This Week at African American Conservatives:
Join us on our weekly Blog Talk Radio show!
One of the most fascinating conundrums in American politics today is why the Conservative movement – so dominated as it is by Jewish intellectuals and thought – is so routinely rejected by the Jewish population as a whole.
After all, the Conservative movement has been long been driven by Jewish intellectuals. Who is more respected in Conservatism than Charles Krauthammer or Mark Levin, for example? It can be argued that Jews – either in government or in punditry – are the intelligentsia of Conservatism, as the success of William Kristol, Johan Goldberg, Richard Perle, David Horowitz, and others on the editorial staffs of the Weekly Standard, National Review, and the Wall Street Journal, can attest to.
However, the preponderance of Jewish thought in Conservatism has not translated into Jewish support in the electorate. Jews gave Barack Obama – who was associated with such obvious anti-Semites /anti-Zionists as Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Khalid Al Mansour – 78% of the vote, against a Republican who had a record of strong support for Israel, and antipathy towards Iran. One would think Mr. Bush and his policies would resonate well with Jewish Americans, as well as his close alliance with Senator Liebermann.
It is a puzzle that Norman Podhoretz, one of the most prominent Jewish conservatives, attempts to explain in his book, Why Are Jews Liberals? Podhoretz does so by examining the history of the Jewish people, and anti-Semitism from the dawn of the New Testament to today, generally painting a picture that it was common Jewish perception, rightly or wrongly, that those on the Left were more tolerant of the Jews, than those on the Right.
Podhoretz illustrates this meme by creating a timeline from the ‘enlightened despots’ from early European history to the American presidencies of the last century. Podhoretz focuses strongly on FDR and the Great Depression, in which many of Roosevelt’s initiatives were dismissed by the Right in anti-Semitic terms:
What else were Jews to conclude from all this than that their most rabid enemies were still, and as always, to be found among Christians-Protestant and Catholic alike-and that the religious anti-Semites were, moreover, still in at least a de facto alliance with the anti-Semites on the secular political Right? Conversely, how could Jews fail to conclude that casting their lot with Roosevelt was in their best interests, when the “Jew Deal” had become the prime target of anti-Semitic agitation?
The popularity of FDR because of his New Deal initiatives during a time of great economic hardship for Jews, as well as for his role in the defeat of Hitler, carries over to today (in much the same way that LBJ’s work towards civil rights is a great factor in explaining why African-Americans today are nearly unanimously Democratic voters.)
Podhoretz goes on to argue, however, that there was a “reversal of roles between Left and Right on issues of Jewish interest,” especially in the aftermath of the 1967 Six-Day War. From that point forward, the Left’s anti-Semitism became increasingly evident, usually disguised as criticism of Israel. Adding to this, of course, was the even more blatant anti-Semitism of the so-called Black Power Movement of the same period, which was born during the same era, due, in large degree, to “the canard [circulated by the Left] that the legitimate demands of oppressed Blacks were being blocked by a gang of racist Jews”.
Podhoretz concludes by arguing that Liberalism was replacing Judaism among Jews. He writes “that what [the Jews] were doing was converting to a new religion in which Marx’s Capital became an ‘a new kind of Torah’. To this new ‘Torah’ they grew as stubbornly attached-both out of conviction and as a matter of honor-as their fathers and grandfathers has been to the Torah of Judaism itself”
Most puzzling to me, as a non-Jew, is the premise that the Right – despite its clear history of anti-Semitism – was ever perceived as any more anti-Semitic than the Left, which I would argue had an equally clear history of anti-Semitism long before 1967. After all, was there anyone on the Right as clearly anti-Semitic as Hitler (whom Podhoretz argues was of the Right – an assertion I soundly reject) or Karl Marx, who attacked his foes with phrases like “dirty Jews” or “niggerlike Jews?” And was not the KKK – who tortured Jews as well as Blacks – Democrats? In fact, I believe that because the Left is by its nature anti-capitalistic, and because Jews have long been burdened with the stereotype of being the “money-lenders,” or the personification of the demonizations the Left puts upon capitalism and capitalists, that anti-Semitism has always been endemic to the Left.
