Obamacare and the Flu Season

In my state, Influenza is now supposedly "Widespread". The number of reported cases approach a tenth of a percent of the general population in some areas. The news media, however, apparently does not find this to be terribly newsworthy. Their stories are focusing in another area; the effect of influenza on hospital admissions.

WFSB News, located in Hartford, says that ten percent of emergency room visits are from people with influenza symptoms. In the previous two seasons, the percentage never topped eight. Over nine percent of hospital visits are from patients with pneumonia. This percentage usually does not top six percent. Of course, WFSB is a CBS station and, as such, is part of the mainstream media. Therefore, these high percentages are attributed to a seriously terrible pandemic, something on the order of the Black Plague, perhaps. I see a different story, untold.

Democrats are not focusing much on the CBO report estimating that tens of millions of people will lose their health insurance under Obamacare. This statistic, however, hit my family and a few others whom we know personally. Our insurance premium doubled for Year 2013 to 12% of our income. Unable to afford the expenditure, we had to switch to an Obamacare-friendly catastrophic plan. (Long story. Needless to say, if we want a doctor's office appointment, we have to pay the entire thing ourselves.)

Now, I have needed medical help once for influenza, and other members of my family have had pneumonia problems several times over the years. We did not once go to the hospital. Who needs to? The doctor's office can diagnose and lay out a treatment plan with no problem at all. So who goes to the emergency room for something that can be treated at the doctor's office?

People who cannot afford healthcare.

We already know that healthcare spending is on the decline, yet the cost of actual healthcare has not waned. This piece of information fits into the same puzzle. Obamacare was supposed to lower healthcare spending. Now we know how.

Extremism

Beware extremism in all its forms!

The extreme opposite opinion of "Outlaw guns in schools" is *not* "Permit teachers to be armed". The extreme opposite is "Force all teachers to be armed".

The extreme opposite of an alcoholic is a teetotaler, not someone who has half a glass in an entire week and puts a little sherry in the stew.

The extreme opposite of nationalism is anti-nationalism, as was seen by a teacher in South Carolina who stomped on the American flag and told his students that it meant nothing.

The extreme opposite of racism against blacks is affirmative action, not equal access for all.

Why should we beware the extreme opposite in all forms? Because the extreme opposites are, in their way, *identical* problems. The person who throws acid at women for wearing skirts above the ankle is just as consumed by lust as the one who gives women free drinks for exposing their bodies. The person who rages at his child for not being good at sports is not different from the person who rages at his child for not being good at music.

Why am I saying this? Well, it seems that, nowadays, the conservative viewpoint is being described as the "opposite extremist" from liberalism. This is most certainly not true. Increasingly, the conservative viewpoint is the one demonstrating moderation, and the exact opposite from liberalism is not being expressed at all.

Here's another example. The extremist on one side says that gays should have their relationships labeled and honored by the government and society as 'marriage', and woe to those who disagree however politely. However, they claim that the extremist on the other side is the one who simply allows the gays to live their lives in peace. The real extremist view is one that few, if any, Americans would tolerate... that of putting those who engage in homosexual behavior in prison or to death. And so people are called extremist because they do not think that a man and a man engage in the exact same kind of relationship as a man and a woman.

The budget is another matter. Those who want to streamline programs, cut spending, and run fewer services more efficiently are being labeled as extremists, with the exact opposing viewpoint being one of more power, larger programs, higher taxes, and more debt. No, the exact opposing viewpoint from Obama's is that of libertarianism, which believes that even the police department should be privatized.

Beware extremism in all its forms! Beware doubly, in this day and age, labeling the moderate and reasonable viewpoint as the extreme opposite of the only other viewpoint offered!