The Importance of "How" and "Why"

Amid the ongoing battle over health care reform, key issues are being overlooked—and one remains paramount.

We all know about the oft-mentioned "spiraling cost of health care;" one need only examine a few pay stubs to confirm its significance (for those who subscribe to health care insurance through their employers)—or simply get sick (for those who are uninsured). We've endured a steady stream of spin and counter-spin from both sides of the conflict. We're well-acquainted with the issues of pre-existing conditions, "rationed care," and prescription drug plans. We've seen highlights of the sometimes bitter exchanges in Congress. And we've been bombarded with contradictory data, numbers so massaged and manipulated that no one knows now quite what to believe.

One key piece is missing from this massive puzzle, and it's resulted in the classic mistake of treating only the symptoms of the problem—but completely ignoring the causes. We know the cost of care is high—and rising. But…do we know why? Can anyone recall even hearing the question raised?

Is it because doctors are paid too much? Is it the result of paying-off massive malpractice suits? Is it because of the burdens placed on the system by illegal immigrants? Are we spending too much on expensive and (arguably) unnecessary tests? Should we blame the practice of "defensive medicine"?

Throughout the protracted political battles and the dizzying sums being spent, the focus has been (ostensibly) on providing affordable health care—but no one has explained why it isn't already available. Placing the emphasis on making coverage affordable now leaves unanswered two questions: how did the cost get out of hand in the first place—and what's to prevent it happening again in the future? Failure to identify and correct the root causes of the deficiency virtually assures a recurrence.

Suppose you have a headache. Taking aspirin alleviates the headache—temporarily. The headache returns. You take more aspirin. The problem with this approach is that (unbeknownst to you) your headaches are actually being caused by a brain tumor. Take all the aspirin you want; it may provide temporary relief from your headache—but it isn't addressing the root cause. So, the untreated tumor continues to cause you discomfort; moreover, it's still growing.

Congress and the Obama regime are, unfortunately, bent on throwing a 12 trillion dollar aspirin at a symptom—but failing to identify or treat its cause.

And that cause won't be going away of its own accord.

____

Salvaging a War

Will it be enough?

Digging deeply into the brain cells for memories of my Army days (it has been a few years, after all), I seem to recall the standard approach for dealing with the supply system (and supply clerks) thusly: figure out how much you need, then double that amount and submit your requisition reflecting the inflated figure—and hope that you'll receive at least half of what you originally sought. It was an accepted truism about military life that we'd never have everything we needed; we saluted smartly and cobbled-together what we could, made do with what we had, and did the best we could with what was available (the true impetus behind that "GI ingenuity" for which soldiers are renowned)—and hoped it'd be enough to get the job done.

We also figured that life got easier the further up the food chain one progressed. Just as it was a given that we'd have to connive and cajole to get what we needed, a few stars on one's shoulders (that would be general-officer rank) supplanted a lot of begging with some real influence—and what The General wants, The General will get.

Against this backdrop, it's important to note that Gen. Stanley McChrystal–Barack Obama's hand-picked commander in Afghanistan–requested forty thousand troops…not the thirty thousand Obama announced he's sending. (Eventually, that is; it's going to take several months to start bringing these reinforcements into action—in addition to the three-month delay incurred while Obama dithered and dawdled, trying to make up his mind what to do.) We're also told now that both McChrystal and his boss Gen. David Petraeus agree that the job can be done with 30,000; while that may be (they're both soldiers, too; notwithstanding their lofty positions, they also know that padding requests has long precedent), they might also be merely biting the bullet in the wake of a Presidential decision that offers no alternatives. Whatever the case, the resulting situation raises some troubling questions.

Does the commander-in-chief really believe that the additional 10,000 troops aren't needed—or did he make a political calculation, betting that the smaller force would be more palatable to the left? It's no secret that ever-louder murmurs are emanating from his liberal base, upset that he hasn't moved more quickly to end U.S. involvement in the region. It's an uncharacteristic risk on Obama's part, though, to slash McChrystal's request. There's a very real possibility that under-staffing the coming "surge" will serve only to create a bigger mess—and if the whole operation goes sour, the first question will be: What if he'd given McChrystal those extra 10,000 troops? Conversely, any attempt to blame the military leadership for future shortcomings will yield one guaranteed response from the Pentagon: "We told you so."

Obama's delay in announcing this decision has given rise to predictable doubts about our resolve as a nation—and seriously calls into question the President's own level of commitment to a war that Obama himself deemed necessary…one from which he (again uncharacteristically) left himself no clear line of retreat. While he seems to have not (yet) adversely affected operations directly, the mere appearance of a commander-in-chief seeming so indecisive and risk-averse is disturbing. Is he really going to see this thing through? If so…then, to what end? How will success–or failure–be measured in the coming months? Moreover, he's now also set a timeline for beginning the withdrawal of forces—potentially setting the stage for a waiting game with a clearly determined foe.

