Archive for the ‘Social Commentary’ Category

By R.C. Seely

THE CBO ESTIMATES THAT TRUMP’S health care bill will leave 24 million without health insurance coverage-this is the regurgitated line by pundits of the American left. And actually it was 52 million all together, the 24 million is an estimate for 2026, by why quibble over it. According to the AARP, the plan “could have raised premiums on Americans between 50 and 64 years old by as much as $8,400 a year.” CNN reports, “opponents say it could reverse the gains in coverage … since the Affordable Care Act.” The most staunchest critics of Trump’s plan, the American Health Care Act (AHCA), were not the Obamacare supporters but the Freedom Caucus and Tea Party activists. “Conservatives complain that the bill does fully repeal Obamacare and that many provisions are far too similar to the health reform law,” according to CNN reports. But the “proponents of the bill say it would save the individual health market from collapse” this bill would not do that actually. It doesn’t open up healthcare free market options and can only be accurately described by the common nomer “Obamacare-lite.” Speculation has surfaced that Trump isn’t pleased with it either and it was pushed by speaker Ryan. For now the bill has been pulled and meaningful healthcare reform has been shelved.

    The AARP referred to the AHCA as an “age tax” and it is, just not to seniors as the organization claims. A tax is a government imposed penalty without necessarily receiving a benefit, that’s not the seniors who are being taxed but the youth. The AARP Public Policy Institute claims that “the AHCA would allow insurance companies to charge older Americans five times the amount they would charge others for the same coverage.” And? With age, we use more healthcare services, so seniors should be incurring the higher costs since they are using more. Plus, they have had longer to plan and save up for their future financial needs, why should the youth-who have comparatively far more limited income-be taking care of this bill? Most don’t need healthcare until in our forties or fifties and before that there was an inexpensive policy option in place, Catastrophic Coverage, but the Affordable Care Act killed it. Insurance companies aren’t greedy, they simply understand economics and make sensible decisions based on that. The AARP also alludes to collusion between the Trump adminstration and special interest groups, maybe but wasn’t there a special interest group supporting the ACA? Oh right, that was the AARP but that’s different.

    Now onto the other critics. In an email sent out from the Heritage Action for Action PAC:

“The American Health Care Act … was pulled from the house floor because it did not have the votes to pass. This means the house needs to revise the legislature so it reduces premiums, repeals ObamaCare and truly makes life better for the Americans under ObamaCare.

 

 

 

 

 

This is a victory for conservatives.

 

 

The AHCA would have kept Obamacare’s regulatory architecture in place, ensuring premiums remained high. The bill’s defeat was essential-but now the hard work begins.

Conservatives, lead by Rep. Mark Meadows and Rep. Jim Jordon … recognized that the AHCA didn’t repeal the fundamental structure of Obamacare. And rather than giving in to political pressure from leadership and the White House, they stood strong.

So what’s next? It is now clear that the House cannot pass a bill that does not repeal Obamacare’s core regulatory architecture. Congressional leaders and the administration need to go back to the negotiating table.

We now have an opportunity to get [the] Obamacare repeal right, but that only happened because of the conservatives stood their ground and the grassroots America rose up in opposition.”


    So, what’s the solution? Get the federal interlopers out of here! AARP gripes about special interest groups, they should lead the way. There are already free market alternatives, Direct Primary Care for example. Basically, you’re charged a membership and the costs are lower because it’s based on the routine medical care and insurance is used only for major health issues. It treats the individual as an individual rather than part of the masses. Besides lower costs it makes healthcare more modeled towards your specific biological needs. Oh, but you need your “risk pools” there are also Marketshare options in the shared economy. You could give Health Co-op or Liberty Healthshare a consideration. Another option is a Health Saving Account, which are what they sound like, a savings account for medical needs.

