Otter Limits

Word around the campfire is that the reason the Democrat’s health care proposal, which includes a government-run public plan option to compete with the private sector, is being held up is because nobody can come up with how to pay for it.

It is plainly obvious to everyone, including Congress and the President, that the only way a proposal of this magnitude can only be paid for by increasing taxes.

Now I have said before that I do not mind having to pay a little bit more in taxes if that money is going toward a good cause. I will admit that health care for those that are currently uninsured is a good cause.

However, I am adamantly opposed to the idea of any of us paying more in taxes to support the Obamaplan that is currently circulating through Congress.

The fact is that a public plan is not needed so our hard earned dollars do not need to be spent to pay for something like this.

First, there already is a public plan. In fact, there are 2. They are called Medicare and Medicaid. It would be a lot less costly and a lot more efficient (well as efficient as the government can be) to just expand on these programs than to create some new big health care monster.

Second, the idea that this public plan “option” will “compete” with the private sector is a complete farce. Anyone with half a brain can plainly see that if there is a government run program instituted that is cheaper than any of the private health care plans, people simply will not care about how bad the quality really will be (and it will be terrible) because people think with their wallets and will essentially jump ship from their current insurance company to join the public plan. The problem with this is that there will no longer be any competition in the health care market. Our health care system will simple be a single payer system. Thousands, if not millions, will end up being out of work (including myself). The economy will greatly suffer. With so many more people out of work, there will be less people paying taxes, thus, less money to go toward paying for this program the government created, thus an even larger deficit than what we already have.

Finally, and I have mentioned this time and time again, this will be a plan that will be owned and operated by the federal government and we all know how well that will end up working. Another new government institution equals more government workers to administer the plan. More government workers equals more bureaucracy in the federal government. More bureaucracy equals less efficiency. More bureaucracy also of course equals more government which nobody in this country really needs.

So, in essence, this health care reform legislation is yet another attempt by the Democratic party to make government bigger and bigger, making the American public more and more dependent on them, giving them more power.

So I don’t know about you but I don’t think the federal government needs any more power than it already has but if this health care reform is signed into law, that is what it will mean in the end.

The only hope we have is for those of us that truly do not support this health care legislation is to constantly write our elected officials to let them know that you do not support this legislation. I myself, have written both of my state’s Senators (Patty Murray & Maria Cantwell-D-WA) and our district’s Congressman (Jay Inslee-D-WA). I let them know that I am extremely opposed to this plan and reminded them who they work for. They do not work for Obama. They do not work for Nancy Pelosi. They do not work for the Democratic Party. They work for the people of the United States of America. I let them know that if this bill is signed into law and they are part of the cause of it, I will not forget it come election time. I will make it my mission in life to make sure none of them are re-elected (to be totally honest, I don’t want any of them to be re-elected anyway but I didn’t tell them that).

Write your elected officials. For my Oklahoma readers, your Senators are Jim Inhofe & Thomas Coburn (both Republicans by the way that if I understand correctly are both opposed to the plan so mostly you can just write them and thank them for their opposition. Personally, it feels really strange to me to be in support of Jim Inhofe.)

“Health care reform is important, but it is not worth bankrupting the country over. If this process goes as it has been going….then we will be gar better off killing this effort and starting over in a few years.”

– David Brooks, columnist for the New York Times

zTruth recently posted the article President Obama suggested stop medical treatment to terminally ill. I read it and could not believe what I was reading.

Seriously? Did our President actually suggest this? That can’t be. I know the guy is an ultra-liberal moron but he would not go this far, would he?

So I went over to the LA Times article that she cited and read that too.

I am amazed that the President of the free world (well, it is still free for now anyway) would actually propose this.

In the post, zTruth asks the question ‘What will happen if the government is the one who makes those kinds of decisions for you or your family?’

Like she said in her post, this idea is the beginning of rationed health care.

This is exactly the reason that the government needs to stay out of health care altogether.

This is exactly the reason that the proposal for a public health plan option needs to be thrown in the congressional garbage can.

The government is in charge of our money. What has that resulted in? The economy of the country is in the toilet and we have a federal deficit that we may never recover from.

I could name several things that government has taken over and crapped up.

Do we really want the government involved in our health care? The health care of our families? Do we really want the government telling us when it is time to let our loved ones go?

I told everyone months and month ago, long before the loser was elected, that there was something about him I didn’t trust. I lost my mind for a second and even supported him for a very short time but I got my head screwed on correctly again and remembered that I did not trust him.

Now you all know why I don’t trust him. I will not trust him with my money. I will not trust him with our armed services. I will not trust him with foreign relations. I will not trust him with fixing the economy. I will not trust him with our health care system. I will not trust him sam I am (lol!)

