACA without any idea what was in it) some cover in the next election.

IT'S GOING TO BE GREAT...NO?

ObamaCare Affects Many More Than Advertised

I have three cardiologists (one primary, the others electrophysiologists), a pulmonologist, an orthopedist and a family practitioner/dermatologist. They are all top-notch physicians who love their work and love their patients. Four of them tell me they are going to be adversely affected by ObamaCare and may have to change the superior way they do medicine.

My primary cardiologist is going to have to cut back his staff to meet the new demands placed on him by ObamaCare. Can you say, “Increased unemployment?” The electrophysiologists are going to be compensated less per case under this despicable plan. Their decisions about who can get what care is going to change for the worse, not the better.

Sure. These are anecdotal to the “experts” and to the masses, but they are directly affecting the way they are able to treat me, and thus are important to me.

For many years, The United States has been the destination of people from all over the world because of our high standard of health care.

Now I am the first to admit that the insurance industry had (has) major problems. Most of those problems, though, were brought on by federal regulations that made it increasingly difficult for them to provide the proper type of insurance coverage. Many of them are going to be forced out of business by ObamaCare. Can you say, “Unemployment” again?

One of the things that should have been done (and what can still be done if anybody has the political fortitude to get it done) is to have eliminated certain regulations that prevented insurance companies from directly competing with each other.

If an insurance company wants to expand to serve people in another state, it has to actually form a completely new business in that state, one that disconnects it from its parent company. In other words, it is prohibited from effectively crossing state lines to compete with companies already in that state.  A few large companies managed to accomplish this kind of service, but many have not. The result has been less competition and higher prices for policies.

That is the result of government regulation that has nothing to do with health care or insurance but is a result of government’s insatiable desire to control everything and to prohibit the free exercise of business.

Now I am not talking about health standards, I am talking about commerce standards.

Liberty demands that companies be able to offer what they want to offer, to whom they want to offer it when and how they want to offer it. If I don’t want what company “A” offers, I’ll go to company “B”, who offers what I want at the price I want.

By the way, it would be billions of dollars cheaper, and far less destructive, for the government to just provide demonstrably necessary coverage on preexisting conditions only for those whose insurance doesn't cover them than it would be for them to usurp the entire commercial activity of existing companies. As it is, we are going to proudly provide coverage for 30 million people while causing nearly 50 million people to lose the coverage they want. To a liberal, that makes good sense, but only to a liberal.

If my house catches fire, I’m going out immediately to purchase a fire insurance policy to cover the costs. If I have an accident I’m going to contact GEICO and save up to 15% on my car insurance and let them cover the costs of the accident. If I die, my wife is going to contact Met Life and let Snoopy give her a settlement (4 million dollars sounds about right).  I’m sure my home insurance company, GEICO and Met Life will appreciate the opportunity to cover what has already happened.

There are dozens of other regulations and restrictions that could have been lifted or altered to allow health insurance companies to offer better coverage at lower rates, but the government has a vested interest in keeping that from happening.

Instead we get ObamaCare, that will cost trillions of dollars and will work to provide good health care coverage about as well as their web site works.

Of course, Obama is sorry for the inconvenience 50 million people are going to experience, losing their health care. Not to worry, though. He will force them to sign up for ObamaCare, as soon as he can figure out how to make the sign up process work. He’s sorry alright.

Toward A Classless Society

When I was a kid, my mother had a very strong role in choosing my friends. While kids today seem to think parents have no business selecting their friends, and some parents feel the same way, they are distinctly wrong.
Parents not only have the right to be involved in the friends and associates procurement process for their kids, they have a moral obligation to be so involved.

Children are not adults. They do not have the reasoning power of adults, nor do they have the skills, social and otherwise, to make such important decisions. They need and deserve the help of their parents.
Here’s the thing. Children will tend to become like the people with whom he associates. If the people they associate with are classless, they will lift them up, but will sink to the level. This is almost a universal rule.

As a society, we have yielded the control and influence of our kids to the public school system. Not only does their education suffer as a result of this, their social skills do, too.
Does this seem counter intuitive? Does it seem like school would be a viable, maybe even ideal, place to develop social skills? Think again.

There might have been a time when schools were good places to make friends, develop relationships and grow socially. That time has passed. Schools have become quasi war zones and social cesspools.
When did schools degrade to the levels they are at today? The answer is multi-fold. It began with the moral degeneration associated with the removal of prayer the public school life. It progressed with the methods used to desegregate public schools.

The instantaneous desegregation that took place provided an extreme cultural shock to students. They were thrust into social situations for which they had not been prepared. In typical government form, desegregation was thrust upon children without their previous knowledge or training.

Desegregation was very late in coming to public schools in the United States. It should have been done from the beginning, of course. Failing that, however, it should have been introduced gradually over time, beginning with preschool and proceeding year-by-year until it was accomplished and appropriate adjustment had been made. By now the process would have been completed and schools would have been much more of a melting pot and less of a boiling pot.

But like everything else the government does, it was all-or-nothing. Thus the process bred contention and dissimilation. Teachers were not trained, administrators were not trained. The government just threw the desegregation baby in the pool and said, “Swim!”

Another influence in the degradation of class in the society is the entertainment industry’s insistence that people behave without respect or civility toward each other. To see this in its most reprehensible form, watch a few episodes of Maury. 

There you’ll find the dregs of society drowning in the depths of depravity. Other shows, as well as movies, are not any better.

The result of all of this is that children have been relegated to the lowest common denominator of society’s fractional nature. As they have grown up, no one has cared to correct their sociological plunge and they have led society to its present condition of virtual classlessness.

Isn’t it time to take steps to reverse the downward spiral? Are we beyond the point of no return? Will we ever see the day when there is a distinction between ignorant classlessness and societal maturity?