Over the past few weeks, I’ve made a point of watching the local CBS TV affiliate’s broadcast of the “CBS Evening News,” enthusiastically looking for the day’s highlights/lowlights from the reporter-in-chief-co-conspirator, Mr. Dan Rather.
As a rule, I haven’t spent much time watching the “network news” over the past 20 years, except by accident or as a polite deference when forced to watch in someone else’s living room. With the onset of “Rathergate,” however, I find myself drawn like a moth to the CBS TV screen each evening. Am I the only one that has noticed that, instead of the lead story, I find that I have to watch through at least one commercial break-- until about "60 minutes after five-forty PM (six-forty PM)” to get to the meat of the desired story?
Like the morbid instinct that makes you want to turn your head to look as you slow your car and pass the scene of an auto accident, I somehow can’t help but watch Mr. Rather—hoping to see some indication of true humanity and remorse in his stoic face as he is forced to read from his own network's news copy the words "scandal," "CBS," and “60 Minutes II.”
Come on, Danno, go ahead and break down. Give us all a sob or a girlish whimper, or pound your wrinkled fist on your desk and storm off the set--into the sunset of disgrace and obscurity.
Oh well, I guess not…
Thursday, September 23, 2004
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
Motor Voters do a "drive by" on Elections
Just when I thought that my headache would subside, I read "How to steal an Election" and I just had to open a new MS Word document and start pounding the keys. This topic has been reverberating off of the inside of my skull for the past ten plus years and I finally have a forum and the energy to take it on, so here goes.
The “Right to Vote” in these here United States of America has radically changed, mostly for the better, since the ratification of our Constitution. In addition to the original white male landowners, the voter rolls now legally include black men, women of all color, and with few exceptions any other legal citizen of the United States who is not currently in jail or is a convicted felon.
As a formality, the officials what be do require that you register to vote in the county or parish in which your normal, full time residence (read that also to mean your abode, your apartment, your place, your crib, your teepee, your hovel, your cabin, your shack, your hut, your home, your condo, your mansion et.al.) might be located. I’m not quite sure what you do if you live on a boat on the ocean, in a motor home, or in some other form of mobile home that hasn’t been recently destroyed or relocated by a tornado. (In Georgia, seeAbsentee Ballot)
In 1993, during the first full distinguished year of the Clinton administration, before the Republican uprising/Newt Gingrich congressional takeover, the congress passed
The National Voter Registration Act (the Motor Voter Act) which was supposed to substantially improve the ability of minorities and people with disabilities to attain voter registration. Like most laws, it sounded good on paper and in the news headlines—hurray for justice and the American way.
Here is what really happened. The new law made it a requirement that the individual States allow you to register to vote when applying for a state issued driver’s license. Sounds good to me--the burden of proof is fairly high during that process.
Further voter registration must be provided:
“to each applicant for services, service renewal or address change through all offices that provide public assistance and all offices that provide state-funded programs primarily engaged in providing services to persons with disabilities; applicants must be provided with a voter registration form, a declination form, assistance in completing the forms and forwarding the completed applications to the appropriate state official) (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-5)”
For those challenged in the interpretation of legalese, this paragraph basically means that when you sign up for social security benefits, public housing, welfare, WIC, or disability payments, that you can also register to vote (in an obvious effort to increase your benefits and/or keep them coming for eternity.)
Finally, the states were also required to develop a standardized form which could be submitted by mail. Can you say RED FLAG?
My immediate response to this legislation ten years ago was that voter registration was going to end up working something like those annoying car dealer TV/Radio sales ads…
”TUESDAY…TUESDAY…TUESDAY…Come one, Come all, come on down and register NOW (excuse the unintended pun, all of you feminists) to exercise your right to V-O-T-E. No I.D., no documentation, no credit, no problem…All applications will be accepted…Hey mom, we got free pony rides and free hot dogs. Y’all bring grandma and the children; trade in that fake green card for a US voter registration card…Hable usted de espanola.”
I have had a driver’s license for the past 29 years and I haven’t applied for any of the government support programs like welfare, disability, or unemployment, but I did recently have occasion to change my voter registration from Cobb County Georgia to Glynn County Georgia—by mail.
My experience began by coming in contact with a somewhat surly senior citizen at the local public library here on the island. I forgot that I had other registration options and besides, you used to have to go to the library in person to register. He (the senior citizen) grumpily handed me two registration forms, basically treating me like I had spent the past hour naked, talking loudly, and viewing pornography web sites on the public internet terminal.
