John Thune recently sent me an email with a link to video for his town hall meeting in Aberdeen, SD on August 20, 2009. Here is the link to watch his response to questions asked.
http://johnthune.com/townhall?utm_source=main+update+list&utm_campaign=1d0a39be66-sd_townhall_follow_up8_27_2009&utm_medium=email
I appreciate John Thune and I hope I'm watching a future president. He thinks like I do.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
The Wedge
It appears the abortion debate is starting to heat up in the issue of Health Care reform and I feel the need to speak. So let me start by stating some of my basic positions for all who care. First of all, I am against any health care reform that places the federal government in the position of providing health insurance or making any decisions in health care. I am okay with the government providing rules that help protect its citizens. That's what they're there for. I believe that if the government gets too involved there will be domino effect not only for health care but many more rights and basic freedoms as well. Some could argue health care is not the first domino to fall by a long shot. Second of all, I am against abortion. Period. I do not support it. And I do not want my government legitimizing it, let alone paying for it with my tax dollars.
I strongly believe that any goverment that begins to pass laws that devalue life, and specifically the lives of those who are weakest and least able to fight back, is a government that has numbered its days. So you can put me on the record as saying that unless our goverment changes its ways, its days are numbered. Furthermore, it's been a while now since this happened with regards to abortion and we may now be seeing the end of our government. It won't fall to violence and no enemy from the outside will have had any affect. Instead the enemy came from within. It reared its ugly head and, in the names of intellectualism, atheism and emotionalism, succeeded in eroding the most basic and fundamental of all rights our constitution was meant to protect: life.
I'm not happy about this. I can't even climb to the mountain-tops and cry "I Told You So!" Truthfully these decisions were made before I ever had a voice and an opinion. I know this is harsh but I have to say it: a government that refuses to protect the lives (in principle at the very least) of the least in its care, is no better than the worst governments history has seen. There, I said it.
I desire to see our nation reformed from the people up. That's the nature of being a pastor. And as a pastor you hope that your government, tasked with the creating and enforcing the very laws that protect its citizens, will be a secular aid in that reform rather than a force that legitimizes the most sinful practices of its people. The moral fiber of our nation has been deteriorating for many years and there's not much left to erode.
Now let me get to my most major concerns for our nation. I've titled this blog "The Wedge" because I believe it describes President Obama and our current governmental change. When splitting a very large log a woodsmen often will use a wedge. I've split a few logs in my life for firewood and I've found placing a wedge into split on the wood is a good way to force that split to continue until the log is separated into two pieces. I believe President Obama has become a wedge in a nation that can already be represented by a log with a big split in it. He seems intent on ramming that wedge through the split so that what will be left behind is two or more pieces.
I'm not really certain he realizes that he is doing this but I'm not certain he doesn't realize it either. His selection of leaders around him is dubious at best and one has to wonder where his real allegience really lies. Even Hitler believed he was a patriot trying to save Germany from ruin. I'm not trying to compare Obama to Hitler and I'm certainly not calling him a Hitler. That would be a tremendous afront to Obama and I have no desire to disrespect my president and especially not the office of president. I am, however, looking a lot of strange facts, people, and mysterious changes that point towards possibilities I'm afraid to even think about. I'll leave it at that, for now. I'm not a conspiracy theorist but I will call a spade a spade.
So where is our nation heading? To put it bluntly, I believe that what our President is doing has every possibility of leading to a re-formation of America. Our federal government is going further than it ever has in ignoring the constitution by which it was formed and is governed. It is well outside of the original boundaries set up by our founding fathers. With all this in mind we need to be careful not to under-estimate the power of the people to create change. If pushed far enough I believe the average American is well capable of taking to the streets to affect change and there are plenty who would use violence to do so. (I'm not advocating violence, please read the first blog on this site to understand my foundations.)
We've been seeing a lot of people speaking out across our nation against health care. The part that frightens me is not the shouting and sometimes inappropriate behavior of protestors but rather the reaction by those who are pushing all these changes in government. The reaction is to marginalize the voices of passionate Americans. They offer no legitimacy to their opinions no matter how great the opposition. Even polls that show a majority of Americans are against the changes they are pushing are dismissed as wrong and the result of immoral tactics by their opposition.
Even in a time when the Republican party is in such disarray they are still blamed for something requiring a tremendous amount of organisation and influence. This isn't coming from the Republican party, it's coming from the people. Not democrats and republicans but rather Americans. Our governmental leaders are doing their best to ignore their own constituents. This is not a tactic often used by American politicians because it leads to them losing their jobs. And it likely will in 2010 as well. What frightens me, however, is that these politicians are fighting so hard to marginalize the American people who have given them the power they have. These tactics, if allowed to be carried to their logical end, will result in something much different than a government based on the liberty of its people.
We may well be experiencing the takeover of America as we speak. It's a movement from within and only the American people can stop it. If left to go far enough it will indeed descend into violence and end of America as we know it. I would not be surprised to see America split into many smaller countries. What really concerns me is how fast we are moving towards it. The political makeup of our government is likely to change drastically in the elections of 2010. This offers me hope if we can hang on that long. I have to admit to having some doubt, however. Things are moving so quickly right now that our country could split before then.
Last year I heard the predictions of some Russian professors that our nation would split by 2012. When I heard those predictions I thought they were crazy, not about the splitting of our nation so much as the time line. I figured it would take much longer and we would have many opportunities to keep it from happening. Now, I think they may have been too generous in offering a four year timeline. We've degenerated so quickly I now believe it could happen within the next year.
I hope not. I hope I'm wrong. I hope I'm writing blogs next year in which I am eating crow. I want to be wrong. So please, America, prove me wrong. Make me wrong. Let's fix our country now while there's still time. Before there is divorce the likes of which haven't been seen in our country since the Civil War. Before we see violence that splits America in a way much more final way than the current leaders have idealogically.
I strongly believe that any goverment that begins to pass laws that devalue life, and specifically the lives of those who are weakest and least able to fight back, is a government that has numbered its days. So you can put me on the record as saying that unless our goverment changes its ways, its days are numbered. Furthermore, it's been a while now since this happened with regards to abortion and we may now be seeing the end of our government. It won't fall to violence and no enemy from the outside will have had any affect. Instead the enemy came from within. It reared its ugly head and, in the names of intellectualism, atheism and emotionalism, succeeded in eroding the most basic and fundamental of all rights our constitution was meant to protect: life.
I'm not happy about this. I can't even climb to the mountain-tops and cry "I Told You So!" Truthfully these decisions were made before I ever had a voice and an opinion. I know this is harsh but I have to say it: a government that refuses to protect the lives (in principle at the very least) of the least in its care, is no better than the worst governments history has seen. There, I said it.
I desire to see our nation reformed from the people up. That's the nature of being a pastor. And as a pastor you hope that your government, tasked with the creating and enforcing the very laws that protect its citizens, will be a secular aid in that reform rather than a force that legitimizes the most sinful practices of its people. The moral fiber of our nation has been deteriorating for many years and there's not much left to erode.
Now let me get to my most major concerns for our nation. I've titled this blog "The Wedge" because I believe it describes President Obama and our current governmental change. When splitting a very large log a woodsmen often will use a wedge. I've split a few logs in my life for firewood and I've found placing a wedge into split on the wood is a good way to force that split to continue until the log is separated into two pieces. I believe President Obama has become a wedge in a nation that can already be represented by a log with a big split in it. He seems intent on ramming that wedge through the split so that what will be left behind is two or more pieces.
I'm not really certain he realizes that he is doing this but I'm not certain he doesn't realize it either. His selection of leaders around him is dubious at best and one has to wonder where his real allegience really lies. Even Hitler believed he was a patriot trying to save Germany from ruin. I'm not trying to compare Obama to Hitler and I'm certainly not calling him a Hitler. That would be a tremendous afront to Obama and I have no desire to disrespect my president and especially not the office of president. I am, however, looking a lot of strange facts, people, and mysterious changes that point towards possibilities I'm afraid to even think about. I'll leave it at that, for now. I'm not a conspiracy theorist but I will call a spade a spade.
