http;//www.Californiacontrarian.com

I presume that you are getting bored with my recurrent theme that “Democrats seem intent on doing things and passing laws that harm the poor the most”.
Well here we go again!

First a little background. In 2010 the Parent Empowerment Act (aka Parent Trigger Law) was passed in California. This allows parents of students in low performing public schools to change the administration typically by changing the school to a charter school. Actually with at least 50% of the school’s parent’s signatures, the parents can opt for a replacement of the school’s administration, replacement of the entire staff, or conversion to a charter school. Actually this is one of the few good laws that every so often come out of Sacramento, as it attempts to insure that the state does what is best for the children.

Palm Lane Elementary School in Anaheim, Ca. has approximately 700 students, mostly Latino, with >50% “English learning” students, and it qualified as an academically low performing school. In 2015, Cecilia Ochoa and 67% of the parents at Palm Lane Elementary voted to petition to have the school converted to a charter school because of its poor performance. To a novice, this would seem to be the perfect situation for the Democrats to stand behind the poor Latino immigrants, their ‘compadres’.

But wait!! . . . as now begins the all-to-familiar saga of the progressives doing all they can to actually keep the poor and the down-trodden . . . poor and down-trodden.

The Anaheim School District denied their petition, and in 2015 Orange County Superior Court Judge, Andrew Banks, found that the district’s rejection of the parent’s petition
“procedurally unfair, unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious”, and he ruled in favor of the parents. The attorney for the parents summed it up nicely when he said, “[this is about] low income parents who wanted to do something about a chronically failing school, but instead they found a hostile school district trying to find every way to stop them”.
Interestingly, the “progressive activists” in Orange County were either apparently silent or voiced active opposition to the parents, while local Anaheim elected officials, Kris Murray and Lucille Kring (both Republican), championed the parent’s cause.

As you would expect, the Anaheim School District appealed, and on 2/23/2017 the case went before California Court of Appeals. Perhaps with the long delay before the Appeals Court trial, the Anaheim School District figured that the original parent litigants would have given up as their children possibly would have moved on to middle school.
In late April, 2017 the three judge panel on the Appeals Court ruled in favor of the Palm Lane Elementary School parents, however, after the verdict, Supt. Linda Wagner said that she did not “anticipate any changes for the 2017-2018 school year”. WTF!!
Is it over?
Is it possible that the Democrat-controlled Teachers Union . . . er . . . The Anaheim School District will next appeal the verdict to the California Supreme Court?
Perhaps the Anaheim School District is still intent on going against the spirit of The Parent Empowerment Act, and will still try to do what is best for the Teachers Union rather than what is best for the children.
Keep in mind that cost of a continuing litigation is seemingly no object to the Anaheim School District as thus far the school district has spent $778,176 on this case in order to insure that the poorly educated Latino students at Palm Lane Elementary continue to remain poorly educated!
Stay tuned!

 

In general if someone says that he/she likes going to the dentist, that person is going to be considered a bit unusual or bizarre. I have nothing against dentists, and am not an “anti-dentite”, but what kind of normal person actually likes going to the dentist??

Me, I like going to the dentist, or more precisely, I like going to the dentist’s office. Today I went for my six month cleaning and check-up, and got there forty minutes early. No, I am not super-compulsive about arriving on time, but rather I wanted to be able to read some of the magazines that he has in his waiting room. I always look forward to reading Sports Illustrated and if there is time, glancing at National Geographic. Was forty minutes going to be enough time?

Shortly after opening S.I., I came upon a letter complaining about an article in the prior issue that unnecessarily criticized Donald Trump, and “what was that doing in a sports magazine?” Now I did not read the article in question (as I had not been in the dentist’s office for six months), but what was that doing in a sports magazine? I then closed the Sports Illustrated, and then opened National Geographic.

