Harry Reid revealed what many of us already know; that when it comes to health care reform the Democrats are a one trick pony. Their only idea for fixing the issue, or any issue, is a government take-over, also known as a public option. That's it. If that doesn't happen then they are out of ideas.
Harry Reid has said that there is no purpose to health care reform if there is not a public option, and yet the public support for that public option is dwindling -- pretty rapidly. According to previous statements by the President this means you want the status quo, but that's not true either.
The "my way or the highway" statements of the president have indicated that if you don't support the public option then you don't support reform. This must be because they have no other ideas, no inkling of how to institute reform without the government taking over the industry. The problem is that even though they are out of ideas, other people aren't and yet the Dems are unwilling to listen to anything that does not include their one and only public option solution.
They are definitely a one trick pony and their only trick is to take a big ole crap on the American people. Maybe it's time they learn a new one.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Friday, August 14, 2009
Caps on Insurance Company Profits
In House Bill 3200 there is a provision that states your insurance company will have to re-imburse you if they made too much money (according to the government of course) in the premium Vs payout ratio. So what will they do in the years, currently paid for with those overruns, when the payout exceeds the premium? Nothing would be my guess. So here again we have the government dictating the profits that a private company can make.
This is from page 24 of bill.
A qualified health benefits plan shall meet a medical loss ratio as defined by the Commissioner. For any plan year in which the qualified health benefits plan does not meet such medical loss ratio, QHBP offering entity shall provide in a manner specified by the Commissioner for rebates to enrollees of payment sufficient to meet such loss ratio.
It does specify that it is based on a benefit year so there is no provision for balancing the good years against the bad; nor does it say exactly who is going to be calculating this ratio or how.
This sounds an awful lot like government dictating privat industry profits to me. What do you think?
This is from page 24 of bill.
A qualified health benefits plan shall meet a medical loss ratio as defined by the Commissioner. For any plan year in which the qualified health benefits plan does not meet such medical loss ratio, QHBP offering entity shall provide in a manner specified by the Commissioner for rebates to enrollees of payment sufficient to meet such loss ratio.
It does specify that it is based on a benefit year so there is no provision for balancing the good years against the bad; nor does it say exactly who is going to be calculating this ratio or how.
This sounds an awful lot like government dictating privat industry profits to me. What do you think?
White House Misinformation
The largest bit of misinformation is what is coming out of the white house about being able to keep your coverage if you like it. All you have to do is read the text of the bill to find out that this is absolutely not true. Well, it's sort of true I guess, you can keep it for 5 years if it meets the government standard and your employer doesn't change a single thing in your benefits for those 5 years.
I found the text of the bill, one that didn't crash my computer when I tried to pull it up, at http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf and I encourage everybody to read it.
Sec 102 beginning on page 16 of the bill is laughingly titled "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage". Here's the rundown on this section.
subsection (a)describes individual coverage and defines grandfathered as any insurance in effect before year 1 of this new bill and which does not change.
subsection (b)defines the grace period for employer based health plans. If we get to keep it if we like it then why exactly is there a grace period? Here's what it says...
10 (1) GRACE PERIOD.—
11 (A) IN GENERAL.—The Commissioner shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan years beginning after the end of the 5-year period beginning with Y1, an employment-based health plan in operation as of the day before the first day of Y1 must meet the same requirements as apply to a qualified health benefits plan under section 101, including the essential benefit package requirement under section 121.
So this means that we get to keep the insurance we like for up to 5 years if, and only if, it meets the requirements set down by the government. They even define "acceptable coverage" and your plan has to meet their definition of this acceptable coverage in order for you to keep it, and then you can only keep it for 5 years before being forced off of it. Your employer may still be able to offer you a plan after that, but it will be whatever plan the government deems "acceptable".
The bill also includes information to determine whether your employer has the right to be "self insured" which means that they write the plan and absorb the costs while paying an insurance company to administer the benefits. So the government can come back and tell your employer that -- although your business has decided to self insure and your accountants are sure you can support it-- being self insured is just too risky and you can't do it. Gee, guess you better put your employees on that government plan. Nice!
So tell me again Mr President how I am going to be able to keep my coverage if I like it. Lie to me one more time.
I found the text of the bill, one that didn't crash my computer when I tried to pull it up, at http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf and I encourage everybody to read it.
Sec 102 beginning on page 16 of the bill is laughingly titled "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage". Here's the rundown on this section.
subsection (a)describes individual coverage and defines grandfathered as any insurance in effect before year 1 of this new bill and which does not change.
subsection (b)defines the grace period for employer based health plans. If we get to keep it if we like it then why exactly is there a grace period? Here's what it says...
10 (1) GRACE PERIOD.—
11 (A) IN GENERAL.—The Commissioner shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan years beginning after the end of the 5-year period beginning with Y1, an employment-based health plan in operation as of the day before the first day of Y1 must meet the same requirements as apply to a qualified health benefits plan under section 101, including the essential benefit package requirement under section 121.
So this means that we get to keep the insurance we like for up to 5 years if, and only if, it meets the requirements set down by the government. They even define "acceptable coverage" and your plan has to meet their definition of this acceptable coverage in order for you to keep it, and then you can only keep it for 5 years before being forced off of it. Your employer may still be able to offer you a plan after that, but it will be whatever plan the government deems "acceptable".
The bill also includes information to determine whether your employer has the right to be "self insured" which means that they write the plan and absorb the costs while paying an insurance company to administer the benefits. So the government can come back and tell your employer that -- although your business has decided to self insure and your accountants are sure you can support it-- being self insured is just too risky and you can't do it. Gee, guess you better put your employees on that government plan. Nice!
So tell me again Mr President how I am going to be able to keep my coverage if I like it. Lie to me one more time.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
In Case You're Feeling Left Out
I somehow was bestowed the dubious honor of being added to David Axelrod's chain letter e-mail list. Don't know how. Don't know why. Don't much appreciate the spam, but in case you were not granted the same honor, here's the e-mail that's coming from the white house. For some strange reason it reminds me of junior high school.
Dear Friend,
This is probably one of the longest emails I’ve ever sent, but it could be the most important.
Across the country we are seeing vigorous debate about health insurance reform. Unfortunately, some of the old tactics we know so well are back — even the viral emails that fly unchecked and under the radar, spreading all sorts of lies and distortions.
As President Obama said at the town hall in New Hampshire, “where we do disagree, let's disagree over things that are real, not these wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that's actually been proposed.”
So let’s start a chain email of our own. At the end of my email, you’ll find a lot of information about health insurance reform, distilled into 8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage, 8 common myths about reform and 8 reasons we need health insurance reform now.
Right now, someone you know probably has a question about reform that could be answered by what’s below. So what are you waiting for? Forward this email.
Thanks,
David
David Axelrod
Senior Adviser to the President
P.S. We launched www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck this week to knock down the rumors and lies that are floating around the internet. You can find the information below, and much more, there. For example, we've just added a video of Nancy-Ann DeParle from our Health Reform Office tackling a viral email head on. Check it out:
8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage
Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.
Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.
Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.
Learn more and get details: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/health-insurance-consumer-protections/
8 common myths about health insurance reform
Reform will stop "rationing" - not increase it: It’s a myth that reform will mean a "government takeover" of health care or lead to "rationing." To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies.
We can’t afford reform: It's the status quo we can't afford. It’s a myth that reform will bust the budget. To the contrary, the President has identified ways to pay for the vast majority of the up-front costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs; ending big subsidies to insurance companies; and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork. In the long term, reform can help bring down costs that will otherwise lead to a fiscal crisis.
Reform would encourage "euthanasia": It does not. It’s a malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors. For seniors who want to consult with their family and physicians about end-of life decisions, reform will help to cover these voluntary, private consultations for those who want help with these personal and difficult family decisions.
Vets' health care is safe and sound: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will affect veterans' access to the care they get now. To the contrary, the President's budget significantly expands coverage under the VA, extending care to 500,000 more veterans who were previously excluded. The VA Healthcare system will continue to be available for all eligible veterans.
Reform will benefit small business - not burden it: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses, provide tax credits to help them pay for employee coverage and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average.
Your Medicare is safe, and stronger with reform: It’s myth that Health Insurance Reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits. To the contrary, reform will improve the long-term financial health of Medicare, ensure better coordination, eliminate waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies, and help to close the Medicare "doughnut" hole to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors.
You can keep your own insurance: It’s myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them.
No, government will not do anything with your bank account: It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts. Health insurance reform will simplify administration, making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose. Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill, you can pay by traditional check, or by a direct electronic payment. And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand. The choice is up to you – and the same rules of privacy will apply as they do for all other electronic payments that people make.
Learn more and get details:
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck/faq
8 Reasons We Need Health Insurance Reform Now
Coverage Denied to Millions: A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adults – 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market – were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years or dropped from coverage when they became seriously ill. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/denied_coverage/index.html
Less Care for More Costs: With each passing year, Americans are paying more for health care coverage. Employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have nearly doubled since 2000, a rate three times faster than wages. In 2008, the average premium for a family plan purchased through an employer was $12,680, nearly the annual earnings of a full-time minimum wage job. Americans pay more than ever for health insurance, but get less coverage. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hiddencosts/index.html
Roadblocks to Care for Women: Women’s reproductive health requires more regular contact with health care providers, including yearly pap smears, mammograms, and obstetric care. Women are also more likely to report fair or poor health than men (9.5% versus 9.0%). While rates of chronic conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure are similar to men, women are twice as likely to suffer from headaches and are more likely to experience joint, back or neck pain. These chronic conditions often require regular and frequent treatment and follow-up care. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/women/index.html
Hard Times in the Heartland: Throughout rural America, there are nearly 50 million people who face challenges in accessing health care. The past several decades have consistently shown higher rates of poverty, mortality, uninsurance, and limited access to a primary health care provider in rural areas. With the recent economic downturn, there is potential for an increase in many of the health disparities and access concerns that are already elevated in rural communities. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hardtimes
Small Businesses Struggle to Provide Health Coverage: Nearly one-third of the uninsured – 13 million people – are employees of firms with less than 100 workers. From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. Much of this decline stems from small business. The percentage of small businesses offering coverage dropped from 68% to 59%, while large firms held stable at 99%. About a third of such workers in firms with fewer than 50 employees obtain insurance through a spouse. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/helpbottomline
The Tragedies are Personal: Half of all personal bankruptcies are at least partly the result of medical expenses. The typical elderly couple may have to save nearly $300,000 to pay for health costs not covered by Medicare alone. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction
Diminishing Access to Care: From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. An estimated 87 million people - one in every three Americans under the age of 65 - were uninsured at some point in 2007 and 2008. More than 80% of the uninsured are in working families. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction/diminishing/index.html
The Trends are Troubling: Without reform, health care costs will continue to skyrocket unabated, putting unbearable strain on families, businesses, and state and federal government budgets. Perhaps the most visible sign of the need for health care reform is the 46 million Americans currently without health insurance - projections suggest that this number will rise to about 72 million in 2040 in the absence of reform. Learn more: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/assets/documents/CEA_Health_Care_Report.pdf
Dear Friend,
This is probably one of the longest emails I’ve ever sent, but it could be the most important.
Across the country we are seeing vigorous debate about health insurance reform. Unfortunately, some of the old tactics we know so well are back — even the viral emails that fly unchecked and under the radar, spreading all sorts of lies and distortions.
As President Obama said at the town hall in New Hampshire, “where we do disagree, let's disagree over things that are real, not these wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that's actually been proposed.”
So let’s start a chain email of our own. At the end of my email, you’ll find a lot of information about health insurance reform, distilled into 8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage, 8 common myths about reform and 8 reasons we need health insurance reform now.
Right now, someone you know probably has a question about reform that could be answered by what’s below. So what are you waiting for? Forward this email.
Thanks,
David
David Axelrod
Senior Adviser to the President
P.S. We launched www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck this week to knock down the rumors and lies that are floating around the internet. You can find the information below, and much more, there. For example, we've just added a video of Nancy-Ann DeParle from our Health Reform Office tackling a viral email head on. Check it out:
8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage
Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.
Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.
Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.
Learn more and get details: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/health-insurance-consumer-protections/
8 common myths about health insurance reform
Reform will stop "rationing" - not increase it: It’s a myth that reform will mean a "government takeover" of health care or lead to "rationing." To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies.
We can’t afford reform: It's the status quo we can't afford. It’s a myth that reform will bust the budget. To the contrary, the President has identified ways to pay for the vast majority of the up-front costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs; ending big subsidies to insurance companies; and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork. In the long term, reform can help bring down costs that will otherwise lead to a fiscal crisis.
Reform would encourage "euthanasia": It does not. It’s a malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors. For seniors who want to consult with their family and physicians about end-of life decisions, reform will help to cover these voluntary, private consultations for those who want help with these personal and difficult family decisions.