I do not feel that Podhoretz fully addresses the problems of pre-1967 anti-Semitism on the Left. However, neither does the American Jewish population, as a whole; just as they do not address the problems of post-1967 anti-Semitism. There does seem to be a disconnect between Jewish perception of the Right and reality. And judging by President Obama’s approval rating among Jews, which currently stands at 64%, this disconnect and its corresponding allegiance to the Left, shows no sign of abating.
–DK
Check out our newest podcast, hot off the presses from last night’s upsets in VA and NJ!
It should come as no surprise to anyone that the Obama Administration does not like Fox News. Why would it? Fox 
has aired more anti-Obama commentary and negative news reporting — and probably exponentially so — than every other network combined. Two of the three biggest stars and loudest voices on Fox – Hannity and Beck – have both been relentless in their attacks on Obama; one calling him a “socialist” and the other even calling him a “racist” at one point. Even its news anchors have a reputation of asking questions laced with conservative criticisms, especially in comparison to questions that would be asked by, say, a NY Times reporter. So, I cannot be too critical of Obama for not wanting to be friendly with them. No president, Republican or Democrat, would eagerly embrace any organization that appears so openly hostile to his or her agenda.
I am critical, however, of some of the recent declarations against Fox that it is not, because of its bias, “a legitimate news source”, and therefore unworthy of being treated as such. Granting, for the sake of argument, that Fox does, indeed, have a right-wing bias, and is not “fair and balanced” as it proclaims itself to be, such a bias should not dismiss it as a legitimate news source. Fox may make errors, as does every other news organization, and may downplay or omit certain stories that do not support its philosophy, as does every other news organization, but no one could rightfully argue that Fox fictionalizes its news a lá the Weekly World News. If it did, it would be easily dismissible and not subject to the level of consternation it has received from those who oppose it.
What news organization does not have some sort of bias in its reporting? CNN? Newsweek? MSNBC, maybe? The New York Times is regarded as a legitimate news organization, yet it has by its own admission, quashed coverage of the corrupt, and possibly illegal, connection between ACORN and the Obama campaign. The standard for being a legitimate news organization should be whether it reports news honestly, and accurately, regardless of what bias it displays. A news outlet does not have to fill its airwaves with reporters who feel a thrill run up their legs, or openly weep with joy at the election of President Obama, to meet that standard. Fox’s critics should be hesitant to throw such stones, due to the glass houses in which they, themselves, live.
It is then false for the Obama Administration to declare Fox as illegitimate. It is also suicidal for the American people to allow them to do so. Recent observations of governments declaring what is, and what is not, “legitimate” all point to the potential dangers to free speech that follow. In Russia, for example, the press, according to the Washington Post, “is a handpicked group of reporters, most of whom work for the state and the rest selected for their fidelity to the Kremlin’s rules of the game. Helpful questions are often planted. Unwelcome questions are not allowed. And anyone who gets out of line can get out of the pool.” Similarly, during a recent pool interview with Pay Czar Feinberg, the White House attempted to declare that all but Fox could have the right to ask questions of him. And this administration seems to make far more frequent use of the ‘planted helpful question’ than most administrations in the past. Is this what we want for our country? Kremlin-style journalism? Or take Venezuela, where Hugo Chavez recently began closing radio stations for failing to be in compliance with that country’s version of the Fairness Doctrine. If we allow government to attack private news organizations in such a way, how long before news organizations generally uncritical, but perhaps not uncritical enough of Obama, or news organizations who are critical of Obama from the Left instead of from the Right, such as those who oppose his position on Afghanistan or gay marriage, become subject to the same treatment?
Yet there are some outside of the Obama White House who are so sympathetic to the White House that they support Obama’s attack on a news organization simply because that news organization does not share in their support of the White House, regardless of the potential consequences of such an attack. One, Jacob Weisberg, writing in Newsweek, even declared Fox News “un-American,” not for trading with the terror-sponsoring Iran, like MSNBC’s parent company GE, but for its anti-Obama bias. Such a charge is stunning in its ignorance of both American history, and the relationship American presidents have always had with the press. It is almost as if Mr. Weisberg thinks attacking the president in the press is a new thing. Look at the criticism our two greatest presidents have had to endure during their administration, which, by the way, make the criticism thrown at President Obama seem relatively mild.
