Repealing ObamaCare - Here's How...
- Details
- Created: Thursday, 05 January 2017 12:20
- Written by Ax D. WhiteMan
Michelangelo: "You Just Chip Away Everything That Doesn’t Look Like David"
Or so the story goes, Michelangelo answered when asked how he sculpted the iconic statue of David. OK, so it might not be true - the point is still valid, and it offers insight on how to repeal ObamaCare. In other words...
"You Just Chip Away Everything That Isn't a Good HealthCare Plan"
This is a fairly simple concept. The fact is that ObamaCare, is part of the current system, and unlike Democrats, Republicans should realize that incremental, rather than comprehensive reform is preferred. The most practical and politically expedient way to "repeal" ObamaCare is to incrementally remove the most egregious aspects first, and only after removing as much of "the bad" as possible, make an assessment if what remains of the law.
Step 1. Repeal "The Individual Mandate" - This is a no brainer. This was always the most unpopular aspect of ObamaCare, and the most brazenly unconstitutional. More importantly, it really doesn't work. If the GOP wanted to score some additional political points, they could retroactively cancel all the IRS penalties and interest charges assessed over the past two years. The "Individual Mandate" was the basis of the Constitutional challenge to ObamaCare.
It was widely believed that to defeat the "Individual Mandate" was tantamount to repeal. This should be done as a regular order bill - NOT a reconciliation bill. Make Democrats defend the mandate and the tax. A large number of those penalized are recipients of EITC and are stunned to find out their annual EITC stipend is so low due to an ObamaCare penalty.
Step 2. Repeal "The Employer Mandate" - Even if one accepts this as a well intentioned aspect of ObamaCare; it's impact has been a disaster. Employers have twisted themselves into pretzels to avoid the thresholds requiring compliance. This has caused lay-offs and reliance on part-time rather than full time workers.
Step 3. Repeal Coverage Mandates - The "Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum" aspects of ObamaCare are an affront to freedom and capitalism and an insult to individual intelligence. This aspect of ObamaCare essentially designs all health care plans and requires all insurance companies to offer exactly the same thing. This destroys all incentive to devise a creatively structured plans to meet the varied needs of individuals. Several "coverages" would rarely be purchased by most individuals. Most Mormons wouldn't buy coverage for alcohol treatment, and most single guys wouldn't buy pregnancy coverage. Mandated "Coverages" are certainly a leading cost driver of health insurance.
Step 4. Repeal (or revise) "EMTALA" - Passed in 1986, this is perhaps the most abused legislation in history. This is the "Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act" which was based on the concept voiced by Donald Trump during his campaign that "we won't have people bleeding to death in the streets." This law was presented as a basic humanitarian requirement that hospitals could not refuse seriously injured people based on ability to pay. It has since morphed into a general grant of "everything to everyone" regardless of means to pay. This law, as much as any other law has been a cost driver in the medical industry.
There are obviously many other aspects of ObamaCare that could be "chipped away" incrementally before beginning to build back to create a better framework of laws to govern health care insurance.
Once the law is significantly stripped of its worst features, it would be worthwhile to consider allowing the HealthCare.gov site to continue as a portal for individual health care products offered by qualified carriers. The government should qualify policies only for financial solvency, and allow them to be valid in any State. This would be a way of removing the "lines around the States."
Doing all of the above, would reduce disruption in the marketplace, and set in motion the market forces required to make healthcare coverage affordable and accessible - for those who want it.
Of course, that means it's pretty sure it won't happen.
Add a commentRecount? -Make My Day -Dems Never Win POTUS Again
- Details
- Created: Monday, 28 November 2016 13:48
- Written by Ax D. WhiteMan
Hillary Clinton has decided to join the recount effort started by Jill Stein. It's been widely reported that the strategy is not to overturn the election results; but to delay certification of the votes beyond the date of the electors voting (December 19th) thereby denying Donald Trump the requisite 270 electoral votes to be President. They believe this would add to the narrative that Trump is illegitimate having lost the popular vote, and then being "named" President by Congress.
