Posts
It finally occured to me today what Obama meant by his campaign slogan "Change"......A change to which party is screwing the nation. The only difference now is that with the Democrats in control of the House, Senate and the Presidency they can FORCE what ever they want through and all they THINK we can do is bend over and take it.
WE the people hold the real power, if you don't have a problem with what is occurring to our nation then sit back but if like me you want to have real change start by being proactive. Let your elected officials know that they WILL BE held accountable for their actions and unless THEY start to act in OUR best interest (not THEIRS) that they stand a snowballs change in hell of ever getting reelected.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Friday, October 16, 2009
Health Insurance Rates will go up regardless of what you are told
Just read this last night
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33336289/ns/politics-washington_post/
I like how we will be forced to become healthier by government mandate. (NOT)
If they go the way some companies do it now I would not have a problem. Some companies have set up Wellness plans where if you do the requested actions they place a certain amount of money into a Flex spending account that you can use to pay some of your medical expenses with.
But if they go the other way and say you have to fall into narrowly defined criteria then there are major issues. What about the people that no matter what they do, they would not be able to fall into that range? Do you penalize them even though they are doing everything in their control to become healthier?
I spent over six years in the Air Force....close to the end of my enlistment the AF went to a new method to determine your fitness level. I spent close to 2 years going to the gym 3 times a week exercising and I was NEVER able to pass the new standard. I did everything that I was ordered to do and still failed. I learned later that if I stayed in the AF that the "standard" would have been lowered. That just illustrates the fact that not everyone can/will fall into the "standards" that are devised.
Will Congress punish taxpayers who despite doing everything that they can to live healthier (by who's standard) cannot obtain that standard?
Knowing them they will but they will write the law in a way that THEY will be exempt from meeting the same standards and they want us to meet.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33336289/ns/politics-washington_post/
I like how we will be forced to become healthier by government mandate. (NOT)
If they go the way some companies do it now I would not have a problem. Some companies have set up Wellness plans where if you do the requested actions they place a certain amount of money into a Flex spending account that you can use to pay some of your medical expenses with.
But if they go the other way and say you have to fall into narrowly defined criteria then there are major issues. What about the people that no matter what they do, they would not be able to fall into that range? Do you penalize them even though they are doing everything in their control to become healthier?
I spent over six years in the Air Force....close to the end of my enlistment the AF went to a new method to determine your fitness level. I spent close to 2 years going to the gym 3 times a week exercising and I was NEVER able to pass the new standard. I did everything that I was ordered to do and still failed. I learned later that if I stayed in the AF that the "standard" would have been lowered. That just illustrates the fact that not everyone can/will fall into the "standards" that are devised.
Will Congress punish taxpayers who despite doing everything that they can to live healthier (by who's standard) cannot obtain that standard?
Knowing them they will but they will write the law in a way that THEY will be exempt from meeting the same standards and they want us to meet.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Breaking New
Obama wins the Oscar for Best Performance for Leading Star along with the Nobel Peace Prize.....
Monday, September 14, 2009
Democrats 2010
I hope for all of our sakes that the Democrats lose seats in 2010. The last thing this nation needs is for them to keep going in the direction that they are. My greatest fear is that the extremists will attempt something will lead to major riots and the Democrats pushing more laws through that futher restricts our freedoms.
I believe Lincoln was correct when he stated that our government was of the people, by the people, for the people.
The way that the politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, act once elected you would think our government is of the special interests, by the special interests, for the special interests.
Even with all of the uproar that the American public has created during the Town Hall meetings the Democrats are still pushing their Socialist version of Health Care down our throat.
We as a nation need to stand up and let all politicians know that we will not be ignored and vote all politicians out who are not acting in OUR interest.
I believe Lincoln was correct when he stated that our government was of the people, by the people, for the people.
The way that the politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, act once elected you would think our government is of the special interests, by the special interests, for the special interests.
Even with all of the uproar that the American public has created during the Town Hall meetings the Democrats are still pushing their Socialist version of Health Care down our throat.