    Dr. Ron Paul has talked about his experience as a medical practitioner in the time before federal healthcare as a time of medical excellence and people weren’t worried about being denied services. How could that be? Because doctors had autonomy, they could offer less expensive treatments and at times help the patient pay. With the safety patrol of government medicine and abused litigation, many doctors are afraid to experiment. And they should be. Medical costs are up so high in part because alternatives are outlawed as “unsafe” and many are denied access. Dr. Rand Paul has also presented his alternative to the ACA-all four pages of it-and has made it available for public scrutiny. Unlike Paul Ryan who seems to have developed the same “we have to pass it to know what’s in it” mindset of Nancy Pelosi, the Pauls understand that healthcare is a collection of services and products not a right, therefore for the market to resolve.

    The failure to pass the AHCA has encouraged the supporters of the single-payer system, saying that we should conform to the rest of the world and adopt this model. No, it didn’t get the votes because it didn’t satisfy either side. Neither wants to compromise and Heritage and the Free Caucus are right. What would a grocery store be like if it were run this way? The government said it will pay for a portion of your groceries; but in order to qualify, you can’t buy certain products and you have to go where they tell you. You like Pepsi, well too bad we have a deal with Coke so you have to buy Coke. Oh, and the ones with real sugar, cherry or vanilla are void, and so is the cheaper alternative. You can get diet and organic, though. And you have to buy from the stores we approve, even if it’s not where you want to shop or their competition offers it for less. With free market medicine we get cheaper, better medical technology and services, at the locations of our choosing; with public we get less options, stifling of alternatives through big pharmaceutical alliances, the end of private practitioners and excessive lawsuits in the name of public safety. The plain truth is we ask for more from our local grocery store than medical institutions. The consumer has decided we want choices on the store shelves why not in the operating room? We ask for so much in flavors and gluten-free and less sodium alternatives of corn chips, but are afraid of Health Savings Accounts. Options and innovations make every other part of our lives better, why do so many believe the free market would falter in healthcare? I can’t answer that, in my view healthcare is where we need choices the most. 

    An article in NaturalNews.com discussed this in February 2016:

“Researchers from the Stanford University of Medicine and the National Bureau of Economic Research have uncovered the path towards more affordable healthcare. The path doesn’t consist of … consolidated government insurance plans … healthcare prosperity is less systematic, less consolidated, less controlling and less fear-based. It’s a more open system, with more options that put the patient back in control.

The researchers found out that the answer for more affordable healthcare is simple: Get rid of the government controls and consolidation of physician services and instead create more competition in the marketplace. This doesn’t mean more specialists, more testing and more diagnoses. This excess has occurred because of the loss of competition between individual physicians. 

What used to be several private practices, consisting of one or two independent physicians, has evolved into more complex organizations with more specialized doctors and systems. The competition that used to exist between individual physician practices has … diminished, consolidating care into larger organizations of healthcare providers who can raise the cost because there’s no one in the area to compete with the price. They continue to raise the prices through the years because they know the patients have fewer options and will eventually be herded through their doors anyway.

The larger practices allow doctors to work in groups and exchange information about a patient’s medical history more readily. A bigger staff operating as one can take on a larger volume of patients, but this way begins to treat patients as units on a conveyor belt, as the time per patient dwindles to maximize efficiency within the larger healthcare organization model.

When the costs of all types of doctor visits were averaged, the least competitive markets were found to be the most expensive, averaging 3.5 to 5.4 percent higher in cost. With privately insured individuals spending nearly $250 billion on physician services yearly in the US, this small percentage multiples into tens of billions of dollars.”


    According to a Forbes article, “the time to schedule an appointment has jumped 30% in 15 U.S. metrpolitan areas from 18.5 days in 2014 amid a national doctor shortage fueled by aging baby boomers, population growth and millions of Americans with health insurance.” So the way to fix this is more people insured? Sounds like treating cancer with… more cancer. The argument has become which public healthcare system is better than the other, neither one really. Obamacare, Trumpcare both were set up for social control and not for protecting consumer choice.