The next Constitutional step would be for the race to be decided by the House of Representatives - but not by simple vote. Each State is allowed a single vote, making Wyoming equal to California.
Republicans dominate House State Delegations 34 to 13 with 3 ties. Obviously Trump wins this vote. But it does tend to turn the process into something of a cluster.
So Be It. - It's a "cluster" that the GOP will win for the foreseeable future.
The GOP has been far to reluctant to fight the Democrats in the gutter where they live. Consequently, they've consistently gotten their asses whipped by refusing to fight. Trump has shown signs of ending that tendancy. Now is as good a time as any to do so.
The GOP response should be:
Go ahead with your bogus recount strategy, you've given us the template to win every future Presidential election. Regardless of outcome, we will file for recounts in enough states to deny the winner 270 electoral votes, and throw the election to the House - where we will win - EVERY TIME.
Check out the chart below, not only do Republicans dominate the "numbers" but every single one of the 12 identified "swing states" is a solid Republican State in terms of Congressional Delegations.
So, Dems, you want to recount?
You want to create a template to have every Presidential election decided by the House?
Go Ahead - Make My Day...
| House Congressional Del. | Maj. Dem | Maj. Rep | “Swing” States | ||
| State | Democrat | Republican | 13 | 34 | |
| Alabama | 1 | 6 | 1 | ||
| Alaska | 0 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Arizona | 4 | 5 | 1 | ||
| Arkansas | 0 | 4 | 1 | ||
| California | 39 | 14 | 1 | ||
| Colorado | 3 | 4 | 1 | Rep | |
| Connecticut | 5 | 0 | 1 | ||
| Delaware | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||
| Florida | 10 | 17 | 1 | Rep | |
| Georgia | 4 | 10 | 1 | Rep | |
| Hawaii | 2 | 0 | 1 | ||
| Idaho | 0 | 2 | 1 | ||
| Illinois | 8 | 10 | 1 | ||
| Indiana | 2 | 7 | 1 | ||
| Iowa | 1 | 3 | 1 | Rep | |
| Kansas | 0 | 4 | 1 | ||
| Kentucky | 1 | 5 | 1 | ||
| Louisiana | 1 | 5 | 1 | ||
| Maine | 1 | 1 | Tie | Tie | |
| Maryland | 7 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Massachusetts | 9 | 0 | 1 | ||
| Michigan | 5 | 9 | 1 | Rep | |
| Minnesota | 5 | 3 | 1 | ||
| Mississippi | 1 | 3 | 1 | ||
| Missouri | 2 | 6 | 1 | ||
| Montana | 0 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Nebraska | 1 | 2 | 1 | ||
| Nevada | 1 | 3 | 1 | Rep | |
| New Hampshire | 1 | 1 | Tie | Tie | |
| New Jersey | 6 | 6 | Tie | Tie | |
| New Mexico | 1 | 2 | 1 | Rep | |
| New York | 18 | 9 | 1 | ||
| North Carolina | 3 | 10 | 1 | Rep | |
| North Dakota | 0 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Ohio | 4 | 12 | 1 | Rep | |
| Oklahoma | 0 | 5 | 1 | ||
| Oregon | 4 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Pennsylvania | 5 | 13 | 1 | Rep | |
| Rhode Island | 2 | 0 | 1 | ||
| South Carolina | 1 | 6 | 1 | ||
| South Dakota | 0 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Tennessee | 2 | 7 | 1 | ||
| Texas | 11 | 25 | 1 | ||
| Utah | 0 | 4 | 1 | ||
| Vermont | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||
| Virginia | 3 | 8 | 1 | Rep | |
| Washington | 6 | 4 | 1 | ||
| West Virginia | 0 | 3 | 1 | ||
| Wisconsin | 3 | 5 | 1 | Rep | |
| Wyoming | 0 | 1 | 1 | ||
Above Table data excerpted from https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_House_of_Representatives
Add a commentIs "Losing" a Republican Value?
