MEG HEAP, the local District Attorney, will be speaking on local crime.
Black on black crime is epidemic in our city and nation and though the Black Lives Matter message is credible the organization , apparently, has been high jacked by radical loud mouth anarchists whose sole goal is to bring attention to their cause through disruption rather than reasoned discussion. (See 1 below.)
A second important issue is the merging of Chatham County and Savannah's respective police departments and though the local paper is supportive, a more objective view is that the county is being held hostage. The merger concept is a worthy one however, facts suggest Chatham County is disproportionately being charged, their fully staffed police department is being used to police Savannah's high crime districts resulting in low morale.
Four Commissioners are opposed to the merger and four support it. I have been told the current Chairman of the County Commission has allowed the city to dominate the function of the two departments and those who live in the county are being underserved , are paying more than their proportional share of the cost based on comparative population. The county's crime problem is not near that of the city and thus, most of the county's force is now serving in the city's high crime areas.
We live in a gated community and our crime rate has increased dramatically. We now pay for off duty police to do what they have done previously but Chatham no longer has spare personnel.
The local paper's support of the merger is understandable since the city is getting a better than fair deal. I submit the paper's editors' vision is clouded and less than objective.
Such mergers work when public officials are driven by good will, act in a balanced manner and seek to serve rather than to hoard the combined resources as is apparently the case.
===
In his desire to downgrade America's involvement in the world, press for America's withdrawal from being the most powerful nation willing to sacrifice by standing against tyrants, and the sole nation capable of staring down Russia, Obama has created one tragedy after another.
He has walked away from the slaughter of Coptics, he deserted the Iraqis, Kurds, Syrians and after the Iran Deal will put the whole of Israel, as well as America, in jeopardy as Russia and China's naval fleets circle our shores while our own Navy recedes and Iran continues to weaponize.
This is the price the world is paying for America having voted twice for an arrogant incompetent whose ego far exceeds his credibility and his sworn commitment to protect our nation
Like it or not, when America fails to lead the world is less safe. Obama has all kind of theories but they lack any basis when it comes to merit and/or fact. They are ideas born out of passion - the left wing variety. We have allowed a fool to determine our future and we will continue to pay dearly .(See 1a and 1ab below.)
===
Did Hillary spill the beans? (See 2 below.)
===
What a brave soul Sen. Cardin has proven to be. Voting no after the horse left the barn. Shades of Schumer. Two weasels in the same pod. (See 3 below.)
===
An engineer's take on what Obamacare is all about. (See 4 below.)
===
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)
Al Sharpton was in Sears.
He was there to protest the fact that most all of the washing machines were white.
So the clerk called the store manager, who asked, what's the problem here, Reverend?
Sharpton pointed at the machines and loudly bemoaned the fact that most of them were white.
The manager replied, Well Reverend, it's true that most of the washing machines are white, but if you'll open the lids, you'll see that all the agitators are black."
1a)
The horrific results of Obama’s failure in Syria
One little boy in a red T-shirt, lying face down, drowned, on a Turkish beach, is a tragedy. More than 200,000 dead in Syria, 4 million fleeing refugees and 7.6 million displaced from their homes are statistics. But they represent a collective failure of massive proportions.
For four years, the Obama administration has engaged in what Frederic Hof, former special adviser for transition in Syria, calls a “ pantomime of outrage.” Four years of strongly worded protests, and urgent meetings and calls for negotiation — the whole drama a sickening substitute for useful action. People talking and talking to drown out the voice of their own conscience. And blaming. In 2013, President Obama lectured the U.N. Security Council for having “ demonstrated no inclination to act at all.” Psychological projection on a global stage.
Always there is Obama’s weary realism. “It’s not the job of the president of the United States to solve every problem in the Middle East.” We must be “ modest in our belief that we can remedy every evil.”
But we are not dealing here with every problem or every evil; rather a discrete and unique set of circumstances: The largest humanitarian failure of the Obama era is also its largest strategic failure.
At some point, being “modest” becomes the same thing as being inured to atrocities. President Bashar al-Assad’s helicopters continue to drop “barrel bombs” filled with shrapnel and chlorine. In recent attacks on the town of Marea, Islamic State forces have used skin-blistering mustard gas and deployed, over a few days, perhaps 50 suicide bombers. We have seen starvation sieges, and kidnappings, and beheadings, and more than 10,000 dead children.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has changed her country’s asylum rules to welcome every Syrian refugee who arrives. Syrians have taken to calling her “Mama Merkel, Mother of the Outcasts.” I wonder what they call the U.S. president.
