President Obama has been pushing gun control, talking about sequestration as if it were doomsday and has now pivoted to immigration reform while the economy struggles to recover under the weight of an overgrown government.

Recent Gallup polling shows that Americans top three concerns are the economy, federal spending and healthcare – all items upon which the White House is failing to lead.

68% of respondents said that the economy are most concerned about the economy, 61% felt that federal spending was a concern and 59% were very concerned about healthcare with gas prices and unemployement closely behind.

The Gallup Economic Confidence Index also took a dive from it’s January high of -8 to a current reading of -16.

Americans continue to assess current economic conditions more negatively than positively, with 18% saying they are excellent or good and 37% rating them as poor. This equates to a net current conditions score of -19, down from -17 the week prior. – Gallup

On the subject of jobs, a Gallup poll show a steady drop in American’s hope for finding quality jobs. At the beginning of Obama’s first term, 90% felt that they could find a job they wanted. As of March 20th, only 74% feel the same way.

A Rasmussen survey found that only 31% of Americans feel the economy is getting better.

With American’s perceptions of the economy faultering, where is the President’s laser-like focus on Jobs?

President Obama has taken some actions on jobs and the economy. The President has disbanded the jobs council he formed in his first term and had ignored every since. Obama also pushed for the tax increases that hit business owners, middle-income and low-income earners. The administration has also taken several actions to hinder the growth of the natural gas industry.

As he tries to back-peddle from having the man behind the curtain revealed, it is important to point out a few little ways the Affordable Care Act re-enforces his proclamation that success is to be punished.

Time and time again the ObamaTax on people who choose not to purchase health insurance has been referred to as the “freeloader” tax. It is to be imposed on folks who are young and healthy, can afford to buy health insurance but choose not to.

This is actually MORE insulting than the “you didn’t build that” speech. Many people who are young, healthy and CAN afford to buy health insurance, but choose not to, actually pay their doctor bills when they get them. If the bill is expensive, they arrange terms and abide by them. These responsible people are the ones who will feel the worst sting of the ObamaCare Tax.

According to the Association of Credit and Collection Professionals (ACA) in 2010 29% of the adult population (19-64) had medical debt, but only 16% had been contacted by a collection agency. That indicates that 13% were paying their bills on-time. Those people will soon have the pleasure of paying a penalty tax, for which they receive neither reward nor benefit simply because they have been responsible free market citizens.

So if you CAN afford health insurance but exercise your freedom to choose not to buy it, even though you DO pay your medical bills (incidentally you pay more for the same service than an insurance company does), you are now a freeloader and are penalized for being responsible!

Yet another provision in the onerous law, of which this author has heard no one speak, allows your employer to charge you more for the same insurance than another worker who makes less money than you do. So as a reward for loyal longtime service you get to pay more money for the same insurance than does a new hire. In case you are skeptical, here is the language, straight from the bill.

‘‘SEC. 2716. PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SALARY.
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The plan sponsor of a group health plan
(other than a self-insured plan) may not establish rules relating to the health insurance coverage eligibility (including continued eligibility) of any full-time employee under the terms of the plan that are based on the total hourly or annual salary of the employee or otherwise establish eligibility rules that have the effect of discriminating in favor of higher wage employees.
‘‘(b) LIMITATION.—Subsection (a) shall not be construed to prohibit a plan sponsor from establishing contribution requirements for enrollment in the plan or coverage that provide for the payment by employees with lower hourly or annual compensation of a lower dollar or percentage contribution than the payment required of similarly situated employees with a higher hourly or annual compensation.

Notice you cannot discriminate in favor of a high-wage employee, but you CAN discriminate in favor of a low wage one.

Just two more ways the current administration has found to punish success and reward failure.

The point he leaves off on is certainly one to ponder:

In 2010, when all this lay hazily in the future, the sheer arrogance of Obamacare energized a popular resistance powerful enough to deliver an electoral shellacking to Obama. Yet two years later, as the consequences of that overreach materialize before our eyes, the issue is fading. This constitutes a huge failing of the opposition party whose responsibility it is to make the opposition argument.

Every presidential challenger says that he will repeal Obamacare on Day One. Well, yes. But is any of them making the case for why?

