You may have heard of this little faux pas:

Fox News Blog

To which the Obama Administration replied, and the vast majority accept:

Protocol?

Judge for yourself:

I realize the actual outcome could mean very little as time goes on.  But consider this:

*  This Administration is, in fact, inexperienced, as was suggested previously.

* This Administration is capable and comfortable with lying to you, insinuating that you are too stupid to consider the alternative to their lines or apathetic to it.

* This Administration is not the Internationally strong powerhouse of influence that you may have been wishing for.  In fact, in light of the fact that they can’t take a stand on such an insignificant fact, are you willing to entrust your future security to such mishandling?

If nothing changes, and by that I mean your willingness to invest, we can continue to expect lying and manipulation.  Maybe three years from today, no one will remember the BOW heard round the world, but what would be remembered is political courage vast enough in it’s influence to require the elected to check themselves before they throw out blind spin and ask us to lap it up like dogs.

     Understanding the basic tenants of healthcare as it exists today is essential to understanding any undertaking to enhance its benefits.  My qualifications to paint the landscape may seem odd to you at first glance.  I’m not a doctor.  I’m not an Administrator.  I’m a Mom.  However, if you subscribe to the basic premise that almost any issue under earth can be deconstructed using a logical, simple approach, as I do, I think you’ll at least lend me your ear.  

     First, my father is a doctor and my mother is a nurse.  I have been sitting around the dinner table for the last 20 or more years, that I could engage in the discussion, contemplating Medicare “reforms,” Medicaid expansion and contraction and the overhead associated with running a practice.  When I was going to college, I worked for various private practices, billing insurance companies and writing referrals.  I also worked at the local Emergency Room, entering orders and insurance information.  I have worked for nurses, doctors, administrators.  I have witnessed the heroic efforts of doctors and nurses whose intubation tube, quickly placed, kept a crushed uninsured drunk driver alive after he tried to pass the salt truck on an icy December night.  I have also called the Chaplin for families who have to face that defining moment –  their loved one, at once farming the field, and then again, clutching his chest as they came to their knees.  I am aware that healthcare is a business.  It is also a helping hand for you in your most desperate of times.

    Our current President, as he steams forward intent on checking off promise after promise on his campaign to-do list, has set his sights on reforming our “broken” healthcare system.  It often seems as if the ideas are being sprayed out from a firing squad of reformists each day as I contemplate the newest agenda item.  I have watched as my representatives and congressmen have sat complacent, and even disgusted, as we suggest they actually *read* the legislation that they are passing.  Profoundly, my democratic twitter friends tell me, “the people voted for change, and this is what we voted for.  You are wrong, not us.  You are wrong.”  I will stake it all on this statement: If we allow this legislation to pass, we have opened the door to the cold wind at the back of every American, who will break themselves under the weight of its crushing blow: Socialism in America.

     First, there is the idea that the system is broken.  Just in case you feel I am putting words into the mouth of the President, let me alleviate that fear by posting his exact rhetoric on the subject below:

There are two ways in which that his statements can be construed.  First of which, that people are dissatisfied with their care.  There are blurred lines which run like veins into the heart of this matter.  Studies can oft be used to the advantage of either side.  For instance, Fox news commentators have been citing a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation, ABC News and USA Today from 2006 which states that 89% of Americans were satisfied with their “own personal medical care.”  It goes on to state, however, that only 44% were satisfied with the “American medical system overall.”

     Pew Research Center published its findings on June 19, 2009 stating that while public opinion has changed since 1993’s Clinton proposal, it has only slightly shifted away from making sure that healthcare is harnessed in an economic way. 

     Therefore, it seems clear, people do not think providers need reform.  They do however, favor addressing cost.  They know that cost is being driven up by the uninsured and they wish to do something about it.  They therefore, make a simple association and believe that providing insurance to the uninsured would be the best method for reform.  For any politician to deny doing something to address the cost of healthcare, would be political suicide. 