We as a nation need to stand up and let all politicians know that we will not be ignored and vote all politicians out who are not acting in OUR interest.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Afgan War
The way that I see it politicians have one of two choices. Option one - pull out of Afghanistan. Option two - step aside and let the military do what it needs to do to win the war.
There should be no middle ground here. When politics and war mix it is a recipe for disaster and the men and women of the Armed Forces end up paying with their lives.
This nation should not repeat its Vietnam experience. Either let the military do what it needs or pull them out.
Also I don't care if you support the war effort or not. If you are against the war take it out on the Politicians in DC not the members of our Armed Forces who are are only doing what they have been ordered to do. So support them!!!!
There should be no middle ground here. When politics and war mix it is a recipe for disaster and the men and women of the Armed Forces end up paying with their lives.
This nation should not repeat its Vietnam experience. Either let the military do what it needs or pull them out.
Also I don't care if you support the war effort or not. If you are against the war take it out on the Politicians in DC not the members of our Armed Forces who are are only doing what they have been ordered to do. So support them!!!!
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Healthcare Public Option
I still believe that the Public Option is going to be a big issue. Depending on the cost I feel that businesses will drop their current coverage.
Lets say that to fund the Public Option businesses were forced to pay $1,000 dollars. It would make sense for a company operating to make a profit to drop their coverage and have the employees "Choose" the Public Option. Which means we all get to be on the government plan. Sounds to me like a sneaky way for the Democrats to create a single payer system that they SO desire.
Socialism here we come.
Lets say that to fund the Public Option businesses were forced to pay $1,000 dollars. It would make sense for a company operating to make a profit to drop their coverage and have the employees "Choose" the Public Option. Which means we all get to be on the government plan. Sounds to me like a sneaky way for the Democrats to create a single payer system that they SO desire.
Socialism here we come.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Obama's big speech
Obama's speech that is coming up may be very interesting. Hopefully he will at least back off from the Public Option that he has been pushing for. But if he does he may cause problems with his own party and the unions that have supported him.
Hopefully he does and things start to hit the fan for the democrats.
Hopefully he does and things start to hit the fan for the democrats.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Goverment run HealthCare....think VA & DOD
Why do poeple believe that the government can run a health system. Look at what the poor health care that the VA and DOD supply. In late July an Air Force doctor botched a surgery that left a 20-year-old airman without his legs. If you think that he can sue think again, because of a law enacted in the 1950s known as the "Feres Doctrine" prohibits service members, spouses and family members from bringing a suit against the United States Government following medical mishaps. Do you think if/when the government gets involved in YOUR health care they won't have the same doctrine on the books? And what about the condition of the rooms that the soldiers who served in Iraq and Afghanistan were place in at Walter Reed in DC.
As far as the VA goes lately in the news there have been storied about patients being informed that they had a fatal disease when the did not, patients who went in for a colonoscopy were informed they may have been exposed to HIV and hepatitis because of contaminated equipment.
Could things like this happen now with the health care that we have, yes but most if not all hospitals have procedures in place to prevent mishaps like this for occurring.
I don't know about the rest of you but if this is what we can expect if the government is involved with health care I'll take my chances with what we have now.
As far as the VA goes lately in the news there have been storied about patients being informed that they had a fatal disease when the did not, patients who went in for a colonoscopy were informed they may have been exposed to HIV and hepatitis because of contaminated equipment.
Could things like this happen now with the health care that we have, yes but most if not all hospitals have procedures in place to prevent mishaps like this for occurring.
I don't know about the rest of you but if this is what we can expect if the government is involved with health care I'll take my chances with what we have now.
Monday, August 31, 2009
More sweeping Healthcare Bill?
Just read this on CNN ( http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/27/kennedy.health.care/index.html ) that the Democrats may attempt an obscure tactic known as reconciliation, a type of budget maneuver that requires only a simple majority -- 51 votes -- to pass.
I guess this is Obama's idea of bipartisanship, I thought it was to work WITH the Republicans to get laws passed that both parties would support.
