ObamaCare is a Step Towards Achieving Military Healthcare for all Americans

There is plenty of blame to go around for the VA Hospital scandal. Shoddy veterans’ healthcare has been widespread under both the Bush and Obama administrations. If Obama was aware of the problem in 2008, then so were Republicans and they too did nothing. But the VA Hospital scandal is a huge problem for Obama and Democrats for the following reasons:

First, the problem seems to have gotten worse under Obama and Obama campaigned on fixing the issues that have been raised over the past several weeks. Besides, the cowardice Obama has refused to address the public about the issue. And it should come as no surprise that no one has been held accountable (The one person who was forced out resigned before the scandal broke). Secondly, more fraud has come to the surface where doctors fake records to show they are seeing patients when in fact they are not. Thirdly, the problem is widespread affecting most VA hospitals around the country so the media coverage will be nationalized (even if national news networks refuse to cover the story). Fourthly, the shoddy VA care has led directly to the death of several veterans. Veterans are popular and nobody wants to see them treated unjustly.

The above reasons are problematic for Democrats, but the most glaring reason the VA scandal is a problem for Democrats is because VA healthcare is government controlled. In fact, veterans’ healthcare is completely controlled by the government (insurance, doctors, hospitals, etc. are all under government control). In other words, the U.S. veterans’ healthcare system is no different than England’s or Canada’s socialized healthcare systems. And like England’s and Canada’s socialized medicine, U.S. veterans’ healthcare is shoddy with long wait times and doctor shortages.

What’s worse for all Americans is that ObamaCare is a step towards socialized medicine. ObamaCare has worked precisely how Obama and Democrats devised it to work – it is moving more people on Medicaid or other government controlled insurance plans. Democrats have made no secret that they want a single payer system controlled by the government (strange how they are so against corporate monopolies but have no problem with government monopolies). ObamaCare is this first step toward obtaining government controlled healthcare insurance for all Americans.

So why is socialized medicine failing veterans? The reason is simple - it removes competition and free enterprise. Government doctors are paid a salary and receive the same pay whether they see zero or twenty patients in a single day. Hence, government doctors commit fraud and fill their days with fake appointments and therefore push back the wait time to see real patients. Private practice doctors on the other hand make more money if they see more patients. And what is interesting, data suggests that private doctors spend on average more time with their patients than public doctors who see far fewer patients. According to the VA, since 2008 the amount of funding for veterans healthcare has doubled and the wait time for appointments has more than tripled.

Medicare, Medicaid, and now ObamaCare are pushing the U.S. towards socialized medicine. As fewer doctors accept Medicaid, Medicare, and ObamaCare there will be a need for government run hospitals and doctors. And liberals will never quit until the U.S. has a socialized medicine model equal to England, Canada, and yes, our failing VA.

2014 Election Polls and Models (5/23/14)

Below are poll averages (from Real Clear Politics) for Gubernatorial, Senate, and contested House seats. A positive poll average favors the Republican candidate whereas a negative poll average favors the Democratic candidate. From the poll averages a ranking and probability are calculated for each race. A probability above 0.5 (50%) favors the Republican candidate whereas a probability under 0.5 favors the Democratic candidate. The higher ranking, the higher the probability the race will go to the Republican candidate. The lower the ranking, the higher the probability the race will go to the Democratic candidate. Since polling in House races are not very accurate, the formula to calculate the probability is more complex taking into account race ratings by the Cook, Election Projection, and Sabato political reports as well as generic congressional polling results and PVI (Partisan Voting Index). A positive PVI means the percentage of registered Republicans in the district outnumbers registered Democrats whereas a negative PVI means the percentage of registered Democrats in the district outnumbers registered Republicans. The overall probability for the President, Senate, Gubernatorial, and House races are computed to project the number of seats (including the presidency) that are going to be won by Republicans and Democrats respectively. Race candidates will be filled in to the below tables once they are determined by state primaries. I will update and post this information regularly (many primaries and candidates have not been decided and most polls are not pertinent because they do not contain the right candidates). Below is an overall summary of the predicted outcomes based on probability density function models.