So where is our nation heading? To put it bluntly, I believe that what our President is doing has every possibility of leading to a re-formation of America. Our federal government is going further than it ever has in ignoring the constitution by which it was formed and is governed. It is well outside of the original boundaries set up by our founding fathers. With all this in mind we need to be careful not to under-estimate the power of the people to create change. If pushed far enough I believe the average American is well capable of taking to the streets to affect change and there are plenty who would use violence to do so. (I'm not advocating violence, please read the first blog on this site to understand my foundations.)
We've been seeing a lot of people speaking out across our nation against health care. The part that frightens me is not the shouting and sometimes inappropriate behavior of protestors but rather the reaction by those who are pushing all these changes in government. The reaction is to marginalize the voices of passionate Americans. They offer no legitimacy to their opinions no matter how great the opposition. Even polls that show a majority of Americans are against the changes they are pushing are dismissed as wrong and the result of immoral tactics by their opposition.
Even in a time when the Republican party is in such disarray they are still blamed for something requiring a tremendous amount of organisation and influence. This isn't coming from the Republican party, it's coming from the people. Not democrats and republicans but rather Americans. Our governmental leaders are doing their best to ignore their own constituents. This is not a tactic often used by American politicians because it leads to them losing their jobs. And it likely will in 2010 as well. What frightens me, however, is that these politicians are fighting so hard to marginalize the American people who have given them the power they have. These tactics, if allowed to be carried to their logical end, will result in something much different than a government based on the liberty of its people.
We may well be experiencing the takeover of America as we speak. It's a movement from within and only the American people can stop it. If left to go far enough it will indeed descend into violence and end of America as we know it. I would not be surprised to see America split into many smaller countries. What really concerns me is how fast we are moving towards it. The political makeup of our government is likely to change drastically in the elections of 2010. This offers me hope if we can hang on that long. I have to admit to having some doubt, however. Things are moving so quickly right now that our country could split before then.
Last year I heard the predictions of some Russian professors that our nation would split by 2012. When I heard those predictions I thought they were crazy, not about the splitting of our nation so much as the time line. I figured it would take much longer and we would have many opportunities to keep it from happening. Now, I think they may have been too generous in offering a four year timeline. We've degenerated so quickly I now believe it could happen within the next year.
I hope not. I hope I'm wrong. I hope I'm writing blogs next year in which I am eating crow. I want to be wrong. So please, America, prove me wrong. Make me wrong. Let's fix our country now while there's still time. Before there is divorce the likes of which haven't been seen in our country since the Civil War. Before we see violence that splits America in a way much more final way than the current leaders have idealogically.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
The President is Upset
So I was watching FoxNews earlier and I saw a tirade by the President about all this misinformation out there about government health care reform. The president was upset and what he was saying made me upset. So here I am ranting again.
At issue are these Death Panels those idiots that oppose health care reform keep talking about. The president states as a matter of fact that the people perpetuating this claim are the ones who have the most to gain by killing reform. He also states as a matter of fact that any honest read of the health care bill will show that there are no death panels being set up.
So let me tell you why this upsets me. I'm upset because my president doesn't see what I see and has closed himself off to seeing what I see. So let me put it this way: any scenario where the government offers plans (public option) will lead to pushing private health care providers out of the market so that more of the burden will fall upon the government until, eventually, the entire burden of health care is upon the government's shoulders. The money we spend on government health care has to come at someone's expense and, eventually, that expense will be shouldered by the tax-payer. Even then, health care rationing will eventually come into play. I don't care if it's tomorrow, five years from now, or fifty years from now, we are opening the door to that inevitable future. Rationing equals death panel. Rationing eventually leads to asking the question "who is most worthy of the limited dollars we have to put towards health care?" This leads to a devaluing of the lives of those considered to have less to offer society (elderly, handicapped, smokers, obese, etc.). Inevitably this leads to only a few who receive care, healthy persons who have the most to offer society.
It's like the movie "Lifeboat" by Alfred Hitchcock. In this movie an ocean liner is destroyed by a Nazi U-Boat and then the U-Boat is destroyed. There are survivors floating around from both ships in one small lifeboat. What ensues is a battle over who is worthy to lead and who should be thrown overboard because they offer the least value to the ultimate survival of those involved.
Where does it stop? I don't know the answer to that question but I do know where it begins. It begins with a government-run health care system where a third and disinterested party becomes involved in the ultimate decision making process about my health.
I'm an overweight 37 year old minister. How long until they toss me overboard? I may not be the first to go but I assure you I won't be around to the end in the Lifeboat scenario.
But here's what concerns me the most about what the president is saying. I am left to draw one of two conclusions about how he sees this issue: first, he is failing to see the logical end of the road this health care bill is on or, second, he does see it and he's lying to the American people because that's exactly what he wants. If I take the first option I'm left with the conclusion that my president does not have the cognitive faculties required of a president and perhaps it's time we throw him overboard. If I take the second option I'm left with the conclusion that my president is a liar who will say whatever he has to in order to get his way and our only hope is that the American people will see through the facade and deny him his want. Why would he want the American people to become totally dependant on the government? Good question. I don't like the answer and neither should you.
I guess there is a third option: the answer is both one and two.
So, Mr. President, stop calling me an idiot. Stop trying to shove this plan down my throat. I will oppose any option in health care where the government has too much vested interest. The Public Option is not the answer. The government should not be involved in my health care.
At issue are these Death Panels those idiots that oppose health care reform keep talking about. The president states as a matter of fact that the people perpetuating this claim are the ones who have the most to gain by killing reform. He also states as a matter of fact that any honest read of the health care bill will show that there are no death panels being set up.
So let me tell you why this upsets me. I'm upset because my president doesn't see what I see and has closed himself off to seeing what I see. So let me put it this way: any scenario where the government offers plans (public option) will lead to pushing private health care providers out of the market so that more of the burden will fall upon the government until, eventually, the entire burden of health care is upon the government's shoulders. The money we spend on government health care has to come at someone's expense and, eventually, that expense will be shouldered by the tax-payer. Even then, health care rationing will eventually come into play. I don't care if it's tomorrow, five years from now, or fifty years from now, we are opening the door to that inevitable future. Rationing equals death panel. Rationing eventually leads to asking the question "who is most worthy of the limited dollars we have to put towards health care?" This leads to a devaluing of the lives of those considered to have less to offer society (elderly, handicapped, smokers, obese, etc.). Inevitably this leads to only a few who receive care, healthy persons who have the most to offer society.
It's like the movie "Lifeboat" by Alfred Hitchcock. In this movie an ocean liner is destroyed by a Nazi U-Boat and then the U-Boat is destroyed. There are survivors floating around from both ships in one small lifeboat. What ensues is a battle over who is worthy to lead and who should be thrown overboard because they offer the least value to the ultimate survival of those involved.
Where does it stop? I don't know the answer to that question but I do know where it begins. It begins with a government-run health care system where a third and disinterested party becomes involved in the ultimate decision making process about my health.
I'm an overweight 37 year old minister. How long until they toss me overboard? I may not be the first to go but I assure you I won't be around to the end in the Lifeboat scenario.
But here's what concerns me the most about what the president is saying. I am left to draw one of two conclusions about how he sees this issue: first, he is failing to see the logical end of the road this health care bill is on or, second, he does see it and he's lying to the American people because that's exactly what he wants. If I take the first option I'm left with the conclusion that my president does not have the cognitive faculties required of a president and perhaps it's time we throw him overboard. If I take the second option I'm left with the conclusion that my president is a liar who will say whatever he has to in order to get his way and our only hope is that the American people will see through the facade and deny him his want. Why would he want the American people to become totally dependant on the government? Good question. I don't like the answer and neither should you.
I guess there is a third option: the answer is both one and two.
So, Mr. President, stop calling me an idiot. Stop trying to shove this plan down my throat. I will oppose any option in health care where the government has too much vested interest. The Public Option is not the answer. The government should not be involved in my health care.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Misinformation
Today in the mail I got the gift of blog-fodder from Senator Tim Johnson. It was under the guise of clearing up all the misinformation regarding health care reform. So I'd like to offer some quotes from the addendum to his previous party-line release on health care reform along with a few comments about what's wrong with this picture.
