Sunday, July 30, 2017
Read these Highlights from today's "Washington Post" article (Jul 30, 2017) "In GOP’s repeal failure, Democrats find a potential game plan" by David Weigel
"Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), a freshman who favors universal Medicare coverage, said that Republicans have rewritten the playbook. “When we do have a Democratic president, and when we do have a Democratic majority, I’d support getting this through with 51 votes in the Senate,” said Khanna of a universal coverage, single-payer plan.“"
"On Thursday, as the repeal effort headed for the cliff, Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) needled Democratic senators — 10 of whom face reelection next year in states Trump won — by introducing the text of a single-payer bill sponsored by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.). For the first time, most House Democrats have co-sponsored Conyers’s bill; 43 members of the Senate minority, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), voted “present,” while five voted “no” on the Daines amendment. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) did so (voted “no” on the Daines amendment) because he intends — barring yet another jolt of life in the repeal campaign — to release a “Medicare for All” bill before the Senate’s August recess. The bill will be designed to reframe single-payer, which enjoys tentative support in public polls, as cost-effective and sensible. If Sanders’s bill gets a favorable CBO score, it would become a starting point for Democrats in future health-care debates."
"Conyers, meanwhile, was trying to make universal health insurance the party’s default position. On Friday, as most House members left town for their recess, Conyers joined Khanna at an event to launch a pledge for 2018 Democrats. Raising his right hand, the Capitol peering over his shoulder, Conyers said he would “stand up for ‘Medicare for All.’”"
"Medicare for All" is the Democrat's secret code for Single-Payer Health Insurance, just like the "Federal Reserve" was their secret code for Central Banking when the Democrats passed it in 1913. You're going to start seeing the term a lot as the Democrats, along with the RINO Republicans, have successfully sandbagged the legislative procedures intended to repeal the Affordable Care Act or ACA (Obamacare) and replace it with something better. Unfortunately, for the Republicans, in the years since its implementation, when they promised to do something about it, they were NOT working on a better plan, and upon Trump's victory, proved themselves to be unfit to hold office because they promised something they didn't really didn't want to deliver. Their failure to do something now, almost guarantees that a new plan would not be in place in time for January 2019.
This is how it was supposed to go.
Barack Obama was selected to be the one to lie (his now infamous lie of the year in 2013 that “if you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan.”) to the American people and sell them the ACA. They couldn't trust Hillary to do it because she dropped the ball in trying to get universal healthcare implemented during Bill Clinton's first term in office. There are Democratic officials on record as saying this was the first step toward socialized medicine in this country. In a "Forbes" (Aug 10, 2013) article by Avik Roy, he quotes then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) when asked whether his goal was to move Obamacare to a single-payer system, as saying: “Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.”
Then there is the "Washington Post" OpEd piece (Nov 17, 2014) by Marc Thiessen outlining the revelations made by Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber:
"Gruber explains that the Obama administration passed the so-called “Cadillac tax” on high-value employer health plans “by mislabeling it, calling it a tax on insurance plans rather than a tax on people, when we know it’s a tax on people who hold these insurance plans.” Americans would not support a tax on individuals, so “We just tax the insurance companies, they pass on the higher prices . . . it ends up being the same thing.” The ruse, Gruber says, was “a very clever . . . basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.”
"Gruber boasts about how the Obama administration fooled Americans into paying to cover the uninsured by using sleight of hand, focusing on their concern over rising health costs. “Barack Obama’s not a stupid man, okay? He knew when he was running for president that quite frankly the American public doesn’t actually care that much about the uninsured. . . . What the American public cares about is costs. And that’s why even though the bill that they made is 90 percent health insurance coverage and 10 percent about cost control, all you ever hear people talk about is cost control.”
"Gruber says the Obama administration knew the individual mandate was a tax, but that if Americans knew the truth “the bill dies.” So the bill “was written in a tortured way to make sure [the Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes.” He adds that “the lack of transparency is a huge political advantage” and that “the stupidity of the American voter . . . was really, really critical for the thing to pass.”
The ACA was not built to last. Although the Department of Health and Human Services said the ACA website cost $834 million (though Bloomberg said $2 billion and Trump said $5 billion), there were initial problems with it, and on the campaign trail, Donald Trump insisted it still didn't work. If this is true, it certainly is an indication there was a reason why it wasn't fixed.