What else should we expect from a politician from the Chicago machine. The same machine that is running 2 for 2. The last 2 governors elected have been indicted and one has gone to jail.
Wonder what the Democrats will try to force through the next time?
I guess this is Obama's idea of bipartisanship, I thought it was to work WITH the Republicans to get laws passed that both parties would support.
What else should we expect from a politician from the Chicago machine. The same machine that is running 2 for 2. The last 2 governors elected have been indicted and one has gone to jail.
Wonder what the Democrats will try to force through the next time?
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Gun and ammo sales up
I don't know if anyone else has noticed but since Obama was elected president you cannot into a store and notice that there is a constant shortage of ammunition for handguns. Wonder why that is, I believe that everyone, including people who voted for Obama, believe that the Democrats will once again try to put their spin on the 2nd amendment. I for one believe that our founding fathers believed that the average law abiding citizen has the right to own weapons. If not for the weapons that the private citizen held before the Revolutionary War I don't think that we would have been successful in becoming a separate country from Great Britain. The rifles that they owned allowed them to shoot at the British at a great distance than the rifles that the British employed. So from that sense we had superior weapons.
Also even during the recession the two business that have had sales go up are Arms and Ammo manufactures. People are worried that with the Democrats in control that their RIGHT to own weapons will be either limited or taken away, plus they are worried that with the way that the government is moving that there could very well be riots.
According to the polls that I've seen most Americans believe that we should have the right to own weapons. So if the minority of the people who want to take that away from us have their way doesn't that go against want our forefathers wanted? It would be Prohibition all over again, where the minority had their way and the majority of the people had to be lawbreakers to have an alcoholic drink. That is what allowed Capone and other mobsters to become as powerful as they did become, also if the rumors are true it is also where a lot of the money that the Kennedy's have came from.
If you don't believe in owning guns that is your right, just as it is my right to believe that I should be allowed to own guns.
If you think that making handguns illegal would work just look at Japan and Great Britain. In both countries it is illegal to own handguns, but in both the criminals have them. If two countries that as ISLANDS cannot stop criminals from getting handguns what makes you think that our country could do any better. Now instead of guns being used by some people they use what is available (knives, pitchforks, etc). The handgun is not evil/bad it's the person who uses it in an illegal manner who could be evil/bad. As I've heard before no one would think about banning cars even though they are used in the commission of crimes because they are tools uses for an illegal purpose.
Instead of making them illegal, enact tougher laws so that if you use a weapon during the commission of a crime it adds 20 years to your sentence, and by that I mean if you rob a bank and get a 10 year sentence and could get out in 5 years the additional 20 years to wait before you get out. Will it stop handguns from beings used? I have no idea but it should at least get a crook to think twice before they use a weapon.
Chances are if you check either the people in DC or the people that they hire to protect them have weapons? Why should they have the right but not us....Isn't that a double standard? Even if weapons became illegal would they give up theirs? I don't think so, because since they are in the public eye they need to protection....what about us how are not in the public eye should we have the same right?
If an armed criminal were to break into your house or business the police will not be there to stop them, they will arrive after the fact. There is no way that the police can be everywhere are once. If you want to carry a handgun should you have training, yes you should but even people with YEARS of training do have their judgement questioned even after all the facts come out and there was no other option for them.
Also even during the recession the two business that have had sales go up are Arms and Ammo manufactures. People are worried that with the Democrats in control that their RIGHT to own weapons will be either limited or taken away, plus they are worried that with the way that the government is moving that there could very well be riots.
According to the polls that I've seen most Americans believe that we should have the right to own weapons. So if the minority of the people who want to take that away from us have their way doesn't that go against want our forefathers wanted? It would be Prohibition all over again, where the minority had their way and the majority of the people had to be lawbreakers to have an alcoholic drink. That is what allowed Capone and other mobsters to become as powerful as they did become, also if the rumors are true it is also where a lot of the money that the Kennedy's have came from.
If you don't believe in owning guns that is your right, just as it is my right to believe that I should be allowed to own guns.
