Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

You may not know it yet, but we have a medical emergency in America. That’s right, people all across the fruited plain (where they don’t grow many fruits) are spending their way into bankruptcy because health care costs are too high! The elderly are having to choose between food and medicine! If only there were a solution that would make health care affordable…

Well, the Left says it has just a solution, a little something the kids like to call Medicare For All. In theory, it would cut costs, cover everyone, and be more effective and efficient than private practices. Given the Left’s fondness for big government solutions to problems they usually invent to justify their big government solutions, I’m skeptical. But, let’s give Medicare For All a fair shake.

And by “fair shake,” I mean “the mockery it so richly deserves.”

Medicare For All

What the Left thinks it means – single payer universal health care that will help people who cannot help themselves

What it really means – making health care like the DMV

The idea behind Medicare For All seems to make sense on the surface. If it works as intended, it would save people money, ensure coverage for the widest swath of the population, and be at least somewhat competitive with private health care insurance and care. Yeah, that’s a pretty big “if.” In modern history, anytime government has gotten involved in what is seen to be a public need, it usually winds up being worse off for the people it (allegedly) tries to help.

The most obvious example of this is Obamacare, which was intended to be a half-measure towards Medicare For All. Although many received better options, many others had their policies cancelled or require more money to use. And the funny thing? Actual care didn’t change, only the cost of it did.

This goes back to a common trick the Left uses when discussing health matters: conflating health care with health insurance. Although many use these terms interchangeably, they are quite different. If you cut yourself and use a bandage to stop the bleeding, that’s health care and, unless you’re the type to file a medical claim for a cut, insurance doesn’t get involved. The converse is also true. You can have health insurance without ever needing care. The insurance is there in case you do need care. Nothing like a little semantic trickery to muddy the rhetorical waters, huh?

Medicare For All uses a similar tack. This time, though, instead of paying for some of the people who can’t afford health insurance, you’ll be paying for all of the people who can’t afford health insurance. And in exchange, you get…well, that’s the sticky part. Unless you go on Medicare For All, you get nothing in return. Not a tax deduction for taking on a few million new dependents. Not an offer to chip in for household bills. Not even a thank you card. You’ll just be expected to pay for it.

But at least those greedy insurance companies won’t be able to deny claims, right? Welllll…yes and no. Medicare For All will take the insurance companies out of the equation, but there is a dirty little secret the Left doesn’t want you to know. Do you know who denies the most medical claims in the country? Which member of Big Insurance causes the most grief in this area? The big bad monster that rejects the most insurance claims is…the federal government.

Medicare, to be precise. You know, the same Medicare the Left wants everyone on?

And it gets better. Of those denials, up to 75% are overturned on appeal. So, not only does Medicare deny more claims, but they waste time and money in the process by inaccurately denying claims and then having to deal with appeals. Private insurance companies can’t get away with that because they would lose customers, but with Medicare For All, there will always be a market, no matter how many times they screw up.

As far as better care is concerned, that’s hit or miss. Look at the VA system for an example of government-run health care. Some VA facilities are great, and others leave a lot to be desired (like health care). It’s this inconsistency that should bother people. This isn’t Wheel of Diagnoses here, folks. If you need health care, you want to at least feel like your care provider has something on the ball. In private practice, if you can’t consistently do your job right, you’ll go out of business. Medicare might be one of the last things that exist after a nuclear holocaust, along with roaches, Twinkies, and what’s left of Cher’s plastic surgery.

So, are you convinced Medicare For All is a bad idea yet? If so, great. If you’re still not convinced, let me make one final appeal to your reason. For as good as you think single payer government run health care/health insurance is, the two biggest flaws it has are 1) its existence requires people to continue to pay into it, even if it’s against their will and/or knowledge, and 2) the results aren’t worth the cost.

On the first point, you are literally taking money from people through force and deceit. (Notice I am literally using literally correctly.) If you or I would do that (the force and deceit part, not the use of literally), we would rightly be charged with theft. Even if the federal government is doing it, it’s still morally wrong to force or fool people to part with their money, especially when the outcome isn’t as cut and dried as you think it is.

On the second point, as much as you think Medicare For All will drive down costs, it won’t. Without competition, there will be no need for Medicare to do things better and faster. You will get what they give you, and you will have to like it. Reminds me of the health center during my undergraduate years. Their solution was to take a green pill and, if that didn’t work, take another one. Then, there is the possibility the government will cut off your care altogether if they don’t think it will be worth it. During the Obamacare debates, there was talk of “death panels” which the Left denied were in there. Yet, even in the health care models the Left loves to use, there is managed care, which is basically death panels. If a bunch of medically untrained bureaucrats determine your life isn’t worth saving, you’re left to die.