At many points during the past four years, even relatively small actions might have reduced the pace of civilian casualties in Syria. How hard would it have been to destroy the helicopters dropping barrel bombs on neighborhoods? A number of options well short of major intervention might have reduced the regime’s destructive power and/or strengthened the capabilities of more responsible forces. All were untaken.
This was not some humanitarian problem distant from the center of U.S. interests. It was a crisis at the heart of the Middle East that produced a vacuum of sovereignty that has attracted and empowered some of the worst people in the world. Inaction was a conscious, determined choice on the part of the Obama White House. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and CIA Director David Petraeus advocated arming favorable proxies. Sunni friends and allies in the region asked, then begged, for U.S. leadership. All were overruled or ignored.
In the process, Syria has become the graveyard of U.S. credibility. The chemical weapons “red line.” “The tide of war is receding.” “Don’t do stupid [stuff].” These are global punch lines. “The analogy we use around here sometimes,” said Obama of the Islamic State, “and I think is accurate, is if a JV team puts on Lakers uniforms, that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant.” Now the goal to “degrade and destroy” the Islamic State looks unachievable with the current strategy and resources. “The time has come for President Assad to step aside,” said Obama in 2011. Yet Assad will likely outlast Obama in power.
What explains Obama’s high tolerance for humiliation and mass atrocities in Syria? The Syrian regime is Iran’s proxy, propped up by billions of dollars each year. And Obama wanted nothing to interfere with the prospects for a nuclear deal with Iran. He was, as Hof has said, “ reluctant to offend the Iranians at this critical juncture.” So the effective concession of Syria as an Iranian zone of influence is just one more cost of the president’s legacy nuclear agreement.
Never mind that Iran will now have tens of billions of unfrozen assets to strengthen Assad’s struggling military. And never mind that Assad’s atrocities are one of the main recruiting tools for the Islamic State and other Sunni radicals. All of which is likely to extend a war that no one can win, which has incubated regional and global threats — and thrown a small body in a red T-shirt against a distant shore.
1b)
|
| Sometimes you have to fight battles you cannot win because fighting – regardless of the outcome – advances a larger cause. Israel’s fight against the nuclear deal the major powers, led by US President Barack Obama concluded with Iran was such a battle. The battle’s futility became clear on July 20, just six days after it was concluded in Vienna. On July 20, the US administration anchored the deal – which paves the way for Iran to become a nuclear power and enriches the terrorism-sponsoring ayatollahs to the tune of $150 billion – in a binding UN Security Council resolution. Once the resolution passed, the deal became unstoppable. Most of the frozen funds that comprise the $150b. would have been released regardless of congressional action. And the nonproliferation regime the US developed over the past 70 years was upended the moment the deal was concluded in Vienna. The fight in Congress itself probably couldn’t have succeeded even if the administration hadn’t made an end run around the lawmakers at the Security Council. After Sen. Bob Corker, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, passed the law obligating Obama to secure the support of a mere third of the members of either House to implement his nuclear deal, its implementation was a foregone conclusion. The US Constitution gives sole power to approve international treaties to the Senate and requires a minimum of two-thirds approval for passage. Corker turned the Constitution on its head when he went forward with his bill. Far from curbing Obama’s executive overreach, Corker gave Obama unprecedented power to enact his radical, reckless nuclear agenda. So if the fight against the deal was doomed to fail, why did the Israeli government decide to fight it for all it was worth? And why is Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu still fighting it even though there is no longer any way to stop Obama from enabling Iran to sprint across the nuclear finish line? By fighting Obama’s nuclear deal, Israel seeks to advance two larger efforts. First, it uses the battle to expand its capacity to act without the US to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Second, it is shaping its relations with the US both for the duration of Obama’s presidency and for the day after he leaves office. As far as Iran’s nuclear program is concerned, Obama’s deal has not impacted Israel’s options for preventing the mullahs from getting the bomb. Even before the US betrayed Israel, its Arab allies and its own national security interests and closed a deal that will transform Iran into a nuclear power and a regional hegemon, there was no chance that the Americans would take action to prevent Iran from developing atomic warheads. That prospect was taken off the table in November 2007. The