There was an accidental leakage of an ethics investigation into at least 30 lawmakers. Of the 30 mentioned in this brief, there were 28 Democrats and only 2 Republicans.
For a House of Representatives that Speaker Pelosi said would be "the most forthright and ethical"..... Hmmmm, how is that working out for you Madam Speaker?
I hate to play political mudfights with liberals, but they were the ones who claimed the holier than thou attitude going into the 06 and 08 elections.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Friday, October 23, 2009
New Era of politics?
"The time has come to set aside childish things." He promised to bring "an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics."
Words spoken by Obama during the campaign for President. Here's a laundry list of contradictions to the above statement during his first 9-10 months:
Words spoken by Obama during the campaign for President. Here's a laundry list of contradictions to the above statement during his first 9-10 months:
- accused doctors of performing unnecessary medical procedures for profit.
- demonized bond holders as "speculators".
- produced a report suggesting military veterans are prone to becoming right wing extremists.
- attacked insurance companies and threatened them with legislative retribution.
- ridiculed talk show hosts and political commentators by name from the White House podium.
- dismissed and demeaned protesters and town hall attendees as either unauthentic or fringe characters.
- maligned a white police officer for arresting a black man without knowing the facts of the case.
- launched an orchestrated campaign to marginalize the country's biggest pro-business group.
- publicly declared war on Fox News and the Chamber of Commerce.
- saying that the Republican party is a party of no. How is that constructive? He's the leader of the free world, and all he wants to do is start little fights with his opponents. In fact, Republicans have introduced healthcare legislation that has included such things as medical malpractice reform (rejected by Democrats to protect the trial lawyers), enabling people to cross state lines for insurance for better competition (driven down by Democrats), allowing a health care credit (mainly suggested by McCain during the campaign).
And his inclusion during the campaign of being "the most transparent administration in history". The facts:
- Democrats in Congress are resisting a rules change that would allow the bill to be posted online 72 hours before a vote so the public might have a chance to see exactly what it is their elected representatives are voting on.
- Democrats are writing the Healthcare bill behind closed doors, with no Republican inclusion.
Lastly, how immature is it for a White House to attack Fox News?? Yes, Fox slants right. Especially when comparing it to the rest of the media. When you look at this, you see the outright immaturity of an administration to call out a news outlet. Here's a list of conservative vs. liberal news outlets and organizations in our country:
Conservative:
- Fox News
- Most AM radio (at least the successful ones)
- Wall Street Journal
- New York Post
- Washington Times
- Las Vegas Review
- San Diego Union Tribune
- NRA
- Chamber of Commerce
Liberal:
- MSNBC
- CNN
- ABC
- NBC
- CBS
- National Public Radio
- PBS
- New York Times
- Seattle Times
- LA Times
- Boston Globe
- Star Tribune
- Newsweek
- Miami Herald
- Universities
- Hollywood
- Labor Unions
- Pro Abortion Groups
I could go on for days, but you get the picture. So after reading this, doesn't this make you think the Chicago Thug style politics (search and destroy) is out in full bloom in the White House these days?
With Fox News beating CNN and MSNBC COMBINED on a nightly basis, I guess Fox has nothing to worry about!
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Health Care Debate goes on
In the past several months, our country has a lengthy discussion regarding the status of our healthcare. Few will say that we should do nothing in improving our healthcare system. Even so, over 80% of respondants are satisfied with the coverage they currently have. With that being said, is it really necessary to blow up the entire system by including a public government option? This Administration would like us to believe that the government option would simply apply more options to the consumer and therefore drive down costs to us, the consumer. However, with the unlimited support of the government, the public option would soon bury the private insurers with the unlimited resources. Here are a few ways in which the government plan will eventually take over.
The first issue in discussion is the fact that this new bill proposed in both houses of congress would include a mandate for every individual to be covered. This does not respond to a free market system. Using my experiences as this example. From when I went off my parents healthplan at age 18, I did not have, nor see a reason to have myself covered. I just chose simply to not carry health insurance. I'd rather spend those couple hundred dollars a month saving up for something, or even buying something.
The second issue is for small business owners. If they have a choice of insuring their employees, or paying a mandated penalty for not insuring their employees, there is no reason to think they would pay the lesser. In most cases, they would pay the reported 8% penalty of not insuring their employees in order to save money. And when this is done, these employees would then be placed in the government run program. Of course this example wouldn't be the decision of all or even most small businesses necessarily, but it would be a decision they may consider. This would be especially so if a small business was barely surviving. Anything to cut costs.
Going back to the point of the government supporting a program that competes with private companies. Even the evil insurance companies. Look at the Post Office as an example. They are losing money, hand over fist, and yet are still operating. They are getting killed by businesses as UPS and FedEx in shipping, yet they will stay afloat because they are controlled by the Federal Government. In other words, no matter how much the ship is sinking, the government will still throw billions of dollars at it...... this is because this is "their" entity.
Of course there are several likeable solutions that many would consider a great change. The first would have to do with insurers being able to compete across state lines. After all, the more choices, the better rates us, the consumer will be seeing. As it stands now, if a state only has a couple options, there won't be any price wars for your business.
The second is medical malpractice reform, otherwise known as tort reform. The medical liability that Doctors and practices have to spend is out of control. There are so many who will try to sue, no matter if it's the fault of the doctor, or not. The preventive medicine practice costs everybody. It costs the practices huge monthly expenses, which therefore gets passed down to some extent to the insurers, and then on to the consumers. If we can get a handle on this, this would surely help. When the only ones who oppose this with force is the Democrat Wing Trial Lawyers, we know there is a huge problem.
The first issue in discussion is the fact that this new bill proposed in both houses of congress would include a mandate for every individual to be covered. This does not respond to a free market system. Using my experiences as this example. From when I went off my parents healthplan at age 18, I did not have, nor see a reason to have myself covered. I just chose simply to not carry health insurance. I'd rather spend those couple hundred dollars a month saving up for something, or even buying something.
The second issue is for small business owners. If they have a choice of insuring their employees, or paying a mandated penalty for not insuring their employees, there is no reason to think they would pay the lesser. In most cases, they would pay the reported 8% penalty of not insuring their employees in order to save money. And when this is done, these employees would then be placed in the government run program. Of course this example wouldn't be the decision of all or even most small businesses necessarily, but it would be a decision they may consider. This would be especially so if a small business was barely surviving. Anything to cut costs.
Going back to the point of the government supporting a program that competes with private companies. Even the evil insurance companies. Look at the Post Office as an example. They are losing money, hand over fist, and yet are still operating. They are getting killed by businesses as UPS and FedEx in shipping, yet they will stay afloat because they are controlled by the Federal Government. In other words, no matter how much the ship is sinking, the government will still throw billions of dollars at it...... this is because this is "their" entity.
Of course there are several likeable solutions that many would consider a great change. The first would have to do with insurers being able to compete across state lines. After all, the more choices, the better rates us, the consumer will be seeing. As it stands now, if a state only has a couple options, there won't be any price wars for your business.
The second is medical malpractice reform, otherwise known as tort reform. The medical liability that Doctors and practices have to spend is out of control. There are so many who will try to sue, no matter if it's the fault of the doctor, or not. The preventive medicine practice costs everybody. It costs the practices huge monthly expenses, which therefore gets passed down to some extent to the insurers, and then on to the consumers. If we can get a handle on this, this would surely help. When the only ones who oppose this with force is the Democrat Wing Trial Lawyers, we know there is a huge problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)