     The premise of the logic is that the healthcare system must be overhauled.  I assert that healthcare, the components of the delivery system – the doctor patient relationship – is not broken.   It is a fallacy therefore, to believe healthcare is where we need to focus our attention.  Cost is indeed the culprit of our current problem.   The majority of the speech from the President is dedicated, in fact, to that premise.  We need to stop thinking of this mess as a healthcare mess and realize that health care is the act of healing.  The cost involved, is in the business of making that happen.  The trouble comes as business drives to create ever-increasing profits for the miriad of intermingling agents that have inserted themselves into the equation. 

     Insurance is not healthcare.  It is the regulator because it is the payor system.  Our attention should be on the cause and effect that have Americans paying a disproportionate share of their GDP to deliver this care.  It is therefore the Insurance system; private, Medicare and Medicaid, that we need to feature as we attend to cost. 

     I am aware that President Obama believes the other component is to change the healthcare delivery system to drive down cost.  However, people don’t seem to be dissatisfied with their doctor or the care they receive.  Therefore, in my upcoming posts, I will disprove the idea that Government should be an intermediary in this regard.  And, how, in fact, that component is merely being exploited to convince the American public that they must surrender their liberties in exchange for “percieved security.”  Which, watch out folks, is pretty much the driving argument behind all discord in these times.

     The next post will be to look at insurance as an intermediary in the delivery of healthcare.  The good, the bad, and the unhealthy. I will look at how cost rises due to it’s presence in the marketplace.  I will also debunk the claim that government intervention acts to “increase competition” as is asserted by President Obama.

I was ready for the read, especially since it is positioned as head-to-head combat to Mr. E. Thomas McClanahan.  Mr. McClanahan is unabashedly Republican, but fair and logical in an even manner.  I looked forward to conflict.

Please do your homework by reading the entire perspective of Mr. Robinson’s here.

This thoughtless and ridiculous tirade, which should bolster our enigmatic fire to reposition not REDEFINE our party, can be used to our advantage if we seek to harness the anger.  Please come along as I point out the brazen idiocies which Mr. Robinson projects.

First,  Mr. Robinson seeks to use the defection of Senator Arlen Specter to assert the idea that Republicans are “as a whole” defecting.  He attempts to paint a canvas depicting the Spector-switch as a mirrored effect.  However, as he chronicles the very issue of Mr. Specter’s defection,  Mr. Robinson’s own words seem to reflect the very admission of the Senator: he has flip-flopped only as a way to save his own ass.  He would not win as a Republican, and since retaining power seems first in the mind of the Senator he condemns each Pennsylvania voter by dismissing what seems to be their wish (if you look at the poll numbers.)

I predict that Specter did himself no favors and will ultimately be defeated.  And, for any Democrats out there: We don’t want him.  No one has been crying the blues…. he has been off-message for some time, his voting record is not conservative and frankly; we don’t care.  No one is blogging it and no one is twittering about it.  It doesn’t matter.  It doesn’t speak to any grand exodus and it’s brings to light what the Beltway has to offer these days: putting oneself over their constituency.

If anything, since we Republicans don’t care, I assert that it speaks well of our value to what is right.  We don’t want people in our party to have an -R after their name jufor the sake of power.  We want our party to do the tough work it takes to create a system of INDEPENDENCE, not INTERDEPENDENCE.  And we’ll willingly take a backseat, if for awhile, because the Left’s glittering generalities of change lure the mass to their side for a time.  But, as with all shifting tides, though we will need to be prepared with a new agenda, we will be given an opportunity to fix this massive crevice which is splintering.   We are chiseling away at a tectonic plate.  It will open up and the issues will run forth like lava. 

As for the poll numbers, Republicans do seem to be turning away from the general label “Republican.”  Though, I assert, they don’t want to be “Democrat” either.  The one issue in which Mr. Robinson and I agree is that “Independent” is the growing sector.  I affirm that “Independent” doesn’t have one prevailing definition,  though more people want to be different, inventive, thoughtful.   From what I’m reading, the one theme which does ring true is  that Independents don’t really like either party infighting and backstabbing.  Where have you heard that from?  The President himself.