Vets' health care is safe and sound: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will affect veterans' access to the care they get now. To the contrary, the President's budget significantly expands coverage under the VA, extending care to 500,000 more veterans who were previously excluded. The VA Healthcare system will continue to be available for all eligible veterans.
Reform will benefit small business - not burden it: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses, provide tax credits to help them pay for employee coverage and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average.
Your Medicare is safe, and stronger with reform: It’s myth that Health Insurance Reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits. To the contrary, reform will improve the long-term financial health of Medicare, ensure better coordination, eliminate waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies, and help to close the Medicare "doughnut" hole to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors.
You can keep your own insurance: It’s myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them.
No, government will not do anything with your bank account: It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts. Health insurance reform will simplify administration, making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose. Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill, you can pay by traditional check, or by a direct electronic payment. And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand. The choice is up to you – and the same rules of privacy will apply as they do for all other electronic payments that people make.
Learn more and get details:
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck/faq
8 Reasons We Need Health Insurance Reform Now
Coverage Denied to Millions: A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adults – 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market – were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years or dropped from coverage when they became seriously ill. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/denied_coverage/index.html
Less Care for More Costs: With each passing year, Americans are paying more for health care coverage. Employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have nearly doubled since 2000, a rate three times faster than wages. In 2008, the average premium for a family plan purchased through an employer was $12,680, nearly the annual earnings of a full-time minimum wage job. Americans pay more than ever for health insurance, but get less coverage. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hiddencosts/index.html
Roadblocks to Care for Women: Women’s reproductive health requires more regular contact with health care providers, including yearly pap smears, mammograms, and obstetric care. Women are also more likely to report fair or poor health than men (9.5% versus 9.0%). While rates of chronic conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure are similar to men, women are twice as likely to suffer from headaches and are more likely to experience joint, back or neck pain. These chronic conditions often require regular and frequent treatment and follow-up care. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/women/index.html
Hard Times in the Heartland: Throughout rural America, there are nearly 50 million people who face challenges in accessing health care. The past several decades have consistently shown higher rates of poverty, mortality, uninsurance, and limited access to a primary health care provider in rural areas. With the recent economic downturn, there is potential for an increase in many of the health disparities and access concerns that are already elevated in rural communities. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hardtimes
Small Businesses Struggle to Provide Health Coverage: Nearly one-third of the uninsured – 13 million people – are employees of firms with less than 100 workers. From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. Much of this decline stems from small business. The percentage of small businesses offering coverage dropped from 68% to 59%, while large firms held stable at 99%. About a third of such workers in firms with fewer than 50 employees obtain insurance through a spouse. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/helpbottomline
The Tragedies are Personal: Half of all personal bankruptcies are at least partly the result of medical expenses. The typical elderly couple may have to save nearly $300,000 to pay for health costs not covered by Medicare alone. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction
Diminishing Access to Care: From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. An estimated 87 million people - one in every three Americans under the age of 65 - were uninsured at some point in 2007 and 2008. More than 80% of the uninsured are in working families. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction/diminishing/index.html
The Trends are Troubling: Without reform, health care costs will continue to skyrocket unabated, putting unbearable strain on families, businesses, and state and federal government budgets. Perhaps the most visible sign of the need for health care reform is the 46 million Americans currently without health insurance - projections suggest that this number will rise to about 72 million in 2040 in the absence of reform. Learn more: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/assets/documents/CEA_Health_Care_Report.pdf
Those Greedy Doctors
In speeches promoting the need for government oversight and cost control of our health care, Obama has accused our doctors of willful negligence in their care of patients in order to make more money. Does he honestly believe this or are these just exaggerated scenarios? Either way, they're insulting to our medical professionals.
At a press conference in July he said that a doctor will remove a kid's tonsils because he can make more money subjected a child to an unnecessary surgery than be treating the sore throat. That's a nice view of the medical professionals isn't it? But perhaps that was just a bad example. Maybe he didn't really mean it; he just misspoke. Isn't that the excuse we get from Press Sec Robert Gibbs. The president misspoke. OK, I can live with that. So what did Obama do to make up for that characterization of doctors?
At the recent town hall he said that a doctor will allow a patient's diabetes to advance untreated until his foot needs to be amputated because he can make more money depriving a patient of a limb than by treating the disease itself. So we've gone from taking out tonsils unnecessarily to shopping off limbs, all out of greed. You've got to be kidding me!
Does Obama know the difference between a GP and a surgeon? First, if you go to your GP for a sore throat unless he is an ENT he's not going to be the one to take your tonsils out. Second, your GP treating you for Diabetes is definitely not going to be the one to remove your foot. Does Obama think that doctors are giving kick-backs to each other? I can hear it now, "Hey, if you let your patient slide and send the amputation my way I'll hook you up with an extra case of tongue depressors."
I don't know what kind of doctors Obama has been surrounding himself with, but these aren't the kind of doctors I've ever been exposed to. My doctors harass me to do what I need to do in order to stay healthy; they do not, nor have they ever, encouraged me to be in bad health so they can make more money off of me. If anything they've put me through more tests than I would have liked in order to find something early.
If I'm interpreting the message from Obama correctly there are three things that Obama believes.
1) The insurance companies are evil and cackle with glee each time they deny a claim.
2) Doctors go to the Sweeney Todd Medical Academy where they learn they can make more money by hacking than healing.
3) Government is the answer to all questions and concerns.
And this is what is referred to as reasonable discussion and rational debate.
At a press conference in July he said that a doctor will remove a kid's tonsils because he can make more money subjected a child to an unnecessary surgery than be treating the sore throat. That's a nice view of the medical professionals isn't it? But perhaps that was just a bad example. Maybe he didn't really mean it; he just misspoke. Isn't that the excuse we get from Press Sec Robert Gibbs. The president misspoke. OK, I can live with that. So what did Obama do to make up for that characterization of doctors?
At the recent town hall he said that a doctor will allow a patient's diabetes to advance untreated until his foot needs to be amputated because he can make more money depriving a patient of a limb than by treating the disease itself. So we've gone from taking out tonsils unnecessarily to shopping off limbs, all out of greed. You've got to be kidding me!
Does Obama know the difference between a GP and a surgeon? First, if you go to your GP for a sore throat unless he is an ENT he's not going to be the one to take your tonsils out. Second, your GP treating you for Diabetes is definitely not going to be the one to remove your foot. Does Obama think that doctors are giving kick-backs to each other? I can hear it now, "Hey, if you let your patient slide and send the amputation my way I'll hook you up with an extra case of tongue depressors."
I don't know what kind of doctors Obama has been surrounding himself with, but these aren't the kind of doctors I've ever been exposed to. My doctors harass me to do what I need to do in order to stay healthy; they do not, nor have they ever, encouraged me to be in bad health so they can make more money off of me. If anything they've put me through more tests than I would have liked in order to find something early.
If I'm interpreting the message from Obama correctly there are three things that Obama believes.
1) The insurance companies are evil and cackle with glee each time they deny a claim.
2) Doctors go to the Sweeney Todd Medical Academy where they learn they can make more money by hacking than healing.
3) Government is the answer to all questions and concerns.
And this is what is referred to as reasonable discussion and rational debate.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Pre-Existing Conditions
If you can't get insurance because of a pre-existing condition you should probably shop around. There are many plans that will not apply a pre-existing condition clause, and for those that do, most will waive that if you had insurance before your current effective date.
The real purpose of a pre-existing condition clause is to prevent people from only spending the money on insurance after they know they need it. Insurance is supposed to be a "just in case" situation and the premiums are based on the risk of the health care costs you will accrue. The idea is that you'll pay while using it little and that money will be there if you need to use it a lot.
Is it fair to the company which will cover you to go without insurance until you know you need it, and then expect them to pay for everything you've let go for years? I can already hear many people saying, yes it is, those evil insurance company bastards just want to steal my money and not cover me. This might be a slight exaggeration.
The healthy people paying their insurance premiums are paying for the sick people paying their premiums. It all goes into one big pool and the insurance company prays that they don't have to pay out more than they take in. The pre-existing clause is designed to help with that goal.
Would you wait until after a tornado struck your home to obtain homeowners insurance and then expect the new company to pay for the damage done before your coverage began? Waiting until you're sick to try to obtain insurance is basically the same thing. The tornado has struck and now you're saying "oh shit I better get covered."
HIPPA regulations currently limit the wait time for a pre-existing condition to be covered to 12 months, but most companies will waive this, again, if you've had insurance previously. This is due to the probability that you've been receiving treatment for it and have not just allowed it to get worse (and exponentially more expensive to address).
Insurance companies are companies; they do not print their own money and they do not have limitless resources. If there are no pre-existing clauses the alternative is to set the premium based on the anticipated expenses, which means that your coverage will cost you. A lot. The funny thing is that people who decide not to get coverage until they're sick expect to pay the same premium as a healthy person, and if you shop around enough you may be able to find a company with a wide enough margin to give that to you, but don't count on it.
Elimination of a pre-existing clause while simultaneously keeping the premium low is like telling somebody you'll pay them $500 a month for the use of their credit card and then charging $20,000 a month to it. You're leaving that person holding the bag for the extra $15,000; is that really fair? Maybe if they have lots of other people paying $500 per month and charging less than that. It's a big maybe.
So what's the answer to this issue? Simple, get coverage while you're healthy.
The real purpose of a pre-existing condition clause is to prevent people from only spending the money on insurance after they know they need it. Insurance is supposed to be a "just in case" situation and the premiums are based on the risk of the health care costs you will accrue. The idea is that you'll pay while using it little and that money will be there if you need to use it a lot.
Is it fair to the company which will cover you to go without insurance until you know you need it, and then expect them to pay for everything you've let go for years? I can already hear many people saying, yes it is, those evil insurance company bastards just want to steal my money and not cover me. This might be a slight exaggeration.
The healthy people paying their insurance premiums are paying for the sick people paying their premiums. It all goes into one big pool and the insurance company prays that they don't have to pay out more than they take in. The pre-existing clause is designed to help with that goal.
Would you wait until after a tornado struck your home to obtain homeowners insurance and then expect the new company to pay for the damage done before your coverage began? Waiting until you're sick to try to obtain insurance is basically the same thing. The tornado has struck and now you're saying "oh shit I better get covered."
HIPPA regulations currently limit the wait time for a pre-existing condition to be covered to 12 months, but most companies will waive this, again, if you've had insurance previously. This is due to the probability that you've been receiving treatment for it and have not just allowed it to get worse (and exponentially more expensive to address).
Insurance companies are companies; they do not print their own money and they do not have limitless resources. If there are no pre-existing clauses the alternative is to set the premium based on the anticipated expenses, which means that your coverage will cost you. A lot. The funny thing is that people who decide not to get coverage until they're sick expect to pay the same premium as a healthy person, and if you shop around enough you may be able to find a company with a wide enough margin to give that to you, but don't count on it.
Elimination of a pre-existing clause while simultaneously keeping the premium low is like telling somebody you'll pay them $500 a month for the use of their credit card and then charging $20,000 a month to it. You're leaving that person holding the bag for the extra $15,000; is that really fair? Maybe if they have lots of other people paying $500 per month and charging less than that. It's a big maybe.
So what's the answer to this issue? Simple, get coverage while you're healthy.
Fearmongering
We've been hearing a lot about fearmongering as it relates to any political debate. Right now the opposition to government run health care are being accused of spreading misinformation and fearmongering; so what exactly does that mean?
Wikipedia defines it as: is the use of fear to influence the opinions and actions of others towards some specific end. The feared object or subject is sometimes exaggerated, and the pattern of fear mongering is usually one of repetition, in order to continuously reinforce the intended effects of this tactic, sometimes in the form of a vicious circle.[citation needed]
Merriem Webster defines a Fearmonger as somebody who incites alarms needlessly.
If we use the Wikipedia definition then isn't anybody who says, "hey this bad thing could happen" considered a fearmonger?
If we use the Webster definition then is pointing out potential and probable issues around government health care really raising a needless alarm?
The biggest question though may be why it's ok to be a fearmonger when you oppose something, but bad to have a fearmonger opposing what you support? For example, does anybody remember the attempt to fix social security by phasing it out; giving the young people another option while leaving people over a certain age on the social security program? What happened to that? Opponents screamed that seniors would have their benefits taken from them and be left to die in the streets. Completelly untrue according to the information proposed but I guess that wasn't bad fearmongering because it was done by the same people crying about fearmongering now. But what is the fearmongering now? Is saying that there will be rationing of healthcare in the US based on what has happened in every other nation who has tried this type of program really fearmongering? Is telling the truth as you see it, calling out a consequence there is a high probability of occuring, fearmongering?
So here's how I see it -- Telling both faced lies about a proposed legislation and using those lies to scare the shit out of the general population is not fearmongering, but showing the true and actual potential problems of a piece of legislation is bad fearmongering.
Do I have this wrong?