Wait…doesn’t that run counter to your beliefs about abortion being between a mother and her doctor?

In either case, Medicare For All isn’t a good fix for what ails our country’s health care system. It’s not even a bad fix, really. Try a monumentally broken fix. If you want to lower costs, help people get health insurance, and prevent all the bad stuff the Left says is happening now, there is one way for the federal government to do it.

Get the Hell out of the way!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

There are some stories that grab our attention because they have a compelling human interest element to them. There are others that grab our attention because of the circumstances behind them. Then, there are others that appear to be complete dumpster fires.

Recently, I’ve been following a story about Jussie Smollett, an actor on the television show “Empire.” Smollett also happens to be black and gay. Smollett alleges he was attacked physically and verbally early one morning in Chicago for being black and gay. The reason I’m interested in this story is because it keeps changing as new details emerge. Some accounts say he was attacked by two white men wearing Make America Great Again hats who screamed “This is MAGA Country.” Other accounts included a noose and a bottle of bleach. Other accounts have removed the MAGA hats and included ski masks and hoods. I wouldn’t be surprised if there will be an account that it was a pissed off leprechaun riding on a drunk unicorn farting rainbows who attacked Smollett.

As we are sifting through the uncertain facts of this case, one fact has emerged among Leftists: this was a hate crime. The Left’s definition of a hate crime is slipperier than Jello wrestling in oil with a greased pig. (Hey, I only did it the one time and it was because I was drunk, single, and lonely, okay?) Yet, it’s in this imprecise definition that we can find a definition of our own.

hate crime

What the Left thinks it means – a crime against a marginalized group/groups motivated by hatred of said group/groups

What it really means – an area of criminal activity that isn’t enforced equally and is based on speculation of motive

Remember the movie “Minority Report”? If you do, great. If you don’t, consider yourself lucky. Anyway, the movie’s premise revolves around a concept called pre-crime, which can only be uncovered using psychics/oracles who can see into the future. However, someone figures out how to game the system to hide his pre-crime. Hate crimes revolve around a similar concept, only instead of having psychics look into the future to see a crime, people without psychic powers are adding additional punishment for crimes based on…well, gut instinct, really.

Granted, some hate crimes are easy to figure out. A burning cross in a black family’s front yard is pretty obvious, but others aren’t. A black child getting beaten up by a gang of white thugs yelling racial epithets is a hate crime, but a white child getting beaten up by a gang of black thugs yelling racial epithets isn’t. The crime (assault) is the same. The hate (racism) is the same. But the punishment isn’t. The former is treated like a hate crime, which is should be, but the latter isn’t.

And that’s where things get interesting. And by interesting, I mean stupid.

The Left believes only whites, and white men in particular, can never be victims of hate crimes because they have all the power and privilege. And guess who has been writing and promoting hate crime laws? You guessed it. Leftists. For the record, I would have also accepted monkeys flinging poo because when it comes to hate crime laws, the two aren’t that far apart.

This is my major problem with hate crimes in general. We are supposed to have equal protection under the law regardless of our race and/or gender. To increase the legal penalties for a crime based on a lopsided interpretation of society runs counter to that notion. And it’s not like drunk driving punishments because we can measure a person’s blood alcohol level at the time of an accident. We can’t delve into a person’s heart and mind at the point of a crime with any degree of accuracy.

Granted, there are white males who are hateful scumbags, like Tom Arnold. But that fact shouldn’t overshadow the rule of law just because of the race of the perpetrator or the victim, especially when the crimes are handled and punished differently on those same bases. If that isn’t a clear violation of the 14th Amendment, I’m not sure what is.

The problem is hate crimes laws are hard to fight because of the emotional element of the crimes themselves. We hate to see people hurt for something they cannot control, and we don’t want to be seen as bigots by voicing legitimate concerns, so most people either stay quiet or support hate crime laws. This gives the Left all the power they need to continue pushing these types of laws.

That’s why it’s important to fight back. The only way the Left gets away with passing these types of laws for certain types of crimes is by relying on people to be silenced by the prospect of being seen as a bigot. That requires you to be afraid. If you don’t give in to that fear, the power goes away. Apathy is the greatest weapon against the Left you can muster.

There’s another problem the Left hasn’t figured out how to combat: fake hate crimes. I know it may shock you, but there are some dishonest people who lie about being victims of hate crimes for various reasons. And just like with false claims of sexual assault, false claims of hate crimes damage the real claims because it makes them easier to dismiss. And guess what’s been occurring more and more in recent years? That’s right: Tyler Perry movies. Oh, and fake hate crimes. And just like with false allegations of sexual assault, Leftists want us to ignore the bad actors and believe everyone, while excusing those who are guilty. Remember Mattress Girl? Leftists still defend her in spite of the lies she spewed.

