Some Ideas From the Left

Medicare for all. Sounds good. But is it? According to an Op-Ed by Robert Pozen in the 5/2/19 Wall Street Journal, the proposal would provide for a bureaucratic board to set an "annual budget" for medical providers. As this eliminates the "fee for service" model, the providers either take a chance on not making any money, or end up rationing the care provided. Additionally, providers will not be permitted to offer their services through insurance. Why eliminate private insurance held by well over 100 million Americans? Might it be because the Left desires control over our lives - which is their true agenda.

Speaking of control. Recall that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, as part of her Green New Deal, was going to eliminate air travel. The 6/9/19 New York Times travel section had a piece titled "Travel's Climate Problem." The question presented was whether travel can be moral and ethical in the era of climate change. After all, we only have 12 years left. Not surprisingly, the article prompted comments by the fanatics who read the New York Times. Here's one: "Travel may be a difficult sacrifice, but it is a habit that must be broken. One family's vacation is costing another coastal family their home. There is no world where that can be justified."

As California goes, so goes the nation? I certainly hope not. At the recent California State Democratic Party Convention, there were a total of six anti-Israel resolutions proposed by the rank and file. Two resolutions called for the return of the Golan Heights to Syria; the same territory over which President Trump just recognized Israeli sovereignty. One of the resolutions called for a Palestinian "right of return" to Israel. What that really means is that millions of the descendants of those displaced in the war of 1948-49 be allowed to enter Israel; they are not talking about the few thousands that still survive from that time. It would mean the end of Israel as the Jewish state. Another proposed resolution required elected officials to visit "Palestine" for the same length of time they visit Israel. I get it. Maybe we should require elected officials to visit North Korea as much as they visit South Korea.

Another resolution referred to the "colonization" by settler's of West Bank land. Finally, one resolution would require the Democratic Party to oppose "all efforts to stigmatize and suppress support for Palestinian human rights by falsely conflating it with anti-Semitism." In other words, the anti-Israel BDS crowd wants protection from being labeled anti-Semites - even though many are. However, the "Resolutions Committee" overruled the proponents of these resolutions and substantially watered them down. That action was reminiscent of the 2012 Democratic National Convention when the rank and file voted G-d out of their platform, and also voted out Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Then Convention Chair Anthony Villaraigosa declared after 3 successive votes that the delegates voted back into the platform G-d and Jerusalem. Only anyone who was able to see and hear the proceedings realized that Villaraigosa simply lied about the outcome of the votes. But that is where the Democratic Party rank and file are with regard to Israel and G-d.

This one is courtesy of the UK. Apparently, they have a regulatory agency for advertising with far greater power than any such US agency has. The "Advertising Standards Agency" has the authority to determine if ads have "gender stereotypes" that are "harmful" or suggest certain activities are associated with one gender. First, I would like to thank our Founders for the First Amendment - perhaps our greatest guarantor of freedom. Second, just how easily do people give up their freedoms? Imagine the government getting to preview what comes out of Madison Avenue? We certainly would not have had The Marlboro Man, among many other ads.

And from the Jewish Left...Aaron David Miller has been involved in Middle East affairs for the State Department in both Republican and Democratic administrations. In the 6/10/19 Los Angeles Times was an Op-Ed penned by Miller titled "Trump's bromance with Netanyahu." The gist of the article is that Miller is not happy with the "bromance," resulting in Trump acting quite favorably on behalf of Israel. Miller: "He (Trump) visited Israel (and Saudi Arabia) on his first foray out of the country after his inauguration. He is the first sitting U.S. president to pray at the Western Wall, the first to even enter Jerusalem's Old City, underlining Israel's claims to that disputed territory...(Trump) undid 70 years of U.S. policy, formally recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel."

Miller continued: "(Trump) also recognized Israeli sovereignty over another piece of disputed territory, the Golan Heights...he formally designated Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organization, another jab at Israel's foremost enemy." Let's not forget Trump also backed out of the horrendous nuclear deal with Iran. And Trump cut money from the Palestinian Authority because they were using that money to reward terrorists who murdered Jews. Those of us who are conservative appreciate all that Trump has done for Israel - those like Miller not so much. He was not praising the President for all his pro-Israel policies. So sad that the Jewish Left will not stand with Israel - and Trump - on these issues.

But every once in a while they get it right. While many on the Right will likely disagree with me on this, I found myself agreeing with the 6/14/19 New York Times Editorial titled "Politics and Fetal Tissue Research." According to the Times, "The Department of Health and Human Services announced last week that it will seriously restrict federal funding for fetal tissue research, ending all such work at the National Institute of Health, canceling a multimillion-dollar contract at the University of California, San Francisco - where scientists were using fetal tissue to study H.I.V...." Obviously, no one should be allowed to profit from the sale of fetal tissue. To allow profiting would encourage women to get pregnant and have abortions as a source of income; and no pregnant woman should be offered an incentive to abort her baby. On the other hand, just as a woman is allowed to donate her own body parts to another person or to medical research upon death, I see no reason why she should not be allowed to donate fetal tissue for scientific research, given that such research may prove invaluable in helping to cure a number of diseases. But if a woman chooses to have a funeral for her unborn baby, without any tissue being donated, she must be allowed to do that as well. Safeguards need to be in place to ensure that the process is voluntary, and that no money or anything of valued is provided in exchange for the fetal tissue.

Although, I will go to sleep wondering how it was that I agreed with The New York Times.