ObamaCare Won’t Work—Here’s Why?

The Affordable Care Act—ObamaCare—just won’t work; it was a poorly crafted piece of legislation and its unworkableness has been tacitly admitted by President Obama. To testify to this statement is the fact that there have already been 41 significant modifications to the Act—most of them via executive order of the President, himself. New objections are cropping up every day. Now, even the unions are balking at the requirements of the law. However, the basic problems of the Act are as follows:

The Medical Industry Institute, in concert with the Department of Health and Human Services (a part of the U.S. executive branch), in a study of 2014 health insurance enrollment data and its predicted trajectory until 2024 has concluded that by that latter date, premiums for an individual in the Silver health plan will find his premium increase by $1,375/year. A family of four applying for similar coverage will see a premium increase of $4,198/year. This is an increase greater than the total increase seen between 2008 and 2013. The steepest increase will occur after 2016. On 1/1/17, all the requirements of the ACA will kick in and 60% of the policies sold in 2013 will not qualify for sale! This is too much of a premium increase; and people will not be able to afford it.

Last month the government increased the money in the “risk corridors” which are meant to bail out the insurance companies if they fall short of income to cover all of the ACA’s various requirements. Even that will not be adequate to cover the costs insurance companies will incur. In 2017, health care insurers will no longer be allowed to cover losses by using the risk corridor money. Consumers will be left paying the bill by greatly increased premiums.

To make matters worse, in 2017 the reinsurance program will expire and health care insurer plans will no longer be able to bill the government for 80% of their costs when a client uses more than $45,000 of services in a single year.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that private companies will drop employee health insurance policies for more than 7 million employees by 2020—preferring, instead, to send them to federal insurance exchanges for insurance. It will be cheaper for companies to pay the less expensive penalties after 2017 than to purchase health insurance, themselves.

This above fact will leave the newly uninsured with few options. Many will try to get Medicaid. The CBO calculates that Medicaid enrollment will increase by 2-3%/year through 2024. However, if family income is greater than 133% of the federal poverty level (That is $11,670 for an individual and $23,850 for a family of four.), they will not qualify for Medicaid. After 2016, they will have to pay $695/year as a penalty for not having health care insurance. At that income level, it is obvious that those low-income families will not be able to buy health care insurance. The only way a family like that might be covered is if the federal government supplies them with heavy-duty subsidies. For these reasons, CBO estimates that by 2024 there will be more than 40 million uninsured people in our country—that is 10% more than there are today!

How will people compensate for these difficult facts? Consumers will most likely go to qualified ACA plans with very high deductibles and very limited doctor/hospital choice.

So…what can be done? I predict that the ACA will either go down completely in a ball of fire or it will be nibbled down by repeated revisions until little remains of it—probably the latter will be the fate of this ill-gotten piece of legislation. But…that will leave he American public again at the mercy of run-away increases in health care costs. That must not happen! We need a health care insurance system that works and that will not cost us an arm and a leg. Tomorrow, I will attempt to show how a good health care insurance system might work as I will explain the system in use by France.

Get Over It! Grow Up and Take Responsibility!

United States universities have rejected the graduation speeches of several world actors with whom they have disagreed on social issues, showing everyone just how “open-minded” our universities really are. However, following is an excerpt from a graduation speech given at the University to Texas at Austin on 17 May. The speech was given by Admiral Bill McRaven, the head of the U.S. Special Operations Command—the man who commanded Seal Team Six, which killed Osama bin Laden.

“Every morning in SEAL training, my instructors, who at the time were all Vietnam veterans, would show up in my barracks room and the first thing they would do is inspect my bed.

“If you did it right, the corners would be square, the covers would be pulled tight, the pillow centered just under the headboard and the extra blanket folded neatly at the foot of the rack.

“It was a simple task—mundane at best. But every morning we were required to make our bed to perfection. It seemed a little ridiculous at the time, particularly in light of the fact that we were aspiring to be real warriors, tough battle-hardened SEALs—but the wisdom of this simple act has been proven to me many times over.

“If you make your bed every morning, you will have accomplished the first task of the day. It will give you a small sense of pride, and it will encourage you to do another task and another and another.

“And by the end of the day, that one task completed will have turned into many tasks completed. Making your bed will also reinforce the fact that the little things in life matter.

“If you can’t do the little things right you will never be able to do the big things right.

“And, if by chance you have a miserable day, you will come home to a bed that is made—that you made—and a made bed gives you encouragement that tomorrow will be better.

“So if you want to change the world, start off by making your bed….

“Several times a week, the instructors would line up the class and do a uniform inspection. It was exceptionally thorough. Your hat had to be perfectly starched, your uniform immaculately pressed and your belt buckle shiny and void of any smudges.