If you think that making handguns illegal would work just look at Japan and Great Britain. In both countries it is illegal to own handguns, but in both the criminals have them. If two countries that as ISLANDS cannot stop criminals from getting handguns what makes you think that our country could do any better. Now instead of guns being used by some people they use what is available (knives, pitchforks, etc). The handgun is not evil/bad it's the person who uses it in an illegal manner who could be evil/bad. As I've heard before no one would think about banning cars even though they are used in the commission of crimes because they are tools uses for an illegal purpose.
Instead of making them illegal, enact tougher laws so that if you use a weapon during the commission of a crime it adds 20 years to your sentence, and by that I mean if you rob a bank and get a 10 year sentence and could get out in 5 years the additional 20 years to wait before you get out. Will it stop handguns from beings used? I have no idea but it should at least get a crook to think twice before they use a weapon.
Chances are if you check either the people in DC or the people that they hire to protect them have weapons? Why should they have the right but not us....Isn't that a double standard? Even if weapons became illegal would they give up theirs? I don't think so, because since they are in the public eye they need to protection....what about us how are not in the public eye should we have the same right?
If an armed criminal were to break into your house or business the police will not be there to stop them, they will arrive after the fact. There is no way that the police can be everywhere are once. If you want to carry a handgun should you have training, yes you should but even people with YEARS of training do have their judgement questioned even after all the facts come out and there was no other option for them.
Clunker's boost auto sales for August....but what about the months ahead?
Of course the Cash for Clunkers boosted car sales for the month of August. If you could afford it and you qualified why not take advantage of it. But now of course there are 700,000 less people looking to buy a new car so in the months ahead the car sales are going to drop down and you will probably hear DC mention having to do some thing to help them out again.
Until we are truly out of the recession there is going to be lagging car sales, home sales and any other major purchase. Most people don't want to risk a major purchase during a recession in case they lose their job.
I don't think the government is ever going to learn you can't just keep printing money, pouring it into the economy and hope and pray that it will get you out of the recession.
There was no reason to lend the major bank money under the TARP program, now look at them, they have post profits in the BILLIONS so there was no chance that they would have gone under. AIG almost went under because of bad business practices. I thought we lived in a Free Market society. If I were to be running a business and it failed it is my own fault and I should not be bailed out because I invested in the wrong marked, sold the wrong item or what have you. The same with the auto companies, they have bad business practice. With the cost of gas going up (which people have predicted for years) they continued to produce vehicles that got extremely poor gas mileage and when people both from Toyota or Honda because they offered cars that got better mileage, they had no one to blame but themselves.
Until we are truly out of the recession there is going to be lagging car sales, home sales and any other major purchase. Most people don't want to risk a major purchase during a recession in case they lose their job.
I don't think the government is ever going to learn you can't just keep printing money, pouring it into the economy and hope and pray that it will get you out of the recession.
There was no reason to lend the major bank money under the TARP program, now look at them, they have post profits in the BILLIONS so there was no chance that they would have gone under. AIG almost went under because of bad business practices. I thought we lived in a Free Market society. If I were to be running a business and it failed it is my own fault and I should not be bailed out because I invested in the wrong marked, sold the wrong item or what have you. The same with the auto companies, they have bad business practice. With the cost of gas going up (which people have predicted for years) they continued to produce vehicles that got extremely poor gas mileage and when people both from Toyota or Honda because they offered cars that got better mileage, they had no one to blame but themselves.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Is Global Warming being caused by us?
I will be the first one to say that I don' know if "Global Warming" is being entirely caused by the human race or not. I believe that the earth goes through cycles and we may have entered a cycle where the average temp world wide is rising. Depending on where you live yes it may be hotter than normal but where I am it is cooler than usual for this time of year. So as I have asked my wife, if Global Warming is real why are we so are under the normal average temp for this time of year. And it's not just this week or even this month, it's been almost the entire summer with the exception of maybe a couple of weeks. Right now as I write this the temp is 63, the average high for today according to the weather is 79. So right now we are 16 degrees cooler than normal....doesn't sound like "Global Warming" to me.