Wikipedia defines it as: is the use of fear to influence the opinions and actions of others towards some specific end. The feared object or subject is sometimes exaggerated, and the pattern of fear mongering is usually one of repetition, in order to continuously reinforce the intended effects of this tactic, sometimes in the form of a vicious circle.[citation needed]
Merriem Webster defines a Fearmonger as somebody who incites alarms needlessly.
If we use the Wikipedia definition then isn't anybody who says, "hey this bad thing could happen" considered a fearmonger?
If we use the Webster definition then is pointing out potential and probable issues around government health care really raising a needless alarm?
The biggest question though may be why it's ok to be a fearmonger when you oppose something, but bad to have a fearmonger opposing what you support? For example, does anybody remember the attempt to fix social security by phasing it out; giving the young people another option while leaving people over a certain age on the social security program? What happened to that? Opponents screamed that seniors would have their benefits taken from them and be left to die in the streets. Completelly untrue according to the information proposed but I guess that wasn't bad fearmongering because it was done by the same people crying about fearmongering now. But what is the fearmongering now? Is saying that there will be rationing of healthcare in the US based on what has happened in every other nation who has tried this type of program really fearmongering? Is telling the truth as you see it, calling out a consequence there is a high probability of occuring, fearmongering?
So here's how I see it -- Telling both faced lies about a proposed legislation and using those lies to scare the shit out of the general population is not fearmongering, but showing the true and actual potential problems of a piece of legislation is bad fearmongering.
Do I have this wrong?
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Obama On Immigration Reform
While at the North American Summit, President Obama addressed the issue of illegal immigration. The clips below are from the Washington Post.
"Wrapping up the two-day meeting, Obama said that there needs to be "a pathway to citizenship" for millions of illegal immigrants in the United States, and that the system must be reworked to avoid tensions with Mexico. Without it, he said, Mexicans will keep crossing the border in dangerous ways and employers will continue exploiting workers."
Avoid tensions with Mexico? So having a secure boarder might create tensions with our neighboring nation, but we'll pay no attention to the tensions created within our own nation over NOT securing the boarder. Isn't this like saying that though the neighbors keep breaking in to my house I'm not going to lock my doors because my neighbors may not like it? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense does it?
Mexicans will keep crossing the boarder in dangerous ways? So what we're really interested in here is making it less dangerous for the Mexicans to violate our immigration laws? I know that's my top priority when it comes to immigration reform. It's so dangerous to break our laws that we should just do away with the laws all together. That will make everything so much nicer because right now it's just tragic what they have to go through to bypass all of our immigration laws and boarder patrols. I think it is tragic what people suffer when violating our laws, but we can't forget that they wouldn't be going through any of it if they weren't violating our laws.
Employers will continue to exploit workers? The workers of course have no culpability in their own exploitation; or should we make it easier for them to get false documentation so they aren't exploited. It's just so unfair that we don't give somebody who shouldn't be here taking the job of a citizen the same way we treat the citizen. How rude.
"We can create a system in which you have . . . an orderly process for people to come in, but we're also giving an opportunity for those who are already in the United States to be able to achieve a pathway to citizenship so that they don't have to live in the shadows," Obama said during an hour-long news conference at the Cabañas Cultural Center in downtown Guadalajara. "Am I going to be able to snap my fingers and get this done? No. This is going to be difficult."
So they don't have to live in the shadows? How dare we force the people who break into our country without documentation, violating our immigration and labor laws and putting stress on our educational and healthcare systems, to live in the shadows.
The common theme in these statements from Obama is that none of the fault for the illegal immigration issue lies with the illegal immigrants. It's all our fault and the poor illegal immigrants are being unfairly forced into dangerous environments to get here illegally, exploited when they try to work illegally, and live in the shadows like a criminal just because they're here illegally.
So the people who violate the laws are the victims and the people who seek to uphold the law are the criminals. Isn't that typical.
"Wrapping up the two-day meeting, Obama said that there needs to be "a pathway to citizenship" for millions of illegal immigrants in the United States, and that the system must be reworked to avoid tensions with Mexico. Without it, he said, Mexicans will keep crossing the border in dangerous ways and employers will continue exploiting workers."
Avoid tensions with Mexico? So having a secure boarder might create tensions with our neighboring nation, but we'll pay no attention to the tensions created within our own nation over NOT securing the boarder. Isn't this like saying that though the neighbors keep breaking in to my house I'm not going to lock my doors because my neighbors may not like it? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense does it?
Mexicans will keep crossing the boarder in dangerous ways? So what we're really interested in here is making it less dangerous for the Mexicans to violate our immigration laws? I know that's my top priority when it comes to immigration reform. It's so dangerous to break our laws that we should just do away with the laws all together. That will make everything so much nicer because right now it's just tragic what they have to go through to bypass all of our immigration laws and boarder patrols. I think it is tragic what people suffer when violating our laws, but we can't forget that they wouldn't be going through any of it if they weren't violating our laws.
Employers will continue to exploit workers? The workers of course have no culpability in their own exploitation; or should we make it easier for them to get false documentation so they aren't exploited. It's just so unfair that we don't give somebody who shouldn't be here taking the job of a citizen the same way we treat the citizen. How rude.
"We can create a system in which you have . . . an orderly process for people to come in, but we're also giving an opportunity for those who are already in the United States to be able to achieve a pathway to citizenship so that they don't have to live in the shadows," Obama said during an hour-long news conference at the Cabañas Cultural Center in downtown Guadalajara. "Am I going to be able to snap my fingers and get this done? No. This is going to be difficult."
So they don't have to live in the shadows? How dare we force the people who break into our country without documentation, violating our immigration and labor laws and putting stress on our educational and healthcare systems, to live in the shadows.
The common theme in these statements from Obama is that none of the fault for the illegal immigration issue lies with the illegal immigrants. It's all our fault and the poor illegal immigrants are being unfairly forced into dangerous environments to get here illegally, exploited when they try to work illegally, and live in the shadows like a criminal just because they're here illegally.
So the people who violate the laws are the victims and the people who seek to uphold the law are the criminals. Isn't that typical.
Specter Tells The Truth
At the town hall in Pennsylvania Senator Specter finally tells the truth about Washington by making the statement that he didn't have to be at that town hall and he was under no obligation to meet with his constituents.
So what he's really saying is that he's doing the people of PA a huge favor by actually listening to them. I guess I must be reallly naive because I was under the impression that the Senators worked for the people.
His statement that he was under no obligation to listen is the perfect reflection of what's going on right now, but it also reveals how these town halls are perceived by the legislators. If they don't think they are obligated to listen, then they won't, and these town halls are all for show. They will do what they want to do and what the people think about it matters not a jot.
Finally, somebody tells the truth about how the politicians view the people.
So what he's really saying is that he's doing the people of PA a huge favor by actually listening to them. I guess I must be reallly naive because I was under the impression that the Senators worked for the people.
His statement that he was under no obligation to listen is the perfect reflection of what's going on right now, but it also reveals how these town halls are perceived by the legislators. If they don't think they are obligated to listen, then they won't, and these town halls are all for show. They will do what they want to do and what the people think about it matters not a jot.
Finally, somebody tells the truth about how the politicians view the people.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Creating Terrorists
We've been repeatedly advised that our behavior in going on the offensive against Islamic Jihadists has created even more terrorists instead of reducing them; that the harder we attack the more vehemently they oppose us. Why then are the Democratic leaders not following their own advise when dealing with irate Americans?
We who speak out against policies we strongly disagree with have already been labeled as radicals and potential terrorists, our ideals scoffed at and our very existance marginalized, but has this shut us up or has it made us louder?
Is it logical or reasonable to believe that disregarding the opinions of people already upset with their leadership will help a volatile situation, especially considering that the situations is only volatile because people feel they are not being heard? Is it really a good idea to deal with a dissenting opinion by telling the concerned people to sit down and shut up whiile in no way addressing the concerns that drove them to speak, or are you only swelling their ranks?
By going on the offensive and referring people to exercise their very American right to question their government as Unamerican, the leadership appears to be alienating even more people. The support for the Obama plan is steadily declining and yet on July 29th Time published an article titled "Americans Back Reform, Worry Over Details". Although the title says we all support the reform, in the body it indicates that over 60% believe that with the government plan the cost and the complexity will rise, while 56% believe that we will no longer be able to choose our own doctors. Yet the title says we back this reform and we wonder why people are getting frustrated.
The leadership will argue that they have told us repeatedly that these things will not happen, that costs will not go up and we'll be able to keep our doctors, and what possible reason could we have for questioning the word of our politicians. They wouldn't lie to us don't you know.
My question is this; will the pat answer of "because I said so" combined with the stradegy of discreting dissenters serve to reduce protests -- or increase them?
We who speak out against policies we strongly disagree with have already been labeled as radicals and potential terrorists, our ideals scoffed at and our very existance marginalized, but has this shut us up or has it made us louder?
Is it logical or reasonable to believe that disregarding the opinions of people already upset with their leadership will help a volatile situation, especially considering that the situations is only volatile because people feel they are not being heard? Is it really a good idea to deal with a dissenting opinion by telling the concerned people to sit down and shut up whiile in no way addressing the concerns that drove them to speak, or are you only swelling their ranks?
By going on the offensive and referring people to exercise their very American right to question their government as Unamerican, the leadership appears to be alienating even more people. The support for the Obama plan is steadily declining and yet on July 29th Time published an article titled "Americans Back Reform, Worry Over Details". Although the title says we all support the reform, in the body it indicates that over 60% believe that with the government plan the cost and the complexity will rise, while 56% believe that we will no longer be able to choose our own doctors. Yet the title says we back this reform and we wonder why people are getting frustrated.
The leadership will argue that they have told us repeatedly that these things will not happen, that costs will not go up and we'll be able to keep our doctors, and what possible reason could we have for questioning the word of our politicians. They wouldn't lie to us don't you know.
My question is this; will the pat answer of "because I said so" combined with the stradegy of discreting dissenters serve to reduce protests -- or increase them?
Sunday, July 12, 2009
The Cruelty of Compassion
Let me start out by saying that I believe it is our responsibility to help those who are incapable of helping themselves, and to assist those down on their luck to get back on their feet. Having said that, I believe the way we currently help, is no help at all, and is actually cruel.
I made a comment on soembody's Facebook posting that basically said most of what is above, but also that giving a handout to somebody who is fully capable of working only serves to drain their ambition and keep them poor, as we see daily evidence of. Here is the response that I received. "Just what makes you think that you are the "judge and jury", or can play God by determining who is capable of working, and who isn't? Can you tell when a person is physically able,and that he/she isn't suffering from a mental illness so debilitating that they can barely function and perform daily tasks that you take for granted? Not everything is black or white, there are a whole lot of gray areas in life, and if you truly believe that we're all on "a level playing field" and that we are all given the same opportunities to succeed, than that is what precisely what separates our belief in the role of Government, and allows me to wear the label of a Liberal as a badge of honor. Try changing the color of your skin and grow up in a housing project, without the love and support of your family, and tell me that we're truly all equal and born with all the same opportunities to improve our own conditions."
Here is my problem with the philosphy espoused above. First, we should assume that there is no abuse in Welfare and give everybody the benefit of the doubt that they are incapable of working. I've seen, first hand, too much abuse to accept this. And any government program should be vetted for fraud. Second, Where somebody grows up and the disadvantages they had does not make a handout right. All it serves to do is keep them disadvanted and ensure that their children grow up in the same unequal environment with the same lack of opportunity. However, helping those people climb out of that environment, giving a hand up, helps to level that playing field and presents new opportunites for them to take advantage of. Government cannot make the poor wealthy, it can only make the wealthy poor and ensure that the poor stay poor.
By saying that we should support people through welfare because their live has been hard and disadvantaged, is the equivalent of saying "I know your life has sucked so far, so take this check to ensure that your life will suck forever."
Instead of giving a check in apology for what their lives have been, we should invest in them and work with them to bring them up to a level where they can compete and succeed. This is an investment in the individual, but it does take work on their part as well. However, by investing in this person, once they succeed, they will pay back way more in taxes than was ever put into them. And, it improves the opportunity for the next generation.
Keeping somebody in a bad environment out of "compassion" is not compassionate to either that indivual or their children. It is cruel. Not to mention that we are not designed to be idle creatures, and just giving them a check takes away their reason to get up in the morning. It tells them they have no purpose. And I believe we all have a purpose. We just need to help some people more than others on their quest to find that purpose.
So why is giving them money to keep them in the projects considered compassionate at all? Isn't claiming that where they are is horrible, and yet working to keep them there, really the very heights of cruelty?
I made a comment on soembody's Facebook posting that basically said most of what is above, but also that giving a handout to somebody who is fully capable of working only serves to drain their ambition and keep them poor, as we see daily evidence of. Here is the response that I received. "Just what makes you think that you are the "judge and jury", or can play God by determining who is capable of working, and who isn't? Can you tell when a person is physically able,and that he/she isn't suffering from a mental illness so debilitating that they can barely function and perform daily tasks that you take for granted? Not everything is black or white, there are a whole lot of gray areas in life, and if you truly believe that we're all on "a level playing field" and that we are all given the same opportunities to succeed, than that is what precisely what separates our belief in the role of Government, and allows me to wear the label of a Liberal as a badge of honor. Try changing the color of your skin and grow up in a housing project, without the love and support of your family, and tell me that we're truly all equal and born with all the same opportunities to improve our own conditions."
