Conservative Solutions to Liberal Problems (Part I), by David Teesdale

July 30, 2009

Conservative solutions for health care will save money and save lives.  Liberal panaceas will increase costs and redistribute both wealth and lives.

Conservative solutions for health care will save money and save lives. Liberal panaceas will increase costs and redistribute both wealth and lives.

A common refrain in these early days of the inept Obama Administration from liberals and Democrat mouthpieces in the media is that the Republican Party is the “party of no”. Were it not for the fact that Democrats have time and again rebuffed Republican attempts to amend legislation, this might be a more stinging barb. President Obama as early as January, was telling Republicans who proposed alternative plans to his catastrophic stimulus bill that he’d trump their alternative plans, since “I won”.

A party of no? Perhaps a party of no cajones would be more apt. A party of no spines, even. A party of no personality, or of no public relations or no spin doctors would suffice. Young Republicans and conservatives are offering solutions to America’s problems.  Our solutions will solve problems created almost exclusively by liberals, both intentionally and unintentionally. Let us first begin with the issue that Democrats are largely using to try to pin Republicans with the label of obstructionists:

HEALTH CARE: CBO estimates peg Democrats’ plan for nationalized health care at $1 trillion. Apparently the last $1 trillion dollar bill passed by Democrats worked out so well, they thought they’d try again. There are some very good conservative plans to lower the cost of health care in America and that make it accessible without overhauling the best health care system on earth, keeping in mind the idea that insurance is just that–when you give a Mary Kay Cadillac-package to everyone, it ceases to be insurance at all, but rather fascist-medicine.  Socialism is government owned and operated industry.  Fascism is when the government controls industry but the industry is still privately owned.  America doesn’t need an overhaul, just a touch-up.  So, without further a due, conservative alternatives to fascist medicine:

  • Eliminate insurance mandates.  Currently, insurance companies are mandated by the government to provide insurance for superfluous procedures, costing insurance purchasers $1.3 billion a year.  In other words, 12% of purchasers’ annual premiums.  This is probably since lobbyists for industries as various as birth control, laser eye surgery, Viagra, invitro fertilization and cosmetic procedures have successfully gotten liberal legislators to mandate these things be required pieces of insurance packages, rather than allowing families to choose based on need and cost.  This would be like requiring auto-insurers to cover oil changes, tire rotations, and fuzzy dice.
  • State legislatures should loosen regulation on insurance companies to allow individuals to purchase insurance packages across state lines and Congress needs to encourage trade with out-of-state insurers.  This would lower premiums in a variety of ways, notably by eliminating or diluting the community-rating laws in many states which force an 18 year old with no pre-conditions to subsidize, say, a 55 year old with many pre-conditions by making both pay the same, higher premium.  Cato Institute provides a look into this plan.
  • Equally weighted income tax deductions for medical providers who provide pro-bono medical services as a charity to the disadvantaged.  This would provide an incentive to doctors to provide free care, which doctors largely do any way.  Despite the charge that there are 47 million uninsured Americans, that number is probably closer to 8 million when you discount illegal aliens, people who make more than $70,000 a year who choose not to be insured, and those who are temporarily without insurance as a result of job transition.  Still, in America, no one doesn’t get emergency care because of their inability to pay.  They may lose their PS3, iphone, flat screen or car, and while I sympathize with their plight–facing the choice between food and iphone creates a difficult decision–this is still better than waiting four years for a hip replacement, as in Britain or Canada.
  • Establish Health Savings Accounts for every American.  Accounts in which each U.S. citizen could select, pre-tax, to deduct their personal wealth from their pay-check and deposit into a savings account.  Many Americans could put 40-50% more savings toward health care services.  By doing this, we can unleash the power of the individual consumer to tackle the rising costs of medical services by only using the services they really need and the providers that provide the best quality for the lowest cost.  It would also reduce unnecessary testing for diseases patients and doctors know aren’t the issue.
  • Tort reform.  American hospitals waste $700 billion a year on unnecessary tests and procedures.  This is largely because doctors are terrified of being sued by trip and fall lawyers.  If Americans needed a more ominous omen that we live in an overly litigious society, we have so many lawyers that 75% of recently graduated law students will have difficulty finding work this year.    Trial lawyers being one of the largest demographics for Democrats outside of the GLBT coalitions, trial lawyer lobbyists bankrolled Democrats to the tune of $179 million in soft-money in 2008, and Democrats receive 90% of the American Association of Justice’s campaign contributions.  Democrats reciprocate every time they are re-elected by instituting thousands of arcane rules and regulations to produce more work for trial lawyers nationwide.  Capping malpractice lawsuit awards and creating some system where losers of frivolous lawsuits would be forced to pay would greatly diminish this phenomenon.  Even if we accept the premise that there are 47.5 million uninsured Americans, if we eliminate this wasteful use of health care dollars, savings would amount to roughly $15,000 per ‘uninsured’ American.

To be continued…  On to the economy.

