Gay Patriot Header Image

For Democrats, Destroying Marriage Is Good Politics

And they admit it.

The decline of marriage over the last generation has helped create an emerging voting bloc of unmarried women that is profoundly reshaping the American electorate to the advantage, recent elections suggest, of the Democratic Party.

Which explains why it was so effective for Obama’s campaign to claim Mitt Romney would outlaw tampons. And it explains the histrionic, over-the-top, and shamelessly dishonest response to the Hobby Lobby ruling.

It also explains an interesting quirk in Obamacare that Rush Limbaugh noted:

“We had a caller yesterday that asked me this question: ‘When did birth control pills become so important to the human condition the federal government requires every insurance policy to cover them?’ Eye exams, dental exams, dental work are not mandated by Obamacare, but contraception is, birth control pills are.”

So now you know the answer to the question: “Why should the Government force some people to buy stuff for other people.” The answer is, in a social democracy, if that’s what the latter votes for, then that’s what the former has to do. Four wolves and a sheep, and all that. 

SCOTUS Rules for Hobby Lobby; Lefties Go Nanners

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that some companies cannot be forced to provide birth control and abortifacients to their employees on First Amendment grounds.

The left claims that by not forcing third parties to provide contraceptives and abortifacients to women, these companies are “denying women access to health care.” The left apparently believes that 1.) women are just life-support systems for uteri, and the only health care needs they have are for contraceptives, so that they may provide sexual gratification to men without risk of creating children and 2.) women are stupid, helpless creatures, who must have their contraception provided to them because they are incapable of getting it on their own.

It’s like saying companies are denying women access to food by not buying their groceries for them.

Birth control, by the way, runs about $9 a month for most women.

The left was really, really hoping that Church would once again be forced to bow at the feet of State, but it didn’t happen. So, they responded in the usual manner and spewed the f-word like a sailor with Tourrette’s while threatening Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court, churches, and America generally with vandalism, arson, and murder.

And then, of course, some of us question why, in a free society, the Government has any business whatsoever dictating to private companies what benefits they must provide to their employees.

(more…)

Big Business and Big Government Team Up to Extinguish Privacy in the Name of Health Care

Posted by V the K at 9:47 am - June 27, 2014.
Filed under: Obama Health Care Tax/Regulation

Between the intrusive data collection mandated by Obamacare and the ability of credit card companies to track data on every purchase, it’s not possible for hospitals and health care providers (which are a de facto branch of Government under Obamacare) to examine your private behavior for indications of potential health issues.

You may soon get a call from your doctor if you’ve let your gym membership lapse, made a habit of picking up candy bars at the check-out counter or begin shopping at plus-sized stores.

That’s because some hospitals are starting to use detailed consumer data to create profiles on current and potential patients to identify those most likely to get sick, so the hospitals can intervene before they do.

Information compiled by data brokers from public records and credit card transactions can reveal where a person shops, the food they buy, and whether they smoke. The largest hospital chain in the Carolinas is plugging data for 2 million people into algorithms designed to identify high-risk patients, while Pennsylvania’s biggest system uses household and demographic data. Patients and their advocates, meanwhile, say they’re concerned that big data’s expansion into medical care will hurt the doctor-patient relationship and threaten privacy.

Which begs the question of what happens when Big Health Care and Big Credit notice a lot of charges on certain people’s cards for gay nightclubs (or bath houses), trips to Fire Island, and Sandra-Fluke levels of Aqualube purchases.

But, hey, at least they aren’t intruding into your bedroom, right? And it’s just the State looking out for your health, which is a good thing. Right?

Gay Marriage and Obamacare

The Administration that has done such a fantastic job with providing health care to America’s Veterans wishes to make sure gays and lesbians have that same quality of health care.

 

The VA Is Single Payer Health Care – Epitomized

Before it was known that VA Bureaucrats were denying care to Veterans, creating phony paperwork to hide their shame, and punishing anyone who threatened to reveal the scheme… all the while rewarding themselves with bonuses and luxurious new officesleft wing economists were praising the VA as the Epitome of what could be achieved with single-payer health care.

And they were right. The VA is the epitome of single payer… the corruption, incompetence, and shortcomings aren’t bugs, they are inherent features in any Government bureaucracy.

If left-wingers were reasonable, thoughtful people, they might consider that the VA scandal demonstrates all of the reasons conservatives oppose Government-run health care; contrary to the President’s assertion that Republicans just want people to not have health care.

