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.)

For those of you that don’t actually know this. The President of the United States is not elected by you. When you step into the polling booth, and cast your vote, you are not voting for your choice for President. You are actually voting to elect someone called an elector, who actually does the real voting for the President. This person that you voted for, can vote for any candidate that he or she wants, they do not have to vote for the person whom you THINK you are voting for.

This is known as the Electoral College system.

I think this system of selecting the President needs to be done away with. In my opinion, the office of the President should be decided by a direct popular vote, just like our Senators and Representatives are.

With the current system of voting, a person’s individual vote is irrelevant.

If you are a person, for example, living in Washington state, it does not matter who you are voting for because almost all of the electors in the state are going to vote for the candidate for the Democratic party. All of the votes will go toward that candidate, even if the guy is a complete tool (as in the case of our last Presidential election).

Likewise in the state of Oklahoma, all of the electoral votes are going to go toward the Republican candidate, no matter who YOU choose to support.

This is where we get the idea of red states and blue states. It is a ridiculous tradition and needs to stop.

With this system in place, the two party system will continue to thrive and there is no chance for 3rd party candidates.

The system just needs to go away. Our electoral system should be based on the idea of one man one vote.

“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.

Scott asked me this morning what my thoughts were on Obama’s new financial reform bill was and to post my thoughts here on this blog.

So I read Scott’s post on it. His is titled Give the government that much control on the financial sector? BAD IDEA!

I then read the Washington Post article, Obama Announces Sweeping New Market Regulations.

Some of what I have to say about this might mirror what Scott had to say about it but here is what I think.

First of all, anyone that knows me and has read my blog fairly regularly knows that I am not a big fan of the government being involved in anything. Our government over the past few decades has proven to be ineffectual at every turn in everything they have tried to “take over.”

In the Post article it says that Obama wants more government involvement in the financial sector. I agree with Scott. Very very very bad idea!!! Do we really want the government, who continually runs a deficit. Who continually spends more than it takes in? Who had made some of the worst financial decisions ever! Do we really want them taking over the financial sector? Heck no!

That would be like handing your investment portfolio over to your crazy brother-in-law that still owes you money from 5 years ago!

Obama blames the financial sector itself for the failure of our economy.

I would not necessarily say that they should not take a little part of the blame but I have to think that the current regulations in place set forth by the government need to take some responsibility for the mess that we are in.

Here is a quote from the Post article that scares me:

“[the administration] would create a new agency to protect consumers of mortgages, credit cards, and other financial products.”

Oh boy, here we go. Another government agency?!? Aren’t there enough already? Hell, aren’t their too many already?

Leave it to Mr. Liberal poster boy himself to be a proponent of MORE government to solve a problem. Crap, there is a problem in our country, let’s create more bureaucracy! That’ll fix it!

I have new for our President. Well, it’s not really news. It’s more like Political Science 101 (which I would EXPECT him to already know). MORE government solves……….are you ready for this…………..wait for it………….NOTHING!!!!

Government involvement creates more problems than it solves.

So, my thoughts on Obama’s Financial Reforms? I’m with you Scott. BAAAAD IDEA!!!

Oh Lord, please let 2012 get here quickly! In Jesus name I pray. Amen.

I was reading an article about the torture debate at the Relevant Magazine website.

The article itself was titled The Torture Question.

It is a piece written about how there is growing debate over the torture issue in the Christian community.

What really struck me about what I was reading and what prompted me to write about it was a comment posted on the website.

It was written by a person with the “screen name” skevin. He writes:

“…i don’t believe you can say that a person necessarily ’supports’ a position if they merely see certain instances where they can accept that the position may be effective. I think using the term ‘accept’ would be much more truthful and less divisive, especially as we discuss this with our brothers and sister in Christ.”

He has said in this few sentences something I have tried over and over to say in several blogs. The point is simple, I can ‘accept’ something (in this case torture, or for another example, the War in Iraq) but not necessarily ’support’ that something.

Way to go skevin, Whoever you are.

By the way, for those of you that are interested, Relevant Magazine is a magazine that discusses the combination of faith and pop culture into our daily lives.

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.

Sorry couldn’t come up with a better title than this.

So I have been thinking a little bit about my own political affiliation. I began to even somewhat consider changing my political affiliation to the Republican party. I even borrowed a book from the library about the party (see most recent Currently Reading).

I remember that the Republican Party was the party of Lincoln! The party of Theodore Roosevelt! Both Presidents that I admire.

But is the Republican Party of today the same as it was then? I’m not sure. I don’t think so. I have not read much of the book yet so I might post some information about that once I get further in my reading.

But after thinking about it some I kind of came to my senses about affiliating myself with them.

Even though I do agree with the party’s stance on several issues, I can’t bring myself to agree with their stance on other issues.

And quite frankly, I am pretty sure that they would not have me anyway. LOL!

I certainly can’t bring myself to align with the Democrats either. Even thought this was technically the party of Jefferson, another President I admire, it has turned into something totally different. In my opinion, the Democratic Party seems to be okay with big government. That is, that the government is the solution to all of our problems. This is a generalization based on my own experiences within the party of course.

I’m not a Libertarian. Although I do agree with quite a bit of their positions, I think their position on the pro-life issue is not in line with mine and I will not align myself with them base don that principle alone.

So that is why I affiliate myself as an Independent.

I voted for Nader in the last election. Not because I agree with everything he has to say. But because it is my way of ‘flipping the bird’ at the two-party system. I think we could all be better off in most election if we had other choices. Granted, we do have other choices but not to the extend that these other choices would ever hope to get a significant amount of the electoral vote.

Take the last general election for example.

In the Presidential race, we had the ultra-liberal, somewhat shady past, Democrat on one side and the only kinda sorta Republican on the other. No real safe bet there.

And in the Washington gubernatorial race, we had the crook going up against the straight party line lying liberal on the other side. Again, no safe bet.

So as you can see, if we had more “real” choices, we could probably, just maybe, come up with some elected officials that aren’t corrupt businessmen or blind partisans that will do anything to please their party.

We might just get some elected officials that actually do work for the people.

It could happen. Although I am not holding my breath.