Speaking Of the Absurd

I was listening to NPR praising a congressional plan to not just gerrymander districts but to allow more than one representative to be appointed that will be representative of the racial makeup of the district. They call it “proportional representation.” Even more disturbing is the fact that a Republican is championing the cause and is concerned that he won’t garner support from his conservative colleagues. What? So every racial group gets their own representative? Does this mean that in Chicago, or Baltimore perhaps, the city will carve out positions to represent conservative white males? I don’t think so. It’s preposterous, it’s unconstitutional, and it is not even close to being representative of a democracy. How many ways can they think of to divide us?

An insatiable Appetite For Control

While I’m on a government intrusion rant: have you seen the latest proposal by our government officials to require vehicles to have installed erratic driving software that will move the car to the shoulder and shut down the vehicle should the computer decide that the operator is driving in an unsafe manner?  Well-intentioned as it may be to prevent drunk driving, how does this system take into account chronic drunks with passable motor skills who don’t drive erratically but have impaired reflexes sufficient to be unable to avoid collision?  And how is the computer to differentiate between erratic driving and a deft maneuver to avoid a squirrel?  I don’t know about you, but given the choice between being disabled indefinitely on the side of the road, where I’m sure my turncoat car will rat me out to the authorities, and likely my insurance company as well, versus flattening the poor squirrel, I’m sorry to say PETA, but that squirrel is toast. And who exactly is the arbiter that determines what is considered erratic driving anyway? And don’t tell me it’s AI.  As the internet reports: I think we should leave artificial intelligence alone until we’ve figured out how to manage natural stupidity. Does it consider swerving, dodging animals, or potholes? How about accelerating too fast in your Italian sportscar or slamming on the brakes to avoid the aforementioned critters or maybe to avoid another speed trap sprung on you by uniformed government employees using equipment purchased with your tax dollars to squeeze even more revenue out of the driving public?  Government is suddenly everywhere, feeling cocky after their Covid lockdown success. And now they’re intent on taking it one step further, by suggesting we install governors on our cars to prevent us from exceeding the posted speed limit. I think they’re going to rely on that foolproof GPS technology for this one. You know, the technology that often isn’t kept up to date on speed limits or road construction and tells you to take the next left onto a snowmobile trail so you can “navigate off-road.”  Sure, that will work. And sign me up to purchase that 500 HP sports car so I can accelerate as fast as humanly possible to reach the preposterously posted 35 mph on that four-lane divided highway stretch of Route 2 outside of Hartford. Might as well take the Prius. Or just shoot me. And they’re even proposing the “15-minute city”. Where everything you could possibly need; work, groceries, the gym, and leisure activities, is located no more than a 15-minute walk from your government-sanctioned cubicle. I assume these people have seen Blade Runner, haven’t they? But buried in this concept is your access to your own personal vehicle which will be programmed to limit your excursions to that 15-minute radius, thus keeping the climate change folks happy and simultaneously keeping John Kerry’s favorite beaches all over the world less crowded so he can kite-surf unimpeded by you and your snotty children. So when they say they’re coming for your filthy internal combustion vehicle to save the planet, don’t believe them. What they’re coming for is control.

