Quote

People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Monday, March 26, 2012

Roanoke Times: The Choice Is Clear

[edited 02.27.12] With regard to the looming debate before the Supreme Court on ObamaCare, the editorialists at the Roanoke Times invite you to entertain two alternative constructs.  (1) Obama's Affordable Care Act, draconian mandates and all, will be upheld and our health care delivery system will forever be controlled by the United States government.  Or (2) Obama's Affordable Care Act (which is quickly proving to be everything BUT affordable) will be declared unconstitutional and we'll have nationalized health care, a system that will forever be controlled by the United States government.

See "If the [Affordable Care Act's] market approach to reform falls before the current court, national health care will become the viable, and necessary, alternative."

You'll either have nationalized health care or nationalized health care.

Gee.

Are those my only choices?

A smart person might wonder, since history is showing us that, as government (federal and state) has intruded more and more into the health care business over the last six decades, the system has become completely unwieldy and costs have skyrocketed, if maybe the whole government intrusion notion might be a bad one from the gitgo.

But not to those who see government as the solution to all the nation's problems (that government either created or exacerbated).  (I'm inclined to bring up the nation's 10,000 gun control laws.  Some asshole in Chardon, Ohio breaks a host of existing laws and shoots four students there and what do we need?  That 10,001st law!)

Here's the way clear-thinking people see it: Government has caused the health care cost problem.  More government has caused the price of health care to go up.  More government will cause the price to skyrocket and will cause the quality of care to decline.

Nationalized health care or nationalized health care?

Either will produce what we already have, only more.

How about an alternative that might actually work?  Something the not-so-smart people at the Times - on a different subject - are really big on: CHOICE.

How about we get government out of our shorts (sound familiar, Times editorial team?) and let We the People decide for ourselves how we wish to protect ourselves and our families when it comes to health care coverage?

Rather than a government requirement that everyone pay (an arm and a leg ...) for coverage, how about we allow insurance companies to offer a menu of services to prospective customers?  (Want total and complete health care coverage, cradle to grave?  Get out your checkbook, baby.  Under thirty-five, single, and male?  Why do you want to waste your money on any coverage again?)

But no.

Our choices will be dictated to us by a bureaucrat in Washington who is heavily influenced by a politician in Washington who is heavily influenced by a lobbyist in Washington.  Still.  More so.  Lots more so.

What is that definition of insanity again?

Memo to the Roanoke Times editorial page: For people who believe with all their hearts in CHOICE, you sure don't act like it in any circumstance, save one.


News From Half a Century Ago ...

... finally hits the front page of the New York Times:

Catholic Church Deals With a Diminished Role in Cuban Life

Someone must not have told them about Castro's communist, anti-church overthrow of the Batista government there.

In 1959.

Time had this story covered in August of 1960:

"CUBA: Castro v. the Church."

In the case of the Times, better late than never?

Why You Should Be Concerned About ObamaCare

The reasons are many.  The concerns growing.  Why, if it is not killed, it will have a profound effect on your life:




"If the government can force you to do something simply because you exist and draw breath, then the American experiment in limited government is over and done with."

The Supreme Court will soon decide whether we are slaves to the government or the government is beholden to We the People.

I have grave doubts as to how it will rule ...

'The Hunger Games.' Welcome To America.

I haven't seen the movie.  Though I will, some day, thanks to Netflix.  But I'm half way through the book.  (A tedious endeavor, I may finish it).

One thing that struck me as I was reading was this: the background theme in "The Hunger Games" is awfully familiar.  The plot, as outlined here, is thus:
It is written in the voice of sixteen-year-old Katniss Everdeen, who lives in a post-apocalyptic world in the country of Panem where the countries of North America once existed. The Capitol, a highly advanced metropolis, holds absolute power over the rest of the nation. The Hunger Games are an annual event in which one boy and one girl aged 12 to 18 from each of the 12 districts surrounding the Capitol are selected by lottery to compete in a televised battle in which only one person can survive.
The "Capitol" in the book is in today's Colorado.  The "12 districts" are made up of the former states - and Canada, one presumes.