But if you can imagine the left-wing brain trust as represented by Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, Alan Grayson, Chris Matthews, and Melissa Harris Perry having a reasonable thought… you have more imagination than I do, friend.

Socialized Health Care Working Out Just Fine at the VA

The Veteran’s Administration — cited by leftists as an ideal paradigm of Socialized Health Care — is in the midst of a scandal that is largely being ignored by the MFM because it would make President Obama, and indeed the entire enterprise of Government run health care look bad.

The broad outline of the scandal is like this. Bureaucrats at the VA medical center in Phoenix, Arizona allowed 40 patients to die while awaiting treatment. The bureaucrats kept a secret waiting list to cover up delays while a fake list was maintained for official purposes. Over 1,600 patients were kept waiting, some for over a year to get an appointment with a doctor. Hospitals in New Mexico, Texas, and Colorado apparently were doing the same thing. And apparently, the VA was also denying treatment and tests to patients to save money.

Meanwhile VA Bureaucrats spent $5oo Million on office makeovers and redecorating. Priorities, don’tcha know.

The Obama Administration has no interest in investigating the scandal. What a surprise.

So, the leftists were right; the VA is a paradigm for Government-run health care. Bureaucrats provide shoddy treatment while feathering their own nests, then they lie about it, and there is no accountability.

Anything the Government runs is going to be run primarily for the benefit of the bureaucracy; be it health care, welfare, or public education. Conservatives understand this.

Leftists just find a way to blame the Koch Brothers. (Not kidding, they actually did this.)

Just how gullible are the American people?

…I suppose in a nation that twice elected this schiester as president, the question answers itself to a degree.

But consider this: All winter, government spokespersons wondered, in puzzled bewilderment given the complexity and enormity of the entire enterprise of doing something that hundreds of private corporations do thousands of times daily with the ease of a bodily function, just how many people had actually so far at any point in time signed up for insurance under the ACA’s myriad state health insurance exchanges. For months on end, Secretary Sebelius and her minions, White House spokes-individual Jay Carney, even the president himself were left in befuddled speechless deer-in-the-headlights slack-jawedness over a simple question: How many people have signed up?

Nary a straight answer because…well, that sort of information is just so darned hard to come up with.

Lo! And Behold! The very day THE VERY DAY! the ball drops and all who are to receive insurance (and who haven’t fallen into about 15,832 ‘exemptions’ magically bestowed upon the populace by the benevolent dictator and his czars) must have signed up, suddenly the Administration appears from behind a magic curtain to announce that 7,100,000 subjects citizens have indeed signed up for insurance. (Precisely ‘point-one’ more than their goal!)

Suddenly those impossibe-to-know numbers are well…right there at the fingertips of the president himself. Amazing, isn’t it, how reliable and precise are the Administrative Class?

Naturally we have an adversarial press, who after six months of having been given the Heisman Stiff Arm on their queries about numbers, will raise the flag on this fascinating turnaround. Right?

(crickets)

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from Dallas tonight, seriously, for some reason…)

If President Obama had Wielded “Soft Power” at Home…

Do we all agree that, notwithstanding his penchant for distant murder-by-disembodied-aerial-vehicle, not-as-surgical-as-you’d-wish-it-were, drone strikes (what I like to call a “passive-aggressive” military policy), the president’s favored foreign policy is a preference for ‘soft power’? Which is to say, don’t you think the Obama Administration’s approach to the world is to rely more on influence than on coercion? I think he (and Secretary of State John Kerry too) would say so himself. He’d much prefer (well, either of them would, I suppose) to rely on what he considers (ahem) his extraordinarily outsized powers of charm and persuasion to win over other heads of state, rather than the inelegant and clumsy use of force to dictate his way when it comes to what other countries do.

Contrast that with his approach to the issues with America’s healthcare system.

Although I disagree with the premise (a topic for another post altogether), President Obama and the Leftist technocrats with whom he finds common cause believe in the scheme of health “insurance” and feel the third-party payment system is good because healthcare (which for some reason they feel is synonymous with health insurance) is “different” and thus not to be entrusted to market forces…then again, the things in life that should be influenced by market forces is pretty limited anyway.

Anyway. From their perspective, the answer has always been that not enough of the ‘young invincibles’ were bought into the cockamamie scheme and thus not participating, pushing the cost up due to what’s called ‘adverse selection’. Not enough people willing to pay more into a system and voluntarily get less out means that the whole thing collapses under the weight of those who are taking more than they’re putting in. It’s not even economics…it’s basic physics.

Their answer to this was (and is) that more people need to abandon their own better judgment and personal motivations and jump right in. But how to achieve that?