Upon opening it, I saw an article about why people lie. It sounded like it could be interesting so I started to read it. The initial example was about a pathological liar who had gotten into an Ivy League school in large part because of all the exaggerated lies on his resume. Then, “Boom!” Out of the blue, the author was talking about Donald Trump! I did not read the rest of this article, but as I skimmed it, I saw that Mr. Trump’s name was mentioned two or three more times. Interestingly, Barack Hussein Obama was not mentioned, even though he had said on multiple occasions, “If you like your doctor, you can keep him.” and he had also promised that our insurance premiums would go down, although it was apparent from the git-go that that was going to be impossible!

There are so many problems with National Geographic that I do not know where to start. First of all, what is an article about liars and lying doing in National Geographic? Did they dramatically change their format over the last six months? Be that as it may, why was Donald Trump essentially called a liar, but B.O. was not even mentioned? Why mention Mr. Trump in the context of other obvious pathological liars? Could it be that the author of this National Geographic article was a biased leftist?! Duh!

I then closed National Geographic, but since all that was left to read was Time and Woman’s Day, I stopped reading altogether. I then started thinking, “Are all of today’s magazines being infiltrated by liberals?” I do not get any magazines at home and I now congratulate myself on my spend-thriftiness. It’s bad enough that our newspapers are infiltrated by liberal opinions, but I had assumed that Sport’s Illustrated and National Geographic would be non-political and thus safe to read. This was not the case, and because I am a man of principle, I vow not to read either Sports Illustrated or National Geographic for the next six months!

On 6/30/17 our local newspaper printed an op-ed article in the form of a letter written by “California” addressed to “U.S.A.” on its birthday. In this letter California comes down hard on The U.S.A. –  essentially totally shifting blame for its quirky ideas onto the more responsible party. Although I did not agree with the point of view of the author, I thought that it was cleverly written (albeit probably with his left hand).

What if California and U.S.A. were real people? Would U.S.A. respond to the original letter?   Probably, yes. Would U.S.A. respond by tweeting?  Probably,no. I think that U.S.A. would respond to the comments of California in a gentle, almost paternalistic rebuttal type of letter, and it would go something like this:

Dear California,

I just received your lengthy and somewhat rambling letter on this my 241st birthday. I am sure that you did not mean any disrespect even as you were telling me that I was going through a nasty meltdown. The missus was a little taken aback by your tone, but I assured her that you were just going through a phase similar to puberty. I agree that we have been drifting apart, but to claim that it is solely due to my midlife crisis, is a bit simplistic, don’t you think? Surely, even you cannot think that all of your spouting off about sanctuary cities and not doing what the constitution says is anything other than classic passive aggressive behavior. In addition the “I’m right and I am not going to listen to you” attitude sounds as if you are seven years old, although to me I’ll bet that it’s your hormones getting the best of you!

You also mentioned that I have turned against things I, the U.S.A., used to love. Perhaps it is the drugs out there on the left coast, but you forgot some key elements in almost all of the following accusatory hallucinations about things “that I used to love”:

Immigration – I have not turned against immigration, but rather I have turned against illegal immigration!

Trade – I am not against trade, but I am against trade deals in which I, the U.S.A.,is getting screwed, and our ‘trade deal’ with South Korea is next up for a critical evaluation.

International Alliances – Things are actually looking up as President Trump has met with more foreign leaders in six months than the prior president did in the last four years.

Voting Rights – What I am against is non-citizens voting. It is very interesting that the Trump team is having a very difficult time getting the actual voting data in states with Democratic governors!  Why is that?

Women’s Rights – I hope that you have noticed that President Trump has a very capable woman in his Cabinet and also at the U.N. I am a bit perplexed that I am not hearing any comments from you on the rights of women living in Moslem Countries compared to the rights of women living here.

Infrastructure – President Trump just set up a committee to work on fixing our infrastructure in the U.S.A. Correct me if I am wrong but didn’t you, California, just have to finagle  a new gas tax on your citizens, despite the fact that your governor had promised not to raise taxes without a vote of the people. These new taxes all in the name of repairing your infrastructure, as the previous funds to fix your infrastructure seem to have vanished into your smog.

Treating People with Respect – I guess your Hollywood elites have not gotten the message that everyone needs to be treated with respect, starting with President Trump!