“But it seemed that no matter how much effort you put into starching your hat, or pressing your uniform or polishing your belt buckle—it just was not good enough.

“The instructors would find something wrong. For failing the uniform inspection, the student had to run, fully clothed into the surf zone and then, wet from head to toe, roll around on the beach until every part of your body was covered with sand.

“The effect was known as a “sugar cookie.” You stayed in that uniform the rest of the day—cold, wet, and sandy.

“There were many a student who just could not accept the fact that all their effort was in vain. That no matter how hard they tried to get the uniform right—it was unappreciated.

“Those students did not make it through training. Those students did not understand the purpose of the drill.  You were never going to succeed. You were never going to have a perfect uniform.

“Sometimes no matter how well you prepare or how well you perform you still end up as a sugar cookie.

“It’s just the way life is sometimes.

“If you want to change the world, get over being a sugar cookie and keep moving forward.”

(This blog post was redacted from the Weekly Standard 2 June 2014, page 4.)

 

 

On Choosing a Mate

Nancy and I have just come home from a wedding between our grandson, Jonathan Manring and the former Sarah Morton. A more perfectly matched couple you cannot imagine. We were quite impressed with that marriage. But...we thought at the time about the other young, unmarried, people at the wedding. Will they make such wise and advantageous marriages for themselves? Thus, here comes some unsolicited advice from a couple of oldies.

In choosing a mate, one should remember that with the mate comes the mate’s family—and that entails a lot of baggage. Some of that baggage might include different worldviews, different values, habits, customs, goals, affinities, and religion. One should consider how these differences are going to stack up with one’s own qualities and values; because when you marry someone, you will need to live with the other person’s qualities for a very long time.

Let us talk about differences in religion: Homogeneity in religion in a marriage is very important. Marriages between a Jew and a Christian, a Muslim and a Christian, even a Catholic and a Protestant are often not happy joinings.  Our religions are so integral to our very being that difference in that area can cause everlasting conflict. The only way those differences can be resolved is that one or the other partner must completely give up his beliefs to conform to the other—or else, they both must give up religion, altogether. Neither of these solutions bring good resolution to a marriage difference.

Racial difference between husband and wife can cause dissention. When one marries a person of a different race, the racial/cultural characteristics come with the new spouse. If you can live with that, then you will probably do okay with a spouse of a different race. But…think about it. Racial differences can be a problem.

Political differences often split couples apart. It is very hard for a conservative to live with a liberal/progressive. Differences in this area are becoming more and more prevalent and divisive.

Watch out for marrying a divorced person or one with a family history of divorce. Divorce in a family infects other members of the family, and when conflict arises in the family (as it surely will, occasionally) a person who embraces the possibility of divorce for conflict resolution will not infrequently resolve the conflict by suggesting divorce. NOT A GOOD SOLUTION!

Marrying an “only child” can cause difficulty. “Only children” have often been imbued by their parents with the idea that they are about the most wonderful people in the world, i.e., intelligent, clever, personable, etc., etc. If a person carries that mindset into a marriage he may be difficult to live with.

How about bad habits? Some habitual behavior can be a powerful disrupter in a family. One of the worst habits to bring into a family is heavy drinking and/or drug abuse. How often have I heard from a young woman a remark like the following: “We love each other so much, I am just sure he will change his drinking habits after we are married.” That is the devil’s delusion. Drinking habits usually get worse after a wedding, not better. An addiction to pornography can cause intense difficulties in a family, too.

Do not marry someone who has ever lied to you! Enough said about that.

Money handling is very often the divider between couples. If a person has not learned to live frugally and without materialistic values, that person is probably not the one you should marry. Money matters!

Watch out for materialism in your intended. Over-buying and spending can disrupt a whole family economy and put the family in distress. Over-use of credit cards is a trap you should avoid like the plague.

Marriage is a place where common values, practices, religion, and all the other things I have mentioned above should be found. Do not marry someone very different from you, thinking that you are going to “grow together;” it probably won’t happen. More frequently, couples with significant differences will actually grow apart.

Following is a check list of things marrying couples should consider:

Does the person you have chosen:

T_____ Keep promises

F_____

T_____ Obey rules

F _____

T_____ Speak or act calmly when hurt or angry

F_____

T_____ Avoid alcohol, drugs, smoking and premarital sex

F_____

T_____ Do what is expected without being watched

F_____

T_____ Never hit or strike someone when angry

F_____

T_____ Care about children

F_____

T_____ Help and finish household chores

F_____

T_____ Be on time

F_____

T_____ Listen well

F_____

T_____ Tell the truth always

F_____

T_____ Have your same believes and values

F_____

T_____ Work for a living

F_____

T_____ Spend money wisely

F_____

T_____ Is liked by my family

F_____

T_____ Always have to have their own way

F_____

T_____ Have never been to jail for a crime

F_____

T_____ Has never had another wife

F_____

T_____ Like my family

F_____

THINK ABOUT IT!

