Posts Tagged ‘government’
Now this borders on conspiracy theorist, but it does make a lot of sense.
Question: Did the government engineer the Heathcare dot gov website to purposely obscure the costs of premiums?
It might make sense, given the previous commentary from Aetna’s CEO about how the code drop only happened last month and they government would “fix it on the fly”. That level of sheer incompetence does border on the intentional – they had three years to get it done! It didn’t take other high volume websites that long to come online and meet the demand. But it certainly did for the ACA’s website.
Or maybe there were some who felt that it wasn’t going to work out anyway, so rather sink a lot of website development costs into something that people would effectively reject, they’ll just take the money and produce a pathetic product.
There’s also the thought that government web developers are so incompetent – that that’s why they’re in government – they got fired from civilian, for-profit gigs.
I don’t know. But I’m quite sure that, as not many Americans have actually signed up for ACA as ObamAd, Inc would like, not disclosing the costs of ACA to the public without signing up would not be in the best interests of the Administration. The aim is to get you to sign up, not to have you see the costs, get “sticker shock” and then walk away.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the next step was to start signing everyone up automatically.
Rush’s Commentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qV6cpyFs56M
If there is one thing I like about Amazon.com, it’s the fact that they know what is important and what isn’t. And they know how to build a system that doesn’t take years to construct, cost tens of millions of dollars to get working, and isn’t buggy as crap. Instead, they know how to take the ample time to prepare for a good system rollout.
But according to Aetna’s CEO, Mark Bertolini, code drops for the site showed up within a month before go-live. Mr. Bertolini indicated, though more diplomatically than I would, of how much that ObamAd, Inc was hell bent on getting the project launched on October 1 and that all the testing now was “on-the-fly”.
So in other words, it was more important to get it out there, rather than getting it right. That is the same madness that has driven the entire ACA in the first place. Nancy Pelosi wanted to “pass it to see what was in it” and then she wanted to “fund it before we could fix it”. Obama and the rest of the Congressional jackasses were refusing to negotiate on anything because this is “signature legislation”. It’s all about “getting the framework into place” rather than actually having a working solution.
Many of my friends are in IT, systems designers, enterprise architects, web developers and code jocks. All of the ones I’ve spoken with in my circle find the entire thing laughable. And then I bring up Amazon and it puts it into perspective, because if they were really about business, it wouldn’t nearly be this nightmarish.
Typical government idiocy.
Watch and Read it: Obamacare insurance market deeply flawed: Aetna CEO.
This past weekend, I received an upsetting letter from Humana One regarding my family’s medical insurance. I had been expecting higher premiums, but nothing had prepared me for the full effect of ACA aka Obamacare.
My family of 5 is in relatively good health. Maybe once a year one of my three children needs an antibiotic for strep or an ear infection, common things. I go to my annual exam if I particularly feel like it. My husband has a few more issues, but we pay for it out of pocket anyway because I had a high deductible plan. Basically, we are a profit for any insurance company. My husband’s employer’s insurance is a joke as it would consume nearly one of his two week paychecks for the premiums. I found our $11,900 high deductible policy on line. It worked for us. It covered the routine exams at 100 % and would keep us from losing our house if something major happened. There were no copays. Once we met our deductible, everything else was covered at 100% for the rest of the year for the whole family. The deductible might seem high to some, but paying 20% coinsurance per incident on some of those other plans out there could easily cost more and with a higher monthly premium, too.
Now back to the letter. My high deductible plan cost $431 a month, but to comply with ACA my new premium is $1003. That’s 232%. Was the ACA plan better? Oh, it covered more. It included things like abortion and maternity. I happen to be a committed wife. I’m 41 years old. My husband had a vasectomy. I will never be in the position to use these forced improvements to my policy. Also, my deductible was raised to $12,600. Then, the abortion provision began to urk me. Forcing me to pay for something that is an absolute affront to my faith is disgusting.
What is the going rate of liberty today? According to the subsidy calculator on Colorado’s health exchange site, it’s about $890 a month. Oh, I argued with the Humana One representative about whether the subsidy was a government hand out or not. If someone else’s tax money is paying for my insurance, it’s a hand out. I don’t want it. That might perplex some folks, but I don’t want it.
