Concierge Coverage.

       Here's the whole problem with the Republican's complaints over Obamacare aka the affordable Care Act. The Republicans claim that the idea of being forced to buy into the insurance is unfair. They claim to want what amounts to concierge coverage. That is to say you don't have to buy coverage if you don't want to.
       Of course they know full well that the insurance companies cannot afford to provide reasonably priced coverage if only older more sickly people participate, especially when there can be no pre-existing conditions clauses.  They claim they want everyone to pick and choose coverage.
       Its a little bit like television. The cable companies offer hundreds of channels for a set low price. Now you probably have no interest in ninety percent of the channels they provide, but in truth, the only way they can afford to provide the channels everybody does like is to provide the junk channels too. See, the cable companies have to pay to get the good channels, but the junk channels have to pay them. If the cable companies had to provide concierge channels, if they had to offer your choice of channels without those you don't want, the price would be unaffordable.
       Of course the Republican Congressional caucus doesn't want you to know that. They'd prefer you to think that they can convince the insurance companies to provide top quality coverage to only those who want it at the same low price as Obamacare. In other words, they want you to believe that the insurance companies are willing to sell insurance at prices that guarantee they will all go bankrupt.
       Its a great idea if all the insurance companies are all drunk. Like all the cable TV companies would have to be to offer concierge programing for the same price as with the junk programing. So, if you want to have the choice to have coverage or not, then the only people who will be able to buy the same coverage as ACA coverage will be the 1%ers, and maybe not even them.

Why Be Dumb?

       Here's an interesting opinion piece from the Washington Post titled " Mexico might Strike Back, Here's How." It points out a number of ways Mexico could cause America severe pain for Trump's immigration plans, including a wall. America is strong and could inflict substantial and financial pain upon Mexico that could cripple its economy. But Mexico is not without its own measures to get even.
       For starters, America cannot deport undocumented Mexican immigrants without those immigrants having proof of Mexican citizenship. Mexico doesn't have to accept them. Imagine the buildup of people in makeshift camps for as many as millions of deportees along our border, and imagine the costs of housing and feeding them, perhaps for years according to the article.
       And that's not all. So far Mexico has been stopping more than 140,000 Central Americans from crossing Mexico on their way to America. Then there's the drug wars. How would that go without Mexican cooperation, organized crime, human trafficking, snuggling, the list goes on. Mexicans are already mad as hell at Trump. They can cost America a world of pain. Sure, we're bigger and stronger than Mexico, but they're not without resources to strike back.
       With all the rhetoric coming out of the White House, we're just begging for trouble we don't need, can't afford and would bring world opinion against us. It just isn't worth the aggravation just to prove we're not being smart. What happens when all those illegal immigrants are needed to work all those seasonal jobs that no other Americans will do. Think about that the next time you make spaghetti sauce without tomatoes.

Who's Enemy?

       I'm here to tell you the media is not the enemy of the American people. I will admit the media sometimes aggravates me to no end, but it is not my enemy and its not yours either. The media isn't even President Trump's enemy. Now, I know, for some that's hard to swallow. It certainly is hard for Trump to swallow. But if you and he stop for a minute and really, truly, listen or read what they're saying, then even if you disagree, you will have to admit its not an enemy speaking.
       How do I know that statement to be true? Because sometimes I disagree most vehemently and sometimes I agree just as vehemently. If you require the news media to always agree with you then you don't want news, you want propaganda. Accurate news is never, always, one sided because political beliefs are never always one sided.
       Real politics, the kind that work, are always a case of compromise. Demanding only one dogma, one set of demands with no compromise is not democratic. Its not what the founding fathers required, else they would have opted for a kingdom or a fake democracy such as exists in Russia today. The worst possible solution for all Americans is to have only one party rule. We all think we'd be better off with one party rule, always ours, but you can be sure that is an alternative fact. It never works for the good of the people.
       Fast talk and constant twitter do not make a bad thing good. And pointing out bad things is not the act of an enemy, its the job of a competent media. That's what they're supposed to do. That's how they keep our government on the straight and narrow. So be unhappy with the media, that's okay, but be happy we have an honest media.

Your Vote Is Your Vote.