While you have always been an independent child, your pouting does nothing to benefit our family unit. I have known for years that your rebellious streak would eventually get you in trouble, but isn’t your verbally striking out against the others in our family taking your recalcitrance just a bit too far?  Granted you have always had a vivid imagination, but now your interpretation of reality on things like “only citizens being allowed to vote” and “legal” immigration appears to be in la-la land!

I still love you, and I will try to continue to be tolerant of your tantrums as I recognize the telltale effects of adolescent hormones. However I do hope that you come to your senses soon, because my patience is being stretched thin.

With love,

The United States of America

 

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals covers most of the western United States, Hawaii, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and Alaska. It has 25 active judges and 4 openings – i.e. 29 in total. Of these 25 now active judges 18 were appointed by Democratic presidents including 7 having been appointed by Barack Hussein Obama. So it should come as no surprise that the 9th circuit is a very liberal circuit.  It has been referred to as “The 9th Circuit Court of Schlemiels” as well as “The 9th Circus Court of Appeals”, as from 2010-2015, 79% of its reviewed decisions were reversed by U.S. Supreme Court.

As I am sure many of you are aware that it was the 9th Circuit that ruled against President Trump’s executive order on immigration – apparently because of things he said as a candidate!?

It is the Circuit Court for 20% of the U.S. population, and is by far the largest Circuit Court in the U.S. For the year ending on 3/31/2016 almost 12,000 cases were filed in the 9th circuit, which is 4000 more than the next highest circuit. Is it too large? Many think so, as efforts to split the 9th circuit go back to 1941. In 2007 Supreme Court Justice Kennedy, who was previously a sitting judge on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, testified that it was too large and unwieldy, and should be split. Recently the two Senators from Arizona (McCain & Flake) are again on a mission to split up the 9th, and add a 12th Circuit Court, because it takes too long for a case to be heard and then decided by the 9th Circuit – it typically takes 15 months to hand down a decision.

How would this proposal affect those of us who live in California? Actually, it would not make too much difference to us, since if the 9th Circuit were to be split, both the Northern and the Southern California districts would remain in the 9th Circuit, and probably remain liberal. What would be more prudent to do is to appoint 4 conservative judges to fill the 4 present vacancies in the 9th Circuit, and to do it A.S.A.P.

 

Today(6/30/17) President Trump suggested that Obamacare be repealed first and then subsequently replaced. Do you all think that he is reading my blog? Of course the Never-Trumpers will chime in that he is changing his tune from what he said in January – but at that point there was no way for him to foresee that he was going to be dealing with Republicans ninnies in Congress!

See blog titled, “No CPR on ACA.”

Also today Sen. Ben Sasse (R, Neb) suggested repealing the ACA with a time delay so that Americans will not lose their healthcare immediately. Do you think that he is reading my blog?

Again see blog titled “No CPR on ACA.”

Again the reason to do it this way is to put pressure on the recalcitrants  in the Senate to compromise, and perhaps to even encourage some Democrats to join into the Replace effort (but not Schumer or Pelosi!). Remember if there is then no cooperation, both sides will be at risk in the 2018 elections. Once it is repealed the Republicans will have about a year before the s*** hits the fan, and they will be no worse off in the interim, as they will have fulfilled 1/2 of their promise.

“Mirabile dictu” is a Latin phrase often used many years ago by my freshman Algebra teacher, Father Conway. Although Father Conway had multiple eccentricities and was known affectionately as Crazy George to his students, he was an excellent algebra teacher. I recall that I had him in first period, and he was my initial exposure to high school on my first freshman day. After about five minutes into that first class on that first day, I surely thought, “What have I gotten myself into?”He used multiple other Latin phrases, but “mirabile dictu” was his favorite. Loosely translated it means, “It’s a miracle!”, and he would use it most often when a student would do something unexpected, like solving a problem on the blackboard or having all the correct answers on his homework.