Last year, I studied several Supreme Court cases with my children. One sticks to mind with regards to ACA – Wyman v James. The gist of this case? If one accepts government aid, the government can enter one’s home. No thank you. I don’t want it.
My solution is fairly basic. I’m depositing the money that I would have paid to premiums into a bank account. I’ll pay for any medical expenses from it. I refuse to enroll in ACA. I called Rep. Lamborn, Sen. Udall, and Sen. Bennett to inform them of my situation. I don’t expect much from any of them. I’m telling everyone I know. The rest I trust in God. He has never let me down. Maybe this last point is what the supporters of ACA don’t understand. The government is not my God. God shall supply all my needs.
Note from the Editor: Hello folks, this post was authored by my wife and newest author and contributor to The Rabid Conservative. When you have a moment, feel free to comment and welcome her to the blog. I think I can say we’re all looking forward to hearing her perspective on things (that way, it’s not just me all the time, right?) Good first writeup, Nic)
During a press conference at the end of May, Louisiana state senator Elbert Guillory decided enough was enough and changed parties – from Democrat to Republican.
Now party jumping isn’t exactly new – it happens frequently. But the causes of this switch are what is interesting – racism among the Democrat Party. Mr. Guillory became a Democrat in 2007 but after continuously hearing all of the lame excuses about the primary reasons why ObamaCare isn’t being embraced by the population: because Obama is black. Yeah, I agree Mr. Guillory, that’s quite lame.
Mr. Guillory had these other comments that make one wonder if history is even taught in public school.
“In recent history, the Democratic Party has created the illusion that their agenda and their policies are what’s best for black people. Somehow, it has been forgotten that the Republican Party was founded in 1854 as an abolitionist movement, with one simple creed – that slavery is a violation of the rights of man,”
“Democrats, on the other hand, were the party of Jim Crow. It was the Democrats who defended the rights of slave owners.”
“At the heart of liberalism is the idea that only a great and powerful big government can be the benefactor of social justice for all Americans. But the left is only concerned with one thing: control. And they disguise this control as charity.”
It’s a startling omission how so many people today believe that the Democrat party is the party of civil rights when they, themselves, filibustered the bills that came through Congress to give blacks equal rights. I kind of wonder if blacks today have, in fact, given up their hard earned freedoms and liberties in exchange for government subsidy.
This opens a wider angle here – the one that demonstrates that freedom cannot be achieved through dependency and entitlement. We sacrifice our freedom and liberty to make our own way in the world when we call upon government to rescue us from the difficulties of life, rather than calling out to God in Heaven who is the benefactor of all good things.
Today, the black community is walking itself into slavery again – this time, being enslaved by government entitlement that keeps them from the drive that pushes people to overcome. The Democrats weep alligator tears when they see people starve. Conservatives weep when we see people lose their freedom for a handout.
The rigors of life are the mountain that gives us accomplishment, growth, strength, and courage. When we constantly carry a child around, we deprive them of the drive to stand on their own feet and learn to walk. Growth and maturity come from adversity, and the determination to overcome that adversity and not bathe in complacency.
My daughter said to me this morning, “Dad, I am having a hard time finding ways to earn money”, after asking me to buy her a notebook for her art. I told her she would have to pay me back for it, not because of my greed or “frugality”, but I want her to begin to understand that it’s okay to want things – but we must work for them. If we just get them without effort, we don’t treasure them as much.
Democrats and liberals out there, what is your freedom worth to you? Are you so hell-bent on a over-controlling government that you are willing to sacrifice freedom to get it? Seriously.
Here’s Mr. Guillory’s video for you to enjoy.
While cruising through the news, this little video surfaced from ABC News. Shot in June 2011, it illustrates a very good point with respect to our government’s dysfunction.
Watch it Here: Hosted on ABC News so I can’t embed it directly
Now, I did some additional scooping through the net about the five people that were paneled. This is what I learned about them – from left to right. I wanted to know if the people they implicitly pitch as a “random sampling” of people were actually balanced. As far as I could tell, the panel was biased liberal.
- Barbara Schauer is a member of the DC Tea Party and is noted as a fiscal conservative, but a social liberal. As the linked article indicates, she is going to feel a little jilted, no matter the company she keeps (except her little puffy doggies, that is).