       In order to insure that wealth did not and could not unfairly infect our electoral process, and to protect our democracy, Congress set up the Federal Election Commission. This commission's duty is to make sure that any money donated to any political campaign was properly vetted and found to be legally allowed to be used for that purpose. In order not to have either party have an upper handed advantage, it was decided that there would be three members of each of the two political parties on the commission and that it would require four members to institute any investigation of any complaint.
       Now the law setting this commission up is pages and pages long. It can be explained in one paragraph. In fact it can be explained in one word: Deadlock. Here's the thing, if it takes four members of the FEC to empty the waste basket, and there are three of each party, that basket still hasn't been emptied. If the Republicans don't want any Republicans investigated, they just vote no. If the Democrats don't want any Democrats investigated, they just vote no. Remember, it takes four votes to do its job.
       That's the danger of having an even number, evenly split commission. But its not just a danger, its a fact that has been happening constantly for years. Its a great big joke that Congress played on itself, that made all of us the butt of the joke.
       So, if you see some smuggler smuggling in a suitcase of money and handing it to your favorite Congressman, with your own eyes, you can report it to the FEC and they'll first ask which party that Congressman belongs to. That's the party that gets to vote no on any investigation. That's right, it only takes three members to be in attendance at a time. This is why you can rest assured that the next election can be bought, just like the last one. Its all a matter of alternative votes.

       

We Have Questions?

        How can there be real leaks but at the same time be fake news about those leaks? Are the true leaks somehow fake? Do the true leaks somehow metamorphose into fake leaks, or does the fake news somehow switch into true news? Or is it some combination of the leaks and news that becomes mentally unstable? Is it Nake Fews or Leal Reaks?
        How about terrorist attacks in Bowling Green? Maybe Green Bowling? Or was it terrorist activity in Sweden? Or was it in pig Latin, Weden-say? It's hard to keep track of which is fake news and which is truthful. Is it the national media or is it the Trump administration pronouncements that are phony? I hear sentences stated by one Trump advisor who claims another Trump appointee is explaining something with alternative facts.
       Just what is an alternative fact? If you state a fact, what would be the alternative of that fact? The opposite of that fact would be an untruth, which is in fact, a lie. Now, I don't mean to be picky, but if something is mentioned in the national media and is proven to be true, and then along comes a Trump appointee to claim the opposite, wouldn't that be a lie? If one appointee makes a claim and the second says that was just an alternative fact, isn't that just using different words to try to hide the fact that the first appointee lied?
       How important is the size of an inaugural crowd? How important is the size of the victory in the electoral college vote? Does the president get extra points for the biggest crowd or the most votes? Does that mean he gets to go first in the lunch line? Aside from a few historians, who would have known a hundred years from now? Or twenty years? Who would care?

The Real Thing.

       There's an article in the National Memo, a decidedly progressive publication, but it has a good point that everyone missed. The point it makes is that Trump isn't/wasn't an experienced executive of a publicly traded company. His experience comes from a privately owned and operated group of companies. In this position he is the sole decider in chief. He buys and sells, pays or doesn't pay based on his decisions alone. He doesn't have to answer to anyone but himself in his dealings.
       There's a big difference in the owner operator of a private business and the CEO  of a publicly held business. In that public business there's a board of directors who are not just advisors, they can veto his decisions, require him to make changes, have meaningful input into the operations as well as how much to pay that CEO.
        The publically held company does offer some degree of solid background for the presidency. But a privately held company doesn't hold nearly as much experience that would be helpful to a president of the United States. That owner is completely in charge and answers to no one. That's not how America works.
       Does anyone believe that the kind of chaos surrounding Trump's White House would happen in a publicly held company without seeing that company and that CEO go down the tubes? No CEO would be allowed to let anything like that happen without losing his or her job. In a privately held company, the CEO (owner) can allow it and nobody can tell him not to.
       Guess what kind of administration Mr. Trump is running? Does anyone think its a good way to run any government, especially America's democratic government? Ya see, the difference is, in a publically held company, it sells stock to pretty much anyone. And because of that the government created the Securities and Exchange Commission in order to protect investors. But in a privately held company there is no SEC. They're pretty much on their own. Just like us Americans. We're sort of on our own out here. We need a real president. A real Congress would help too.