In response to the question about why we should want reform when we already have the best care in the world Johnson says we do indeed have the best health care in the world "if you can afford it." He refers to an increasingly large number of people discover they are under-insured and makes the case this is a reason for reform.
Okay. I agree that the current course we are on in the financial side of health care is unsustainable. But is this a problem the governments needs to solve? In a free market health insurance providers will have to compete for the dollars of the average American. If the average American can't afford their rates, guess who doesn't get paid? That's right, the health insurance provider doesn't make much when nobody buys their insurance. That's what a competitive and free market is all about. So what's going to happen if we toss the government into this mix? Well, the government has no reason to keep costs down since they don't have to worry about competing or making money. So, eventually, the price goes up. Unfortunately that gets paid by raising taxes. So maybe it starts out reasonable but where will it be in ten years? Besides, if a person is under-insured, how is that the government's problem? It's my responsibility to make sure I have insurance I need.
On to the second issue in the letter. "I like the coverage I have now. How will I benefit from health care reform?" Johnson's response to this is a rich one. Here's his response: "Reform efforts will build upon the strengths of our health care system while fixing the parts that prevent so many from accessing affordable, quality health care. Health care reform will ensure that you and your family will have the secure and meaningful health care coverage you deserve."
Where do I begin? This is a sales pitch. What is health care reform? Why it's whatever you want it to be! Is a senator speaking or Willy Wonka? Raise your hand if you really believe this. Unfortunately, even if it was true, we still have a whole new set of problems sure to arise from the solution.
Third: "What is the difference between a public insurance option and a government takeover of health care?" Good question. Johnson's response: "A public option would simply be a government insurance plan that people could choose if they liked it better than the private insurance plans available to them. . . . This public option would exist side-by-side with the health insurance plans offered by a private plan that best suits their needs."
Right. Of course that's only until the government plan runs the private companies out of business and forces a more complete government takeover. This is the frustrating part about this debate on the democrat side of the aisle. I believe they know full well what this will do and that end-result is exactly what they want. They're just not man enough to admit it. Instead they desire a back-door approach. Force the crisis and then the country will cry out for us to take it over. Sounds like the housing crisis to me. An awful lot of that appears contrived as well. So maybe this tactic isn't so new. Don't worry, they'll blame it on the republicans when it happens anyway.
Fourth: "With our economy struggling, how can we afford health care reform?" Another real good question. His response: "Reform will undoubtedly be costly - but it is even more costly to do nothing." Oh, and I like this part: "In 30 years, one third of our nation's wealth will be spent on health care."
Wow. In 30 years? How can we solve this problem??? I know, let's commit one third of our wealth to it now! That way it won't be such a shock 30 years from now. After all, there's no possible way the free market system could possibly work well enough to fix this problem before then.
Well, all I can say is this: we can't solve a problem that comes in 30 years by the destruction of our nation today. If we commit these resources (unnecessarily) now, we may not have a nation to save in 30 years. And by saying "may" I think I'm being generous.
Fifth: "In an effort to cust costs, will the government begin rationing health care?" His response: "No, but we can cut costs by making smart choices about what works and avoiding unnecessary and ineffective treatments." Now that's a dim response. If you like that one, you're sure to enjoy this one: "The payments we make to providers have surprisingly little to do with patient outcomes. By paying better for good patient outcomes, we encourage providers to share test results with one another instead of repeating tests unnecessarily."
Where do I begin? Well, first of all, Johnson makes some good points in this section about how to reduce health care costs. But, really, does it take all that is on the table right now to accomplish these reductions? I don't think so. The Health Insurance industry could solve this issue tomorrow it was fully true. I've seen enough doctors who didn't share information and tests were repeated unnecessarily. Of course, if the patient stays on top of things, they can help the doctors get the information they need. At the same time, we might be leading to a situation where nobody tests because last month's tests didn't have the answer. Isn't it possible that multiple tests may be the doctor's idea of looking for something that didn't show up the first time but he believes is there? If we cut him off at the pass, isn't it the patient that suffers?
Rationing will happen with a government option. When the system becomes so bloated with bureaucrats and inefficiency that the government is forced to cut costs by denying care to the patient, rationing will have occurred. The problem is that the government is far far from the model of an efficient and incorruptible company. The current reality makes this all a pipe dream. Johnson, along with many of his cohorts, seems to honestly believe that if they say it won't happen, then surely it won't. I wish I could believe that but I've never seen anything to make me think it's even possible with our government.
Finally: "Medicare offers stable, affordable coverage to millions of Americans 65 and over. How will reform affect this program?" His response: "Health reform efforts will strengthen Medicare" by "reining in spiraling health costs that threaten teh long-term stability of the program." He believes all this "preventative care" due to better coverage will result in better care in our old age and less stress on Medicare costs.
Well, if you believe the rest, then that is marginably possible. The real issue comes from his next statement, however. He says, "Recently, outrageous accusations have claimed that health reform will 'kill seniors' and that panels will decide who is healthy enough to merit care. There is no truth to these claims. Unfortunately, scare tactics such as these only mislead the public and prevent a constructive discussion of the issues."
This is the democrat way of getting rid of those who oppose them. They claim we're all using nothing more than scare tactics, as if there is no validity to this. As if there isn't even the remotest possibility that some form of this could happen. The idea of "death panels" is really just an issue of cause and effect. The near-certainty of rationing necessarily leads to someone, somewhere, sometime making the decision of who gets care and who doesn't. This is where the real crazy thoughts happen. Who is the most expendable? Who is the least important?
There is another possibility in all this. We could wind up with a universal system based on how well the government has handled health care on Indian Reservations. We see plenty of this in South Dakota and Tim Johnson should know that. He's been honored enough on the reservations. "Don't get sick after June." Why? Because all the money available for health care has already been spent by then. Don't expect adequate care after June. Check out the following link at YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzihyQz0ovE .
I don't want that. I don't want the government meddling in health care. I can handle some regulation but leave the real reform to the American people. We will handle the insurance companies. It is our dollars that keep the around and it a lack of our dollars that push them to change.
In response to the question about why we should want reform when we already have the best care in the world Johnson says we do indeed have the best health care in the world "if you can afford it." He refers to an increasingly large number of people discover they are under-insured and makes the case this is a reason for reform.
Okay. I agree that the current course we are on in the financial side of health care is unsustainable. But is this a problem the governments needs to solve? In a free market health insurance providers will have to compete for the dollars of the average American. If the average American can't afford their rates, guess who doesn't get paid? That's right, the health insurance provider doesn't make much when nobody buys their insurance. That's what a competitive and free market is all about. So what's going to happen if we toss the government into this mix? Well, the government has no reason to keep costs down since they don't have to worry about competing or making money. So, eventually, the price goes up. Unfortunately that gets paid by raising taxes. So maybe it starts out reasonable but where will it be in ten years? Besides, if a person is under-insured, how is that the government's problem? It's my responsibility to make sure I have insurance I need.
On to the second issue in the letter. "I like the coverage I have now. How will I benefit from health care reform?" Johnson's response to this is a rich one. Here's his response: "Reform efforts will build upon the strengths of our health care system while fixing the parts that prevent so many from accessing affordable, quality health care. Health care reform will ensure that you and your family will have the secure and meaningful health care coverage you deserve."
Where do I begin? This is a sales pitch. What is health care reform? Why it's whatever you want it to be! Is a senator speaking or Willy Wonka? Raise your hand if you really believe this. Unfortunately, even if it was true, we still have a whole new set of problems sure to arise from the solution.
Third: "What is the difference between a public insurance option and a government takeover of health care?" Good question. Johnson's response: "A public option would simply be a government insurance plan that people could choose if they liked it better than the private insurance plans available to them. . . . This public option would exist side-by-side with the health insurance plans offered by a private plan that best suits their needs."
Right. Of course that's only until the government plan runs the private companies out of business and forces a more complete government takeover. This is the frustrating part about this debate on the democrat side of the aisle. I believe they know full well what this will do and that end-result is exactly what they want. They're just not man enough to admit it. Instead they desire a back-door approach. Force the crisis and then the country will cry out for us to take it over. Sounds like the housing crisis to me. An awful lot of that appears contrived as well. So maybe this tactic isn't so new. Don't worry, they'll blame it on the republicans when it happens anyway.