Is Jussie Smollett guilty of fabricating his attack? I don’t know, but I do know there are a few facts that make me question what happened, and the facts that have changed since the news of the attack first hit lead me to believe it’s a false hate crime. Until there is a definite resolution, though, I will withhold judgment. If he did make it up, anyone who suggests it was a hate crime had better be ready to not just apologize and eat a murder of crow, but demand Smollett pay the price for his deeds.

Who am I kidding? They’ll excuse him like they excused Mattress Girl.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

One of the most interesting perspectives in politics today is watching people get bent out of shape over ultimately trivial matters, only to turn around and excuse it when someone on their side of the argument does it. This phenomenon has a name: hypocrisy. But Leftists have given it another name: tribalism. And as you might expect, tribalism isn’t a good thing to them.

In today’s team-based political mentality, tribalism isn’t unusual. If you’re a Republican, you want Republicans to win. If you’re a Democrat, you want Democrats to win. So, why is it now frowned upon by the Left? Let’s find out!

tribalism

What the Left thinks it means – Republicans and conservatives simple-mindedly believing the same things, promoting the same ideas, and quoting the same sources to promote their ideology

What it really means – substituting party line thinking for actual thought

Sociologists (or at least the ones I could stay awake listening to) have long stated humans have an inborn desire to be part of and accepted by a group. That sense of belonging is fine and all, but it can lead to another phenomenon called “groupthink.” Basically, that’s when you go along with the crowd because you want to continue fitting in, even if what the crowd says absolutely sucks. I call it the Sanjaya Effect. “American Idol” fans know who I’m talking about, and for once it’s not Shaft. (And, yes, we can dig it.) The Sanjaya Effect made millions of people vote for an okay singer because everyone else they knew was doing it.

And that’s where tribalism comes into play. Once we become invested in a group, we want to defend it against those who would mean it harm. This plays out in our minds in several ways, ranging from the logical (protect the clan) to the social (more people will like me) to the personal (I feel good about myself) to the sexual (chicks dig it). In a political framework, the same concepts apply (defend our ideology, more people will like me, I’ll get noticed and appreciated, chicks dig it). At its core, tribalism is primitive and driven by instinct and/or emotion.

Which begs the question of why the Left would be against tribalism, given the emotional spectrum is their playground. The answer, oddly enough, involves their feelings of self-worth. Leftists always like to think they’re the smartest people in the room and are above the kind of visceral reactions they claim to see from the Right. That gives them a blind spot when it comes to looking at what they do on a regular basis.

Here’s a prime example. Recently on MSNBC, host Nicole Wallace said, “There isn’t a strain of racism on the left.” Ah, but that ignores a litany of blatant and covert racism, mainly blaming whites for all the evil in the world. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t maligning a group of people based on skin color…racism? Why, yes…yes it is!

To make the claim the Left has no racism while finding racism under every rock on the Right is pure tribalism, not to mention utterly delusional. Granted, it was said on MSNBC, which is pretty much Tribalism Central on the Left, but the point remains. The fact Wallace couldn’t find a single racist in a group where race is one of their primary talking points shows one of the major dangers of tribalism: it forces you to rationalize behavior you wouldn’t stand for normally because of who acted. Maybe I’m just old fashioned (or just old for that matter), but I grew up believing wrong is wrong, no matter who does it. The Ku Klux Klan is just as racist as the Black Panthers, white nationalists are just as bad as black separatists, and the Westboro Baptist Church and radical members of the gay rights movement are singing from the same hymnals. They just don’t know it yet because of tribalism.

I will admit I used to be tribalistic when I was younger, mainly because I was young, immature, and a dumbass a good chunk of the time. Eventually, I got to a point where I couldn’t keep justifying bad behavior on one side while blasting it on the other. I’d rather be hated for being honest than loved for being dishonest. I’ve seen too many otherwise good people get caught up in the moment and go along to get along without considering there might be a different course to take. There’s a rule of thumb I live by: if it doesn’t feel right, it’s not right, and you have no obligation to ignore your instincts because everyone else decides to do what you feel is wrong. You do, however, have an obligation to yourself to be an individual, think freely, speak freely, and above all else live the life you want to live irrespective of the whims of the crowd. If they aren’t paying your bills, they have no say in your life unless you let them.