Well, with a super-majority in the Senate and an overwhelming majority in the House in 2009 those who know better than you pushed through the ACA without a single Republican vote in either chamber. For your own good, they forced an unpopular (at the time, and downright detested now) gigantic overhaul of an enormous chunk of our economy. Let’s call that “hard power”.

Of course, we see what hath the ACA wrought: With higher premiums than before for young and healthy individuals, those needed to save the sinking ship are now even less inclined to climb aboard. So now the very solution to the problem (as the health-insurance-scheme supporters see it) is even farther out of grasp.

This struck me as ironic because now the president and his lickspittle sycophants in the press/Leftist Hollywood/sports/entertainment/etc. are reduced to begging, pleading, brow-beating, heavy-handedly imploring every 20-something to please, please, please sign up for health “insurance” through the exchange, lest the signature program of your benighted leader fall to pieces and all we’ve worked for (WE!, not me, this is about YOU and how important all that work YOU! did on the campaign for…well, yes, me, but anyway…YOU! did to get…well, yes, me, but anyway…elected so I could serve YOU, because after all, YOU are the ones YOU’VE been waiting for, and thank goodness I came along to make YOU feel special about needing ME…oh, I mean ‘me’, but anyway….) tragically succumb to the machinations of the awful powers of cynicism and the Koch brothers and Rush Limbaugh and the War on Women, and…okay, where was I going with this? Oh, right. Please sign up for health insurance and talk about it in your pajamas with your friends at your kegger parties…

The president is in an all-out campaign to get the least-likely people to sign up for health “insurance” to…sign up for health “insurance”. But if he’d done that when he was popular (and his ACA handn’t ironically increased the price of it), couldn’t he have avoided all this?

Consider: when he was elected, Barack Obama had an incredible amount of popularity and political capital (before his inauguration, his approval rating was 79%). With that, he had the power to influence and persuade. Let’s call that “soft power”. What’s ironic is that, had he chosen to use his soft power (and been successful), he may have been able to convince a ton of the 20-something sheep who voted for CHANGE! and HOPE! to actually do things (even things against their own better interest) through the influence of this “soft power”. Who knows? It may have actually kept the system afloat.

*(No, The system still would have eventually collapsed, of course, because the problem wasn’t ever that young people weren’t buying “insurance”, rather the dis-incentive for consumers to shop for, and for providers to offer prices commensurate with their actual value…well, you know how that story goes…)

This suave and persuasive dude who had just sailed into the Oval Office because he was too cool for the room and was able to exercise the lost art of subtlety was loved by damned-near everybody in the Country. He believed in The System. He realized (believed) that the problem with it was that not enough people were active participants in it. His solution? Heavy-handedly and by force, to coerce everybody into doing what he wanted them to do.

Way to go, Cowboy!

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from The Ranch)

A sign of the times?

The sexy up-and-coming political movement, “the wave of the future”, is (almost by definition) the one where the young, hot women are. I don’t know where they are now, except Obama ain’t it. As just one illustration, here’s Carey Wedler, a former Obama groupie burning her 2008 campaign T-shirt.

YouTube Preview Image

Her list of specific disappointments with Obama is pretty left-wing, but she has some pro-liberty ones in there too, and she comes to a libertarian-anarchist conclusion: “The institution of government is the problem.”

UPDATE: More signs?

It’s hard to blog about Obamacare

It’s hard because there are so many items to choose from, weekly. And they’re mostly both technical and depressing (not fun to read). Obamacare is a mess of unbelievable proportions. Even now, I have 40+ related items open in browser tabs, that I had meant to get to sometime.

But here goes; I’ll try to hit a few highlights. First, President Obama’s top three Obamacare promises in 74 seconds, all lies:



The House GOP want to bless Obama’s delay of his “individual mandate” (that immorally forces people to buy insurance). Yet Obama means to resist them.

Last month, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that Obamacare will weaken the economy. Along with other Obama policies, it effectively raises marginal tax rates, giving people less incentive to work. “…the CBO…reported that by 2024 the equivalent of 2.5 million Americans who were otherwise willing and able to work before ObamaCare will work less or not at all as a result of ObamaCare.” Labor unions agree that Obamacare will slam wages and work hours.

Even Dana Milbank (liberal at the Washington Post) agrees that young people are rejecting both Obamacare, and Obama. “The administration announced last week that only 1.08 million people ages 18 to 34 had signed up for Obamacare by the end of February…If the proportion doesn’t improve significantly, the result likely will be fatal for the Affordable Care Act.”

