8/27.

1.  Liberals really are rude…and easy to spot.  It is a fun game when in DC.

After walking the mall for 4 hours we were looking for  place to sit, rest our feet and have a drink, we asked the Capital Guard for a suggestion.   He sent us down a side street and we found an outside table at Hamilton’s.    We soon learned this was a locals hangout;  people arriving in pairs and singles to join up with groups after work.   We offered our spare chairs to a growing group and then slid over one of our two merged tables.   They took the charity graciously, but then we overheard them jokingly taking a poll about who would be attending the rally in the morning.  They all laughed and the game was afoot.   Each new person that arrived was judged as Left or Right, it was really easy.   Walking shyly, not looking the bouncer (or others in the eye), still wearing your tie… Liberal.   The two that threw us off were a younger pair of men dressed in business casual.   They seemed confident, yet probably worked here we guessed GOP staffers.    They joined a table that looked like 8/28 attendees.    We found found out later they worked for Johnny Isaacson and one of the 8/28 attendees was father to one of the men.  One other gentleman created a debate.   He was tall older man (50s) with strong features but did not show outward confidence.   He was not drinking wine but the sale beer of the house.    All was decided when he got up to leave, slung his fabric “briefcase” across his chest and over one shoulder and sauntered past.    It was a fun game but can only be played in rare locations.   I look forward to the chance to play again.

2.  Why is a Liberal Rally so angry?

While at the capital, a rally was going on to free someone “unjustly prosecuted” from prison.   Over the loudspeakers a few thinks broke over the blocks between us;  “The White MAN”…”not the white woman but the White Man”..yes that was a quote.   As we got closer we could see the fence-lined field in front of the capital.   Three groups stood out.  The attendees mostly in red shirts all with the same message to “Free..” someone.    A group of what I would assume were gospel singers but they stood in a row off to the side.  The third was a row of people dressed in ethnic or ceremonial garb.     I assume the last two groups were part of the event but we missed their involvement.   As we rounded the back of the field, between it and the capital, a fourth group was evident.  A group of 5-6 large men dressed in all black, arms folded, stood facing the capital (not the event).   The stone look on their faces let you know they meant business.  This was a stark contrast to the 8/28 folks milling around the capital, shaking hands, commenting on each other t-shirts and talking with the capital guard.    I know they were protesting and obviously upset at some perceived injustice.  But the negativity of the message and the anger makes it hard for others to listen and join the movement.

3.  Late night with many friends…and a long walk.

After our time at Hamilton’s we decided to check on the monuments after sunset.   My cohort in this venture had not been to DC for pleasure.     On our way back to the Lincoln Memorial we decided to take a detour to see the Jefferson Memorial.   I have been to DC three times and never made it to that memorial.     A quick walk off of the mall and across the street to the parking lot.   Then along the lake to the side of Jefferson.  And then a walk around to the “front” past the construction.   And then the pathway around the other side to the back (or maybe really the front) of the monument; with our backs to the White House.     Metaphor was not lost… As you stand there facing Jefferson eye-to-eye, your back is to the White House.     After a brief rest and then up the stairs we were awestruck but the power of the memorial and the quotes on the walls.    Any belief that Jefferson was atheist or agnostic is completely erased in that room.   We spent out brief time there among the 40 or so others that had made the trip over (and maybe were dreading the trip back) at 10:30 that night.   I for one was glad I had walked it and won the debates against my tired feet at each turn…  I took a cab over to Lincoln from here,  where about a hundred people adorned the stairs.

8/28

4.  A small applause that may have made made her heart skip a beat.

We arrived at the Crystal City Metro station at 6:25 with a few dozen friends.   As the clock neared 7:00 the crowd was near 100.   A small “excuse me” reached the crowd.  As the crowd opened, an applause echoed throughout the small entrance chamber.   It was a younger black woman in her Metro uniform.  She had come to open the gates.  As she moved the crowd opened and closed around her, clapping as she walked.   She reached the gate, opened it and went through, closing it behind herself.   She returned in a few moments to open the gate, no pushing, no shoving.  In fact the first few in line helped here push the gates back, lift the retaining arms and place the gates in the “closets” to the side.  Once her job was done we all progressed to the train platforms.   All I could think about was wishing I knew what she was thinking in those moments… approaching the crowd, walking through, closing the gate again, having to come back up to open the gate, watching us all parade past.    In all we were respectful and I hope that it had an impact.