Here is my problem with the philosphy espoused above. First, we should assume that there is no abuse in Welfare and give everybody the benefit of the doubt that they are incapable of working. I've seen, first hand, too much abuse to accept this. And any government program should be vetted for fraud. Second, Where somebody grows up and the disadvantages they had does not make a handout right. All it serves to do is keep them disadvanted and ensure that their children grow up in the same unequal environment with the same lack of opportunity. However, helping those people climb out of that environment, giving a hand up, helps to level that playing field and presents new opportunites for them to take advantage of. Government cannot make the poor wealthy, it can only make the wealthy poor and ensure that the poor stay poor.
By saying that we should support people through welfare because their live has been hard and disadvantaged, is the equivalent of saying "I know your life has sucked so far, so take this check to ensure that your life will suck forever."
Instead of giving a check in apology for what their lives have been, we should invest in them and work with them to bring them up to a level where they can compete and succeed. This is an investment in the individual, but it does take work on their part as well. However, by investing in this person, once they succeed, they will pay back way more in taxes than was ever put into them. And, it improves the opportunity for the next generation.
Keeping somebody in a bad environment out of "compassion" is not compassionate to either that indivual or their children. It is cruel. Not to mention that we are not designed to be idle creatures, and just giving them a check takes away their reason to get up in the morning. It tells them they have no purpose. And I believe we all have a purpose. We just need to help some people more than others on their quest to find that purpose.
So why is giving them money to keep them in the projects considered compassionate at all? Isn't claiming that where they are is horrible, and yet working to keep them there, really the very heights of cruelty?
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Bush's Inherited Surplus
I've been hearing a lot about how Bush inherited a surplus and turned it into a deficit. And this is true, but there might just be a little more to the story.
Where did the budget surplus under Clinton come from? Were they spending more responsibly for social programs? Did he make reforms to the entitlement programs, the biggest drain on our federal budget? Did he set out to reduce the scope and power of the federal government and therefore the related costs? To a certain extent, he did. He slashed the budget as it pertained to our military and our intelligence agencies. The main role, the most important role, of our federal government is protecting our sovereignty, and this is where he targeted his cuts. Just ask yourself whether Bush would have inherited that surplus if Hillarycare had gone into place.
So what happened to that surplus? Well, for one, the country was in a recession when Clinton left office and Bush came in. The economy is cyclical and will have it's ups and downs. The only thing the government can really do to affect this, is to make it worse. Bush believed, and I agree, that when the economy is flagging you make government bite the bullet and let the people keep more of their money to put back into the economy. Obama believes that you make the people bite the bullet, and give their money to the government to put back into it where and however the government sees fit. Let's ignore for a moment that raising taxes in a struggling economy has only ever served to make it worse. I know many will say that government spending got us out of the depression. But what got us out of the depression was WWII. So maybe it was government spending on the war, but it wasn't new social programs. All those served to do was stabilize the unemployment rate in the double digits.
So Bush has a surplus, but the economy is on the downward slide, meaning revenues are going down and that surplus is being eaten up without any additional spending. And then what happened? We got attacked on 9/11. There was the recovery cost of that to deal with, while at the same time spending money to rebuild everything that Clinton had torn down. The CIA needed to be rebuilt so we could actually obtain intelligence that Clinton had deemed irrelevant now that the cold war was over. Setting aside the attacks on our planes, our embassies, and our Navy, we didn't need intelligence to deal with those. And the military? We were at peace so what was the point of having a strong military. Don't you know being proactive and prepared is way overrated?
And then we had natural disaster after natural disaster again eating away at the budget. Then Bush had the idea to create the new entitlement program that the country was clamoring for. Medicare part D. A new drain on the budget, a new entitlement program, and more spending.
After that the Republicans in Congress hit their spending stride. The economy was booming and revenues were climbing at a faster rate than ever before, but they fulfilled the old cliche of the more you make the more you spend. Setting none of these new revenues aside for the future, they kept a short-sighted vision on the expectation that the economy would never have another downturn.
At the same time, the banks were being put under pressure by the likes of Barney Frank and ACORN to give loans to people who didn't actually qualify for them. All in the belief that every American has the right to own their own home. A right I have as yet been unable to locate in the Constitution. This drove the housing costs through the roof. The banks were also being pushed to give other loans, and Americans went on a spending spree, emulating their government, and maxed out limits that were set way too high in the first place. As a result of the pressure put on the banks to make these loans, people's money was being taken up paying for the past with nothing left to spend in the now. Demand for products began to drop, meaning production went down, and the workforce was cut. And then the defaults started.
The credit crisis, the inflated housing market, and a cyclical slowing of the economy is what served to create the deficit. Much is made of the money spent on the war, but the truth is that if Congress had stayed the hell out of banking, and allowed the banks to operate the way they needed to instead of the way Congress thought they should, and had Congress focused on cutting the pork and payoffs in the bills they passed, then we would have been able to sustain the cost of the war.
The housing boom and bust is the center of our current troubles, and what has Obama and the 111th Congress done to address that? Not a damn thing!
Where did the budget surplus under Clinton come from? Were they spending more responsibly for social programs? Did he make reforms to the entitlement programs, the biggest drain on our federal budget? Did he set out to reduce the scope and power of the federal government and therefore the related costs? To a certain extent, he did. He slashed the budget as it pertained to our military and our intelligence agencies. The main role, the most important role, of our federal government is protecting our sovereignty, and this is where he targeted his cuts. Just ask yourself whether Bush would have inherited that surplus if Hillarycare had gone into place.
So what happened to that surplus? Well, for one, the country was in a recession when Clinton left office and Bush came in. The economy is cyclical and will have it's ups and downs. The only thing the government can really do to affect this, is to make it worse. Bush believed, and I agree, that when the economy is flagging you make government bite the bullet and let the people keep more of their money to put back into the economy. Obama believes that you make the people bite the bullet, and give their money to the government to put back into it where and however the government sees fit. Let's ignore for a moment that raising taxes in a struggling economy has only ever served to make it worse. I know many will say that government spending got us out of the depression. But what got us out of the depression was WWII. So maybe it was government spending on the war, but it wasn't new social programs. All those served to do was stabilize the unemployment rate in the double digits.
So Bush has a surplus, but the economy is on the downward slide, meaning revenues are going down and that surplus is being eaten up without any additional spending. And then what happened? We got attacked on 9/11. There was the recovery cost of that to deal with, while at the same time spending money to rebuild everything that Clinton had torn down. The CIA needed to be rebuilt so we could actually obtain intelligence that Clinton had deemed irrelevant now that the cold war was over. Setting aside the attacks on our planes, our embassies, and our Navy, we didn't need intelligence to deal with those. And the military? We were at peace so what was the point of having a strong military. Don't you know being proactive and prepared is way overrated?
And then we had natural disaster after natural disaster again eating away at the budget. Then Bush had the idea to create the new entitlement program that the country was clamoring for. Medicare part D. A new drain on the budget, a new entitlement program, and more spending.
After that the Republicans in Congress hit their spending stride. The economy was booming and revenues were climbing at a faster rate than ever before, but they fulfilled the old cliche of the more you make the more you spend. Setting none of these new revenues aside for the future, they kept a short-sighted vision on the expectation that the economy would never have another downturn.
At the same time, the banks were being put under pressure by the likes of Barney Frank and ACORN to give loans to people who didn't actually qualify for them. All in the belief that every American has the right to own their own home. A right I have as yet been unable to locate in the Constitution. This drove the housing costs through the roof. The banks were also being pushed to give other loans, and Americans went on a spending spree, emulating their government, and maxed out limits that were set way too high in the first place. As a result of the pressure put on the banks to make these loans, people's money was being taken up paying for the past with nothing left to spend in the now. Demand for products began to drop, meaning production went down, and the workforce was cut. And then the defaults started.
The credit crisis, the inflated housing market, and a cyclical slowing of the economy is what served to create the deficit. Much is made of the money spent on the war, but the truth is that if Congress had stayed the hell out of banking, and allowed the banks to operate the way they needed to instead of the way Congress thought they should, and had Congress focused on cutting the pork and payoffs in the bills they passed, then we would have been able to sustain the cost of the war.
The housing boom and bust is the center of our current troubles, and what has Obama and the 111th Congress done to address that? Not a damn thing!
Friday, July 10, 2009
Bend Over For The President
While in Italy the President was captured checking out a backside reportedly attached to a 16 year old girl. This could be just a man appreciating a thing of beauty, after all, who hasn't looked at something that caught your eye just to find out it was something you really shouldn't be looking at? I'd give him the benefit of the doubt if it wasn't for the fact that, since he took office, he's been asking every American to bend over and grab their ankles.
But here we have a man who is trying to pass legislation, and pass it quickly, which will grow the federal government to the largest it's ever been. He's taking us further and further away from the government listed in our Constitution and the ideals set forth in our Declaration of Independence. He is single minded in his goal to turn us into Europe, the one thing our Constitution was supposed to protect us from. But maybe he only wants to be someplace where he can ogle a teenage girl's backside with impunity. But if that's the case, I wish he would have moved there on his own and left us the hell alone.
And why do you think it is so important to pass the healthcare legislation before the August break? Is it because the crisis that they've been talking about for 20 years just can't wait a day more? Will all of us be bankrupt from our medical bills by the time Congress comes back? Nope. But if the congressmen get back to their own districts and find out just how upset people are about the high cost and low return, his bill will really be in trouble. People may want a healthcare bill, but they also want a good one.
I for one am a little ticked at the idea of our healthcare reform bill including money for parks, walking paths and street lights. They may say it's an encouragement for people to exercise, but if you don't go out and walk now, streetlights aren't going to help.
So when it comes right down to it, I'd rather have our President looking at a teenage girls butt instead of him asking me to bend over and present him with mine.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
If You Build It...
I just watched the Nancy Pelosi weekly press conference (have I mentioned that I love working from home)and healthcare was addressed. The congress is looking mainly for a government run option which would follow their pattern of spending as much money as they can as fast as they can.
When asked about the cost of the public option that the majority support, Pelosi indicated that the Congressional Budget Office has not factored in the savings from prevention and early intervention, and that they need to look for every bit of savings they can find. Savings, savings, savings, is what she said. But that savings would be very difficult to calculate. Should we base the savings on the assumption that if you build it they will come? There are many people, like me, who just don't go to the doctor regularly. And I have preventative care as part of my insurance. How then can we calculate the cost of the savings when we don't know how many people would actually use their new preventative benefit? History has already shown us that their estimates on the costs of their programs is usually way off, and this could be why. If they are going to count on savings that won't actually ever come to pass, we should be concerned.
My other concern is their insistence that a bill, any bill, must be passed this summer. This continues their trend of being more concerned with doing something fast than doing it right. Look at how that worked out with the stimulus package. We had to pass it without reading it so the money could get into the system immediately. And 4 months later only 10% of the money has been spent. Shouldn't we instead take the time to ensure that a program which will impact the country for decades, if not forever, is the best possible bill that it can be? Shouldn't they be looking for a plan that delivers the best solution for the lowest cost instead of trying to cook the books to make the plan they want more palatable to the people? Shouldn't this fall under the old cliche of "if it's worth doing it's worth doing right"?
I am very concerned with the way Congress is spending our money. It appears, to me at least, that they are using our money to fund the growth of the government instead of the growth of the economy. And should we burden an already struggling economy with another $1 trillion in debt?
Delay is preferable to error. - Thomas Jefferson
When asked about the cost of the public option that the majority support, Pelosi indicated that the Congressional Budget Office has not factored in the savings from prevention and early intervention, and that they need to look for every bit of savings they can find. Savings, savings, savings, is what she said. But that savings would be very difficult to calculate. Should we base the savings on the assumption that if you build it they will come? There are many people, like me, who just don't go to the doctor regularly. And I have preventative care as part of my insurance. How then can we calculate the cost of the savings when we don't know how many people would actually use their new preventative benefit? History has already shown us that their estimates on the costs of their programs is usually way off, and this could be why. If they are going to count on savings that won't actually ever come to pass, we should be concerned.
My other concern is their insistence that a bill, any bill, must be passed this summer. This continues their trend of being more concerned with doing something fast than doing it right. Look at how that worked out with the stimulus package. We had to pass it without reading it so the money could get into the system immediately. And 4 months later only 10% of the money has been spent. Shouldn't we instead take the time to ensure that a program which will impact the country for decades, if not forever, is the best possible bill that it can be? Shouldn't they be looking for a plan that delivers the best solution for the lowest cost instead of trying to cook the books to make the plan they want more palatable to the people? Shouldn't this fall under the old cliche of "if it's worth doing it's worth doing right"?