I understand that you cannot just look at a day, a week, or even a month. You need to look at the BIG picture. I also understand that from one year to the next that there will be a difference in the temp. With that being said who can say (besides Al Gore) that Global Warming is occurring or not. There will be differences from year to year.
We have not been keeping a written record of the temps for only about the last 160 years. That may seem like a long time to you and me but for the Earth that is not very long at all. You may be able to find some records that go back further than 160 years ago but even if you were able to go back 2000 years it still would not prove or even disprove whether we are causing global warming. The earth is around 4.54 BILLION years old. So all you would be able to do is go back less the .00005 % of the time that the earth has existed. Not very long to be able to prove anything.
I understand that you cannot just look at a day, a week, or even a month. You need to look at the BIG picture. I also understand that from one year to the next that there will be a difference in the temp. With that being said who can say (besides Al Gore) that Global Warming is occurring or not. There will be differences from year to year.
We have not been keeping a written record of the temps for only about the last 160 years. That may seem like a long time to you and me but for the Earth that is not very long at all. You may be able to find some records that go back further than 160 years ago but even if you were able to go back 2000 years it still would not prove or even disprove whether we are causing global warming. The earth is around 4.54 BILLION years old. So all you would be able to do is go back less the .00005 % of the time that the earth has existed. Not very long to be able to prove anything.
"KennedyCare"
If what the politicians want to do why don't they guarantee that if/when the bill passes that every single one of them will be mandated to use the exact same program that they believe will work for us?
I for one don't believe for a single moment that any one of them would do that because it would mean that they would lose coverage that they currently enjoy, but they have no problem with the rest of us have this forced on us.
Knowing they are having trouble getting any agreement on Health care reform, now they want to invoke the memory of Ted Kennedy and see if that can get them what the want. If you have not read about the Democrat's latest ploy here are a few links to some news stories.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=8428256
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6101006/Ted-Kennedy-Barack-Obamas-health-plans-could-be-renamed-Kennedycare.html
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20090828new_rallying_cry_win_one_for_teddy_dems_look_to_unite_pols_on_health_care/
Why try to tie someone who had led a very privileged life and could afford to pay for any treatment that they desired to a bill that will cause millions of people to lose their current health care coverage?
I don't see any good coming out of this bill, I believe that companies, for purely economic reason , it will be cheaper for the companies to pay the smaller amount being proposed by the government versus the amount they are paying now for coverage for their employees.
If you ran a company and had a choice between paying say $750 to the government per employee or $1500 to the insurance company which one would you pick?
If you picked the $1500 let me know.....I have a bridge that I would like to sell you.
I for one don't believe for a single moment that any one of them would do that because it would mean that they would lose coverage that they currently enjoy, but they have no problem with the rest of us have this forced on us.
Knowing they are having trouble getting any agreement on Health care reform, now they want to invoke the memory of Ted Kennedy and see if that can get them what the want. If you have not read about the Democrat's latest ploy here are a few links to some news stories.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=8428256
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6101006/Ted-Kennedy-Barack-Obamas-health-plans-could-be-renamed-Kennedycare.html
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20090828new_rallying_cry_win_one_for_teddy_dems_look_to_unite_pols_on_health_care/
Why try to tie someone who had led a very privileged life and could afford to pay for any treatment that they desired to a bill that will cause millions of people to lose their current health care coverage?
I don't see any good coming out of this bill, I believe that companies, for purely economic reason , it will be cheaper for the companies to pay the smaller amount being proposed by the government versus the amount they are paying now for coverage for their employees.
If you ran a company and had a choice between paying say $750 to the government per employee or $1500 to the insurance company which one would you pick?
If you picked the $1500 let me know.....I have a bridge that I would like to sell you.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Clunker program for Appliances? Government waste
Give me a break. What's going to be next a Clunker program for Cell Phones? All out government is doing is wasting more of our money and driving the deficit even higher. We don't need any more programs like this. At a time when the federal government is taking in less tax money the last thing they need to be doing is wasting any more money on clunker programs that will not help the economy in the long run.
