Leftist Fatwas

The great Ronald Reagan once said, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction."

He said, "We don't pass it on to our children in the bloodstream.  (Freedom) must be fought for, protected and handed off for them to do the same.  Or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children ... what it was once like in the United States."

Reagan -- Freedom Lover

Lately, I've been feeling life our freedoms are being assaulted like never before.  Not in the sense that another country has invaded our borders and is claiming our country for their own.  Rather our individual freedoms -- the right to choose to live our lives the way we want to -- are under constant assault with the left taking away things they don't like.

And the list of things that are bad for me, my family and our planet just keeps getting longer.  Whether it's drinking water out of plastic bottles, buying buttered popcorn in a movie theatre or washing my dirty clothes, liberals have a knack for messing with my life.

And it's not enough for them to wallow in their own Mother Earth, hippy commune world.  No, they have to make sure I'm banished to the same miserable fantasy land they live in.

They are not happy unless I am forced to give up many of the things I love.  (I take that back -- they're never happy.)  They are not as miserable (it's a temporary feeling, believe me) until the rest of us are just as miserable as they are.

I think with Obama in the White House, the leftists -- with their economic, religious and health fatwas -- have unloaded a world of hurt under the guise of "change we can believe in."

Top three things they won't leave alone:

Religion.  It's not enough for them to not believe -- no, they want to destroy the feeling of reverence, inspiration, and security we feel from attending church, observing Christian holidays and remembering that this country was founded on religious beliefs, as evidenced by "one nation under God."  They won't rest until they've relegated Christ to some dark corner in a church that has shrinking attendance.   Which is why I've never understood why so my churches lean to the left.

Some critics would say the religious right is no better.  Admittedly, there are a few people who feverishly crusade against sinners, but they are more more often some character in a Hollywood movie than reality.  I can only speak for myself, but I'm not going to push my religious beliefs on someone, unless they are looking for something I can give them.  And then it's usually just an invitation to attend church.  I don't demand that they change their lives, quit their jobs and forsake all worldly things.

For me religion allows me to recognize my position in the universe and lead a life I hope is a little better than one without God.  Unfortunately, the left thinks they know better.  Supporters of religion must be shown to be not merely mistaken, but morally lacking.  Politicians and televangelists are prime candidates.

"Hypocrites!" they cry.  "You claim you're better than gays, single mothers and wife cheaters -- but you're just as bad."  I've said it before, but I think the left just can't stomach someone telling them that they shouldn't do something. They lead a very selfish and self-centered life.  The concept of a supreme being -- God --  is unacceptable.  By tearing down religion they are able to maintain their "rightful place" in their lonely hierarchy.

And of course, the right is more than willing to fall on the sword.  For the left, it's far easier to live the perfect life when you have no morals, standards or limitations.

Health.  New York Mayor Bloomberg recently made news when he decided it was government's role to keep citizens healthy by prohibiting large sizes of soda and other sugary drinks at restaurants, delis, sports arenas and movie theaters.  Drinks would be limited to 16 ounces, which is considered a small serving at many fast-food joints.

This isn't Bloomberg's first assault on our freedoms.  In 2006 he banned restaurants from cooking with trans fats.  Other states have followed with a me too attitude.  The harmful effects of removing trans fats isn't limited to our health, however.  Suddenly, the health police (insert your local health department) seem to think it's their place to decide what's best for us mere citizens.

NBC recently ran a story critical of movie theatre snacks, like popcorn, candy and soda.  In typical leftist "crisis mode" fashion they proudly claimed the following:


AMC theaters are serving smaller sizes, but they still pack a wallop. A large popcorn has 1,030 calories and 57 grams of saturated fat -- the equivalent of a pound of baby back ribs topped with a scoop of Haagen-Daz ice cream, but with more fat.