     The current healthcare system is sure to fail and the single-payer system isn’t a better option just because everyone else has it. This is a unique country so it shouldn’t be adopting the policies of others, we should do what we do best-innovate. Instead of trying to implement the stale European models let’s figure out something new and different that will satisfy the individual for once. Treat the person like a person and not a number the way they do at the DMV. Stalling the healthcare bill until it has been refined is the best decision the Trump adminstration could have made, the only question is whether or not they have learned from it or repeat it’s mistakes. Will Trump have a healthcare massacre or a close call? In this case blazing the untested trail will lead to promise instead of party cannibalism.

R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com, ALTV and an author. His latest book is Victims of White Male: How Victim Culture Victimizes Society, is available on Amazon.

By R.C. Seely 

SINCE 2012 I’VE BEEN WRITING AND WARNING others about the corrosion of American society by it’s superfluous and insipid popular culture but I also have to give credit where it’s due. Among the Kim Kardashians a revolution has surfaced, most infamous are the TV shows South Park and the Simpsons and movies such as The Matrix, but another source has shown up. For years a common source of morality and virtue has been the comic book, which has had an extreme boast comparatively recently, in the form of cinematic adaptations from the two leading companies, DC and Marvel. As with the original stories from the written works, the dictonomies from the organizations is just as obvious, which is why I have always been a greater fan of Marvel. DC has never been strong on character development or creating a complex storyline with questions challenging the characters preconceived notions of principle, with Marvel such complexity does exist. In other words: DC offers us “ethics made easy” tales, whereas Marvel gives us a menu of “tough choices” fables, making the story more entertaining but serving a greater purpose. Bon Apetit!

    Marvel has a history of more than simply being a guide on being a good citizen, it also acts as a source for information about topics that are generally not discussed-the  X-Men and Deadpool stories go into the topic of Eugenics. It creates a dialogue in this country about whether genetic manipulation should be allowed. What many don’t seem to realize is that there is far too much truth to what these stories present. Abortion on demand has more to do with getting rid of undesirable, imperfect children and a system of control of those in poverty stricken areas than protecting the “woman’s right to choose.” The discussion about sterlization and genocide has also been part of XMen conflicts. And we have already started going down the road of Genetically Modified humans, a main theme in the most recent addition to the XMen saga Logan as well as Deadpool. There are companies that you can go to where you can “design” your future children, by having their genetic code altered so they can be perfect. If your family history includes any really horrible medical disorders it might not be a bad idea.

   It’s not only in the XMen that human experimentation is brought up, it’s in the Hulk and Captain America too.Their stories cover issues of National Security and Nationalism as well. How far should we go to make sure we are safe? What’s crossing the line for security? There were many of times the Captain gave up his shield because he disagreed with the government’s actions. Was he in the right? Not according to Salon magazine, a magazine regularly critical of the libertarian party, it called Captain America out for his actions in Civil War-the third movie in the series. Amanda Marcotte had this to say about Captain America:

“Most corporate blockbuster movies would cave into temptation to make the character some kind of generic apolitical ‘patriot’ abandoning the comic tradition that has painted him as a New Deal Democrat standing up consistently for liberal values. Instead, in both the first movie and in ‘Captain America: Winter Solider,’ we get Steve the liberal: Anti-racist, anti-sexist, valuing transparency in government and his belief that we the people should hold power instead of some unaccountable tyrants who believe might makes right.”

   

    Sounds good so far but wait.


“Which is why I was sorely disappointed that the latest installment … ‘Captain America: Civil War,’ decided that, for no reason whatsoever, Steve is now a guy who believes it’s cool to belong to a secretive paramilitary that rejects oversight and accountability to the public.

[I]t would have been so much better if they’d just cut all the stuff about the Sokovian Accords, which was unnecessary, muddled and made Steve Rogers look like the bad guy for no reason whatsoever.”


    The major difference between Marcotte’s view and mine is that she thinks that the best way to assure transparency and accountablilty of acting law enforcement-federal and local-is by making sure it’s operations are in the hands of government entities. How the Winter Solider was deemed valuable for it’s social commentary when Civil War is considered propaganda by Marcotte is the really muddled reasoning, the real change of personality in Civil War was Iron Man and for the Captain it was simply a continuation of a principled life. Considering all this, it seems Marcotte doesn’t possess any genuine comprehension of libertarianism. Salon magazine has done a few pieces critical of both Marvel and the limited government movement, so this is not much of a surprise. Every chance to bash libertarianism they will jump at.