The Case Of Baby Indi

Government intrusion and overreach have always been a concern of ours and there has been no greater example of where we’re headed than the recent case of baby Indi Gregory in the UK. It is fascinating that when it comes to abortion rights, the left seemingly has unlimited latitude in granting a woman’s “right to choose” to terminate her pregnancy at any time and for any reason. Further, they want the taxpayer to foot the bill for services rendered. And yet when it comes to treatment to extend life, to grant access to experimental treatments, the so-called “right to try”, the government chooses to exert control over not just the payment, but over the access to the treatment altogether. Such is the case of baby Indi. For those of you not familiar with the case, I will provide a short synopsis as reported in the WSJ: 8-month-old baby Indi, was tragically born with a rare genetic disorder and even more tragically was born in the UK where the National Health Service administers their brand of socialized medicine to the public. The NHS determined that there was nothing more they could do for the child and elected to remove her from life support. The parents objected and sought relief from the courts who sided with the NHS and ordered the child moved to hospice care. The parents sought medical second opinions, eventually finding a children’s hospital in Italy that specialized in pediatric genetic disorders and determined that there existed a treatment plan that could extend the child’s life. The Vatican-affiliated hospital offered the treatment free of charge and even made baby Indi an Italian citizen to facilitate a transfer.  But again, the NHS intervened and determined that it was in the best interest of baby Indi to die in the UK. The courts agreed yet again. Not only was the child transferred to hospice care, but she was moved under police escort just in case the parents tried to pull a fast one. With life support withheld, the parents stood by helplessly and watched the child die two days later. So in analysis, one can understand that the NHS, socialized medicine by any other name, determined that it was not cost-effective to continue to treat the child. A roomful of accountants in cubicles essentially reduces the lives of you and your loved ones to a spreadsheet where they balance the cost of saving a child’s life with what they deem a more beneficial application of those funds to, for example, drug abuse programs, abortions, and the treatment of preventable diseases like emphysema in chronic smokers and cirrhosis in alcoholics. Not to mention all of Gen Z who apparently require funding for their anti-depression medication. And in this age of equality, you all must wait your turn, whether you’ve paid exorbitant taxes into the system your entire working life or have suckled at the government teat as a welfare recipient since birth. Just a cog in the wheel. I wonder how this would have turned out if it was the child of a member of Parliament.  But I digress. If cost analysis was the only reason for denying care, then why did the government intervene and deny the parents the option to seek care elsewhere? Control has to be the answer. Was it a concern that the child would still require long-term care if her life was extended and she returned to Britain? Or was the government sending a message: do what you’re told and don’t question us, comrade? I suspect the latter. Recall back in the Obama years, you know those halcyon days of fundamentally changing America, the days when Obamacare was to be the stepping stone to socialized medicine, when if you liked your doctors you could keep them, when the average family would save $2000 a year on healthcare.   Yeah, that's nonsense. When Medicare for all became the rallying cry for the left when our own politicians would be exempt and continue to receive a privately administered, superior level of healthcare to that of their constituents. Remind me how has that worked out for you. Once again, the government exerts control over you while the elite political class basks in privilege. You know who they are, the ruling class of oligarchs who recently paid $40000 for the privilege of rubbing elbows with the authors of progressive policy and bending a knee to the dictator who rules communist China. Putting themselves in good stead for the new world order. And part of their ploy is to assume the public has no memory, an inability to remember broken promises, and a way of life consistent with the original constitutional premise of limited government. Again, I ask you to recall when Republicans were mocked and ridiculed for suggesting that socialized medicine would result in “death panels” that would decide our fate. And like all the failures of the progressive left here it is in the case of Indi, laid bare for all to see despite their denials. A child is given a death sentence by the government that’s supposed to protect her. Lastly one more recollection: reference Saul Alinsky, he of the “rules for radicals” playbook. In another treatise, he put forth the eight steps for converting from a democracy to a socialist society. Amongst them: “Control healthcare and you control the people.”  Americans aren’t there yet, but we sure appear to be taking the exit, driven there by leftist socialist policies that continue to erode our freedoms and eat away at the core of our democracy.

Democrats Are Delusional

I grow weary of the Democrats claiming the Tuesday election results were a mandate for Joe Biden’s misguided policies. Democrats, the party of no personal responsibility: baby killing as a form of contraception and free handouts. I’m rapidly reaching the point where I don’t care what these progressive liberals do with their lives…..so don’t work, kill your unborn, smoke your weight in weed, shoot heroin, men posing as women and women posing as men. So be it, I don’t care. I just don’t think I should have to pay for somebody else’s transgressions. Further, know my kind shouldn’t be ostracized or even criticized for being conservative. When did that become a bad thing?  You’re the party that’s seeking fundamental change to traditional morals, ethics, and common sense. And, I deeply resent the complicit media making it appear that these issues are divided into right and wrong when in fact it is often a matter of opinion. You have every right to think what you like but I don’t have to be party to your delusions. You may cast ethics aside and try to convince me that a developing fetus is just a bundle of cells at 25 weeks when the scientific evidence leads anyone with a functioning cortex to see that it clearly is not. You may claim that the border is closed when it is glaringly open, that the Ukraine/Russian and Israeli/Hamas wars are being deftly appraised by our peerless leader and his minions. I don’t believe any of it. And not the government propagandists or the mainstream media are going to convince me otherwise.

