Why We Need A Clean Repeal Of ObamaCare

The Daily Caller posted an article today about the first U.S. city to feel the effects of the failure of ObamaCare.

The article reports:

Knoxville, Tenn., could be the first city in the U.S. where Obamacare completely collapses, leaving tens of thousands of people without the option to buy a subsidized insurance policy.

Humana, the city’s only remaining insurance provider on its Obamacare exchange, announced it is exiting the market in 2018. If that happens, Knoxville citizens will be in a rough spot. Unless another insurance provider fills Humana’s place, some 40,000 people in the Knoxville area will likely be left without the option to purchase an Obamacare-subsidized insurance policy, CNN reports.

Knoxville is illustrative of one of the main problems with Obamacare: It doesn’t promote market-based competition. Insurers pull out of marketplaces where it is not cost-efficient for them to provide services, and, as a result, consumers are left with fewer options at higher prices.

When the government interferes with the free market, bad things happen.

Because of the collapse of ObamaCare, people will have to buy their insurance in the private marketplace. Senators Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker of Tennessee have proposed a bill that would allow consumers to purchase any state-approved health insurance plans with ObamaCare subsidies. Again, the government is interfering in the free market.

The health insurance industry is not the villain here. Insurance companies use statistical tables to determine rates. They are in business to make money and should be allowed to do so (although allowances should be made for pre-existing conditions and long-term issues). There are a few steps that can be taken to bring reason back into the health insurance market–tort reform, selling insurance across state lines,  and high risk pools for pre-existing conditions.

Texas succeeded in slowing the rise of health insurance premiums by tort reform. Unfortunately a large percentage of the campaign money that goes to Congressional campaigns comes from trial lawyers. That will make it very difficult to pass tort reform on a national level. This is another reason to get the federal government out of the health insurance business.

Stepping Back And Looking At The Big Picture

There are a number of conservatives seriously alarmed at the rise of Donald Trump. Donald Trump has not consistently espoused conservative principles and probably does not qualify as a conservative in the minds of many of the conservative intellectuals. What Donald Trump represents is the anger of the conservatives at the miserable performance of the establishment Republicans in Washington. The conservatives believed what they were told–elect Republicans and things will change–the debt will decrease, ObamaCare will go away, and the Republicans will check the runaway executive orders of President Obama. Right. And I saw a flying pig last week.

Yesterday The Conservative Treehouse posted an open letter to Jonah Goldberg, a conservative who is concerned that the Donald Trump candidacy will destroy the Republican party.

The article reminds us:

Angered (by the tricks used to pass ObamaCare), we rallied to the next election (November 2010) and handed the usurping Democrats the single largest electoral defeat in the prior 100 years.  The House returned to Republican control, and one-half of the needed Senate seats reversed.  Within the next two election cycles (’12 and ’14) we again removed the Democrats from control of the Senate.

Within each of those three elections we were told Repealing Obamacare would be job #1.  It was not an optional part of our representative agreement to do otherwise.

We are still waiting.

The article points out:

We are not blind to the maneuverings of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and President Tom Donohue.  We are fully aware the repeal vote did not take place because the U.S. CoC demanded the retention of Obamacare.

Leader McConnell followed the legislative priority of Tom Donohue as opposed to the will of the people.   This was again exemplified with the passage of TPPA, another Republican construct which insured the Trans-Pacific Trade Deal could pass the Senate with 51 votes instead of 3/5ths.

We are not blind to the reality that when McConnell chooses to change the required voting threshold he is apt to do so.  Not coincidentally, the TPP trade deal is another legislative priority of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Again, the Republican party ignored the people who elected them.

The article cites the Iran deal:

Another bill, the Iran “agreement”, reportedly and conveniently not considered a “treaty”, again we are not blind.  Nor are we blind to Republican Bob Corker’s amendment (Corker/Cardin Amendment) changing ratification to a 67-vote-threshold for denial, as opposed to a customary 67 vote threshold for passage.  A profound difference.

The elected Republicans again ignored the wishes of the people who elected them.

The article lists examples of the establishment GOP working against the will of the voters. Please follow the link to the article to read the list. It is eye-opening.

The article concludes:

The last federal budget was passed in September of 2007, and EVERY FLIPPING INSUFFERABLE YEAR we have to go through the predictable fiasco of a Government Shutdown Standoff and/or a Debt Ceiling increase specifically because there is NO BUDGET!