I took the forms home and found that my own registration task simply required writing in the address of my past and present residences and the addition of a $.37 stamp to the integral envelope--I was in business in five minutes. My significant other’s form required a copy of her drivers license in addition to the afore mentioned data since she hadn’t been registered in the State of Georgia previously. Still, it was too easy. I somehow favor showing up and filing such an important document in person as a form of validation, even if the attendant has the personality of a prison guard.
It’s this idea of signing up people at the public assistance offices that bothers me the most. Yes, I want people to be able to exercise their right to vote. No, I don’t want to go out dragging the rivers and streams for every form of blood sucking lowlife that doesn’t have the desire and faculties to get off of their rear end and actively seek the registration process as I just did. Isn’t it just a little too covenant to hand out voter registration forms at the welfare office? I’m fairly certain that you would get an entirely different population of voters if you handed out voter registration forms at the IRS audit office.
Further, what is the burden of proof of residence and citizenship that is being applied at these offices? It seems to me that the public assistance funds are pouring through the government offices in a flood toward non-residents and non-citizens. See what happened to the city of Lewiston, Maine? The opportunity for fraud and abuse is a bit too available here to make me real comfortable with the quality of the results.
While Mr. sKerry and the Democrats are busy playing the “Race Card,” talking about disenfranchising black and other minority voters, I just wonder how many other illegal voters have been energised, empowered, enfranchised, enlisted, employed, or are otherwise enacting a silent war on the most valuable of our rights as American Citizens?
Think about it on November 2nd...
The “Right to Vote” in these here United States of America has radically changed, mostly for the better, since the ratification of our Constitution. In addition to the original white male landowners, the voter rolls now legally include black men, women of all color, and with few exceptions any other legal citizen of the United States who is not currently in jail or is a convicted felon.
As a formality, the officials what be do require that you register to vote in the county or parish in which your normal, full time residence (read that also to mean your abode, your apartment, your place, your crib, your teepee, your hovel, your cabin, your shack, your hut, your home, your condo, your mansion et.al.) might be located. I’m not quite sure what you do if you live on a boat on the ocean, in a motor home, or in some other form of mobile home that hasn’t been recently destroyed or relocated by a tornado. (In Georgia, seeAbsentee Ballot)
In 1993, during the first full distinguished year of the Clinton administration, before the Republican uprising/Newt Gingrich congressional takeover, the congress passed
The National Voter Registration Act (the Motor Voter Act) which was supposed to substantially improve the ability of minorities and people with disabilities to attain voter registration. Like most laws, it sounded good on paper and in the news headlines—hurray for justice and the American way.
Here is what really happened. The new law made it a requirement that the individual States allow you to register to vote when applying for a state issued driver’s license. Sounds good to me--the burden of proof is fairly high during that process.
Further voter registration must be provided:
“to each applicant for services, service renewal or address change through all offices that provide public assistance and all offices that provide state-funded programs primarily engaged in providing services to persons with disabilities; applicants must be provided with a voter registration form, a declination form, assistance in completing the forms and forwarding the completed applications to the appropriate state official) (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-5)”
For those challenged in the interpretation of legalese, this paragraph basically means that when you sign up for social security benefits, public housing, welfare, WIC, or disability payments, that you can also register to vote (in an obvious effort to increase your benefits and/or keep them coming for eternity.)
Finally, the states were also required to develop a standardized form which could be submitted by mail. Can you say RED FLAG?
My immediate response to this legislation ten years ago was that voter registration was going to end up working something like those annoying car dealer TV/Radio sales ads…
”TUESDAY…TUESDAY…TUESDAY…Come one, Come all, come on down and register NOW (excuse the unintended pun, all of you feminists) to exercise your right to V-O-T-E. No I.D., no documentation, no credit, no problem…All applications will be accepted…Hey mom, we got free pony rides and free hot dogs. Y’all bring grandma and the children; trade in that fake green card for a US voter registration card…Hable usted de espanola.”
I have had a driver’s license for the past 29 years and I haven’t applied for any of the government support programs like welfare, disability, or unemployment, but I did recently have occasion to change my voter registration from Cobb County Georgia to Glynn County Georgia—by mail.
My experience began by coming in contact with a somewhat surly senior citizen at the local public library here on the island. I forgot that I had other registration options and besides, you used to have to go to the library in person to register. He (the senior citizen) grumpily handed me two registration forms, basically treating me like I had spent the past hour naked, talking loudly, and viewing pornography web sites on the public internet terminal.
I took the forms home and found that my own registration task simply required writing in the address of my past and present residences and the addition of a $.37 stamp to the integral envelope--I was in business in five minutes. My significant other’s form required a copy of her drivers license in addition to the afore mentioned data since she hadn’t been registered in the State of Georgia previously. Still, it was too easy. I somehow favor showing up and filing such an important document in person as a form of validation, even if the attendant has the personality of a prison guard.