The Obama regime telegraphed a part of its message well in advance of his address: there's deep concern in the White House about having a credible exit strategy. While it's become common practice to think in such terms (and it admittedly makes some sense to establish an end-point rather than allowing operations to go on indefinitely), it's unclear whether the true aim is to identify and accomplish a mission, then withdraw—or if it's to determine a point at which a graceful and politically-acceptable retreat can be effected. By establishing an arbitrary date to begin withdrawing troops, Obama may well have painted himself into yet another corner should his timetable be upset—ultimately facing a hard choice between reneging on his withdrawal scheme (and further alienating his base) or throwing in the towel and exiting the region with the mission not completed.

And what of the troops assigned to the Afghanistan operation? Have they been consigned to failure, inadequately equipped for an impossible task? It's a safe bet that there's growing concern at the sharp end of the stick; seeing the President cut the legs from underneath the very commander he put in place–their commander–is certain to get the attention of soldiers already in harm's way.

Stanley McChrystal has served this nation well for more than three decades. His credentials are substantial, and his word carries a great deal of weight—though not enough, apparently, for his commander-in-chief. Frankly, a part of me wishes that his answer to Obama would've gone something like this: "Look. You specifically hired me for this job. You asked me what was needed—and I answered you promptly. Had I thought the mission could be accomplished with an additional 30,000 troops, I'd have requested that number. I didn't. I told you that 40,000 were needed. I also told you very explicitly that doing less than I recommended risks failure. So, if you–with your zero experience in military operations–think you can get the job done with those 30,000 troops, then knock yourself out. It's obvious that my professional assessment backed by thirty-plus years' experience means nothing to you, so it's time for me to retire. Good luck, pal; I'm going fishing. Have a nice war."

Instead, what will now play out is the time-honored practice of soldiers saluting smartly and setting about the business of cobbling-together what they can, making do with what they have, and doing the best they can with what's available—and hoping it'll be enough to get the job done.

To Bow—or Not to Bow

Okay, so I'm trying to understand this.

Mr. Obama raised quite a stir when he bowed to the Saudi king (he looked really oafish in the effort, by the way). His ill-considered kowtowing was never fully explained by his minions (who initially denied that he'd bowed at all, contending that it just looked that way because the king is so short. Ri-iiight. Anybody buy that one?), and immediately rekindled the familiar questions regarding his rumored Muslim faith. It was correctly noted by many that he hadn't likewise bowed to Queen Elizabeth—of even more diminutive stature, by the way—who as a monarch of an allied nation shares at least equal status, diplomatically speaking.

Now, he's gone and bowed to the Japanese Emperor.

Hmmm.

Let's see; they're all three monarchs…the King is Muslim, but neither the Queen nor the Emperor is…

…but the King and the Emperor are both male, the Queen female.

…(clicking, buzzing, whirring sounds of feeble minds at work)…

Could this be simple misogyny? Not likely. The political career of a black (well…half-black, anyway) Democrat would've been torpedoed long ago had he shown indications of merely having issues with women.

It has been asserted, however, that some of Obama's unexplained past behavior could be indicative of his (rumored) Muslim faith. As an example: for him to show any degree of obeisance to a female would be unacceptable in Muslim culture.

…(more clicking, buzzing, and whirring)…

Which some will conclude (correctly or not) accounts for the disparity in deference to the aforementioned blue-bloods; i.e., he may bow to a man—but the Muslim culture forbids him from doing so to a woman. ("A-HA! You see? He's a Muslim! Just like we've been tellin' ya all along! Voilà! ")

This, coming from a man who has steadfastly denied any ties to Islam—and who would likely face political ruin should any such association be clearly established. A man who's proved unable to dispel lingering doubts about his true beliefs—and who seems to deliberately shroud himself in mystery and uncertainty.

Unlike the narcissist-in-chief, I freely admit that I'll probably never become widely renowned as the smartest guy on the planet; ergo, if I can connect these dots in something under five minutes, I figure it's a virtual lock that many others will, as well. An Obama regime constantly surrounded as it is by rumors and allegations (from the legitimate to the borderline-loony) regarding Islam, birth certificates, education financing, home mortgaging, Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, hidden agenda, socialism, ACORN, "enemies lists" and so forth ad infinitum really doesn't need to be heaping more fuel on the fire.

So, what the hell was he thinking?

All of which overlooks an even larger issue: the President of the United States shouldn't be bowing to any foreign dignitary. Period. None of his forty-three predecessors did. None. Ever. They all understood the importance of protocol—and appearances. And the appearance of a US President with his face dipped to belt buckle-level is anathema to this nation—as it always has been. We can expect unconfirmed reports at any moment of all the Founding Fathers turning over in their graves in unison, so distasteful is the thought.

So…what the hell was he thinking?

"Shut up and drink the Kool-Aid."

The 2008 election swept into the White House a candidate promising ethics, bipartisanship, transparency, and a revived economy; thus far, we've been treated to cabinet members who don't pay taxes, partisan authoritarianism, and behind-closed-doors skulduggery. And then there's that rapidly-swelling deficit, prompting one to wonder how Obama plans to make good on his claim that he'll lead us into prosperity and light "without adding a dime to the deficit"—or raising taxes.