The Clunker program for cars did get 700,000 vehicles sold (if you believe the government) but what I would like to know is how many of those people would have bought a car anyways without the extra money that our tax dollars gave them?
How about a novel idea. Instead of handing out money like they are why doesn't the government send out another stimulus check to all households? Many of the people that I know would use that money to pay down their existing debt or buy items that they need to replace but currently don't have the extra money to do so. Either way it would either free up money that banks currently have tied up in existing loans ( and if they were smart allow them to approve more loans) or by buying items it would put money into the economy at a time when most people are not spending as much.
What was I thinking? There is no way that the government would allow such a thing to happen because by spending less money they would actually accomplish something that they have been able to do.
The Clunker program for cars did get 700,000 vehicles sold (if you believe the government) but what I would like to know is how many of those people would have bought a car anyways without the extra money that our tax dollars gave them?
How about a novel idea. Instead of handing out money like they are why doesn't the government send out another stimulus check to all households? Many of the people that I know would use that money to pay down their existing debt or buy items that they need to replace but currently don't have the extra money to do so. Either way it would either free up money that banks currently have tied up in existing loans ( and if they were smart allow them to approve more loans) or by buying items it would put money into the economy at a time when most people are not spending as much.
What was I thinking? There is no way that the government would allow such a thing to happen because by spending less money they would actually accomplish something that they have been able to do.
Where is the "Change" that Obama promised?
When President Obama was running for president he promised us a change from the business as usual in DC. WHERE is the change? I haven't seen any change for the business as usual. To get elected a politician will tell you what they think you want to hear then once they get elected they seem to forget about all of the promises that they made to get there.
On March 11, 2009 Obama called for greater Earmark reform, where is that. An attempt was made to force the Pentagon to buy 2 additional Gulfstream 550 jets when they had only asked for funding for 1 which would have added $132 million to the budget and this was after the CEO's of the automakers were raked over the coals for flying to DC in private jets. Talk about a double standard. The Pentagon has also attempted to stop funding for the new Presidential choppers, extra C-17 Transport jets, and F-18 fighters plus many other items.
Most of the appointments that Obama has made so far have gone to people who are well established Democrats or supported him during his election campaign. Doesn't look like a change to me.
Even though Obama has promised "Transparency" in government, yet once elected he has chosen to keep some of the same policies in place that Bush had.
Obama talked a good game (that a lot of people bought into) but once elected it was "Business as Usual" not change as he promised. What a shock a politician who told many people what they wanted to hear but once elected not following through on the promises that got them elected.
On March 11, 2009 Obama called for greater Earmark reform, where is that. An attempt was made to force the Pentagon to buy 2 additional Gulfstream 550 jets when they had only asked for funding for 1 which would have added $132 million to the budget and this was after the CEO's of the automakers were raked over the coals for flying to DC in private jets. Talk about a double standard. The Pentagon has also attempted to stop funding for the new Presidential choppers, extra C-17 Transport jets, and F-18 fighters plus many other items.
Most of the appointments that Obama has made so far have gone to people who are well established Democrats or supported him during his election campaign. Doesn't look like a change to me.
Even though Obama has promised "Transparency" in government, yet once elected he has chosen to keep some of the same policies in place that Bush had.
Obama talked a good game (that a lot of people bought into) but once elected it was "Business as Usual" not change as he promised. What a shock a politician who told many people what they wanted to hear but once elected not following through on the promises that got them elected.
Special Election for Sen. Ted Kennedy
It kind of funny how when a Republican was the Governor of Massachusetts that the Democrats HAD to enact a law allowing a special election in the event that either a Senator or Representative vacated their office before their term was up. Now that a Democrat is the Governor they want to allow the Governor to appoint someone to fill the seat until the special election is held. I can see them wanting to go back and forth on this every time they don't hold the top position for the state.