- Drew Greenblatt is the president of Marlin Steel Wire Products, LLC, a Baltimore-based company that makes things out of wire, such as baskets and racks. He bought the business in 1998 and has grown it. Mr. Greenblatt has also testified on Capitol Hill regarding the concerns of small business with respect to bookkeeping regulations.
- Megan Nabavian (in the clip, it’s spelled Nabaviania), is a 30-something recruiting director with NALCO Consulting. She also graduated from the University of Maryland, College Park.
- Leslie Echols is a Business Development director for BAE Systems in DC, supporting Homeland Security. She has a Masters in Public Relations from the University of Maryland, College Park.
- Tim McBride was a major surprise. I started digging – a student of American University, Tim ran for student body president. In May 2012, McBride came out as a transgendered person – and now is known as Sarah McBride. The clip ran in June 2011, so it’s pretty old news, but for the rest of it – I’ll leave that to you. All I know is, this person surely ain’t a chick, despite what he wants to dress like.
Well, at the end of the video, we see something that we don’t see in Congress – negotiation about the issues without politics. Seriously, it’s so bad that Congress and the government as a whole is basically useless.
This is why we don’t want tax increases – people lose money that gets thrown down a very large rat-hole or in the gullet of some special interest glutton. The government needs to abide by sound financial principles such as ‘don’t spend more than you take in’.
And for the record, I think we COULD do without the nukes.
Well, it was only inevitable – the so-called 2006 mandate that ushered the Democrats into power and culminated to the 2008 win of Barack Obama has now shown that it was dismally unable to deliver on any of its misguided promises
In 2006, the GOP lost the farm, not because of a rejection of conservative ideas, but because of the liberals and moderates that have infiltrated the Republican party. The GOP showed itself not much different than the Democratic party, not because of the failure of the parties, but because both have been swayed by stupid progressive values and programs that seek to rob power from the people and give it to the all-powerful state.
Since the GOP lost its distinction as being the “party of Reagan”, the “conservative choice”, and basically reneging on the Contract With America that hoisted the GOP into power in 1994, they have recently showed that they are just as willing to spend ridiculous amounts of money on entitlements and earmark projects and do very little to protect the traditional family. They have sought to sit in the middle and try to appeal to the more moderate people in the country (which I defy anyone to show me a true moderate without showing me someone who is conflicted in their beliefs)
Well, today we’ve been informed by Rasumussen that Congress’ approval rating is about ready to fall into the single digits. More and more Americans, Democrats and Republicans are showing staunch disapproval for the job that Congress is doing. Perhaps it’s for different reasons, such as the libs railing that they couldn’t get health care passed while the conservatives look at the Congress as a cesspool for progressivism. Either way, more people are unhappy than happy these days.
I get the feeling the hammer is about to fall on Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats that remain in Congress after November 2010. Harry Reid is doomed, three others (Dodd, Bayh, and Dorgan) are jumping ship, and the Dems are looking worse and worse everyday for their respective elections.
The tide is about to change…
This just has to be one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard.
Yesterday, Michelle “First Time” Obama*, rolling out ObamAd Inc’s new initiative has unilaterally said that fat people are a threat to National Security.
“A recent study put the health care cost of obesity-related diseases at $147 billion a year, this epidemic also impacts the nation’s security, as obesity is now one of the most common disqualifiers for military service.”
What “First Time” doesn’t get is that why we have to have a military in the first place, because we have people in this world who want to bring harm to this country and the people in it. Rather than actually go after the real reason why we have National Security issues, that is, because we have terrorists smuggling bombs in their underwear, shoes, bras, or whatever, Michelle is railing on fat kids. While she mentions obesity, the Let’s Move program is aimed specifically at obese children in public schools.
There was always one fat kid in school that got picked on. Maybe his name was Billy, Timmy, or Susie. In our example, we’ll call him Jimmy.
You’d always see Jimmy walking around, with a packet of Oreos or a bag of potato chips in his grasp, feasting on high fructose corn syrupy goodness, after putting away an artery clogging, heart stopping, triple cheeseburger, with onion rings and a 44 oz. Coke.