National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear program published that month falsely – and scandalously – asserted that Tehran abandoned its nuclear weapons program at the end of 2003. The NIE was a bureaucratic coup. CIA analysts, notorious since the 1970s for their biased and politicized analyses, used the falsified NIE to block then-president George W. Bush from dealing with Iran. After losing the public’s support for the war in Iraq, and after failing to find Saddam’s WMD (which magically fell into the hands of Islamic State 11 years after the US invasion), Bush was powerless to oppose an official assessment of the intelligence community that claimed Iran was not a nuclear proliferator. As for Obama, in early 2008, even before he secured the Democratic presidential nomination, he announced that he wanted to negotiate with then-Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. At no time since was there any evidence supporting the notion that Obama would lift a finger to prevent Iran from going nuclear. In other words, for the past eight years it has been apparent to everyone willing to see that Israel has but option for preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. By fighting so strenuously against Obama’s nuclear deal, Israel improved its ability to carry out a military strike against Iran’s nuclear installations in two ways. First, it removed the most serious domestic obstacle to carrying out such a strike. Last week’s publication of audio recordings of former defense minister Ehud Barak discussing of Iran’s nuclear program revealed that for the past several years, Israel’s military and intelligence brass have blocked operations against Iran’s nuclear installations three times. In 2010, 2011 and 2012 the IDF chief of General Staff and senior generals supported by hesitant cabinet members refused to carry out instructions they received from Netanyahu and Barak to prepare to carry out such a strike. There is no doubt that one of the main reasons they opposed lawful instructions was their faith in Obama’s security pledges. For their part, the Americans did their best to subvert the authority of Israel’s elected leadership. Over the past seven years Washington has sent a steady stream of senior officials to “oversee joint Israeli-American efforts” regarding Iran. It is now obvious that this “unprecedented cooperation” was never aimed at strengthening Israel against Iran. Rather, its aim has been to erode the government’s power to make independent decisions regarding Iran’s nuclear installations. Had Netanyahu kept his criticism of Obama’s decision to give Iran a free hand to develop nuclear weapons quiet, the generals might have shrugged their shoulders and expressed gratitude for the shiny new weapons Obama will throw at them to “compensate” for giving nukes to a regime sworn to annihilate the country. By making his opposition public, Netanyahu alerted the nation to the dangers. The top commanders can no longer pretend that US security guarantees are credible. Now they will be forced to kick their psychological addiction to worthless American security guarantees, accept reality and act accordingly. Better eight years late than never. The Americans weren’t the only ones paying attention to Israel’s fight. Israel’s Arab neighbors also saw how Netanyahu and Ambassador to the US Ron Dermer left no stone unturned in their efforts to convince Democratic lawmakers to oppose it. And the regional implications are already becoming clear. As the Saudis’ willingness to stand with Israel in public to oppose this deal has shown, our neighbors have been deeply impressed by the diplomatic courage Israel has shown. If and when Israel strikes Iran’s nuclear installations, our willingness to openly oppose the administration will weigh in our favor. It will impact our neighbors’ willingness to cooperate in action aimed at removing Iran’s nuclear sword from their necks and ours. By fighting the deal, Israel has also worked to shape our relations with the US in a favorable way both in the short and long term. Obama has another year and four months in office. (503 days, but who’s counting?) Even before the fight over his nuclear deal began in earnest, Obama made clear that he intends to use his remaining time in office to undermine the US-Israel alliance and to weaken Israel internationally. In the first instance, his Democratic and progressive surrogates’ anti-Semitic assaults against New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer, and the Justice Department’s coincidental indictment of pro-Israel New Jersey Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez communicated a clear message to Democratic lawmakers: Any Democrat who supports Israel against Obama will be targeted. By acting in this way, Obama has communicated the clear goal of transforming support for Israel into the foreign policy equivalent of opposing abortion: a Republicans-only position. Internationally, there can be little doubt that until Obama leaves office, he will seek to harm Israel and the UN. He may as well seek to harm our economy by quietly instituting administrative trade barriers with the US and Europe. Israel’s fight against Obama’s nuclear deal has diminished Obama’s ability to use his