 

 

The Progressive/Liberal Mind is Closed

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal carried an article describing how many university graduation speakers across the country are being cancelled because of protests by students and faculty over their political stands or even because they were remotely associated with political issues, which were obnoxious to the university.

For instance, Somali-born feminist Ayaan Hirsi Ali withdrew herself from the speaker rostrum at Brandeis University because of student opposition. Hirsi Ali has a record  anti-Islam statements, which students think violate Brandeis's "core values."

In like fashion, Smith College has experienced the withdrawal from their invitation for commencement speaking, Christine Lagarde, the French head of the International Monetary Fund.

Most puzzling of all, however, was the withdrawal of Robert J. Birgeneau from his commencement address at Haverford College. Mr. Birgeneau is the former chancellor of UC Berkeley, the big bang of political correctness. He is famous as an ardent defender of minority students, the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) community and undocumented illegal immigrants. This man is a super-supporter of liberal beliefs in America. It is unbelievable that a liberal institution would make things so uncomfortable for him that he would withdraw from such an invitation. Opposition to Mr. Birgeneau originated from student and faculty who were offended by the Berkeley police action in 2011 when they used "force" against Occupy protesters in Sproul Plaza. I assume that the university believes its chancellors are responsible for the action of local police departments!

In defense of university administrations and faculties, it must be added that there has been strong push-back from these opposition activities of their student bodies. Not all representatives of the universities are opposed to political diversity.

Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at New York University and an avowed liberal in political belief has written a book published in 2012. The book is called “The Righteous Mind—Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion.” In his book, he describes his well-researched findings that people’s attitudes, beliefs, and values are shaped by six kinds of belief areas. These areas of psychological belief are:

1)    Care/harm
2)    Fairness/cheating
3)    Loyalty/betrayal
4)    Authority/submission
5)    Liberty/oppression
6)    Sanctity

He found that conservatives usually consider all of these areas when forming their belief and value systems. On the other hand, he found that liberals live, almost exclusively in the first two, i.e., in Care/harm and Fairness/cheating. Liberals, for the most part do not give much consideration to the last four, i.e., Loyalty/betrayal, Authority/submission, Liberty/oppression, and Sanctity.

What must be done if our culture is ever to heal is for students on university campuses to harken to all six of Dr. Haidt’s belief areas and quit concentrating exclusively on the first two.

The universities mentioned above have traditionally advertised that they are institutions that welcome divergent and varied statements from people of all persuasions—that has always been the stance of so-called “liberal” institutions of higher learning. From the trend of intolerance being demonstrated by university personnel over the speakers at graduation exercises, the progressive left has given up on its previously avowed claims of open-mindedness to belief systems, which do not perfectly comport with their own stated value systems. The closed mind has apparently won the day with America’s universities.

This trend is alarming. When Americans cannot even listen to both sides of controversial issues, our country is in deep trouble. Universities are the institutions that often shape the belief systems of the rest of the nation. Universities have traditionally and predominantly been staffed by liberal thinkers, and they only have a few conservatives scattered among their faculty members; but it is a sad day when they cannot even listen to such important speakers as the ones listed above—real leaders of the free world.

Does Political Conservatism Flow From an Understanding of God?

Liberals/Progressives would answer “NO.” They believe that only they stand for the Christian principles of freedom and liberty for individuals—conservatives are only interested in money matters. Liberals also believe that conservatives are averse to new ideas and innovation. 

The truth is quite the opposite. Although liberals claim to have the interests of the poor and the disenfranchised at heart, their formula for helping them, i.e., giving away money, tax credits for money they never earned, health care, unemployment insurance payments, etc., etc. does not help in the long run; it only makes the poor more and more dependent and unable to care for themselves. And Conservatives have much more than a balanced budget in mind when they talk about money; they want to make the nation solvent so that money can be used for buying real goods for the poor and for constructive programs, rather than just selling more IOU notes and paying interest. It is true that deep debt ties the hands of good governance; and that is what conservatives want to prevent. Conservatives also want to conserve good programs and procedures that have worked well in the past. Borrowers turn out to be slaves to lenders; and that does not make for a good situation in our country.

