{"id":5449,"date":"2012-04-04T22:49:11","date_gmt":"2012-04-05T02:49:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thedailygouge.com\/?p=5449"},"modified":"2012-04-04T22:49:57","modified_gmt":"2012-04-05T02:49:57","slug":"the-daily-gouge-thursday-april-5th-2012","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thedailygouge.com\/?p=5449","title":{"rendered":"The Daily Gouge, Thursday, April 5th, 2012"},"content":{"rendered":"

It’s Thursday, April 5th, 2012….and here’s The Gouge!<\/strong><\/p>\n

First up, the WSJ<\/em>‘s take on what The Obamao is desperately trying to term….<\/strong><\/p>\n

Paul Ryan’s Hunger Games<\/span><\/h1>\n

The President offers his vision for an uplifting second term.<\/span><\/h2>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Republicans: advocating babies eat dog food since before Lincoln<\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

If there’s a Laffer Curve for Presidential invective\u2014some point at which dishonest political abuse yields diminishing returns\u2014the White House political team must not think their boss has hit it. Even in this hyperpartisan age, President Obama’s speech to the Associated Press yesterday was a parody of the form.<\/strong><\/span> This was a diatribe that managed to invoke “Social Darwinism” and “a Trojan Horse” in the same paragraph, amid the other high crimes that Mr. Obama says Paul Ryan wants to commit.<\/p>\n

The President’s depiction of the wonkish and formerly obscure House Budget Chairman as some political monster is itself telling. Mr. Obama is conceding that he can’t run on the economic recovery, the stimulus, health care, green energy or any of the other grand liberal ambitions that have dominated his time in office. All of those are unpopular or failures<\/em><\/span>.<\/span><\/strong><\/span> He was elected on hope and change, but now his only hope is to change the subject<\/strong><\/span><\/em><\/span> to the ogres he claims are the disloyal opposition.<\/p>\n

Did you hear about the GOP’s red-in-tooth-and-claw plan for Medicare? Grandma and Gramps are going to be drafted for the Hunger Games<\/span><\/strong><\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Mr. Obama has been working Mediscare for the last year, but he is also debuting some new material, each layer thicker than the last. Modern Republicans are so radical that they oppose research and care for Alzheimer’s, cancer, AIDS, autism and Down Syndrome, even as they want to deny education and food to children and their mothers. They want to pave over Yellowstone and backfill the Grand Canyon.<\/span> But few tourists could get there anyway, because Republicans plan to shut down air traffic control too.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Because Republicans have criticized the Administration’s torrent of costly new rules across the entire economy, therefore they favor returning to a state of regulatory nature, with no rules at all.<\/span><\/strong> Because Republicans oppose high-speed rail, therefore they would have opposed industrialization in the 19th century. They do plan to build a wayback machine to the Gilded Age, however, by handing a $150,000 check to every American millionaire, a million-dollar check to every billionaire, and a billion-dollar check to every trillionaire.<\/span><\/p>\n

“This is not conjecture<\/em><\/span>,” Mr. Obama said. “I am not exaggerating<\/em><\/span>. These are facts<\/em><\/span>.” Lest you think we exaggerate, read the transcript.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The list of untrue things that Mr. Obama wants Americans to believe is evidently so long that Mr. Obama associated himself with Republicans, albeit mostly dead Republicans like Lincoln and Eisenhower.<\/strong><\/span> For the first time we can recall, Mr. Obama even praised George W. Bush, of all people, because his predecessor created a new entitlement for prescription drugs. He also said Newt Gingrich showed how smart he was when he called Mr. Ryan’s budget “radical” and “right-wing social engineering” last year.<\/p>\n

