QUICK NOTE

"Just goes to show you,"as Gilda used to say, "If it isn't one thing, it's another."  A week ago Saturday night my brother-in-law collapsed and died and was found the next morning by his mother (my mother-in-law) who is 86 yrs. old and suffers from beginning stages Alzheimers.  (Possibly dementia brought on by a head injury from a fall 10 yrs. ago.)  She had the good presence of mind to call 911.  The race began.  Before we could get there (an hour and a half drive plus packing) the ex-wife (being ex for 11 years) and grown children had entered the house and stolen all of his personal documents.  Seriously.  The coroner was taking care of the body and they were stealing his personal effects.  By Tues. we had retained a lawyer and discovered that my husband is the executor of his brother's will, but we didn't have any of the documents yet.  Finally Thursday they brought the documents back after copying everything he had.  And they only brought them back because of attorneys telling them they had to do so.  They had by that time chased down any possible chance of money they could get their hands on.  They tried to steal a car at the house. We stopped them.

This saga is even more complicated from discovery that they all, the ex, the children, and the brother had been syphoning money from my mother-in-law for years, after also sucking every penny from my husband's brother.  Now we are in charge of her and are trying to figure out the brother's estate and what is left of the mother's estate for her care. 

Are we having fun yet?  There is more drama to this I will not go into, but I wonder if my readers are as appalled as I am.  Trying to manage thoughts on ethics, morals, care for our elderly parents, all of the above, I am sickened by what this week has brought.  Free money at some other person's expense and how could they look anyone in the face after this.  What sort of people live in this country?  What kind of people take money from an elderly woman with dementia?  If I could describe her for a minute: She is a real lady of perfect manners.  She is tiny, slender and elegant.  She is a former concert pianist who can still play, though a bit rusty.  She was the wife of a thoracic / abdominal surgeon.  She raised three sons.  She is sweet and completely adorable.  I would recommend that anyone who met her would find her charming and just a wonderful person.  She comes from a day and time when family took care of and respected their elders. 

Well, you live and learn.  This is one lesson I wish I had not had.  We are extremely busy ...for the past week and the next weeks.  We are trying to place my mother-in-law in assisted living and getting her settled with new Dr.s and all the support she needs.  My husband, needless to say, is flat out exhausted at this point.  We'll get through this somehow, but in the meantime I won't be writing quite as frequently.  Now you know where I've been for the last several days and what I'll be doing for the next few weeks.  There is a lot of work to do.

Good thoughts are welcome!

OUR TEA PARTY CANDIDATE'S FORUM

Reporting on our event from last Thursday evening, and here it is Saturday night already.  First, I want to say some things about our Tea Party board here in Gaston County.  The lady who is the chair of the board is someone whose father was on the City Council here some years ago when she was growing up.  The taste of local politics seeped into her young psyche, never dreaming, though, that she would be chairing a Tea Party group.  In fact, the Tea Party was not part of the vernacular all those yrs. ago.  She is still raising her children, two biological children and two younger adoptees from Russia.  She has been home-schooling and taking care of her husband and family, until the political scene became too unbearable.  (A revelation we each in this group have had.) Then there are the other board members, a business owner of a pesticide company, a medical supplies salesman, a middle class engineer, a paralegal, an adorable young couple from a few miles away who are also home-schoolers, and then there is me...the fine artist who stepped away from the easel a couple of years ago to take on this disastrous government.  So that is the motley crew, we who have taken time out of our lives to try to inform our local voters and get things on a better track.  

The forum went better than the one on Tues. with the Republican Women's group.  I say that because we had more people than candidates at our forum.  We worked hard to ask some pointed questions of current and serious interest; public policies, bills, federal, state, and county issues.  The candidates were again all Republicans except for one Democrat.  (We invited more, but eleven came.)  Two of the candidates are running for judgeships..and actually they had no political affiliation.  The other nine are running for state and county positions, plus one for the House of Representatives in DC.  

As I looked around the room, our audience was engaged and listening intently.  There were some candidates who were just blowing smoke and issuing platitudes.  But there were others who sincerely answered questions with thoughtfulness.  Two of the guys running for county seats are green as green can be, never being involved in politics before.  Their candor was refreshing.  And their seemingly naive responses were completely pointed at getting rid of unnecessary government.  You could not help but like them.  Another running for a state seat was also new at this game and was terse and to the point in his answers.  The incumbents were much more flowery in their answers and tried to take every second of their allowed time to show off.  I wondered, is that what politics does to people?  Make them want to toot their own horns and blow more smoke at people? 