When Hillary unveiled her plan in 1993, the Left was against it because they wanted Single-Payer even back then, and although, during her Primary campaign against Sanders she said it would "never, ever happen," in an article by Stephanie Condon on the CBS News (Jan 29, 2016) website she wrote: "In 1994, when advocating for comprehensive health care reform as first lady, Clinton told reporters that if Congress didn't pass a reform bill that year, the nation would eventually embrace a single-payer plan. "If, for whatever reason, the Congress doesn't pass health care reform, I believe, and I may be to totally off base on this, but I believe that by the year 2000 we will have a single payer system," she said. " I don't even think it's a close call politically. I think the momentum for a single payer system will sweep the country... It will be such a huge popular issue... that even if it's not successful the first time, it will eventually be."
So, the gameplan was the expectancy of a Hillary victory in the 2016 election. The time between her ascension to the presidency and the implosion of the ACA would have been spent in an indoctrination through the media for Single-Payer Healthcare being the answer to the inadequacies of the ACA, which could have actually been fixed, and saved. But they don't want to fix it. They want Single-Payer. They want more government control. They want a Socialist-structured program.
This is why the Republicans will not get their act together. The Republicans were handed an unprecedented opportunity with a Republican-controlled House and Senate, and the presidency; and they have failed miserably on their promises and the mandate that Trump brought with him. The politicians you keep re-electing don't care about what the people of this country want. They have their own agenda. That is now abundantly clear. There is increasingly more rhetoric in regard to Single-Payer Healthcare coming from the Democrats and appearing in the Main Stream Media. The strategy of the Democrats is to tie up the Republican's hands long enough that they can get through the Mid-term elections. All 435 seats in the House of Representatives and 33 of the 100 seats in the Senate will be up for grabs and they think that their constant bombardment against the President will be enough for voter discontentment against Trump to translate into enough Democratic victories to regain control of Congress. Once this is done, and with the absence of a Healthcare plan in place, they will be positioned to be able to begin the debate and dialogue for Single-Payer Healthcare in this country.
When this happens, you can look back and thank John McCain of Arizona, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska; three of the more liberal Republicans in the Senate, who voted "No" on the latest vote to Repeal and Replace.
We already know that the Democrats are still reeling from Trump's election; but so are the Republicans, and petty politics have come into play as he attempts to "drain the swamp." He has been thwarted left and right, and there has been constant turmoil in his Administration with continual leaks of information and problems with loyalty. I know that it has been the most contentious presidency that I've every seen. The Republican's 1994 Contract with America was certainly more successful and unified in their legislative endeavors, even with a Democratic president.
In February 2016, NPR reported: "Turned off by the partisan wars in Washington, 39 percent of voters now identify themselves as independent rather than affiliated with one of the two major political parties, according to a 2014 analysis by the Pew Research Center. Self-identified Democrats accounted for 32 percent of the electorate, Republicans 23 percent." No doubt the incredibly inept handling of the mantle of responsibility given to the Republicans will cause more Party loyalists to become Independent voters in order to coerce candidates into keeping the campaign promises that they make.
Term limits are being suggested to break the political stronghold held by many long-serving politicians in Congress, and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) has gone as far as calling for the repeal of the 17th Amendment (1913) to again allow senators to be selected by their state legislatures, instead of being elected by popular vote. The privileged members of Congress certainly didn't get the memo that the people of this country want change. That is why they elected an inexperienced outsider to be their president. However, while they continue to stonewall change, these same politicians, and the elite that own them, are quickly moving to make sure that doesn't happen again.
Thursday, January 19, 2017
I saw the above post on a 'friend's' Facebook page. Instinctively, I found it to be wrong on many different levels.
But first, let me provide some context to my assertions.
In my first Presidential election (1976), I voted for Jimmy Carter. This election was the last 'big' campaign. The man even had a campaign song ("Why Not the Best"). I later found out why such a massive media campaign had to be waged. I had registered as a Democrat, and became politically active, becoming a Committeeman, then District Leader. I joined the Young Democrats, became the Secretary of the county organization, and later President; and was the Corresponding Secretary for the Young Democrats of Pennsylvania. In my zeal, I did a lot of research on the history and platform of the Democratic Party and even printed a booklet which I distributed to many people. At that time I felt that the Democrats better addressed solutions for the people of this country.