As the blog Mr. Snitch once wrote, “Lincoln was called just about every name imaginable in the press of his day, including: A ‘grotesque baboon’, a ‘third-rate country lawyer who once split rails and now splits the Union’, a ‘coarse, vulgar joker’, a dictator, an ape, and a buffoon. The Illinois State Register [published in his adopted home state] labeled him “the craftiest and most dishonest politician that ever disgraced an [American political] office.” Highly regarded 18th century journalist Benjamin Franklin Bache wrote, as reported in infoplease.com, that George Washington was “treacherous,” “mischievous,” “inefficient;” and complained that his “farce of disinterestedness,” his “stately journeyings through the American continent in search of personal incense,” his “ostentatious professions of piety,” his “pusillanimous neglect,” his “little passions,” his “ingratitude,” his “want of merit,” his “insignificance,” and his “spurious fame.”
Clearly then, criticism of presidents by journalists have been a part of American history since our country’s inception. Although journalists have been punished, here and there, for their attacks, history has also shown us that the general consensus is that attacks on the President are endurable by the nation, and by the president. Further, that the consequence of attempting the alternative of suppressing the voice of the press is far worse. A journalist attacking the president is not “un-American.” A president attempting to suppress the journalist’s right to do so, clearly, is.
So, then, why is Obama doing it? At first blush, the attacks on Fox seem to be Chicago-style retribution on a critic. However, a further look reveals that there is much more to it than that. It is not Fox News’ right-wing commentary, or slant on the news that bothers Obama so much. It is Fox’s actual news reporting that has made it such an enemy to the White House.
Obama,, in my opinion could not care less about a Beck or Hannity screaming in front of the camera about what an awful president he is. He surely knows that this comes with the territory. He will have supporters, and he will have detractors, the same as any president. However, along with their commentary, Beck and Hannity have an annoying habit of supporting their arguments with actual facts and news reporting. It is Fox News’ reporting – not its commentary – that revealed that Van Jones is a communist, that Anita Dunn is a Maoist, that Kevin Jennings is a NAMBLA-sympathizer, that Mark Lloyd is an Hugo Chavez admirer, and so on. It is Fox News’ reporting – with the help of that infamous pimp video shown repeatedly – that revealed that ACORN is a criminal enterprise. It is not how their commentators feel about the Obama Administration; it is how Fox News’ reporting is affecting how the American public is feeling about the Obama Administration.
The tipping point for the Obama Administration came in a September 26, 2009 column by New York Times ombudsman, Clark Hoyt, called “Tuning In Too Late” in which he wrote, “Jill Abramson, the Managing Editor for news, agreed with me that the paper was “slow off the mark,” and blamed “insufficient tuned-in-ness to the issues that are dominating Fox News and talk radio.” She and Bill Keller, the Executive Editor, said last week that they would now assign an editor to monitor opinion media and brief them frequently on bubbling controversies.” The Obama White House’s heart must have stopped when these words were read, because it meant the controversies surrounding them would no longer be confined to Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, conservative blogs, or books written by Michelle Malkin. Soon, stories such as the Van Jones story, would no longer be marginalized but rather become part of the mainstream press. It is one thing for Beck to speak about Obama’s ties to ACORN, the SEIU, Soros, and other left-wing organizations. It is quite another for these stories to be on the cover of Time magazine. Heck, even Newsweek mentioned acorn once. True, they were talking about the kind that fell from trees, but still…close enough!
It is this fear of mainstream exposure that compelled David Axelrod to go on television and say to ABC that Fox News is “not really news … [and]… other news organizations, like yours, ought not to treat them that way”. After all, Axelrod must have been thinking, who wants Fox, with its impressive history of revealing too many things that the Obama White House does not want to be revealed, getting treated like a the legitimate news organization that it is?