It’s this idea of signing up people at the public assistance offices that bothers me the most. Yes, I want people to be able to exercise their right to vote. No, I don’t want to go out dragging the rivers and streams for every form of blood sucking lowlife that doesn’t have the desire and faculties to get off of their rear end and actively seek the registration process as I just did. Isn’t it just a little too covenant to hand out voter registration forms at the welfare office? I’m fairly certain that you would get an entirely different population of voters if you handed out voter registration forms at the IRS audit office.
Further, what is the burden of proof of residence and citizenship that is being applied at these offices? It seems to me that the public assistance funds are pouring through the government offices in a flood toward non-residents and non-citizens. See what happened to the city of Lewiston, Maine? The opportunity for fraud and abuse is a bit too available here to make me real comfortable with the quality of the results.
While Mr. sKerry and the Democrats are busy playing the “Race Card,” talking about disenfranchising black and other minority voters, I just wonder how many other illegal voters have been energised, empowered, enfranchised, enlisted, employed, or are otherwise enacting a silent war on the most valuable of our rights as American Citizens?
Think about it on November 2nd...
Sunday, September 19, 2004
Un-Healthy Healthcare--Part I
Over the past few weeks I have been taking a look at domestic campaign issues (in other words, those that don’t involve metals/ribbons or Vietnam) outlined on the web sites of the presidential candidates. I’ve mostly resisted the temptation to follow current events like “Rathergate”—CBS’s forged document scandal. Because of my family’s proximity to the “hurricane coasts” of the southeastern US, I have indulged myself with commentary on Charley, Frances, and most recently Ivan (my mother has been without electricity since last Thursday evening) but I have generally attempted to stay on the campaign issues.
In the process, I’ve already looked at minimum wages--the so called "living wage," gun control, government education, and most recently I looked at tax cuts for “working families.” All of these posts attempted to look at the flowery statements made by or on behalf of the candidates and address little annoying things like facts and details which are missing in support of their statements and positions on each issue.
For my next revelation, I have decided to take on what is perhaps the easiest topic, health care in general and specifically, health insurance.
Let me start out with an admission. I currently do not have health insurance, by choice—it’s not George Bush’s fault. I have spent the last four or so years without insurance and my health hasn’t exactly been perfect, but I have gotten by OK. I didn’t lose my insurance as a result of some sinister Republican conspiracy to ruin my finances and end my life, I let it lapse intentionally. I have, however, been continuously insured from the age of 18 until the age of 40 through a combination of programs in college, insurance provided by my employer when I had one, and with self- purchased private health insurance for a period of nearly 11 years that I was self employed. By the way, I also intend to acquire a health insurance policy later this year.
Before I go any further, let’s talk about the idea of insurance for a moment. Health insurance (or any other kind of insurance, for that matter) involves the concept of you gambling that you are going to incur some level of expenses (medical expenses, in the case of health insurance) and the insurance company gambling that you aren’t. You gamble that these expenses are, in theory, greater that the cost of the monthly premiums that you pay to the insurance company.
The insurance company, in turn, gambles that your expenses are actually less than the premiums which they collect from you. If the insurance company is right and your expenses are low, they can keep the excess premiums as profit or at least make enough interest off of the premiums while the hold them to offset the additional costs in any given year or period of years.
Insurance companies create groups (pools) of clients in the same risk category and sell insurance at similar rates of premium cost and payout risk. The idea is to make a profit by averaging the income and costs of all of the clients in the pool. They will pay out more than they take in premiums on some clients and pay out nothing on other clients. Company group insurance is just another form of insurance pool.
Up until the last 50 years, healthcare was a pay as you go business. You didn’t even have to use cash in rural America as evidenced by stories of country doctors making house-calls and extending credit or accepting produce, vegetables, and chickens for payment. Today it could be considered difficult to pay your brain surgeon’s fee or pay for a CAT scan with a bushel basket of corn.
Health insurance was originally sold to cover catastrophic costs over and above the annual checkups and the repair of a few nicks and scrapes that were encountered in the living of everyday life’s events and circumstances. This is exactly what the hated rich, upper class do today. Most people with any substantial net worth purchase major medical and hospitalization insurance policies with large deductibles and save the costs of high premiums by taking a manageable portion of the risk themselves. If you are healthy as a horse, you win…If you suddenly die of cancer, you loose. (You’re dead so it doesn’t matter does it?)