This is the biggest problem facing us right now. Since the economy is perceived to be improving despite a 15% unemployment rate (includes those who gave up looking for a job), and the underemployed. Since the perception, rather than the reality, that the economy is improving is taking the air out of the sails of the Republican candidates – it should force them to deal with the real destruction that is coming our way… ObamaCare. It’s like an avalanche slowly making it’s way down the mountain, picking up steam and enough power to crush us all.

Many liberals in the States point to Canada’s health care system as one we should emulate. It’s not true. As an American living in Canada it’s been a learning experience.

To begin with we should remember that Canada has about 30 million citizens versus the United States’ 300 million. That number in itself should give us pause. We should also be aware of the conversation taking place within Canada trying to figure out ways to save their system – which is in serious trouble – not the least that it is financially unsustainable. We’re talking about months-long waits to see specialists and to get treatment we routinely get quickly in the States.

I asked a lady in her 80s here what she thinks of the Canadian health care system. She explained that it’s great until you get old. In other words – it’s fine when you’re young, healthy, and basically don’t need more than basic care and prevention. After that, it’s trouble.

I know another man, in his early 70s, who had tremendous pain in his arm. He was able to see his general practitioner and get pain medication but had to wait months to see a specialist. Thankfully, his pain subsided – but what if it hadn’t? What if there had been something really wrong? As it was, his quality of life was severely curtailed and he was unable to do the things he normally did during the course of his day.

On the flip side of the age spectrum, I know of a baby that was in need of eye surgery. It was determined by the government insurance that it was not a critical situation. What ended up happening fell in the category of unintended consequences – what began as something relatively minor became a bigger deal. This baby, needing eye surgery, was unable to keep her balance as she began learning to walk – she then not only needed surgery, but also needed to relearn how to balance and walk properly – I’m sure needing some sort of therapy to fix the situation.

I myself, before moving to Canada, during a basketball game, tore my ACL – I had an appointment with a top specialist within the week and surgery the next month… without a referral. Here in Canada you always need a referral. I wonder how my injury would have played out here in the Canadian system.

In addition to long waits for basic medical care we must discuss the financial burden ObamaCare would place on the United States’ weak monetary situation. We currently find ourselves 15 trillion dollars in debt. ObamaCare will cost us trillions more.

To see the bill’s true first-decade costs, we need to start the clock when the costs would actually start in any meaningful way: in 2014. The CBO says that Obamacare would cost $2.0 trillion in the bill’s real first decade (from 2014 to 2023) — and much more in the decades to come.

But $2.0 trillion wouldn’t be the total ten-year costs. Instead, that would merely be the “gross cost of coverage provisions.” Based on earlier incarnations of the proposed overhaul, the total costs would be about a third higher (the exact number can’t be gleaned from the CBO’s analysis, which is only preliminary and is not a full scoring) — making the total price-tag between $2.5 and $3 trillion over the bill’s real first decade….

We’d also pay for this through increased deficits. Under strict instructions from the Democrats, the CBO gave Obamacare credit for over $400 billion (from 2014 to 2023) in phony “savings” that would allegedly result from cutting doctor’s payments under Medicare by over 20 percent and never raising them back up. As the CBO notes, one of two things could happen: Congress could either follow through on these severe pay cuts — in which case doctors would view all Medicare patients as if they have the plague — or, Congress could eliminate these pay cuts — as everyone in Washington expects to have happen under the so-called “doc fix” — in which case the CBO projects that this bill would raise deficits by over $100 billion from 2017 to 2019 alone.

Can we afford ObamaCare medically or financially?

We must all focus on the 2012 election as the one that will determine the direction our country is headed. Is it going to be one where the government controls our private lives – telling us what procedures they can afford to ‘give’ us, and which ones they can’t – or one where we, as individuals, have control over our own lives?

After all is said and done, after ObamaCare comes into effect 23 million Americans will continue to be uninsured. The argument that all of us will have insurance is simply not true.

We cannot deny that our health-care insurance industry needs to be fixed – but our health care system itself is one that many across the world depend on when their own socialized systems fail them. Our health care is second to none.

To destroy our health care system as a by-product of fixing the health-care insurance industry is foolish and puts us all at risk – those put most at risk are our elderly, whose care will be rationed first. Don’t believe me – ask my 80 year old friend how she likes it.