full power to harm it while preparing the ground for relations to be repaired under his successor. Until Netanyahu spoke before the joint houses of Congress in March, Obama’s nuclear deal was largely outside the American discourse. The fierce public debate began only after Netanyahu’s address. True, on Wednesday Obama got the support of his 34th Democratic senator and so blocked Israel’s efforts to convince Congress to vote down the deal. But his victory will be Pyrrhic. Obama’s success will backfire first and foremost because thanks to Netanyahu’s move to spearhead the public debate in the US, today two-thirds of Americans oppose the deal. Since Iran will waste no time proving just how devastating a mistake Obama and his fellow Democrats have just made, Obama’s success makes him far less free to enact further steps against Israel than he was before the deal was concluded. The public no longer will give him the benefit of the doubt. Moreover, since the deal is as bad as its opponents say it is, and given that most Americans oppose it, Obama’s successor will face no impediments in canceling the deal and adopting a new policy towards Israel and Iran. Then there are Obama’s Democratic followers in Congress. Today some commentators argue that Obama’s victory over opponents of his nuclear deal – first and foremost AIPAC – spells the demise of the pro-Israel lobby in the US. Thankfully, they are mistaken. Just as it failed to prevent then-president Ronald Reagan from selling AWACs to Saudi Arabia in 1981, so AIPAC had no chance of preventing Obama from moving ahead with his Iran deal. AIPAC has never had the power to defeat a president intent on advancing an anti-Israel policy. We will only be able to measure AIPAC’s power after the 2016 elections. Given that the nuclear pact will fail, there will be plenty of Democrats challengers who will be eager to use their Democratic incumbent opponents’ support for Obama’s nuclear madness against them. AIPAC’s public fight against the deal has set the conditions for it to extract a political price from its supporters who preferred Obama to US national security. If AIPAC extracts a price from key Democratic lawmakers who played crucial roles in approving the nuclear deal with Iran, it will prevent Obama from turning support for Israel into a partisan issue and emerge strengthened from the fight. On Wednesday, after Maryland’s Sen. Barbara Mikulski became the 34th senator to support Obama’s nuclear deal, PBS’s senior anchorwoman Gwen Ifill tweeted, “Take that, Bibi.” Obama’s win is Bibi’s loss. Bibi failed to convince 12 Democratic senators and 44 Democratic congressmen to vote against the head of their party. But by fighting against this deal, Netanyahu removed the main obstacle that kept Israel from taking action that will prevent Iran from going nuclear. He reduced Obama’s power to harm Israel. The fight strengthened American and American- Jewish opposition to the nuclear deal, paving the way for a Democratic renewal after Obama leaves office. And finally, Israel’s public battle against Obama’s deal paved the way its abrogation by his successor. All in all, a rather glorious defeat. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2)
Former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden held forth on Hillary Clinton’s email scandal during an interview with Al-Jazeera on Thursday.
Snowden, who knows a thing or two about compromising national security, was not impressed with Clinton’s excuses. “This is a problem because anyone who has the clearances that the secretary of state has, or the director of any top level agency has, knows how classified information should be handled,” he asserted.
He pointed out that there would be consequences for anyone else who did what Clinton has done:
If an ordinary worker at the ]State [Department or the Central Intelligence Agency, or anything like that, were sending details about the security of embassies, which is alleged to be in her email … meetings with private government officials, foreign government officials and the statements that were made to them in confidence over unclassified email systems, they would not only lose their jobs and lose their clearance, they would very likely face prosecution for it.
Snowden demurred from making an absolute statement about whether Clinton jeopardized national security. “What I can say is that when the unclassified systems of the United States government, which has a full-time information security staff, regularly gets hacked, the idea that someone keeping a private server in the renovated bathroom of a server farm in Colorado is more secure is completely ridiculous,” he declared.
For the record, Snowden does not think much of the current Republican frontrunner, either. “It’s very difficult to respond in a serious way to any statement that’s made by Donald Trump,” he snorted.
The statement in question involved Trump’s calling Snowden a “total traitor” and musing that “there is still such a thing as execution.” Not much danger of that, as Snowden has been living in the free-speech no-surveillance paradise of Russia, whose leadership would never dream of using him as a pretext to bully key Internet providers into putting their servers where Russian censors could get at them.