That’s a strategy?

That’s the GOP strategy?  Essentially:  Lets plan for an annual battle against articulate Democrats and Presidential charm, using a creepy guy who cries and another old mumbling fool who dodders, knowing full well the MSM is on the side of the other guy to begin with?


Don’t tell me it’s not, because if it wasn’t there’d be something else being done – there isn’t.

And don’t think we don’t know the 2009 “stimulus” became embedded in the baseline of the federal spending, and absent of an actual budget it just gets spent and added to the deficit each year, every year.  Yet this is somehow smaller fiscal government?

….And you’re worried about what Donald Trump might do?


I truly believe that this article expresses the frustration of the conservatives in the Republican party. Right now there is very little difference between the establishment Republicans and the Democrats. If the establishment Republicans don’t wake up soon, there will be two political parties–the Democrats and the Conservatives. Donald Trump is not the problem–he may be a symptom, but he is not the problem.

This Is Just Ugly

Yesterday CBS News reported that the deal with Iran negotiated by America, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom and Germany will be voted on by the United Nations Security Council on Monday. Since five of the countries who negotiated the treaty with Iran are permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, it is fairly certain the agreement will be adopted.

The article reports:

CBS News foreign affairs analyst Pamela Falk says the resolution will make the Iran nuclear deal international law, but will delay its official implementation for 90 days, to allow for the U.S. Congress’ consideration.

Falk explained that while Congress cannot block the implementation of the deal, if the legislative body votes against it and has enough votes to override a promised veto from President Obama, it is not clear what would happen next.

Whether Congress approves the treaty or not, it goes into effect internationally. Whatever happened to America? First of all, even if Congress votes against the treaty, the treaty goes into effect worldwide. So where is American sovereignty? Second of all, why do we need Congress if the Senate’s role to advise and consent to treaties has been taken out of the equation.

The article concludes:

If U.S. lawmakers were to decide after Monday’s vote that they wanted changes to the terms of the agreement, it would essentially be too late, because it would require the Security Council to propose a new resolution — and there would likely be little appetite for such deliberations among the other negotiating partners.

The chairman of the Senate’s foreign relations committee, Bob Corker, on Thursday wrote a letter to President Obama saying, “We urge you to postpone the vote at the United Nations until after Congress considers this agreement.”

But the chief U.S. negotiator in the Iran talks, Wendy Sherman, rejected that idea Thursday.

She told reporters: “It would have been a little difficult when all of the (countries negotiating with Iran) wanted to go to the United Nations to get an endorsement of this, since it is a product of the United Nations process, for us to say, ‘Well, excuse me, the world, you should wait for the United States Congress.'”

Sherman said the council resolution allows the “time and space” for a congressional review before the measure actually takes effect.

America has become internationally irrelevant.

This Is Just Strange

The Washington Examiner posted a story today with the following quote from Secretary of State John Kerry:

“We’ve been clear from the beginning we’re not negotiating a legally binding plan. We’re negotiating a plan that will have a capacity for enforcement,” he (John Kerry) told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

“We don’t even have diplomatic relations with Iran right now.”

I have a few questions. Legally binding for whom? If it is not legally binding for Iran, why are we bothering to negotiate? If it is not legally binding for us, why is Iran bothering to negotiate? Why in the world is everyone wasting time on something that is not legally binding?

The article reminds us:

Kerry, who was visibly irritated by what he called misconceptions by lawmakers about the ongoing talks, was criticizing an open letter to Iran’s leaders signed by 47 Republican senators. The letter has angered Democrats, but appears not to have slowed bipartisan efforts to force congressional approval of a deal, in spite of stiff opposition by the Obama administration.

As he spoke, committee Chairman Bob Corker, R-Tenn., who did not sign the letter but is a sponsor of legislation to require approval of any deal, cut him off.

Corker later noted that as a senator, Kerry had demanded congressional approval of a proposed agreement with Iraq on the status of U.S. troops there.

It is amazing how John Kerry’s opinions change according to the position he holds.

Things That Make You Wonder

The Daily Beast is reporting today that American intelligence services were aware within 24 hours that the attacks on the American Embassy in Benghazi were the work of al Qaeda.

The article reports:

Three separate U.S. intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast said the early information was enough to show that the attack was planned and the work of al Qaeda affiliates operating in Eastern Libya.