I am very concerned with the way Congress is spending our money. It appears, to me at least, that they are using our money to fund the growth of the government instead of the growth of the economy. And should we burden an already struggling economy with another $1 trillion in debt?
Delay is preferable to error. - Thomas Jefferson
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Another Stimulus?
So the white house admits that they had their collective heads up their asses when it came to the economy. Didn't know it was that bad, and didn't write the stimulus package right. So now they're saying, since we screwed this first stimulus package up so royally, we'd like a do over.
So they want us to let them try again and see if they do better this time. Problem is that the first stimulus has only had 10% of it's stimulus money spent. So if they pass another one, will THAT one get money into the economy now? Doubt it. After making an $800 billion dollar mistake we should just give them another try?
Maybe, just maybe, they should have taken the time to actually READ the first one. That might have helped. But they had to do it right now and get that money into the system. Uh huh. So here we are 4 months later, and 10% of that money that had to be spent so quickly that we couldn't read how, has actually been spent.
Of course they also claim the stimulus is working, even though unemployment is at 9.5% now and their green shoots have withered and died. But still they claim it would be worse without that stimulus. Of course there is no proof, no evidence, and no way to prove this.
Another stimulus package is the height of stupidity. But then again, isn't stupidity what Washington does best?
So they want us to let them try again and see if they do better this time. Problem is that the first stimulus has only had 10% of it's stimulus money spent. So if they pass another one, will THAT one get money into the economy now? Doubt it. After making an $800 billion dollar mistake we should just give them another try?
Maybe, just maybe, they should have taken the time to actually READ the first one. That might have helped. But they had to do it right now and get that money into the system. Uh huh. So here we are 4 months later, and 10% of that money that had to be spent so quickly that we couldn't read how, has actually been spent.
Of course they also claim the stimulus is working, even though unemployment is at 9.5% now and their green shoots have withered and died. But still they claim it would be worse without that stimulus. Of course there is no proof, no evidence, and no way to prove this.
Another stimulus package is the height of stupidity. But then again, isn't stupidity what Washington does best?
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
The Caribou Call to Arms
Let me just start by saying that I don't want Sarah Palin to run for President. I think she would do a much better job of inspiring the people and holding the politicians accountable when she doesn't have other duties to distract her or compromise her. I think instead that she should play to her strengths, and say what you will about her, she does have some.
In a blog on The KOOK's Manifesto, I commented that I wanted her out there throwing a bucket of ice water in the faces of the complacent American populace to wake them up and make them see what's going on, while simultaneously delivering a series of bitch slaps to the Republican party and the old politics as usual rut we're stuck in.
Call her Caribou Barbie if you want, call her an idiot, call her a quitter, the woman still has the charisma to really reach out and speak to the American people. This is where her folksy charm, you betcha and a wink come in to play. She can speak TO the American people, not AT them. And what we need now is a wake-up call so WE can take back our country from the endless pursuit of ever growing government power. We don't need somebody in a single office anywhere near as much as we need the people to pay attention to those in EVERY office. We need somebody to remind us all of the great principles on which this country was founded and inspire the populace to stand up and fight for them all. Let's set all the distracting social issues aside and send them to the states where they belong, and instead focus on a federal government that is growing at a rate that makes cancer look sluggish. Focus on the irresponsible spending of OUR money with out even an attempt at efficiency. Focus on reminding our politicians that they actually work for us and we're not afraid to send them packing. This is what we really need.
So if it's going to be Caribou Barbie that can put the focus of the American people where it needs to be, well then, I'll have to learn how to do a caribou call. If I had the least idea what a caribou actually sounds like, I'd start practicing now.
Ellen Degeneres As Cover Girl Rep
I just saw a commercial for Cover Girl make up with Ellen Degeneres as the spokeswoman. I think this is brilliant! Ellen has a huge following, mainly because she is a hoot, but she's also one hell of a talk show hostess. But in addition to that, she is a combination of being lovely, and being your everyday woman.
In the commercial she lends her humor to the product, while at the same time explaining why it's great, thereby speaking to most women on a level we understand and embrace. And she also makes fun of herself in that uniquely Ellen way.
What I love about how they did this advertising is that it targets more to the average, everyday woman, and using a woman that most of us love. Ellen makes a great spokesperson for any product, but I love seeing her used specifically for a make-up. Her American Express commercials are great as well, but seeing her talk about make-up, and particularly an age defying product, makes me want to try it.
By the way, if you've never seen Ellen's stand-up routine on procrastination, I highly recommend it. I've seen it several times and laugh myself silly with every viewing.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Selling Tickets to a Funeral?
The fact that tickets are being sold or raffled in order to admit entrance to a memorial or a funeral I find morally repugnant. Enough with Michael Jackson already. Why on earth does the funeral have to be a media circus?
Did they raffle off "tickets" for Princess Diana? Did they raffle off tickets for Ronald Reagan? Have they ever before raffled off tickets for a funeral? Like the man wasn't enough of a freak in life, they have to make him a public spectacle in death as well?
I understand that millions mourn his passing, but why do they have to turn his memorial into a concert? And then of course the cost to the city for the added police force that will be required to deal with the crowds. Nice of the Jackson family to consider the strain on a city in a bankrupt state when they made their plans.
Personally, I am sick to death of the Michael Jackson hoopla. Just put the man in the ground and lay it to rest already.
Did they raffle off "tickets" for Princess Diana? Did they raffle off tickets for Ronald Reagan? Have they ever before raffled off tickets for a funeral? Like the man wasn't enough of a freak in life, they have to make him a public spectacle in death as well?
I understand that millions mourn his passing, but why do they have to turn his memorial into a concert? And then of course the cost to the city for the added police force that will be required to deal with the crowds. Nice of the Jackson family to consider the strain on a city in a bankrupt state when they made their plans.
Personally, I am sick to death of the Michael Jackson hoopla. Just put the man in the ground and lay it to rest already.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
God's Fireworks
For the 4th of July celebration I got together with a few friends for beer and barbecue and had a great time. We even managed to set up a badminton net and played, badly, for a while. It was really humid here in the center of the country, but not too hot as storm clouds were rolling in. But playing was still fun.
No matter the direction we faced, fireworks displays could be seen. They started early as the dark clouds made a great backdrop for the colors of the fireworks. The great state of Missouri is not one of the states that protects it's people from themselves by outlawing the sale and display of fireworks, so in addition to the city display, which we could see from the yard, the neighbors were all having fun with fire. We had our own that we shot off as well. But as it got full dark, the sky was lit up with more than man made fire. God was making His own contribution to the show. Having fireworks with a backdrop of lightning made the display something really special. For nobody can put on a show like He can.
It also served to remind us that God should always be a part of our celebration. The freedom we celebrate we believe is a freedom given to us by Him. Being included in our Declaration of that Independence, He should also being included in our celebration of achieving and maintaining that Independence. For as with the fireworks display, God's contribution made it something more than it ever could have been alone.
So I thank God for his display last night, and for reminding me of who we should really thank.
God Bless America.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Promote the General Welfare
A comment was made on my blog yesterday which brought up the fact that, though the preamble to the Constitution has no basis in law, it is used while interpreting the role of the federal government. One phrase in particular is used as an excuse for everything the federal government does to expand it's own power.
The preamble reads, "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice and ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America."
That general welfare clause has been used as a justification for many new programs and wasteful spending over the years. Isn't our current push for government run health care touted as "promoting the general welfare"? But what about another clause? What about that little thing about "ensure the blessings of liberty"? Have we decided that some of these clauses are more important than others? If so, how did the general welfare become the top dog in the prioritization process? So important that we can push liberty and justice aside for it? Considering that our pledge of allegiance says with liberty and justice for all, not for the general welfare of all, shouldn't liberty and justice be a little higher up on the totem pole?
Their legal interpretation of the preamble was this; "Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department of the Federal Government, the Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution. ''Its true office,'' wrote Joseph Story in his COMMENTARIES, ''is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the Constitution, and not substantively to create them. For example, the preamble declares one object to be, 'to provide for the common defense.' No one can doubt that this does not enlarge the powers of Congress to pass any measures which they deem useful for the common defence. But suppose the terms of a given power admit of two constructions, the one more restrictive, the other more liberal, and each of them is consistent with the words, but is, and ought to be, governed by the intent of the power; if one could promote and the other defeat the common defence, ought not the former, upon the soundest principles of interpretation, to be adopted?''
The annotation uses the common defense as an example, but what about using the general welfare as an example. Doesn't the above interpretation mean that the federal government CANNOT use that phrase in order to expand it's own power, or to create power for itself. Yet isn't that exactly what it has been doing for years? The quote above says "no one can doubt that this does not enlarge the powers of Congress.." But that doesn't appear to be true since many people, many, many people, believe that it DOES enlarge the powers of Congress. And Congress is way more interested in their power than our liberty. So now we are pushing liberty aside, and in some cases justice, in order to promote an incorrect interpretation of the general welfare. And we're using that incorrect interpretation to create power where it was not given, nor intended, in the Constitution.
The annotation also says that it should be used to see if some legislation is working against that statement more than if it's working towards it. Couldn't the argument be made that cap and trade is against the general welfare? Explain to me, if you can, how increasing everybody's energy costs, putting thousands out of work, and giving the government control over free enterprise is a promotion of the general welfare. Because, frankly, I don't get it.
The fact is that the pre-amble to the Constitution should not be used as a justification for any law or any new program. Those items listed there are already covered in the body of the Constitution in the powers delegated for each branch. And if the power is not designated, then it is not a power that exists. No matter what the preamble says.
The Textbook of Freedom
Needing to be reminded, after all of the apologies for our arrogance, of what a great nation we truly are, I decided to read Reagan's speech where he referred to us as a shining city on a hill. I was just 14 years old when Reagan was elected to his first term in office, but I remember clearly going, as a nation, from demoralized and depressed as we dealt with the fall out from Vietnam, the economic problems and the energy crisis of the Carter years, into the hope and pride that Reagan instilled.
Whether you agree with his economic policies or anything else about him, Reagan, in his speeches, reminded us of why we should be proud and why our nation was great. I found a story that he tells regarding the signing of the Declaration of Independence that I would like to share.
You can call it mysticism if you want to, but I have always believed that there was some divine plan that placed this great continent between two oceans to be sought out by those who were possessed of an abiding love of freedom and a special kind of courage.
This was true of those who pioneered the great wilderness in the beginning of this country, as it is also true of those later immigrants who were willing to leave the land of their birth and come to a land where even the language was unknown to them. Call it chauvinistic, but our heritage does not set us apart. Some years ago a writer, who happened to be an avid student of history, told me a story about that day in the little hall in Philadelphia where honorable men, hard-pressed by a King who was flouting the very law they were willing to obey, debated whether they should take the fateful step of declaring their Independence from that king. I was told by this man that the story could be found in the writings of Jefferson. I confess, I never researched or made an effort to verify it. Perhaps it is only legend. But story, or legend, he described the atmosphere, the strain, the debate, and that as men for the first time faced the consequences of such an irretrievable act, the walls resounded with the dread word of treason and its price -- the gallows and the headman's axe. As the day wore on the issue hung in the balance, and then, according to the story, a man rose in the small gallery. He was not a young man and was obviously calling on all the energy he could muster. Citing the grievances that had brought them to this moment he said, “Sign that parchment. They may turn every tree into a gallows, every home into a grave and yet the words of that parchment can never die. For the mechanic in his workshop, they will be words of hope, to the slave in the mines -- freedom.” And he added, “If my hands were freezing in death, I would sign that parchment with my last ounce of strength. Sign, sign if the next moment the noose is around your neck, sign even if the hall is ringing with the sound of headman’s axe, for that parchment will be the textbook of freedom, the bible of the rights of man forever.” And then it is said he fell back exhausted. But 56 delegates, swept by his eloquence, signed the Declaration of Independence, a document destined to be as immortal as any work of man can be. And according to the story, when they turned to thank him for his timely oratory, he could not be found nor were there any who knew who he was or how he had come in or gone out through the locked and guarded doors.
Well, as I say, whether story or legend, the signing of the document that day in Independence Hall was miracle enough. Fifty-six men, a little band so unique -- we have never seen their like since -- pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. Sixteen gave their lives, most gave their fortunes and all of them preserved their sacred honor. What manner of men were they? Certainly they were not an unwashed, revolutionary rebel, nor were then adventurers in a heroic mood. Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists, 11 were merchants and tradesmen, nine were farmers. They were men who would achieve security but valued freedom more. "
For that parchment will be the textbook of freedom, the bible of the rights of man forever. Is it? Or are we relegating it to a piece of interesting, but irrelevant, piece of American memorabilia?
We should all know the text of the declaration, and more importantly, what it really means and represents. Everything that is done by our government should be examined and compared against those truths laid out in the textbook for freedom. Do you, as an individual, hold these truths to be self-evident? Or do you believe they are up for negotiation based on what the government promises you in return?