Which leads me further to the introduction of this article:

…can’t…define bipartisanship as simply being willing to accept certain theories of theirs that we tried for eight years and didn’t work and that the American people voted to change. ~POTUS

Mr. Robinson champions this particular thought.  I assume he sees it as a great big “sizzle” to the Right.  As if President Obama just licked his finger and then touched his rear and hissed, “ssszzzzzz” to the rabid media.  It is a real nice one-liner.  But, it spits in the face of, I don’t know, ASKING the right if they want to put forward an alternative – working in a bi-partisan fashion, even if we disagree in the end. Let’s just for a moment note that the agenda is filled with new government programs, the likes of which have never been seen by American government.  Therefore, how could they, in fact, be subject of the tired assertions of the last eight years?  What “O” does is assume that by numbers alone, he has what is the face of the general population.  I further predict that this game may well be Obama’s play with political fire.  The people do want us to work together, as ”O” previously said but no longer demonstrates.  It will be on him when inflation hits.  The supposed collaboration of ideas which Mr. Robinson requests will be left littered in the history of Mr. Obama entertaining celebrities and offering the White House lawn to political correctness.  If “O” wants some input, he’d put aside his duties as Hollywood concierge to the Lincoln bedroom and have some policy-makers come around with some economic models.

As an aside, Independents are not turning toward Obama as Robinson asserts.  Quite the opposite: From Rasmussen:

For most of 2006 and 2007, the number of unaffiliateds was at or above the 30% mark. However, during Election 2008, the number of unaffiliateds declined, primarily shifting to the Democratic column.
The Democrats now enjoy a 6.1 percentage point advantage over Republicans. During the first three months of 2009, the Democrats averaged a seven-point advantage.

It is impossible for the gap to shrink without Independents. Additionally, with the help of these independents, the tide of dissatisfaction with the administration, though I readily admit it is at a snails pace, is also rising.  If the Republicans have “refugees” as Robinson asserts, the above proves that the Democrats are crossing the border as well, and they aren’t lining up to lift Obama’s approval numbers.

The one applause Robinson affords the right is in suggesting harmonybetween Republicans and the President on Iraq and Afghanistan.  Hey, Eugene, here’s a memo from Mommentator: That’s because your President has come to our side of the table and hasn’t done anything different that the oh, you know, past, dastardly administration.  You should be pissed off if you voted for change in Iraq from O.  His only change was to soften our methods of tackling terrorism on the front-end and chilling our CIA efforts.  And he did it for foul political purposes.  Noticing a pattern here?

The conclusion is that Robinson supports progressive policies and pretends to want vigorous debate.  Though, he clearly browbeats us as “bitter ideologues” when we assert an opinion, idea, alternative.  Just like his circular logic, Mr. Robinson plays at a policy of altruism: Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species.

The entire party, along withRobinson, urges the Right to use our principles, but do it in the, “context of today’s America, which is different from the America of 1998, or the America of 1889.”  Well, if it is, we, the Republic lovers, urge an effort to return to those times.  We reject the idea that change for the face of a “new America” is healthy.  

As I see it, Republicans will stand on principle, rising or falling with the ebb and flow of social awareness.  Every once in awhile, the altruistic thought of the left seems attractive. Republicans, more to the point, CONSERVATIVES, want to remain intact upon a tradition that produced this great nation.  It is the reason we are a case study in prosperity.  If we apply our values to today’s time we will only find that we have bastardized prosperity in the name of providing for those that, while our hearts tell us to love them, our SENSE tells us to offer tough love. 

That is why I offer Mommentary.  NOT commentary.  Mothers know it takes tough love to raise a well-mannered child.  And it takes tough love to stay on the path which has served America so well.

This approach is why the conservatives will regain our position, as we have before, to talk to issues rather than generalities.  But Robinson is right: We do need a boost. 