The guy is just flat out non-presidential material. The guy never should have gotten as far as he did in politics. The sad thing is, from what I have been reading, he has quite a bit of support with the American people. I guess that just means that the reason our country is going to hell in a hand basket is because the people in this country are absolutely duped.

They were duped to think he was going to change things in this country. Oh wait, no, they weren’t duped. He is going to change things in this country. For the worse.

Oh please God, let 2010 get here quickly before he causes any real damage and please allow the people in this country grow a brain and elect some people that will stand up to him and his agenda and keep it from happening.

Amen.

Cool title huh? I thought that would grab you.

I was reading about an article from the Los Angeles Times about the new legislation that the House Democrats are putting forth for health care reform.

Some of the major points on the legislation include:

Requiring employers to provide coverage to their employees and to help subsidize health care for the poor.

I am all for corporations helping out the less fortunate but the government has no business forcing them to.

Requiring Americans up to 400% of the poverty level to be eligible for insurance credits.

But nothing about tax credits for those employers that are being forced to provide coverage.

Expanding Medicaid to cover individuals up to 133% of the poverty level.

Not too terrible an idea, expanding an already existing program instead of creating an entirely new one, however the legislation lacks any details on how all of their plans are going to be funded. From what I understand, President Obama is in favor of taxing health care premiums paid for by people who are covered by their employers. Bad bad idea!

Proposing a form of a public plan that offers the same reimbursement rates as Medicare.

Wait a minute? You want to expand a program already in place AND put a new plan out there? What kind of sense does that make? You are going to add that extra room on the house AND build an entirely new house right next to it? That makes absolutely no sense at all to me!

According to the article, President Obama has said “this proposal will improve the affordability, availability, and quality of health care….our goal of fixing what is broken about health care while building on what works…”

Okay. I can kind of see the affordability and availability part. Not that I agree with them. But I can see it. But quality? I see nothing in this legislation that addresses anything about the quality of health care. Nothing. What a moron.

I also read another article in the New York Times with some interesting statistics:

85% of those polled say health care system needs to be changed for rebuilt
77% are satisfied with their own care
50% say the government would be better at providing medical coverage than private insurers
60% say Washington would have more success in controlling costs

That part about the government being better off at providing medical coverage is interesting considering the same survey also revealed unease about the impact of heightened government involvement in regards to health care. Sounds to me like their numbers are out of whack.

Sadly, I think our only hope at this point is hoping the Republicans in Congress can stall this legislation for a couple of years before it becomes a reality and creates a bigger mess than we already have.

CQ Healthbeat has reported that the Republicans in Congress are in the process of putting together some legislation for health care reform.

Here are some key points about it:

1. Provides for allowing for states to regulate private insurers.

This is a no brainer to me and I totally agree. State regulation (as opposed to federal regulation) is much more feasible and less expensive. In fact, most states already have the agencies in place to regulate private health insurance. Federal involvement is a bad idea. More federal regulation = more Washington bureaucracy = more $$$ out of the taxpayers’ pockets.

2. It allows for small businesses to join in partnerships to purchase coverage for their employees.

I think this is a good idea. Seems like something somebody could have thought of years ago. And probably already did.

3. Requiring insurers to cover those with pre-existing conditions.

I don’t have a problem with this. It would certainly fix the issue of reducing the amount of people that are currently uninsured.

4. Curbing costs by allowing those currently on Medicare and CHIP to convert their coverage into vouchers and purchase their own coverage.

I think this is a great idea. Here is a way that we can actually make an attempt at reducing government bureaucracy by reducing the number of people enrolled in Medicare. Also by doing this we can strengthen the private industry by allowing for more competition among the companies who will need to fight for the business of those formally on Medicare. And more competition in this industry would lead to self regulation. Thus, the need for less government involvement. Thus, less government bureaucracy again. Score!

5. Give individuals and businesses tax deductions and tax credits to help cover premiums.

For businesses, I can see this as a big incentive. However, for individuals, as I have stated many many times before, I really just don’t understand how tax credits is going to help the majority of American citizens. I can see how it could help for those uninsured that make enough money to purchase health insurance but choose not to. This could be an incentive because less of their money would taken by the government.

However, this would fix health in one respect by again reducing the number of people uninsured in the long run so it is a good idea anyway.

Overall, although this legislation is still in the planning stages, it is much better than any reforms the other guys have proposed, especially since this legislation says nothing about expanding government involvement or creating any sort of public plan option.