5.  2.5 hours before Glenn.

We arrived at the rally at about 7:30am.   We found our spot for the day on the left side of the reflecting pool a few dozen yards short of the second set of screens.  We stood on the rise just under the tree line.   As people arrived, we introduced ourselves and talked about our reasons for coming.  We covered PA, MD, AZ, GA, NY, OH.   A working mother from Toyota, a painter, a salesman, an IT guy and a few others that were never really covered.   As the crowd filled, in the small plots of grass between our stations continued to fill.    After 9:00, a mother, father and child arrived looking for a place to stand.    She asked a few pople if they minded if she took a small spot next to them.  She then pointed forward for her spouse and offered a small spot to her daughter.   The small crowd around us simply reshuffled their locations expanding from the spot where they stood to give them space to stand together.    In the end, they spread out their blanket and sat down to wait the final minutes before the rally.

Once ensconced in their new location, I noticed a Notre Dame backpack.  Those that know me, know I am not a huge fan of the “Fighting Irish.”   Usually a involuntary visceral reaction occurs.   I noticed a complete lack of response on this day.    In this crowd, all those rivalries, opinions and reactions were gone.  Steelers and Browns fans,  ACC and SEC no longer mattered (though those shirts and logos were still proudly displayed).

Minutes before the rally began, applause broke out from behind us.  Looking skyward a formation of geese was making it way up the reflecting pool, from the Washington Monument.  As if released by Glenn himself, they followed the pool and then veered right over the Vietnam Memorial.   It was an event opening fly-over, in an area of very restricted airspace.

6.  Not a single scrap.

After the rally was over we turned to slowly walk among the crowd.  We noticed that the field was clearing faster than the sidewalk so we slid under the ropes and on to the field.   As we approached the end of the field we encountered a Marshall with a garbage bag.  I dropped off the banana peal and empty water bottle I was holding and walked on.  It was then it struck me, we had not seen a single scrap of paper, a water bottle or even a gum wrapper anywhere on our walk through this field.  Good work, good people.

7.   A runner on a mission.

As we continued our walk through the mall, we approached the Washington Monument at about 1:30pm.  A slightly stressed looking woman was in jogging gear was swimming upstream.   I wish my camera was at the ready.   All I could think was, “I picked the wrong day to start jogging at the mall.”

8.  It begins now, a small bit of charity.

We exited the Metro at the airport with the echoes of the event still fresh in our ears.  We were talking to another man as we exited the Metro, swiped our ride cards and walked into the airport.   We asked if he was from here, he said no.    I saw a man coming towards us on the moving walkway.  I “stopped” him (in fact he had to walk backwards slowly to talk).   I asked if he was going on the Metro, he said yes so I handed him my ride card.  I told him that I did not know how much was left on it (a few rides to and from the airport on a $20 card) but he was welcome to it.  Rob handed him his as well and told him to enjoy his day.    He smiled, said a hearty thank you and stopped walking backwards.  The man with which we were walking said something along the lines of…Charity starts now, with us.

9.   Dr. Alveda King and Angelica Tucker’s father at Delta Lounge.

While waiting for our flight in the Delta lounge we were lucky to run into Dr. Alveda King and the father of Angela Tucker (a 22 year old singer at the rally).   I was tempted to try and get a picture with Dr King, but the vibe was not right.  She was not unapproachable, she was polite and gracious for the complements she received.  but it seemed she was exhausted and completely wiped.  After hearing a bit from behind the scenes, I believe this was true.  But she had apparently been engulfed in an overall constricting fear for the past three days.  Regardless, she did step over while we where talking to Angela’s father with a polite “excuse me for interrupting.”   She then talked with him, gave him a coupon/voucher or something and walked off saying she was headed to her flight.  Maybe she could have used the arm on her shoulder.  I wish her well.