I’m not going to leave you hanging with criticism without a better method to contemplate. Remember, folks, conservatives won with Bush because we innovated new ways of getting our message out.  Likewise, the campaign of Mr. Obama.  If we  get to the substance of say; Health care, and reform it from the INSIDE, eliminating the cost from the inside, taking out the astronomical cost of caring for illegal aliens and restoring doctor/patient relationships without the outside influence of insurance and trial attorneys, we will have a recipe that far outpaces the easy road of “spend and depress” that is being offered by the Democrats.  We must come together on substance and get busy building a road to disseminate the plan.  We have too long been allowing our elected officials to lob one up at the 11th hour.  We need to make a plan addressing this issue and others, and reposition our message. 

Mr. Robinson, we are the party of value, and responsibility. We will not redefine for the sake of winning, as you wish and is the method of your party.  We will reposition our message.  And in doing so, we will march upon you.  You probably won’t even see it coming due to your singing, dancing and jesting as you thumb your nose at us.  It will make the victory sweet to see your face fall from this, your moment of thrill.  But, more so, the victory that is reforming and molding a better America.  You wish to know where you competition is?  You won’t know until it’s too late.

Republicans ONLY corner:  Wanna feel better?  After the Watergate scandal, Americans were fleeing from a party of divide.  According to Pew:

In 1977, more than half of the public (51%) identified themselves as Democrats, compared with barely one-in-five who called themselves Republicans (21%).

We all know what happened just three years later, right?

I find myself sitting quietly at my dining room table, squinting at news coverage thinking, “how the hell are these people going to say they did not know that we were practicing waterboarding as a technique to garner intelligence?”  I mean; I knew about it.  The administration had every kind of lawyer and constitutional aficionado releasing their findings on it.  President Bush said he condoned the use in a myriad or public settings.  Is anyone believing Nancy Pelosi’s insane rants that despite the fact that this middle-aged Mom from fly-over country KNEW about the controversy, somehow it escaped the understanding of the Democrat’s leading Senator?

In my line of work; mothering, there is a simple technique used the world over for helping children learn new knowledge. It’s called putting the information to verse. The ABC’s are a prime example. My personal favorite: the days of the week set to The Macarena.  In the following link, a clever podcaster has helped to bridge the gap of understanding.  I present:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJSXbA9j0Js&feature=player_embedded]

Maybe that will help.

I also thoroughly enjoyed the post from SMART GIRL POLITICS, which called out the dastardly Keith Olberman.  Please read here. 

Here’s the skinny: The Bush Administration operated on their own understanding of the issue which was that it wasn’t torturous, in that we prepare OUR OWN TROOPS by doing it to them in case of their capture.  If you want to outlaw it President Obama, go right ahead.  But you are playing with fire if you want to make it a political issue.  Don’t you have some economic models to be researching?  I certainly have a few ideas I’d like to send over for your review.

This is it.  The most definitive teaching you need to know about where you are heading on an economic front.  The other fronts are important too, but just consider:  if you are doing this to your pocketbook, where are you going to be in trying to deal with the rest of it?  You won’t.  The government will be the only one with power and isn’t that really the point of this administration?  They are robbing you of your freedom – one dollar at a time.  And then they will own you.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090409/ap_on_re_us/obama_housing

Mr. President, if, in fact, you wanted to change the landscape, please do not offer the same ideas that we have been trying for the last 2 years!

The rates have been this low for at least a year.  They cannot go any lower.  Everyone who affords their home and has good sense about their money has already re-financed.  The problem with the housing market is that there are too many people in houses they can’t afford.  Therefore, they have been getting behind in their other bills, ruining their credit.  They could not refinance if their life depended on it.  Additionally, they are upside down in their home AS IT IS because of the downturn in the market and they can’t show the values it takes to get mortgages approved.  Therefore having money in the banks to refinance can’t HELP!  They are going to have to let them go and let the home values adjust to the mayhem. 