Today when initially looking at the front page of my local liberal “newspaper”, I said to myself, “Mirabile dictu!”, as there actually was an article on the front page (albeit in the lower left-hand corner) that was a pro-Trump article. Although I do not keep a running tally, in my recollection, this was the first pro-Trump article on the front page of my local WaPo wannabe – on this the 158th day of the Trump presidency.                                                                                              Surely, this was close to a miracle . . . “Mirabile dictu.”

Why would the front page of a “newspaper” seemingly purposely not print positive stories about Mr. Trump?

From my perspective there are limited answers, and all of them include biased reporting and an intense dislike for our president – but why this intense dislike?

Could it be that the animus against President Trump is because he IS actually fulfilling or attempting to fulfill his campaign promises? He is keeping his word to those who voted for him, and I think that each kept promise just infuriates the left more!

 

What campaign promises has he kept thus far?                                                            Let’s list a few:

– Suspend immigration from terror prone places (Supreme Court)

– Reverse B.O.’s Cuba policy (scaled back)

– Terminate B.O.’s immigration executive orders (DAPA rescinded)

– Create private White House veteran’s hotline (announced start on 6/1)

– Cancel Paris Accord (cancelled)

– Invest $550B in infrastructure and create infrastructure fund (rough outline)

– Appoint conservative Supreme Court Justice (Neil Gorsuch)

 

Like I said earlier, Father Conway was eccentric, but he got the job done. His job was to teach us algebra, and when we were finished with his yearlong class, we knew and understood algebra – indeed he was successful at his job.

Donald Trump is a bit eccentric, and is getting the job done. His job is to fulfill his campaign promises, and he is moving right along on this, and thus far he has been successful. Remember that he has only been in office for 158 days, and thus I foresee many more days with him accomplishing what he said he would accomplish with no corresponding  positive front page headlines.

Illegals Voting

“On the picture ID, the one thing I have thought of in that space is that if you show up on Election Day with a driver’s license with a picture, attest that you are a citizen, you have a right to vote in an Federal election”. (This quote was referring to the potential of illegals voting in a presidential election.)

To this the liberals would say, “balderdash” as this must have been said by some “right wing nut job”, after all it is only conservative Republicans that imply that there could be any voter fraud in any U.S. elections. Actually this was said by John Podesta, former chairman of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, in a February 2015 email. This email was leaked by Wikileaks, and it was written one day after Donald Trump said that the system was rigged. (Keep in mind that the Democrats never disputed the veracity of the contents of the Wikileaks emails.)

Is it a surprise that a prominent Democrat like Podesta would think, in essence, that driver’s licenses provide a potential for illegals to vote?  No, no surprise here, as it is common sense that providing driver’s licenses for illegals opens the door to these illegals voting. The only real question is, “How wide is this door opened, and how many illegals are passing through it”.

How many, indeed?

An editorial in Investors Business Daily (Nov. 2016) stated that there could be as many as 20-30 million illegals in the U.S., instead of the often quoted number of 11-12 million. The Electoral Studies Journal postulated that there may have been 2.8 million illegal votes in the 2008-2010 elections, and there are certainly many more illegals residing here than were in 2010.

So perhaps in response to his suspicions that the system may be rigged, on May 10, 2017, President Trump issued an executive order creating a commission to investigate voter fraud. The Democrats condemned this new commission as a ‘witch-hunt’, and academics have rejected the notion that fraudulent voting is widespread. All I need at this time to make me sure that there is some truth in Trump’s allegations is for the ACLU to chime in  . . . Oops, the ACLU has just chimed in! It filed a legal request to the White House for records showing “concrete evidence” of fraudulent voting that would warrant the creation of such a commission. Indeed with this trifecta (Democrats, academics, and the ACLU) arguing against the possibility of voter fraud, you can almost guarantee that there is some truthfulness to Trump’s allegations.

So what is the situation in California?

How will the new “Motor-Voter” law affect voting in this state?                                    First off as a result of Cal. AB60, implemented in 2015, approximately 806,000 illegal immigrants have received driver’s licenses.                                           Then AB1461 (the “motor-voter ” law) which took effect in 2017 greased the skids for these illegals to vote. The “estimate” is that there are about 2.4 million illegal immigrants in California! How many of these will eventually get driver’s licenses, and how many of these will end up voting?