   Whether you love comic books or hate them, it’s undeniable the impact they have on our culture, and it’s not a bad one as once previously viewed. The year of 1948 was an especially difficult one, thanks to zealots like Detroit Police Commission Harry S. Toy who stated that the comics were, “loaded with communist teachings, sex, and racial discrimination” or Dr. Fredric Wertham whose study The Seduction of the Innocent, almost created a prohibition on comic books. It got so bad that comic book burings were reported across the nation. Shortly after the hysteria, The Association of Comic Magazine Publishers was formed to protect the industry from it’s critics, by instituting guidelines of decency. Modern pyschology has a completely different view of the media and recognize it’s potential boon for society. They don’t cause violence in youth, in fact it could decrease it by making it clear there are consequences to those decisions. In SpiderMan he lost a loved one-his Uncle Ben-because he refused to assist in stopping a robbery when he had the opportunity. He didn’t do the right thing and suffered a major loss. Out of all the Marvel superhero stories none goes into the moral conundrums of youths as Peter Parker, not only does he have the weight of being the webslinging superhero, but those of the teenager. That is the brilliance of Marvel, they made it clear that the problems you face as youth happen to us all and you’re not as alone as you think. This is also why SpiderMan is so popular.

    While SpiderMan is about restraint, the Punisher and DareDevil are about justice at all costs. That in itself brings about moral questions. Was it a selfish act of revenge or does it really make the world safer? What about the vigilante? In the end that is the very question of the superhero. Does the idea of the superhero make the American society better or not? Does it make us more moral? Does it make us more violent or more self-sufficent? Are we more apt to help an old lady across the street or another innocent person being assaulted? Are more willing to be the hero or the victim? Do our comic book heroes make us want to be the best we can be? Maybe we will find out in the next issue.

R.C. Seely is the founder of the Americanus Libertae movement, he runs the blog americanuslibertae.com, Americanus Libertae Television on YouTube and has written books about Pop Culture. He most recent is Victims of White Male: How Victim Culture Victimizes Society.

My new book VICTIMS OF WHITE MALE: HOW VICTIM CULTURE VICTIMIZES SOCIETY is now available at Amazon in print and on Kindle for eBook. Are you victim? Read this book and find out who are the real victims and the real bullies.

VOWM OUTLINE

By R.C. Seely

WHEN I WAS IN TRADE SCHOOL FOR MASSAGE THERAPY, I took a class on living the “organic lifestyle”. It covered how avoiding caffeine, redmeat, and eating only organic foods are best, which on the surface makes sense but is it true? Not necessarily. As I did my own research on the subject, I found out that the organic market has less to do with improving peoples nutritional needs and more to do with taking away our choices. I’ll cover that later; first, let’s cover the arguments and proposed need for organic and raw foods over GMO and gluten laden food staples.

WHAT ARE GMOS? GMO is an acronym for Genetically Modified Organisms. Essentially foods products that are modified using hormones or the entire genetic code is reengineered. This is done for either aesthetic purposes or to increase the size of the product or the whole crop yield.

WHAT IS GLUTEN? Gluten is a binding protein used in many of our foods.

THE PROBLEM Many people have disorders that have caused allergic reactions or make them ill after they ingest gluten, eggs or milk. Some conspiracy theories surmise there is an increase in the percentage of Americans with such allergies and GMOs are responsible for it. The evidence for such claims isn’t very convincing and are rife with incomplete data. None the less, it has gripped the nation with a deep phobia of any and all things GMO or gluten. This is a big problem. Our contemporary – on the go – society is built on these forms of food preservation and production.

Because of our genetic modification our food is plentiful, inexpensive and safe. Thanks to genetic modification, we can grow food almost anywhere on the planet – no matter how infertile the soil. Through the utilization of genetic modification our meat is also safer, weeding out serious disorders in the bloodlines of animals making the meat healthier, leaner and more flavorful.