–DK
Anita MonCrief is the courageous woman who came forward to expose the corruption at ACORN. She paved the way for James O’Keefe & Hannah Giles, and others who are now coming forward with their tales regarding this organization.
However, Anita’s courage incurred the wrath of ACORN, and she is being sued for her statements. Today, Anita unveiled her Legal Defense Fund: Fight For Anita. The site offers a newsletter, banners and graphics to place on your website or blog, as well as specific ways to get involved, the primary way, of course, being to donate to the cause yourself!
Please place this information on your blog and/or Facebook page. On Twitter, please tweet, re-tweet and use hashtag #FightForAnita.
We must help preserve our First Amendment right to free speech, as well as the integrity of the process by which individuals with information about alleged corruption may come forward for the greater good. Fight For Anita!
It is hard to measure the impact Michelle Malkin has had on the world of Internet political investigative journalism. She is not only the founder of her own site, michellemalkin.com, as well as the invaluable hotair.com site, but she has also been the inspiration of countless of other political sites. It is difficult to imagine that there would be a Newsmax, or a Smart Girl Politics, or even an African-American Conservatives, without the trailblazing of Ms. Malkin. She is to political blogging what Rush Limbaugh is to talk radio, and what William F. Buckley is to punditry. We are all in her debt.
Malkin continues to demonstrate her gift of investigative journalism with an exhaustively researched Culture of Corruption, in which she juxtaposes the “Hope and Change” message of President Obama with his actions and the actions of those he has chosen to surround himself with as president.
On czars she writes: “Moreover, in a grand end-run around the public confirmation process, President Obama created a “historic” and “unprecedented” number of “czar” appointments through executive orders – essentially creating a shadow cabinet of secretaries overseeing every aspect of domestic policy with unchecked powers beyond congressional reach.”
On Biden she illustrates how “while Biden boasts of being on the Senate’s least wealthy members, he has profited mightily from the perks of entrenched incumbency – earmarks, sweetheart real estate deals, and lucrative positions for his children.”
Even Michelle Obama is exposed for being a hypocrite, as someone who profited well from the Chicago patronage culture, compassionless health care system, and “the evil lure of corporate America” that she so condemns in her public speeches.
Malkin also brings to light the troubling history of Eric Holder, the SEIU, ACORN, the Clintons, and many other figures in the Obama Universe – both major and minor.
I would have liked to have seen more attention paid to both Valerie Jarrett and George Soros, who, as Obama’s most trusted advisor, and primary source of funds, respectively, deserve much more scrutiny than received in this book. Perhaps this will be forthcoming it later editions. Michelle Malkin makes clear in the interview she granted to our site that she considers Culture of Corruption to be a work in progress.
Others might have liked to have seen more of a right-wing attack on Obama. But I don’t see this as a “Conservative” book per se. True, there are numerous examples of Ms. Malkin wearing her conservatism on her sleeve throughout the book; but at heart she is not a Conservative pundit, philosopher, nor a political partisan. She is not Mark Levin railing against the statists or Ann Coulter explaining how if Democrats had brains, they’d be Republicans.
At heart, Michelle Malkin is a reporter, reporting what the mainstream media often will not. She lays out the facts for the reader; leaving it up to us to draw our own conclusions as to what significance this culture of corruption has on the country, and on our own lives.
–DK
The most ironic and frustrating aspect of health care reform is the controversy surrounding it. On the face of it, health care reform should be easy. Every American believes in health care reform. Each of us could benefit from it. All of us want it. Yet the proposals put forth by this government have set off the most heated debate since the worst point of the Iraqi War.
It is remarkable that attempting to resolve a problem that Americans want resolved should produce such rancor. And yet it has, and it is because Americans know instinctively that the solutions proposed do not treat the problem, which we agree should be treated, and know should be easily treatable, but rather create worse problems. The majority of us, despite our desire for healthcare reform, see what is coming out of Washington as something that should be facing a death panel.