Early voting has started here.  Our primary is May 8th.  We are now putting together voter guides and have been publishing candidates' questionnaires on our website.  It's all we can do short of grabbing people out of their homes and forcing them to the voting booth, which of course the Democrats do and we would not think of doing.  

All in all, it went well.  People express to us that they are sick of what our government is doing, especially at the federal level.  We explain that our local government is just as out of control and must be reined in, but recognizing that a lot of what local government is doing is mandated, illegally, by the federal government.  One of our County Commissioners explains that of all of their budget, only 20% of it is in their control.  The rest is mandated from the feds or the state.  Imagine that.  How appalling is that?  How can a local government operate with that going on?  Or better stated, how much control do our voters have locally with that going on?  And you wonder why voters are feeling disenfranchised??  Wonder no more.

So that is my quick report from Thursday's forum.  The push in on...all the way to November.

By the way, I've learned today that Speaker Gingrich has cancelled all of his North Carolina appearances for next week.  I'm sad to report that.  Wondering like everyone else if that means he is pulling the plug on his campaign.  Guess we'll find out soon....

POLITICS A LA CARTE

I went to a Republican candidate's forum for North Carolina State offices last night. (Suddenly I want to sing "I went to the Animal Fair.") First of all, we are in worse trouble than I thought. Why? Because there were more candidates than audience. Speaking with several of them before the event, they each expressed this is the case everywhere they go. Citizens are disengaged, have given up, cynical, and generally don't believe anything they hear. So they stay home. They don't even bother to meet the candidates or listen to what they say. Our political class has become so distrusted at this point, that I'm wondering how this country can even hold an election. Maybe citizens are waiting for November. I don't know. But this is primary season and this is when the citizens will have the most say over who is on the ballot in November. Where are the citizens?

My observation is that North Carolina is mirroring the national presidential race on the Republican side of things. The candidates we are seeing, except in a few cases, are hybrids of this and that. I'd hardly say they qualify for the definition of "staunch Republican." They say they are conservative Republicans, but like the presidential primary race, what we are getting is a mish mash of hybrid types. Some don't seem conservative at all. Some are Libertarians. Some have their pet projects, some have an unrecognizable agenda somewhere between big government and smaller government, most talk "more jobs,"better economy," and "lower taxes." Generic sound bites for an audience who has heard it all before and sick of seeing the same ole same ole. One old guard Republican, a man who has been around the game for years and years, leaned into my ear on his way out to say, "This is a room full of B.S."

What's is sad about this is I believe there are citizens out here in the hinterland who are craving substance. Without clear definitions of policies and serious substance, is it any wonder that citizens are tuning out? Maybe citizens really don't care anymore. Maybe they truly have given up. Sort of like shopping for wallpaper...there are so many undesirable choices that wading through them all is just too overwhelming for anyone to suffer through. Maybe the citizens are waiting for the cream to rise to the top so then they can make some decision. But at the least, at this point, it doesn't look like the citizens are very much engaged.

I'm sitting here looking at the slate of Republican candidates for state and county offices. There are: 6 candidates for Governor, 5 candidates for Lt. Governor, 5 for Auditor, 5 for Superintendent of Public Instruction, 4 for Sec. of State, 3 for Commissioner of Insurance, 4 for State House Dist. 109, 3 for U.S. House 10th Dist., 6 County Commissioner candidates, ...it goes on. We have no less than 10 judges seats up for grabs. Plus the Register of Deeds seat. There are a very few positions running unopposed. All of these candidates didn't show up, but quite a lot of them did, which made for a very long night.

That, friends, is just the Republican primary in the State of North Carolina. Now I am somewhat involved and engaged in all of this and I look at that list and my mind is spinning. So imagine someone who is just going about their daily life and not watching this closely. What can that person do to vote intelligently on all of those elected positions?