But things have changed greatly. Today there are masses of people out there that somehow believe that they should be able to pay out $50 per month ($600 per year) and in return receive unlimited free doctor’s visits, free emergency room visits, free hospitalization, free OB/GYN care for five children they can’t afford, free family dental care, and free prescription drugs, regardless of the actual total costs. How long could any private company remain financially solvent with that kind of negative cash-flow? The answer is, about 90 days.
So how can we expect the imperial federal government of the US to accomplish this feat? By stealing money from the hated rich upper class, money that they really don’t need say the liberals on behalf of “working families.” Programs like sHrillary Clinton’s “Universal Healthcare” would allow the government to force the doctors and other health providers to donate a portion of their time (read that, their lives) for free or at a reduced cost if they intend to retain that coveted medical license that they all want to continue to practice medicine.
Ironically, the federal government has a real head start in changing the public’s mentality toward health insurance. Historically, the idea of employer provided health insurance goes back to World War II when wage caps were placed by the federal government on employers. In an effort to get around these limitations on compensation and attract the highest quality employees, many companies started offering additional paid benefits like health insurance to their personnel.
The paid benefits idea carried over after the war and by the 1960’s, it was quite common for executive and mid-level positions to include company paid benefits like health and life insurance and retirement plans. Federal tax law further encouraged companies’ provision of health insurance, eventually expanding to include lower level executive and blue-collar employees, by allowing them to write off the cost of insurance premiums and lower their tax burden. In effect, the individual was still actually paying for the insurance. They just did it in before tax dollars.
So if you want to stop reading now, here is the logical, easiest, and most workable solution to the so called “health care crisis.” Extend to the individual the exact same tax break that businesses enjoy today—make the entire health insurance premium tax deductible. Why should only corporations enjoy this benefit? It penalizes small businesses and sole proprietorships at the expense of increasing the ranks of the un- insured. Unfortunately, large numbers of un-insured citizens is exactly what the federal government and the politicians want. How else can they justify taking over an industry that represents over 1/3 of the national economy?
NOW, as to the specifics on each candidates’ election platforms. Please indulge me as I offer my commentary, rebuttal, or outright prove them wrong on a paragraph by paragraph basis:
Here is what John Kerry and John Edwards have to say about health care:
“Affordable, high-quality health care will keep our families healthy, our businesses competitive, and our country strong.”
I’ll buy the first part, high quality health care will help keep families (and individuals) healthy… duhhh! Unfortunately, if you don’t have regular check-ups, and you wake up one day with colon cancer flying out your rear end, you can also spend a billion dollars on surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation and still be DRT (Dead Right There) when your time comes.
Businesses’ competitiveness and a strong country are a bit of a reach (com’ on, John and John) as I could see a healthy bunch of overpaid idiots being a liability, not an asset. There is just not a direct, one-to-one correlation here in what they say:
“Over the last three years, family premiums have increased by more than $2,600 and prescription drug prices have grown four times faster than inflation. These skyrocketing costs have hurt our economy and forced many families into bankruptcy.”
Let me jump in here with both feet and do the math for you. Assuming an equal rate of annual inflation, the $2,600 over three years is $867 per year (a little over $72 per month.) Sounds horrible, but…how do they define “family premiums.” Four, five, or six persons? And regarding drug prices growing four times faster than inflation, are the drug prices included in this statement the latest state-of-the-art products? Most medications go down in price and many go over the counter with a further price reduction. (I’m going to do another whole investigation into prescription drugs and pricing…just be patient.)
Next the Kerry campaign says:
“We deserve a president who understands that in America, regular check-ups shouldn't empty family checkbooks - a president who will put people ahead of insurance and drug companies. “
Again, I’ll do the math for you. The members of a family of four each have an annual medical physical. Let’s assume a cost of one hundred dollars each for the husband and two children, and two hundred fifty dollars for the woman of child bearing age with her God given extra “plumbing”. Total cost, five hundred fifty dollars. This hardly empties the checkbook, does it?
Where in the US Constitution does it say that the president’s job is to favor individuals over privately or publicly owned businesses? The insurance and drug companies all have the right to sell any product they can legally sell to any company or person at any price that the free market will bear. They also have the right to close down and offer nothing in the way of products and services, or to sell them all in Canada, Mexico, or (God forbid) France and Germany.
"John Kerry and John Edwards have a plan to address soaring premiums and cut Americans a break. Their plan will lower family premiums by up to $1,000 a year, cut waste from the system, lower the cost of prescription drugs to provide real relief to seniors, and use targeted tax cuts to extend affordable, high-quality coverage to 95 percent of Americans, including every child. And because John Kerry and John Edwards believe that everyone's health is equally important, they will provide all Americans with access to the same coverage that members of Congress give themselves."