One does not have to be an expert on health insurance, economics, or government to realize this. One does not need a medical degree to know that when a patient goes to see a doctor with a bloody nose, and the doctor proposes leg amputation, something is wrong. And this is where we find ourselves now. Government is like the doctor in the example used by our president, who described how patients with sore throats are getting tonsillectomies because the doctor has an ulterior motive. Instead of treating the sore throat, we find ourselves being prepped for surgery which may bankrupt us and may not treat our problem. Instead of treating the problems of our current health care system, which are availability and affordability, we are finding ourselves being offered a mandatory, government-run health insurance system.
We know such a draconian solution is not necessary. We know, for example, that despite the screaming of the liberal politicians, the health care system is not “broken.” Most of us are insured and relatively happy with our insurance. Furthermore, we know our health care is the best, or among the best, in the world. We have the best doctors, we have the best hospitals, we have the best drugs and the best medical equipment, and, as a result, as the CDC just reported, our life expectancy continues to climb to all-time highs.
So, then, our health care system does not require surgery. It does not have to be decimated, but rather tweaked. Below are five very simple solutions, all of which are already on the table, which could easily increase availability and affordability, which is all we really want.
1. Allow national portability in buying health insurance: If I needed a mortgage, and I was limited to New Jersey banks, the best offer I may be able to find is a rate of 10%. If I was as restricted in obtaining a mortgage as I am in buying health insurance, I would have to take the 10% rate. Instead I can go on the Internet and find a much better rate. Perhaps there is a bank in Wyoming that would be willing to offer me a rate of 5%. Not only would that save me money, it would eventually force the banks of my state to offer a more competitive rate. Yet our Congress, even those who say that we need a government-option because, despite there being over 1,300 health insurance providers in this country, there is not enough competition in the health insurance market because some in certain areas may only have access to one or two, finding themselves limited to an uncompetitive rate, do not want to make national portability available to us.
2. Institute tort reform: Critics of tort reform argue that medical malpractice damage awards are only one or two percent of what Americans spend on healthcare, but given that Americans spend $2.5 trillion a year on health costs, one or two percent is a significant number. Furthermore, in order to protect themselves from those medical malpractice damage awards, doctors must buy very expensive medical malpractice insurance. This restricts the number of doctors available (especially considering how many doctors relocate from high insurance rate states and avoid specialties like obstetrics that have a higher malpractice insurance premium), restricts the number of services doctors offer, and results in many expensive tests performed on us for no other reason than to protect the doctor from malpractice liability. Also, some economists estimate that the high cost of malpractice insurance – as much as $200,000 a year in premiums, depending on the doctor’s specialty and location – gets passed on to the patient. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, an economist and senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, estimates that “an average of ten cents out of every dollar you pay goes to the malpractice insurance doctors must have to protect themselves in case a patient sues them.” Again, considering that we spend $2.5 trillion of annually on healthcare, “ten cents out of every dollar,” is a very significant amount of money.
3. Fight medical fraud: The National Health Care Anti-Fraud Association estimates that the cost of fraudulent and overpriced claims may be as much as $240 billion in 2008 alone. Other reports say the cost of medical fraud ranges anywhere from $60 billion a year to $600 billion a year. Unfortunately, much of the FBI taskforce created to fight medical fraud has been taken off that mission to engage in anti-terrorism activity. We clearly need more resources dedicated to fighting fraud, yet year after year something gets proposed – this year for example President Obama proposed a Department of Justice/Health and Human Services taskforce to fight fraud – and year after year, nothing gets done.
4. Require all Americans to have some form of health insurance: According to the Congressional Budget Office, “Most of the uninsured are young and in good health … roughly 60% are under the age of 35, and fully 86% report that they are in good or excellent health.” According to a study by Mark Pauly of the University of Pennsylvania and Kate Bundorf of Stanford, “nearly three-quarters of the uninsured could afford coverage but chose not to purchase it.”