But one thing we never thought of Jimmy – he wasn’t very threatening. When he got mad because people picked on him, he’d try to chase you, but Jimmy couldn’t run more than 20 feet before gasping for air and doubling over (like that was a sight we ever wanted to see). Jimmy would cry, go home, and drown his sorrow in a family size bag of M&M’s with a 2 liter Coke chaser before playing Nintendo for six hours straight to help him cope with his image issues.
But evidently, Michelle Obama thinks Jimmy is a threat to the security of the United States because he can’t join the military. He couldn’t scale a wall higher than three feet, but he can certainly the folks at The Pentagon a bit worried. Michelle Obama is worried about it too.
But when the aptly named “Fruit-Of-The-Kaboom” bomber attempted to blow up a plane by hiding the bomb making materials in his BVD’s, the Obamas were soaking it up in Hawai’i. But did they cut their vacation short in the face of an act (albeit failed) of terror? Not a chance. However, had George Bush pulled something like that, he’d be read the riot act by the liberals in Congress.
Perhaps the only thing stupider than all this, and this is quite a reach, is the Harrisonburg Police Department bringing felony charges against two, 21 year olds, for throwing snowballs at cars. Evidently, the actual charge is that they are “throwing missiles” (unlawful shoot/throw)
Well, that’s it then. Fat Jimmy is a threat to national security. Lob a snowball at him.
Just when liberals reach their maximum levels of stupidity, they find a way to push the envelope of the ridiculous.
* Quoting Michelle Obama: “For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of this country.”, which is just as amusing that she’s the First Lady. Magnus the Dog tells me he likes the nickname.
So, because people don’t agree, Progressives opt to use the power of government to force their will on the people, even if they don’t want it. This is the reason why the health care bill is still being pushed forward, even though every opinion poll out there shows a majority of Americans simply don’t want ObamaCare.
Did you ever see this movie? The context is that a masked character wearing a Guy Fawkes mask, depicted here, launches a single assault on a dictatorial government in Britain, one created as the result of people giving silent consent to a charismatic figure who made lofty promises of peace and security, will removing from it the ideals of freedom. The story was edgy and gutsy. The characters were believable and the ending pretty poetic. I could have done without the one girl-girl kissing scene, however.
Anyway, I was trolling through the net this morning and, after looking at quotes, I saw one that reminds me of the perspective of what government should be, “People should not be afraid of their governments, Governments should be afraid of their people.” I, then, happened on this quote by Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times:
There are ideas in this film. The most pointed is V’s belief: "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people." I am not sure V has it right; surely in the ideal state governments and their people should exist happily together. Fear in either direction must lead to violence. But V has a totalitarian state to overthrow, and only a year to do it in, and we watch as he improvises a revolution.
While I have great respect for Roger Ebert’s take on movies, having watched him back on WGN-9 Chicago (before they went cable), I find his position on this point to be part of what is wrong with how America relates to its government. Yes I know this movie has been out there for a while and what Ebert said has a great deal of time between it and now, but it’s still a perfect teaching moment.
Ebert first says, “surely in the ideal state governments and their people should exist happily together”; he has two things wrong in this statement. First, the people are not the possessive of the government; it is the other way around. People possess THEIR government. The minute we start thinking that the people are owned, controlled, or managed by their government, we create a state that is very different than the one the Founders envisioned. Today’s Progressive moment likes to think, in their sheer arrogance, that people are the ward of the government. This is an absolute distinction from this writer’s point of view. Second, it is naiveté to think that people and government exist happily together. Thomas Paine said in Common Sense, “Government at best is a necessary evil, at worst, is an intolerable one”. Either way, it is not cynicism to consider that government itself is evil. The minute we begin to think in this idyllic fantasy that people and government live in some sort of ‘kum-bay-ah’ harmony, we are turning ripe for the conquering and subjugating.
God’s original intent was for people to govern themselves and the primary unit for humanity’s management was the family, not some elected, appointed, or nobility-born external body, designed to regulate the affairs of people. The Founders understood this clearly because they believed in the utmost respect for individuals and their families. Progressives today simply push for more government because individualized self-governance means that people won’t always comply with Progressive dogma. So, because people don’t agree, Progressives opt to use the power of government to force their will on the people, even if they don’t want it.