Sooo, premiums will in theory be lowered by “up to $1000 per year.” Usually, “up to” means a sliding scale. And with government, let me guess, the mean old upper middle class will get a $1.98 reduction and the lowest income earners will get a thousand dollar check—regardless of their actual health care expenses. Another “earned income-type credit,” perhaps?
“…and use targeted tax-cuts to extend affordable, high-quality coverage to ninety-five percent of Americans?” Again, let me guess, they probably won’t be targeting me or my friends and family members. Further, the concept will be that the top 5% of the income earners will be raped and pillaged in order to pay for the other 95% of the population’s health care “rights.”
"To make affordable health care a right - not a privilege - for every American, John Kerry and John Edwards will: " (Sorry, but health care is a market commodity, not a government mandate. Show me where in the US Constitution it says “life, liberty, and affordable healthcare” or anything of the sort?)
"Cut Your Premiums--John Kerry and John Edwards will cut family premiums by up to $1,000. That's $1,000 in real savings people can use to buy groceries, pay the bills, and save for their children's future. And that will mean more jobs and more competitive American businesses."
So let me get this straight, if the US government hands “families” a $1000 annual savings in health insurance premiums, they will run right out and spend the money on groceries, “bills”, or save it for their children’s future. These “bills” just wouldn’t happen to include cigarettes, fish bait, and beer, or the down payment on a $4,800 annual lease on new Ford Mustang?
Or will these families take their $1000 health insurance cost savings, place an employment ad in the newspaper, start a new company, and hire two or three new employees? On receipt of their $1000 check, will they spontaneously increase their own productivity at their jobs in order to yield “more competitive American businesses?” Crappola Alert, Crappola Alert!!!
"Cover All Americans With Quality Care: The Kerry-Edwards plan will give every American access to the range of high-quality, affordable plans available to members of Congress and extend coverage to 95 percent of Americans, including every American child. Their plan will also fight to erase the health disparities that persist along racial and economic lines, ensure that people with HIV and AIDS have the care they need, end discrimination against Americans with disabilities and mental illnesses, and ensure equal treatment for mental illness in our health system.
In the process, I’ve already looked at minimum wages--the so called "living wage," gun control, government education, and most recently I looked at tax cuts for “working families.” All of these posts attempted to look at the flowery statements made by or on behalf of the candidates and address little annoying things like facts and details which are missing in support of their statements and positions on each issue.
For my next revelation, I have decided to take on what is perhaps the easiest topic, health care in general and specifically, health insurance.
Let me start out with an admission. I currently do not have health insurance, by choice—it’s not George Bush’s fault. I have spent the last four or so years without insurance and my health hasn’t exactly been perfect, but I have gotten by OK. I didn’t lose my insurance as a result of some sinister Republican conspiracy to ruin my finances and end my life, I let it lapse intentionally. I have, however, been continuously insured from the age of 18 until the age of 40 through a combination of programs in college, insurance provided by my employer when I had one, and with self- purchased private health insurance for a period of nearly 11 years that I was self employed. By the way, I also intend to acquire a health insurance policy later this year.
Before I go any further, let’s talk about the idea of insurance for a moment. Health insurance (or any other kind of insurance, for that matter) involves the concept of you gambling that you are going to incur some level of expenses (medical expenses, in the case of health insurance) and the insurance company gambling that you aren’t. You gamble that these expenses are, in theory, greater that the cost of the monthly premiums that you pay to the insurance company.
The insurance company, in turn, gambles that your expenses are actually less than the premiums which they collect from you. If the insurance company is right and your expenses are low, they can keep the excess premiums as profit or at least make enough interest off of the premiums while the hold them to offset the additional costs in any given year or period of years.
Insurance companies create groups (pools) of clients in the same risk category and sell insurance at similar rates of premium cost and payout risk. The idea is to make a profit by averaging the income and costs of all of the clients in the pool. They will pay out more than they take in premiums on some clients and pay out nothing on other clients. Company group insurance is just another form of insurance pool.
Up until the last 50 years, healthcare was a pay as you go business. You didn’t even have to use cash in rural America as evidenced by stories of country doctors making house-calls and extending credit or accepting produce, vegetables, and chickens for payment. Today it could be considered difficult to pay your brain surgeon’s fee or pay for a CAT scan with a bushel basket of corn.
Health insurance was originally sold to cover catastrophic costs over and above the annual checkups and the repair of a few nicks and scrapes that were encountered in the living of everyday life’s events and circumstances. This is exactly what the hated rich, upper class do today. Most people with any substantial net worth purchase major medical and hospitalization insurance policies with large deductibles and save the costs of high premiums by taking a manageable portion of the risk themselves. If you are healthy as a horse, you win…If you suddenly die of cancer, you loose. (You’re dead so it doesn’t matter does it?)