At Cinemark, which pops its popcorn in heart-healthy canola oil, a large popcorn has 910 calories with 4 grams of saturated fat. "Though popping in canola gives this chain's popcorn far less saturated fat than its competitors, it's almost as high in calories and has the most sodium -- about twice as much as Regal or AMC," the Center for Science in the Public Interest said in a statement (don't you love that name?).

The giant sodas served at movies also take a toll, the study said. To name just one example, a 54 ounce large soda at Regal has 33 teaspoons of sugar. And an 8-ounce bag of Reese's Pieces contains 1,160 calories and 500 empty calories.

And don't forget about the candy. A 5-ounce bag of Twizzlers contains 15 teaspoons of sugar. A 7-ounce box of Nerds contains 46 teaspoons of sugar. And an 8-ounce bag of Reese's Pieces contains 1,160 calories and 35 grams of saturated fat.

"Sitting through a two-hour movie isn't exactly like climbing Mount Everest," said Jayne Hurley, senior nutritionist for the Center of Science in the Public Interest. "Why do theaters think they need to feed us like it is?"

Jeez, it must be fun going to the movies with a lib, huh?

Getting back to New York Mayor Bloomberg, Charlie Rose once asked him:  "What is it that drives you to impose this stuff on people?"

Bloomberg said "If government's purpose isn't to improve the health and longevity of its citizens, I don't know what its purpose is.  We certainly have an obligation to tell them what the best science and best medicine says is in their interests."

Ok... here I thought the job of government was to protect public safety, collect garbage, clear roads and fight wars.  So much for civil liberties.


Ecology.  Low flow toilets, laundry detergent, and light bulbs have been changed in the interest of the public good.  Unfortunately, like most things the left thinks are better for good ol' mother earth, none of them are any good at improving our lives.

I was meeting a client the other day and we were talking about his septic tank at home which was getting clogged and backing up.  The resulting mess needed to be cleaned up and there was no guarantee that the problem wouldn't come back with a few more flushes.  My client works for Coulee Region Mechanical which specializes in plumbing, so he knew a thing about the problem.

He said it was the low flow toilet (HET, which means high efficiency toilet) causing the problem.  Not enough water was getting into the pipes to properly flush the plumbing.  He's decided to just flush the toilet two or three times, hoping that it will do the job our "old" toilets used to do.  So much for efficiency and saving water.

When asked if he could buy a regular toilet, he said no.  Toilets from commercial manufacturers like American Standard and Kohler are all the same.  All capable of saving water, but not flushing properly.

Want to hear the sound of a thunderous whoosh! the next time you flush?  Can't do it.  The Energy Policy and Conservation Act mandates that toilets sold in the U.S. use no more than 1.6 gallons of water per flush, instead of the old standard of 3.2 gallons.


A few years ago, Time Magazine actually ran a story about illegal toilets that could be purchased in Canada that used twice the water.   Can you imagine?  Sneaking across the Canadian border with a toilet in your trunk?   Whatever happened to the good old days when you sneaked drugs and contraband across borders?

Laws were recently passed in seventeen states requiring dish and clothes detergent makers to reformulate their products to reduce what had been a crucial ingredient, phosphates, to just a trace.  While phosphates help clean clothing and dishes, they have long ended up in lakes and reservoirs, stimulating algae growth that deprives other plants and fish of oxygen.

So the resulting damage to our lakes and rivers means that we now have to put up with shirts, underwear and towels that look dull, lackluster and dungy.  They don't even smell the same.  And dishes that used to come out clean and spot-free now look like my front door -- which is streaked with dirty water marks from the lawn's water sprinkler.

Who's idea was this?

Consumer product reviews are blasting away at everything from detergents to washing machines and dishwashers that don't do the job.  One consumer said, "This is the worst product ever made for use as a dishwashing detergent!"  Another said, "It was horrible and I won't buy it again!"

While I agree with the problem phosphates create in our nearby Mississippi River, I can't believe the stupidity of passing a law that outlaws a critical cleaning ingredient without considering a viable replacement.  One that still cleans, would be nice.

And finally, energy-saving light bulbs.  The environmental crazies would have you believe that you are saving the planet by replacing burned-out incandescent light bulbs with new, compact florescent lighting.  Die-hard environmentalists actually believe that the earth will benefit from less urban smog, oil spills, acid rain and global warming.

Plus, they argue, you will cut your business and home energy bills if you use the new bulbs.  So what's not to like?

Well, like everything else on this list, we are not given a chance to choose which light bulb we want to use.  It's become law that we must use the new, energy-efficient light bulbs, despite recent studies that show the bulbs emit UV radiation and contain trace amounts of mercury, a toxic element.

Most of us are also aware of how difficult it is to dispose of these bulbs.  If they break (which is common in our household), instructions are to evacuate the home for 15 minutes until the harmful material dissipates.  I don't know about you, but how do we really know if it dissipates?  It could be in the carpet for all I know, waiting for me or our dog to roll around on it and pick up the harmful mercury particles.

Environmental lawyers freak out just thinking about lead paint and asbestos material, so do we really want to encourage more potential problems?

I also know that these bulbs are not good if you're turning the lights on or off on a regular basis.  It may be acceptable in the office, where the lights are on for 8 hours or longer.  But in my home, where my wife reminds me to turn off the lights, they are much less efficient than advertised.  And finally, at a cost of $3 to $5 per bulb, how long will it take for me to make up the extra cost, when lighting typically consumes only 5-8% of my total energy bill?

Despite the mercury controversy, my biggest gripe about the new light bulbs remain that we don't have a choice.  Someone in Washington D.C.  -- at the urging of environmental wackos -- has decided what's best for me and my family, and removed another freedom from our lives.

Unlike Senator Ted Kennedy, who made a stink on the building of windmills near his compound on Martha's Vineyard, I don't have a voice in my choice of energy, religion or what to eat.  It's time for us to remember Reagan's warning, and fight back.

It's now or never.

Unhealthy Options

As a working member of the health-care industry, I have always wondered why some doctors, hospitals and insurance executives agreed to support The Affordable Care Act.  Why sell your soul to the devil -- when it seemed like a perfect time to draw a line in the sand and say "NO MORE."  Time to push back against more mindless bureaucracy, mandated benefits and higher cost.

I should have know that the answer was the same as always -- money.  In particular, who gets what and how much?  Screw the patient, screw the employer and screw us the taxpayer.  Private profits and political power are as tempting today as they've ever been.  

 

Unfortunately for them, and more importantly us, The Affordable Care Act went on to become law. With their help, the bill passed by the slimmest of votes -- and as a result of the Supreme Court upholding it as such -- the way we buy, use and pay for our health care changed forever.

Recent emails -- uncovered by House Republicans, despite stonewalling by the Obama Administration -- indicate one of the biggest perpetrators was the pharmaceutical industry.  Drug companies, through their health-care reform lobby (PhRMA) were brought on board early.  In the spring of 2009, they met repeatedly with (Senate Finance Chairman) Max Baucus, (White House Chief of Staff) Jim Messina, (Energy and Commerce Chairman) Henry Waxman, and (Nebraska, D) Ben Nelson to work out favorable treatment for price controls and the removal of "drug re-importation language" being considered by (then candidate) Obama.  It was crony capitalism at its worst -- PhRMA understood that this new entitlement would be a windfall to the drug companies as taxpayers bought more and more of their products.

America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), a lobbying group for the health insurance industry, also got in on the bidding.  Thinking they would craft the legislation for bigger profits, they worked with Democrats to promote the new bill as a way to provide cheaper insurance for everyone.  They promised to squeeze $2 trillion in costs out of the system -- in large part by requiring 85% of premiums be associated with care, not administrative costs.  This led to basically eliminating insurance agents who sold insurance and a reduction in the number of people working at the home office (underwriting, customer service and marketing).  Health insurance "exchanges" are being set up by states (another government agency) to facilitate the sale of whatever health insurance comes out of The Affordable Health Act, starting in 2014.