Governor Races: Current - Republicans 29; Democrats 19 (2 Independents); Model Projection - Republicans 27; Democrats 23 (including 2 Independents)

Senate Races: Current - Republicans 45; Democrats 55 (Including 2 Independents); Model Projection - Republicans 48; Democrats 52 (Including 2 Independents)

House Races: Current - Republicans 234; Democrats 201; Model Projection: Republicans 237; Democrats 201

Below is an overall summary of the predicted outcomes based solely on election polls:

Governor Races: Republicans 27; Democrats 23 (including 2 Independents)

Senate Races: Republicans 47; Democrats 53 (Including 2 Independents)

House Races: Republicans 237; Democrats 201

Governor Races
State	Democrat	Republican	Poll	Rank	Probability	Gain	Incumbent
Arkansas	Ross	Hutchinson	7.5	8	0.7554886	1	Rep Gain	-1
California	Brown		0	22	0.5	-1	Dem Hold	-1
Connecticut	Malloy	Foley	0	22	0.5	-1	Dem Hold	-1
Colorado	Hickenlooper		-10	33	0.1781378	-1	Dem Hold	-1
Hawaii	Abercrombie	Aiona	0	22	0.5	-1	Dem Hold	-1
Illinois	Quinn	Rauner	0	22	0.5	-1	Dem Hold	-1
Maryland	O'Malley		0	22	0.5	-1	Dem Hold	-1
Massacusetts	Coakley	Baker	0	22	0.5	-1	Dem Hold	-1
Minnesota	Dayton		0	22	0.5	-1	Dem Hold	-1
New Hampshire	Hassan		-22	35	0.0212053	-1	Dem Hold	-1
New York	Cuomo	Astorino	-29	36	0.0037342	-1	Dem Hold	-1
Oregon	Kitzhaber		-12	34	0.1341508	-1	Dem Hold	-1
Rhode Island	Chafee		0	22	0.5	-1	Dem Hold	-1
Vermont	Shumlin		0	22	0.5	-1	Dem Hold	-1
Arizona			1	11	0.5367497	1	Rep Hold	1
Alabama		Bentley	1	11	0.5367497	1	Rep Hold	1
Alaska	Mallott	Parnell	10	5	0.8218622	1	Rep Hold	1
Florida	Crist	Scott	-3	32	0.3909877	-1	Dem Gain	1
Georgia	Carter	Deal	6	10	0.7100364	1	Rep Hold	1
Idaho	Balukoff	Otter	1	11	0.5367497	1	Rep Hold	1
Iowa	Hatch	Branstad	10	5	0.8218622	1	Rep Hold	1
Kansas		Brownback	1	11	0.5367497	1	Rep Hold	1
Maine	Michaud	LePage	-1	31	0.4632503	-1	Dem Gain	1
Michigan	Schauer	Snyder	11	3	0.8448836	1	Rep Hold	1
Nebraska	Hassebrook	Ricketts	7	9	0.740776	1	Rep Hold	1
Nevada		Sandoval	1	11	0.5367497	1	Rep Hold	1
New Mexico		Martinez	1	11	0.5367497	1	Rep Hold	1
Oklahoma	Dorman	Fallin	1	11	0.5367497	1	Rep Hold	1
Ohio	Fitzgerald	Kasich	11	3	0.8448836	1	Rep Hold	1
Pennsylvania	Wolf	Corbett	1	11	0.5367497	1	Rep Hold	1
South Carolina	Sheheen	Haley	1	11	0.5367497	1	Rep Hold	1
South Dakota	Wismer	Daugarrd	33	1	0.9988335	1	Rep Hold	1
Tennessee		Haslam	30	2	0.9971752	1	Rep Hold	1
Texas	Davis	Abbott	9	7	0.7967975	1	Rep Hold	1
Wisconis		Walker	1	11	0.5367497	1	Rep Hold	1
Wyoming		Mead	1	11	0.5367497	1	Rep Hold	1
			0
			10.8403		0.547795	6	-2	8
Senate Races
State	Democrat	Republican	Poll	Rank	Probability	Gain	Incumbent
Alabama	Unopposed	Sessions	50	1	0.9999911	1	Rep Hold	1
Alaska	Begich	Sullivan	-6	31	0.303332	-1	Dem Hold	-1
Arkansas	Pryor	Cotton	-4	29	0.3657136	-1	Dem Hold	-1
Delaware	Coons		0	17	0.5	-1	Dem Hold	-1
