OBAMACARE: The Figures the White House Doesn't want you to know...

Let's face it, the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, has been far less than advertised. Although, to be fair, it was advertised by Nancy Pelosi as, "You want to know what's in it, then vote for it". The American people were basically handed a "pig-in-a-poke" by the Democrats, or more accurately, the far leaning left. After it was rammed through Congress on a straight partisan vote, using questionable procedural tactics we did indeed find out what was in it. And buried deep within the dozens of new taxes, the new layers of government hierarchy, the massive expansion of government, are some good ideas. I've commented on those in the past. But of more interest today are the resulting numbers this act has caused, numbers the administration would prefer you didn't know.
The concern was for the "millions of uninsured" who couldn't afford insurance under the old system. The concern was for "more affordable" health insurance, with greater choice of hospitals, doctors, and plans. We were told we have to help those without insurance, or those with pre-existing conditions, etc., to make healthcare fair and affordable. Or so these were the concerns we were told. Well, I'm not going to quote the bushels of statistics that show Obamacare has done exactly the opposite of what they claimed they wanted. I'll just look at the overall numbers, those Obama prefers not to share.
First, Obamacare was supposed to help those without insurance get insurance. What did the Act actually do? Some six million Americans lost their insurance plans because they didn't meet Obamacare standards. Some 4.8 million have signed up for Obamacare, and let's assume they were all "uninsured", so the actual result is a minimum of 1.2 million more people are now added to the numbers of people without insurance. But the reality is worse than that, for many of those who signed up already had insurance; they just shifted from private plans to the government exchange to take advantage of subsidies or lower rates. So while we don't know exactly how many just shifted their insurance we do know the number is substantial, and the real number of "newly uninsured" is conservatively closer to 3 to 3.5 million people.
Second, as of February 1st, roughly half of those 4.8 million people who signed up have failed to make their premium payments, which, in effect, means the insurers are not honoring their policies, which means they are being counted as "insured" by the administration but should really be added to those "newly uninsured" numbers. Adding those numbers to the others we now find that the reality of Obamacare is we now have somewhere between 5.5 and 6 million people without insurance thanks to Obamacare. We also have more and more doctors retiring, quoting all the restrictions of the new law as the reason, thus lowering our "choice", and making the promise, "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" nothing more than another lie. We have insurers restricting networks, and hospitals, thus restricting our "choice" further, thus making the promise of "more choice" another lie.
We could go on examining all the promises versus the resulting reality of the Affordable Care Act but it is clear to any rational human being that, at this point, the whole of Obamacare was not an effort to make healthcare affordable to those who didn't have it. Rather it's design was to take over the healthcare industry, approximately one-sixth of our private economy, changing it from a privatized system to one that is government controlled, thus increasing the size and scope of government, and ultimately increasing the number of people dependent on that government. Otherwise, we can only conclude, if creating affordable healthcare was its goal, that this administration is the most bumbling, inept, and totally clueless administration ever, for they doubled the number of uninsured, cut back many hundreds of thousands of workers jobs from full-time to part-time, increased the cost of healthcare while narrowing its offerings, and made many more Americans dependent on government.
No, Obamacare was a socio-political act to increase the scope and power of the left, a power grab of historic proportions. For the more people the government controls the more votes its politicians control. America was built from the ground up, from the people, by the people, for the people. Big government is nothing short of ultimate Socialism, built from the top down, to control the people. You may not mind the government dictating to you what insurance you buy, or even if you have the right to own or carry a gun, but one day you may regret allowing them to grow so strong when they're dictating to you how many kids you can have, whether you can own property, how many cars you can buy, and so on. The day is coming, my friends, unless we wake up and put a stop to it. Beware when your government offers "protection" at the cost of your freedom, for the sacrifice of freedom ultimately places you in danger from the very people who promise to protect...
Food for thought...

The TEA PARTY- The next step?