The curious intersection of Edward Snowden and Hillary Clinton provides an opportunity to reflect that national security cannot be placed at the mercy of uncontrolled individuals who think they know better than everyone else what should be classified and pass judgment on who should be allowed to keep secrets. Accountability is vital to securing the national interest, except in the minds of lunatics who think only the bad actors of the world should be able to run functional intelligence systems. Not many people are less accountable than Snowden and Clinton.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)
Booker’s Folly: Iran Deal Supporters’ Logical Conundrum
Today, Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland announced his opposition to the Iran nuclear deal. As the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, Cardin’s decision might have had some impact on the outcome of the vote on the pact. But since he waited until after President Obama had already secured the requisite 34 votes to sustain a veto of a motion of disapproval, it is essentially meaningless. Yet his statement explaining why he is going to vote against the president — assuming, that is, that Democrats fail to filibuster and prevent a vote — is another damning indictment of the administration’s failure. In reading it, what was most striking was how much of its language echoed that of yesterday’s statement from Senator Cory Booker explaining why he was voting for the deal. Both agreed that the agreement legitimized Iran’s nuclear program, rewards the Islamist regime for its bad behavior and that the easing of sanctions will make it difficult if not impossible to keep the nuclear scofflaw and the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism in check. Booker’s decision to vote for the deal in spite of these drawbacks demonstrates not only the illogic but also the abandonment of principle on the part of the minority of the House and Senate that will vote for the president’s policy. If, as I wrote earlier this week, this partisan vote now means that the Democrats will own Iran and its future misconduct for the foreseeable future, then these statements will haunt the party for years to come.
Booker was thought to be a prime candidate for opposing the deal yet in the end he caved to administration pressure. Caught between the pleas of many of his constituents in New Jersey (as well as his senior Senate colleague Robert Menendez) and that of the president, he chose the latter. The reason may be his national ambitions. No one who is thinking of a serious future run for the presidency, as Booker is likely to be considering, would go out of his way to antagonize the left-wing base of the Democratic Party. The abuse hurled at New York’s Chuck Schumer for opposing Obama’s Iran policy has clearly chastened many other Democrats.
Since Booker probably has little to fear in terms of future challenges to a seat that is likely to be safely his as long as he wants it, crossing friends of Israel won’t do him much damage. That’s especially true since up until this point he had been considered among the Jewish state’s and the Jewish community’s best friends in the Senate. But he and anyone else who thinks he may someday seek his party’s presidential nomination, has a lot to fear from liberals who buy into the notion that those who oppose the deal are neo-con warmongers.
But what is most embarrassing was Booker’s attempt to have it both ways in his announcement. Perhaps he hopes the doubts he expressed yesterday will enable him to pose as a skeptic once Iran demonstrates how naïve President Obama’s hopes for détente with the Islamist regime really are. But it will be difficult to ever take seriously again a politician who admits that the deal doesn’t achieve the objective of stopping Iran and that its impact will strengthen the regime, foment terror and ultimately bring them closer to a bomb anyway.
Nevertheless, Booker says he must back the agreement because “we have now passed a point of no return that we never should have reached” and that there is no alternative to “a deeply flawed deal.” He’s right that we never should have reached this point but fails to point out that we are left with this difficult choice because President Obama deliberately abandoned all of the West’s economic and military leverage over Iran in pursuit of his goal of détente with Tehran. The deal he’s voting for doesn’t so much delay Iran’s bomb as ensuring that it will get one either by cheating an easily evaded inspections process or by merely waiting patiently for it to expire. The dynamic of the agreement in which the West will now pour investment into Iran makes monitoring the agreement difficult and its revocation under any but the most extreme provocations, impossible.
As Cardin explained in his statement the talk of no alternative is false. With resolute American leadership, the West could be rallied to reimpose sanctions that would force Iran to give up what it has obtained from a feckless Obama administration.
That will have to be the task of the next administration, but if the Democrats hold the White House, the assumption will be that there can be no going back on Iran. All the caveats and weasel words said now won’t prevent the Democrats from being held accountable for every act of Iranian terror and their progress toward a bomb.
The fact that the two parties have come to a parting of the ways on Iran is no cause for anyone on the right to celebrate even if it does expose the Democrats to future criticism. By breaking the heretofore-solid bipartisan consensus in favor of resolute action to stop Iran, the president has introduced a toxic element into the discussion of foreign policy that won’t soon be forgotten.
But those like Booker, who are voting for a deal that they publicly acknowledge to be terrible, bear the responsibility for what will follow. Booker’s right that a “point of no return” has been reached but, it is not the one he thinks. The Iran debate might have been a moment when Congress could have finally shed its well-earned reputation for dysfunction and lack of principle. But by choosing to go along with the president and his left-wing ideological cohort, senators like Booker have passed on an opportunity that may not come again. Though they made their decisions largely on the basis of short-term political considerations, the majority of Democrats who, like Booker, have twisted themselves into pretzels to vote for something they know is wrong may long be remembered for this after everything else they will be forgotten.