Georgia	Nunn	Purdue	1.5	6	0.5512066	1	Rep Hold	1
Hawaii	Schatz	Hanabusa	-4	29	0.3657136	-1	Dem Hold	-1
Illinois	Durbin	Oberweis	0	17	0.5	-1	Dem Hold	-1
Massachusetts	Markey		0	17	0.5	-1	Dem Hold	-1
Maine		Collins	1	7	0.53419	1	Rep Hold	1
Michigan	Peters	Land	-0.3	26	0.4897315	-1	Dem Hold	-1
Minnesota	Franken		-15	33	0.0990291	-1	Dem Hold	-1
Mississippi		Cochran	0	17	0.5	-1	Dem Gain	1
Kentucky	Grimes	McConnell	0.5	37	0.5171107	1	Rep Hold	1
Idaho	Mitchell	Risch	1	6	0.53419	1	Rep Hold	1
Kansas		Roberts	1	6	0.53419	1	Rep Hold	1
Nebraska	Domina	Sasse	17	3	0.9276785	1	Rep Hold	1
Colorado	Udall	Gardner	-3	27	0.398427	-1	Dem Hold	-1
Louisiana	Landrieu	Cassidy	1	7	0.53419	1	Rep Gain	-1
New Jersey	Booker		0	17	0.5	-1	Dem Hold	-1
New Mexico	Udall		0	17	0.5	-1	Dem Hold	-1
Oklahoma		Coburn	1	7	0.53419	1	Rep Hold	1
Oklahoma		Inhofe	1	7	0.53419	1	Rep Hold	1
Montana	Walsh	Daines	0	17	0.5	-1	Dem Hold	-1
Rhode Island	Reed		0	17	0.5	-1	Dem Hold	-1
Tennessee		Alexander	25	2	0.9840305	1	Rep Hold	1
Texas		Cornyn	1	7	0.53419	1	Rep Hold	1
South Carolina		Scott	1	7	0.53419	1	Rep Hold	1
South Carolina		Graham	1	7	0.53419	1	Rep Hold	1
Virginia	Warner		-15	33	0.0990291	-1	Dem Hold	-1
Oregon	Merkley	Wehby	0	17	0.5	-1	Dem Hold	-1
West Virginia	Tennant	Capito	13	5	0.8676796	1	Rep Gain	-1
New Hampshire	Shaheen	Brown	-7	32	0.2740372	-1	Dem Hold	-1
Wyoming		Enzi	-15.5	35	0.091758	-1	Dem Gain	1
South Dakota	Weiland	Rounds	14	4	0.8851819	1	Rep Gain	-1
North Carolina	Hagan	Tillis	-0.8	27	0.4726359	-1	Dem Hold	-1
			0
			11.6541		0.5043084	-3	2	-5
House Races
State	Democrat	Republican	Poll	PVI	Cook	Sabato	Election Projection	AVE	Rank	Probability
Arkansas 2	Hays		0	8	5	5	5	4.6	28	0.776822
Arkansas 4			0	15	10	10	15	10	3	0.9510828
Arizona 1	Kirkpatrick		0	4	0	0	-5	-0.2	41	0.4867939
Arizona 2	Barber		0	3	0	0	-5	-0.4	44	0.4736022
Arizona 9	Sinema		0	1	-5	-5	-5	-2.8	54	0.3214943
California 3	Garamendi		0	-1	-10	-15	-15	-8.2	74	0.0873169
California 7	Bera		0	0	0	-5	-5	-2	50	0.3702887
California 9	McNerney		0	-6	-10	-15	-15	-9.2	77	0.0638783
California 10		Denham	0	1	10	10	15	7.2	17	0.8833536
California 16	Costa		0	-7	-10	-15	-15	-9.4	78	0.0598401
California 21		Valadao	0	-2	5	5	5	2.6	35	0.6665533
California 25			0	3	10	5	10	5.6	22	0.8230494
California 24	Capps		0	-4	-10	-5	15	-0.8	45	0.4473199
California 26	Brownley		0	-4	-5	-10	-10	-5.8	66	0.168488
California 31			0	-5	-5	-5	-5	-4	62	0.2539287
California 36	Ruiz		0	1	0	-5	-5	-1.8	49	0.3828592
California 52	Peters		0	-2	0	0	5	0.6	40	0.5395605
Colorado 6	Romanoff	Coffman	0	-1	0	0	5	0.8	40	0.5526801
Connecticut 5	Esty		0	-3	-10	-10	-15	-7.6	69	0.104171
Florida 2	Graham	Southerland	0	6	5	5	5	4.2	30	0.7565621
Florida 26	Garcia		0	1	0	0	-5	-0.8	45	0.4473199
Florida 10	Demings	Webster	0	6	5	15	15	8.2	12	0.9126831
Florida 13		Jolly	0	1	15	15	15	9.2	6	0.9361217
Florida 18	Murphy		0	3	0	-5	-5	-1.4	48	0.4083614