Fourth: "With our economy struggling, how can we afford health care reform?" Another real good question. His response: "Reform will undoubtedly be costly - but it is even more costly to do nothing." Oh, and I like this part: "In 30 years, one third of our nation's wealth will be spent on health care."
Wow. In 30 years? How can we solve this problem??? I know, let's commit one third of our wealth to it now! That way it won't be such a shock 30 years from now. After all, there's no possible way the free market system could possibly work well enough to fix this problem before then.
Well, all I can say is this: we can't solve a problem that comes in 30 years by the destruction of our nation today. If we commit these resources (unnecessarily) now, we may not have a nation to save in 30 years. And by saying "may" I think I'm being generous.
Fifth: "In an effort to cust costs, will the government begin rationing health care?" His response: "No, but we can cut costs by making smart choices about what works and avoiding unnecessary and ineffective treatments." Now that's a dim response. If you like that one, you're sure to enjoy this one: "The payments we make to providers have surprisingly little to do with patient outcomes. By paying better for good patient outcomes, we encourage providers to share test results with one another instead of repeating tests unnecessarily."
Where do I begin? Well, first of all, Johnson makes some good points in this section about how to reduce health care costs. But, really, does it take all that is on the table right now to accomplish these reductions? I don't think so. The Health Insurance industry could solve this issue tomorrow it was fully true. I've seen enough doctors who didn't share information and tests were repeated unnecessarily. Of course, if the patient stays on top of things, they can help the doctors get the information they need. At the same time, we might be leading to a situation where nobody tests because last month's tests didn't have the answer. Isn't it possible that multiple tests may be the doctor's idea of looking for something that didn't show up the first time but he believes is there? If we cut him off at the pass, isn't it the patient that suffers?
Rationing will happen with a government option. When the system becomes so bloated with bureaucrats and inefficiency that the government is forced to cut costs by denying care to the patient, rationing will have occurred. The problem is that the government is far far from the model of an efficient and incorruptible company. The current reality makes this all a pipe dream. Johnson, along with many of his cohorts, seems to honestly believe that if they say it won't happen, then surely it won't. I wish I could believe that but I've never seen anything to make me think it's even possible with our government.
Finally: "Medicare offers stable, affordable coverage to millions of Americans 65 and over. How will reform affect this program?" His response: "Health reform efforts will strengthen Medicare" by "reining in spiraling health costs that threaten teh long-term stability of the program." He believes all this "preventative care" due to better coverage will result in better care in our old age and less stress on Medicare costs.
Well, if you believe the rest, then that is marginably possible. The real issue comes from his next statement, however. He says, "Recently, outrageous accusations have claimed that health reform will 'kill seniors' and that panels will decide who is healthy enough to merit care. There is no truth to these claims. Unfortunately, scare tactics such as these only mislead the public and prevent a constructive discussion of the issues."
This is the democrat way of getting rid of those who oppose them. They claim we're all using nothing more than scare tactics, as if there is no validity to this. As if there isn't even the remotest possibility that some form of this could happen. The idea of "death panels" is really just an issue of cause and effect. The near-certainty of rationing necessarily leads to someone, somewhere, sometime making the decision of who gets care and who doesn't. This is where the real crazy thoughts happen. Who is the most expendable? Who is the least important?
There is another possibility in all this. We could wind up with a universal system based on how well the government has handled health care on Indian Reservations. We see plenty of this in South Dakota and Tim Johnson should know that. He's been honored enough on the reservations. "Don't get sick after June." Why? Because all the money available for health care has already been spent by then. Don't expect adequate care after June. Check out the following link at YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzihyQz0ovE .
I don't want that. I don't want the government meddling in health care. I can handle some regulation but leave the real reform to the American people. We will handle the insurance companies. It is our dollars that keep the around and it a lack of our dollars that push them to change.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Smug
From FoxNews.com
"The Republican leadership," Emanuel said, "has made a strategic decision that defeating President Obama's health care proposal is more important for their political goals than solving the health insurance problems that Americans face every day."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/19/dems-difficulty-getting-health-care/
What's amazing to me is the absolute snobbishness I've seen in the democrat side of the political aisle. This statement really points that out.
Okay, so I know that not all democrats are snobs and not all of them agree with statements like that of Rom Emanuel. So let me just get that out of the way. I'm also certain there have been plenty of republicans who I could say the same thing about.
So let me tell you what's wrong with this statement by Emanuel. He honestly believes that, first, he's right and all intelligent Americans are with him and, second, that all this opposition is nothing more than republicans playing politics. And oh, those poor Americans will suffer through their horrible health insurance problems because republicans don't want to play ball and replace the health care system with something different.
Why is it that if anyone disagrees with their opinion, it must be contrived? How come you must not be a thinking human being if you disagree? Wouldn't a more likely conclusion be that Rom Emanuel may have an opinion that a lot of Americans, maybe even the majority of Americans might disagree with? And maybe, just maybe, Rom Emanuel and many other smug and snobby politicians are either wrong or in the minority.
I don't care if you're a republican or a democrat politician, if the words coming out of your mouth are constantly dripping with snobbery, it's time for you to go home and learn to work with your hands again.
"The Republican leadership," Emanuel said, "has made a strategic decision that defeating President Obama's health care proposal is more important for their political goals than solving the health insurance problems that Americans face every day."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/19/dems-difficulty-getting-health-care/
What's amazing to me is the absolute snobbishness I've seen in the democrat side of the political aisle. This statement really points that out.
Okay, so I know that not all democrats are snobs and not all of them agree with statements like that of Rom Emanuel. So let me just get that out of the way. I'm also certain there have been plenty of republicans who I could say the same thing about.
So let me tell you what's wrong with this statement by Emanuel. He honestly believes that, first, he's right and all intelligent Americans are with him and, second, that all this opposition is nothing more than republicans playing politics. And oh, those poor Americans will suffer through their horrible health insurance problems because republicans don't want to play ball and replace the health care system with something different.
Why is it that if anyone disagrees with their opinion, it must be contrived? How come you must not be a thinking human being if you disagree? Wouldn't a more likely conclusion be that Rom Emanuel may have an opinion that a lot of Americans, maybe even the majority of Americans might disagree with? And maybe, just maybe, Rom Emanuel and many other smug and snobby politicians are either wrong or in the minority.
I don't care if you're a republican or a democrat politician, if the words coming out of your mouth are constantly dripping with snobbery, it's time for you to go home and learn to work with your hands again.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
The Public Option
So FoxNews is reporting that the Obama administration is starting to open up to the idea of taking the public option for Health Insurance off the table in order to compromise.
"On Sunday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the so-called public option -- a government-run health care plan that would be just one component of a broader health care overhaul -- is "not the essential element."
She suggested the White House could settle for a system of insurance cooperatives instead, something the Senate Finance Committee is considering."
This is at: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/16/town-halls-having-impact-white-house-bends-health-care-provision-face/
Now we're getting somewhere. I'm not against government oversight (done properly), I just don't want to see the government offer and provide competitive insurance. It's not their business and they need to a more governmentally appropriate role in this system.
Let's fix it, not replace it.
"On Sunday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the so-called public option -- a government-run health care plan that would be just one component of a broader health care overhaul -- is "not the essential element."
She suggested the White House could settle for a system of insurance cooperatives instead, something the Senate Finance Committee is considering."
This is at: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/16/town-halls-having-impact-white-house-bends-health-care-provision-face/
Now we're getting somewhere. I'm not against government oversight (done properly), I just don't want to see the government offer and provide competitive insurance. It's not their business and they need to a more governmentally appropriate role in this system.
Let's fix it, not replace it.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Health Insurance Subsidies
Today's blog-fodder comes from President Obama in regards to how to pay for health insurance reform. This quote comes from foxnews at:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/14/obamas-health-care-quest-heads-west/
"Obama agreed that he couldn't insure the estimated 46 million uninsured Americans for free. But he told the man there are steps that he would take to avoid raising taxes on 95 percent of Americans, as he has pledged. One option, he said, is to eliminate subsidies to insurance companies and instead shift the subsidies to low-income Americans to help them buy insurance."