But things have changed greatly. Today there are masses of people out there that somehow believe that they should be able to pay out $50 per month ($600 per year) and in return receive unlimited free doctor’s visits, free emergency room visits, free hospitalization, free OB/GYN care for five children they can’t afford, free family dental care, and free prescription drugs, regardless of the actual total costs. How long could any private company remain financially solvent with that kind of negative cash-flow? The answer is, about 90 days.
So how can we expect the imperial federal government of the US to accomplish this feat? By stealing money from the hated rich upper class, money that they really don’t need say the liberals on behalf of “working families.” Programs like sHrillary Clinton’s “Universal Healthcare” would allow the government to force the doctors and other health providers to donate a portion of their time (read that, their lives) for free or at a reduced cost if they intend to retain that coveted medical license that they all want to continue to practice medicine.
Ironically, the federal government has a real head start in changing the public’s mentality toward health insurance. Historically, the idea of employer provided health insurance goes back to World War II when wage caps were placed by the federal government on employers. In an effort to get around these limitations on compensation and attract the highest quality employees, many companies started offering additional paid benefits like health insurance to their personnel.
The paid benefits idea carried over after the war and by the 1960’s, it was quite common for executive and mid-level positions to include company paid benefits like health and life insurance and retirement plans. Federal tax law further encouraged companies’ provision of health insurance, eventually expanding to include lower level executive and blue-collar employees, by allowing them to write off the cost of insurance premiums and lower their tax burden. In effect, the individual was still actually paying for the insurance. They just did it in before tax dollars.
So if you want to stop reading now, here is the logical, easiest, and most workable solution to the so called “health care crisis.” Extend to the individual the exact same tax break that businesses enjoy today—make the entire health insurance premium tax deductible. Why should only corporations enjoy this benefit? It penalizes small businesses and sole proprietorships at the expense of increasing the ranks of the un- insured. Unfortunately, large numbers of un-insured citizens is exactly what the federal government and the politicians want. How else can they justify taking over an industry that represents over 1/3 of the national economy?
NOW, as to the specifics on each candidates’ election platforms. Please indulge me as I offer my commentary, rebuttal, or outright prove them wrong on a paragraph by paragraph basis:
Here is what John Kerry and John Edwards have to say about health care:
“Affordable, high-quality health care will keep our families healthy, our businesses competitive, and our country strong.”
I’ll buy the first part, high quality health care will help keep families (and individuals) healthy… duhhh! Unfortunately, if you don’t have regular check-ups, and you wake up one day with colon cancer flying out your rear end, you can also spend a billion dollars on surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation and still be DRT (Dead Right There) when your time comes.
Businesses’ competitiveness and a strong country are a bit of a reach (com’ on, John and John) as I could see a healthy bunch of overpaid idiots being a liability, not an asset. There is just not a direct, one-to-one correlation here in what they say:
“Over the last three years, family premiums have increased by more than $2,600 and prescription drug prices have grown four times faster than inflation. These skyrocketing costs have hurt our economy and forced many families into bankruptcy.”
Let me jump in here with both feet and do the math for you. Assuming an equal rate of annual inflation, the $2,600 over three years is $867 per year (a little over $72 per month.) Sounds horrible, but…how do they define “family premiums.” Four, five, or six persons? And regarding drug prices growing four times faster than inflation, are the drug prices included in this statement the latest state-of-the-art products? Most medications go down in price and many go over the counter with a further price reduction. (I’m going to do another whole investigation into prescription drugs and pricing…just be patient.)
Next the Kerry campaign says:
“We deserve a president who understands that in America, regular check-ups shouldn't empty family checkbooks - a president who will put people ahead of insurance and drug companies. “
Again, I’ll do the math for you. The members of a family of four each have an annual medical physical. Let’s assume a cost of one hundred dollars each for the husband and two children, and two hundred fifty dollars for the woman of child bearing age with her God given extra “plumbing”. Total cost, five hundred fifty dollars. This hardly empties the checkbook, does it?
Where in the US Constitution does it say that the president’s job is to favor individuals over privately or publicly owned businesses? The insurance and drug companies all have the right to sell any product they can legally sell to any company or person at any price that the free market will bear. They also have the right to close down and offer nothing in the way of products and services, or to sell them all in Canada, Mexico, or (God forbid) France and Germany.