While talking to Angela’s father we found him to be a gracious and humble recording engineer who looks far younger than his years would indicate.  He was obviously proud of his daughter and had great things to say about his time with Glenn Beck.  We discussed the point that Angela is unlikely to ever see a crowd of this size again.  He said that he had mentioned that to her as well.  Right on queue for a 22 year old, she said something along the lines of  “My facebook page is blowing up, never seen this many requests.”

10.  Enough is Enough… the New Hope and Change.

On our flight was one sole protester from the Sharpten rally.  She was wearing a read shirt that stated the simple message “Enough is Enough.”  I wished I had the gall to ask her how her really went, but I refrained.    I did notice however that the message “Enough is Enough” was generic enough to garner my support.    Similar to “Taxed Enough Already”,  enough taxes,  enough spending, enough debt, enough divisiveness, enough politicians.   It reminded me of days just past, when “Hope and Change” was the motto of choice.  A motto that again, could be filled with anything you wanted.  An empty vessel that means whatever you want it to mean.

Overall, the rally was well done and had good flow.   Glenn stepped up early to explain the overall structure of the rally and in between to stitch the sections together.   At each stage, he just as quickly stepped aside to allow the rally to flow unimpeded; allowing the SOWF to explain their mission, Sarah Palin to introduce honored military and to allow the presentation of the new Badges of Merit.  It was not until hour three when Glenn Beck took to the stage to speak at length on his own behalf.

The stories presented by Sarah Palin were well articulated and done with respect and reverence.  She carried it off well and stuck to the tone of the rally.   The presentation of awards to citizens of outstanding merit was a wonderful segment and should be the central focus of the coverage.   I have seen very little of this segment at all.  This is sad but not surprising.   The closest and generally fair coverage I saw was the segment of Glenn’s speech when he asked the audience how they differ from the giants that surround them in these monuments.   The extended quote ran to the end when Glenn explains that they were just men and they are no different then us, they only did the hard thing when it was most needed.   I have seen another snippet from this section that I would say was excerpted specifically to create more controversy.   That was when Glenn said he most identifies with Martin Luther King Jr.   Glenn further clarifies that this is because we have yet to create a monument to him and ensconce him in marble.   He is still remembered as a man– a great man doing what was most needed.   When I heard it live, I knew this would happen and I think Glenn did as well.   He had to give them something with which to work.

Dr. Alveda King was again wonderful.   Her strength of character was evident simply by her presence at this rally.  But her speech added power and a stark differentiation between Restoring Honor’s inclusive hopeful message and the competing rally’s divisive  ”Reclaim the Dream” message.

Glenn’s reintroduction of the Black Robe Brigade was a powerful moment, made more so as he explained the scope of the congregations covered.  I found it interesting and found myself wondering how this will manifest itself moving forward.   I am now going to have to watch the 8/27 event to understand this a bit deeper.   I am hopeful that Glenn was able to express his concerns over Social Justice and Collective Salvation.  Without these constraints, the message of ” God is the answer” leaves a lot of variables and interpretations that diminish the potential impact.

One criticism I have of the event was that it became a bit preachy in parts.  Given the speaker(s), one would probably say that this could be expected.   I only found the level of religion a bit over-bearing when those trying to show religious unity referred to God specifically as Jesus or Christ.   With other preachers (from varied religions) on stage, I felt a bit self-editing would have been appropriate.

This in no way limited to overall message centered on Honor through Hope, Faith, and Charity.   A heart-felt thank you goes out to all involved.   You probably will see more coverage about the debates of the crowd size then coverage such as this.    That is why I wrote it.   The focus of the rally was that we must be willing to do the hard things now, when it is needed most, and at personal risk.    Restoring honor starts with citizens, individuals doing the right thing and demanding the same from others.    Take strength in this fact.   The argument is sound, the message powerful.  Arguing against it’s merits is a losing battle.   Crowd size and race (always race) will move to the fore.   That is an act of weakness not strength.