So here's my thought: if the insurance companies are already receiving subsidies, aren't those subsidies helping our insurance costs to stay lower? And, if not, why is the government subsidizing in the first place?
With all this in mind, if the subsidies are indeed helping to keep our costs lower, then it would follow that removing those subsidies would cause my rates to go up and make it harder for the Health Insurance industry to compete with whatever government options become available. And if the industry isn't allowed to compete, then we're going to see the government options grow more and more over the years until they've pushed private healthcare out of the market.
The president is not just using fuzzy math, he's using fuzzy logic.
The smart insurance company right now is Aetna, held out by Obama as an example to follow. Here's another quote from that same article above: "The president says his intent was not to target all big companies. He said some, like Aetna, are working with the administration on overhaul. But he said others are spending money to oppose his efforts to remake the system."
Aetna is positioning themself to be the channel for government health insurance. They'll get the biggest piece of the pie. I guess I should be investing in Aetna. Unfortunately I believe in fighting against this new system and so I find myself allied with the other insurance company, including my own.
I still believe in reforming - not remaking. The system needs fixing, maybe even overhauling, but throwing the system out, which is what we're doing, is going to create a fully government-run insurance industry eventually. It may not begin that way but it will end up that way and future presidents will be forced into placing the whole bill onto the American taxpayer. We will see our taxes reach that 50% to 60% level (at least) just to pay for it. And when that happens our transformation to socialism will be nearly complete. With the governement reaching that deep into the pockets of the average American, what will we be left with to pay for everything else in life? How many more private industries will fall to the government to subsidize and takeover?
We are on the slippery slope away from democracy and freedom. Private Health Insurance is a freedom (not a basic right - see earlier blogs) we now have and we are in the process of handing that freedom over to the government. And I thought the presidents influence on the auto industry was a gross abuse of presidential and governmental power. As the government takes much more control over the insurance industry, it will begin calling more of the shots.
My primary concern is giving away the freedoms we have. The more we allow those freedoms to slip away, the sooner we're going to see the loss of our basic human rights. This health care debate is about more than health care and this is where the president and congress are missing the point. This debate is about giving away (taking away, losing) the very foundations of our country. The government should not be running anything that could be handled in the private sector. Government is a necessary evil. It can be a good presence in the lives of it's ciitizens if stays where government should stay.
Wake up, America! We're giving away the rights and freedoms of our children on a much greater scale than anything we will experience ourselves.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/14/obamas-health-care-quest-heads-west/
"Obama agreed that he couldn't insure the estimated 46 million uninsured Americans for free. But he told the man there are steps that he would take to avoid raising taxes on 95 percent of Americans, as he has pledged. One option, he said, is to eliminate subsidies to insurance companies and instead shift the subsidies to low-income Americans to help them buy insurance."
So here's my thought: if the insurance companies are already receiving subsidies, aren't those subsidies helping our insurance costs to stay lower? And, if not, why is the government subsidizing in the first place?
With all this in mind, if the subsidies are indeed helping to keep our costs lower, then it would follow that removing those subsidies would cause my rates to go up and make it harder for the Health Insurance industry to compete with whatever government options become available. And if the industry isn't allowed to compete, then we're going to see the government options grow more and more over the years until they've pushed private healthcare out of the market.
The president is not just using fuzzy math, he's using fuzzy logic.
The smart insurance company right now is Aetna, held out by Obama as an example to follow. Here's another quote from that same article above: "The president says his intent was not to target all big companies. He said some, like Aetna, are working with the administration on overhaul. But he said others are spending money to oppose his efforts to remake the system."
Aetna is positioning themself to be the channel for government health insurance. They'll get the biggest piece of the pie. I guess I should be investing in Aetna. Unfortunately I believe in fighting against this new system and so I find myself allied with the other insurance company, including my own.
I still believe in reforming - not remaking. The system needs fixing, maybe even overhauling, but throwing the system out, which is what we're doing, is going to create a fully government-run insurance industry eventually. It may not begin that way but it will end up that way and future presidents will be forced into placing the whole bill onto the American taxpayer. We will see our taxes reach that 50% to 60% level (at least) just to pay for it. And when that happens our transformation to socialism will be nearly complete. With the governement reaching that deep into the pockets of the average American, what will we be left with to pay for everything else in life? How many more private industries will fall to the government to subsidize and takeover?
We are on the slippery slope away from democracy and freedom. Private Health Insurance is a freedom (not a basic right - see earlier blogs) we now have and we are in the process of handing that freedom over to the government. And I thought the presidents influence on the auto industry was a gross abuse of presidential and governmental power. As the government takes much more control over the insurance industry, it will begin calling more of the shots.
My primary concern is giving away the freedoms we have. The more we allow those freedoms to slip away, the sooner we're going to see the loss of our basic human rights. This health care debate is about more than health care and this is where the president and congress are missing the point. This debate is about giving away (taking away, losing) the very foundations of our country. The government should not be running anything that could be handled in the private sector. Government is a necessary evil. It can be a good presence in the lives of it's ciitizens if stays where government should stay.
Wake up, America! We're giving away the rights and freedoms of our children on a much greater scale than anything we will experience ourselves.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
47 Million Uninsured
There has been a lot of talk lately about all these uninsured Americans when it comes to Health Insurance. I watched an interesting episode of Huckabee last night in which Mike Huckabee suggests that number is actually quite different. You see, you have to take away the number of people in that figure that are illegal immigrants (10 to 12 million), those who make more than $50,000 a year and choose not to pay for health insurance (17 million), those currently qualify for government programs but do not enroll, and those who are merely in transition and will likely have health insurance again within the next 4 months.
Huckabee's numbers come down to about 5 million who want health insurance but can't afford it. I've seen other estimates from 8.2 million to 13.9 million and there's an interesting article on all this at http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2007/20070718153509.aspx.
So do we really need universal health care to reach those who want it but can't afford it? The numbers suggest there could be much cheaper and easier ways to simply fix the problems we have and extend coverage to those people.
Being in the under $50,000 a year class, but with health insurance, I submit to everyone that a little education could go along way for those who want it but don't feel they could afford it. It may not be as expensive as they think.
Either way, our current track for reform is not the way to go. Huckabee also suggests the problem is more an issue with the state of health in America rather than just the health insurance industry. Check out his take on this issue at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPS0GE6ZsBw.
Let's stop playing with the numbers and get on the right track. I'm tired of the lies and truth-stretching.
Huckabee's numbers come down to about 5 million who want health insurance but can't afford it. I've seen other estimates from 8.2 million to 13.9 million and there's an interesting article on all this at http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2007/20070718153509.aspx.
So do we really need universal health care to reach those who want it but can't afford it? The numbers suggest there could be much cheaper and easier ways to simply fix the problems we have and extend coverage to those people.
Being in the under $50,000 a year class, but with health insurance, I submit to everyone that a little education could go along way for those who want it but don't feel they could afford it. It may not be as expensive as they think.
Either way, our current track for reform is not the way to go. Huckabee also suggests the problem is more an issue with the state of health in America rather than just the health insurance industry. Check out his take on this issue at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPS0GE6ZsBw.
Let's stop playing with the numbers and get on the right track. I'm tired of the lies and truth-stretching.
Friday, August 7, 2009
My Representatives
I've been pleased to find that it's easy for me to tell my representatives how I feel about things. I just go to http://www.senate.gov/ and http://www.house.gov/ and look up my representatives by state. I can then send out an email expressing my opinion.
Then I wait for responses. I desire responses that are thoughtful and show me that my representative actually has an opinion on the subject. They may disagree with me but I want to know they've thought about it and that they want to hear my voice.
I am in South Dakota and I've recently sent messages to my representatives about the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor (I'm still opposed) and about healthcare reform. So here are my results:
John Thune: I voted for you and you keep voting the way I would vote. Obviously I like that. You opposed the confirmation of Sotomayor and you have provided well-thought responses to my emails. Thank you Senator Thune for listening and for caring enough about what you do to have your own opinion and to value mine.