I have an idea. It may be ridiculous, so you can tell me if it is. What if the Republican Party actually had standards of policies that must be agreed upon by candidates? Would that cut the wheat from the chaff? In other words, put together a list of policies that must be followed if you wish to run for office as a Republican. Is that so hard? What we have now, for some unknown reason to me, is a list of Republicans with policies all over the map, an a la carte menu of so many variations that no one seems to adhere to anything. Is it any wonder that citizens are confused? Add to that the Republicans already in office who vote this way and that way, who hold no clear definitive principles, and what do you have?

Our Tea Party Candidates Forum is tomorrow night. We'll see if more people turn out for that. AND, if we can nail the candidates down. At the moment, it all seems like a very difficult slog.

APPLES, ORANGES, AND OXYMORONS - GAY MARRIAGE

Our State of North Carolina has a primary on May 8th and on the ballot is a referendum stating that marriage between one man and one woman will be the only marriage recognized by North Carolina. If passed, there will be an Amendment to our State Constitution stating just that. I think at this time, there are 30 or 31 states that already have such a resolution and Amendment passed. Locally, the gays and liberals are kicking up a huge stink because a County Commissioner has proposed a resolution in our county to support the Amendment to our State Constitution. The LGBT lobbyists are geared up to protest...."Oh, the injustice of it all!"

Well, we would not be discussing this except for socialist government interference in personal business. I have Libertarian friends who, while they don't like the idea of gay marriage, can't think of a Constitutional reason to deny gays "marriage." Because the Constitution does not specifically address marriage, they think we should just stay out of it and let them have marriage. I disagree.

Before I go further, I wish to clue you into my thinking. I am a Christian, a traditionalist, a married woman, mother of two children, divorced once, and committed to my family's best interest. I have no hate or bigotry against gays or other anomalies of gender, but at the same time, I don't celebrate them either. I frankly don't care what is done in someone's private bedroom (assuming consenting adults) and have no interest in regulating that beyond the protection of innocents. So my interest has nothing to do with inserting my beliefs into someone else's life other than recognizing the sky is the sky and marriage is between one man and one woman.

However, while I am not attempting to insert my views into their personal decisions, the LGBT factions wish to insert their beliefs into my life by co-opting the definition of marriage. Their desire is to bend definitions of a cultural and natural institution that will, with a doubt, confuse children and cause more chaos in our culture. If marriage is nothing more than a civil government contract, then you can assume that a contract can be made between several or any individuals who wish to call their relationships "marriage." If marriage is a religious sacrament, ordained by Our Creator, the question is settled. Game over. The traditional definition of marriage is by nature, both literally and figuratively, exclusive. But, even if it were just a civil contract, the reasons for keeping that exclusivity are many.

The secular reasons have to do with cultural morés, psychological influences on children, keeping the population healthy, providing familial protection for children, genealogical respect for inheritances, etc. Financial reasons also exist. Illegitimacy rates increase exponentially. (for those who like to think that gay marriage has no effect on heterosexual marriage customs.) Statistical information here

No amount of factual information will convince the LGBT proponents they should not have what they want but cannot have, i.e. the kind of marriage between a man a woman created through nature and culture. I don't believe we should even be having this discussion. The entire premise is a travesty as far as I can tell from logical and Biblical perspectives both.

The government we are suffering through today wishes to replace the family with government. They can't do it. A government cannot replace the male and female parents of children or teach the bonds therein. Yet, cradle to the grave government is what we are seeing manifest itself. So why not gay marriage? Why not polygamy? Why not all sorts of gender bending other options? As long as government is becoming the parents, who needs biological parents? And no, I don't believe marriage is only for procreation, but I do believe that marriage exists for two opposite sex participants.

A view of Marriage regarding the feminine identity

(The very word "marriage" comes from the Latin word for mother, mater.) It exists for the gathering-in of a woman's sexuality under the protective net of the human or divine order, or both.

WHY SHOULD I not be able to marry a man? The question addresses a class of human phenomena that can be described in sentences but nonetheless cannot be. However much I might wish to, I cannot be a father to a pebble--I cannot be a brother to a puppy--I cannot make my horse my consul. Just so, I cannot, and should not be able to, marry a man. If I want to be a brother to a puppy, are you abridging my rights by not permitting it? I may say what I please; saying it does not mean that it can be.