Handwriting On The Wall

Look at Virginia. The GOP campaigned on crime, public safety, the economy and a compromise on abortion with restrictions at 15 weeks with exclusions for rape and incest, a compromise that pundits keep telling us is consistent with what the majority of Americans want. But all the voters heard was the word “restrictions” and the democrats once again posted historic wins against the odds, taking control of the state legislature in both houses, effectively blunting Governor Youngkin’s conservative agenda. Sound familiar? Republicans need to understand that the abortion issue is a loser. Did you hear me?  A loser. Americans have been radicalized, secularized, and dumbed down to accept simplistic bumper sticker solutions to complex issues. And our youth, perhaps the worst educated generation of simpletons ever created, is rabid in their understanding that terminating a developing baby is nothing more than a “right to choose.”  It’s just a bundle of cells. Uh-huh. Not at 24 weeks, you idiots. Look at Ohio actually enshrining abortion into their state constitution. How ridiculous. Coincidentally they also voted to legalize recreational marijuana giving us yet another glimpse into the leftist mindset: it’s all about sex with no consequences and access to mind-altering drugs. This stuff ain’t your daddy’s weed. And then we wonder why 71% of youth aged 19-25 are unfit for military service. Duh. America is in a tailspin from which we cannot possibly recover. The Marxists are winning and the majority of the electorate is too dull to anticipate the consequences. Public schools run by the radical teachers union, gender confusion, race-based selection replacing meritocracy, legalized drugs, defunding police, revolving door law enforcement, open borders, and the progressive destruction of voting integrity with mail-in ballots, drop boxes, same-day registration, and elimination of voter verification all contributing to the chaos whittling away at the fabric of our nation. Note to Republicans: abandon the abortion issue and embrace the sophomoric concept of libertarianism as it applies to the uterus…..do whatever the hell you want as long as it doesn’t affect me. Allow them to cull their own. Meanwhile continue to focus on fiscal responsibility, military preparedness, the economy, and world affairs, you know, all the adult policies where the Biden Administration has shown itself to be completely incompetent. Perhaps it will resonate. But we are evolving into a starkly divided country, the kind that cannot “coexist”, despite all the lefties with their Priuses proclaiming it on their bumpers. They actually mean coexist only if you agree with me. There is no compromise. The left keeps telling us.  But the Republicans aren’t listening. 

Healthcare

I'm at that age when the quality of healthcare is in question I take notice.

For instance, an article appeared in my newsfeed talking about burnout in the medical professions reporting that nearly 25% of medical students are considering dropping out or working in an area that doesn’t require patient contact.  Similar stats in nursing. It shouldn't come as a surprise, what did we expect? Lawyers, the government, and the insurance industry have conspired to make the profession unrewarding, requiring more documentation, more continuing education requirements, more licensing fees, higher malpractice premiums, an increased workload, and a steadily decreasing amount of reimbursement with the constant looming threat of government-run healthcare. The three tenets of any job desirability are being tested:  1: Security is still present to a degree, albeit with onerous requirements to maintain your practice lest you succumb to malpractice, OSHA, or just mind-numbing documentation after seeing hundreds of patients a week. 2: Recognition still exists,  but the amount of respect healthcare workers receive from patients is steadily in decline, largely due to their bristling at the requirement for cover-your-ass medicine resulting in the experience becoming less personal. Further, assembly line practice is necessary to compensate for lower reimbursement from the insurance industry and government plans, making the appointment more of a business transaction. Lastly, 3: Reward has probably been the most affected. Given the cost of education and the time involved in receiving training, the compensation has failed to keep up with the negative impact the profession has on lifestyle. Government intrusion into healthcare and increased insurance penetration into the market have adversely affected reimbursement. Lower gross receipts, coupled with the requirement for a larger staff to cope with unwieldy paperwork,  and skyrocketing overhead contributes to less take-home pay, a situation that has resulted in many physicians choosing to migrate to associate positions, large group practices, or hospital staff positions where they can work regular hours and get a check, forgoing involvement in the business aspect of medicine. The price they pay is a trade-off: lower salary but an improvement in time constraints. This has been a trend, particularly with women accounting for an ever larger percentage of medical and dental graduates. Even with the introduction of PAs and NPs to augment the practice of medicine, the availability of a healthcare practitioner to treat our aging population is increasingly becoming problematic, particularly in rural locales. The choices will be stark: lower standards to cast a wider net, subsidize medical education, or the most unlikely, an increase in reimbursement. With the insurance industry and the trial lawyers engaging in significant lobbying efforts in Congress and the mere fact that our lawmakers are often attorneys, it is unlikely that we will ever see tort reform or legislation that will improve reimbursement at the expense of corporate profits. And the public is yet to acquiesce to increasing funding for government-run healthcare or anything that resembles “Medicare for all” but the prospect of socialized medicine is surely not going to drive an increase in medical school applications. Sure, just hand the government control of another fifth of the economy while simultaneously giving them control over our health. What could go wrong? So there you have it, the proverbial impasse. However, the short-term consequences will be a steady decline in the availability of healthcare and a reduction in the quality of that care. We shall see how the public reacts when we reach a tipping point. 

How Did This Happen

Have we actually acquired a stand-up conservative, politically adept speaker of the House? In the past, it always appeared that the Democrats held the line and forced the Republicans to compromise allowing them to feign bipartisanship. Can it be Representative Mike Johnson may be just the one to turn the tide and for once present a unified conservative front? The Turtle “ McConnell over in the Senate has already registered concern along with Schumer whining the need to “reach across the aisle”, warms the cockles of my heart. I just hope Speaker Johnson drives them crazy and the Republicans for once, in unison rally behind him.