Tim Johnson: I didn't vote for you and never will. I have unpopular opinions regarding your health and fitness for congressional duty. I recently received a well-written letter from you regarding your position on health are reform. An email would have been better (and cheaper) but I appreciate the response. In your letter you said, "We have a moral obligation to fix the problems that plague health care in America . . . ." I disagree with that. Healthcare is a privilege, not a right. Perhaps we've believed healthcare is a right for too long to understand that concept anymore. So when I couldn't afford health insurance, I just went without. Those results are mine to live with and if it was important enough to me to make sure I had it, I'd find a way to get the resources to pay for it. By the way, I have health insurance and that insurance is cheaper today than it was 9 years ago. I accomplished that because I have a choice in who my insurance provider is and I took the time to find a plan that suits my needs. So, in my view, I am not dealing with the "skyrocketing cost of health insurance." Now, consider the current hospital system. Certainly the majority, if not all, Americans have access to a non-profit hospital. These hospitals typically do a fine job of finding a way for writing off medical expenses or finding alternative funding for those who need there services. The more the government becomes involved, the less the American people do. Donations will decrease and more of the burden will be placed upon the government. Costs will go up as well as problems with the system.
You wrote in your letter, "While the wealthiest Americans receive generous tax breaks, the number of average citizens who cannot obtain access to basic medical services and struggle to pay health insurance costs continues to grow." First of all, this is another way of saying, "Let's make the wealthy pay more to cover the costs of those less fortunate." That's redistribution of wealth and that's socialism. We are a democracy, for now. Second, that statement does not take into account that the wealthiest Americans are employing the less fortunate Americans and, in a great many cases, are offering health insurance to their employees in ways that already absorb much, if not all, of that cost.
You also wrote in your letter, "There has been a great deal of misinformation swelling around reform, lately, and I want to be clear in stating this is not a 'government takeover' of our health care system, nor a means of rationing care." First, President Obama has consistently talked about universal health care and most of the talk from the plans being put forward say this is just that, a government takeover of our health care system. You can say it isn't but I still call a spade a spade. Second, this reform may not see immediate rationing of care but it has an almost certain potential of reaching that state within a number of years. You have to consider what other politicians will do with this in the future as we open the door to ideas that offer a greater devaluing of life than we already have. Just listen to the ideas of Rom Emmanuel and see where his ideas are taking us.
Recent news reports say we now have a $1.3 Trillion deficit in the last 10 months. You mention in your letter that Obama has already created a $694 billion reserve fund for health care. Perhaps we would be better off applying that towards the deficit. I can't carry a deficit in my business and I don't think my government should be allowed to either.
Your letter was silent on the issue of abortion in the health care debate. The AP has confirmed that current health care reform options on the table absorb the cost of abortion. I am significantly displeased with the fact that my tax dollars already get sent to facilitate this terrible injustice all over the world. You've made your position on this issue very clear over the years and I sincerely pray for a change of heart in you that will help you to see this travesty for what it is. Regardless, I should never be forced to pay for that which I disagree with on such a passionate scale. In over 95% of abortion cases it is nothing more than an elective procedure. In that sense it is no different than a face-lift. In a moral sense, it is something far far worse. I DONT WANT TO PAY FOR SOMEONE ELSES KILLING OF AN INNOCENT CHILD!
All disagreements aside, I wish to state that I appreciate a much longer letter in response to this issue. Although it's well-written, it is still nothing more than the party line on this issue. I'd like to hear about where you may disagree with the president and your colleagues in Congress. Talk about what you see that we reall need to do to fix health care. Be inciteful and not just another outlet for the party voice. That voice represents very little, if any, of my own beliefs.
You also voted in favor of Sotomayor and your response to that issue was a short form letter that shows me you don't have an opinion of your own, rather just the party line. Please prove me wrong about that last statement. I want to know that you care about my voice and not just the party voice that shouts from somewhere other than South Dakota.
Stephanie Herseth: I didn't vote for you and I disagree with you often. But, your responses to me on these two issues show that you have thought about your position. I respect that. I was even pleasantly surprised to find we were not that far apart on Healthcare Reform. Thank you for having your own voice, even if I disagree. It is important to me that you are a Blue Dog Democrat. Our country cannot survive with the size of deficits are taking on. Soon no one will be willing to lend us the money we need because the amount we are borrowing is unpayable. I have hope that conservative values with regards to fiscal responsibility will keep health care reform from becoming exactly what the majority of Americans do not want - universal and government-run and controlled.
Then I wait for responses. I desire responses that are thoughtful and show me that my representative actually has an opinion on the subject. They may disagree with me but I want to know they've thought about it and that they want to hear my voice.
I am in South Dakota and I've recently sent messages to my representatives about the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor (I'm still opposed) and about healthcare reform. So here are my results:
John Thune: I voted for you and you keep voting the way I would vote. Obviously I like that. You opposed the confirmation of Sotomayor and you have provided well-thought responses to my emails. Thank you Senator Thune for listening and for caring enough about what you do to have your own opinion and to value mine.
Tim Johnson: I didn't vote for you and never will. I have unpopular opinions regarding your health and fitness for congressional duty. I recently received a well-written letter from you regarding your position on health are reform. An email would have been better (and cheaper) but I appreciate the response. In your letter you said, "We have a moral obligation to fix the problems that plague health care in America . . . ." I disagree with that. Healthcare is a privilege, not a right. Perhaps we've believed healthcare is a right for too long to understand that concept anymore. So when I couldn't afford health insurance, I just went without. Those results are mine to live with and if it was important enough to me to make sure I had it, I'd find a way to get the resources to pay for it. By the way, I have health insurance and that insurance is cheaper today than it was 9 years ago. I accomplished that because I have a choice in who my insurance provider is and I took the time to find a plan that suits my needs. So, in my view, I am not dealing with the "skyrocketing cost of health insurance." Now, consider the current hospital system. Certainly the majority, if not all, Americans have access to a non-profit hospital. These hospitals typically do a fine job of finding a way for writing off medical expenses or finding alternative funding for those who need there services. The more the government becomes involved, the less the American people do. Donations will decrease and more of the burden will be placed upon the government. Costs will go up as well as problems with the system.
You wrote in your letter, "While the wealthiest Americans receive generous tax breaks, the number of average citizens who cannot obtain access to basic medical services and struggle to pay health insurance costs continues to grow." First of all, this is another way of saying, "Let's make the wealthy pay more to cover the costs of those less fortunate." That's redistribution of wealth and that's socialism. We are a democracy, for now. Second, that statement does not take into account that the wealthiest Americans are employing the less fortunate Americans and, in a great many cases, are offering health insurance to their employees in ways that already absorb much, if not all, of that cost.
You also wrote in your letter, "There has been a great deal of misinformation swelling around reform, lately, and I want to be clear in stating this is not a 'government takeover' of our health care system, nor a means of rationing care." First, President Obama has consistently talked about universal health care and most of the talk from the plans being put forward say this is just that, a government takeover of our health care system. You can say it isn't but I still call a spade a spade. Second, this reform may not see immediate rationing of care but it has an almost certain potential of reaching that state within a number of years. You have to consider what other politicians will do with this in the future as we open the door to ideas that offer a greater devaluing of life than we already have. Just listen to the ideas of Rom Emmanuel and see where his ideas are taking us.
Recent news reports say we now have a $1.3 Trillion deficit in the last 10 months. You mention in your letter that Obama has already created a $694 billion reserve fund for health care. Perhaps we would be better off applying that towards the deficit. I can't carry a deficit in my business and I don't think my government should be allowed to either.
Your letter was silent on the issue of abortion in the health care debate. The AP has confirmed that current health care reform options on the table absorb the cost of abortion. I am significantly displeased with the fact that my tax dollars already get sent to facilitate this terrible injustice all over the world. You've made your position on this issue very clear over the years and I sincerely pray for a change of heart in you that will help you to see this travesty for what it is. Regardless, I should never be forced to pay for that which I disagree with on such a passionate scale. In over 95% of abortion cases it is nothing more than an elective procedure. In that sense it is no different than a face-lift. In a moral sense, it is something far far worse. I DONT WANT TO PAY FOR SOMEONE ELSES KILLING OF AN INNOCENT CHILD!