In a gay marriage, one of two men must play the woman, or one of two women must play the man. "Play" here means travesty--burlesque. Not that their love is a travesty; but their participation in a ceremony that apes the marriage bond, with all that goes into it, is a travesty. Their taking-over of the form of this crucial and fragile connection of opposites is a travesty of marriage's purpose of protecting, actually and symbolically, the woman who enters into marriage with a man. To burlesque that purpose weakens those protections, and is essentially and profoundly anti-female.

If you recognize gay coupling as described in that quote, as it is actually, you might wonder what gay marriage does to the standing of women in society. I would say it diminishes the standing of women with regard to natural law. Absolutely.

But isn't that the point? The legal standing of natural law is what is being shredded in the instance of gay marriage. Natural law is the basis for Jefferson's assertions in the Declaration of Independence. Site on Constitutional Law

"Nature has written her moral laws on the head and heart of every rational and honest man, where man may read them for himself. If ever you are about to say anything amiss, or to do anything wrong, consider beforehand you will feel something within you which will tell you it is wrong, and ought not to be said or done. This is your conscience, and be sure and obey it... Conscience is the only sure clue which will eternally guide a man clear of all his doubts and inconsistencies." Thomas Jefferson

Again, I would rather not be having this discussion. It's ridiculous on its face, and greatly damaging in all aspects to our society. The socialists in our government have been trying to rid our nation of our common natural law since the Progressive movement started over 100 years ago. This is but one more evidence of that. Gay marriage is not a right that can be given by a socialist government. Our rights don't come from government. It is nothing more than another tool to take down our natural rights as given by Our Creator as stated by Jefferson in the Declaration. But even if you don't subscribe to that substantiation, you can see there are many other considerations making gay marriage a very bad idea.


Other sources:
Pew Research on Religion and Family Life
In August 2010 The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life conducted their annual “Religion and the Issues: Results from the 2010 Annual Religion and Public Life Survey.” The survey revealed that only 35% of the population considers religion the main influence on their opinion about same-sex marriage. Of this number, 60% are opposed to same-sex marriage. That means only 21% of the population is opposed to same-sex marriage primarily on religious grounds. The other 27% of the population that is opposed to same-sex marriage is opposed to same-sex marriage primarily on other grounds such as education, personal experience, and the views of family and friends. Put another way, the majority of those who are opposed to same-sex marriage are motivated primarily by reasons other than religion.
Orthodoxy Today
"The laws of marriage do not create marriage, but in societies ruled by law they help trace the boundaries and sustain the public meanings of marriage. . . . Without this shared, public aspect, perpetuated generation after generation, marriage becomes what its critics say it is: a mere contract, a vessel with no particular content, one of a menu of sexual lifestyles, of no fundamental importance to anyone outside a given relationship."
Gulag Bound
"If marriage is simply a business arrangement, subject to regulations, then the products of the business are also open to inspection and regulation, correct? So the government can regulate your children? Is this where family social service agencies get their authority to go into a home and confiscate the children, when any unproven accusation is made?

Is this why schools can decree that all children will be taught about sex, beginning in kindergarten, and that “no parental option to decline is allowed”? Or the school staff can take a young woman from her school to an abortion clinic and never inform the parents that she was even pregnant?"
Orthodoxy Today
'We do know, however, that it would radically change the customs, laws, and moral expectations embedded in millennia of human experience. Marriage and family law reflect the historically cumulative complexities of necessarily public concerns about property, inheritance, legal liability, and the legitimacy of children--the latter entailing a host of responsibilities for which parents, and especially men, can be held accountable."

IT'S THE CONSTITUTION STUPID - OBAMA AND RUBIO INELIGIBLE FOR OFFICE

I haven't weighed in very much on the so-called "Birther" issue, especially since 2008. Lately though it is weighing on my mind again because of the upcoming 2012 election. Someone mentioned Rubio the other day to me as some great enticement on the Romney ticket. To which I replied, I don't think Rubio qualifies under the Constitution any more than Obama does. My reply was greeted with astonishment. Everyone loves Rubio, right?

Well, he seems like a nice enough guy. But the U.S. Constitution, Article II, is more specific on the requirements for president than you have been led to believe. And after that conversation, I went looking for information to back up my claim. (I had heard the facts before, but wanted to verify my thinking.)