Hawaii 2			0	-21	-10	-5	-15	-10.2	79	0.0456526
Georgia 12	Barrow	Allen	0	14	-5	-5	-5	-0.2	41	0.4867939
Illinois 8	Duckworth		0	-8	-10	-5	-15	-7.6	69	0.104171
Illinois 10	Schneider	Dold	0	-8	0	-5	-5	-3.6	58	0.275601
Illinois 11	Foster		0	-8	-10	-10	-15	-8.6	75	0.0772693
Illinois 12	Enyart	Bost	0	0	-5	-5	-5	-3	56	0.3097239
Illinois 13	Callis	Davis	0	0	5	5	5	3	34	0.6902761
Illinois 17	Bustos	Schilling	0	-7	-5	-5	-5	-4.4	63	0.2331858
Indiana 2		Walorski	0	6	5	5	10	5.2	25	0.8053344
Iowa 1			0	-5	-10	-10	-15	-8	72	0.0926926
Iowa 3	Appel		0	0	0	0	5	1	38	0.5657422
Iowa 4		King	0	5	10	15	15	9	7	0.9318747
Kentucky 6		Barr	0	9	10	-5	-15	-0.2	41	0.4867939
Maine 2			0	-2	-5	-5	-10	-4.4	63	0.2331858
Massachusetts 6	Tierney	Tisei	0	-4	-5	-5	-5	-3.8	60	0.264652
Michigan 8			0	2	5	5	5	3.4	32	0.7132318
Michigan 1	Cannon	Benishek	0	5	5	5	15	6	20	0.8397099
Michigan 3		Amash	0	4	10	15	15	8.8	8	0.9274129
Michigan 7	Byrnes	Walberg	0	3	5	5	10	4.6	28	0.776822
Michigan 11		Bentivolio	0	4	10	10	15	7.8	14	0.9016909
Minnesota 1	Walz		0	1	-10	-15	-15	-7.8	71	0.0983091
Minnesota 2		Kline	0	2	10	10	15	7.4	16	0.8897178
Minnesota 8	Nolan		0	-1	-5	-5	-5	-3.2	57	0.2981454
Minnesota 7	Peterson		0	6	-10	-10	-10	-4.8	65	0.2134193
Montana 1			0	7	10	10	15	8.4	11	0.9178225
New Jersey 3			0	1	0	0	5	1.2	37	0.578733
New Jersey 2		LoBiondo	0	-1	10	10	15	6.8	18	0.8698541
New York 1	Bishop		0	2	-5	-5	-5	-2.6	52	0.3334467
New York 11	Recchia	Grimm	0	2	-5	-5	-5	-2.6	52	0.3334467
New York 18	Maloney		0	0	-5	-10	-15	-6	67	0.1602901
New York 19	Eldridge	Gibson	0	-1	5	0	5	1.8	36	0.6171408
New York 21			0	0	0	0	-5	-1	47	0.4342578
New York 24	Maffei		0	-5	-10	-10	-15	-8	72	0.0926926
New York 23	Robertson	Reed	0	3	15	5	5	5.6	22	0.8230494
New York 27	Hochul	Collins	0	8	0	15	15	7.6	15	0.895829
Nebraska 2	Sullivan	Terry	0	4	15	10	15	8.8	8	0.9274129
New Hampshire 1	Shea-Porter	Guinta	0	1	0	0	-15	-2.8	54	0.3214943
New Hampshire 2	Kuster		0	-3	-5	-5	-5	-3.6	58	0.275601
New Mexico 2		Pearce	0	5	10	10	15	8	13	0.9073074
Nevada 2	Koepnick	Amodei	0	5	15	15	15	10	3	0.9510828
Nevada 3		Heck	0	0	5	10	15	6	20	0.8397099
Nevada 4	Horsford		0	-4	0	-10	-5	-3.8	60	0.264652
North Carolina 2		Ellmers	0	10	10	15	15	10	3	0.9510828
North Carolina 7			0	12	10	15	15	10.4	1	0.9574346
Ohio 6		Johnson	0	8	10	10	15	8.6	10	0.9227307
Ohio 14	Wager	Joyce	0	4	10	10	10	6.8	18	0.8698541
Oregon 5	Schrader		0	0	-10	-10	-15	-7	68	0.1232667
Pennsylvania 6	Trivedi	Costello	0	2	5	5	5	3.4	32	0.7132318
Pennsylvania 8		Fitzpatrick	0	1	5	5	10	4.2	30	0.7565621
Texas 23	Gallego		0	3	-5	-5	-5	-2.4	51	0.3455707
Utah 4	Owens	Love	0	16	10	10	15	10.2	2	0.9543474
Virginia 10	Foust	Comstock	0	2	5	5	15	5.4	24	0.8143229
Washington 1	Delbene		0	-4	-10	-15	-15	-8.8	76	0.0725871
West Virginia 2	Mooney	Casey	0	11	5	5	5	5.2	25	0.8053344
West Virginia 3	Rahall	Jenkins	0	14	0	5	5	4.8	27	0.7865807