Hate Isn't a Plan.

      The plan for the hated Obamacare law is finally coming together. Insurance companies, fearful of being stuck with poorly supported coverage plans are beginning to pull out of state exchanges. With a Republican president calling for the end to Obamacare and both houses of Congress steaming full speed ahead to design some sort of replacement, almost anything will satisfy them, so they can finally repeal the Affordable Care Act.
       No wonder insurance companies are abandoning ACA, they fear it has become a sinking ship. not because it didn't work, it did, but because it has all the appearances of being destroyed by a vengeful Republican party leadership. From the beginning they said it could not and would not work. And to prove it they dreamed up death squads and a whole lot more. But in spite of all their efforts it did work.
       One of the points used was the idea that it couldn't be fixed so it had to be repealed. But then a funny thing happened on the way to 2016. Millions of satisfied customers kind of liked it. Obamacare wasn't perfect, but it was working nicely for all those millions of people. That fact served to enrage the Republicans in Congress. Somehow they had to kill it before too many Americans got to liking it too much. In the lead-up to 2016, they tried sixty time to repeal or defund it, to no avail.
       But give the Republicans credit. They never gave up on the idea of destroying this hated Obama law that gave medical insurance to millions who never had coverage before. No lie was too farcical to refuse to use. But with all their efforts, they can't come up with a plan of replacement that the American public will swallow. In the end, they're gonna have to allow for an individual mandate and almost all of Obamacare's parts in order to make it work and satisfy the public. It would have been so much easier to repair, but no, that would have given credit to Obama.

A Probe Is A Probe.

       There's a humorous, but not so funny, opinion piece in the Washington Post today. It seems that Congressman Jason Chaffetz , chair of the House Oversight committee, the same committee chair who investigated the Obama administration for everything but the kitchen sink, has no stomach to investigate the Trump administration for its myriad of questionable miscues
       But now comes word that Chaffetz has finally stepped up and is currently investigating the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It seems that this agency had the audacity to contract with Sesame Street and PBS to have Sid The Science Kid publicize the dangers of the Zika virus. Way ta go Jason.
       Even his constituents back in his home district in Utah at a town hall meeting gave him the raspberries. They suggested, somewhat emphatically, that he should "do your job." But can you imagine the nerve of the CDC to hire an orange, possibly illegal alien to speak on behalf of curbing a somewhat dangerous infectious  disease? Why, the unmitigated gall.
       Fortunately we have strong, brave representation  in Congress willing to take on an organization such as PBS and Sesame Street. And "where is this Sesame Street anyway?" Meanwhile the far less serious matters such as False news, alternative facts, Russian interference in our elections, non-existent voter fraud, national security discussions held in public dining halls and so many other issues will just have to wait their turn while this vital Sid the Science Kid issue is fully investigated and the guilty parties are properly chastised. Let's hear it for Jason Chaffetz.

Everybody Has A Plan.

       According to Drew Altman, president of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, the Republican healthcare plan includes converting Medicaid to a block grant program for the states and eliminating the expansion to cover childless citizens. And Converting Medicare to a plan that reduces the amount of payments and provides a set amount for citizens to buy coverage. And it's not being debated in public at all.
       Of course nothing is cast in paper Mache as yet, except for the theme that they want to cut back on helping people. Now let me be the first to point out that the Republican leadership in Congress likes people. They think we're really nice. Nice enough to accept whatever they decide to throw at us as a replacement for the hated Obamacare.
       So, while 12 million have signed up this year for the Affordable Care Act coverage, nobody knows what they'll have before this year is over. One of the complaints the Republicans have with Obamacare is the individual mandate which requires that everyone buys the insurance or pays a penalty. But the thing they don't admit is that its what makes any national plan work. At least any plan that actually covers everyone with at least a basic minimum of coverage.
       The plan they're suggesting will cost the government less and the people a lot more, unless you want an el-cheapo policy that basically gives you no coverage at all. Ya see, having to buy into a plan when you're young may seem unfair, but when you get older and can't get insurance because of your illnesses, and believe me, you will have illnesses when you get older, you'll be happy you have a plan like Obamacare. Except the Republicans want to get rid of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).
      