These people, who are either too cheap, or feeling too invulnerable because of their youth, are hurting us in two ways. One is because the larger the pool of insured an insurance company has, the lower their risks will be and the lower they can charge for premiums. Secondly, when one of these people do get sick or get into an accident, they must seek emergency room treatment, which transfers an enormous cost to us the taxpayer. According to the California Health Care Association, “Providing uncompensated care to the 7 million uninsured Californians only adds to the relentless and increasing financial pressures on hospitals. In 2003 alone, California hospitals provided more than $5 billion in uncompensated care (adjusted for cost) to low-income and uninsured patients.” This cost gets passed on to the rest of us in the form of higher insurance premiums, as well as giving us access to fewer emergency rooms (as many who are unable to continue to shoulder these costs simply close) and more crowded emergency rooms which results in us having longer waits for and a lower quality of emergency room medical treatment.
I would also require insurance companies to accept those of us with preexisting conditions. Of course this will be a tremendous short-term burden for insurance companies, but it is short-term, and it will be offset by the benefit of having millions of people being forced to buy insurance. Furthermore, if the government is going to mandate XYZ Insurance Company to provide insurance to someone with, say, terminal cancer, then XYZ should be compensated in the form of a tax credit to do so.
5. Encourage the creation of Health Savings Accounts for those who have been means tested and found to be unable to afford health insurance: Let’s say we take the 47 million we are told we are leaving uninsured, and subtract from that the number who are either not citizens or could afford health insurance – that leaves us with 20 million people (out of a nation of 300 million) who cannot afford health insurance. Let’s estimate that the average cost of health insurance is about $4,000 a year, which is high as an estimate, but let’s go with this. Therefore, creating these health saving accounts will cost the taxpayer about $80 billion dollars a year. Or, as I’ve pointed out, about a third of what the National Health Care Anti-Fraud Association says we spend on medical fraud. If you take into account savings we will create with the national portability, tort reform, medical fraud reform, and the millions of people added to the insurance pool, the cost should be far less than $4,000 annually for health insurance premiums. So let’s say $2,500 per individual put into HSAs for the poorest among us – that would be a cost $50 billion. And the owners of these accounts will be free to choose any insurance company they like.
And…voilá! Just using five simple measures – all of which are already on the table, some of which have been on the table for decades now, some already put forth as legislation in Congress by Republicans and Democrats – we have healthcare reform. Health insurance would be dramatically less expensive and more available, and it would be done at worst in a deficit-neutral way and perhaps could even decrease the deficit. And it didn’t take a 1,300 page bill for a bureaucracy that would intrude into our personal lives, or bankrupt the nation.
–DK
The White House is reportedly angry about a newly released video of then Senator Obama saying in 2007 that, “I happen to be a proponent of single-payer, universal health care plans” being used to create the “false impression” that Mr. Obama is…well….a proponent of single-payer, universal health care plans. They say that Obama’s words are being cherry-picked. So I assume that the White House will release the full video of his speech in which he will say that “I happen to be a proponent of single-payer, universal health care plans…psyche!” any day now.
Or perhaps it is possible that the White House is lying about Mr. Obama’s words being taken out of context. After all, during the course of this Obama-care debate, the White House, congressional Democrats, and their supporters seem willing to lie at every turn.
They say ‘the majority of people support Obama’s health care reform’, yet according to the latest Quinnipiac University poll 52% of Americans disapprove of it. President Obama says “I have pledged that I will not sign health insurance reform that adds even one dime to our deficit over the next decade. And I mean it!” However, the Congressional Budget Office says that most of the pending health care bills will add $1 trillion to the deficit over the next decade. And that mean that too.
For example, the reason why Medicare is in financial dire straits is not because of a reported $60 billion a year is wasted to fraud, a problem that is mentioned but goes unaddressed annually. No, the reason why Medicare is in financial dire straits is because of all those 100-year-olds trying to live to be 101, getting hip replacement surgeries, and the like. That’s the problem we have to address, at least according to our government. Personally I’d rather they go after the frauds, and leave grandma alone.
Another example of the deceit we are subjected to is the answer to the question, to paraphrase a recent townhaller, “Why can’t we wait? Why not give Congress (and the American people) as much time to debate, and perhaps even read the health-care bill before it becomes law, as it took you, President Obama, to pick out a dog?”
