The big news in Washington this week has been President Obama's huge push to get his health insurance bill passed before Congress takes it's August recess. He is using much of the same retoric that was used to rush through the stimulus bill, and we can see how "urgent" that spending turned out to be. The truth is that Obama and the Democrats don't want the American people to have time to hear what's really in this bill. They must know that if we found out their real plans, we'd have the capitol surrounded with angry voters, demanding the thing be destroyed. So rush it through before the unwashed masses get a clue and let the chips fall where they may. It'll be too late for us to stop them. Rolled again.
To thier credit, the liberals have not come up for air since taking power in Washington. The pace with which they have carried out their power grab has been stunning. It's only been six months, but they have managed to take over the auto industry, the banking industry, passed a huge stimulus package, alienated our ally Israel, buddied up with socialist dictators in Latin America, and now are on the verge of getting their universal health insurance bill passed. Whew! Quite alot accomplished. In my opinion, there's just one thing wrong here. Every one of these things is harmful to America.
I was afraid that when Obama got elected, he would ram through his agenda without much resistance from the Republicans. In most cases, this is what has happened. They have watched most of this damage being done to our country with an occassional, "but...but...", but nothing of any real substance. That's why I was so relieved and excited when I first heard about "Tea Parties." They were going to be a conservative, grass roots protests and opposition to the liberal agenda that would otherwise have free reign in Washington. I made my plans to attend one in Allentown, Pa. Surely the politicians in DC would hear us loud and clear, and now we would be a force to be reckoned with. I couldn't wait.
I'm not going to be specific about what I saw at the Allentown Tea Party. I will say that it seemed typical of what happened in other small cities and towns around the country. Lots of good intentions, but not much enthusiasm for the cause. As I read the following days news accounts of Party's around the country, I was disappointed. Stories that recorded "40 or so folks turned out," or "around 200 people showed up for what looked like a small family reunion," made me wonder just what went wrong. There was serious bickering in some places as to whether politicians should be aloud to speak. In other places, the event was sponsored by a political party, driving legitimacy down. The same things happened again during Tea Party events on the 4th of July.
Hey! We're not getting anywhere like this! We're losing steam at a time that we need to be building it. Network and local coverage of Tea Party's is evaporating because we appear to be so disoraganized and, well, boring. We need to come together to figure out what we are trying to do. My understanding was that we were protesting against liberal and socialist policy coming out of Washington. But even more, to stop these policies from seeing the light of day. Instead, we're gathering together for cookouts, seeing who can come up with the wittiest sign, playing ad nauseum "I'm Proud To Be an American," and listening to politicians rail against what they're doing to us in Washington.
I, for one, would like to make the future rallies and protests a little more meaningful. I would like to see us organize a bit differently in order to be more effective with our representitives. Party's or no Party's, our voices are still not being heard. We're not getting through. When the left protests, whether here, or in a foreign land, they get results. They are heard. They rally enmasse. They get in your face. On the right, we have cookouts and sing patriotic songs. Can we learn something about protesting from the left? I say we must.
Among the things I see as needed in the future is the absolute refusal of a political party sponsorship. I don't care how much money they can put toward the cause. And it's no surprise that when I say that, I'm referring to the Republican Party. I read about Tea Party after Tea Party that allowed GOP candidates to speak at the rally. And the vast majority of them sat in the House of Representitives and voted to let George W. Bush spend us into huge deficits. And I'm talking domestic spending. Here they were at the Tea Party howling about Obama and his spending. But they glossed over the fact that they were a big part of the problem. We just gave them a campaign speech opportunity, and they took advantage of us all. This is why I am against letting politicians from any party speak at a rally.
This country needs to have a huge, loud, active opposition to Obama and his liberal congress. I want to see us move beyond the Tea Party and organize in strength and numbers that will shake the halls of Congress and the pillars of the White House. If you have the same feelings I do, then contact me at ecksbox1@gmail.com. Lets stop them before they destroy that which we have fought for, died for, and wish to pass on to our children.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
National Health Care and the Age of Responsibility
No matter where you stand on the issue of National Health Care, it's coming soon in one form or another. So, I've been talking to freinds about how they would like to see it handled, and some ideas deserve some consideration. Here's one in particular that my room mate and I discussed.
If the main concern of government in this debate is getting everyone covered, then roll all of Medicaid and Medicare into the national insurance system and provide a basic coverage for all citizens. This coverage is basic, and while it's free, it has some strings attached. I'll get to those in a minute. This coverage is mainly for health maintanance, and includes visits to the doctor for routine physicals, emergency room treatment that qualifies as a true emergency, programs for smoking cessation and weight control, diabetic supplies, and other such basic medical needs. Again, this coverage is available to all citizens, regardless of status.
This would be the "public" coverage that Washington and the Obama administration keep talking about having. Any citizen who desires to purchase medical coverage over and above this level would be able to do so. Private insurance companies continue to operate primarily the same. Costs should be lower due to the government taking over paying for emergency treatment and many other common costs. Costs will also be lowered because of those "strings" I mentioned earlier. And here they are....
Part of being able to partake in the government health program is that citizens will be responsible for their own healthcare. When joining the public plan, everyone will be expected to do what is necessary to be in optimal health. If your doctor tells you that you need to stop smoking and lose 25 pounds, you will be given all the resources you need. Counseling is covered, a gym membership, specialists like nutritionists and those who will help you quit smoking are all part of the program. Then you have two years to follow through. If, at the end of two years, you return to the doctor and are found in the same condition, having made no effort to improve your health, you can be removed from the insurance rolls. Um, yeah, really.
An entire nation of citizens who are taking care of themselves can bring down the overall cost of health care. Cases of diabetes, cancer, cardio-pulmonary disease, heart disease, and osteoparosis would be reduced. And two years is certainly enough time to make some progress in ones health. But if you choose to do your own thing and not take care of yourself, why should the rest of us have to do it? We live in a society that tells itself "someone else will be responsible for me." Combine that with living under the current administrations aim to take care of every societal ill that effects us, whether self-inflicted or not. It's the "Nanny State Syndrome." This is a very expensive train wreck we're heading toward.
So in summary, I think there is a way forward. This plan would cover basic medical care. It would encourage all Americans to focus more on their own health and provide resources and incentives to do so. It offers an option to increase coverage through private insurance companies who can lower their costs. Physicians can opt out of the public program just like they can for Medicare and Medicaid or any private insurance. Patients using the public system will be encouraged to get healthier if they plan on maintaining eligibility. And those who are detemined to need more extensive treatment will have the option of obtaining the additional private insurance at any time, regardless of past medical history. There could be a private fund set up for those on the bottom rung of the economic ladder who absolutely cannot afford private insurance.
And the bill in congress that puts this in motion will include a clause that does not allow additional coverage for this group or that. This bill should contain nothing more than the parameters of coverage and be un-amendable. I know what congress would do if they were able to add to it down the road. And this is just an idea. Attainable? I don't know. It seems too simple in a time when congressional bills and laws are printed with well over a thousand pages. This could be written on 20 pages. It would take courage to put something like this in place, and I frankly don't think many in government have it anymore. They would have to ignore the unions, lobbyists, and social scientists who would insist that their constituents are getting screwed by the simplicity of the program. If they are so concerned about covering everyone, then they should be ready to sacrifice their own seats to get it done. Where's Patrick Henry when we need him?
If the main concern of government in this debate is getting everyone covered, then roll all of Medicaid and Medicare into the national insurance system and provide a basic coverage for all citizens. This coverage is basic, and while it's free, it has some strings attached. I'll get to those in a minute. This coverage is mainly for health maintanance, and includes visits to the doctor for routine physicals, emergency room treatment that qualifies as a true emergency, programs for smoking cessation and weight control, diabetic supplies, and other such basic medical needs. Again, this coverage is available to all citizens, regardless of status.
This would be the "public" coverage that Washington and the Obama administration keep talking about having. Any citizen who desires to purchase medical coverage over and above this level would be able to do so. Private insurance companies continue to operate primarily the same. Costs should be lower due to the government taking over paying for emergency treatment and many other common costs. Costs will also be lowered because of those "strings" I mentioned earlier. And here they are....
Part of being able to partake in the government health program is that citizens will be responsible for their own healthcare. When joining the public plan, everyone will be expected to do what is necessary to be in optimal health. If your doctor tells you that you need to stop smoking and lose 25 pounds, you will be given all the resources you need. Counseling is covered, a gym membership, specialists like nutritionists and those who will help you quit smoking are all part of the program. Then you have two years to follow through. If, at the end of two years, you return to the doctor and are found in the same condition, having made no effort to improve your health, you can be removed from the insurance rolls. Um, yeah, really.
An entire nation of citizens who are taking care of themselves can bring down the overall cost of health care. Cases of diabetes, cancer, cardio-pulmonary disease, heart disease, and osteoparosis would be reduced. And two years is certainly enough time to make some progress in ones health. But if you choose to do your own thing and not take care of yourself, why should the rest of us have to do it? We live in a society that tells itself "someone else will be responsible for me." Combine that with living under the current administrations aim to take care of every societal ill that effects us, whether self-inflicted or not. It's the "Nanny State Syndrome." This is a very expensive train wreck we're heading toward.
So in summary, I think there is a way forward. This plan would cover basic medical care. It would encourage all Americans to focus more on their own health and provide resources and incentives to do so. It offers an option to increase coverage through private insurance companies who can lower their costs. Physicians can opt out of the public program just like they can for Medicare and Medicaid or any private insurance. Patients using the public system will be encouraged to get healthier if they plan on maintaining eligibility. And those who are detemined to need more extensive treatment will have the option of obtaining the additional private insurance at any time, regardless of past medical history. There could be a private fund set up for those on the bottom rung of the economic ladder who absolutely cannot afford private insurance.
And the bill in congress that puts this in motion will include a clause that does not allow additional coverage for this group or that. This bill should contain nothing more than the parameters of coverage and be un-amendable. I know what congress would do if they were able to add to it down the road. And this is just an idea. Attainable? I don't know. It seems too simple in a time when congressional bills and laws are printed with well over a thousand pages. This could be written on 20 pages. It would take courage to put something like this in place, and I frankly don't think many in government have it anymore. They would have to ignore the unions, lobbyists, and social scientists who would insist that their constituents are getting screwed by the simplicity of the program. If they are so concerned about covering everyone, then they should be ready to sacrifice their own seats to get it done. Where's Patrick Henry when we need him?
Me and Sarah Palin
This week I have found that many conservatives changed the rules for being a conservative...without telling me. With the resignation of Sarah Palin as Governor of Alaska, an apparently large segment of those identifying themselves as right wingers have decided that you either love Sarah, or you're a damnable moderate RINO. Well, I take offense. I'm decidedly conservative, and I don't think Palin has what it takes to compete right now. And I'm not willing to jump on the bandwagon of whoever the "majority" of conservatives tell me to.
This has caused me some stress when dealing with my many Republican friends. I understand that Palin won many fans during the 2008 election season. She certainly worked hard to get McCain elected and it's hard to pin their loss on her. She has rabid fans on FaceBook, Twitter, MySpace and other social networking sites. She appeals to a wide swath of the electorate that see an underdog, who, like them, is fighting "the man." I would even say that I myself would like to see her prepare for a presidential run...someday. But, seriously, not 2012.
Listening to Palin make speeches reminds me of a grade school principal rallying her students to be the "bestest" they can be. She could be Sally Fields winning her Academy Award, and then saying "you like me...you really like me!" So, yes, we like you, Sarah. But you're still not ready to lead the nation. However, I think there's hope for you.
I take alot of flak for this opinion, but I really think that Republicans in 2012 must be very careful when choosing their candidate. I realize that Palin would win any popularity contest right now. But serious times require serious candidates, and Palin just isn't. We have an opportunity to stop the Obama agenda in it's tracks. But we can only win with a candidate that can articulate our vision for the country in clear and forceful tones. No happy-go-lucky platitudes will get it done in 2012.
I wish I could give credit to whoever wrote this earlier in the week. They laid out a plan for Palin to consider if she wants to seek the presidency, and I think it's right on target. It goes like this...
In 2010, Alaska's only House seat is open. Run for it. Work hard and get a grasp on national issues. Formulate opinions and action plans. Then, in 2016, go for the Senate seat of Alaska's Democrat Senator Begich. Continue to learn and gain some more experience in world affairs. this would prepare you to run for president in 2020. Sounds like a long time, but it's really not. You will only be 56 years old and will have a better and rounder understanding of what the nation and world needs.