   

Surprise, Surprise.

       This is 2017 and in a recent survey, 45% of those surveyed did not know that the Affordable Care Act would be repealed if Obamacare was repealed. But separately only 35% either didn't know that the two were the same or weren't sure. The poll, by Morning Star said that the majority of those who were confused were "those 18 - 29 and those who earned under $50,000."
       These are the folks who are likely to be most effected by a repeal. My guess is that they'll be happy, right up until they're informed they don't have health insurance anymore, or at a much higher cost, or much lower coverage. At this point nobody knows for sure because the Republicans have no plan. They've been trying for seven years to repeal, and then repeal and replace but haven't come up with a replace plan yet.
       And still 45% of Americans don't realize that if you repeal Obamacare, you are automatically repealing the ACA. They're one in the same, folks. This should be required reading. If you repeal one you are also repealing the other. Ya can't separate one from the other. Does anyone still not understand? If you have a seedling tree with two branches and you pull one out by the roots, the other branch comes with it.
       I suspect its just that they're not into reading about such things. Hey, I've got coverage now that I couldn't get before. But I hear Obamacare is bad so if they want to do away with Obamacare, so what. Hey wait a minute. What happened to my coverage? I had Affordable Care Act coverage. So why are you taking it away from me? I want it back. Whatta ya mean its too late?

We'd Better Take Notice.

       Wow! I just finished reading a scary article in Foreign Policy entitled Backing Into World War III. Foreign Policy is publication that is neutral in so far as politics are concerned. The thrust of the article is to explain how revisionist powers forced the great wars of the past and how the great, stabilizing powers of those times allowed the revisionists to force those wars.
       From the Napoleonic wars to WWI and WWII, the stabilizing great powers backed down by refusing to maintain their own power and influence. Look at the U.S. after WWI. We refused to take on the responsibility of stabilizing the world order and wound up fighting WWII.
       The article then tries to show how over the last two and a half decades and including the current administration, we again began to back away from the responsibility of maintaining the world order. After the end of the cold war, America seemed to feel no responsibility or at least a lessening of that responsibility to maintain the status quo. As a result Russia and China are flexing their muscles more and more.
       We can't back away from our world responsibility or world dominance. It's for the good of all mankind. As we back away, our smaller allies begin to fear for their safety. They will flow to the other side or form smaller, weaker alliances to protect themselves without us. This will only encourage Russia and China to be more aggressive.
       At any rate the article makes a strong case for a militarily strong America, anxious to fulfill its role as the only superpower in the world and it's strong desire to maintain the world order with a vibrant, democratic, free world society. America first is a dangerous idea. It suggests America only, to our allies and friends. We do need to be more powerful but to do that we must have an up to the minute infrastructure that can feed and fuel a stronger military and society.

Pray Your Way.

       There's a law in our Constitution which requires separation of Church and State. The government can't establish a "state Church." But Church, churches, can't create a state government either. To enforce these ideals there's a "Johnson Rule." What the Johnson rule says is that no religious entity such as a church can have its priest or pastor or Rabbi or leader stand up in support of or argue against any politician and remain tax exempt.
       Since churches are considered charitable organizations, they are tax exempt. The thinking is that if a church breaks the Johnson rule, then it can no longer be considered a charitable institution since no charity can become involved in politics. They'd lose their tax exempt status.
       Now a separation between church and state is a good thing. Our country was founded on the idea that all religions are free and open and the government can neither create a single church of the land, nor outlaw any church without proof that it is a terrorist institution sponsoring un-American activities. It protects both the Government from churches and churches from the government.
       So why would Pres. Trump want to take down this law? Because some churches do want to take over the government. But history shows that countries that held one single church to be the only and required church failed. Imagine if we all had to be Baptist or all Presbyterian or all Catholic.
        That church would be in constant turmoil within itself. Nobody would agree with anyone else. Sort of like what our government is like now. Its bad enough that all the politicians are fighting each other, do we really need all the ministers and priests and all getting into the battles? I hope not. I want my preacher to think about God not who's in charge here on earth.

Conditioning.