When asked a similar question at a press conference, Mr. Obama answered: “I’m rushed because I get letters every day from families that are being clobbered by health care costs. And they ask me, can you help? So I’ve got a middle-aged couple that will write me and they say, our daughter just found out she’s got leukemia and if I don’t do something soon we just either are going to go bankrupt or we’re not going to be able to provide our daughter with the care that she needs.” A poignant and touching anecdote, except the bill won’t go into effect until 2013, even if it were signed today. Take a few weeks or months to write a good health-care reform bill and make it go into affect sooner, maybe?
Additionally, for example, one of the major arguments for an Obama-care public option is that it will exist only as an option for those needing health insurance, that it will not eliminate private insurance. This is contradicted in several ways:
One way is by the very words of those who support the public option. Mr. Obama himself has said in 2007, that his health care reform is only intended to be a Trojan Horse. Once introduced, he says, it will lead to a ‘transition period that will lead to the elimination of employer coverage in a decade out, or 15 years out, or 20 years out.” Others, such as Congressman Barney Frank have said similar things, that “The best way to get single payer — the only way — is to have a public option.”
The claim that they do not support a public option is also contradicted by logic. There are over 1,300 health insurance providers in the US. A public option is not being created to give us 1301 health insurance providers. What would be the point? It is obviously being created to be the dominant health care provider, and eventually the only health care provider; a status it will achieve by eliminating employer-sponsored private health care insurance.
It is in the bill! As reported in Investor’s Business Daily (IBD), “The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of “Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage,” the “Limitation On New Enrollment” section of the bill clearly states: “Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day” of the year the legislation becomes law.” IBD translates this into plain English: “the bill itself will kill the market for private individual coverage by not letting any new policies be written after the public option becomes law.” How can private insurers survive if it cannot write new business?
Obama-care also will kill the private insurance market by being, as one insurance executive put it, ‘both the ref and the player in the game, which will be hard to compete against it’. Private insurers will have to turn a profit (villainous, I know). Many private insurers in fact are accountable to shareholders, who desire to see a return on their investment. The government will not have to turn a profit. Government in fact rarely displays any fiduciary responsibility towards its shareholders – us, the taxpayers. Obama-care will have to be at least somewhat funded however, and what better way to fund your product than by taxing the product of your competitor? Witness the recent debate over taxing the “Cadillac plans” of private health insurers.
And, if you think your private insurer could survive such a hostile market, and you can hold on to your employer-sponsored health insurer, ask yourself why would your employer continue to sponsor your health insurance? Employers are only penalized for not carrying employee insurance if they have more than $250,000 in payroll. Even those who are above this threshold might find it advantageous to pay the fine for not carrying employees rather than actually carrying the employees.
Clearly, it is not the goal of public option supporters to create competition in the health insurance market. If it were, they would not be unanimously against allowing us to buy insurance from all 50 states. Think about it. Say you need a loan, and your neighborhood banks will only offer you a loan at a 20% interest rate. If the rules for banking were the same as it is for buying health insurance, you’d have to accept the 20% loan. Luckily they are not, and you can go on the Internet and find a loan for maybe 5%. Unfortunately, we cannot do that when we buy health insurance. In that market, we are limited to what our state offers. As Senator Jim DeMint recently pointed out on Fox News Sunday, “NY citizens pay twice as much for insurance than as do their neighbors in Pennsylvania. Why not allow interstate competition?”
Interstate competition would allow New Yorkers to buy insurance at the Pennsylvania rate, which would in turn force New York insurance companies to lower their rate. Interstate competition would give increased access to the person used in Paul Klugman’s example, who, because of where he lives only has access to maybe one insurance company, access to every insurance company. And interstate competition would give the best insurers a large pool of insured, which would lower their risk and allow them to lower their rates. Again, why would anyone who truly wanted to increase affordability and access in the insurance market be against this?