"John Kerry and John Edwards have a plan to address soaring premiums and cut Americans a break. Their plan will lower family premiums by up to $1,000 a year, cut waste from the system, lower the cost of prescription drugs to provide real relief to seniors, and use targeted tax cuts to extend affordable, high-quality coverage to 95 percent of Americans, including every child. And because John Kerry and John Edwards believe that everyone's health is equally important, they will provide all Americans with access to the same coverage that members of Congress give themselves."
Sooo, premiums will in theory be lowered by “up to $1000 per year.” Usually, “up to” means a sliding scale. And with government, let me guess, the mean old upper middle class will get a $1.98 reduction and the lowest income earners will get a thousand dollar check—regardless of their actual health care expenses. Another “earned income-type credit,” perhaps?
“…and use targeted tax-cuts to extend affordable, high-quality coverage to ninety-five percent of Americans?” Again, let me guess, they probably won’t be targeting me or my friends and family members. Further, the concept will be that the top 5% of the income earners will be raped and pillaged in order to pay for the other 95% of the population’s health care “rights.”
"To make affordable health care a right - not a privilege - for every American, John Kerry and John Edwards will: " (Sorry, but health care is a market commodity, not a government mandate. Show me where in the US Constitution it says “life, liberty, and affordable healthcare” or anything of the sort?)
"Cut Your Premiums--John Kerry and John Edwards will cut family premiums by up to $1,000. That's $1,000 in real savings people can use to buy groceries, pay the bills, and save for their children's future. And that will mean more jobs and more competitive American businesses."
So let me get this straight, if the US government hands “families” a $1000 annual savings in health insurance premiums, they will run right out and spend the money on groceries, “bills”, or save it for their children’s future. These “bills” just wouldn’t happen to include cigarettes, fish bait, and beer, or the down payment on a $4,800 annual lease on new Ford Mustang?
Or will these families take their $1000 health insurance cost savings, place an employment ad in the newspaper, start a new company, and hire two or three new employees? On receipt of their $1000 check, will they spontaneously increase their own productivity at their jobs in order to yield “more competitive American businesses?” Crappola Alert, Crappola Alert!!!
"Cover All Americans With Quality Care: The Kerry-Edwards plan will give every American access to the range of high-quality, affordable plans available to members of Congress and extend coverage to 95 percent of Americans, including every American child. Their plan will also fight to erase the health disparities that persist along racial and economic lines, ensure that people with HIV and AIDS have the care they need, end discrimination against Americans with disabilities and mental illnesses, and ensure equal treatment for mental illness in our health system.
Here's a couple more of my Politically Incorrect Factoids (PIF's): There is not one single child in this country that cannot receive reduced cost or free health care if the parent will deliver them to the appropriate existing medical facility. The only time proper care is not delivered is in the case that the parent is either an idiot, some kind of a religious zealot, a drunk, or a crackhead. Children are not, to my knowledge, dying on the side of the road in this country from lack of proper medical care.
The "health disparities" that exist along racial and economic lines are primarily culturally induced or caused by individual lifestyle choices. Dietary CHOICES, being chronically overweight, smoking, alcohol and drug consumption--these are all issuses that affect a person's health and currently only they themselves make the decisions to control these behaviors. Is Mr Kerry suggesting that the government should step in and save them from themselves?
The US government already spends a disproportate amount of research money on HIV/AIDS, exceeding the funding on a per case basis of research funds spent for pulminary and cancer deaths--illnesses that are the source of over 50% of the annual deaths due to chronic illness each year in the United States: http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/overview.htm.
President Bush recently proposed a record spending level of $17.1 billion for fiscal 2005 (a 27% increase since 2001) http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/hivaids/ in HIV/Aids research. What the hell else do they want us to do, and what other research programs are they willing to potentially underfund in support of this politically correct cause celeb?
Provide Affordable Prescriptions: The Kerry-Edwards plan will reduce prescription drug prices by allowing the re-importation of safe prescription drugs from Canada, overhauling the Medicare drug plan, ensuring low-cost drugs, and ending artificial barriers to generic drug competition."
Blaa Blaa Blaaa, Bla Bla Bla Blaaaaaaah! What did they just say? The Kerry-Edwards plan is going to “reduce prescription drug prices by allowing the re-importation of safe prescription drugs from Canada....” How does sending drugs to the US consumers through Canada or Mexico automatically lower prescription prices?
Well isn’t that special…last time I checked, it was the imperial Federal Government that was directly responsible for EACH AND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE PROPORTED PROBLEMS with prescription drugs that they are trying to change.
And what exactly does “ensuring low-cost drugs” mean? Perhaps holding a government gun to the head of a manufacturer to keep prices down? Why don't they try getting the FDA “voodoo scientists” off the drug manufacturers backs, thereby shortening the time to market for new drugs? It is all to easy to solve pricing problems by spending higher income taxpayers’ hard earned money to subsidize drug prices? No new news here.
