Is Romney the Cure for Obama Care?

Many conservatives remain in a state of shock and disbelief after the Supreme Court decision upholding the Constitutionality of the Affordable Health Act, aka Obama Care. As these opponents to Obama Care regain their equilibrium, they begin to approach the actions which may be taken in order to revoke Obama Care and return the country to some semblance of sanity. From many directions the cry has begun to take all measures necessary to both prevent the reelection of President Obama and elect Romney to be the next President. Such a call demands we assess whether or not a Romney Presidency would actually be the cure-all which so many are now claiming. The numbers of conservatives who are new advancing Romney as the cure is surprising, especially when you remember where these people stood during the Republican primaries. Many of these same proponents for a Romney win had likely taken a number of stands through the primaries moving from one challenger to the next as each made their initial move to the head of the pack only to fall short. A change of direction and support of proportions this massive that similar transformations are rare in all of political history are not something the average person can fully grasp and recover from with ease or too quickly. So, let’s answer the question as to whether or not having Mitt Romney be elected in November will be the panacea for the United States and the Constitution that many are claiming he will be.

 

The first hint as to what the problem would be under a Romney Presidency was revealed not so much by the press conference he gave announcing his reactions and views concerning the Supreme Court upholding of Obama Care but was more evident from the sign emblazoned on the podium which read, “Repeal and Replace Obamacare.” This slogan drives one to tend to accept the “repeal” part of the sign on Obama Care while one must demand an explanation what is meant in the “replace” part of the message and also why anything needs to be replacing Obama Care once it has been repealed. There have been some prophetic comments made during his campaign since he tied up the Republican nomination in response to queries concerning Obama Care. On a number of occasions Mitt Romney has proudly proclaimed that he believes that parts of Obama Care are exemplary and deserve to be preserved. He has further commented that he would definitely keep the more popular items such as keeping adult children on their parent’s insurance through age twenty-six, outlawing refusal of insurance coverage or increasing rates for people who have preexisting conditions and that these preconditions must be covered as well as other provisions which he will reveal in time. Now, is this the solution you were seeking? Did you want to have Obama Care Lite, aka Romney Care, or did you wish for overturning the entire package? Many staunch conservatives desire the complete overturn of everything included in the thousand-plus pages of the entirety of the Affordable Care Act so as to include a number of other sundry items within the legislation which had nothing to do with healthcare or health insurance. One example was a different set of laws pertaining to various obligations and requirements in owning gold as well as some additions to the tax codes. We must insist on everything that was included in this nefarious piece of legislation be expunged from the books and hopefully history as well.

 

On a further note, even if a Romney Presidency did actually intend to eliminate every iota of the Affordable Health Act, the question remains of could he manage to push the Congress to pass the necessary legislations overturning everything. The most obvious roadblock to refuting Obama Care is the necessity for attaining the sixty votes in order to pass in the Senate. Even deeper we find that very likely some Republicans may not choose to repeal the entirety of the legislation simply for the fear of setting such a precedent. There is always the hope that an equal or greater number of Democrat Representatives and Senators would cross over and assist in the repeal since the majority of their constituents support them doing this. But the truth must be recognized that a President Mitt Romney will most definitively not repeal all of Obama Care because, as he has stated in various speeches, Romney has strong desires to retain many of the stipulations and regulation within Obama Care which he fully intends to keep or reenact should the entire legislation be overturned. That is not removing Obama Care, it is managing or massaging Obama Care. We must recall one item about Mitt Romney’s personality and style, he is not so much an innovator or inventor, he is a manager who adjusts and reorders ideas and procedures to increase efficiencies and maximize affect. This should make anybody nervous regarding his actions towards Obama Care. Fear and trembling is very much in order no matter which candidate is elected President in November as it is a choice of degree, not direction.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Middle East Boiling Over Could Grant One Promise

The changes throughout the Middle East continue as things roil over and the predictions of the press and politicians in the West slowly are revealed to be nothing but errors and misjudgments. There are a select few who are still insisting on bending, twisting, contorting, and transmuting the evidential facts emanating from the Middle East in such a manner as to make it all fit their expectations. Some of the worst offenders of truth are members of the White House and advise President Obama. Let us take a look at some of the most egregious mutations of truth being presented as fact and reality. The most amusing among these has been the persistence of the idea that Kofi Annan can bring an end to the carnage occurring in Syria through meetings held outside of Syria with panels made up of people and leaders who are not Syrian. The latest twist or turn in this saga will be a meeting in Geneva consisting of Foreign Ministers from countries of presumably powerful nations as well as some from nations who may have an interest or reside in the area surrounding Syria. While this meeting of great minds will include people representing Russia, the United States among others, it at least had the foresight and wisdom not to include Israel in the discussion. Oh, one last point; Syrian President Assad has already stated his rejection for any compromise or suggestion which may be forthcoming from this conclave.