The Ugly Truth about Canadian Health Care

photo: illegalimmigrationstatistics.org

The courts, for the most part, have sided with the Justice Departments argument that the law will hamper current federal law enforcements efforts to curb illegal immigration. An argument some opponents say makes no sense, given the current Administration’s latest decision to only pursue illegal immigrants who commit violent crimes.

SB 1070 requires Arizona law enforcement to detain individuals during stops they suspect of being in the country illegally. Arizona leadership contend that the law is to aid, not hinder, in the current battle against illegal immigration.

Most likely, the Court will hear the case in April, leading to a decision before July. This will possibly coincide with the Court’s decision regarding the President’s health care overhaul, which conservatives and Republicans say oversteps the limits of the federal government.

The scheduling and decision of both cases can have a dramatic impact on the upcoming presidential and congressional elections.

WOW! Talk abort chutzpah! No mistakes, no mulligans needed (reference to his golf), no do-overs. It must be really nice to be this self-assured.

Let’s see. Can we bring up the Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), better known as Obamacare? “The health care bill that we passed is absolutely the right thing to do, but it’s going to take a while before it’s even fully implemented, much less taken full effect,” Obama said during the interview. “… absolutely the right thing to do …?” Richard S. Foster, chief actuary for Medicare, said that PPACA will result in cuts to hospitals that will jeopardize access for seniors, as well as costs that will increase from 2010 -2019, but after that may be savings later. Not mentioned in Foster’s report is another factor that will impact senior’s health care – decrease of access to primary care physicians (PCPs) as the many newly-insured patients complete for an already short supply of PCPs.

Actuaries for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid (CMS) said that under PPACA the uninsured would decrease from the current 57 million to 23 million by 2019, with 21 million newly insured being insurance company exchanges, most of whom will receive healthcare and/or insurance coverage subsidies. These 21 million newly insured patients will be competing with the Medicare patients for what already is a shortage of PCPs. Reimbursements are generally about 30% lower for Medicare than private insurance. Diminished access to care for Medicare patients is a very likely outcome of PPACA.

And as of last Friday (October 14, 2011) Health and Human Services gave up on a major part of Obamacare, Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS), that was supposed to reduce the deficit by $86 billion.

Now let’s turn our attention to the economy. Unemployment is currently 9.1%. After an initial “stimulus” of $787 billion in 2009 (The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act [ARRA]), government spending had no effect on the economy. We were told that the unemployment rate, if ARRA was passed, would not go above 8%. It has gone as high as 10%. The country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the most often used measure of economic activity. In terms of real (i.e. inflation-adjusted) per capita (i.e. population-adjusted) GDP, the U.S. economy has declined at an annual rate of 0.29% since 2008, as compared to an annual growth rate of 1.15% during the eight prior years. Obama’s latest stimulus, the American Jobs Act (AJA), a $447 billion fiasco that even the Senate would not pass. He is now trying to sell it in small pieces. His track record on the first stimulus wasn’t very good, so why does he expect the second one to be any better?

Have I mentioned foreign policy? While he has made numerous faux pas, let’s limit this discussion to Israel. Obama called for a Palestinian state that should be focused on Israel’s pre-1967 borders. Not content with that, he was “less than gracious” to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Obama, upset over Israel’s decision to approve Jewish construction in east Jerusalem, snubbed Netanyahu during his visit to the White House. The White House denied Netanyahu the red carpet treatment generally afforded to visiting heads of state. The Israeli prime minister and Obama didn’t pose for photos together, and Netanyahu was excluded from dinner with the president. When Netanyahu wouldn’t agree to concessions, Obama left a meeting with him, though he invited Netanyahu to stay at the White House, talk to Obama advisers and “let me know if there is anything new.”

I am quite sure that you can think of some additions. But for Obama to make the claim that ALL of his choices were correct shows him to be a completely arrogant narcissist.

But that’s just my opinion.