The Wind Police

The federal government, in particular the EPA, has been trying to find their way around the Clean Air Act to implement more stringent caps on Carbon, Sulfur, and Nitrogen pollutants. To do this, the EPA began implementing tighter pollution standards on air in states that are downwind from neighboring states creating pollution (although the pollution meets the standards in the Clean Air Act). To make matter worse, the Supreme Court recently ruled this is constitutional. Hence, the federal government has the authority to police our wind and in particular what is in our winds. This made me wonder, how does the federal government actually track this? Winds are not necessarily predictable, is there a model for this and how does it work? And how much does this cost the taxpayers?

If all of this is not bad enough, what is to stop the federal government from doing the following:

• Police water for downstream pollutants in neighboring states.
• Fine states where tornados originate that cross state lines. Or those states contributing the most pollutants per capita will be blamed for tornados.
• Fine state where forest fire smoke originates that crosses state lines. Or those states contributing the most pollutants per capita will be blamed for the forest fire smoke.
• Those states contributing the most pollutants per capita will be fined to pay for U.S. hurricane damages.

What happens when states fight back? What happens when states where rivers and winds originate begin to charge down water and downwind states fees for using their products – especially if they need the funds to help pay for pollution fines. Can the Supreme Court rule taxing wind would be a violation the Commerce Clause when the Supreme Court ruled it is okay to fine wind particles?

The other aspect of this law is it is unfair because it punishes states based on wind production (weather) and proximity (things completely out of their control). For instance, two states or companies producing the same amount of pollutants will be treated differently. One state or company may affect several downwind states, but the other state or company may not affect any downwind states. This in itself should be unconstitutional. And it would come as no surprise, the biggest coal producing states all have neighboring downwind states.

Hence, the entire goal of the EPA wind police is to rid the American energy system of coal. They want to make coal as expensive as possible whereas renewables are a better option. If environmentalists and the EPA get their way, all Americans will be paying an additional 200% increase on their energy bills.

Intolerance

We have become impatient and intolerant as a whole. It is a sad trend that threatens our freedoms. Why have we become this way and why is this so dangerous?