- Details
- Created: Thursday, 27 October 2016 12:24
- Written by Ax D. WhiteMan
In the past months we've heard much of "Republican Values." The NeverTrump crowd seems obsessed with claiming moral superiority based on their rejection of the GOP nominee - based on "Republican Values."
They might be right.
Because the only consistent underlying "Republican Value" of the last 30 years is LOSING.
Yes, this is the unshakable value to which, at all costs, Republicans cling. They may waiver or falter on other common Republican interests, you'll find much disagreement on immigration, foreign policy, abortion, gay marriage, or spending priorities - but they all universally agree - they MUST Lose.
This is the point at which the establishment GOP parts with Donald Trump and his supporters, who seem diametrically opposed to losing. Yes, they've even had the temerity to cheer for WINNING! This is not to be tolerated by the GOP elders and the elites of Conservatism Inc.
Hyperbolic?
Maybe. But lets look at some history....
In the 40 years prior to 1994, the House of Representatives was dominated by Democrats. During that time "The House" dominated public policy and often even foreign policy. During that time, Republicans won the White House about half the time, but almost always yielded to a Democrat dominated House, often citing the "power of the purse,' to which they were irrevocably bound.
In 1973 the Democrat Congress denied funding for any further military operation in Viet Nam. A compliant Republican President declared he "had no choice" but to order the immediate evacuation of Viet Nam. This required the U.S. crash it's own helicopters into the sea and abandon thousands of Vietnamese allies to be slaughtered by the North, or risk drowning.
But hey, what could they do? Congress controlled the budget - right?
Then came 1994. The Republicans took control of the House. Now they could control the purse strings. Not exactly. Newt Gingrich came to blows with Bill Clinton over the budget and a "shut down" ensued. After weeks of being pilloried by the media, the "shut down" was on the verge of being "won" by Gingrich - when the Bob Dole interceded and demanded a loss. Rather than getting a balanced budget, the GOP settled for a 7 year plan to get to a balanced budget.
But wait, there's more....
In 2000 Bush was elected President, Republicans won the House, and Republicans tied in Senate seats - which would give the tie breaking vote to the Republican Vice President. Yes. Republicans held both the legislative and executive branch of Government. But, the GOP value of "losing" kicked in. Elected Republican Jim Jeffords announced he was leaving the party and would caucus with the Democrats. Once again - the Republican value of "losing" prevails.
But wait, there's more...
In 2004 the GOP had an opportunity not only to gain ground in the Senate, but to gain in ideological strength. The sitting leftist Senator from Pennsylvania, Arlen Specter, faced a strong and credible challenge from the far more conservative Pat Toomey. Sitting President GWB, The RNC, and sitting Senator Rick Santorum ALL campaigned vigorously for Specter and Specter managed to win his primary challenge by less than 1%.
The ensuing GOP Senate Majority was largely muted by the left leaning Senators that consistently opposed George Bush, and finally due to losing the House in 06 - maintaining once again, the party value of "losing."
Yep, still more...
When opposition to ObamaCare seemed to invigorate Republican energy - even leading to the special election of a Republican Senator from Massachusetts - the previously mentioned Specter, decided he must switch parties and become a Democrat. ObamaCare passes, and the Republican value of "losing" prevails.
Since that time, Republicans have dominated State House and Governor elections. Almost as quickly as they were won, much like the GOP Congress, those institutions have largely receded to irrelevancy. Republican State Governments are consistently subservient to pressure from Federal authorities above, and seem to always allow liberal City governments below to institute leftist policies. Those that resist (Indiana, North Carolina), are pilloried, and eventually abandoned by the GOP.
Then comes Trump. He says three things.
-Immigration is out of control - I'll stop it.
-Stupid trade deals are bad for us - I'll end them.