So here is the deal: Article II of the U.S. Constitution is not the same thing as the 14th Amendment which allows citizenship by birth on American soil. In fact, IF they were both saying the same thing, why would the 14th Amendment even exist? Article II was written 78 years before the 14th Amendment and applies only to the office of the Presidency. When I started looking into this again the past few days, all of sudden Obama's obfuscation on his documentation made even more sense. If, indeed, he were fully qualified and eligible to hold the office of the Presidency, why would his documentation not be opened and be perfectly vetted by the public at large? Instead, what we have is a (photoshop) fake birth certificate, a fraudulent social security number, and college records that are locked up somewhere for no public scrutiny. There is a reason for this. He doesn't have the required qualifications. We, who respect the U.S. Constitution, all know it. Some don't care. Some are too ignorant to know it.

You see, there are no ifs, ands, or buts. It isn't vague. It isn't subject to interpretation. There is no doubt of the meaning of Article II.

You can find the historical information of this at this Blog And this page And this page

The discussion at the blog cited above puts the definition into the context of the time and minds of the framers of the Constitution. The guiding thought of the day was from E. Vattel, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law, Sec. 212 Citizens and natives. This was the source for the Founders to use when writing Article II. There was no reason to further define "natural born citizen" beyond that, because everyone knew what that meant.

"The first thing that we have to understand about what Vattel wrote is that he made a distinction between a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen.” A citizen is simply a member of the civil society who is bound to the society by certain duties and subject to its authority. “Citizens” also participate equally in all the advantages the society has to offer. On the other hand, a “natural born Citizen” means much more than just “citizen.” Vattel required that for a child to be a “natural born citizen,” or what he called in French in his 1758 first edition of The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law, les naturels, ou indigenes (the “natives or indigines”-The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253 (1814)), the child must be born in the country to both parents who are also citizens of the same country."

So maybe this is old hat by now to those who have been watching this issue. People have landed in three directions: #1. Don't care #2. He is legit. #3. The guy is a fraud, plain and simple. I am in the third camp.

Now back to Rubio. He was born in 1971 to parents who did not become U.S. citizens until 1975. That means he is not a "natural born citizen" as Article II requires.

Rubio's Not So Compelling Family History

What to do about all of this is the question. I have no answers except to say that I am really not happy that there are so many people in this country so quick and ready to just throw the United States Constitution into the trash bin of history. And that there are so many American people so ignorant of our Constitution that the politically ambitious are getting away with this travesty. Surely Marco Rubio knows very well he isn't eligible. But who will stand up to speak truth to power? Will Marco Rubio man up and own up?

So far no one has had the courage, or lived long enough, to nail Obama on his fraud. (Giving Sheriff Joe Arpaio for actually trying...and several others who have been on the case since day one, but never getting the job done.) Rubio has a test to take. Does he know Article II? And does he care?
What do you think?

MANDATE OR NOT, THE LEFT WINS NATIONALIZED HEALTHCARE

Howard Dean was on MSNBC this morning discussing the individual mandate and related this: The individual mandate was first a Republican idea and that it came out of the Heritage Foundation. I have also learned along the campaign trail that Newt Gingrich was on board with that Heritage Foundation idea. It is obvious that Romney is on board with the individual mandate, because that is what he implemented in Massachusetts.

But wait, I remember Hillary Clinton pushing an individual mandate in the 2008 election and before. During the 2008 election, Barack Obama was against the individual mandate. His approach would be to go straight to Nationalized Healthcare and just skip the middle step. And both of them, ideologically speaking, want to get to Nationalized Healthcare. So what is going on here?

Left or Right, politicians on both sides have been happy warriors for forcing an individual mandate onto the American citizen. But the motives are from completely different perspectives. The Left wants to push the individual mandate because that way they can control every health choice Americans make. The Right wants the individual mandate in order to save the insurance industry from collapse. You see, you can't force all of the coverages and regulations onto the insurance companies without a larger pool of customers. The Left could not care less about the insurance industry. In fact, it is their goal to put the insurance industry out of business entirely and put the government in charge of everyone's health care. But the Left could not get the bill passed without protecting the insurance industry to some degree. Can you imagine the pressure on politicians from the insurance industry during the debate over this bill in 2009? How many favors promised and how much lobbying money was spent? The Left is figuring they will just take over the insurance industry through regulations and forced coverages no matter what. Once this eventually fails, the mess will land back on the government and Nationalized Healthcare will be the only option remaining.