All disagreements aside, I wish to state that I appreciate a much longer letter in response to this issue. Although it's well-written, it is still nothing more than the party line on this issue. I'd like to hear about where you may disagree with the president and your colleagues in Congress. Talk about what you see that we reall need to do to fix health care. Be inciteful and not just another outlet for the party voice. That voice represents very little, if any, of my own beliefs.
You also voted in favor of Sotomayor and your response to that issue was a short form letter that shows me you don't have an opinion of your own, rather just the party line. Please prove me wrong about that last statement. I want to know that you care about my voice and not just the party voice that shouts from somewhere other than South Dakota.
Stephanie Herseth: I didn't vote for you and I disagree with you often. But, your responses to me on these two issues show that you have thought about your position. I respect that. I was even pleasantly surprised to find we were not that far apart on Healthcare Reform. Thank you for having your own voice, even if I disagree. It is important to me that you are a Blue Dog Democrat. Our country cannot survive with the size of deficits are taking on. Soon no one will be willing to lend us the money we need because the amount we are borrowing is unpayable. I have hope that conservative values with regards to fiscal responsibility will keep health care reform from becoming exactly what the majority of Americans do not want - universal and government-run and controlled.
Enemies
"Top White House officials counseled Democratic senators Thursday on coping with disruptions at public events on health care this summer, officials said, and promised the party and allies would respond with twice the force if any individual lawmaker is criticized in television advertising." (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/07/health-punch-back/?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a16:g2:r1:c0.238416:b27004044:z0)
Is this how we treat those with opposing opinions in America? I read this quote earlier this evening and my feathers were rankled. If I was on a comedy show I would have done a spit-take. I couldn't believe my eyes. These kinds of statements only prove that the Democrats see those with opposing opinions as enemies that must be defeated rather than valid opinions and voices that should be allowed to be heard.
These tactics are increasingly un-American. I won't make any other comparisons, as others are doing. I don't need to. Calling these actions un-American should cause us to shudder.
By all means, respond to those who oppose you. But do it in open and honest debate. These are not voices to be silenced. These are voices that represent many in America. Criticism is a part of being in politics. It comes with the territory. I have the right to criticize and offer my opinions and you have the right to respond as you see fit.
I am a conservative. If you disagree with me, you are not my enemy. I desire that you would agree with me. If you don't, I will not dismiss your opinion as unimportant and needing to be silenced.
Is this how we treat those with opposing opinions in America? I read this quote earlier this evening and my feathers were rankled. If I was on a comedy show I would have done a spit-take. I couldn't believe my eyes. These kinds of statements only prove that the Democrats see those with opposing opinions as enemies that must be defeated rather than valid opinions and voices that should be allowed to be heard.
These tactics are increasingly un-American. I won't make any other comparisons, as others are doing. I don't need to. Calling these actions un-American should cause us to shudder.
By all means, respond to those who oppose you. But do it in open and honest debate. These are not voices to be silenced. These are voices that represent many in America. Criticism is a part of being in politics. It comes with the territory. I have the right to criticize and offer my opinions and you have the right to respond as you see fit.
I am a conservative. If you disagree with me, you are not my enemy. I desire that you would agree with me. If you don't, I will not dismiss your opinion as unimportant and needing to be silenced.
Health Care
I've been reading the news today and I see lots of talk about Town Hall meetings getting violent and I want to make a few observations and share my opinion on somethings.
First of all, violence is not the way for either side. Open and honest debate, without the fear of reprise, is the American way.
Second, lawmakers have to stop forcing this issue down the throats of the American people. Sane people resort to violence only if they feel their opinions are not being listened to and their lifestyle is in danger. So what we are seeing should be a message to Congress that America is not be, and may not ever be, ready for what they are hearing regarding Healthcare Reform from Congress. You cannot force something that a significant percentage of the country is against. I won't even say it's the majority, all though more recent polls suggest it is. Even if it's the minority, that minority has too much of a voice to just roll over and let it happen. So take the passion you see on this debate as a sign that the country is not ready for what you are attempting to do.
Third, now the rhetoric about passing partisan bills and blaming the oppositions for refusing to compromise is coming from our President. He has identified himself as cut from the cloth. Make no mistake, compromise is a two way street. What you are asking for is not compromise, it's capitulation. It's surrender. Don't kid yourself into thinking you're on the high road.
Finally, here's my opinion and, yes, I've shared it with all three of my state's representatives in the House and Senate. I will never be in favor of universal health care and especially health care run by the federal government. I think that Medicare and Medicaid are full of problems and I would like to see them fixed. I agree that we need our healthcare system reformed but I do not think government control is the answer. Government control is never the answer. Oversight is one thing, control is another. We cannot keep healthcare competitive and effective without the private sector being in charge. At the same time, it seems that the private sector cannot be trusted without oversight.
Now, the other problem is that there are too many Americans uninsured. That's what I keep hearing and it's probably true. The real questions is "why?" Is it a desire to take care of oneself without relying on others? Is it a lack of resources to pay for insurance? Is it young adults who see themselves as bullet-proof and not in need of insurance? Probably all these and many more. So the question should be this: Will universal government-run healthcare solve all these isues? Well, yes, if it's forced on people. But forcing something like this on the American people infringes on their basic freedoms. I may find that drinking a glass of grapefruit juice every day would improve my health and be, in general, good for me. But let's face it, even if I liked grapefruit juice I would rebel against it if someone came along and said I "had" to drink it. If I was threatened with jail for not following that order, I'd submit to the handcuffs first. That's not just part of the American spirit, it's part of the human spirit. Don't force health insurance on me. Even if it's perfect and actually performs far better than every other socialized system out there, I don't want it. I will not accept it. If it's my choice, my way, I'll accept it. And if I don't want it, then leave me to die if you must. Good healthcare in our country is not a right, it's a privilege. I'd hate not to have it, but it should never be taken for granted either.
The system isn't as bad as some make it out to be. It needs reform. It needs to be fixed. It needs oversight. Let's do that. Don't throw away what we already have in order to create something that is based on ego, misinformation, and pure politics. Take an honest look and fix the system, don't throw it all way.
First of all, violence is not the way for either side. Open and honest debate, without the fear of reprise, is the American way.
Second, lawmakers have to stop forcing this issue down the throats of the American people. Sane people resort to violence only if they feel their opinions are not being listened to and their lifestyle is in danger. So what we are seeing should be a message to Congress that America is not be, and may not ever be, ready for what they are hearing regarding Healthcare Reform from Congress. You cannot force something that a significant percentage of the country is against. I won't even say it's the majority, all though more recent polls suggest it is. Even if it's the minority, that minority has too much of a voice to just roll over and let it happen. So take the passion you see on this debate as a sign that the country is not ready for what you are attempting to do.
Third, now the rhetoric about passing partisan bills and blaming the oppositions for refusing to compromise is coming from our President. He has identified himself as cut from the cloth. Make no mistake, compromise is a two way street. What you are asking for is not compromise, it's capitulation. It's surrender. Don't kid yourself into thinking you're on the high road.
Finally, here's my opinion and, yes, I've shared it with all three of my state's representatives in the House and Senate. I will never be in favor of universal health care and especially health care run by the federal government. I think that Medicare and Medicaid are full of problems and I would like to see them fixed. I agree that we need our healthcare system reformed but I do not think government control is the answer. Government control is never the answer. Oversight is one thing, control is another. We cannot keep healthcare competitive and effective without the private sector being in charge. At the same time, it seems that the private sector cannot be trusted without oversight.
Now, the other problem is that there are too many Americans uninsured. That's what I keep hearing and it's probably true. The real questions is "why?" Is it a desire to take care of oneself without relying on others? Is it a lack of resources to pay for insurance? Is it young adults who see themselves as bullet-proof and not in need of insurance? Probably all these and many more. So the question should be this: Will universal government-run healthcare solve all these isues? Well, yes, if it's forced on people. But forcing something like this on the American people infringes on their basic freedoms. I may find that drinking a glass of grapefruit juice every day would improve my health and be, in general, good for me. But let's face it, even if I liked grapefruit juice I would rebel against it if someone came along and said I "had" to drink it. If I was threatened with jail for not following that order, I'd submit to the handcuffs first. That's not just part of the American spirit, it's part of the human spirit. Don't force health insurance on me. Even if it's perfect and actually performs far better than every other socialized system out there, I don't want it. I will not accept it. If it's my choice, my way, I'll accept it. And if I don't want it, then leave me to die if you must. Good healthcare in our country is not a right, it's a privilege. I'd hate not to have it, but it should never be taken for granted either.