A few years ago, when the Tea Party broke into the political arena, I found what they were fighting against quite interesting. As a fiscally conservative Independent I could appreciate their stand against big (and growing) government, against free-spending liberalism, against the growing control of government over our lives, and against our growing and out-of-control debt. They captured the attention, and more importantly the heart of many Americans, and the result was a number of Senators and Congressmen elected to try and curb these issues. But, while starting out strong, the Tea Party has begun to lose some steam. They have gotten heat, not only from their liberal Democratic opponents, but also from their "fellow" Republicans, the party from which they've sprung. So what should they do next?
I would suggest two courses of action, which can be accomplished simultaneously. First, the time is right to distance themselves from their Republican roots. Instead of all the party "in-fighting", as Democrats like to point out and chuckle, they should step out and form their own party. I've met both Democrats and Republicans who claim to be fiscally conservative; this would allow them the opportunity to put up or shut up. A third political party, especially one such as the Tea Party, would break the stalemate and gridlock we've come to grudgingly accept out of Washington. If the Tea Party can capture a significant number of seats in the upcoming election then breaking off as the party of conservative Americans everywhere it would force both Democrats and Republicans alike to work together. Many Republicans serving today are labeled RHINOs - Republicans in name only. Politicians would be forced to form new alliances, even across the aisles, to achieve their goals.
The second thing the Tea Party needs to do- and it's survival is dependent on it- is to stop telling America only what it's against and develop a comprehensive platform of what it is for. Limited government, and how they plan to shrink it. Reducing the debt, and what steps they will use. A balanced budget. Returning to governing by our Constitution- the one written in 1787 and has guided our great nation for several centuries, not this "living", changing Constitution which isn't our Constitution at all, rather an alternative to that threatens to destroy the very fabric of our country. It's time to spell out not just what we're against, but what we're for, and give Americans a real choice at the polls.
Clearly Americans want change. Fifty seven percent don't want Obamacare, but a hundred percent want to know what would replace it. The debt is the biggest problem to a majority of Americans, but we all want to know how to fix it. Government is growing and spending out of control and the majority of Americans don't like it, but we all want to know how to stop it. Americans want answers, and if the Tea Party can step up and give them they can become a political force strong enough to reclaim our country, to give it back to the people, as it was originally intended. Our forefathers would never recognize this mess we currently call our country, and if they were here today they would, in all probability, do something drastic to change it. They sure didn't spill their life blood to free our nation from the shackles of oppression just to watch our own government re-shackle its citizens. They would take action to take their country back. Can you say "revolution" anyone?
Food for thought...

Is it time to redefine "Main Stream"?...

It was a very interesting weekend at the movie box offices this weekend. Liam Neeson's new action film "Non-Stop" placed first at about $30 million. Second place went to producer Mark Burnett's "Son of God" movie, projected to do about 17 million but actually raked in $26.5 million. Holy cow. This is the movie that tells the story of Jesus, from his birth thru his crucifixion and resurrection. Definitely a "religious" movie, and panned by critics with a 22% approval rating. So how did the public react? A whopping 83% of fans liked it. So who's out of touch?

Clearly the media did what it could to dissuade people from seeing the movie. The liberal, left-leaning "main stream" media gave it poor reviews, the liberal, left-leaning Hollywood shunned it. For the most part this movie is loaded with unknown actors. And the public loved it. they turned out in near record numbers, posting over 50% higher turnouts than projected. This is main stream- not Hollywood, nor the Media. This is the people speaking.

It would behoove Hollywood, and our media, and especially Washington to get their heads out of the sand and start listening to the people, for the silent majority is waking up. They've shown it over the last several elections by electing Tea Party candidates that embrace the grassroots concepts of fiscally conservative government, of smaller government, of responsible government. Instead of waking up and changing to the will of the people, of their constituents, politicians of both parties have rebuffed efforts of Tea Party candidates, who are doing the will of those who elected them. The media has crucified the Tea Party, despite the fact that they represent a majority in their districts. By extrapolation the "main stream" media demagogues the very main stream majority they claim to represent. It will be interesting to see if the Tea Party presence grows after the next election. If it does I would caution both Democrats and Republicans alike to wake up and pay attention or they will soon be out of a job.

We the People are tired of "politics as usual" in Washington, We the People are tired of our representatives spending money we don't have, of fiscal irresponsibility, of ignoring their constituents' wishes at the behest  of private interest groups or lobbies. Media needs to learn that "main stream" means the view of the majority, not the radical left minority views they continually try to shove down our throats. We are not stupid, Main Stream Media, and it would behoove you to wake up and realize it. There's a reason that Fox News, shunned by your industry as biased and "out of touch" is the leading news network among the people, and that reason is they (for the most part) report the news in an unbiased straight forward manor. We want news, not your biased opinion. Wake up and smell the coffee. You are not main stream in any sense of the word.

Main stream is where the majority of people are, in ideology, in thought, in views. Main stream is not where you want us to be, it is not a reflection of your far-left ideology, it is where the majority resides. Politics or Media, despite their claims of being "main-stream" have not reflected the values and ideology of main stream America for a long time.
Food for thought...