 

Another item that would be amusing, was it not so serious a misreading of actual events and egregious misinterpretation of stated words and intentions which could only be the result of pure flights of fancy, would be Secretary of State Clinton’s view of events in Egypt. Much of this has to do with the reactions and statements made by Secretary of State Clinton as well as other members of President Obama’s staff and Cabinet. All of these mischaracterizations have to do with the newly elected Egyptian President and other election results and actions over the future for governance of Egypt. Egyptian President Morsi gave a speech celebrating his election victory and setting the tone for the future of Egypt under his leadership. Among the statements made in a relatively lengthy speech, these little nuggets were in the translations, “The Koran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader, jihad is our path and death in the name of Allah is our goal,” and “Today we can establish Sharia law because our nation will acquire well-being only with Islam and Sharia. The Muslim Brothers and the Freedom and Justice Party will be the conductors of these goals.” Secretary of State Clinton has reacted to the election and statements of President Morsi with signs of approval and expressing an expectation that future governance in Egypt will be of a liberal and agreeable nature and everything points towards a bright future for Egypt and relations between the United States and the Morsi government. Somebody must have gotten a bad translation or possibly the translation of his speech has yet to cross Madam Secretary’s desk.

 

Moving right along, we come to the futile meetings between the P5+1 and Iran over the nuclear issue. The fact that anybody still holds out hope that these negotiations will serve any purpose other than fill time in until Iran completes their efforts to place nuclear warheads upon their ballistic missiles and use them against Israel, Europe, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and/or even the United States is purely delusional. And placing the Foreign Minister of the European Union Catherine Ashton as the lead person in the negotiations was likely one of the great personnel errors of all time. Firstly, she is not a member of any of the governments of the countries represented in the negotiations. Secondly, she is a complete anti-Zionist and is enamored with the Arab and Muslim causes. Thirdly, she is another multiculturalist banner waving proponent who appears to find favor in any culture which deplores and condemns western civilization. And finally she has spoken in such glowing and admirable terms when referring to the chief Iranian negotiator that one would be forgiven if they believe that she is enamored with him much like a school girl’s crush. Yet, despite all that has occurred, the leaders of the West, President Obama in particular, still act under the perception that progress is being achieved and a solution is right around the corner. This is despite their having turned numerous similarly promising corners only to find another long stretch of dessert road to travel. Charlie Brown is more likely to finally realize that Lucy will pull the ball away just before he kicks landing him on his backside long before any of these leaders realize that Iran is Lucy playing them for Charlie Brown and Iran has an endless supply of footballs.

 