AHIP believed that in return for its support, the industry would be able to set the terms of reform and be spared the government option (which would decimate the health insurance industry).  Despite opposition from many of their own trade groups, AHIP went ahead and backed The Affordable Care Act, with dreams of 30 million uninsured being forced to buy their insurance.

Another group that sold out was the American Association of Retired People (AARP), which -- despite calls from seniors running 14 to 1 against the new law -- announced in 2009 that they would support Obama's new health plan.

On the surface, AARP's backing of the healthcare bill was puzzling, as the bill was designed to cut an estimated $500 billion in benefits for seniors by forcing them from popular Medicare Advantage plans.  However, like PhRMA and AHIP, the answer lies in the financial windfall AARP got in return for their support.

Many people mistakenly believe that AARP is just an advocacy group for senior citizens.  Over the years, AARP has become a much bigger player as an insurance company, specializing in the sale of Medi-gap insurance policies, which supplement Medicare coverage.

In 2003, President Bush passed the Medicare Advantage program, which offered an alternative to Medi-gap policies offered by AARP (and others).  Through this new program, senior citizens got all the extra coverage they needed plus coordinated, well-managed care, usually by the same doctor.  And at a much lower cost.  The plans were so popular, that more than 10 million seniors went with Medicare Advantage plans.

So, AARP saw The Affordable Health Care Act as a way of forcing more seniors to buy their policies by supporting Obama's goal of eliminating subsides for the lower-cost Medicare Advantage plans.  Without the subsides, Medicare Advantage plans would no longer be as affordable (with luck, cease to exist) and seniors would be forced to buy AARP supplied plans, boosting their Medi-gap revenues, profits and more importantly, AARP executive salaries.

As a result, AARP has revealed themselves as a profit-motivated organization that put its own goals in front of the needs of its constituents.

Finally, the American Medical Association (AMA), which represents just 17% of American doctors, supported the new act despite the fact that a large majority of doctors opposed it.  Why?  Because in return for their support, the government would delay implementing something called ICD-10 diagnosis-coding.

Currently, physicians use ICD-9 codes to list patient diagnoses on claims, while hospitals use them for diagnoses and procedures.  Under ICD-9 there are 12,000 diagnoses being used.  ICD-10 would increase this number to more than 140,000 codes.  The thinking is that with more codes, doctors would be able to provide government with better information that could be used in managing health care payment.  Opponents, however, believe it will be used by Washington to micromanage and ration health care dollars.

Under AMA's cooperation, the new health care bill would delay implementation of the new ICD-10 codes to allow enough time for hospitals and doctors to upgrade practices and billing systems, saving them millions of dollars in the near term.  However, the bill only allows for a delay, not removal.  So, AMA succumbed to Washington's power for a few more years of ICD-9 coding without regard for the more damaging aspects of the law, including less pay for doctors and more interference by the Department of Health and Human Services in providing proper care to their patients.

                                            *                                 *                              *

I mention all of the deals made by hospitals, drug companies, trade associations and doctors to point out the irony of them NOW WANTING TO GET OUT.  The bill, in its final form (which according to Obama is still being worked on) isn't what these groups thought they were getting.  The agreements reached in 2009 and 2010 are being modified (in some cases receiving outright denials that any agreement was ever made).

I'm sorry, but the bill is already beyond repair.

So the bill that was passed with the help of a powerful few -- despite the majority of America against it -- has now received the approval of the United States Supreme Court.  The Affordable Health Care Act, our nation's newest entitlement program, is here to stay despite the political rhetoric being used by Mitt Romney and the rest trying to fundraise off its survival.

Did these medical trade associations and CEOs really think Washington was going to play fair?  Come on -- since when?  I've always wondered how some of our brightest medical minds can be so naive and gullible.  I guess they think they're so smart that they can out-maneuver the politicians in Washington.

It didn't happen in 2010 and it won't happen now.  It's already too late for the taxpayers in America; it's about to become too late for the rest of them.