What's striking is this: Life in the districts is primitive and geared toward bare subsistence, while the living standard in  "the Capitol" is extravagant beyond anyone's dreams.  Humans in the districts work to support the fortunate few in the seat of the nation's power.  Capitol residents accept their way of life as being their privileged right, and they look down upon the residents on the outside as being lesser citizens kept alive only for the purpose of sustaining the elite few.

It's a stretch but ... sound familiar?

See "A new survey finds 10 of the 15 wealthiest counties in America are in the Washington D.C. area."

See "Government. Big, oppressive, evil government is what smacks you in the face throughout the film "Hunger Games."

Yes, it does.  It smacks you in the face.

Because, as Washington gets more powerful by the day, and as its citizens grow more wealthy, and arrogant, and demanding, residents out here in "the districts" become ever poorer.  And to hear Obama and his ilk tell it, life is good.

Well, yes it is.

For some.

But for the teeming masses, seeing a fortunate few profit off the labors of the many, with no hope in sight for those who sustain the lavish lifestyle of those who have become accustomed to riches, resentment festers.  Distrust abounds.  Resistance grows.

Hail the Tea Party.

Read the book (and if the movie holds true to it, see the  movie).  Tell me if you are struck by its theme.

We are players in "The Hunger Games."

How Do You Kill This Thing?

Remember the story about that mythical beast called the Hydra?  It was the monster that had heads that, when cut off, would not only grow back but would grow two to replace each one severed.  Thankfully for the human race, in one of his "Twelve Labors," Hercules finally figured out a way to kill the creature.  And he did.

If only Hercules were around today.

The Hydra is loose upon the land.

Growing new heads each time one is lopped off.

Growing ever more powerful with each passing day.

It's name?

The Global Warming movement.

Which, when it lost its head, became the Climate Change movement.

Which, now that it has lost all credibility, along with its head, has grown back and is being called the "Sustainability" movement.

And it's coming to devour you:
Upcoming United Nations Summit Repackages Global Warming Agenda Under the Guise of “Sustainability”
By Kevin Mooney, NetRightDaily

Suddenly the concept of “sustainability” is very much in vogue in the run-up to yet another United Nations climate conference scheduled for June.

Throughout American history, land use questions fell into purview of localities. This has changed in the past few decades as federal agencies have greatly expanded their reach. The idea now is for trans-nationalists within the United Nations operating in cooperation with U.S. federal agencies to seize control away from American property owners.

The overarching concept of sustainability was first outlined in UN Agenda 21, which was adapted during the Rio de Janeiro conference in 1992.

This coming June, twenty years after the 1992 UN conference, Rio de Janeiro will again host thousands of UN delegates and activists who will come together over the issue of global warming. However, the participants at the “United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development” (informally called “Rio + 20”) will be couching their alarmist concerns in the vocabulary of sustainability.

The change in terminology is significant, and it was signaled by none other than President Obama. After his party took a beating in the 2010 mid-term elections, Obama told reporters, “There’s more than one way to skin the cat.”

In a revealing interview with Reuters, Ambassador Andre Correa do Lago, Brazil’s top negotiator at the Rio+20 conference, has admitted that it is easier to promote environmentalist policies under the banner of sustainability.

“Climate change is an issue that has very strong resistance from sectors that are going to be substantially altered, like the oil industry,” do Lago said. “Sustainable development is something that is as simple as looking at how we would like to be in 10 or 20 years.” [link]
Global warming. It's back. And has a new head.

And a new name.

Sustainability.

And it's coming for your hard-earned income.

Where, oh where, is Hercules when we need him?

He Must Be a Democrat

The mayor of a northeast American city with the Highest Per-Capita Murder Rate In the U.S. is telling the police department in a small city in Florida it needs to do something to solve its problem with ...

... murder.

See "Trayvon Martin shooting 'an assassination,' Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter says."

Criticism, you see, is so much easier than actually doing something to solve problems.

Mayor Nutter is a Democrat.

But you already guessed that.