I promised at least one bright side, so here it goes. This concerns the difficulties between Israel and the Palestinians and the rest of the world. The Palestinian Authority leadership under Mahmoud Abbas has escalated their threats and posturing demanding a complete and unilateral concession on every possible issue by Israel or numerous threats will be unleashed. This past week Abbas and his associates placed the demand that Israel withdraw from all the lands liberated during the 1967 War including all of East Jerusalem including the entire Old City, establish a Palestinian State on this surrendered land with Jerusalem as the Capital, release all Palestinian prisoners from Israeli detention, and accommodate the acceptance of all the refugees resultant from the displacement of Arabs from the 1948 War into Israel with full restitution of all properties they claim and full Israeli citizenship or else the Palestinians will initiate a third Intifada. These overt threats came less than a week after Hamas and related allied terror groups fired over one-hundred-fifty rockets and mortars into southern Israel in just under one week. This included one barrage of approximately twenty rockets within one hour. Meanwhile, newly elected Egyptian President Morsi sat nodding in agreement on a stage during an introductory speech given by an Imam while he declared that the new Caliphate, the United States of Arabs would soon be founded with al-Quds (Jerusalem) as its Capital. Add in statements out of Iran and from Hezballah in Lebanon with the possibility of an attack out of Syria resulting from the unrest plaguing that nation, the belligerence that has replaced the once harmonious relations between Turkey and Israel and one inevitability arises, the probability of an armed conflict between Israel and some combination of aggressors likely including Egypt, Hamas, PRC Gaza, Palestinian Authority, al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade from Judea and Samaria, Iran in coordination with Hezballah in Lebanon, and even possibly Turkey who may demand the full support as obligated by treaty from all NATO members. Should some form of open warfare be unavoidable in the near future and Israel manage to repel the attackers, one should expect that when the fighting ends that Israel will claim as her borders the very farthest of the front lines with all the lands west of the Jordan River as a minimal start. If Israel is, Heaven forbid, forced into another war in order to continue to exist, the world should brace themselves for Israel choosing whatever favorable borders she desires from the point where her enemies accept defeat and agree to forever end their violence and desires to destroy the Jewish State or the Jewish People. There will be no more questions over Israeli right to Judea, Samaria, all of Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, even possibly up to the Litani River in Lebanon. My prayers are whatever the next conflict to break out in the Middle East, no matter who is involved and whether Israel is attacked or it is between two or more countries none of which are Israel, that the rest of the world can manage not to be dragged, pulled, coerced or forced to join the conflict. Unfortunately, if I had to make a bet, my bet would be the next conflict in the Middle East will be between Iran and the countries of the GCC, namely Saudi Arabia and the other oil kingdoms which neighbor her. That conflict could very rapidly escalate into a world consuming conflagration. That would be simply horrendous and tumultuous situation, to say the least.

 

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Supreme Court Upholds Obama Care Constitutionality

To the satisfaction of too many and the disappointment of the rest it was as pronounced as it was divisive as the Supreme Court nine Justices split five-to-four to uphold as Constitutional all four points the court was petitioned to review. These four points are:

1. Whether the “individual” mandate is constitutional.
2. Whether SCOTUS has the authority to rule on a tax law even though it hasn’t come into effect.
3. Should the individual mandate be overturned, would it be cut from the rest of the law as a separate entity or will other provisions fall with it.
4. Whether the law’s Medicaid expansion is constitutional.

There is one item in this vote that has come as a huge surprise, nay, disappointment from today’s Supreme Court decision. Justice Kennedy was seen as likely to be the deciding vote with the rest of the court split evenly at four-to-four. As it has been reported, Justice Kennedy actually ended up writing the minority opinion claiming the side opposed to the Affordable Care Act’s Constitutionality while Chief Justice Roberts joined with Justice Elena Kagan, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justice Stephen Breyer, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor who voted in favor of the Affordable Care Act’s Constitutionality. This is the Chief Justice Roberts of whom we were assured by President George W. Bush was a strict constructionist conservative who would dependably uphold a narrow interpretation of the Constitution as ably as any conservative or libertarian. Well, after today’s decision by Chief Justice Roberts, I would like to have my money back as he did not perform up to the standard under which he was presented. This is now all water under the bridge, over the dam, and now flooding the country. The only question now is, “What else will the government be allowed to insist through laws that we must purchase?”

 

Since it has now been set as precedent that the government can require as a mandate that every American citizen must purchase health insurance which must meet criteria and standards as described by the Federal Government, we are now left to anticipate the price of said insurance and what it will require from us in co-pay or other required remittance. As for what exactly this insurance must include is yet to be decided and will be the responsibility of the Secretary of Health and Human Services to decide. This will mean that with every new administration the requirements of healthcare may be changed and or modified by the next Secretary of Health and Human Services. This one fact is extremely likely to turn healthcare insurance and coverage into as significant a boondoggle as the IRS Tax Code. We can be guaranteed that almost every incoming Secretary of Health and Human Services will have their own pet requirements which they will add to the ever expanding list of coverage mandated under the Affordable Care Act. Then there will also be those items which the new President will also push to have included thus within a few decades the health insurance will be as incomprehensible as the income tax code has mutated to.