More than that with the evidence being so sketchy, any form of government intervention would be irresponsible. There are consequences to regulating GMOs and those costs have hurt everyone. Those without allergies suffer increased prices on consumables to have them comply with the regulations. This is immoral as well, since they receive no added benefit for the cost. For those who do have conditions causing these food allergies, they have increased costs through the lack of options in products. The time and funds that should go to research and development of alternatives to gluten, eggs, milk, or GMOs, are going to complying with the regulations.

According to Dr. Fasano, director of University of Maryland Center for Celiac Research, the percentage of Americans with gluten allergies is only 6% or 7% of the populace and those with celiac is even lower. Other researchers claim it’s a lot higher at over 50%, but there are conclusive tests at this time. In the end this is another scam to take another choice from the manufacturer and place it in the hands of a federal agency. That’s the real reason for this, the organic farmers want to push out their competition and they are using regulators to achieve that goal. Do you think congress can create better gluten-free products? Or the president? Or regulators enforcers? No, it will be companies like Monsanto, but only if they are left alone to do so.

By RC. Seely

WITH ALL THE CONCERNS ABOUT INTERNET security, because of the hacking of Sony to be more specific, the Obama administration has been pressured into action by progressive groups such as Openmedia and Demand Progress. The groups claim that Comcast and other greedy corporate entities have kept the internet in chains and need to be reined in. Apparently, from their perspective only the federal government can save the day, making Obama superman? That’s a scary thought! Obama as superman, he would apologize for interfering with the criminal and then assist him in blowing up the building. Is that too inflammatory? I thought I was allowed to make such comments in this country, but maybe I was wrong. With the fundamental misunderstanding of the role of government in our lives, our “superman” Obama has been eagerly waiting to advance a law to curtail freedom of speech and in the Net Neutrality extensions he would have it.

On February 26, the FCC is going to be reviewing its position in our lives. If Tom Wheeler – the current head of the FCC – agrees with the Obama administration that new restrictions and regulations are needed, this will basically be a reincarnation of the Fairness Doctrine. What are the implications of this? Well, nothing good, unless you are an Obama lapdog. When the Fairness Doctrine was in place during the Roosevelt administration, it nearing killed radio, because the general public was losing interest. They didn’t want to hear from the social democrats or progressives emotional preaching. The claim was that because the results weren’t the same, his progressive policies must not be given equal treatment by the radio industry – it never occurred to him that maybe the public didn’t care to hear it. This is what Obama believes is the case with the internet. The public loves him, so there must be something non-egalitarian in the internet, right? Sorry, superman the internet is already open and free, it’s just a lot of people don’t agree with you.

The internet, under the new guidelines, would mean censorship and higher prices for all. Despite the promises made by the Obama administration or the FCC, there will be no distinctions between the small no-budget blogger and those who manage the large power house media organizations. The fees will be less, but those who weren’t charged before, would be now. It’s also a very unnecessary move, the free market already regulates itself. Many internet organizations already offer free options for their sites, with fees only for additional features. Some say this is unfair. That doesn’t make sense, you should have to pay for extended services.

Freedom of speech is such a cherished and needed right, it is the pillar for a free society, something that we take for granted and others covet. Our nation has always been unique that we have that freedom and our leaders have been looking for ways to curtail our speech when it becomes “inconvenient.” Starting with John Adams, our second president, who wrote the sedition acts. Jailing journalists and pamphleteers writing scathing editorials about Adams. During World War I, president Wilson brought these laws back, incarcerating critics of America’s involvement in the war. Roosevelt also used such laws during World War II. That’s why the criticism of the Vietnam World seemed so intense, it was actually allowed! Our freedom of speech is so valuable, that so many fought to death for it and our most egotistical representatives fought – and continue to fight – to destroy it. The internet is the last refuge for such freedoms and worth fighting for, if we let the government neuter it we will regret it.

By R.C. Seely

“It’s all over but the shouting: Obamacare is working,” states Eugene Robinson, in his op-ed piece for the Washington Post. That’s all I can tell you about the article. Because that’s as far as I got, judging from the title alone “Obamacare ready for a victory lap,” it wouldn’t be too hard to fathom the contents of the piece. Another example of school-girlish worship of Barack Hussein Obama. More God worshipping of Obama, more self congratulations for having done his part for the “Obama-nation” and more “where the hell are those nasty Republicans in all this” style of rancor. Okay, we get it – enough already! This is no longer beating the dead horse, but beating it to a throw rug.
Besides writing something that is nothing but tooting his own horn – which makes it boring – it’s also wrong. It’s very assumption is wrong. Obamacare is not working, it hasn’t been fully implemented yet, so stating unequivocally that it is currently working is beyond inaccurate. That’s like building a city in the middle of nowhere, it could thrive but you’re operating on blind faith. Is that really how we want our government to operate, on blind faith? We should be asking more, as is, we ask for more from our cell phone than from our federal government. Instead of “asking can you hear me now,” we should be demanding “you will hear me now.”
Instead of stating that Obamacare is working he should be stating that it will work, but will it? Very doubtful, seeing as when other countries tried it the end results was chaos in their healthcare system. Right now we simply are not at a point where we can measure the success of the law, except for the problems. Six million – and counting – kicked off their insurance, unprecedented spending and unprecedented power. The “success” of the law is based on an unsubstantiated eight million enrollment number, that administration doesn’t won’t explored. There are speculations about the source of those numbers, including adding Medicare and Medicaid to the Obamacare enrollees tally sheets. Such claims are admittedly highly speculative, but not less so than a pundit claiming a law a success before it’s full implementation. Check back with Eugene at the end of the year and see if he stills thinks it a success or if it’s simply that tingling he gets from Obama. To sum it up, Eugene Robinson is jumping for joy, on the optimistic premise – that in the end the venture will wind up an unprecedented success for the unprecedented president.

Did you like this article? Get UNConventional Wisdom: Methods of Behavior Modification for the Modern Age by this author. Also check out his other books all available at Barnes and Noble.com and Amazon.

uncon

In this book R.C. Seely examines how the federalist stance – that everything has to be managed by the government has messed up our country. Are we any safer with a preemptive strike policy? Is the drug war keeping drug usage down? Is the green movement really about saving the planet? Are whistleblowers a threat or protectors of our nation? Are the third parties dividing us or fixing the country? So has federalism worked or has it failed, read UNConventional Wisdom and find out.