As predicted, CNN did its best to present the debate as the “Rick Perry Show w/Mitt Romney and special guests”.  Blitzer directed or redirected nearly every question to Perry and gave Romney ample time to counter.  Perry came out strong right away.  The first question regarding social security required Perry to defend his Ponzi scheme comment.  He did so, was unapologetic, and the audience responded with great appreciation.  The first half of the debate unequivocally belonged to Perry.  Bolstered by an inarguable record in Texas (Romney tried the argument, but failed), the Governor looked confident, easy and the crowd responded very positively.  Unfortunately, during the second half, Perry struggled quite a bit.  When the Gardasil question was raised, he provided a satisfactory answer and admitted he had made a mistake with that decision.  However Perry didn’t seem prepared for the pounding that question would get.  As Blitzer posed and then re-posed the question, several candidates took the opportunity to take the fight straight to Perry, and he did not seem prepared for that.  The final nail in the coffin came on immigration.  He defended his support of the Texas “Dream Act” and the accompanying “states rights” argument to the boos of much of the tea party packed audience.  After going a long long way to endear himself to tea party patriots across the country, Perry gave up a lot of ground with that answer.  The audience’s displeasure obviously threw Perry off his game, as he began to stammer and stumble through his defense.  It hurt him badly, and being at the end of the debate, left the viewer with that subpar image.  Perry comes off as a man of great stature and composure, and he has the ‘80’s Friday night soap opera eyebrows to back that up – he surely hasn’t lost the nomination in this one debate, but he didn’t win it either.

Romney looked tired, and has been looking that way for a couple of weeks now.  He may not have been properly prepared for the fight this process had turned out to be.  He held his own quite well and had several thoughtful and audience-rousing responses, but seemed out of his element in front of the blatantly conservative crowd.  He certainly did not score points by suggesting that Perry just got lucky in Texas with jobs creation.  His refusal to consider repeal of monstrous bills such as healthcare certainly did nothing to endear him to tea party voters, and his criticism of Obamacare rang quite hollow, considering his own healthcare boondoggle in Massachusetts.  That  will not be lost on conservative voters.  Mitt’s hair also failed to impress tonight.  He’ll pay for that.

Rick Santorum was the pleasant surprise of the evening.  Although he still received considerable less time than the other candidates, his responses were impassioned and straight forward.  He did well to highlight his history of sounding the alarm on Social Security and the debate format played very positively to his everyman appeal.  Santorum proved tonight that he is an intelligent, conservative voice in this race, but his lack of aggression threatens to be his downfall. That being said, his performance was good and he cannot be counted out of this race just yet.  Also, Santorum obviously received the message regarding his pink tie from the last debate.  When you’re struggling to assert yourself as a front runner, vague shades of pink are not exactly the colors that scream “I’m your man!”… or A man, for that matter.

Bachmann was under the most pressure to perform tonight.  She is a tea party favorite and has been struggling in the polls since Perry announced his candidacy.  After a fairly wooden performance last week, she was expected to come out a little stronger in front of her tea party compatriots.  All in all she lived up to the expectations.  She seemed infinitely more relaxed and at home in this format.  Even her hair seemed to have more bounce than usual.  Bachmann was in her element as she explained that Obamacare was raiding Medicare for 500 billion dollars and hammered home all the appropriate tea party points of smaller government and full repeal of Obamacare and financial reform.  Her most forced moments came when she chose to take Perry head on, but as he seems to be siphoning off a good bit of her support, she likely had no other choice.  A loss for Bachmann in this debate would spell a certain end to her Presidential hopes.  She avoided that doom for now, but with every comment about her fights in the House, Bachmann seems only to solidify more and more the very reasons she should remain in Congress and fight for conservative values.  She seemed at home tonight, but it may be her true home is in the House.

Huntsman had his eyebrow greased and calibrated and ready to go from the start.  He seemed to have studied his Tea Party primer well, and was able to fire off a few conservative sounding responses, but as usual he was short on detail and long on eyebrow.  He also had some very awkward attempts at humor, most notably a weird reference to Kurt Cobain.  Who was he hoping to tweak with that remark?  Even the audience seemed embarrassed for him as he paused for the laughter that never came.  Obviously his comedy software program had not been installed correctly.  The amount of time CNN devoted to Huntsman tonight did not work to his advantage at all.  When the network that originally devised the “tea bagger” slur  devotes that much time to a questionable Republican such as Huntsman, it is a clear indicator to conservative voters that this is not who they want as their nominee.  The good thing is, Huntsman avoided the “my record in Utah” script; the bad thing is, without his record in Utah, Huntsman is nothing more than an empty suit with a lot of plugs and wires running down the back.  He doesn’t come off as “real” and if there’s anything tea party voters are looking for, its authenticity.