-Pointless foreign wars are, pointless - I won't get into them
This resonates overwhelmingly with a segment of the electorate that has been dead to the GOP for two generations. He gains more popular support than any GOP candidate, ever.
Then adds one over-riding thing above all.....
When they attack me, I'll fight back - and I'll win.
This my friends, is not consistent with Republican Values.
Add a comment
WikiLeaks a BlackMail Threat to Hillary - Not a Boost to Trump
- Details
- Created: Saturday, 22 October 2016 14:07
- Written by Ax D. WhiteMan
-UPDATE 10/29/2016
We believe it is highly likely that the FBI decided to re-open the investigation against Hillary because they've discovered exactly what is described here. That is, that Hillary altered her emails prior to printing them and delivering them to FBI, State, and Congress. If that is so, she will probably be offered the opportunity to withdraw from the race rather than face criminal prosecution.
original post of 10/22 ...
The source of the Podesta emails at Wikileaks is not known. For the sake of discussion, lets assume it's "The Russians," as is alleged by Hillary's 17 intelligence agencies. It seems clear that if this is the case, the Russians are NOT trying to elect Trump, they are showing their hand in a blackmail operation against a future Clinton Administration.
Here's why....
Clinton didn't just delete 33K emails. She deleted ALL emails from "clintonemail.com."
In response to Congressional Subpoena for "electronic correspondence", Clinton provided printed pages of what she claimed were the text of emails. We believe that Clinton altered the bodies of the email text prior to printing them. That is - she committed, fraud, perjury, and obstruction of justice - in a single act. She then, of course destroyed all digital evidence that could prove her criminal acts.
Except, if someone else as digital evidence of the altered emails. Enter "The Russians."
The WikiLeaks "Podesta emails" have been released in 12 separate document dumps to date. Each dump has reached a bit deeper into the nexus between the Podesta emails, and the released "Clintonemail.com" emails that were obtained under FOIA request. To date, in the Podesta emails there are 282 emails that contain reference to "clintonemail.com." The oldest email is dated 10/18/2011 n a date range that spans from 2011 - 2016.
If one searches the Clinton Email database for reference to "podesta", one finds 125 references, with the newest date being 2013 in a date range that spans from 2009 - 2013.
To date, there is not a single email of the 282 Podesta emails sent to "clintonemail.com" addresses that coincides with the published email from "clintonemail.com." It seems almost inevitable though, that the hacked Podesta emails include transmissions that were part of what Hillary submitted as true and accurate representation of "email" - but was in fact, a fraud. It's likely that the Podesta emails contain prima fascia evidence of such fraud.
The clear signal being sent to Hillary Clinton is this:
We have 3 years of Podesta's emails that overlap the period of emails you've turned over to Congress and the State Department.
We hold Prima-Fascia evidence you've committed Fraud, Perjury, and Obstruction of Justice - High Crimes and Misdemeanors by ANY definition.
If we release them, you will be Impeached, Convicted, and driven from office in shame - going down in history as the second Clinton to be Impeached.
If elected Clinton will ALWAYS be either reacting to actual blackmail, or suspected of doing so. Either way, it will make her totally ineffective in dealing with Russian aggression.
The evidence that she committed such fraud?
Simple.
The fact that she was in possession of, and meticulously destroyed, EVERY trace of exculpatory evidence that she didn't.
Seriously, it takes about 30 seconds to "turn over email" evidence. But instead of turning over email as requested by subpoena, she invested thousands of man hours in downloading email files, converting them to .pdf documents, and then printing them. There is NO logical reason to do that unless you wanted to conceal the fact that you've edited the files.
So, there's your choice for President folks, a woman who's negligent handling of communication has made her a prime target of blackmail by unscrupulous foreign governments; or an outspoken billionaire who's committed to control immigration, improve trade deals, stop senseless wars, and has been overheard saying he grabs women by the p***y.
Doesn't seem like a tough choice.
Add a comment