Jonathan S. Tobin is senior online editor of COMMENTARY magazine and chief political blogger at www.commentarymagazine.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)
| Notes From An Engineer: |
I am a consulting engineer and make between $60,000 and $125,000 per year, depending on how hard I work and whether there are work projects out there for me.
My girlfriend is 61 and makes about $18,000 per year, working as a part-time mail clerk.
For me, making $60,000 a year, under ObamaCare, the cheapest, lowest grade policy I can buy, which also happens to impose a $5,000 deductible, costs $482 per month.
For my girlfriend, the same exact policy, same deductible, costs $1 per month. That's right, $1 per month. I'm not making this up.
Don't believe me? Just go to http://www.coveredca.com ,
So OK, clearly ObamaCare is a scheme that involves putting the cost burden of healthcare onto the middle and upper-income wage earners. But there's a lot more to it. Stick with me.
And before I make my next points, I'd like you to think about something:
I live in Monterey County, in Central California. We have a large land mass but just 426,000 residents - about the population of Colorado Springs or the city of Omaha.
But we do have a large Hispanic population, including a large number of illegal aliens, and to serve this group we have Natividad Medical Center, a massive, Federally subsidized county medical complex that takes up an area about one-third the size of the Chrysler Corporation automobile assembly plant in Belvedere, Illinois (see Google Earth View). Natividad has state-of-the-art operating rooms, Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging, fully equipped, 24 hour emergency room, and much more. If you have no insurance, if you've been in a drive-by shooting or have overdosed on crack cocaine, this is where you go. And it's essentially free, because almost everyone who ends up in the ER is uninsured.
Last year, 2,735 babies were born at Natividad. 32% of these were born to out-of-wedlock teenage mothers, 93% of which were Hispanic. Less than 20% could demonstrate proof of citizenship, and 71% listed their native language as Spanish. Of these 876 births, only 40 were covered under [any kind of] private health insurance. The taxpayers paid for the other 836. And in case you were wondering about the entire population - all 2,735 births - less than 24% involved insured coverage or even partial payment on behalf of the patient to the hospital in exchange for services. Keep this in mind as we move forward.
Now consider this:
If I want to upgrade my policy to a low-deductible premium policy, such as what I had with my last employer, my cost is $886 per month. But my girlfriend can upgrade her policy to the very same level, for just $4 per month. That's right, $4 per month. $48 per year for a zero-deductible, premium healthcare policy - the kind of thing you get when you work at IBM (except of course, IBM employees pay an average of $170 per month out of pocket for their coverage).
I mean, it's bad enough that I will be forced to subsidize the ObamaCare scheme in the first place. But even if I agreed with the basic scheme, which of course I do not, I would never agree to subsidize premium policies. If I have to pay $482 a month for a budget policy, I certainly do not want the guy I'm subsidizing to get a better policy, for less that 1% of what I have to fork out each month for a low-end policy.
Why must I pay $482 per month for something the other guy gets for a dollar? And why should the other guy get to buy an $886 policy for $4 a month? Think about this: I have to pay $10,632 a year for the same thing that the other guy can get for $48. $10,000 of net income is 60 days of full time work as an engineer. $48 is something I could pay for collecting aluminum cans and plastic bottles, one day a month.
Are you with me on this? Are you starting to get an idea what ObamaCare is really about?
ObamaCare is not about dealing with inequities in the healthcare system. That's just the cover story.
The real story is that it is a massive, political power grab. Do you think anyone who can insure himself with a premium policy for $4 a month will vote for anyone but the political party that provides him such a deal? ObamaCare is about enabling, subsidizing, and expanding the Left's political power base, at taxpayer expense. Why would I vote for anyone but a Democrat if I can have babies for $4 a month? For that matter, why would I go to college or strive for a better job or income if it means I have to pay real money for healthcare coverage? Heck, why study engineering when I can be a schlep for $20K per year and buy a new F-150 with all the money I'm saving?
And think about those $4-a-month babies - think in terms of propagation models. Think of just how many babies will be born to irresponsible, under-educated mothers. Will we get a new crop of brain surgeons and particle physicists from the dollar baby club , or will we need more cops, criminal courts and prisons? One thing you can be certain of: At $4 a month, they'll multiply, and multiply, and multiply.
Obama Care:
It's all about political power. ,
if things keep going like this we are doomed!!!
----------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment