I'll keep this one short; no sense getting maudlin about it, because I still have some points of disagreement with the man's policies. But..
After reading this interview from back in April, I come away with two impressions: First, President Obama is a very thoughtful, intelligent man. He does legitimately have a lot on his plate. He's not entirely responsible for policy, but he is the Captain of the Ship of State, and he unfortunately will be seen as being responsible, regardless of the truth....
And secondly, that he's had a lot of insane, horrible things dumped into his lap. He's actually trying to do something good, but he's going about it incorrectly. It doesn't help matters that Congress is packed with corrupt politicians. But he's a lawyer and a college professor; he knows these things.
I would ask anyone reading this blog, regardless of your political views, to take a moment and say a prayer for Barack Obama. I feel that he is a good man, and, however misguided some might think his policies are, he is still the President of the United States, come what may.
......Good luck, sir.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Ways and Means FAQ - some clarification, please?
After seeing this on the House Majority Leaders website, I had a few questions about some of these comments. These questions are generally directed towards members of the House Ways and Means Committee; they are merely items in your press release that I would like some clarification on:
First of all, would any of those who voted to pass the bill please explain to me what "Comparative Effectiveness Research" is? I've heard a lot of things, and I'd like to know exactly what a CER-Panel would be looking for (i.e. criteria for judging different methods of treatment).
Secondly, in reference to Point/Question 27: Is 5 hours really enough time to "walk through" a 1000+ page bill? I like to think that I'm a quick reader, but anyone who can read a 200 page book in only an hour (and still comprehend the ideas expressed), well....that's ability.
Third: I noticced that you mention employers would pay insurance on a sliding scale for employees based on hourly labor. As a part-time employee who didn't qualify for food stamps a month ago (because I didn't work enough hours?), forgive my lack of enthusiasm for a program that would treat my medical care in the same way. Which brings me to point 4.
Question 4: According to this document, anyone who makes $10,000+ a year has "a responsibility" to purchase healthcare. Why? I myself made just over the cutoff for exemption from this "responsibility"; thus, I would be required by law to buy insurance that I could barely afford.
Seriously, guys...I'm a politically-minded constituent. I regularly exercise my voting rights. Why do you want to stick it to me and everyone else in my position? Part-time employees are the backbone of most larger businesses. The student age part-timers are already going to be paying for these "reforms" for the rest of our lives. Now you're going to force some of us further into poverty, simply to provide the somehow "less-fortunate" with governmentally-decided-and-run healthcare.
Thanks, but no thanks.
First of all, would any of those who voted to pass the bill please explain to me what "Comparative Effectiveness Research" is? I've heard a lot of things, and I'd like to know exactly what a CER-Panel would be looking for (i.e. criteria for judging different methods of treatment).
Secondly, in reference to Point/Question 27: Is 5 hours really enough time to "walk through" a 1000+ page bill? I like to think that I'm a quick reader, but anyone who can read a 200 page book in only an hour (and still comprehend the ideas expressed), well....that's ability.
Third: I noticced that you mention employers would pay insurance on a sliding scale for employees based on hourly labor. As a part-time employee who didn't qualify for food stamps a month ago (because I didn't work enough hours?), forgive my lack of enthusiasm for a program that would treat my medical care in the same way. Which brings me to point 4.
Question 4: According to this document, anyone who makes $10,000+ a year has "a responsibility" to purchase healthcare. Why? I myself made just over the cutoff for exemption from this "responsibility"; thus, I would be required by law to buy insurance that I could barely afford.
Seriously, guys...I'm a politically-minded constituent. I regularly exercise my voting rights. Why do you want to stick it to me and everyone else in my position? Part-time employees are the backbone of most larger businesses. The student age part-timers are already going to be paying for these "reforms" for the rest of our lives. Now you're going to force some of us further into poverty, simply to provide the somehow "less-fortunate" with governmentally-decided-and-run healthcare.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Taxes, Deficits, and Social Security
So I was reading this morning about how the White House's economic figures are meaningless and completely wrong, and I was wondering: Why don't we hear about this from more people in the media? How does this joker even have a single person backing his lame-brained healthcare ideas (or any other financial ideas).
Let's face it: The government is hemorrhaging money like a drunken sailor on shore leave (no offense to our Navy friends). And then, I got a letter from the Social Security Administration today. The letter was dated July 23, 2009, and includes the following paragraph:
"In 2017 we will begin paying more in benefits than we collect in taxes. Without changes, by 2041 the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted and there will be enough money to pay only about 78 cents for each dollar of scheduled benefits. We need to resolve these issues soon to make sure Social Security continues to provide a foundation of protection for future generations."
This is BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!
My generation continues to pay for these benefits for the previous ones. However, through NO FAULT OF OUR OWN, we will never see a dime that we have paid into the system (disability or death notwithstanding). This is screwing my generation, and in addition to the TRILLIONS of dollars in inherited deficits that we're gonna get, it's too much.
So, given that the previous generations have decided to hand us the bill in 10 or 15 years, I have a counter-proposal:
Go ahead and pass all the legislation that you want. Stick my generation with the bills. But stop taking my damn money to pay for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Stop asking my generation to support yours gratis. You can even keep all the money you've already siphoned off from my paychecks (it's gone already, so whatever). But quit being a bunch of damnable hypocrites. If Congress can spend the Social Security pool and not have to worry about replenishing it, then I don't want to be responsible.
If someone in charge up there is willing to change the way that Social Security works (e.g. FIX THE SYSTEM), then I have no qualms about continuing to pay for it. I just want to get some kind of return on my investment, so to speak.
And for all you crooked-bastard Congressmen: I'll be seeing you on September 12th!
AEQUITAS EN TODOS!!!
Let's face it: The government is hemorrhaging money like a drunken sailor on shore leave (no offense to our Navy friends). And then, I got a letter from the Social Security Administration today. The letter was dated July 23, 2009, and includes the following paragraph:
"In 2017 we will begin paying more in benefits than we collect in taxes. Without changes, by 2041 the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted and there will be enough money to pay only about 78 cents for each dollar of scheduled benefits. We need to resolve these issues soon to make sure Social Security continues to provide a foundation of protection for future generations."
This is BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!
My generation continues to pay for these benefits for the previous ones. However, through NO FAULT OF OUR OWN, we will never see a dime that we have paid into the system (disability or death notwithstanding). This is screwing my generation, and in addition to the TRILLIONS of dollars in inherited deficits that we're gonna get, it's too much.
So, given that the previous generations have decided to hand us the bill in 10 or 15 years, I have a counter-proposal:
Go ahead and pass all the legislation that you want. Stick my generation with the bills. But stop taking my damn money to pay for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Stop asking my generation to support yours gratis. You can even keep all the money you've already siphoned off from my paychecks (it's gone already, so whatever). But quit being a bunch of damnable hypocrites. If Congress can spend the Social Security pool and not have to worry about replenishing it, then I don't want to be responsible.
If someone in charge up there is willing to change the way that Social Security works (e.g. FIX THE SYSTEM), then I have no qualms about continuing to pay for it. I just want to get some kind of return on my investment, so to speak.
And for all you crooked-bastard Congressmen: I'll be seeing you on September 12th!
AEQUITAS EN TODOS!!!
Monday, August 10, 2009
Some Questions About Gov't Healthcare
After watching the discussions online about the ongoing Healthcare "crisis", I started thinking about some sticking points that I'd like to see discussed personally. I'm sure that a lot of Americans would like answers to these questions, so here they are:
1.) President Obama has repeatedly called for the legislation to be "deficit-neutral". How do our Congressmen propose we do such a thing? Should we cut the budget elsewhere, raise taxes, or what?
2.) I've also noticed several articles out there about how certain groups would be exempt from required coverage levels imposed on citizens by the proposed legislation (at least in the version that was released to the American people). Why are Congressmen afraid to be a part of their own solution?
3.) Looking at where medical costs come from, one notices that a substantial chunk of healthcare costs are incurred by doctors seeking to protect themselves from malpractice lawsuits. Tort Reform, as it is referred to, would greatly cut down on overhead costs; savings which would then be passed on to patients (or so it would seem). Why does the released version of the healthcare bill not have ANY MENTION of Tort Reform? Any legislation that is serious about decreasing healthcare costs for millions of Americans must address this issue.
So there you have it. Anyone with the answers, please let me know...thanks!
1.) President Obama has repeatedly called for the legislation to be "deficit-neutral". How do our Congressmen propose we do such a thing? Should we cut the budget elsewhere, raise taxes, or what?
2.) I've also noticed several articles out there about how certain groups would be exempt from required coverage levels imposed on citizens by the proposed legislation (at least in the version that was released to the American people). Why are Congressmen afraid to be a part of their own solution?
3.) Looking at where medical costs come from, one notices that a substantial chunk of healthcare costs are incurred by doctors seeking to protect themselves from malpractice lawsuits. Tort Reform, as it is referred to, would greatly cut down on overhead costs; savings which would then be passed on to patients (or so it would seem). Why does the released version of the healthcare bill not have ANY MENTION of Tort Reform? Any legislation that is serious about decreasing healthcare costs for millions of Americans must address this issue.
So there you have it. Anyone with the answers, please let me know...thanks!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