From the LA Times in June, 2016 on AB 1461:                                                                   “The new law, slated to take effect next year, is supposed to streamline the way citizens register to vote at Department of Motor Vehicles offices. Once fully implemented, drivers applying for or renewing licenses and completing other DMV transactions will have their information electronically transmitted to the secretary of State, as long as they’ve confirmed they’re eligible to vote and don’t opt out of registering.”

The key here is the last part which means that these illegals are asked if they can legally vote – they have broken the law by being here, and so, of course, the best thing to do is to ask them if they are eligible to vote?!

“If you are talking about California, the state is apparently relying on the illegal alien to tell the state they shouldn’t be registered. This is still an honor system,” said Mr. Hans A. von Spakovsky, co-author of the book “Who’s Counting? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk”.                          In other words, applicants can check a box affirming they are citizens, and this is not checked against any other government database such as federal immigration records.

I say this is insanity! But then when you have a Democratic legislature and a Democratic governor, this is the kind of insanity that we, in California, have come to expect. Since illegal aliens vote overwhelmingly Democratic, the question in California is not “if” – but how many Republican votes are nullified by illegal immigrants voting for Democrats?

Many years ago one of my wife’s aunts, Sister Ann, was staying overnight at one of my daughters. As conversation was becoming increasingly awkward, my daughter decided to rent a movie. So which movie to rent? As Ann was a nun the movie had to be non-violent, non-sexual, non-political, and ‘non’ just about everything! So she rented “Babe, Pig in the City”, which was an innocent movie about a talking pig. Perfect she thought, as both her great aunt and her young children could watch it.                                                                                                       After about one hour into the movie, Sister Ann queried, “Who’s talking?”

I happened to recall this cute story the other day when I was thinking about the ‘over-the-top’ bad coverage that Donald Trump is receiving from the mainstream media.                                                                                                                              “Who’s talking?”

Well of course, the talking is being done by the left both in print and on T.V., but is this what the average middle-class American wants to hear and read about?

I think that we can all agree that the military is a highly respected and admired institution in the U.S. Yet on May 30th, the day after Memorial Day, there was nothing on the front page of the ‘Dueling Banjos’ (New York Times and the Washington Post) about Memorial Day celebrations. Not only that, but neither of the ‘dueling banjos’ had anything on their front pages about the military being honored on Memorial Day.

Our local dueling banjo wannabe “newspaper” (San Diego Union Tribune – heretofore to be known as “the lemming”) followed suit, with nothing on the front page about the military. Neither the ‘dueling banjos’ or the ‘lemming’ mentioned President Trump’s wonderful speech at The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery on the front page. Amazingly, the front page of the ‘lemming’ had articles titled “Electricity Regulators Preparing for the Effects of Eclipse”, “Woman Taming Her Anxiety”, and, of course, an anti-Trump story, “Inquiry Turns to Kushner’s Motives in Contacts”.

Is this what the active or retired military, here in San Diego wanted to read about?                                                                                                                                                   The story, “Trump Honors the Nation’s Fallen” was relegated to page four – and this in a Navy town!

The above examples of the front pages of liberal newspapers on the day after Memorial Day are merely egregious examples of what is happening just about every day. The last time that the SDUT had a picture of our president on the front page was about a month ago, and this was near the headline, “Comey: Trump Tried to Influence Probe” – which BTW is not even true!

So back to “Who’s talking?”, and it’s important corollaries of “Who’s reading?” and “Who’s listening?”

Here in San Diego many of my non-liberal friends have stopped our local “newspaper” because of its overwhelmingly, and sometimes nauseating leftward slant. Outside of the liberal coastal elites, who is continuing to read the NYT and WaPo? I doubt that many in the Mid-Atlantic States, the Rust Belt, or the Deep South were ever regular readers of the ‘dueling banjos’. So the answer to, “Who’s reading?” is . . . those that voted for Hillary are reading the left’s propaganda newspapers. Likewise, “Who’s listening?” Those that tune into CNN, MSNBC, and ABC are listening and these are also the ones that voted for Hillary.