Here is something that I have not seen brought up by anyway. The fact is, we already have a public plan option. We have two in fact. They are called Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare takes care of the elderly. Medicaid takes care of people living in poverty. These ARE public plans. We do not need anymore. If the Democrats really have to have a public plan option for people, then just expand coverage for these two programs. The increase in cost would be very minimal in my opinion.

Overall, I think this new legislation being put together by the Republicans can ultimately serve to fix the key issues affecting health care today. Especially in reducing the number of uninsured and increasing the amount of quality care. While at the same time reducing the need for government bureaucracy.

In his recent post Iraq Veterans Endorse Calvey for Congress, Mike tells about the announcement of Republican Kevin Calvey to run for the soon to be vacated Oklahoma Congressional seat now held by Mary Fallin.

Here is the part of the post that stuck out to me:

“He joined the Army National Guard AFTER the start of the Iraq War…when he was already a successful businessman and elected official.”

According to his campaign website, he served as the State Representative for District 94 (Del City) from 1998 to 2006.

So…up to this point, I have read nothing about where he stands on the issues. However, just based on the quote I posted, I already like the guy.

Everyone know that I am not a big fan of the war but the fact that this guy was already an elected official and decided to do something for his country is very admirable. He certainly seems like the type of politician (in my opinion) that has some honorable fiber in him.

So….I went on to read his stance on some of the issues on his website.

I started at his stance on Health Care. He says that:

“…a one size fits all government takeover of your health care is not the answer. ……Instead of a bureaucratic takeover of health care, we need a balanced, common sense approach that provides assistance to those who truly need it and keeps health care patient-centered rather than government-centered for everyone. By using market-based reforms to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse of health care resources, we can bring health care costs down to a manageable level.”

Okay, I still like him. I agree with everything he says here.

Okay, on to the Abortion Issue. He is a former member of the Right to Life Committee and while serving in the state legislature authored numerous pro-life bills. He opposes making it legal to let a minor get an abortion without the parent’s knowledge and opposes the idea to punish doctors who refuse to give abortions.

Still like him.

Okay, now on to something that I will probably not agree with him with because he is a Republican. Gun Control.

He is the 2006 Oklahoma Rifle Association Legislator of the Year. Here is a quote from Kevin directly on this issue:

“Every adult law-abiding American citizen has the right to keep and bear arms. Research consistently shows that law-abiding gun ownership reduces crime……..”

So here is where Kevin and I disagree. At least as far as I can tell. I am not opposed to gun ownership by law-abiding citizens. While at the same time I am in favor of gun control legislation such as waiting periods and background checks at gun shows and that sort of thing. So I am not exactly the polar opposite of Mr. Calvey.

Finally, I decided to look at his stance on Energy. He supports investing in other practical forms of energy such as natural gas, nuclear, wind, etc… He also supports drilling in ANWR which are currently off limits. One of his goals is to make Oklahoma a leader in energy production due to its surplus of natural gas and wind power to further reduce our dependence on foreign terrorist oil.

Amen Kevin.

In short, I too support Kevin Calvey for Congress even though I don’t get to vote for him.

Or vice versa.

Like the title? I thought it was clever.

So this is sort of continuation of the posts “Lefty or Righty“ and “Lefty or Righty Part II” in addition to some of the conversations I have had with the self admitted “lefties” and “righties” on other posts recently.

I really just honestly can not claim allegiance to either side. Really.

There are some ideas the conservatives hold that I agree with. Take the pro-life stance for instance. I am pro-life. If you base my political ideology on that issue and that issue alone, you would consider me a conservative.

However, most conservatives favor the death penalty. I do not favor it. Again, I am pro-”life.” I think that killing anyone is wrong. So on that basis I can not be considered a true conservative.

There are some ideas that liberals hold that I agree with. Take the gun control issue for instance. I favor gun control as they do. I think there are people in the world that have no business owning a gun and we should do everything in our power to keep guns out of their hands. So if you base my political ideology on that issue and that issue alone, you might consider me a liberal.

However, most liberals favor government control in areas such as health care. I do not think that a government controlled and run health insurance company is going to fix any of the problems in our health care system in this country. So on that basis, I can not be considered a true liberal.

As I have stated before, both camps have some really good ideas. But both sides also have some I ideas I could do without.

Most “righties” are adamant about making it illegal to burn the American flag. I think making it illegal takes away a person’s right of free speech and free expression.

Most “lefties” lean toward an almost militant stance on protecting the environment. I think they sometimes take it too far and even sometimes use scare tactics to prove their side is right.

