Benghazi Care

We sure have heard a lot about Benghazi, haven't we?

Same about the Affordable Care Act, aka "Obamacare".

I have a little bit to say about both.  Hopefully I can make some sense out of the situation.

Obamacare:  My step-daughter has her knickers in a knot these days about Kenny's brother.  Kenny is her husband.  Kenny's brother is an addict.  Right now, Kenny's brother is in one of the local hospitals being pumped full of antibiotics because of a heart condition brought about because of his addiction to crack cocaine.  There's even talk that Kenny's brother might have to undergo open heart surgery to correct the heart condition which is causing what is amounting to his slow death.

Now multiply this situation exponentially and you have thousands of patients in similar situations over the past thirty or so years coming into hospitals getting high-tech treatments and walking out paying only a small fraction of what that care costs because they are indigent.  Now, you can't not treat these people, partly because it's the law.  About thirty years ago when we were under the benevolent Presidency of Ronald Reagan, it was commanded that no patient can be refused treatment at a hospital because they are unable to pay.  The burden ends up on those who can pay.

So what we've seen has been spiraling health care costs due to people not having health insurance.  Doctors and hospitals charge more for their services which leads to insurance companies charging more to cover their costs, meaning fewer people can afford health insurance which means that when people who can no longer afford their insurance go in for a broken leg or something similar, the cost for their treatment is passed on up the ladder to someone else.

I don't know about you, but to me, this is not only a vicious cycle, but it's essentially a hidden tax imposed on people who can actually afford health insurance.

So when or if the politicians decide to hold the nation hostage in order to try to eliminate "Obamacare", aren't they essentially giving the green light to maintain the status-quo... extending the hidden tax imposed on us during the Reagan years?

Which leads us into Benghazi.

There's been a whole lot of weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth because of the diplomats killed in a raid on what was an unprotected compound in a volatile state.  There's been a whole lot of "woulda, coulda, shoulda" from pundits and politicians who are essentially playing "Monday Morning Quarterback" about an event for which we were ill-prepared and unable to do much about as the event was unfolding.

"We should have had our jets on stand-by so that we could provide air support!"  Congress didn't allocate the money for constant stand-by.  Sure, the jets could have been scrambled and on their way, but it would have taken at least 8 hours to get jets on the way, at least according to credible sources (like the BBC).

"We should have sent a detachment of Marines from Tripoli!"  Same problem with logistics, and besides, a detachment would have made the Embassy in Tripoli vulnerable.

The real problem here is money.  We know that "those goofy terrorists" are out there, waiting for an opening - waiting for some way to embarrass us.  So what have we done to protect our diplomats?  Nothing.  Nada. Zip.  I seem to recall a terrorist bombing of our Embassy in Beirut back in '83 which killed quite a few more Marines then just 4.  We discovered the problem (not enough protection) and called for corrective action.

Nothing was done.  No money was allocated for the protection of our diplomatic corps through Reagan, two Bushes and Clinton - so now it's Obama's fault.  Uh-huh.  Sure.

Benghazi was unfortunate.  So was Beirut.  So were numerous other similar incidents in the past thirty years or so.  Had foresight been in place and the money spent to properly secure the compounds which underwent attacks in those years, half of them wouldn't have happened.

No politician wants to be seen as frivolously spending money on important security matters like protecting our embassies and their outposts.  No politician wants to be seen as frivolously spending money on such things as preventative health care, or treating addicts or dealing with the mentally ill.  No, sir.  We'll look for a scapegoat or make it someone else's problem.  We're good at that.  Just wait and see when and if Congress actually goes to work later this month.

Be Seeing You!

bdharrell