I think that the typical American is becoming more and more turned off by the obvious mainstream bias. Middle America is just not buying what the ‘dueling banjos’, etc. are selling.

The photojournalist Chris Arnade reported on Twitter what he was seeing in Mountain Grove, Mo., on the morning while Mr. Comey was testifying. The conversation topics at the local McDonald’s : “1.)Yard work/lawn mowers,          2) Danger of bees, 3) Cardinals sucking” . . .

The Comey hearings were not in the top five. Missourians are just not interested in what’s going on in Washington politics. It is rumored that CNN was polling whether or not Trump should be impeached . . . but they stopped, and did not report the results when it was running 70% “No”.                      America is not buying this impeachment charade that CNN and MSNBC are selling.

On 6/20/17, Republican Karen Hendel defeated Democrat, Jon Ossoff, in Georgia’s 6th, despite millions of dollars coming in from outside of Georgia for Ossoff.                                                                                                                                              Georgians did not buy what the outside elites were selling!

Is there any buying goin’ on?

This leads me to the all important issue of Trump’s tweets. Most everybody on T.V. and in the newspapers are of the opinion that our president should stop tweeting.

However, who’s talking in these tweets? The President is talking.                             I say, “Go for it, Mr. President!”

This is not just because I am a contrarian.

I say, “Right on, Mr. President”, because tweeting is his way of talking to his fellow Americans – those who voted for him, and they’re buying what Donald Trump is selling.

These millions who read his tweets, surely are not buying what the ‘dueling banjos’ or any of their wannabes and lemmings are selling!

Well, the South side of Chicago
Is the baddest part of town
And if you go down there
You better just beware
Of a man called Leroy Brown!

 

“Bad, bad Leroy Brown” was a notorious South side of Chicago resident in the 1973 song by Jim Croce, and back then the South side of Chicago was a very bad part of town. When I got my driver’s license my father gave me a stern warning to stay off the Dan Ryan expressway that cut across Chicago’s South side. He said, “Do not go onto the Dan Ryan, and if you end up on the Dan Ryan by mistake, do not get off of it for any reason!”

In 2017 the South side of Chicago is still the baddest part of town. However this dubious honor is now being challenged by the West side of Chicago – in and around the area in which I grew up. In fact when I went back to my old neighborhood in 2008, I was afraid to get out of my car, and instead took pictures through my open driver’s side window.

As I am sure most everybody is aware, Chicago is the “murder capital of the US”.

Why is all this mayhem happening on both the South side and the West side of Chicago? The answer lies basically in three words . . . the 3-D words (but you do not need special glasses to see the facts clearly). These 3-D words are “drugs”, “delincuentes” (delinquent gangs), and Democrats.

 

First, the Democrats. Why should they be included in this “why Chicago is the Murder Capitol” list? Why besmirch the Democrats?  Well to start with, Democrats have controlled The Windy City since 1931, when William Thompson, a Republican, finished his third term as mayor. Since that time every mayor has been a Democrat! Presently Rahm  Emanuel, is the Democratic mayor of Chicago and the Democrats control the City Council. Certainly after 85 straight years of control, the Democrats “own” the city and own responsibility for what happens in the city. The City Council and the mayor proclaim Chicago to be “a sanctuary city” and while this sounds good, they certainly should be responsible when things go awry.

Chicago has a multitude of street gangs, but last month the “Two Sixers” made the news. The Two-Sixers started on the near southwest side of Chicago in 1964 as a neighborhood baseball team in and around 26th Street, and hence the name. Early on they were befriended by the Mexican Mafia and over the years its name has morphed into the ‘Gangster Two Six Nation’. It has become national in scope, but is particularly prevalent on Chicago’s South side. It is a very violent Latino street gang that is well known for just shooting its enemies.