For a more light-hearted view of the days around the rally see my “Ten anecdotes from DC 8/27-8/28”

Update (9/2): A few great articles covering the rally:

Out Chicago no less!  http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/15295.html

WSJ covers the dynamics well: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703369704575461633570826898.html

“Something For Nothing”

Waiting for the winds of change
To sweep the clouds away
Waiting for the rainbow’s end
To cast its gold your way
Countless ways
You pass the days

Waiting for someone to call
And turn your world around
Looking for an answer
To the question you have found
Looking for
An open door

You don’t get something for nothing
You can’t have freedom for free
You won’t get wise
With the sleep still in your eyes
No matter what your dreams might be

What you own is your own kingdom
What you do is your own glory
What you love is your own power
What you live is your own story
In your head is the answer
Let it guide you along
Let your heart be the anchor
And the beat of your own song

You don’t get something for nothing
You can’t have freedom for free
You won’t get wise
With the sleep still in your eyes
No matter what your dreams might be

It is important to remember that many of these folks were fighting “the man” in the sixties and seventies as young adults and teens.   They called for and attended sit-ins, protests and some fringe elements even resorted to violence (i.e. Bill Ayers).   I am not saying their current innate  fear is rooted in the fact that they have lived through this kind of escalating protest against the establishment.   That is too superficial and would only serve to increase the hypocrisy of the left.  No, I think it goes even deeper and more fearful.

Eventually, the war ended, these radicals aged and the fever died down.  Throughout the 80s and 90s, these radicals on the left turned their fight against “the man” to more traditional means.   They joined political organizations, universities and worked for companies.   From these positions they eventually infiltrated and now dominate the Democratic Party.   Most honest people will not deny that today’s Democratic Party is not the same as it’s union core and very far removed from that of JFK.

In this is where the real fear lies.  Those that have lived through the period from fringe radicals protesting against the man — to the leaders of the party in all three seats of power, fear they are seeing it being again.  This time it is on the other side and ideologically apposed to their form of government.   A group of radicals driven by a new ideology and a desire to fundamentally shift the direction of the U.S. government has again emerged. If this fire continues to burn, it will spread and likely move into all facets of government and solidify itself into society.    I sincerely hope that it does not take 30 years to build this movement into the controlling philosophy of a major political party.   I believe this movement is genuine (as theirs was).   In today’s communication and Internet age it is spreading far faster.

Based on the reaction from the left they know it is growing as well.  The power that took them 30 years to build could be at an end in a single election cycle.   This is what they fear and see crystallized in the Tea Party movement.

As people scream these labels at the administration, it is easy to say, “Whoa, that goes to far.”   I will admit I have my fears about the path we are on and the rapid desire of this administration to get there at any cost.  But arguing the emotional…”Yes, he is.  No, he isn’t” does not go far.  Next time, try this.

Ask calmly, “Do you believe there are NO communists(socialists) in America?”   You will likely get some comment about “a small, fringe, etc.”  Point to the recent protests for “education funding in CA”.   Ask if they bothered to look who was behind it.    Maybe you could entice them to read up a bit on it.   Since they probably have not bothered to look, you might try asking this follow-up, “Do you remember the big pro-Communist Party groups and politicians running around in the 70s?”   They may not and you might need to remind them that until the fall of the Soviet Union they were pumping money into the US to try and change our direction.

Try this on for size: As for issues, the CPUSA calls for free universal health care, elimination of the federal income tax on people earning under $60,000 a year, free college education, drastic cuts in military spending, “massive” public works programs, the outlawing of “scabs and union busting,” abolition of corporate monopolies, public ownership of energy and basic industries, huge tax hikes for corporations and the wealthy, and various other programs designed to “beat the power of the capitalist class …

Nothing like the current administration at all.