At his July 23rd press conference, after being asked to describe the sacrifices Americans would have to make under his health care reform, President Obama responded like an infomercial spokesman selling a pill that allows you to eat Red Robin twice a day and still lose weight. The only sacrifice Americans would have to make under Obama-care, he says, is that, “They’re going to have to give up paying for things that don’t make them healthier.” Billy Mays would be proud. But Mr. Obama forgets to mention that they will also lose the ability to choose what is in their health plan, or to keep their existing plan, or to pick their own doctors. Oh, and most likely, Americans will have to pay higher taxes for this privilege.
One wonders if the public option is what is best for the American people, why don’t more of its supporters argue for it, and argue for it honestly. Why do they pretend that a public option is not the desired goal, and why pretend they desire to increase affordability and availability in the health insurance market? It is all about government control, as is most everything Liberals support. But since most Americans are not enthusiastic about accepting perhaps the biggest intrusion into their private lives since the draft, most Liberals are loath to publicly admit this.
–DK
Saving Freedom
I have heard it said that President Obama does not like him. That would make sense, because if there is anyone in Washington who represents the antithesis of Obama, it is him: Senator Jim DeMint is the anti-Obama.
DeMint makes this clear in his book, Saving Freedom: We Can Stop America’s Slide Into Socialism. In it, he delivers an interesting expose on socialism by examine its history, its appeal, and the dangers it presents. While Obama calls for bigger and more powerful government – and with that more intrusion into and more control over our economic and private lives – DeMint argues that this philosophy only creates mass dependency upon the government. And with mass dependency, DeMint says, comes less of “civilization’s highest expression of human respect and love.” Freedom.
That is not a message President Obama or many in Washington want to hear. However, I found the message of freedom, coming as it does from a senator and a man who may one day be our president, inspiring.
–DK
An Islamic group with ties to noted Al-Qaeda members, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, met for a conference near Chicago today. Hizb ut-Tahrir, the group sponsoring the event, entitled the conference, “The Fall of Capitalism and The Rise of Islam.”
Fox News reports that the group name was clearly placed on the group application, however, the conference title was unknown until the signed contract was returned. Contracts no longer come with verbiage about “defamatory” or “obscene” conference topics as grounds for nullification?
Please note the irony in the following:
In May of this year, Sonja Eddings Brown, Deputy Communications Director for Proposition 8 Protect Marriage in California, was entrusted with the task of finding a venue to hold the inevitable press conference that would be held in the wake of whatever decision the California Supreme Court would make with regard to the disposition of Prop 8.
After consulting a slew of hotels not wanting to be associated with the passage of such a “controversial” case, (one of which, ironically, was the very chain at which the Islamic conference was eventually held), Ms. Eddings Brown was finally contacted by a DoubleTree Hotel in Orange County, CA, and was invited to host the event there.
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The “religious freedom” under this amendment states we have the right to “peaceably assemble,” however, Sonja Eddings Brown was turned down by a multiplicity of potential host sites where she was merely to speak to the press, a clearly non-violent activity. Yet, a group with connections to men who had recognizable roles in the most horrific act of terrorism on US soil is welcomed with open arms while they conduct recruitment efforts?
The House Judiciary Committee recently voted to send a federal “hate crimes” bill to the House, a bill which would make churches preaching Biblical prohibition of homosexuality a punishable offense.
In this article, we’ve discussed one group openly seeking to add terrorists to their ranks, and who are anti-US. The other group tried to exercise First Amendment rights to free speech, but, because their objections to homosexuality stem from their adherence to Christian doctrine, they are considered “homophobic bigots.” The first group gathers to engage in defamatory speech, which could incite violence against our country and our government. The second merely speaks what they believe their religious document, the Bible, says, in their (currently protected) right to worship.
The Islamic group does not meet the government “litmus test” for hate speech, though they are gathered for the express purpose of speaking ill of United States policy, and are part of a fundamental religious sect known for violence against the US. Further, Hizb ut-Tahrir does not appear on any governmental terror watch list. Conversely, Christians who believe homosexuality is prohibited by Scripture may, at some point in the not-too-distant future, be prosecuted for speaking against Prop 8, gay marriage, or homosexuality, in their religious assemblies.
Am I the only one to see the First Amendment irony in this?
–MS