The system isn't as bad as some make it out to be. It needs reform. It needs to be fixed. It needs oversight. Let's do that. Don't throw away what we already have in order to create something that is based on ego, misinformation, and pure politics. Take an honest look and fix the system, don't throw it all way.
Stop Shutting Me Out
This blog is dedicated to all the Democrats in Congress who keep saying they want bi-partisan support but that they won't wait forever and that they will pass bills without Republican support if they have to.
This is one of the statements I am most tired of hearing. It represents collective up-turning of the Democrat nose to the American people and nobody should stand for it. There is this sense that these people honestly believe that the election of all these Democrats to Congress is a mandate that they should get everything they want and that the opinions of others simply no longer matter, especially those of their Republican counterparts. I've heard President Obama repeat this over and over again. And every time I hear it, I want to scream at the television.
In the past, Americans have voted in their representatives to represent all the people. If they have specific political leanings and that helps them to get elected, that's fine. People should vote for those who will represent their opinions and beliefs the best. Even so, all of our representatives have the basic task of protecting the basic (inalienable) freedoms and rights we enjoy in this country. So when a senator or a party takes steps to silence the opinions of those who disagree, we have a problem. Those freedoms and rights are taken away by those who have been given the mandate and the power to maintain them.
Everytime the Democrats in Congress threaten to pass legislation without the support of those Republican dissidents (who are obviously out of touch and don't represent the opinions of anyone in this country) they are forcing their will on the process and stifling my voice. This results in an unwinnable situation for the opposition and signals to them that the Democrats are not willing to compromise, let alone seriously debate the issues. And, so far, that's what we've seen.
The tactics we are seeing on the Democrat side of the aisle are meant to silence the opposition. But we live in America where the opposition has always been free to disagree openly and without fear of reprisal or marginalization by those in power.
I accept that America has voted in more Democrats than Republicans. I don't like it, but I accept it. It's the will of the people. I also accept that it's harder for my ideals and values to be maintained given this current situation. I do not accept that these ideals and values are out-moded or out-of-step with what America needs. And as for the ratio of Democrats to Republicans in Congress, I'd be surprised if this doesn't change dramatically in 2010. I say this because, regardless of our differing political views, the tactics of this current set of Democrats that run rough-shod over their opposition stifles free speech and promises to erode the freedoms of our once-fine country. In America, when you politically run rough-shod over your opposition, you run rough-shod over every American, whether they agree with you or not.
So I say this to the Democrats in Congress: Stop shutting me out! There are representatives in Congress who represent me and my voice. I want them to be heard. When you shut them out of the process, you eliminate the voices of a great many of the people of your country. You act as if you have 100% support of the American people and the actual figure is much closer to 50% than you're willing to admit. You're actions are further dividing the people of your country and they are setting this country up for a major political transition. I can only hope that the next elections restore some balance to the voice in our Nation's capital. If not, our country may be lost before 2012.
This is one of the statements I am most tired of hearing. It represents collective up-turning of the Democrat nose to the American people and nobody should stand for it. There is this sense that these people honestly believe that the election of all these Democrats to Congress is a mandate that they should get everything they want and that the opinions of others simply no longer matter, especially those of their Republican counterparts. I've heard President Obama repeat this over and over again. And every time I hear it, I want to scream at the television.
In the past, Americans have voted in their representatives to represent all the people. If they have specific political leanings and that helps them to get elected, that's fine. People should vote for those who will represent their opinions and beliefs the best. Even so, all of our representatives have the basic task of protecting the basic (inalienable) freedoms and rights we enjoy in this country. So when a senator or a party takes steps to silence the opinions of those who disagree, we have a problem. Those freedoms and rights are taken away by those who have been given the mandate and the power to maintain them.
Everytime the Democrats in Congress threaten to pass legislation without the support of those Republican dissidents (who are obviously out of touch and don't represent the opinions of anyone in this country) they are forcing their will on the process and stifling my voice. This results in an unwinnable situation for the opposition and signals to them that the Democrats are not willing to compromise, let alone seriously debate the issues. And, so far, that's what we've seen.
The tactics we are seeing on the Democrat side of the aisle are meant to silence the opposition. But we live in America where the opposition has always been free to disagree openly and without fear of reprisal or marginalization by those in power.
I accept that America has voted in more Democrats than Republicans. I don't like it, but I accept it. It's the will of the people. I also accept that it's harder for my ideals and values to be maintained given this current situation. I do not accept that these ideals and values are out-moded or out-of-step with what America needs. And as for the ratio of Democrats to Republicans in Congress, I'd be surprised if this doesn't change dramatically in 2010. I say this because, regardless of our differing political views, the tactics of this current set of Democrats that run rough-shod over their opposition stifles free speech and promises to erode the freedoms of our once-fine country. In America, when you politically run rough-shod over your opposition, you run rough-shod over every American, whether they agree with you or not.
So I say this to the Democrats in Congress: Stop shutting me out! There are representatives in Congress who represent me and my voice. I want them to be heard. When you shut them out of the process, you eliminate the voices of a great many of the people of your country. You act as if you have 100% support of the American people and the actual figure is much closer to 50% than you're willing to admit. You're actions are further dividing the people of your country and they are setting this country up for a major political transition. I can only hope that the next elections restore some balance to the voice in our Nation's capital. If not, our country may be lost before 2012.
Clearing the Air
I'm getting more and more frustrated with my government every day. I'm getting so frustrated that I feel like I am in a sinking ship, locked in a cabin with no way out. The ship is not only sinking, it was already taking me somewhere I didn't want to go. With this in mind I have created this blog. I want to rant. I don't want to bottle all this up inside. I need to speak. I need to make my voice heard somewhere, somehow.
So, in this first blog, I want to clear the air about things. First of all, I am a pastor and I want everyone to know that I have far better things to talk about from the pulpit than political issues. So you wont hear any of this on Sunday morning. This blog is personal and doesn't represent my church or my denomination. With that said, I will hereby assume that no one will take it that way. The fact that I am a pastor also means you can expect my blogs to be respectful and clean. What I mean by "rant" is probably not what most people mean. I just want to speak my peace. I want my voice to be heard, even if it doesn't stand a chance to make a difference in where my country is going.
Secondly, I do not and will not ever advocate violence when it comes to the debate of ideas. Every person has the right to be heard. We can respectfully disagree if it comes to that but we all have the right to be heard, even those who disagree with me. This means that if you come along and respond to my blogs, there is a greater than average chance I will allow your comments to be posted. I will block them, however, if they are disrespectful and/or coarse. I won't curse in my blogs and I expect others to respect my desire to keep my eyes and ears clear of words that have no reason to exist in the English language.
So I'm going to express my opinions and everyone can agree or disagree. Now, on to the ranting.
So, in this first blog, I want to clear the air about things. First of all, I am a pastor and I want everyone to know that I have far better things to talk about from the pulpit than political issues. So you wont hear any of this on Sunday morning. This blog is personal and doesn't represent my church or my denomination. With that said, I will hereby assume that no one will take it that way. The fact that I am a pastor also means you can expect my blogs to be respectful and clean. What I mean by "rant" is probably not what most people mean. I just want to speak my peace. I want my voice to be heard, even if it doesn't stand a chance to make a difference in where my country is going.
Secondly, I do not and will not ever advocate violence when it comes to the debate of ideas. Every person has the right to be heard. We can respectfully disagree if it comes to that but we all have the right to be heard, even those who disagree with me. This means that if you come along and respond to my blogs, there is a greater than average chance I will allow your comments to be posted. I will block them, however, if they are disrespectful and/or coarse. I won't curse in my blogs and I expect others to respect my desire to keep my eyes and ears clear of words that have no reason to exist in the English language.
So I'm going to express my opinions and everyone can agree or disagree. Now, on to the ranting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