As for issues, the current administration calls for free universal health care, eliminating increasing the federal income tax on people earning under over $60,000 a year, free college education (i.e forgiving of student loans if you serve the community), drastic cuts in military spending, “massive” public works programs (i.e. shovel ready stimulus), the outlawing “scabs and simplied creation of a union busting,” abolition of corporate monopolies, public ownership of energy and basic industries (i.e banks, car companies), huge tax hikes for corporations and the wealthy, and various other programs designed to “beat the power of the capitalist class …”

Yeah, not even close!

I remember, and these days I ask myself, “Where did they go?”  Did they decide they where wrong and change sides?  Did they just go “Poof!”? Did they move away?  OR did they just get quiet?   Being quiet… did they work or live in caves and under rocks?  What kind of jobs would they have taken?   Van Jones said it best, “I’m willing to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends.”   I would put my money on Professors, Union Representatives and Community Organizers as some of the favorites.     It will take someone with better research then me to trace these paths but a few old articles and interviews from the late 60s and early 70s would likely turn up some interesting information.

The simple fact is they were here, are here and they always will be here.    Is it possible that as funding dried up when the Socialists and Communists decided to join the Democratic party and fight from within instead of outside it as a third party?   Does that not sound a lot like the conservative Tea Party conversation within the GOP?  The real question needs to be,  “Is it possible that we elected one to be President?”  Some now answer, “Yes!”   Some simply say it is not possible but that (as listed above) is just an emotional response and not supported by the facts.  Cut the people that use labels some slack, they just happen to see the connections and the direction and have assigned name to it.

As for the rest, the answer should be easy; had there been a 10-20 year voting and legislative record.  But there isn’t.   Therefore, we are left with current actions and those with which he chooses to surround himself.  So far a few self-labeled communists, a few Mao supporters and a handful of those that think Marx was pretty darn smart.   There is a lot of love for FDR.    There are not a lot of mentions of our founding fathers (besides Lincoln:)).   Then we have the take over of 34% of the US private sector and a mad dash for 17% more in health care and the rest of the student loan programs.

One final quiz question.  What do you call the form of government when government controls 50+% of  industry?  Especially, the distribution of all money and health services?  Is certainly is not a Representative Republic or a Democracy; but it is a “fundamental change for America.”

I watched Tuesday and Wednesday’s (3/9-3/10) shows and the work at the chalkboard.  I have to admit that I had a light bulb/AH HA moment. I do not believe that my “discovery” was your intent and may already be obvious to you and your audience. To me it was that dot that connected a few others and made the final picture a bit clearer. Let me attempt to explain.

Background:

I agree with the basic premises of the left and right being replaces by full government on the left and anarchy on the right (though I tend to read left to right). It is also true (and important to recognize) that Fascism and Communism are both full government control.  Looking at the Republicans and Democrats as an independent (or Up and Down) in comparison to this scale is incredibly valuable.

Libertarians see themselves as much smaller government a notch above anarchy.  Conservatives a bit further down the line.  Progressives in both parties have increased the size and scope of government for their purposes. Democrats generally grow government for social programs, a welfare state tax law; Republicans for national security, corporate law and tax incentives. Neither have been fighting to pull it back.   Though this adds a useful component to the discussion,  I think there are a few elements that were missed in the analogy.

My light bulb moment:

As the R vs. D bar moves left to right it does not remain constant in size or color.  When the bar moves towards government control it grows in power.  It is not truly Blue (up) and Red (down) but it changes between shades of both as the power shifts in Washington. For most Americans, that sit somewhere a few notches to the right of the current government [desiring a smaller sized government]; watch this bar toggle from something approaching Communist, to Fascist, and back again.  How “bad” you think this is depends on how much power you are willing to allow in either direction.  It depends on your perspective; from your location on the chart.

You can view the interactive version for “Government Growth Creates Polarity“ here.

The distance from any point on the spectrum is dependent on both philosophy and the overall power of government. In fact, a flaming Liberal that wanted 16% government involvement would be closer to me then George Bush was.  I am reminded of Thomas Jefferson’s statement, “It neither breaks my legs nor picks my pocket.”  With the size of the current government, every action does have impact on my life and when those actions are against my judgement, morals and beliefs is does pick my pocket.