This also explains the waivers handed out by the Obama administration. For every waiver they hand out, they cripple the insurance industry more.

All of this explains why AARP lobbied so hard for passing the bill. They wanted the individual mandate to prop up their business. Seeing the handwriting on the wall, the insurance industry figured that rather than be forced out of business immediately by a government take-over, they would play the regulation game, stay in business, but play ball with the Leftists demands for control of coverage. The only way the insurance industry can stay alive, after being forced to hand out freebies to the likes of Georgetown student,Sandra Fluke, is if more people are forced into the insurance pool through the individual mandate.

All of this is a lose-lose proposition for the American citizen who just wants to buy health insurance. The additional coverages and regulations make insurance more unaffordable for everyone. That is why you hear that more people will be forced into Medicaid under the Obamacare bill. As the price of insurance rises, eventually the whole thing collapses, the employees of insurance companies will be either out of work or go to work for the government insurance program. The Right, the minority in Congress in 2009, was trying to save insurance companies from imminent collapse by using the individual mandate, even though publicly they were saying they didn't support it. Now we find out that the Heritage Foundation, Gingrich, and others (Romney?) were supportive of an individual mandate? Why would they do that? Now you know.

The Left wants everyone forced to pay anyway, so the individual mandate is just fine with them. In all of this monstrous process, your privacy and liberty just got stuffed down the tubes. They put Nationalized medical records in the Health Care bill and also the Stimulus Bill. So some faceless federal government agency is going to take your information and control you with it. I've heard today that the IRS is gearing up, building a new building and hiring 4,000 more employees just to handle the forced payments of the Health Care bill.

I understand the need for a safety net for the indigent. In fact, I have no problem with such a safety net if someone can come up with a program that makes any sense and can't be abused. I believe that safety net was there already for the poorest of the poor. But the safety net idea is not the crux of the matter, even though that is what the Left would like you to think. Socialized / Nationalized Health Care what the Left wants. Even if the Supremes throw out the individual mandate, IF the rest of the bill stands with all of the regulations in it, the insurance industry will eventually be decimated. And once the health insurance industry is decimated as the Left wishes it to be, what happens to the entire health care industry?

Is there anything within the realm of living that the Leftists (or RINO's) have not ruined? Refer to my two previous posts if you want more of my perspective on this. The citizens of this country need to stand up and tell the federal government, their state governments, and their local governments to govern only to the most limited degree and get out of our lives.

IS HEALTHCARE PERSONAL OR NOT? YOU BREAK IT - YOU OWN IT!

I don't usually find it necessary to divulge my personal life decisions to back up my opinions here on this blog. Usually I can find lots of other examples, facts, and opinions to support what I would like to share. But in the case of healthcare, I am going to share what this one woman's (my) life experience is to help support my argument. I'm doing this because I want the government to get out of my healthcare and stay out forever, amen.

Backing up a long way to when I was raised in a thriving middle class family in a small town, I will just say this: medical care was accessible and affordable, insurance was mostly for catastrophic circumstances, nursing care was wonderful, medical care was personal, and we knew who our medical professionals were. People did not go to the Dr. or the hospital unless there was a real need. By real, I mean something that could not be fixed with homeopathic remedies. The only checkups required had to do with schools for athletic participation. Vaccinations were required to participate in schools for the sake of eradicating infectious diseases. I knew of no one who could not afford or access healthcare if they needed it.

Flash forward to the 1970's. After Johnson in the '60's enacted Medicare and Medicaid, insurance rates rose and government regulations began to intervene in the medical profession. Granting that medical technology advancements would cause prices to rise somewhat, and inflation would effect the prices as well, the costs to families was still mostly within reach. The birth of my first child cost $185.00 for three days in the hospital in 1973. The entire price of bringing him into the world, including the preliminary pregnancy checkups was under $500.00.