       There's an article in the new York Times today titled "Nobody cares The President Is lying" by Charles Sykes. What it comes down to is that so many alt-right news outlets have made the claim that mainline news outlets are lying, that people are beginning to believe it. No, that's not quite true. About a third of Americans don't believe the actual truth any more.
       Then along comes President Trump who takes advantage of this and claims the lying media isn't telling the truth about the size of his hands, his inaugural crowd or his speech at the CIA and almost everything else he says or does. Now another third of America doesn't know what to think. Then Congress, led by Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell seem almost to agree with Trump and now another tenth of the population think the nonsense is true. I say a tenth for Congress because nobody trusts the Congress to get anything right.
       What's left is less that a quarter of Americans who still believe the actual truth while the rest don't know, or trust only alternative facts, fake news or outright lies. So news outlets like Breitbart are more trusted by most Americans, while actual true news outlets are distrusted.
       Now, I'm not suggesting we're headed  for a Russian like society, but that's the way Russia does lead its people into believing that which is not true. The people are so conditioned to the government telling them that everyone else is lying, but Putin and the Kremlin are telling the truth and they are alone in doing so. Ever hear of Orwell? Think about that.
       No, he did not win the popular vote but for three million illegal aliens voting against him. No he cannot build the wall and get Mexico to pay for it, he'll stick us with the tab. No, his was not the largest inaugural crowds in history. No, he's not going to show us his tax returns and No he's not gonna give over control of his businesses to independent control. Even Wall Street is beginning to fear him, and with good reason.

No More Bogyman.

       Have you ever bought a new pair of shoes and felt as though the shoes didn't fit right? How about six months later? Now they fit very comfortably, right? Well it looks like the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, is feeling a lot like those new shoes. Now that folks have been using it for a while, insurance companies, hospitals, patients, pretty much everybody is happy with it. At least happy enough that they don't want to take a chance on what the Republicans might rush through Congress.
       That's because its so hard to please everybody, even all Republicans. it's the kind of problem Obama had in passing the thing in the first place. And that's why Republicans are starting to talk about REPAIRING Obamacare. Because repairing is a lot easier and a lot less scarier than replacing. According to an article in the New York times, the Republicans won't have anybody on their side to replace bur almost everybody on their side to repair.
       It's kinda odd to hear Republicans say the word repair instead of replace. Even though it rolls off the tongue as easily as replace, repair still is a little like changing from we're gonna win to we hope to tie. The really funny thing is, though, repairing Obamacare is what nearly everybody wanted in the first place, even Obama.
       But Republicans kept demanding that it be repealed. Then it quickly became repeal and replace. More than sixty times. Then when they finally got control of everything, they began to see how difficult it would be to replace with something that worked as well, or even half as well as Obamacare, for all its problems. There's no quick fix for anything, so lets hope they can take their time and make good corrections to the plan and get more states and hardcore Republicans to sign on.

Here's How To Spend Your Time

       I've tried to be quiet about President Trump's picks for his cabinet. I haven't been successful at it, but I've tried. But now we're at a point where I'm concerned for my grandchildren.  Ms. Betsey DeVos has been selected by Pres. Trump for Secretary of education. I've got a real problem with that. I still have children in public school. It was not a well thought out selection.
       Ms. DeVos never attended public school. She was fortunate enough to go to private school and my guess is it was a very good school. She understands that many public schools are doing a poor job educating our children. Those schools are not preparing our children to become productive members of our society. We all understand that.
       That's where she goes wrong. Her answer is to give students vouchers to attend good private schools. Pay To Learn. That's the message she has for everyone, Pay To Learn. Now that's a decent plan for those who can afford to Pay To Learn, but it leaves many middle class students and nearly all poor student out. Rich students and upper middle class students really don't need her help but the students who do need help, well Betsey doesn't seem to care too much about.
       Now I suppose those students in those under achieving schools that would become under funded by Betsey's plan can, well, I guess they should just eat cake. Except you need to be able to afford to buy cake and to afford cake, you need a good job and to get a good job, you need a good education. Ya see, we're right back to those public schools that Betsey DeVos doesn't seem to care about. And that's why you need to contact your two Senators and ask them to please reject Betsey DeVos for Education secretary.