Let me explain the perspective shift with a recent example. 9/11 occurred and many wanted legislation to help corral information and better monitor terrorists: The Patriot Act was born. The left screamed Fascism seeing a military apparatus with the increased power to monitor phone calls to suspected terrorists. Many conservatives saw the controlled use of this power under Congressional oversight as an acceptable expansion of power. Well, now the color of that power has changed from Red to Blue and congressional oversight is being “performed” by the same Liberal wing of that party. How do you feel now? The power grown under either the GOP or the DNC will eventually change hands and no matter which side you are on the perspective will continually change.  In other words, ”A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.” – Gerald Ford

Taking a newer and possible pending example of Government managed health care. The bill allows for the government to select treatment alternatives and suggest treatment at the point of service. Could that power be allowed to limit coverage to the elderly, unproductive members of society or military veterans? Could it limit coverage for Hollywood celebrities active against a new administration or college professors? The good or bad of these examples may depend on your perspective.

Am I arguing for Centrists with no strong political views or a third party?  Though that would help many with their relationship to the current size of government;  No.  The simple fact is that government should never get this much power.  Without the size and scope and the ability to influence your liberties on a daily basis, the question is mute and the change of party in Washington has much less impact on your perspective.  It does not surprise me that the founders had little need for party labels.

This alone proved to me that the Democrats and the President were not being truthful.   They continue to try and shoot down the argument that this is a public takeover of health care by stating that if you like your coverage you can keep it.   That may be technically true.  Only your existing coverage of choice will be allowed BY LAW.  You don’t dare change to another plan of your choice or enroll “any individual”.   Does this mean adding your spouse after marriage or a job loss or a change to add a new child?  You would have to believe that they count as “individuals”.  So this will force millions of people out of plans they like and into government mandated coverage.  Especially, younger more dynamic families and those switching jobs.  In today’s economy that is tens of millions of people.

SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.

(a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:

(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.

Next major element of contention is the budget neutrality released by the CBO.  Very confusing how this ratings are controlled but one element jumped out at me.   The cost is 950Billion and this will “save money” because they are raising taxes by over 300billion and shaving Medicare payments to doctors by 500billion.     This leaves very little room for the actual payments of premiums.   The fact that premium payments will be far less than tax increases (on only the rich) and cutting payments to doctors for services rendered.   It sounds a lot like redistribution to me.

Add to this that the house already passed a bill to reverse the cuts in payments to doctors (a costs of $247billion).  It is stuck in the Senate which I guess gave them the ability to count that $247Billion as savings because they technically have not yet reversed it.  That bill alone will reverse the budget neutrality of the bill.

In summary; three facts that should show you there is no way this bill should pass.

1.  Keeping your own coverage is very limited and will force millions of people to buy government mandated plans.

2. It is supported primarily by redistribution of wealth and not a lower cost plan or a cost savings plan.

3. To be budget neutral it relies on future cuts in benefits, payments and tax increases.  All items that they are unlikely to pass in a hostile political environment.

One thing struck me today:  Individual rights.  These words (which I hope you have heard)…”We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ”

The natural rights that this country was formed upon are not really between us and the government but more so between each other as individuals.    No one would question personal injury, theft or vandalism as a violation of these rights by one individual against another.   And every jurisdiction would see all of these as crimes on this basis.

Which brings me to the words that many may have forgotten.  Note that they follow without break and separated by a hyphen.  “— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”   Governments are created to secure these rights, they do not create them, they only help us manage society as  a whole when is becomes too much for one individual.    This, making police forces, judiciaries, schools and the like an obvious extension to secure these rights.

But when the government created by these individuals is used to steal from one individual to give to another, to change the playing field in favor of one group or another; is it not violating these rights as well?   It becomes a mob mentality and simple majority rules.   If we want to “take” your rights, we can because we are bigger.  This is the opposite of “securing” and 180 degrees from the original intent.

This is where we are today and the administration thrives on it.  Pitting masses against banks, insurance companies, etc in the hopes of expanding its authority to take away more individual rights.   It is wrong, I felt it, I knew it.   If those men have committed crimes, violated contracts, etc.  Then bring them up on charges.  But mob rule is a violation of their individual rights.