But what I think is going to be more interesting is how the voters are going to react during the special election. The last Republican to be elected as a senator for Massachusetts was Edward Brooke (1967-1979). With all of the debate concerning Health Care (people are either for all it or entirely against it, I have not met or heard of anyone how is sitting of the fence). Currently all the Senators and Representatives are Democrats, if the state elects a Republican to replace Kennedy that may be a major signal that the government has gone to far with Health Care reform, stimulus packages (Cash for Clunkers, TARP, bailing out GM and Chrysler), and every thing else they are doing or trying to do. That would be quite a wake up call to DC.
What I fear will happen is if the people of Massachusetts do vote for someone other than a Democrat that there is be mass hysteria in DC because the people attempting to force everything through now will know that they days are numbered and the next time that they come up for re-election that there is a good chance that they will be voted out and they will force even more legislation through even though they know that we do not what it.
But chances are the voters will stay Democratic and we will stay in the mess that we currently are getting into thanks to our elected officials who were voted in to represent the voters not special interest groups, their buddies or themselves.
Healthcare
Why are the Democrat's so determined in forcing the current Health care reform down out throat. We currently have a number of systems that the government runs and we can see how well they work. The VA has mistakenly informed over 1,200 vets that they had a fatal disease when they don't and the VA as also infected untold numbers of vets with diseases they did not have when they entered the system through neglect, mismanagement, or just plain not caring.
So to my way of thinking if the government can't run the current systems what makes them think that they can handle something as large as they are proposing.....they CANNOT. All they will end up doing is driving employers to drop the coverage that they currently offer to their employees and have them placed of the government rolls because it will be cheaper in the long run for the companies to do that.
Now that the Democrats have a super majority depending on what happens now in Mass. with the passing of Kennedy, they believe that they can force through legislation that they have been trying to pass for the past 60 years.
We have all heard or seen what is occurring at the Town hall meetings that are currently being held. I heard about one where the Rep. hosting it told one person who asked a question that there is nothing the voters can do to stop this from occurring, there is no way to currently vote him out and that in four years when he does come up for re-election that it was going to be a done deal.
Instead of trying to force something on us that we don't want, why doesn't Congress and the White House pass laws that we know will help to lower the expense of health care. Start by putting a cap on lawsuits (say 1-2 million), end the practice on awarding punitive damages, etc. If a limit were to be placed on lawsuits that will lower the cost that doctors and hospitals have to pay out to insurance companies to stay in business to protect them from out lawsuit happy country.
As other people have stated in the news with the Democrat's in control we will end up with Socialized Health Care because that is what they think will solve the current problem but that will just provide them the excuse that they are looking for to pass more laws to move us way from our current form of government to one where only the politicians and their cronies have privileges (reminds me of the USSR and we see what happened to them).
So to my way of thinking if the government can't run the current systems what makes them think that they can handle something as large as they are proposing.....they CANNOT. All they will end up doing is driving employers to drop the coverage that they currently offer to their employees and have them placed of the government rolls because it will be cheaper in the long run for the companies to do that.
Now that the Democrats have a super majority depending on what happens now in Mass. with the passing of Kennedy, they believe that they can force through legislation that they have been trying to pass for the past 60 years.
We have all heard or seen what is occurring at the Town hall meetings that are currently being held. I heard about one where the Rep. hosting it told one person who asked a question that there is nothing the voters can do to stop this from occurring, there is no way to currently vote him out and that in four years when he does come up for re-election that it was going to be a done deal.
Instead of trying to force something on us that we don't want, why doesn't Congress and the White House pass laws that we know will help to lower the expense of health care. Start by putting a cap on lawsuits (say 1-2 million), end the practice on awarding punitive damages, etc. If a limit were to be placed on lawsuits that will lower the cost that doctors and hospitals have to pay out to insurance companies to stay in business to protect them from out lawsuit happy country.
As other people have stated in the news with the Democrat's in control we will end up with Socialized Health Care because that is what they think will solve the current problem but that will just provide them the excuse that they are looking for to pass more laws to move us way from our current form of government to one where only the politicians and their cronies have privileges (reminds me of the USSR and we see what happened to them).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)