All of this is a political fable carefully constructed to erase the record of the last three years and blame every current anxiety on a GOP House that has been in office for all of 14 months.<\/strong><\/span> The President claims to have “eliminated dozens of programs that weren’t working,” but the savings from these eliminations amount to less than 0.1% of the budget, or less than $100 million<\/em><\/span>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Meanwhile, the budget has grown by more than 20% since he has been President. After deficits of $1.412 trillion, $1.293 trillion, and $1.299 trillion over the last three years, and an estimated $1.326 trillion due for 2012, he still claims the deficits are all Mr. Bush’s fault\u2014except for the extra spending on Medicare, which he likes<\/em><\/span>.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

It is especially rich of Mr. Obama to accuse Republicans of breaking last summer’s debt-limit deal\u2014given that even the most sympathetic press accounts that are now emerging make it clear that the President blew up his “big deal” with John Boehner. The House Speaker was prepared to trade higher taxes for mostly notional changes to entitlements, but Mr. Obama thought he could roll him at the last minute for even greater tax increases.<\/p>\n

Now he claims Mr. Ryan’s reforms are “antithetical to our entire history as a land of opportunity and upward mobility.” But it is more accurate to say that Mr. Obama is the one who is out of step with a bipartisan consensus that entitlement reform is essential to prevent a debt crisis.<\/p>\n

Mr. Ryan’s “premium support” reform for Medicare, for instance, has been endorsed by Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden. It was advanced in the 1990s by President Clinton’s Medicare commission led by Democrat John Breaux. It mirrors the insurance system that lets millions of federal workers choose from a myriad of insurance plans with a government subsidy. It is the only reform with a prayer of salvaging Medicare without savage cuts in medical care down the road.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The last two days have revealed Mr. Obama at his least appealing\u2014and least Presidential<\/em><\/span><\/strong><\/span>\u2014first warning the Supreme Court not to dare overturn his health-care law, and now demonizing the motives of his political opposition. It is a long, long way from his “there’s no red America, there’s no blue America” stuff of 2004, much less the inspiration of 2008.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

If nothing else, Americans are getting a preview of the rhetorical uplift, the bipartisan problem-solving, and the unifying national purpose that would attend another four years.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Given the AP<\/em> is ostensibly composed of journalists, we have the one question The Great Prevaricator SHOULD have been asked, but inexplicably wasn’t: if your budget was so much better than Congressman Ryan’s, why was it voted down UNANIMOUSLY<\/em><\/span> by the House?\u00a0 And no Mr. Constitutional-Law-Professor; “unanimously” doesn’t mean Congress was allowed to vote on your budget by raising either hand.<\/strong><\/p>\n

As to The Dear Misleader’s claims a “majority” of Americans support Nancy Pelosi’s health care reform, Shikha Dalmia, writing in Reason.com<\/em> and courtesy of George Lawlor, sets the record straight:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Americans Want More Control Over Their Own Health Care<\/span><\/h1>\n

ObamaCare’s popular provisions lose their appeal once Americans are confronted with the consequences.<\/span><\/h3>\n

 <\/p>\n

With the three-day ObamaCare circus at the Supreme Court behind us, let\u2019s fast-forward to June. Suppose that five justices find their constitutional bearings and do what a majority of Americans want them to do: Scrap the individual mandate, the key provision without which the law will collapse. What then?<\/span> (We know by Tick-Tock’s own admission in yesterday’s edition he has no contingency plan.)<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Will that mean that our current system can just lumber along as is? No.<\/span> America\u2019s health care system is wasteful, inefficient and way too expensive: The U.S. retail price for an MRI, excluding professional fees, exceeds $4,000\u2014about 20 times more than in Japan and France<\/em><\/span>.<\/strong><\/span> This makes it extremely hard for Americans without coverage to spring for their own care, creating a system of medical haves and have-nots. It is not surprising, therefore, that a Kaiser Family Foundation tracking poll earlier this month found that six out of 10 Americans want lawmakers to keep searching for workable reforms even if the Supreme Court eventually kills the president\u2019s reform law.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

But any reform has to be based on the correct diagnosis of the problem. The administration’s main argument for ObamaCare’s mandate\u2014that unless every freeloader is forced to buy coverage, we won\u2019t be able to control spiraling health care costs\u2014is a total red herring<\/em><\/span>.<\/span><\/span> The cost of uncompensated emergency care in America adds up to only about $40.7 billion annually, less than 3 percent of the country\u2019s total health care spending<\/em><\/span>. Arguably, even if hospitals were not legally required to treat uninsured patients, they would provide that amount of care pro bono\u2014just as they do in India, a far poorer country.<\/span> Many private, for-profit hospitals I queried during a previous visit reported treating up to 10 percent of their patients for free. American law firms, by comparison, aim to offer 3 to 5 percent of their billable hours in pro bono services.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

But the question remains: What kind of reforms do Americans want? The Obama administration completely misread the public mood when it based its decision to craft a 2,700-page, Rube Goldberg-style makeover of literally one-sixth of our economy on polls suggesting that Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes for universal coverage.<\/strong><\/span> Worse, a joint Reason-Rupe poll released last week found that the misnamed Affordable Care Act\u2014a.k.a. ObamaCare\u2014imposed trade-offs that Americans were simply unwilling to accept. The act\u2019s supporters insist that even though a majority of Americans view the overall law unfavorably, many of its specific provisions are quite popular. But the problem is that most polls pose questions in a vacuum, without actually confronting Americans with the consequences of their choices.<\/strong><\/span> The Reason-Rupe poll was among the few to do so systematically, and it found that although Americans do want equity and coverage for all, they want control, choice and quality for themselves even more<\/em><\/span>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Hey….check it out; <\/span>I’m with doctors….in white coats.\u00a0 That gives me credibility!
\n<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Like other polls, it found that Americans don\u2019t want the government forcing them to buy coverage, although they were more amenable to employers being forced to provide coverage to employees, even if that means job losses and pay cuts.<\/strong><\/span> Indeed, 56 percent of respondents said they were fine with an employer mandate, compared to the 39 percent who said they were not.<\/p>\n

Americans like the idea of giving everyone the same access to health care, regardless of medical status\u2014except if it means sacrificing affordability or quality.<\/strong><\/span> Fifty-two percent approved of the community rating provision in the law, which would ban insurance companies from charging higher premiums based on medical history, compared to 39 percent who opposed it. But this support drops precipitously if the provision\u2019s side effects include longer wait times for doctors (41 percent) or higher premiums (38 percent) or higher taxes (37 percent) or lower-quality care (15 percent).<\/p>\n

But what was truly revealing was how eager Americans are to control their own health care dollars.<\/strong><\/span> Forty-eight percent said they\u2019d prefer it if their employers gave them the money to purchase their own coverage, compared to 41 percent who would not.<\/strong><\/span> Even more remarkably, 65 percent of Americans want Medicare payouts in the form of a credit for use toward a private health plan, compared to 24 percent who don\u2019t. This is good news for Rep. Paul Ryan\u2019s \u201cpremium support\u201d proposal for Medicare reform.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

All of this makes perfect sense in light of another finding. When asked to rate how much they trust various entities in \u201caddressing their health care needs,\u201d 61 percent said they have a \u201cgreat deal of trust\u201d in themselves<\/em>\u2014but only 15 percent said that of their employers, and 5 percent of the government<\/span><\/em>.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

What\u2019s more, Americans want to make their own coverage decisions. Almost 70 percent said they want the same ability to shop around for \u201ca less expensive or better [health] insurance policy\u201d as they have for their auto insurance. (Control ObamaScare conspicuously reserves ONLY to the federal government….the one party involved in health care John Q. Citizen trust the LEAST!)<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

So what are the implications of all this for health care reform? Americans are not dogmatically opposed to government intervention in health care markets. But their intuitions are more in line with advocates of consumer-based medicine who believe that the best way to control spiraling costs\u2014the key to improving access\u2014is to give patients more control over their medical dollars and inject a modicum of price sensitivity into our health care system.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

If the Supreme Court relegates ObamaCare to the dustbin of history, Congress ought to bear that in mind when it crafts a revised bill. The last thing the country needs is another failed reform effort<\/em><\/span>.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

No….the last thing the country needs is four more years of this overbearing, over-educated, over-hyped, unaccomplished dilettante. <\/strong><\/p>\n

Speaking of the last things the country needs….<\/strong><\/p>\n

Military<\/span> Investigating<\/span> Gay<\/span> Pride<\/span> Flag<\/span><\/strong><\/h1>\n

 <\/p>\n

The military said they are investigating a photograph that shows a soldier allegedly raising a gay pride flag at a base in Afghanistan. The image has drawn praise from gay rights advocates and fierce criticism from opponents. \u201cWe are aware of the photo of the gay pride flag being flown by U.S. service members and we are investigating,\u201d a spokesman for the International Security Assistance Force told Fox News.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

At this point, the ISAF cannot confirm where the flag was raised, the identity of the soldier, or the authenticity of the photograph.<\/strong><\/span> The photograph first appeared last month on the wall of a Facebook group called, \u201cWipeout Homophobia on Facebook.\u201d A woman who identified herself as Nicole Jodice posted the images \u2013 along with a message praising her husband for raising the rainbow colored flag. \u201cHubbie in Afghanistan raising a gay pride flag,\u201d she wrote with a link back to her home page that contained additional images.<\/p>\n

The images have outraged social conservatives like Tony Perkins, a veteran and president of the Family Research Council. \u201cThere, in the dusty desert of war, an Army outpost saluted the colors of the homosexual lobby by flying a rainbow flag in place of Old Glory,\u201d Perkins said. \u201cThese displays are an uncomfortable reminder of the open policy that few of the troops support.\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cIt appears this flag is just one way the President is taking his hostility toward religious freedom to new heights,\u201d Perkins said. Perkins was especially upset because last November soldiers at Camp Marmal were ordered to tear down a Christian cross that marked the entrance to a base chapel.<\/span> The military defended the removal because it was a \u201cdistinctly religious symbol.\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

He also raised concerns about whether the raising of the flag posed a danger to soldiers in the aftermath of the Koran burning. \u201cWhere is the concern now for angering Afghan Muslims who vehemently oppose homosexuality?\u201d<\/strong><\/span> he aside. \u201cThe issue is as much an issue of military security as it is of religious morality. What price will we pay because some want to use the military to show their gay pride?\u201d<\/p>\n

Queerty.com brushed aside Perkins\u2019 concerns calling him a \u201cprofessional homophobe.\u201d \u201cApparently a rainbow flag is such a provocation that it excuses attacks on our troops, they wrote. \u201cOr it could be a sign of the strength of our diversity and tolerance, principles we\u2019re supposed to treasure.\u201d<\/p>\n

However, even some supporters of gays serving openly in the military have reservations about the rainbow flag being flown on a military base. \u201cUnless there was authorization from an appropriate source to raise this flag over the base, and such authorization was not in violation of military codes of conduct, I see this as an unacceptable flouting of the rules,\u201d one reader wrote to Instinct Magazine.<\/span> \u201cThis isn\u2019t homophobic. It is, in fact, <\/span>egalitarian<\/span><\/em>.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

And absolutely essential<\/em><\/span> to unit discipline and morale.\u00a0 If true, this is precisely, and predictably, the “some are more equal than others” environment which inevitably results from the Left’s push, not for equality, but “special” rights; for minorities, women, gays and anyone else they believe can be accorded victim status.\u00a0 Most importantly, while destructive in a civilian setting, it’s impact on a military unit can be, quite literally, a matter of life and death.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Thanks again, Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen!\u00a0 You tasked your most senior officers with analyzing the impact of rescinding D.A.\/D.T.; and despite them coming up with fifteen adverse<\/em><\/span> impacts rescission would have on military preparedness and effectiveness….and not one positive, NOT ONE,….you had no problem rubber-stamping what is essentially a Liberal experiment in social engineering and giving congressional Dimocrats and The Obamao the political cover they needed to continue their campaign against America.
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n