I do not know how we back up, but moving forward along this path is not an option.  The best course of action is a change in course, to veer from this path in the hopes of finding our way back some where down the road.

In the end, there was one back and forth early on that got some news coverage.   It was the “discussion” between the President and Lamar Alexander.   Mr. Alexander stating that insurance costs would rise 14% and the President stating that they would drop 20%.  Was this a simple disagreement?   You can dig into the details behind the two numbers (FactCheck.org has it here).    And almost all research you do you will bump into this statement in some way, “CBO said well over half of those buying individual policies would get government subsidies that would reduce their costs well below the premiums that would be charged for such policies under current law.”  So does this prove the President’s point?

Only is so far as the raw numbers.   And in this is the teachable moment, “get government subsidies that would reduce their costs.”  Just where did that “government money” come from?   Taxes on others, including Cadillac plans.   This is simply redistribution of wealth, nothing else.   You may agree with it but Paul Ryan was right that they are hiding socialist plans behind capitalist words and using tricks to hide the facts.

No matter how you read the numbers you need to also come away with this simple fact.  They are both talking about insurance costs.  Health care costs are not being reduced.  The cost curve continues to go up.   The only way to control costs of insurance is to control the costs of services.   [Insert typical complaint about corporate profits here.  L. Alexander put it in context... 100% of the profits from all Health Insurance would pay for 2 days of services.] You simply cannot create a edict to limit profits within a specific industry.   Unless you take it over, which is again the single payer model with price controls.

Add to this that the subsidized government plans will continue to be funded from taxes on the private sector and on private health plans.  This will cause the private plans to offer reduced coverage to compete in a unfair market.  This will cause a larger and larger shift towards the public plans, destroying the private industry in just 5-10 years.

What this summit showed clearly is that Single Payer is the goal.  This redistribution is intentional and was on full display during the summit.  Paul Ryan put in well in the Summit that “there really is a difference between us.  We do not think the government should be in control of all this.”     He hits this point head-on on in an MSNBC interview.

Much is being made of this on the right and the left.  Does it prove the Canadian system is flawed?  Does it prove the excesses of the rich?  You can read the original Canadian Press article here and the few more points from Hot Air here.

What is continually missing from these health care conversations is the basic understanding that the procedure is available because of the free market US health care system.   Those that do this in Canada were likely trained by US doctors (maybe even this one) or doctors trained by Dr. Lamelas.    Premier Williams wanted the best care possible and went to the US, this hospital and this doctor by choice.

Exerpt from the Mt Sinai Web Site: http://www.miami-cardiology.com/resources.php
Great advances have been made in minimally invasive valve surgery, and Dr. Joseph Lamelas, chief of cardiac surgery at Mount Sinai, is on the leading edge. Board-certified in cardiac and thoracic surgery, as well as surgical critical care, Dr. Lamelas he pioneered an advanced one-man surgical technique for minimally invasive valve procedures. He teaches this method to surgeons across the United States and around the world.

Dr. Lamelas consistently has had one of the lowest morbidities and mortalities in Florida and the United States. He has completed almost 8,000 cardiac surgeries and more than 800 minimally invasive procedures, making him South Florida’s most experienced surgeon in his area of expertise.

What if the US health care system did not exist?   What if it were socialized and no private payment existed?  What would a non-citizen do?  Even worse..forgive me my Atlas Shrugged moment…What if Dr. Lamelas; like so many from his profession; had decided that the bureaucracy, paper work and law suits were just not worth trying to advance the science and he retired early?   Where would we all be had “John Galt” found Dr. Lamelas before he advanced the surgery and trained 100s of others?   That is the true risk in the socialization of the US system: stifling rapid advancement and ground-breaking research.

I am sure the 8000 surgeries Dr Lamelas performs (800 of these advanced forms) make him and his hospital a tidy sum of money… how dare he make money off advancing the entire practice of medicine and saving 1000s of Americans (and a Canadian or two it seems)…Damn him…