David Teesdale, phoned Senator Lamar Alexander this morning to inform him that the Senator’s support for confirming SCOTUS nominee Judge Sotomayor lost him Teezy’s vote next time around.  Act your ideology, Senator.  Call your Congressmen.  But first, comment here and send suggestions to


The Dirty Little Secret of Socialized Medicine, by David Teesdale

July 24, 2009

It is with great trepidation today that I reveal the dirty little secret about the Democrats’ health-care ‘reform’ bill, languishing in mark-up, that neither Democrats or Republicans want you to know. This is a secret so great, that even greater lengths have been gone to in order to make sure you never know about it. That secret, is of course, that the thousand page leviathan snaking its way through Congress will never pass. It will not become law, at least during Obama’s presidency.

Congressional Democrats don't want you to know that the health-care bill is doomed because they want you to support it.  Congressional Republicans don't want you to know this because then you won't belly-ache to your Congressman.  Belly-ache away.

Congressional Democrats don't want you to know that the health-care bill is doomed because they want you to support it. Congressional Republicans don't want you to know this because then you won't belly-ache to your Congressman. Belly-ache away.

There was some question, prior to his inauguration, as to how moderate an Obama Administration would be. Obama tacked to the center in the later stages of the presidential campaign and many expected that he had learned the hard lessons of Clinton’s ill-advised lurch leftward in the early days of his own presidency and would take a more centrist approach early on. Obama cleared up any of those debates within days of his inauguration, signing radical executive orders regarding abortion and terrorist detainees, and by pushing through the massive American Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The AERR (probably better spelled ERROR– Economic Retardation and Redistribution for Obama’s Re-election) has thus far been a colossal disaster.

Obama’s leftward lurches were noted by this author as early as January, and upon passage of the stimulus, I declared definitively that as a result of the stimulus battle:

“The Democrats stand to potentially be hammered in the 2010 mid-terms, if only Republicans in the Senate hold their ground and let the Democrats have their win now. It is costly for both sides, but Obama will have spent his political capital on a project only 37% of Americans support. You and I can kiss goodbye the notion of socialized medicine or other hair brained plans hatched 50 years ago by pseudo-socialists.” (Feb. 7, 2009).

Republicans largely stood their ground against the wasteful spending in the stimulus bill, and though it was not evident at the time, this helped to harden Americans against any more socialist-leaning legislation. It was to me evident then, that no plan for the nationalization of health-care could ever pass muster. However, I, like many others, was reticent to point this out and risk the disinterest and dis-involvement that would likely emanate from those activists who would otherwise be speaking out against this bill by calling their Congressmen and generally stirring the pudding. We’ve seen this phenomenon occur most recently during the cap and trade debate in the House, where a highly unpopular and dangerous bill somehow managed to squeak into a position dangerously close the Federal Register.

Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC):  “If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his waterloo. It will break him,”

Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC): “If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his waterloo. It will break him." Republicans should heed his words.

So why come out now at such a pivotal time in the legislative process and chat up how the bill is doomed? Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) recently stated that Obama’s health-care initiative is like his Waterloo. If Obama is defeated here, that may very well spell the end of Obama’s endeavors to reshape the American social and political landscape in his own very liberal image. While the analogy is imperfect, as all analogies are, it is important to note that if Obama can be stopped on health-care—and he almost certainly will be stopped—Republicans can salvage what is left of America.

Though the stimulus plan has severely debilitated America by plunging us into nearly irreparable debt and by burdening future generations with a crushing tax, we may someday be thankful that the Obama Administration pressed for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, or ERROR, when they did. In doing so, the Obama White House lurched far to the left, and this bacchanalian spendthrift left America not just with a hang over, but a terrible after-taste, and has ignited opposition to further leftward power grabs. National health-care, which would destroy innovation, hinder care, raise costs, institutionalize a culture of death, deprive us of our liberties and relegate America to European style mixed-economic socialism, would be far worse.

The blows dealt by Obama’s stimulus package are severe, but not insurmountable. National health-care would radically transform America. With calls to Congressional offices running fifteen to one against the plans as they stand, Obama is on the ropes. A resounding defeat here would diminish Barack Obama’s future political capital and neuter the march toward a Fabian-styled social order. To utilize another imperfect, boxing analogy; now is not the time to relent. If this is truly destined to be a defeat for the Obama Administration, we should not be content to win by T.K.O. Just as the Duke of Wellington and allied forces saved the continent of Europe from Napoleon’s forces, we should not see Obama’s weakened state and let our guard down. Republicans and conservative Democrats should press Obama all the more fiercely. Let’s make health-care Obama’s Waterloo.

David Teesdale, is particularly fond of analogies.  Mr. Teesdale is to rice pilaf as Steve Irwin is to: __________.  Comment here or e-mail him at for the answer.

On the Other Hand, by David Teesdale

July 4, 2009

Thousands of pages have been dumped into Law and into the Federal Register, un-read, since Obama took office.

Thousands of pages have been dumped into Law and into the Federal Register, un-read, since Obama took office.