Conservatives have been accused of being unkind and mean spirited toward the poor. But, I point out that it is liberals who want to make the poor more dependent on government instead of working for their living—and that is not being kind to them. Conservatives, on the other hand try to encourage people to work for their living in order to produce goods and services for society. Working is an obvious admonition of the Bible. Any careful reader of the Bible will note such passages as “if a man will not work, he shall not eat” 1 Thess 3:10 (Also, compare 1 Thess 4:11, 5:12,13.)

In reference to the liberal/progressive attitude toward the supposed conservative avoidance of innovation, entrepreneurs, who are mostly conservatives, are the masters of innovation. It is by innovation that they survive in business and produce the good things in life that we all enjoy.

It should be self-evident that liberals often vote in direct refutation of biblical principles, e.g., for abortion and euthanasia. Nothing could be more obvious than God’s attitude toward the preservation of human life. Liberals were the ones who voted for no fault divorce and the removal of prayer from the schools. It is liberals who want to take “In God We Trust” off our coinage. It is liberals who have nullified the Defense of Marriage Act. It is liberals who want to take “under God” out of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Liberal thought has broken down the barriers to sexual promiscuity, which make America so repugnant to foreigners who respect modesty and chastity outside of marriage. Conservatives, on the other hand cling to the biblical principle of modest dress, (1 Tim 2:9). Widespread pornography is eating into the character of weak-willed men, especially; and this trend is being condoned by liberal universities, a liberal communication media, and liberal courts—all in the name of “freedom of speech.”

Liberal thought has brought into being a whole genre of philosophical thinking that refutes the existence of truth—this, in contrast to Jesus own statement that He came into the world to testify to the truth. This whole body of philosophical ideation is called “postmodern philosophy.” It certainly does not comport with conservative belief.

So, I ask you, who is closer to God’s words and His Spirit?  Is it liberals or conservatives?

I realize that I have been speaking in generalities, and not all liberals endorse all the degenerate social and intellectual trends I have outlined. But the above observations are generalities that cannot be refuted. There is no use hiding one’s head in the sand about these objections to liberal thought and practice. They are eating the heart out of our society—only a return to Christian principle can bring our country back to its senses. We must work toward the goal of bringing Christ back to our land. 

The Collectivist State—It Thinks It Knows Better than You Do!

The fundamental concepts of dignity, respect, equality before the law and personal freedom are under attack by the nation's own government. That's why, if we want to restore a free society and create greater well-being and opportunity for all Americans, we have no choice but to fight for those principles. This is why we need  to engage in the political process.

A truly free society is based on a vision of respect for people and what they value. In a truly free society, any business that disrespects its customers will fail, and deserves to do so. The same should be true of any government that disrespects its citizens. The central belief and fatal conceit of the current administration is that you are incapable of running your own life, but those in power are capable of running it for you. This is the essence of big government and collectivism.

More than 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson warned that this could happen. "The natural progress of things," Jefferson wrote, "is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." He knew that no government could possibly run citizens' lives for the better. The more government tries to control, the greater the disaster, as shown by the current health-care debacle. Collectivists (those who stand for government control of the means of production and how people live their lives) promise heaven but deliver hell. For them, the promised end justifies the means.

Instead of encouraging free and open debate, collectivists strive to discredit and intimidate opponents. They engage in character assassination. This is the approach that Arthur Schopenhauer described in the 19th century, that Saul Alinsky famously advocated in the 20th, and that so many despots have infamously practiced. Such tactics are the antithesis of what is required for a free society—and a telltale sign that the collectivists do not have good answers.

Instead of fostering a system that enables people to help themselves, America is now saddled with a system that destroys value, raises costs, hinders innovation and relegates millions of citizens to a life of poverty, dependency and hopelessness. This is what happens when elected officials believe that people's lives are better run by politicians and regulators than by the people themselves. Those in power fail to see that more government means less liberty, and liberty is the essence of what it means to be American. Love of liberty is the American ideal.

Racism—Which Way Does It Go?

The country is taken up these days with the subject of racism. The owner of the Los Angeles Clippers basketball team, Donald Sterline, was caught on a hidden audiotape by his girlfriend making an obnoxious racist comment about Black people. He has been fined $2.5 million and strongly encouraged to sell his ownership of the team. The NBA wants to get rid of him, apparently.
All that being said, I want to make the point that Nancy and I have been the recipients of heavy-handed racism at the hands of Black people in Detroit. Racism goes both ways.

This episode of racism was racism against Blacks from a White man. My question is—how much media buzz and strong public opinion would this episode have engendered if the racism had been against Whites from a Black man? The answer is, “Hardly none.”

Discriminating against persons on the basis of their race, alone, is a terrible sin; and nobody of good character will participate in it. But, Whites, alone, are not the only ones guilty of this kind of travesty—other races are just as guilty.