Hey, I don’t like it either.  My own home is suffering in values and that’s the lousy thank-you I get for actually paying my mortgage.  But, it’s the truth and we’re hanging here with a noose around our neck not knowing when the bottom is gonna drop out.  IT WILL!  And the agony is worse than the inevitability.

Stimulate small business so they can give these people a RAISE so they can pay their mortgage!  It’s that simple.

So it is with the speech which President Obama gave yesterday in France.  Political pundits are decrying the President as pandering to the Europeans and accuse the President of being on the proverbial campaign trail oversees.  Here is what the President said:

“In America, there is a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.”

Clearly, there is a problem with the quote. However, Conservative pundits are focusing on the second sentence in the quote: “that America has been arrogant, dismissive and derisive.  Personally, I think it’s possible that maybe we have been, and I’d even argue that there are times where appropriate as a sovereign state.  But, untouched by the conservative pundits, the real problem is with the first part of the quote.  “We have failed to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world?”  COME ON MR. PRESIDENT!  Europe doesn’t lead on anything except perhaps implementing systems for inflation and expensive regulations for climate change which aren’t returning results.  You can’t just out and out lie!  Europe wants the United States domination of the economic markets to end, and they will not be happy or discontinue the rhetoric until it is so.  In such a state, the leader should say, “In America, there has been a failure to continue dialog when we have fundamentally disagreed.”  That might be a bit more truthful.

NOW, also neglected by conservative pundits is the exact mirror opposite of the above quote, which followed the above quote:

 “But in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual, but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what is bad. On both sides of the Atlantic, these attitudes have become all too common.”

 Isn’t that exactly true and well stated?  Shouldn’t the President receive some credit for the truth in which he speaks, not just the criticism of possibly anti-American sentiment in the first quote?  The President’s speechwriter has used a tactic to try to build consensus by contrasting the attitudes and sentiments of each country.  Perhaps he goes too far in characterizing Europe as being a model and leader.  However, isn’t he really just giving a compliment so that they can swallow the criticism?  I would argue that this tactic is pretty natural.   

It’s time to criticize folks.  It’s time to stand up.  But, we lose all credibility when we focus on the ammo you want to use and disregard the facts.  My focus is to look at the problems with the administration once they actually make them.  I do not Hannitize the situation by predicting a Socialistic state with  tens of thousands of folks in soup kitchen lines. Though, I am watching closely for government too big, too invasive.

I suppose in some ways, it makes me behind the “news.”  But then, aren’t we really just rewarding extremism by reading and clinging to pundits which are comfortable being wrong as much as being right? Because being the first means that you just throw out vast predictions which may or may not come true.  It makes for sensational TV, but it’s wrecking our ability to harmonize and succeed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090305/pl_mcclatchy/3182084

Let’s get real people.  Defense spending is absolutly an investment.  The envy of other countries makes us a target and we must practice protectionism.  Period. 

My estimation of this story is that while the media admits  they must provide some coverage of both sides, they are biting their lips as the din of discontent rises.  Therefore, in an effort to quell the tide, they assert that both parties are equally bad at breaking this nation.  Thus, why would you begin to consider that President Obama is spending out of control?

Let me be very clear about this article.  They point out only ONE program which Republicans have outlined as pet-project spending.  Note that they provide plenty of examples which Democrats sink fortune.  Be reminded of two things:

1.  Democratic spending begets programs which escalate spending in subsequent years.  There are a host of reasons why this occurs.  To name a few: inflation, dependence begets generations of growth and wasteful bureaucracy.

2.  Republicans spending on defense in the cited “last few decades” includes:

       President George W. Bush:  fighting a war on two fronts. 

       President George H.W. Bush: Libya and Saddam. 

       And Reagan:  who by the very admission of this article was still within the spending limits of today’s Obama-accepted ratios.  See quote:

President Obama hopes:

“While he relies on optimistic assumptions about the economy, Obama forecasts that he’ll raise spending this year and next, then ratchet it back until it again represents 22 percent of the economy at the end of his first term.”