Bernie Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison this week after stealing $13 billion from investors in the second largest ponsi scheme in U.S. history (Social Security being the largest). But what of Barack Obama and the 219 U.S. Congressmen who voted this week to steal $1 trillion inter-generationally through cap and trade? Not even counting the ‘stimulus’ debacle, this Administration and Congress should, in a just world, be removed from office and sentenced to a similar prison recess. If not for the pain that these half-baked plans will cause our own generation, but for the next three, which may or may not be able to lift this oppressive tax.

President Obama said on prime time television weeks ago that worrying about the U.S. government’s finances “keeps [him] awake at night” and that the country needed to start planning now to tackle soaring deficits. In a pair of interviews on CNBC and Bloomberg television, Obama claimed to lose sleep over the Nation’s debt. Of course, that has not stopped the president from indulging his veritably narcoleptic tendencies, ringing up more debt in a single year than all the presidents in the 220 years prior. This has burdened the Nation with the largest debt in the history of the world.

Thus, trillions of dollars have hemmorhaged from the American people.

Thus, trillions of dollars have hemmorhaged from the American people.

All this highlights inherent liberal hypocrisy, especially that of Obama; saying one thing, and doing another. Not that hypocrisy isn’t a modus operandi of most politicians, but for Obama and Democrats, this “on the other hand” approach, brings with it a moral relativism matched only by the Sophists of ancient Greece, and is as dangerous to the civil society today as it was then.

Obama, while campaigning, promised to have all legislation available on-line for five days prior to votes in Congress. The first legislation passed during Obama’s administration—the so called ‘stimulus,’ was apparently so critical that the people didn’t need to read the Bill—so important, in fact, that the 1,000 page Act was not read by any of the Senators and Congressmen who voted on the Bill either. Six months later, cap and trade sailed through Congress with a 300 page dump at 3:00 AM the morning of the vote, which again, presumably, was not read and not uploaded to any Internet site—though I haven’t checked

Most recently, Obama’s is concerned about meddling in Iran’s affairs following a rigged election in which Ahmadinejad got more votes than there were registered voters and the tyrannical regime violently suppressed peaceful protests. Erstwhile, Obama’s doing a great deal of meddling in order to prop up a leftist leader in Honduras who was rightly removed by the Supreme Court and Legislature after an unconstitutional power grab a la Hugo Chavez—who, ironically, supplied the ballots for Zeyala’s illegal election, which was supported by Daniel Noriega and the Castros. Striking, though, to note the parallels between the Iranian debacle and the theft of a Minnesota Senate seat by Al Franken, who also received more votes than there were registered voters in many areas of Minnesota.

Chavez, Castro, Noriega, Ahmadinejad...  Obama?  Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?

Chavez, Castro, Noriega, Ahmadinejad... Obama? Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?

All these Indian-gifts and falsehoods perpetrated by Obama and Democrats are truly not their fault. They honestly don’t see anything wrong with it. In fact, Democrats routinely will out and out state their hypocritical disposition. June 15th, while pitching national health-care, the president spoke to the American Medical Association, and, well, I’ll let you read it from the donkey’s mouth:

Now, I recognize that it will be hard to make some of these changes if doctors feel like they are constantly looking over their shoulder for fear of lawsuits. Some doctors may feel the need to order more tests and treatments to avoid being legally vulnerable. That’s a real issue….I’m not advocating caps on malpractice awards which I believe can be unfair to people who’ve been wrongfully harmed.

In other words, “I understand what the problem is, but I’m going to ram my vision through any way.” This approach extends to foreign policy as well. The president is on record saying that Iran, which has openly stated it intends to end Israel and sponsors terror around the world, has a the same “right” to nuclear weapon capability as civilized nations. But Obama didn’t stop there. In his speech to the entire Muslim world on June 4th in Cairo, Obama claimed to empathize with Jews regarding the Holocaust, then proceeded to equate this with the Palestinians’ self-inflicted perpetual refugee status.

Liberals pretend to know about their opposition, but are in fact clueless.

Liberals pretend to know about their opposition, but are in fact clueless.

Time and time again Obama claims to understand his opponents’ stances, and then proceeds to demonstrate exactly how he doesn’t. This is pervasive amongst liberals, who promote equality but support racial quotas because “wise Latinas” might have a leg up on a stodgy old man, and oppose the War in Iraq and support the barbaric practice of abortion, which has killed far more. Obama stated that he personally opposed abortion, and would teach his daughters about morals and values, “but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.” Must be why he supports partial birth abortion and voted multiple times to disallow medical treatment for fully born babies who survived their attempted murder and were to then be left to die in a dark, dank hospital room.

There are nuances and differences between every issue, but on issue after issue, liberals will cast aside promises in order to achieve political ends, or morally equate decadence with virtue, buttressing this with a passing allusion to their adversaries’ protests. In the end, liberals love candidates like Barack Obama because they sound “thoughtful” and “understanding,” because they purport to comprehend opponents’ views while respectfully disagreeing and doing what they like anyway. The proof is in the pudding however, and liberals don’t understand a thing.

David Teesdale, is an investigator in the hills of Knoxville, Tennessee.  Moonshine stills haunt his dreams.  For questions or comment, or for Nigerian princes who desire to send him large inheritances, contact him at