Last month federal authorities and Chicago police culminated a 3 year investigation of the Two-Sixers, called “Operation Bunny Trap”, which resulted in the seizures of roughly 118 firearms, including several assault rifles and shotguns, 25 rounds of ammunition, more than 800 grams of cocaine, more than 250 grams of fentanyl, and more than 280 grams of crystal meth. There can be little argument that “drugs” and “delincuentes” are a major part of Chicago’s “murder problem”, and that they go together.

As twenty-seven of those arrested will be arraigned in Cook County Criminal Court and twenty-one will be arraigned in federal court, the answers to two pertinent questions will soon come out:

“Are any of these arrested delincuentes in the country illegally?”

“If so,  have any of these illegal delincuentes been arrested before?”

If the answer to either of these questions is “yes”, then the sanctuary city protagonists have a problem.

But still there is still an additional critical question:

“If any of these “delincuentes” had been arrested before, were they turned over to federal immigration authorities?

If the answer to this question is, “No, they were not turned over to federal immigration authorities when they should have been”, now we have a significant moral problem. Whose responsibility is it that innocent bystanders have been killed as a result of these illegal delincuentes having gotten a “second chance”. I do not really care very much if these delincuentes want to shoot and kill each other, but I do care about the innocents that are killed as a consequence of their drugs and the their weapons. In addition if I was a friend or a family member of an innocent child, an innocent sibling, or an innocent parent that was killed because an illegal delincuente got a “second chance”, I would demand my day in court.”

 

“We’ve been doing CPR for 45 minutes and there is still no response”, said the intern. “Perhaps a pacemaker would help. Call the cardiologist!” The cardiologist, who had just entered the hospital room, evaluated the patient and responded, “This patient has been chronically ill for years, and now he’s dead. You can’t pace a steak.”

Obamacare has been chronically ill for years and is now in critical condition. Death is near! Democrats still want to try to resuscitate it, even as the costs of the ACA are accelerating in almost logarithmic fashion. A new survey of health insurers found that 43% were planning to propose rate increases greater than 20%, while another 36% were looking at rate increases of 10-20%. The average increase was around 20% even with the assumption that cost-sharing payments would continue. If cost-sharing payments cease (one court has already found them to be not legal), insurance premiums will rise even more. By 2018 Obamacare will be near death, or even dead.

Do not resuscitate!

During the campaign Donald Trump promised to repeal and replace Obamacare, while the Republicans had been vowing to do the same if given the chance. However, I do not recall ever hearing that ‘the repeal’ and ‘the replace’ were promised to be done at the same time. The Democrats pushed through a badly designed health-care law in 2010 without any bipartisan support. They subsequently paid a big price and were slaughtered in the 2012 elections.

Should the Republicans follow the same potential path to slaughter?

 

Republicans, keep your word – Repeal Obamacare . . . effective in 2019, and between now and 2019 work to finalize a ‘replace’ plan. Once Obamacare is dead and buried, encourage cooperation from the other side of the aisle, so that in the end a bipartisan law can be crafted.  If the Democrats don’t want to cooperate, let them pay the price for their recalcitrance in the 2018 election.

Meanwhile a bipartisan group of governors is criticizing the House GOP health bill’s proposed cuts to Medicaid, and is urging bipartisan action to stabilize the insurance market.

Ahh . . . “bipartisan support”!

So here is my proposed solution:

First, as I have already said, Repeal Obamacare now, effective as of January, 2019.

The Republicans should continue discussing the Replacement Plan, and after ACA has been repealed and buried, again invite the Democrats to participate. If the Democrats continue to refuse to contribute to a solution or if a bipartisan group cannot agree on a Replacement during 2017-18, then they will have to explain their positions to the electorate in 2018.

There are those who will argue that with the present far-left (Pelosi and Schumer) and the present far-right (Rand Paul and also the Freedom Caucus), there will never be a bipartisan agreement. My solution to this is to exclude ten Senators and twenty House members from each party from this bipartisan health-care bill discussion. Those Congressmen who represent the extremes in their party as judged by past voting records would be excluded (and told to “shut up!”).

If I could be spared the pain of having to see Pelosi and Schumer regularly on T.V., any compromise would be well worth it!