So I'm certainly not hoping Sarah Palin disappears. But I am hoping she moves forward cautiously and puts "country first." Show me you're serious and work for it, Sarah, don't just expect it. This will certainly mean swallowing your pride and perhaps working to elect others who can keep the seat warm for you. And I'm all for that.
This has caused me some stress when dealing with my many Republican friends. I understand that Palin won many fans during the 2008 election season. She certainly worked hard to get McCain elected and it's hard to pin their loss on her. She has rabid fans on FaceBook, Twitter, MySpace and other social networking sites. She appeals to a wide swath of the electorate that see an underdog, who, like them, is fighting "the man." I would even say that I myself would like to see her prepare for a presidential run...someday. But, seriously, not 2012.
Listening to Palin make speeches reminds me of a grade school principal rallying her students to be the "bestest" they can be. She could be Sally Fields winning her Academy Award, and then saying "you like me...you really like me!" So, yes, we like you, Sarah. But you're still not ready to lead the nation. However, I think there's hope for you.
I take alot of flak for this opinion, but I really think that Republicans in 2012 must be very careful when choosing their candidate. I realize that Palin would win any popularity contest right now. But serious times require serious candidates, and Palin just isn't. We have an opportunity to stop the Obama agenda in it's tracks. But we can only win with a candidate that can articulate our vision for the country in clear and forceful tones. No happy-go-lucky platitudes will get it done in 2012.
I wish I could give credit to whoever wrote this earlier in the week. They laid out a plan for Palin to consider if she wants to seek the presidency, and I think it's right on target. It goes like this...
In 2010, Alaska's only House seat is open. Run for it. Work hard and get a grasp on national issues. Formulate opinions and action plans. Then, in 2016, go for the Senate seat of Alaska's Democrat Senator Begich. Continue to learn and gain some more experience in world affairs. this would prepare you to run for president in 2020. Sounds like a long time, but it's really not. You will only be 56 years old and will have a better and rounder understanding of what the nation and world needs.
So I'm certainly not hoping Sarah Palin disappears. But I am hoping she moves forward cautiously and puts "country first." Show me you're serious and work for it, Sarah, don't just expect it. This will certainly mean swallowing your pride and perhaps working to elect others who can keep the seat warm for you. And I'm all for that.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Women School Obama on Leadership...But Too Late For Honduras.
Over the last two weeks, when things were going to hell in a handbasket in Iran, President Obama has been schooled by a couple of females. First, he came out late and little on the protesting in the streets of Tehran. As people died confronting Iran's corrupt leadership, Obama was meek and non-commital on supporting them. Meanwhile, in Germany, President Angela Merkel was front and center, calling for new elections and condemning what was an obviously rigged vote in the face of angering some of her European colleagues. Merkel's strong response stood in contrast to Obama's timid mumblings about the Iranian governments treatment of the protesters. He said nothing about how obvious it was that the recent elections were clearly stolen by the ruling clerics.
It wasn't until Merkel came to Washington last week that Obama followed her lead in making a stronger statement about how "the world is watching" the events in Iran. No condemnation, no verbage regarding specific voting irregularities. Just a whiny "stop the violence, please" kind of statement.
Fox News reports that Merkel wasn't the only lady who pushed Obama to get tougher on Iran. Hillary Clinton reportedly had been "advocating a stronger U.S. response", but was rebuffed by the president. And then when he did decide to use tougher language, he didn't notify Clinton, who was caught off guard by the statement.
This is why Latin American tinpot dictators are now flexing their muscles. They see the American President as someone they can ignore. And they got a great example of Obama's ideation on their region this week. When the coup occured in Honduras, and the legally elected President was exiled, it was immediately condemned by world leaders. But all President Obama could muster was that he was "deeply concerned." He doesn't want to ruffle any feathers down there.
Here you had a country that has a constitution. In that constitution its states that the president is only allowed to serve one four-year term. It also said that if the citizens wanted to change that law, it could call a referendum through it's congress. In this case, the president, Mel Zelaya, decided that he wanted to be president longer than four years. So he decided to have his own little election. Skipping the whole constitutional referendum thing, he called on his Venezuelan buddy, Hugo Chavez, to send him some ballots. Chavez knows a thing or two about becoming a lifelong dictator. He tried to force this on his people recently, and was told to forget it. But he was willing to put his freind Zelaya in a position to make it work in Honduras.