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
America's Addiction - And Not To Oil
We hear a lot about America's addiction to oil, but she has another addiction. One much more destructive to her. America has an addiction to government breast milk.
The breast milk is the drug that has been sweeping the nation since the 1960's when the war on poverty created welfare. Like many other drugs, this one is for a specific purpose and helps the individual when used as directed. However, when abused it has the same bad results as the other drugs on the market.
So what are the bad effects of this drug? For one, it is very, very addictive. The longer you suck on the government tit, the more palatable the milk becomes and the more difficult it is to give it up. That milk saps your ambition, your desire to work and keeps you in a continuing state of poverty. It propels people to violence as they seek more than what the milk can give them, and are driven to find something, anything, to fill their time and their days. It also causes children to be born into this addiction, thereby perpetuating generations of families addicted to the government tit and unable to break free. Many know nothing but this addiction and can't see what it is doing to them or how much better life without it would be.
There are those that manage to kick the habit and go on to live very productive lives. But as with any rehab, the percentage of addicts who recover is very small.
And yet, unlike an addiction to any other drug with such negative effects when misused, we do not arrest the dealers for this drug. Why? Because the dealers are the different levels of government. Instead of being encouraged to free themselves from this addiction, the government, the pusher, does their best to convince the addict that they will take care of them. That more will come and this time it will be better. And this drug is cheap, you get the fix every month and all you have to do for it is cast a vote. A very fair trade. This is how the pusher keeps the user addicted and keeps their power over the user.
This drug must only be used as directed. The failure to do so has such debilitating effects on individuals and all of society. And yet, instead of encouraging people to enter rehab to break the drug's hold, the government is always working to find more versions of the drug in order to get more people addicted. Just like any other drug dealer would do.
The breast milk is the drug that has been sweeping the nation since the 1960's when the war on poverty created welfare. Like many other drugs, this one is for a specific purpose and helps the individual when used as directed. However, when abused it has the same bad results as the other drugs on the market.
So what are the bad effects of this drug? For one, it is very, very addictive. The longer you suck on the government tit, the more palatable the milk becomes and the more difficult it is to give it up. That milk saps your ambition, your desire to work and keeps you in a continuing state of poverty. It propels people to violence as they seek more than what the milk can give them, and are driven to find something, anything, to fill their time and their days. It also causes children to be born into this addiction, thereby perpetuating generations of families addicted to the government tit and unable to break free. Many know nothing but this addiction and can't see what it is doing to them or how much better life without it would be.
There are those that manage to kick the habit and go on to live very productive lives. But as with any rehab, the percentage of addicts who recover is very small.
And yet, unlike an addiction to any other drug with such negative effects when misused, we do not arrest the dealers for this drug. Why? Because the dealers are the different levels of government. Instead of being encouraged to free themselves from this addiction, the government, the pusher, does their best to convince the addict that they will take care of them. That more will come and this time it will be better. And this drug is cheap, you get the fix every month and all you have to do for it is cast a vote. A very fair trade. This is how the pusher keeps the user addicted and keeps their power over the user.
This drug must only be used as directed. The failure to do so has such debilitating effects on individuals and all of society. And yet, instead of encouraging people to enter rehab to break the drug's hold, the government is always working to find more versions of the drug in order to get more people addicted. Just like any other drug dealer would do.
Disabled Debbie From the Town Hall
I didn't watch much of the Health Care town hall meeting because I was actually working, but one thing has caught my attention. That is the woman, Debbie, who spoke about how she can't work, has no insurance, and a new tumor.
Let's set aside for a moment that this woman was placed there as an Obama supporter. She's actually a volunteer for one of the organizations working toward health care. I can see her being a volunteer due to her situation, but as somebody who deals with insurance, her situation raised some questions for me.
Obama answered her situation by saying a nation this rich should be able to take care of people in her situation. My question is, don't we already? If she is really unable to work isn't she on SSI Disability? And if she is, then guess what, she qualifies for Medicare if she has paid into it. If she hasn't, then she's eligible for Medicaid. So our current socialized health care programs actually cover her situation.
So why isn't she on Medicare or Medicaid then? Could it possibly be that SSI Disability has a policy of denying every claim on it's first submission and only reconsidering on appeal? But wait a minute, this is a government program. Isn't it only the evil private insurers who would do something so diabolical? And she did say that SSI has denied her claim saying renal failure is not a qualifier for disability. This is the government program folks. This is the people we plan on putting in charge.
She also said she doesn't qualify for Medicaid because she has to be on disability. And Medicare eligibility occurs for renal failure, but only once you've started dialysis.
This is why Debbie is disabled but not already covered under that umbrella? My deepest sympathies go out to her for the health issues she is going through, and I hope her issues are resolved soon, but sadly, this is more of a condemnation of our government insurance programs than our private ones.
Let's set aside for a moment that this woman was placed there as an Obama supporter. She's actually a volunteer for one of the organizations working toward health care. I can see her being a volunteer due to her situation, but as somebody who deals with insurance, her situation raised some questions for me.
Obama answered her situation by saying a nation this rich should be able to take care of people in her situation. My question is, don't we already? If she is really unable to work isn't she on SSI Disability? And if she is, then guess what, she qualifies for Medicare if she has paid into it. If she hasn't, then she's eligible for Medicaid. So our current socialized health care programs actually cover her situation.
So why isn't she on Medicare or Medicaid then? Could it possibly be that SSI Disability has a policy of denying every claim on it's first submission and only reconsidering on appeal? But wait a minute, this is a government program. Isn't it only the evil private insurers who would do something so diabolical? And she did say that SSI has denied her claim saying renal failure is not a qualifier for disability. This is the government program folks. This is the people we plan on putting in charge.
She also said she doesn't qualify for Medicaid because she has to be on disability. And Medicare eligibility occurs for renal failure, but only once you've started dialysis.
This is why Debbie is disabled but not already covered under that umbrella? My deepest sympathies go out to her for the health issues she is going through, and I hope her issues are resolved soon, but sadly, this is more of a condemnation of our government insurance programs than our private ones.
Just Call Me Faust
This should be the new flag created to replace "Don't Tread On Me". The American citizenry appears to have cast aside their Republic and embraced Tyranny. In effect, we are selling our soul to the devil.
Where Faust cast aside the eternal blessing of God to get the immediate satisfaction promised by the Devil, we are casting aside our liberty, our very freedom, for the instant gratification of a government handout.
Or wait, is our leadership Faust? Selling out to the biggest donors in order to grab power.
Either way, it appears that our country is becoming one giant Faustian Bargain. And the question I have is whether or not any government program is worth our liberty. I have to say no, but evidently many say yes. Or else they are unaware of the bargain they are making. You don't ever get something for nothing. By taking what is offered you are agreeing to their terms, and once caught, there is no escape.
Where Faust cast aside the eternal blessing of God to get the immediate satisfaction promised by the Devil, we are casting aside our liberty, our very freedom, for the instant gratification of a government handout.
Or wait, is our leadership Faust? Selling out to the biggest donors in order to grab power.
Either way, it appears that our country is becoming one giant Faustian Bargain. And the question I have is whether or not any government program is worth our liberty. I have to say no, but evidently many say yes. Or else they are unaware of the bargain they are making. You don't ever get something for nothing. By taking what is offered you are agreeing to their terms, and once caught, there is no escape.
Government Watchdogs Are Being Muzzled
The Inspector General is supposed to be a watchdog, pure and simple. Their role is watch and inspect what is going on, and if they see anything questionable, start barking like crazy. They are there to ensure that the tax payers money is being spent the way it is supposed to be spent. In essence, they are there to keep the tax payer from getting robbed.
But it looks like there's a new trend to muzzle the old watchdog. And if they somehow get the muzzle off and manage to bark out a warning, then they're going to get put down.
The most recent watchdog to get put down is Inspector General Fred Weiderhold of Amtrack. To be clear, he was not fired for what he said, he was "retired". Amtrack is our government run train system that is heavily subsidized by government funds. It was IG Weiderhold's job to ensure that our money was spent wisely. And bark loud and long if it wasn't. But he had been pretty effectively muzzled. He was forbidden by the Amtrack leaders from communicating with Congress without their approval, and any written communication had to go through them. Um, OK. So the people robbing us blind demand the right to edit the documents that tell Congress that they're robbing us blind. That's a great way to ensure that things are working effectively. And keep in mind, Amtrack got $1.3 billion in stimulus money. The office of the inspector General got money in that stimulus package as well. On paper. The leadership of Amtrack actually appropriated the money for the IG. Weiderhold did manage to get the muzzle off long enough to get somebody's attention, and now he no longer has a job.
But Wiederhold was not the first, and he won't be the last. There was also Gerald Walpin, Inspector General of AmeriCorps. And why was Walpin fired? Because the powers that be didn't like his investigation into the misappropriations of AmericCorps funds. They fired him for doing his job. This is not an enviable job to have. The Inspectors General are whistle blowers as their main job function. They are there to protect us against waste in our government, but how can they protect us when the government retains the right to fire them. And how can our government work if the people designated to speak out are silenced.
Then there is EPA employee Alan Carlin who did his job but his conclusions weren't what the administration wanted to hear. As a result his report that CO2 emissions are not impacting climate change, and that the climate may not, in fact, be getting warmer, was suppressed and he was instructed to work on something else. The memo to him actually said that his report did not support their policy or legal stance. OK, silly me. I thought the EPA was there to report the conclusions dictated by the data, not by the President. To be fair, Carlin is still employed. For now. But he has been speaking out. He has slipped his muzzle and is sharing the findings of his report.
We need our watchdogs unmuzzled. The average American doesn't have access to the files of all of the government organizations so we have these watchdogs in place. How can we have any faith at all that our government is acting in our best interests when our watchdogs fear getting kicked if they bark. Our once vicious watchdogs protecting our interests will lay down and whimper as the thieves rob us blind.
The big question is whether or not we're going to let this happen, or if the American people have become a bunch of whimpering lap dogs as well.
But it looks like there's a new trend to muzzle the old watchdog. And if they somehow get the muzzle off and manage to bark out a warning, then they're going to get put down.
The most recent watchdog to get put down is Inspector General Fred Weiderhold of Amtrack. To be clear, he was not fired for what he said, he was "retired". Amtrack is our government run train system that is heavily subsidized by government funds. It was IG Weiderhold's job to ensure that our money was spent wisely. And bark loud and long if it wasn't. But he had been pretty effectively muzzled. He was forbidden by the Amtrack leaders from communicating with Congress without their approval, and any written communication had to go through them. Um, OK. So the people robbing us blind demand the right to edit the documents that tell Congress that they're robbing us blind. That's a great way to ensure that things are working effectively. And keep in mind, Amtrack got $1.3 billion in stimulus money. The office of the inspector General got money in that stimulus package as well. On paper. The leadership of Amtrack actually appropriated the money for the IG. Weiderhold did manage to get the muzzle off long enough to get somebody's attention, and now he no longer has a job.
But Wiederhold was not the first, and he won't be the last. There was also Gerald Walpin, Inspector General of AmeriCorps. And why was Walpin fired? Because the powers that be didn't like his investigation into the misappropriations of AmericCorps funds. They fired him for doing his job. This is not an enviable job to have. The Inspectors General are whistle blowers as their main job function. They are there to protect us against waste in our government, but how can they protect us when the government retains the right to fire them. And how can our government work if the people designated to speak out are silenced.
Then there is EPA employee Alan Carlin who did his job but his conclusions weren't what the administration wanted to hear. As a result his report that CO2 emissions are not impacting climate change, and that the climate may not, in fact, be getting warmer, was suppressed and he was instructed to work on something else. The memo to him actually said that his report did not support their policy or legal stance. OK, silly me. I thought the EPA was there to report the conclusions dictated by the data, not by the President. To be fair, Carlin is still employed. For now. But he has been speaking out. He has slipped his muzzle and is sharing the findings of his report.
We need our watchdogs unmuzzled. The average American doesn't have access to the files of all of the government organizations so we have these watchdogs in place. How can we have any faith at all that our government is acting in our best interests when our watchdogs fear getting kicked if they bark. Our once vicious watchdogs protecting our interests will lay down and whimper as the thieves rob us blind.
The big question is whether or not we're going to let this happen, or if the American people have become a bunch of whimpering lap dogs as well.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Sex Scandals Different For Republicans
Politicians from the two parties have different consequences for their actions as it involves sex scandals or marital infidelity. Arguments have been made that this is because the every day members of the two parties view these issues differently. However, one man on the news today said this was because Republicans talk about family values while they have a man in the white house who is living them. Uh, OK. And when the had Clinton in the white house and the Dems didn't care that he was a total horndog the reason was what?
I really do believe that the two parties look at infidelity differently. It has been said by some that they don't care who politicians are screwing as long as it's not the people. My problem with it is that if a person will break their oath, their vow, to their spouse, how can possibly trust them to keep their oath to us? If we can't trust them in one thing how can we trust them on anything?