We are at war, and I understand the need for secrecy, but what reason would the current administration have to lie to the American people about this attack?

The article reports:

The question of what the White House knew, and when they knew it, will be of keen interest to members of Congress in the election year. Last Thursday, the Obama administration formally briefed House and Senate members on the attack. Those briefings however failed to satisfy many members, particularly Republicans. “That is the most useless, worthless briefing I have attended in a long time,” Sen. Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican, was quoted as saying. “There was very good information on this in the first 24 hours. These guys have a return address.”

After a while, you begin to wonder how much of what the Obama Administration is telling America is actually true.



Enhanced by Zemanta

So Much For The Voice Of The People

The Tennessean reported yesterday that the Tennessee Democratic Party has said that it will not support Mark Clayton, who won the Tennessee primary to run on the Democrat ticket against Republican Senator Bob Corker. Mr. Clayton received nearly twice as many votes as his closest challenger in Thursday’s seven-candidate primary, The reason the Democrats refuse to support him–they are accusing him of belonging to a ‘known hate group.’

Mr. Clayton is an unpaid vice-president for the group Public Advocate of the United States and occasionally writes for them. The group is pro-life and pro-marriage. I need to say something here. I oppose gay marriage. I think it totally creates confusion in terms of the First Amendment rights of the clergy not to perform the marriages and simply complicates something that does not need to be complicated. I support civil unions. I think a committed gay couple should have all the rights of a married couple. I just don’t want to see a Bible-believing pastor forced to perform a wedding that goes against Biblical teaching. I don’t hate gays. I have no reason to hate gays. Frankly, it isn’t important to me whether or not a person is gay. I am perfectly willing to share my world with any person regardless of what they do in their spare time. Opposing gay marriage is not hate speech, and groups that oppose gay marriage are not hate groups–they simply have an opinion different than the mainstream media and much of the Democrat party. We live in a country where differences of opinion are allowed. Stop calling it hate–it isn’t hate, it’s a belief in something different than what you believe.

Meanwhile, back to the story.

The article reports:

Sean Braisted, a Democratic Party spokesman, left the door open for a possible legal maneuver to try to get Clayton’s name off the Democratic line of the November ballot.

“The only option we are taking off the table in this situation,” he said, “is supporting Mark Clayton.”

The people voted. The Democrat Party did not like the results, so they are looking for a way to undo the vote. That really doesn’t sound like the wishes of the people who voted for Mark Clayton were important to the Democrat Party.


Enhanced by Zemanta

The Loss Of Wealth In America

Legal Insurrection posted an article today about what has happened to the wealth of Americans over the past three years. It is interesting to note that average net worth of Congress has increased since 2004, and held about even from 2007 to 2010, the average American family net worth dropped 40 percent from 2007 to 2010 to an average of $77,300.

In the Senate, the article shows that the Democrats have more wealth:

Top 10 Senators in 2010
             Senator                                          Average Net Worth
John Kerry (D-Mass)                                         $231,722,794
Mark Warner (D-Va)                                          $192,730,605
Herb Kohl (D-Wis)                                             $173,538,010
Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa)                                     $99,057,011
Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ)                               $85,572,116
Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn)                            $73,151,590
Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif)                                  $69,046,622
Bob Corker (R-Tenn)                                          $59,550,022
James E. Risch (R-Idaho)                                 $54,088,026
Mitch McConnell (R-Ky)                                     $27,213,024

In the House Of Representatives, the Republicans have more wealth:

Representative                               Average Net Worth
Darrell Issa (R-Calif)                                    $448,125,017
Michael McCaul (R-Texas)                           $380,411,527
Jane Harman (D-Calif)                                 $326,844,751
Jared Polis (D-Colo)                                     $143,218,562
Vernon Buchanan (R-Fla)                            $136,152,641
Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif)                                  $101,123,032
Alan Grayson (D-Fla)                                      $93,896,519
Kenny Marchant (R-Texas)                             $49,340,275
Gary Miller (R-Calif)                                         $46,008,028
Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ)                        $42,900,594

Although I am reporting these numbers, I am not as concerned about what the current wealth of Congress is as I am curious about what the wealth of our elected officials was when they entered Congress. Is Congress a ticket to major wealth, or were they wealthy when they got elected? That would be a very interesting study.