Robert Tracinski asks, What was the point of Obamacare? Because it’s not insuring the uninsured; many of them are finding Obamacare unaffordable (!) and not signing up. The Washington Post agrees.

Along those lines, Catherine Austin Fitts observes, “I don’t see Obamacare as something designed to offer healthcare…It was designed to create a framework that would allow three things. One…to use digital technology to radically reduce labor costs…Second…you wanted, as the baby boomers were aging, to…dramatically reduce the healthcare services available to them…Third…to use healthcare to really control the population…an effort to centralize power.” – Austin Fitts sees government bureaucrats as profoundly competent, once you know their real plan. What they achieve in practice (which may be bad) was very likely their real plan, as opposed to what they told the public.

Bonus article: The Greeks are finding that socialized medicine doesn’t work, once you get older and need more of it.

UPDATE: Obamacare raises family insurance costs MORE than the previous eight years, combined. Just like Obama adding more to the national debt than the previous 8 Presidents combined, I guess.

The “Monumental Achievement” That No One Really Wants

His Majesty the POTUS was boasting last weekend that Obamacare would someday be seen as a “Monumental Achievement.

“I think 10 years from now, 5 years from now we’re going to look back and say this was a monumental achievement.”

Well if it’s so damn terrific, what’s with all the delays, exemptions, and waivers?

obamacare_delay_graphic

And what is with this latest scheme of forcing businesses to sign “loyalty oaths” that they would not make hiring or staffing decisions based on Obamacare? That’s worthy of Hugo Chavez, right there? And what business wouldn’t sign off on a loyalty oath after what happened to those poor bastards at Gibson Guitars?

 

More Obamacare Good News, Everyone

professor-farnsworth

Not only will Obamacare destroy 2.5 Million jobs; the jobs that remain won’t pay as well. According to CBO Director Mr. Douglas Elmendorf, employers saddled with the higher cost of insurance under Obamacare will have to take those costs out of worker’s salaries.

“We expect as other analysts believe that over time costs that employers bare for their employees end up being borne by the employee in the form of lower wages.”

This is on top of the $4,000 decline in middle class income under Obama. (Only income for the top 5% has increased under this president.)

Road to Serfdom? Honey-Child, we are on the Bullet Train to Serfdom. The Autobahn to serfdom. The Trans-Warp Conduit to Serfdom.

But it’s okay because the Government will give you a piece of paper recognizing your same-sex relationship as a “marriage;” and that is apparently more important than good economic policy.  Also, free contraceptives.

Is the Left Admitting that Obamacare Is Pretty Much Marxism?

A report was issued by the Congressional Budget Office, yesterday, that contained two very useful nuggets of information.

1. Despite trillions in spending and the vast expansion of the Federal bureaucracy, the number of uninsured will be unchanged after Obamacare.

2. 2.5 million jobs will be destroyed

Democrats have been treating the reduction in jobs as wonderful news. In their spin, the reduction in jobs means workers will be “liberated” from “job-lock,” in other words, they will no longer have to work full-time to have health care insurance.

So, in other words, the workers have nothing to lose but their chains.

And the reason they will be able to work part time… or not at all… is because those who are working full-time will be subsidzing their insurance through higher taxes and higher insurance premiums. Those who work less, or not at all, will get Government subsidies to cover their insurance. Those who work more will not.

So, in other words, from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

It is not so often that the left comes out and admits that this scheme of confiscating the earnings of the productive to subsidize the unproductive… i.e. their voters… is really what they’re all about.

(more…)

Once You Have Seen It, You Cannot Unsee It

Richard Simmons twerks for Obamacare.

Update: WaPo ‘Fact Checker’ advises reporters not to rely on the White House for accurate Obamacare enrollment figures(more…)

The Obama Era Continues to Degenerate into a Bad 1970′s Movie

The latest brilliant idea from the minds that gave us Obamacare (and the Obamacare website written in Spanglish): The Obamacare Telethon.

ObamaCare’s state-based marketplaces are partnering with an enrollment group in a new attempt to boost young people’s interest in the healthcare law.

The campaign from Covered California, Enroll America and other exchanges will livestream an ObamaCare-themed variety show from Los Angeles on Thursday, according to an advisory.

Because young people just love the comedy-variety genre.

The way the genius progressives have set up Obamacare requires young and healthy people to grossly overpay for insurance in order to subsidize older and sicker people. So far, not enough of them have been stupid enough to take up Obamacare on this deal to make the system sustainable.