Remember, these are FORECASTS and nothing is in place that can affirm this doctrine.

Let’s not forget to mention that Reagan was dealing with the problem that we would be fighting missiles with hand grenades.  It was time to beef up the program after decades of neglect.

Republicans wish to see prosperity reach all sectors of America.  Republicans know this: decreased taxes MARRIED with proper spending practice creates an environment where business can prosper.  Regulation only results in a cycle of bureaucracy which is like paying someone to put the money in the car wash for you.  Sure, you can let your attendant deal with the constant spitting out of the dollars one by one, the subdegree temps and pay $10 for you $7 car wash or you can  put in a fraction of one minute and realize great  monetary benefit.  Once America is growing and prospering, the threat of outside envy grows.  Thus, we practice protectionism and keep our people safe, without fear or retribution, to grow their families and their fortunes.

The argument in the Yahoo! article is flawed.  Republican Presidents in recent decades have been forced to face outside enemies which must be dealt a message of defeat.  Therefore, Republican Presidents are reacting to real threat.  Democrats are picking out pet projects to create more government, trying, as has been tried unsuccessfully before, to bring people relief.  The hard truth is that relief only comes from individualism – self-reliance and work.  The Government’s attempt to solve the issue of self-worth and determination only results in taxpayers paying $2.25 to a $1.00 for the same exact result.  Except that now you are broke.

The diversion in our beliefs is how to get there. I believe that each measure in the stimulus should be individually introduced, debated, trimmed and accounted for to ensure it actually provides a stimulus. We need bill 101 – ENERGY POLICY. We need bill 102 – UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT EXTENSION. (And so on and so forth.) Let’s not pass a tired bill filled with pork that is lost in 6,000 pages. Let’s pass individual bills on each priority, create a system of accounting for EXACTLY how it benefits the people, and then pass them individually.

We are in NEED mode, not want. Some things need to wait.

Check out Obama chattering with the democrats. He’s right — we need to change our methods. We also need to agree that this change isn’t measured. And we should be measuring each step right now. Families and business have to. So should our governement.

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1155201977/bctid10289414001

This is a less-than-exciting new development since, according to the audit released two days ago by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the funds for the already passed stimulus package are more than 66% awarded. This figure doesn’t add in the cost of the regulatory process used to award the money or the new boards and reviews that were put together to oversee the process.
If you want to check my math, check out the online audit:
http://www.ustreas.gov/initiatives/eesa/docs/transaction_report_02-02-09.pdf

I suppose this “form over substance” move is merely a ploy since the administration is trying to gain traction for the new economic “stimulus” package which is coming under direct fire. However, since the package has very little to do with bailing out anyone other than the government and states from their own financial indiscretions, it is little more than lip service to be played on tonights evening news cast. If you are not paying attention, however, Obama’s team is setting up a p.r. position for Obama which would resonate with, “man of the people.” The working man and woman will come home and hear the soundbite of Obama siding with their own ideas of, “why are these executives getting off scott-free when I am cutting my expenses and doing without to raise my family?”

Note to reader: if you don’t think that those executives will sneak around these new rules, just like the lobbiests have over the Obama move to “ban” lobbyist control over the executive brance, you need to wake up.

Let me show you a break down of his current plan, (which, by the way, is daily being desconstructed by the budget offices. All the while, the spending democrats are adding new pork.)

http://bx.businessweek.com/obamas-stimulus-plan/
Click on the Obama Stimulus Plan posted on January 29th.

This breakdown shows exactly where the (by some conservative estimates) over 1.3 trillion dollars will be spent once you realize interest – which will inevitabily have to be paid back to the loaning party. Can anyone say, “are we Chinese?”

I am sure you can all remember the insane plastered smile from Nancy Pelosi when her party gained majority and by clear margins. Have we forgotten that this party has the power to roll right over the Republicans in this regard? Pass it for God’s sake, if we are facing “CATASTROPHE” without it. Or are you afraid?