Cain did well.  The audience was clearly in his corner and his no-nonsense businessman approach was a guaranteed tea party favorite.  He wasn’t offered much time, but he used his opportunities wisely to highlight his 9-9-9 plan and his corporate experience.  Cain did not seem to advance much in this debate, nor did he lose any ground.  It was a solid showing, but surely not the breakout his team must have hoped for considering the forum.

Ron Paul turned in the usual Paul performance.  His highlight came when Blitzer posed a question about a 30 year old man who chose not to buy health insurance but then suffered a horrible health crisis: who should pay for that man’s health benefits?  Should we let him die?  Over the shouts of tea partiers (sure to illicit all kinds of hysterical coverage in the MSM tomorrow), Paul talked about the idea of personal responsibility and taking risks.  He reminded Blitzer that in the days before government entitlements, people in crisis turned to churches and community charity for help.  He  reiterated what every tea partier knows by heart: if the government stopped stepping in to provide every need imaginable, that man would find a way to save his own life.  Of course, Ron Paul got all Ron Paul-y on the military and foreign policy and elicited many hearty boos from the audience as he tried to justify extricating the United States from the Middle East.  The kooky meter was spiking a lot tonight for Paul.  What more can be said?  Some call him the Father of the Tea Party, but tonight it looked like the kids were ready to move dad to the old folks home.

Undoubtedly the one candidate who came out on top was Newt Gingrich. This was by far his best performance to date.  Having a tenuous relationship with the tea party, Newt faced the challenge of remaining true to his core political style while not alienating viewers with what can sometimes be his condescending tone.  He was up to the challenge and had the best, most provocative answers of any candidate on stage.  Newt was the only one who stayed focused on Obama and his disastrous policies.  Blizter, obviously still carrying a chip on his shoulder from the Clinton years, did his best to pose the bulk of the “gotcha” questions to Newt, but Gingrich slapped every one down with poise, passion and searing intelligence.  The crowd was with him the whole way.  Newt may not be able to convince a majority of the right that he should be President, but one would be hard pressed to find a single Republican voter who would not jump at the chance to see him in any influential cabinet position, or even as the White House spokesperson.  No one in Washington is smarter than Newt Gingrich. No one.  He proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt in this debate.

The debate format was an interesting marriage of far left media and the newly influential tea party movement.  Perhaps it was the specter of directly addressing the people as opposed to a table of stuffy moderators that allowed the candidates to appear more at ease.  Whatever it was, and despite the glitches, this format was the most notable and rousing of the debates so far.  CNN could have counted this as one of their most interesting programs to date, but for the last 10 minutes.  Perhaps it is just the dynamics of television producing, but the powers that be at CNN could not resist the pointless fluff question.  “If you were to win the White House, what would you bring with you?”  Newt looked the most fittingly annoyed with the question.  No one had anything particularly fetching to say.  Bachmann gave the pre-approved tea party answer of her copy of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.  I sincerely hoped Herman Cain would bring his grill and a few slabs of baby-back ribs, but he said he’d bring a sense of humor instead.  Santorum made a cute joke about adding an extra bedroom for his 7 kids (hey, Rick, it’s a mansion!).  Ron Paul provided the dowdiest answer, responding he would bring a “bushel basket of common sense” and a book about Austrian economics.  Sounds exciting.  Romney had a long answer that ended in him returning Churchill’s bust to the Oval Office.  I think.  It was  long answer.  Huntsman joked that his wife would kill him for saying he’d like to bring his motorbikes to the White House.  It shouldn’t be surprising that Huntsman has a fondness for motorcycles – they share the same parts.  Perry earned  the wife points of the night by saying all he needed was his lovely wife.  But it most likely wasn’t enough to erase his dismal ending to promising start.

Those are the highlights and low-lights.  Clear winners were CNN, which probably garnered more views for this one night than their whole year put together; and Newt Gingrich.  Santorum gets an honorable mention for finally being able to express his positions and doing it quite well.  Holding the line were Bachmann and Cain.  Romney and Perry were the clear losers tonight – Romney for being caught out of his element, and Perry for disintegrating in the second half.  However, above all, the tea party were the true winners tonight, proving definitively that the influence of this grass roots, American movement extends far beyond mid-term elections.  Politicians take note.