The Honduran Supreme Court told Zelaya that his vote would be unconstitutional. Zelaya told the military to prepare to have the vote anyway, and they have alot to do with distributing ballots in Honduras. The Supreme Court demanded that the military refuse the presidential order. Zilaya decided that he could win the majority of soldiers over, and he ordered them to break in and steal the ballots, which had been locked away in a military warehouse. A small group did just that, and began distributing the ballots to anyone who wanted one. This was clearly against the constitution of the country, and in the end Mr. Zelaya was sent packing.
Obama (with the backing of Hillary at the State Department) is now demanding that Zelaya be returned to power. They are in strange company on this. The Hondurans say that they are following their constitution, as is the Supreme Court and Congress. And they are right. Why is our country joining Chavez and a host of others, including the Castro's in Cuba, in condemning a countries effort to follow it's constitution? They are insisting that "military coups" are not how to deal with problems like these. They call it barbaric. But this was not a military coup. It was the removal of a law breaker.
If they want to have Zelaya back in Honduras, it should be done by way of a trial. He can return to face the court system and the people who he tried to rule by fiat. Sorry, Hugo, Fidel, Raul, Daniel, and, well, Barack. This time a constitution will stand strong. It is an effort to prevent a president from becoming a dictator. Don't laugh, America. We may be next.
It wasn't until Merkel came to Washington last week that Obama followed her lead in making a stronger statement about how "the world is watching" the events in Iran. No condemnation, no verbage regarding specific voting irregularities. Just a whiny "stop the violence, please" kind of statement.
Fox News reports that Merkel wasn't the only lady who pushed Obama to get tougher on Iran. Hillary Clinton reportedly had been "advocating a stronger U.S. response", but was rebuffed by the president. And then when he did decide to use tougher language, he didn't notify Clinton, who was caught off guard by the statement.
This is why Latin American tinpot dictators are now flexing their muscles. They see the American President as someone they can ignore. And they got a great example of Obama's ideation on their region this week. When the coup occured in Honduras, and the legally elected President was exiled, it was immediately condemned by world leaders. But all President Obama could muster was that he was "deeply concerned." He doesn't want to ruffle any feathers down there.
Here you had a country that has a constitution. In that constitution its states that the president is only allowed to serve one four-year term. It also said that if the citizens wanted to change that law, it could call a referendum through it's congress. In this case, the president, Mel Zelaya, decided that he wanted to be president longer than four years. So he decided to have his own little election. Skipping the whole constitutional referendum thing, he called on his Venezuelan buddy, Hugo Chavez, to send him some ballots. Chavez knows a thing or two about becoming a lifelong dictator. He tried to force this on his people recently, and was told to forget it. But he was willing to put his freind Zelaya in a position to make it work in Honduras.
The Honduran Supreme Court told Zelaya that his vote would be unconstitutional. Zelaya told the military to prepare to have the vote anyway, and they have alot to do with distributing ballots in Honduras. The Supreme Court demanded that the military refuse the presidential order. Zilaya decided that he could win the majority of soldiers over, and he ordered them to break in and steal the ballots, which had been locked away in a military warehouse. A small group did just that, and began distributing the ballots to anyone who wanted one. This was clearly against the constitution of the country, and in the end Mr. Zelaya was sent packing.
Obama (with the backing of Hillary at the State Department) is now demanding that Zelaya be returned to power. They are in strange company on this. The Hondurans say that they are following their constitution, as is the Supreme Court and Congress. And they are right. Why is our country joining Chavez and a host of others, including the Castro's in Cuba, in condemning a countries effort to follow it's constitution? They are insisting that "military coups" are not how to deal with problems like these. They call it barbaric. But this was not a military coup. It was the removal of a law breaker.
If they want to have Zelaya back in Honduras, it should be done by way of a trial. He can return to face the court system and the people who he tried to rule by fiat. Sorry, Hugo, Fidel, Raul, Daniel, and, well, Barack. This time a constitution will stand strong. It is an effort to prevent a president from becoming a dictator. Don't laugh, America. We may be next.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)