So, reject tribalism when you can. Question authority, even the authority you trust. Reevaluate your ideas and arguments to make sure you’re getting the full picture, and don’t be afraid to adjust them as needed. The worst that will happen is you come away with a broader perspective and maybe make a friend or two along the way.

Plus, you won’t be stuck with a whataboutism defense. But more on that another time…

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

To be honest, the Internet is as safe as a meth lab housed in a nitroglycerin factory on the San Andreas Fault. Although I’m exaggerating for (hopefully) humorous effect, you don’t want to be too careless with your personal information online because there are unethical slimeballs out there who will use that information against you in any way they can. Although, I hear that Nigerian prince is a real cool guy.

When the war of ideologies goes online, political operatives have a number of tools at their disposal, one of which is a called doxing. We’ll get into the definition of it here in a bit, but the reason it’s become a hot topic recently is because of a Huffington Post writer named Luke O’Brien. O’Brien did a story about a Twitter user named Amy Mekelburg who has tweeted some anti-Muslim sentiments and has been retweeted by President Donald Trump. O’Brien’s story exposed Mekelburg, but also opened up her family to additional harassment. And this occurred because Mekelburg left identifying information online for people to follow.

Leftists cheered this, stating racists have no right to privacy and should be exposed. Others expressed outrage at those who took it upon themselves to bring Mekelburg’s private actions into the public square and expose her family to various punishments for actions they didn’t directly take.

In order to understand the Leftist mindset on doxing, let’s start by defining the term, shall we?

doxing

What the Left thinks it means – exposing conservatives for saying and doing things that should be called out and discouraged

What it actually means – invading someone’s privacy for purely ideological reasons

One of the key elements of Leftist ideology is the ends justify the means. If they can find a way to destroy an enemy, even if it goes against their public platform, they will do it. It’s just a matter of how and when. And when it comes to doxing, Leftists have no qualms doing it to conservatives because of another key element of Leftist ideology: those who do not conform are the enemy.

Nice folks, those Leftists.

In the Mekelburg situation, the Left has argued she doxed herself, which is entirely plausible and most likely happened. If O’Brien wrote a piece limited solely to her, we can debate the merits and flaws of the approach. However, that didn’t happen. O’Brien went to her husband’s employer for a comment, which caused her husband to get fired and a business owned by members of her family (who have openly said they don’t agree with her, by the way) to get harassed. Collateral damage because Mekelburg said something the Left didn’t agree with.

And while we’re here, what did Mekelburg say? Among other things, she made disparaging comments about Muslim prophet Mohammed, linked to people like Sean Hannity, and told people to follow noted white supremacists. The first two are enough for Leftists to get their collectivist panties in a wad, but the third gave them all the excuse they needed to target her…and her family. Obviously, they must agree with her. After all, they have the same last name!

And, as with most things Leftists believe, their position is hypocritical on a number of fronts, the most glaring one being the Left’s professed love of privacy. This may smack of “whataboutism”, but I have to say it: the Left has more problem with a woman expressing an opposite and Constitutionally protected opinion than it has with a woman killing an unborn baby in the womb. Call me crazy (because, trust me, plenty have), but isn’t that a bit…well…stupid?

I don’t condone what Mekelburg says, but she has a right to say it, thanks to the First Amendment. Which brings us to another area of Leftist hypocrisy, by the way. The Left will cry about freedom of speech being threatened whenever Donald Trump calls CNN fake news (I have another name for them that’s far harsher), but they also want to limit the speech of conservatives and libertarians because they’re afraid those groups will tell the truth.

And to round out this trifecta of trickery, the Left engages in guilt by association when it suits them, as it did in this case. Yet, who are the first ones to scold us for assuming terrorists are Muslims because “not all Muslims are terrorists”? Leftists, who by a complete coincidence always assume mass shooters are white men. (And, unlike them, the people who assume terrorists are Muslim tend to be right more often than wrong.)

And let me make myself perfectly clear here. Doxing done by anyone is morally wrong and, in my humble opinion, is a form of terrorism designed to control targets into either hiding or conforming to the ”right” opinion. And, to take it a step further, anyone who is responsible for circulating a person’s information online and/or uses it to harass innocent people is just as bad as the doxers themselves. No gray area, no letting it slide, no mulligans. If you dox or help spread the information, you are scum. Thank you for playing.

That brings us back to O’Brien. I’m sure he thought he was doing the right thing, but he should have taken more than a nanosecond to think about the implications of and fallout from taking the actions he did before submitting even a pitch to his editors. The fact it doesn’t appear he took that step is a stain on his integrity and yet another blot on an already-Mount Everest-sized mountain covering the media today. As the saying goes, two wrongs don’t make a right, and O’Brien and Mekelburg are as wrong as they can be.