I consider myself a Christian. One would think this alone makes me a conservative. I disagree. Most evangelical Christian conservatives are vehemently anti-gay. They want nothing to do with them and preach hatred against them. I believe it is not my place to judge a homosexual based on what may or may not be a sin in the eyes of God. So while I agree with some of the theology and ideology of the Christian conservatives, I do not agree with them 100%.

I am a card carrying member of the ACLU. One would think that this alone makes me a liberal. I disagree. The ACLU stands for civil liberty and personal freedom. So do I. But I do not agree with 100% of their philosophy. I support them because I agree with that they stand for overall.

I did not vote for Obama. I did not and do not trust the man to run our country. That puts me out of the good graces of the Democratic party and with most liberals.

I did not vote for McCain. I’m not sure where this puts me with the Republicans, I’m sure out of their good graces.

I voted for Ralph Nader. I did so because I wanted to throw my support behind a person that is as opposed to the rule of the two-party system as I am.

So putting it all together…

Am I a lefty….sure, sometimes….but no.
Am I a righty…sure, sometimes….but no.

This is why I claim neither party (Democrat/Republican) nor political ideology (liberal/conservative) for my own. I have my own stance on the issues that fit neither sides mold completely.

So does this make me a moderate? Maybe. I’m not sure. Perhaps.

What are your thoughts?

According to a New York Times article, 2 Democrats Spearhading Health Bill Are Split, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) are split over health care reform.

Kennedy and his supporters are putting together a plan that places emphasis on a publicly run health plan while Baucus and his supports are putting together legislation that downplays the public plan option and suggests it be used as a fall back option only.

I actually see this split as a good thing.

It gives an indication that there is not an overwhelming majority in the Democratic Party for a completely government-run public plan health care option. It shows that there are some Democrats in Congress that do not agree with President Obama that the government-run system is our best option.

Even a Republican, Charles Grassely (Iowa) is supporting the Baucus bill so it looks like there is a possibility of having an actual bipartisan bill in Congress on health care reform.

Honestly, I don’t like the Kennedy plan. Consequently, I don’t like Kennedy period. But I really dislike his health care plan. His plan relies way too much on a Medicare for all type plan and puts too much emphasis on the government making our health care decisions for us.

This guy trusts the government entirely too much. And that is pretty strange considering we are talking about the same government that killed his brother and covered it up.

Anyway, I guess we will see how these 2 plans play out in the Senate. Should be an interesting show.

Am I a “lefty” or a “righty“? Am I “liberal” or “conservative”? Amd I a “moonbat” or a “wingnut“?

I think that I am a little of both, depending on what issue we are discussing.

Below I have listed a few of the main issues that we political bloggers tend to talk about and what my specific stance is on each. Perhaps it will clear up this whole am I a lefty or righty debate. Perhaps not.

Abortion
I am pro-life.
In my opinion, abortion is murder. Nothing more. Nothing less.
This puts me clearly on the right.

Death Penalty
Again, I am pro-life.
Two wrongs do not make a right. Executing a criminal for murdering someone does not bring that person back. Is revenge really justification?
This would put me toward the left.

Gun Control
I am a firm believer in gun “control” but not gun “criminalization.”
I believe that it is the right of an American citizen to own a gun.
I also believe that things like background checks and waiting periods are acceptable means of controlling who does and does not purchase a gun but I am not so naive as to think that it keeps guns completely out of the hands of criminals.
This would put me on the left again.

Gay Rights
I believe that homosexuals are people and deserve the same rights as everyone else.
I do not believe in adding the term “sexual orientation” to the definition of hate crimes. I believe that all violent crime, regardless of race or sexual preference, is a hate crime.
I’m not sure where this puts me. Probably somewhere left of middle.

Flag Burning
I believe it is the right of an American citizen to desecrate an American flag is they so choose to. To criminalize the act takes away a person’s constitutional right to free speech and free expression.
I also believe that those people that do burn flags are idiots. It proves nothing. Nothing except that these people can’t find a better way to express themselves and show their distaste of their country in another way.
I think this puts me on the left.

Tax Reform
I am an advocate for a system much like the Fair Tax or some sort of national sales tax instead of the current progressive tax system.
I have no idea where this would put me.

Health Care Reform
On this ever changing my mind subject, I am current in favor of expanding both the employer-based system and eligibility requirements for the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
I do not favor a completely, government-controlled or “single payer” system. The government has proven ineffective in handling things so they need to keep their nose out of health care decisions.
I do not favor tax credits for individuals because I really just don’t understand how this would really help.
I’m not sure where this puts me either. Probably somewhere in the middle.

So just based on these few key issues, I would have to say that I am probably somewhere in the center but slightly left of center.

I dunno really. I guess this did not really clear anything up. LOL!