This is the reason why the health care bill is still being pushed forward, even though every opinion poll out there shows a majority of Americans simply don’t want ObamaCare.
Ebert then goes on to make the statement, “Fear in either direction must lead to violence”. This is not necessarily true, and it’s not true generally. Fear doesn’t always produce violence, but rather, as the Bible correctly states, fear, specifically of the Lord, produces wisdom. Fear of disciplinary action keeps students in school from becoming delinquent twits. Fear of legal punishment keeps people from breaking the law (why else does a person slow down in an area where they know the police are monitoring for speeders?). Fear from constituents keeps the government from getting so out of hand that its citizens don’t begin expressing anger at the ballot box. Fear doesn’t always produce violence; I’m not saying it doesn’t, just not always.
Government exists at the pleasure of God and the people (even when God and the people disagree) and has risen and fallen when either has mandated for a change. This is the reason why the best forms of government are those that are “of the People, by the People, and for the People”. Governments that are not of/by/for the People have great reason to fear, because if the people, in unified consent, decide to remove their government, they’re toast.
Freedom forever, my friends.
I began reading this little ditty on Breitbart and as I got through the headline, I began to say, “oh boy, the Witch in the Ditch is at it again”.
I’ve never been a big fan of Cindy Sheehan and think that she just continues to dishonor the memory of her son, Casey’s, service to the country by using his name to continue protesting Americas overseas combat efforts. The thing that bugs me about it is the fact that Casey Sheehan is dead, having died in the line of duty. When he took the oath, he must have realized that a potential eventuality of his service in the military would cost him his life. We hope that never happens to our soldiers and sailors, but whenever a young man or woman takes the oath, they are pledging their lives to the safety and security of the country, to follow the orders of the President, and to do his/her duty with honor and loyalty. I’m sure Casey knew this. However, his mother, in a means to cope with the loss, has made this anti-war effort in Casey’s name her whole life. But we often wonder if Casey would actually agree with his mother’s rallying cause.
That’s not the subject of my post here. My real point is what she said:
"We have to realize, it is not the president who is power, it is not the party that is in power it is the system that stays the same, no matter who is in charge."
With this one point, I cannot agree more. While she was upset at the fact that Barack Obama campaigned on the promise of making positive steps to pull the troops out of Iraq, the thing is, the war effort hasn’t changed, probably because Obama has learned more about the effort as President than the more flippantly ignorant comments from the campaign trail.
But what Cindy says narrowly, I echo generally. The big problem with our country today is that nothing changes in Washington. Obama and McCain both campaigned (arrogantly I might add) about how, by electing them, they would be able to change the tone in Washington. The thing is, the tone in Washington cannot be changed by anyone in Washington. We can have the Democrats in power, the GOP in power, it doesn’t really matter – as long as the “system”, or the “establishment” is in place, things just don’t change.
So what is the “establishment”? It’s primarily made up of career politicians who believe it is their right to be in office; it’s their destiny so to speak. It’s lackeys and interns that follow politicians around like star-struck groupies in order to
I’ve been reading through the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence again here recently and one thing that I found pretty amusing was the constitutional mandate (Article I, Section IV) that Congress must assemble at least once per year. I wonder if the Framers foresaw that government would become so involved in the lives of people that Congress would have to meet constantly. Congress, in the beginning was meant to be a part time gig and that the politicians would actually have real jobs outside of the political world.
Thing is, because We the People have allowed government to grow exorbitantly, politics becomes a more than full time job. We have to have politicians and staff, support people, secretaries, under-secretaries, assistants, czars, assistants to the czars, analysts, managers, experts and the list keeps just going on and on. And the one thing that we never get to see is a reduction in government, because once we add to the government, it never goes away. It’s the proverbial band-aid fix after band-aid fix, but we dare not actually fix the problem otherwise, some bureaucrat loses his purpose to governmentally exist.
I know that’s a generalizing statement, but let’s face it…if we actually reduced government, put mandatory sunsets on programs, put term limits on members of Congress, and stopped dolling out money to every little issue in America, perhaps we’d actually hear that new tone in Washington.
So, for one small point, Cindy and I agree. Better check the temp in sheol, it might be getting bit drafty.