Flash forward to 1986 when I had two young children and went through a divorce. From that point on, for 13 years, I lived without health insurance. By 1991 I owned a small business with 3 part-time employees, 2 full-time employees, and 50 independent sales reps who were commission only reps. There was no way at that time my business could afford a health coverage policy for such a small pool of employees. Insurance rates were escalating yearly. Even then, one could still afford, out of pocket, regular checkups. As I recall, during those 13 years. it was $18.00 to $24.00 to see the Dr. for a virus or a cold with a nasal infection. During those years I had a broken leg (can't remember the cost of that with emergency room and follow up care) and a minor surgery that cost around $2000.00. The most difficult of costs for me at the time were dental crowns that cost $300.00 per. I needed 3 of them during those years. I would have loved to have a "catastrophic" insurance policy with a high deductible of $5,000.00, or something like that, but could not find one that either existed or that I could afford. ( Being a person of faith, I'm sure the Good Lord protected me from that "catastrophe," so I could continue to raise my children and take care of my family.) Other than that concern of an unaffordable catastrophe, I was perfectly willing and happy to pay for all of my medical care out of pocket. I would still be happy to do that if the costs were still as affordable as they used to be.

Flash forward again to the early 2000's. The cost of going to the Dr. for a cold, infection, virus treatment, or non-life threatening events had gone up to over $60.00. (Now I think it might be $80.00 or more.) I married in 1999 and due to my husband's employer policy, I once again had insurance coverage. Dental crowns today are $800.00. (From $300.00 to $800.00 in less than 20 years' time. Whew!) Insurance rates are high and higher. What I could not pay for insurance earlier in my life is now only affordable because of employer co-pays in a larger insurance pool.

So what has caused the cost of medical care to go out of reach for most people? Someone please tell me? I'll give you my opinion.

One would expect some inflationary rises in medical care just because that exists in all of our monetary policies. You could look at supply and demand, with more people and fewer medical professionals. Those two aspects would increase prices to some degree, no doubt. Nothing costs the same as it did even a few years ago. But what would make healthcare unaffordable for most people. As you can tell from my story above, insurance was already out of reach for a relatively young small business owner by the 1990's. But in the 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's my Dad was a small business owner with under 4 employees and he could easily afford health insurance for his family.

Throw in all of the advances in medical technologies, the increasing population (demand), but then, throw in Medicare and Medicaid. Every medical bill you and I pay has built in it an increase to cover the costs of patients who are under those two programs. Every use of equipment has that built in cost as well. Yes, you might say, wait a minute, "Aren't people paying into those programs through taxes and withholding?" Obviously government programs have skewed the patient cost ratio because the answer to that is, "Yes, paying, but not covering enough." Why? We were in much better shape on medical expenses before Medicare and Medicaid. The government (Lyndon Johnson and Co.) wrecked the system. Medicare is a disaster in much the same way Social Security is a disaster due to demographics. The government socialist program of Medicare has done what all socialist programs do, i.e. intervene in the market in such a way as to make everyone miserably poorer.

Article from the Clinton era debate on government run healthcare.

"Let's go back to 1965, when Congress passed Medicare and Medicaid.

Most of the elderly already had health insurance. The poor were treated at city, county and charity hospitals. The right to emergency treatment, regardless of insurance, had been enacted under Eisenhower. Medical care was available to only slightly fewer people than now. But medical costs were less than half today's level - 5.9% of the economy.(1)

Since 1965, health costs have more than doubled, to 14% of GDP, and are projected to triple by the year 2000 (2). Government now pays over 43% of all medical costs (3) - and shifts billions more to private insurers. From a 1991 CBO report: Medicare was underpaying hospital average costs by 12%. Medicaid was underpaying hospitals by 12%., and paying doctors 31% less than Medicare rates. (4)

When government underpays, providers shift their costs to private insurers and cash customers."

Reason TV article on how Medicare and Medicaid caused the rise in health care costs.

"The rapid rise in health care costs is primarily the consequence of government policies."

It makes me think of the shopping admonition: "You break it, You own it." The progressive leftists live by that phrase. They break everything and then they own everything. But my healthcare is mine. I don't want some progressive leftist government bureaucrat making those decisions for me, or even knowing anything about me. They broke it. They should never be trusted with your healthcare or mine. Ever. They break everything. And they will break you and me and our nation with government run healthcare. They already have. The answer is to get them out of it. Pray for the Supreme Court to at least begin dismantling Obamacare and the progressive leftists' take over of your life and mine.