Intolerant and impatient people have become this way because they only read and watch one side of the story. Hence, they feel they are experts when they are truly ignorant about issues. The real scary fact is these people believe there is no need for debate. And when debates are held these people stoop to abusive tactics such as race or Hitler baiting or fear mongering. These people do not know it, but they are nothing more than glorified brainwashed “know it alls”. And once brainwashed it is impossible to get adults to change the way they think. This is no different than how terrorists are brainwashed. I am not saying Americans are becoming terrorists, but I am saying they are being influenced in a way that can be dangerous. Why is it dangerous? Because brainwashed people are afraid of open debate and accepting opposing points of view or beliefs. Many of us have become intolerant to opposing points of views which accomplishes nothing more than to polarize and divide the people of this country.

The biggest problem with people who read and watch only one point of view is not just that they are being brainwashed, but they are unable to properly form their own arguments and to think for themselves. They are followers to a few people with one-sided points of view. Hence, we are becoming a nation of arrogant problem creators and not problem solvers. It is a scary scenario when a supermajority of Americans cannot think for themselves. In essence, people have unknowingly given up their freedoms by letting the media take over their minds. Here are few examples of this:

• The President says debate is not necessary for Climate Change because the science is proven (this is very arrogant because the President is not a scientist).
• We change the meaning of words for the sake of winning an argument.
• People do not practice what they preach. For instance, Nantucket residents are against an off shore wind farm because it blocks their views. In other words, these people are predominately green energy backers as long as it is not in their backyard.
• Congress passes massive bills without any debate such as ObamaCare.
• The Senate defeats the need for supermajorities to pass bills.
• The CEO of a company is forced to resign because he gave 100 dollars to defeat Proposition 8 (gay marriage) in California.

America was built on tolerance and debate. However, America is becoming the antithesis of the ideas it was founded since a majority of Americans are now intolerant and want to impatiently push their brainwashed views on others without debate.

A Few Thoughts About Michael Sam

I truly hope Michael Sam succeeds in the NFL. He was drafted by the St. Louis Rams with the 249^th overall selection (7^th round – 256 total players selected) in the NFL draft. He seems to be an overachieving type of player (plays well with limited athletic ability). He also seems to be a high character person. But if the first openly gay person in the NFL really wants to be treated solely as a player and does not want to draw attention to his being gay (so he claims) then he should start by cleaning up the spectacle he displayed on draft day.

Sure, I can handle Sam getting emotional and kissing his boyfriend. But how many times do we see a draft pick at any level smashing cake on the face of their significant others and then using their tongues to lick it off on live television (I have watched many drafts and never seen anything quite disgusting)? And then Sam had the audacity to pronounce it would have been “homophobic” of the NFL if he went undrafted. Please keep in mind, most NFL Draft prognosticators had Sam rated as a priority free agent – meaning they thought he should not be drafted. And NFL prognosticators have nothing to do with the NFL – Is Sam saying they too are part of homophobic conspiracy? If Sam went undrafted, several teams would have been interested in his services as an undrafted free agent – So the homophobic statement by Sam is not only unnecessary and unfair, but polarizing. Sam’s statement is just as idiotic as those people who have said inflammatory things about Sam’s sexuality. If Sam wants to be treated solely as an NFL player, than he should shut up and start acting as one. He should start by not drawing attention to himself – it is that simple.

ESPN and the media outlets loved the Sam draft spectacle. ESPN must have played the Sam selection and celebration video over a dozen times the first hour after it happened. Is this what Sam wanted? Did he want his selection to be a spectacle? It sure seemed that way. After all, he knew people were filming the celebration.

Sam is the first openly gay person in the NFL, but surely he is not the first gay person in the NFL. The spotlight will continue to shine on Sam as he tries to make the Rams roster. It will be interesting to see if Sam continues to use his position to show he is a good football player or he is the first openly gay person in the NFL. In order to break barriers people must be treated the same regardless of sexual preference. And other than a few idiots the response to Sam has been overwhelmingly supportive. Hence, there is no barrier to overcome if a vast majority of the people are accepting of Sam and his sexuality. And if Sam continues to attract attention to himself because he is gay, then the media will continue to cover his story as such – making a story out of nothing because a majority of NFL players and Americans are supportive of Sam and want him to succeed. Hence, there is no barrier to overcome. But then again, there would be no story if the media did give the false perception that a majority of Americans do not like gay people.