We've already endured a steady procession of Obama appointees who seem only too eager to flaunt their socialist views—and agenda. Obama has himself spoken openly about "wealth redistribution." The ongoing saga of promised health care reform has comprised a litany of contradictions and obvious chicanery. The auto and financial industries have already been placed in the yoke of the Federal government, and the same wonderful folks who brought us those fiascoes are hell-bent to insure that the throats of both the medical and insurance communities find similar residence under Obama's boot. The newly-appointed FCC "diversity advisor" (the first ever; Obama simply created the position—along with an ever-growing list of "czars" equally exempt from the scrutiny of confirmation hearings) lectures about the need for government control of the media, extolling the virtues of that autocratic (and socialist) buffoon in Venezuela. We've seen a White House Communications Director who takes her inspiration from Mao Tse-tung (a warm, fatherly figure credited with responsibility for the deaths of 64 million of his own people). This administration hit the deck running, spending gobs of money and shaking up pretty much everything in sight within days of the transfer of power—yet can't seem to arrive at a decision on troop requests for the war in Afghanistan (an engagement pronounced by Obama to be "a necessary war") after more than two months. The long associations of Obama and many of his henchmen with allegedly corrupt organizations like ACORN have seriously called into question this "ethical" administration—and many other prominent Democrats.

Well, then…how about that promised "transparency"? Thus far, we've been allowed to see Harry Reid's closed door–from the outside–while the details of sweeping health care coverage "reform" are hammered-out by a tiny cabal within. Obama campaigned on the promise that any such proceedings would be public, televised on C-SPAN for all to see; instead, he's given us…well, Harry Reid's closed door. When Helen Thomas (hardly an icon of right-wingery) took the White House Press Secretary to task over the administration's tight control of information flow, it was a pretty good indicator that something's rotten at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It seems almost impossible for a guy who spends as much time before the television cameras as Obama does (has he missed a day since taking office?) to spew so many words—yet tell us so little.

So…what happens when disgruntled citizens raise a fuss over any of this? Does this new, sensitive government sit up and take note, promising to address those concerns?

The basic response–in actions that speak far more loudly than words–has been: "Shut up and drink the Kool-Aid" (though some would characterize it as being more like "Shut up and bend over"). Obama's consistent reaction to criticism–or even inquiry–goes far beyond merely adopting a defensive posture or issuing a blithe dismissal. He attacks. (Just ask reporter Barbara West of station WFTV in Orlando; she dared to ask Obama's then-running-mate what was arguably the only question he faced during the campaign that wouldn't be considered a "softball"—and immediately felt the wrath of Obama for her effrontery.) Simple isolation and vilification are merely his most benign methods. He brooks no dissent, and there appears very little that he considers "over the top" on the way to getting what he wants. Furthermore, showing the audacity to question anything that comes out of this White House (or Congress, to a slightly lesser degree) immediately subjects the skeptic also to charges from Obama's legions of sycophants ranging from racism (the new first resort) to disloyalty to obstructionism to being akin to Hitler to killing Cock Robin.

By turns, both the House Speaker and the Senate Majority Leader declared that they couldn't deliver Obama's most coveted jewel–health care reform legislation–without including the "public option"; shortly thereafter, they both announced that they couldn't get legislation passed with it included. Then they couldn't get there without it. Then they couldn't include it. Again. (Repeat as necessary; frankly, they've each changed their respective stories more times than most people can keep track of. That they've repeatedly changed what they're going to call it–"public option", "government option", "consumer option", etc.– in an attempt to sneak it in under the radar has further confused matters.) Finally, Queen Mum Pelosi managed to ram through a massive bill that no one really likes or even completely understands (even her fellow Democrats candidly wondered what manner of arm-twisting and deal-making that required—and the entire effort deliberately negated bipartisan participation). She and Obama both think we should all learn to love it. (Lord knows why they would expect us to; apparently, neither of them has even read the damn' thing—nor, it seems, has anyone who voted for it.) The entire effort may prove moot, however, as indications are that the House measure won't find sufficient support in the Senate—despite a strong sense of urgency among Democrats in both houses to get a palatable measure passed quickly, lest they all find themselves facing the music in next year's mid-term election; delaying action beyond the end of this year would seriously threaten to derail the effort.

Is it any wonder that public confidence is rapidly deteriorating—not only in the Obama regime, but in Congress, as well?

After seriously depleting the treasury (and our wallets), this administration has achieved nothing that benefits the country as a whole; the economy remains in shambles, unemployment is rampant, our foreign policy is a puzzle even to our allies, and we seem a nation rudderless and adrift—one that can't even balance its own checkbook (a concept foreign to both the White House and Congress, to be sure).

Obama's answer to every problem seems to be: (a) spend more money (b) make another television appearance (c) blame Republicans in general and George W. Bush in particular–gotta wonder how long he's gonna try to milk that one–or (d) take another trip (quickly, now: has Obama spent more time in Washington—or on his road trips? Has anyone tallied-up the cost of his seemingly-endless world tour?).

Oh, and (e) …

"Shut up and drink the Kool-Aid."