So let's look at some of the big sex scandals of the past and how they've been handled.
Republicans
- Gov Sanford has affair in Venezuela possibly using government funds, run out of town on a rail
- Senator John Ensign - has affair with staffer, apologizes then shuts up about it, stays in office and plans to run for re-election in 2012.
- Sen David Vitter - shows up on phone records for prostitutes, apologizes then shuts up, stays in office and running for re-election.
- Sen Larry Craig - looking for sex in an airport men's room, apologizes but still too much press, run out of town on a rail.
- Rep Mark Foley - sends sexually explicit notes to a 16 year old page, no actual sex but notes are still bad enough, apologizes, run out of town on a rail.
- Candidate Gary Hart - announces affair, withdraws from campaign
So for the Republicans, 4 of 6 are pressured to resign.
Democrats
- Sen Ted Kennedy - has affair, gets woman killed, still in office.
- President Bill Clinton - has affair, commits purjery about it, stays in office because he only lied about sex. Also accused of affair like Gary Hart, does not withdraw, wins presidency.
- Sen Barney Frank - uses tax payer funds to hire male prostitute as "personal assistant"who ran prostitution ring form Frank's home, still in office.
- Sen Daniel Inouye - accused by numerous women of sexual harassment, ethics committee dropped investigation, stayed in office.
- Sen Brock Adams - accused of drugging and rape, stayed in office until more women came forward and he decided not to run for re-election
- Gov Jim McGreavy - announces affair with a man, resigns
Democrats, 2 of 6 pressured to resign.
I really do believe that the two parties look at infidelity differently. It has been said by some that they don't care who politicians are screwing as long as it's not the people. My problem with it is that if a person will break their oath, their vow, to their spouse, how can possibly trust them to keep their oath to us? If we can't trust them in one thing how can we trust them on anything?
So let's look at some of the big sex scandals of the past and how they've been handled.
Republicans
- Gov Sanford has affair in Venezuela possibly using government funds, run out of town on a rail
- Senator John Ensign - has affair with staffer, apologizes then shuts up about it, stays in office and plans to run for re-election in 2012.
- Sen David Vitter - shows up on phone records for prostitutes, apologizes then shuts up, stays in office and running for re-election.
- Sen Larry Craig - looking for sex in an airport men's room, apologizes but still too much press, run out of town on a rail.
- Rep Mark Foley - sends sexually explicit notes to a 16 year old page, no actual sex but notes are still bad enough, apologizes, run out of town on a rail.
- Candidate Gary Hart - announces affair, withdraws from campaign
So for the Republicans, 4 of 6 are pressured to resign.
Democrats
- Sen Ted Kennedy - has affair, gets woman killed, still in office.
- President Bill Clinton - has affair, commits purjery about it, stays in office because he only lied about sex. Also accused of affair like Gary Hart, does not withdraw, wins presidency.
- Sen Barney Frank - uses tax payer funds to hire male prostitute as "personal assistant"who ran prostitution ring form Frank's home, still in office.
- Sen Daniel Inouye - accused by numerous women of sexual harassment, ethics committee dropped investigation, stayed in office.
- Sen Brock Adams - accused of drugging and rape, stayed in office until more women came forward and he decided not to run for re-election
- Gov Jim McGreavy - announces affair with a man, resigns
Democrats, 2 of 6 pressured to resign.
Looking at this is does appear that there is a double standard when it comes to sex scandals. But what I found most interesting about this is how many of the badly behaved are in the senate.
So, is this really that Republicans talk family values while Democrats live them? Doesn't look so much like that to me.
California is Bankrupt - Again
Years and years of spending and spending on government programs has resulted in the State of California being bankrupt. Again. The Governator's inability to stand up to the liberal congress and fight for cuts has kept the California economy in turmoil.
So what is their answer to this crisis? Are they going to cut spending? Nope. Not a bit.
The old adage when it comes to debt reduction, which is an old adage because it is true, is that you have to spend less or make more. This works for most of us in that we have to spend less because making more isn't all that easy. But, when it comes to the government, their options are spend less or TAKE more.
The government does not make money. Neither the federal government nor that of the states. The government simply takes money that the citizens make. They're not working harder for that money, they simply pass a bill that increases taxes. The spend less or make more works for individuals because neither is really an easy option. I know, I had to face that decision once and my choice was to get a roommate (spend less) or a second job (make more). I opted for the second job because I really prefer to live alone. My past experiences with roommates haven't been great. That meant that I was working 65 - 70 hours a week, and sometimes 7 days a week. Making more was not as easy as a stroke of a pen for me. I'm actually thinking of doing the same thing again so I can have money for travel.
But does our government have to work harder in order to "make more"? Nope, it's the citizens the money is taken from who are impacted. It's an easy option for the government itself. Instead of making the hard decisions and cutting spending, much of which is probably wasteful, California is instead planning to increase sales taxes to take more money. If they do this, I fully expect California to, later in the year, be bankrupt yet again.
And if you're thinking, well this is California it doesn't impact me, remember another adage. Where goes California so goes the country. Think about all of the government spending that has happened in 2009 so far and what is yet to come. If they're spending more, they only have 2 options. Continue to borrow money, and our main lender is getting leery of buying any more of our debt, or take more. And they will take more.
Remember this, there is no such thing as government money. They are nothing more than a 3rd party vendor spending the money they've taken from you!
Meanwhile, Obama is using CA as the example of why cap and trade works. Talking about how they passed similar legislation earlier and did it without impacting their economy. Uh huh. Good idea, hold a broke state up as an example of how this won't financially impact us. Smart move.
So what is their answer to this crisis? Are they going to cut spending? Nope. Not a bit.
The old adage when it comes to debt reduction, which is an old adage because it is true, is that you have to spend less or make more. This works for most of us in that we have to spend less because making more isn't all that easy. But, when it comes to the government, their options are spend less or TAKE more.
The government does not make money. Neither the federal government nor that of the states. The government simply takes money that the citizens make. They're not working harder for that money, they simply pass a bill that increases taxes. The spend less or make more works for individuals because neither is really an easy option. I know, I had to face that decision once and my choice was to get a roommate (spend less) or a second job (make more). I opted for the second job because I really prefer to live alone. My past experiences with roommates haven't been great. That meant that I was working 65 - 70 hours a week, and sometimes 7 days a week. Making more was not as easy as a stroke of a pen for me. I'm actually thinking of doing the same thing again so I can have money for travel.
But does our government have to work harder in order to "make more"? Nope, it's the citizens the money is taken from who are impacted. It's an easy option for the government itself. Instead of making the hard decisions and cutting spending, much of which is probably wasteful, California is instead planning to increase sales taxes to take more money. If they do this, I fully expect California to, later in the year, be bankrupt yet again.
And if you're thinking, well this is California it doesn't impact me, remember another adage. Where goes California so goes the country. Think about all of the government spending that has happened in 2009 so far and what is yet to come. If they're spending more, they only have 2 options. Continue to borrow money, and our main lender is getting leery of buying any more of our debt, or take more. And they will take more.
Remember this, there is no such thing as government money. They are nothing more than a 3rd party vendor spending the money they've taken from you!
Meanwhile, Obama is using CA as the example of why cap and trade works. Talking about how they passed similar legislation earlier and did it without impacting their economy. Uh huh. Good idea, hold a broke state up as an example of how this won't financially impact us. Smart move.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Are We Now an Oligarchy?
Have we changed our basic political process from a Democratic Republic to an Oligarchy without bothering to amend the Constitution or even notifying the populace? It's starting to look that way.
If you're unfamiliar with what an Oligarchy is, think South Africa. An Oligarchy is where the country is run by the "elite" or by a specific class of people. These elite make the decisions that affect the rest of the nation. Is this sounding frighteningly familiar.
Our Congress, and many elitist political campaign contributors are making the decisions for the rest of us without regards to what we actually want. Cap and Trade is just the most recent example of this. So many calls were received on this issue that the switchboard actually crashed. Of the calls received 90% were against it. And yet the bill passed.
Illegal immigration is another example. The American public made it absolutely crystal clear that we do not want a path to citizenship for illegals and that we want the border secured and the current laws enforced before anything else is done. And yet this amnesty was supported by both of our Presidential candidates and is still being attempted to push through.
Next we have the health care debate. Although most Americans do support a plan that would cover the current uninsured, how to do it is still under debate. In a recent poll 77% of Americans said they are satisfied with their current coverage, and we are continually promised that we would be able to keep this coverage if the government created a program to "compete" with private insurers. But where is the competition when one player is making the rules and the other just has to follow them? And where is the competition when one player can operate at a loss while the other must make a profit. So even though those of us who are satisfied with our coverage would like to keep it, we won't have that option once the unfair, so called competition puts our insurer out of business. Support for this bill is losing support in the Congress as constituents speak up, so is the leadership re-looking at it? No, they are simply pushing harder to get through what THEY want to give us and not what we want to receive. Inflicting their will on the people instead of the having the will of the people inflicted on them.
The stimulus packages and bailouts were yet another example. The stimulus had less than 50% support with many concerns over how much money was being spent and on what. Yet this legislation was pushed through without being read against the wishes and the will of the people. Why? Because this is what the elite wanted so that's what we got. And when we voiced our objections, the elite mocked those who spoke out.
My final point is this, the current Congressional approval rating is at 29%. The last time it was above 50% was in October of 2001. The rating fluctuates going as low as 12% but usually hovering in the 20's and 30's. This means that, on average, 70% of the American public disapprove of what our leadership is doing. Our Congress sees themselves as above us, the average American. They have created an elite status for themselves, and in so doing, turned our once great system of government into an Oligarchy. No longer a government of the people, but now a government of a ruling class. They have made themselves an aristocracy and seek to bend us all to their will.
I have never been submissive. I have a very hard time bending my will even to compromise much less submit. This is probably the main reason that I am still single. And it is also the reason that I will continue to fight against having my voice, my vote and my say ignored by a bunch of elitist jackasses. I encourage you to do the same. Do not abdicate your role in the running of the country to this new ruling class. Reclaim our Democratic Republic from those who seek an Oligarchy.
Celebrities Drop Like Flies
June has been pretty hard on celebrities, and if they really do come in threes we still have one more to go.
The month started out with the loss of David Carradine through what first appeared to be suicide but has since been questioned. Carradine was found hanging in his apartment in Bancock but the fact that his hands were tied above his head has resulted in the question of foul play in his death. Carradine, of Kill Bill fame, was 62 years old.
Next was the loss of Ed McMahon at the age of 86. An American icon and a household name. McMahon had been hospitalized for multiple health issues and was in the hospital when he passed away. But were we even able to come to terms with that loss before the death of Farrah Fawcett was announced? Farrah, dead at 62, as was Carradine, was known to be dying and had even done a documentary on the progression of her illness and impending death. Though not a shock, it was still sad.
Since it is said that these deaths come in 3's, Farrah appeared to be the third. But no sooner could the idea be cemented that this was it, just hours after the announcement of Farrah's death, we learn that Michael Jackson has died as well. That's 2 in one day. And Michael was only 50 years old. Much has been covered on his death so I'm not going to go into this further.
Now, just a matter of days later, we have Billy Mays, product promoter extraordinaire, also dead at age 50. Mays was found in his home by his wife and his death appears to be of natural causes.
With all of this to deal with, the loss of 5 of our famous, is there still yet one more left to go? I certainly hope not.
The month started out with the loss of David Carradine through what first appeared to be suicide but has since been questioned. Carradine was found hanging in his apartment in Bancock but the fact that his hands were tied above his head has resulted in the question of foul play in his death. Carradine, of Kill Bill fame, was 62 years old.
Next was the loss of Ed McMahon at the age of 86. An American icon and a household name. McMahon had been hospitalized for multiple health issues and was in the hospital when he passed away. But were we even able to come to terms with that loss before the death of Farrah Fawcett was announced? Farrah, dead at 62, as was Carradine, was known to be dying and had even done a documentary on the progression of her illness and impending death. Though not a shock, it was still sad.
Since it is said that these deaths come in 3's, Farrah appeared to be the third. But no sooner could the idea be cemented that this was it, just hours after the announcement of Farrah's death, we learn that Michael Jackson has died as well. That's 2 in one day. And Michael was only 50 years old. Much has been covered on his death so I'm not going to go into this further.
Now, just a matter of days later, we have Billy Mays, product promoter extraordinaire, also dead at age 50. Mays was found in his home by his wife and his death appears to be of natural causes.
With all of this to deal with, the loss of 5 of our famous, is there still yet one more left to go? I certainly hope not.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Congress Taxes Air
Well they've finally done it. Congress has finally found a way to tax air. By taxing "carbon emissions" in the Waxman-Markey (cap and trade) bill they are taxing how much carbon dioxide is put into the air. Guess what you exhale when you breathe? Carbon dioxide.