By R.C. Seely

As I’ve mentioned previously one of my favorite and most poignant authors is the late George Orwell, his book was the major influence for my book ‘We the Rodents’ and he (amongst other famous writers, like, Kafka and Voltaire) has had influences on both the Americanus Libertae and my new initiative UnConventional Wisdom. It appears that I’m not alone in my respect and appreciation for the works of Orwell, with President Obama showing a certain amount of knowledge in his manner of legislating. The major difference is that the president seems determined to test the theories of Orwell, where I see them as a dire warning.
His vision appears to be to bring the nightmarish world of 1984 to reality, not only with the invasions of the peoples’ privacy, but implementing the principles of Newspeak – the active role by government to destroy the meaning of words. As one MSNBC reporter had intimated on her show the alias for the president’s main law ObamaCare should be considered equal to the more common derogatory term to the president’s ethnic race. Making this another example of the absurd assertion that anyone who even questions the administration’s ideology must be a racist – that has become the most lazy and dishonest argument by the Obama-media.
That is old news though, there’s a new and more insidious line of propaganda in favor of the Affordable Care Act, but to see it more clearly we have to go back to the beginning of the “Obama-nation.” During his first presidential campaign, then candidate Barack Obama said “if you like doctor you can keep your doctor, no one is trying to take your doctor away from you,” the fine print in his 2,000 plus page signature bill that he didn’t tell you, that this is only if they stay in the field. With the problems of reimbursement and guaranteed increases in costs on their patients, many doctors have left their fields. In a few cases it’s been entire hospitals, including the best in the nation such as, Cedar Sinai and Sloane Kettering. He also promised that costs would go down and that you could keep your insurance, also not true, almost six million people have lost their individual insurance policies due to the regulations in the Affordable Care Act. The costs of the new replacement policies have been, in many cases substantially higher, but if you pay higher that translate to better coverage right? That’s the intimation of Ezekiel Emanuel and architect of the ACA said “if you want to pay more for an insurance company that covers your doctor you can do that….you pay more for certain – for a wider range of choices or a wider range of benefits.” This is a rare moment of honest from the administration; sadly even this isn’t completely true. In some states this is the case, but in most it’s not – even if you pay more you still will likely get shafted under the new health care law.
This is another example of an Obamaian Slip; this is the opposite of a Freudian slip, where an involuntary truth slips out, but instead an involuntary lie. More Obamaian Slips were the major selling points for signing the law: That it would help seniors, that he initiated keeping youth on their parents plan until age 26 and that it would benefit those with prediagnosed conditions.
First off, to help seniors, the system has to have a high enrollment rate by the twenty – thirty year old demographic. So let me see if I understand this, it’s considered moral for the elderly – who should have been saving throughout their lives – to have their healthcare needs subsidized by the youth, who don’t even have any money yet? Morally or practically, that sounds like trying to blood from a stone. Along with those arguments there’s a biggest flaw that wasn’t considered – what if the youth don’t enroll? Which is what has occurred and this disenfranchisement started with the HealthCare.gov website.     The site had a “disappointing” rollout that was it’s downfall for the tech-savvy youth, think of it like this – you voted for the most new age president, who ran the most proficient and effective social media marketing campaign in history and the webpage for his trademark legislature doesn’t work… this does not compute! The speculation by its proponents is that it was intentional to avoid the backlash from new enrollees having to pay far for their policies, so to stall they built a slow and inefficient webpage – intentional or legitimate incompetence, is immaterial, either way the error has what could be irreparable harm on the healthcare plan. The youth, who were Obama’s strongest supporters, have now his harshest critics and it will be the seniors who will be paying the price for it.
So will the president take responsibility for this, and if not who will take the heat? Since he hasn’t accepted responsibility for anything else under his watch, it’s doubtful he’ll start here. As for the promise to keep children on their parents plan until 26, not Obama’s idea, there were already insurance companies that offered that benefit – stop being lazy and shop around.
For those with prediagnosed conditions – they have the real potential to suffer along with the seniors, not only because specialty physicians will be leaving en mass so the quality of care will be greatly diminished, but under socialized medicine will bring about a lack resources. With prices of medicine devices dropped, those with the money will purchase and stockpile them, so others won’t have access to the, if the long lines to see a doctor don’t kill them first! In Canada, there are lotteries to see who gets to see a doctor! These problems are far from speculation and have been witnessed by pretty much every country that have adopted socialized medicine, with many doctors saying they simply can’t operate if they’re beholden to these restrictions.
What is the driving force for all this healthcare madness? It’s another symptom of the entitlement culture – you’re working in a field that is based on humanitarian intentions, so it’s immoral to be paid for it. Why? Doctors have families; they have bills; they have made immense sacrifices to their trade and yet, that’s still not enough. The Affordable Care Act is a bad law, that’s why it barely passed into law and half the country was against it then, with its numbers growing. It hasn’t even been implemented and it’s already harming the economy and many individuals have lost their insurance, this doesn’t even include the people who will lose their employer provided coverage, which experts predict could be as high as one hundred million people… clearly the worst, is yet to come! That’s why when the celebrities push for you to “get covered,” I say opt out and “Stay Naked.”
If you have any Affordable Care Act horror stories you want to share post them using #StayNaked, on twitter or facebook.