After I got married (1985), then bought my house (1990), and had the real world slap me in the face, in the research I was doing for my book, I began to see a liberal agenda that was being played out on the national stage. I began to see how the social programs and legislative actions long advocated by the Democrats were hurting this country and preventing growth. So I changed my Party and became a Republican.
I wasn't a zealous Republican, and never became as active with them, because I also realized that they were not perfect, and that most politicians in either Party did not effectively represent the people that elected them. For example, I remember once when I heard a politician say that although a majority of people in his district felt one way about a particular Bill, he was voting the opposite way, because he felt it was for the best. In my book, that is taxation without representation.
So, my views had become quite conservative, because I had grave concerns about the economy, and I believed the Republicans were more interested in restoring prosperity to this nation. However, this year, with the political fracas revolving around a group of Republicans trying to wrest the nomination from Trump at the Republican National Convention, I decided to change my Party, because I didn't want to be part of any Party that would try to take away my vote.
I am now an Independent, but I am still a Conservative.
The graphic above is part and parcel with the post-election protests, riots, vote recounts, and Electoral College intimidation. I have never seen such political vitriol directed towards a Presidential candidate. It even surpassed the ire directed against Barry Goldwater in 1964. The Democrats are unwilling to accept the fact that they nominated the wrong candidate, who under-performed, and underestimated her opponent. In addition, they also failed to see that America wanted an outsider who they saw as someone who could reverse the direction this country has been going in.
This graphic demonstrates what they feel their new agenda should be. It's not enough that the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association are seen as Liberal organizations, but public education in general has always been perceived as pursuing leftist policies. But now, the election of Donald J. Trump has left them in literal shock. But, in reality, that's not the problem. The problem is if a President Trump can do what he says he can do. If he can, that sets up a certain reelection. That doesn't bode well for Democratic coffers.
It now seems the Liberal agenda is calling for a renewed effort to indoctrinate children in our schools. Last year, in a letter distributed by the Pennsylvania Democratic Party that was written by a teacher in Philadelphia, he called for the same thing. Another Facebook post called for Liberal teachers to move into the Red States that made it possible for Trump to win the Electoral College vote so they can be instrumental in influencing and molding young minds.
I have a problem with this.
Even as a Conservative, I would not want any teacher imprinting their Conservative mindset onto a child. I don't know, why can't teachers just teach without taking advantage of their position by imposing their own political views. Why can't they just educate with a multi-dimensional approach so that children can be fully informed to be able to make their own decisions. During the 2008 Presidential election campaign, Republican candidate Ron Paul talked about how we needed to get rid of the Federal Reserve to solve our economic problems. People said he was crazy for wanting to get rid of part of the Federal government. The thing is, the Federal Reserve is not part of our government, it is private banking institution that has uses the principles of central banking to enslave many countries of the world. But they don't teach that in school. I had to learn it from my own research.
It is true that our public educational system has been dumbing down our children so they will accept that our government has their best interest at heart. That the increasingly socialistic bent of governmental policy is the best thing for this country. The intent is to create citizens who will not question authority. Perfect little robots. Sheep. Sheep being led to the slaughter. But now, Liberals have hit a bump in the road. There's a glitch in the Matrix. Their solution is a long-term project to rally the troops and exert even more influence to brainwash kids with a rotting philosophy to poison their minds to the truth.
More than any other time in history, Liberals have engaged in a campaign of hate that's never been seen before. Not only against Trump, but against the people that supported and voted for Trump. They have embarked on a vicious media campaign to vilify the Conservatives in this country that voted to bring change and want fiscal responsibility. This will become readily apparent during the Inauguration ceremony on January 20th when thousands of people will descend upon Washington DC to voice their opposition against the movement that swept Trump into office. It remains to be seen whether their frustration will boil over to the point of violence. But what I do know, the next 4 years will be filled with constant criticism and a campaign to undermine Trump's strategy to reestablish America's greatness.