Our leadership has made no secret that is just the first step in their plans to regulate everything we do it and call it climate change legislation. This is simply another example of Congress using punishment through taxation in order to modify the behavior of the American people. Where is our individual freedom when the government thinks they should have control over everything we do? Why don't they just come right out and make it illegal? After all, to most of them burning coal is on the same par with murder.
So why is the bill called cap and trade you ask? It's quite simple really. The government is going to put a cap on how much carbon can be emitted, and if you don't use all of your allotment you can trade it for something else. Well, actually you can sell it to somebody else. The Washington Post described it this way; "The government would set a cap on the amount of carbon dioxide that could be emitted and would issue allowances to polluting sectors that could buy and sell those rights." So if you are in an industry that necessarily emits carbon, you're going to have to pay off the government in order to stay in business.
People have been duped into believing that this is a bill to create jobs, it's just the opposite. By levying huge taxes on companies who emit carbon, those companies will risk closing their doors because they can't bear the cost of the new taxes. Not only that, but the companies in other areas of the world, making the same product, will be able to sell it cheaper because they won't be subject to the same legislation. And those other companies are probably already emitting more carbon that the companies here. So what are we actually going to end up doing? Increasing a demand and therefore productivity for the companies that are less clean by punishing our cleaner companies here.
This is nothing more than one giant pay to play bill. A bill that so many people opposed initially that most of the 1,500 page legislation is a pay off to get votes. The Washington Post said this as well; "The result is a 1,201-page measure filled with political compromises, directives, subsidies and selections of winners and losers that most members won't be able to analyze before the vote and that leaves us wondering how effective it will be. " And this was before the last minute 300 page amendment. Winners and losers have already been selected by our Government. How does that work in a free market system? It doesn't. This will be giving the government control over every product produced, how it's produced, and what options we as consumers have. This is step one in the process of the government eliminating our right to choose and the consumer's control of the market. Their plan is to have the government control the market. Does that sound like the USA that you know?
I am all for being environmentally responsible. And if this bill were actually an attempt to find alternative fuel sources and /or to make those already discovered more cost effective and financially competitive, I'd be all for it. But it's not. It's a behavior modification tax. The government is going with their simple logic that if they don't want us to do something make it so expensive we can't afford to do it. According to them we use too much energy so they are slapping a huge energy tax on us. And this is a tax. A tax on ALL Americans. And weren't we promised that 95% of Americans would not have a tax increase? That only those making over $250K would be impacted by a tax increase? Well this is a tax that is expected to cause your energy bill to increase by at least 40%. So for those already struggling, already living paycheck to paycheck, one of your bills is going to increase dramatically. My senator, in a response to an e-mail I sent her, has already acknowledged that this is going to drive costs up and put our businesses at a disadvantage, so if you don't believe me, just ask your Congressmen.
This bill passed the house by a narrow margin because 8 Republicans voted for it. Had they stood by the principles of the Republican party this would not have happened. If you want to know who the "Republican 8" as we now refer to them are, you can find out about them by clicking on the link to the left for Left Coast Rebel. He has written a blog with a list of who they are and where they are from.
Please contact your Senator and urge them to vote no on this legislation. We cannot have this bill which taxes air and encourages corruption become law.
And all of this is to address an issue that scientists are still debating. The climate is changing, as it always has and always will, but man's impact on the climate is still contested by many scientists, and yet we're levying a huge tax under the guise of mitigating a problem we're not even sure exists.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Obama Says Bush Was Right
President Obama, realizing that you actually have to have a plan and not just a nebulous idea, has drafted legislation to allow himself to detain terror suspects indefinitely. Gee, imagine that.
Here we see the difference between the campaign and the actual problems of leadership. So after hammering away at President Bush throughout the entire campaign (even though Bush wasn't running) Obama now finds out that things ain't quite as easy as they seem.
Face it Mr President, you're not Dumbledore. You can't just wave your magic wand and have issues resolve themselves. And the truth is that Dumbledore would give you lines for even thinking that you could.
Here we see the main problem with President Obama. He is a great orator. He can charm a crowd and make you want to snuggle up under a warm blanket with your worst enemy. He has ideas that sound better than a hot toddy on a cold winter's night. Problem is that he has absolutely no idea how to implement them.
Isn't a key requirement for a President the ability to take something from theory into practical application. But our current President has no ideation process for figuring out how to get from point A to point B. Although I hear he has contacted J K Rowlings to find out what happened to Ollivander's wand shop.
An idea alone won't solve anything. There must be a way to put the idea into action and actually make it work. At a REASONABLE cost to the taxpayer. This is a recurring theme with our current leader. He can create those castles in the sky, but unfortunately he has to build them here on earth. And there are all those pesky zoning issues to contend with.
All I can say, and I can't believe I'm saying it, Kudos Obama for keeping them there instead of bringing them here.
Please leave comments. I live alone and work at home. I spend way too much time talking to myself already.
Here we see the difference between the campaign and the actual problems of leadership. So after hammering away at President Bush throughout the entire campaign (even though Bush wasn't running) Obama now finds out that things ain't quite as easy as they seem.
Face it Mr President, you're not Dumbledore. You can't just wave your magic wand and have issues resolve themselves. And the truth is that Dumbledore would give you lines for even thinking that you could.
Here we see the main problem with President Obama. He is a great orator. He can charm a crowd and make you want to snuggle up under a warm blanket with your worst enemy. He has ideas that sound better than a hot toddy on a cold winter's night. Problem is that he has absolutely no idea how to implement them.
Isn't a key requirement for a President the ability to take something from theory into practical application. But our current President has no ideation process for figuring out how to get from point A to point B. Although I hear he has contacted J K Rowlings to find out what happened to Ollivander's wand shop.
An idea alone won't solve anything. There must be a way to put the idea into action and actually make it work. At a REASONABLE cost to the taxpayer. This is a recurring theme with our current leader. He can create those castles in the sky, but unfortunately he has to build them here on earth. And there are all those pesky zoning issues to contend with.
All I can say, and I can't believe I'm saying it, Kudos Obama for keeping them there instead of bringing them here.
Please leave comments. I live alone and work at home. I spend way too much time talking to myself already.
Claire McCaskill and Climate Change
As you may have guessed, I am against the cap and trade climate change legislation. In an effort to prevent this useless, excessive tax increase which benefits nobody but GE and Al Gore, I wrote to my Senator. I advised her that should she vote for the Waxman- Markey bill (cap and trade) I would work tirelessly to ensure her defeat in her next bid for re-election. This is the response I received from Ms McCaskill. I have translated Ms McCaskill's words into their actual meaning. The real meaning is listed in red.
Thank you for contacting me regarding climate change legislation and "green jobs" in the 111th Congress. I appreciate your comments and welcome the opportunity to respond. (But don't think I actually give a shit what you think)
I believe global climate change threatens our health, environment, and national security. Congress needs to implement meaningful reform that addresses this issue as soon as possible. (We're just arrogant enough to believe we can control the weather). Drafting a responsible (responsible, from our congress? Now there's a laugh)measure that makes both significant reductions in carbon emissions and maintains a strong U.S. economy will be difficult, but it is a task my colleagues and I are committed to. (Regardless of your piss ant little opinion on the matter)
Regarding carbon emissions and potential “cap-and-trade” legislation, I agree that something must be done to protect and preserve our environment for future generations. However, as an elected representative for all Missourians, I will always seek to protect my constituents from undue hardship and ensure that the federal government will spend their hard-earned taxpayer dollars wisely. (of course that's wisely according to Congress and not wisely according to our constituency. We know better than you do.) That is why, as we continue the debate on climate change legislation, I will be working hard to include safeguards that minimize costs, keep government accountable and prevent harm to the U.S. economy. (But don't think for a minute that I won't be pushing this damaging bill through)
Working families will be significantly affected by climate change legislation, (as your electric bills goes through the roof and you risk freezing to death in your homes) so any bill addressing this issue should provide financial protection to avoid passing all costs on to consumers. (Forgetting for a moment that we're the ones slapping that cost on you.) There must be a cushion to offset rising energy costs and provisions that protect American jobs from international competitors that do not face the same environmental constraints. (We acknowledge that we are putting our own companies at a global disadvantage in the middle of an economic crisis by slapping this huge tax on them. So we'll work to mitigate the damage we insist on inflicting.) Strong climate change legislation must also spread the burden of rising energy costs evenly throughout the country, rather than disproportionately affecting one region over another. (But don't think for a minute that the costs won't rise for you) Additionally, the green jobs created by such legislation must be ones that are available to the already skilled workers of Missouri. (So as long as Missouri benefits then screw the rest of the country)
My colleagues and I have already taken a good first step on the way to curbing carbon emissions by passing comprehensive energy legislation into law in December 2007. This bill is expected to remove 500 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from the air through improved energy efficiency standards. (though it's been in effect for over a year and we're still talking about what's expected because it hasn't actually changed anything) However, we need to do more. (Because we aren't satisfied until we've meddled enough to completely destroy that which we set out to save.)Further investment in clean energy sources along with responsible climate change legislation will drastically reduce carbon emissions and start our country down a cleaner, economically stronger(and I'm so pleased I can say that with a straight face) path, including the path to green jobs for Missouri residents. (We'll just ignore the fact that in Spain, where this has already been tried, we lose 2.1 regular jobs for every green job created. I don't like that stat so I'll just ignore it. After all, just because it's already failed everywhere else it's been tried doesn't mean that I can't make it work)
My colleagues and I will continue to pursue legislation that will achieve real emissions reductions and still protect our nation's economy and Missouri jobs. Thank you again for contacting me about this very important issue and please do not hesitate to let me know if I can address any other issues that might be important to you. (And I will continue to totally disregard your opinions and concerns as I have every other time you have contacted me.)
All best,Senator Claire McCaskill
Thank you for contacting me regarding climate change legislation and "green jobs" in the 111th Congress. I appreciate your comments and welcome the opportunity to respond. (But don't think I actually give a shit what you think)
I believe global climate change threatens our health, environment, and national security. Congress needs to implement meaningful reform that addresses this issue as soon as possible. (We're just arrogant enough to believe we can control the weather). Drafting a responsible (responsible, from our congress? Now there's a laugh)measure that makes both significant reductions in carbon emissions and maintains a strong U.S. economy will be difficult, but it is a task my colleagues and I are committed to. (Regardless of your piss ant little opinion on the matter)
Regarding carbon emissions and potential “cap-and-trade” legislation, I agree that something must be done to protect and preserve our environment for future generations. However, as an elected representative for all Missourians, I will always seek to protect my constituents from undue hardship and ensure that the federal government will spend their hard-earned taxpayer dollars wisely. (of course that's wisely according to Congress and not wisely according to our constituency. We know better than you do.) That is why, as we continue the debate on climate change legislation, I will be working hard to include safeguards that minimize costs, keep government accountable and prevent harm to the U.S. economy. (But don't think for a minute that I won't be pushing this damaging bill through)
Working families will be significantly affected by climate change legislation, (as your electric bills goes through the roof and you risk freezing to death in your homes) so any bill addressing this issue should provide financial protection to avoid passing all costs on to consumers. (Forgetting for a moment that we're the ones slapping that cost on you.) There must be a cushion to offset rising energy costs and provisions that protect American jobs from international competitors that do not face the same environmental constraints. (We acknowledge that we are putting our own companies at a global disadvantage in the middle of an economic crisis by slapping this huge tax on them. So we'll work to mitigate the damage we insist on inflicting.) Strong climate change legislation must also spread the burden of rising energy costs evenly throughout the country, rather than disproportionately affecting one region over another. (But don't think for a minute that the costs won't rise for you) Additionally, the green jobs created by such legislation must be ones that are available to the already skilled workers of Missouri. (So as long as Missouri benefits then screw the rest of the country)
My colleagues and I have already taken a good first step on the way to curbing carbon emissions by passing comprehensive energy legislation into law in December 2007. This bill is expected to remove 500 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from the air through improved energy efficiency standards. (though it's been in effect for over a year and we're still talking about what's expected because it hasn't actually changed anything) However, we need to do more. (Because we aren't satisfied until we've meddled enough to completely destroy that which we set out to save.)Further investment in clean energy sources along with responsible climate change legislation will drastically reduce carbon emissions and start our country down a cleaner, economically stronger(and I'm so pleased I can say that with a straight face) path, including the path to green jobs for Missouri residents. (We'll just ignore the fact that in Spain, where this has already been tried, we lose 2.1 regular jobs for every green job created. I don't like that stat so I'll just ignore it. After all, just because it's already failed everywhere else it's been tried doesn't mean that I can't make it work)
My colleagues and I will continue to pursue legislation that will achieve real emissions reductions and still protect our nation's economy and Missouri jobs. Thank you again for contacting me about this very important issue and please do not hesitate to let me know if I can address any other issues that might be important to you. (And I will continue to totally disregard your opinions and concerns as I have every other time you have contacted me.)
All best,Senator Claire McCaskill
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