Trayvor Martin: Martyr … Maybe Not
By R.C. Seely

I’ve been reading some the replies to the George Zimmerman trial and I have to say I’m more than a little concerned here.  Originally I wasn’t going to make a statement, but wait until it all blew over and for us all to move on.  Since that is not happening, then this is a plea for commonsense.
First, when brought up if it’s called the George Zimmerman trial, not the Trayvon Martin trial.  Many are not clear about that, and when asked think these are not connected.  When asked by interviewers about George Zimmerman the reply is, “Oh I haven’t been following that case.”  Trayvon is mentioned, however, the response is in the effect of, “Oh yeah, Trayvon.  Isn’t that sad that we are still such a racist country?” Okay, for the record, any death of a human being is sad, but the greater tragedy here is the assault on humanity.
From the onset of this case, the events were claimed as racist, now that’s sad!  As the information has gotten out about the case, it’s looking less and less racist.  There’s simply nothing pointing to racism in Zimmerman’s background.  But also calling this a white on black crime isn’t accurate, he’s Hispanic.  Where the hell are the PC police on this one?  So this is a case of one minority killing another minority, not a case of whitey murdering another brotha.  All this is telling of the larger picture of acceptable victim hood that is rampant in our culture.
One of the first arguments I see posted is, “unless you’re black, you don’t understand.”  You would be right, I wouldn’t understand your cultural woes as an ethnic minority- but what of it?  Just because I can’t understand how it feels, doesn’t mean those of the group in question should get a free pass on spreading racially charged rhetoric without being debate it’s merits.  I want some examples of discrimination they are suffering.  The only one I’ve heard is that they have had a hard time getting a job.  So the immediate conclusion is this is racism?  Who isn’t having a hard time finding work, no matter the skin color?  It’s called a recession, maybe you’ve heard of it?
One of the suggestions was that by discussing racism we are keeping racism alive.  That’s valid point and if it wasn’t it is worthy of a legitimate consideration.  What was the response to it? – Mostly with condensation and outright ridicule.  Probably the most absurd counter to it was to the effect of “if we stop talking about cancer will that die off too?”  Really?  Comparing racism (a social stigma) to cancer (a biological disorder), is that really a valid comparison?  That’s like comparing someone with a cold to the suffering of an AIDS patient.  If I were suffering from cancer and heard this kind of hyperbole, I would be fuming.  More to the point, it demonstrates the victim hood culture I’m talking about.  One part is valid about that comparison, with both cancer and racism, attitude means a lot.  If a cancer sufferer can be kept uplifted through the whole ordeal they have a far better chance of recovery.  If the racial dialogue is kept to a cool, rational debate, instead of the reactionary demagoguery of the Trayvor Martin death, than the solutions can be reached.
We have all suffered discrimination, of some form or another, at some point of our lives.  Being rejected by someone because of your physical appearance.  Turned down for job because someone with more experience or education comes along.  Being isolated in your own community because you’re not of the common religion.  Avoided because your personality clashes with others.  At times, yes, racial discriminations too will, unfortunately, come up as well.  Racial discrimination is not a one way streak though.  The Black Panthers are just as much a hate group as the Ku Klux Klan, and are just as wrong for it.  Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, could have followed the tradition of Martin Luther King Jr. – instead, they are pillars of the some racial division that they claim to condemn.  Jackson has stated that he himself would not comfortable with an urban black youth trailing behind him in the dark; he would be if it were a white man.  So, the man considered the human megaphone for racial sensitivity, is in essence saying he might do the same thing.  Where’s the anger at these comments?  How is this obvious intolerance, considered tolerable?
So, was what happened that night an act of racial intolerance?  Maybe.  If so, on which side, could if have been Trayvon that instigated the issue with previous actions in the community?  He had a history of gang activity, is it possible he started the fight?  Only Zimmerman and Trayvon know for sure.  As I stated earlier, the greater tragedy is the assault on humanity.  I only hope that humanity can have a quick recovery, because it appears it is needed more now than ever.

Property of MOJO Publishing 2013

In a future that is very alien to us a thirteen year old boy is running

for life. He has discovered a book, LEGACY, that has the potential to

bring down the Overlord’s empire.

Will he choose to do so? First, he has to get across the border and make

it to adulthood.

 

Taking the trends of today, I created a tale of the pop culture Utopia.

Legacy promo