But the architects of Obamacare hope a six-hour variety show will be enough to convince them to make a really bad economic decision. [Of course, they were stupid enough to vote for Obama in the first place.] On the other hand, the insulting “Brosurance” Ads didn’t quite work the magic the genius progressives expected.

(more…)

You know how I can tell Obamacare Is a Massive FAIL? Its supporters don’t call it “Obamacare.”

They aren’t even calling it the ‘Affordable Care Act” anymore because the “affordable” part has become such a tragic joke and a reminder of the lies this POS was sold under. Now, they just avert their eyes and call it PPACA when they have to defend it; trying to hide their shame behind a bland acronym.

ocaread

Thanks, Peter H.

Walmart’s Health Plan Better Than Obamacare

Posted by V the K at 8:55 am - January 8, 2014.
Filed under: Obama Health Care Tax/Regulation

The left despises Walmart. [I'm not a fan, either, but unlike a leftist, my disdain for Walmart doesn't translate into a desire to deny other people the opportunity to work and shop there; live and let live.] But in terms of affordability and access to quality medical services, Walmart’s plan beats Obamacare hands down.

Obamacare offers a restricted list of hospital participation. Walmart, on the other hand, belongs to a national healthcare network that provides almost twice as many participating hospitals. What’s more, Walmart’s network of doctors dwarfs Obamacare’s. “You will notice there are 9,837 doctors [under Obamacare]. But the larger network is 24,904 doctors. Huge, huge difference,” Slayton said.

In addition to better care, the Journal of the American Medical Association revealed that unsubsidized Obamacare enrollees will incur monthly premiums up to nine times higher than Walmart premiums. JAMA indicated that the unsubsidized premium for a nonsmoking couple age 60 can cost $1,365 per month, while the Walmart monthly premium for the same couple would be $134 per month.

But while the Walmart health plan may beat Obamacare by costing less and offering better options, it can’t come close to Obamacare in terms of massive inefficiency, cronyism, regulation, bureaucracy, and waste.

The disaster that is Obamacare (ongoing)

My earlier post may have to become a series. As before, you may know the following already from news or other blogs, but it deserves to be acknowledged here at Gay Patriot.

UPDATES (late morning):

Remember, conservatives, many Americans do* want to like President Obama

I believe it’s been a week, maybe more, since I even checked this blog.  I did not get to the post I wanted to write on JFK, contrasting that smart Democrat’s record with the media coverage of his murder and his legacy.  I had a few notes for posts on Obamacare and honesty and one on Obamacare and prediction. Reading something this morning in the Daily Caller reminded me of a piece I had read yesterday in Commentary, articulating an idea which gets at the meaning of Obama’s reelection last year.

Peter Wehner wrote:

In their fascinating behind-the-scenes book on the 2012 election, Double Down, Mark Halperin and John Heilemann write that the campaign’s research showed “that there was a deep well of sympathy for Obama among voters.” In focus groups after the first debate, they write, “people offered excuse after excuse for his horrific presentation. In Florida, one woman said, almost protectively, ‘I just bet you he wasn’t feeling well.’”

That deep well of sympathy–that willingness to give the president the benefit of the doubt and the attachment and connection voters felt for Mr. Obama–has been crucial to his success for his entire political life. He has always been viewed as a likeable and decent man, even when his campaign employed fairly ruthless tactics. But the days of broad public faith and trust in this president appear to be over. And no wonder.

I think this is why the image of Obama responding to Hurricane Sandy was so beneficial to the incumbent.  People do want to like him.  And in the coverage of the storm and his response, that Democrat looked very much like the man they wanted to like.

It remains to be see whether the disaster of the Obamacare roll-out and the realization (despite his many promises) that many Americans who liked their health care plans couldn’t keep them will erase the goodwill many Americas feel for the incumbent.  That said we on the right should not lose sight of the fact that as Halperin and Heilemann put it, many Americans do have a “deep well of sympathy for Obama”.

——

*And the question now becomes whether we should change the tense on this verb from present to past.

NB:   (more…)

Obama hammered in polls

This is everywhere; may as well be here. Per a CNN poll,

Only four out of 10 Americans believe President Barack Obama can manage the federal government effectively…

…53% of Americans now believe that Obama is not honest and trustworthy…

Fifty-six percent say he is not a person they admire, and an equal number say he does not agree with them on important issues. Fifty-six percent also say he does not inspire confidence, and 53% don’t view him as a strong and decisive leader. All of those figures are all-time records for Obama in CNN polling.

Ouch. But will voters remember, by the 2014 midterm elections?