 

There is one very important and distressing inevitability resultant from today’s ruling by the Supreme Court. One of the restrictions placed on everybody’s health insurance is that it must contain a minimum of required coverage as well as other items which would be considered excessive or overly generous coverage which any insurer providing such are required to pay a penalty for providing coverage deemed as being too good. If this were the idea coming from anywhere other than the Federal Government one would find it incredulous. But wait, it gets worse. While you are allowed to retain your present coverage or whatever coverage you acquire by some set date, if after said date your coverage changes in any number of items such as coverage or inclusions among others, then you will be immediately required to take your insurance from the Federal Government provided health insurance. This begs the question of whether this would include changes to your health insurance coverage resultant from new mandates imposed by the Federal Government. Under such conditions, the rules could force changes every year until they reach a point where virtually everyone, if not everyone, would have necessitated a change in their health insurance terms and coverage. This would be an avenue by which the Federal Government could take a backdoor path forcing full Federal Government Healthcare Insurance. This would have absolutely no difference from socialized healthcare completely under the auspices of the Federal Government. Simply stated, we would then have been forced into a single-payer healthcare system under total control of the Federal Government.

 

We still need to also look deeper into exactly what might become a requirement for each and every American under the laws which will result from the permutations and mutations of the Affordable Care Act. We will eventually have, or may already have, a Secretary of Health and Human Services who believes strongly that preventive measures are absolutely necessary in order to lower the cost of healthcare which will sooner or later be the full responsibility of the Federal Government. Some of the items and stipulations which might come down the pike include forced exercise classes; regulated dietary plans should a government physician deem such was required to improve your health; maximum and minimum caloric intake for every citizen; the complete banning of unhealthy practices such as using tobacco or alcoholic beverages; legal denial of certain activities which could place a person in unnecessary risk of injury such as rock climbing, mountain climbing, riding motorcycles, climbing trees, playing many contact sports; and near countless more which is only limited by one’s imagination.

 

Then there is the last and far most insidious of likely consequences which we have observed in every country where socialized, government provided, health care has been implemented, rationing of healthcare. The reality behind this comes from the simple consequence of supply and demand, thus when the supply is not limited while the price remains constant that always results in uncontrollably high demand. For those who are covered by Government provided health insurance, they will have a set price while they will be presumably covered for all health concerns. We have already witnessed the results from such systems with the spiraling costs resultant from Medicare and Medicaid. Having worked in a major hospital for over a decade, I can relay that at some times healthcare is seriously rationed to the point of actual refusal of any life-saving measures. I have witnessed a DNR code (do not resuscitate) placed on a patient’s chart simply because the insurance coverage has run out and their care was no longer being provided. This was most often applied to elderly patients without any family members or where none were located. A DNR code simply means that no efforts are to be utilized if the patient should code, another word for die. We can fully expect that at some point, very possibly sooner than later, the government will implement some system for determining whether providing health care beyond routine procedures and items should be provided depending on criteria for each patient. Under such a system, those who have permanent ailments such as diabetes, heart problems, or any debilitating or chronic health issues would receive a lower level of overt care. Such patients very likely would be refused extensive or expensive operations or ongoing care and instead simply medicated for “discomfort” and left to nature’s course. President Obama has said as much on a few occasions. In more severe use of such criteria, those who are of advanced age or the very young would not be provided with extensive or expensive operations or ongoing care and similarly left to face a natural progression. These systems prorate the level of care tied directly to your ability to provide and contribute to the good of the society. Thus, retired or disabled citizens no longer contribute to the overall good of the society and have actually become a drain on resources, and thus are more likely to be denied extensive or expensive operations or ongoing care. The same applies to the very young, especially if the necessary treatment would not guarantee they would reach an age or level of ability to enter the workforce or otherwise be of a benefit to the society.

 

The United States of America took a definitive step towards a less caring and less civil society by this decision. What makes it all the worse is that this was enacted and presented as a compassionate and superior method of providing for the healthcare of every American, but it will soon become apparent that it is exactly the opposite. We cannot expect the mainstream media to cover any stories in the near-term which will reveal the dark side of the Affordable Care Act, but many will soon know of somebody or be that somebody with a horrific tale to tell. The Affordable Care Act will not prove to be the panacea that it was promised, instead it will very likely be a death sentence for many should it last more than a few years and most certainly should it last over one decade. Americans are about to receive the most telling and supremely expensive lesson in exactly how crass and course government really can be. One can only hope that this is quickly realized and that once a good many have been brought to their senses via the realities of denial of care which are sure to come and come soon, then they will lead the country back into sanity and the world’s best and most compassionate healthcare. It is sad, truly sad; that we will need to have this lesson taught within the United States and did not simply learn it through observation of the failure of government when given the responsibility and obligation of caring for the people.

 

Beyond the Cusp