"Cut Waste and Inefficiency: Today, approximately 25 percent of health care costs are wasted on paperwork and administrative processing. The Kerry-Edwards plan harnesses American ingenuity to cut waste, save billions, and take new steps to ensure patient privacy."
Well, sorry folks, but the Kerry/Edwards health care plan just took themselves and the federal government out of the picture with their own words. Based on prior experience with Medicare, Medicaid, and the Veteran’s Administration Hospitals, there is absolutely no way that further government involvement in our nation’s (actually our citizen's) healthcare could possibly “cut waste and inefficiency.”
In summary...are the citizens of this country just plain stupid and the politicians know it?
I have to stop writing now before my head explodes. Bah Humbug….
Tax Cuts for "Working Families"
I’ll open this discussion on income taxes with the following statement:
“YOU CAN’T GET AN INCOME TAX CUT IF YOU DON’T PAY INCOME TAXES.”
Did you get that? Adding a further collorary to this concept:
“DON’T EXPECT AN INCOME TAX RETURN IF YOU DON’T PAY INCOME TAXES.”
I’m afraid that at least half of the US population has lost track of these concepts. Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry loves to talk about tax fairness for Americans. If he and Mr. Edwards (two so called “limousine liberals”) were to win the election this November, he says that the first thing they would do next January is to roll back all of President Bush’s tax cuts..
Mr. Kerry’s campaign dialogue is peppered with references to President Bush and the Republican Congress enacting “tax cuts for the rich” instead of “tax cuts for working families.” A report issued in late August by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) shows that nothing could be further from the truth.
Kerry wants tax cuts for “working families.” Let me ask the question, exactly what is a "working family?" Does the term “working family” mean that both parents, all of the children, and the family pets each hold full time or part time jobs? Does the term “working family” only apply if you make less than $50,000 per year in total income? Does the term imply that people making over $100,000 don’t work for a living and/or don't have families ?
In fact, Senator Kerry, the Democrat’s, and other liberals of all stripes and colors use of the term “working family” plays to the most basic form of envy and class warfare that has been a staple of politics since the income tax was enacted.
As this editorial in the Detroit News (a newspaper in a city full of Kerry’s so called “working families”) so eloquently opines, Bush hasn’t gotten the credit he deserves. Consider this. After the hated tax cut, in 2001 the top 10% of taxpayers earned 38.3% of the total taxable federal household income, but they actually paid 66.7% of the federal income taxes. The top 20% of taxpayers earned 51.1% and paid 74.8%.
What else do they want? I know, I know…”those evil rich people don’t need all of their money.”
Seriously folks, how can you cut taxes on someone that already doesn’t pay taxes? The bottom 20% of income earners already gets an earned income credit and a resulting tax refund equaling 5.7% of their non-taxable income. The bottom 40% of households earned 9.7% of the total household income and had a negative tax rate of 2.8%. This means, even after Bush’s tax reform, that the imperial federal government of the United States uses the IRS to take money from the top 60% of income earners and give it to the bottom 40%. The Dem’s figure that if they can just increase this figure from 40% to 51% that they will be guaranteed re-election to local and national offices for eternity. (See Mob Rule – Part I)
When faced with the above facts supporting that the tax cut is truly across the board, the liberal Democrats then take another track. They start jumping up and down about how the tax cut fueled a record setting Federal Budget Deficit. Again not true. While the 2003 deficit is a record number of total dollars, at 3.1% it was in fact smaller as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) than it was in 1976 under Carter (4.1%,) in 1985 under Reagan (5.1%,) and 1992 under Clinton (4.4%.) The problem is spending, not income.
Why does that matter, you might ask. Here’s an example: Say that one year a business has a $50,000 net income, but expenses also equaled $50,000 and the owner choose to borrow and additional $10,000 during the year to fund new product development costs. The next year, however, the new products sell well and the gross income doubles to $100,000, but expenses go up proportionally and the owner keeps working on expanding the business so the total debt increases to $15,000.
Record deficit scream the stockholders! Wrong you government school educated imbeciles. While the amount spent in excess of income rose by $5,000, the debt as a percentage of income actually fell from 20% to 15%, a deficit spending reduction of 25%. Put away the calculator and college diploma, simple 6th grade math tells the story. Why can’t the AP, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times get this right?
As a last resort, the Democrats and other liberals come out and claim that the middle class is unfairly burdened by FICA/FUTA/Social Security taxes. In former President Reagan’s words: “there (they) go again…” FICA/FUTA/Social Security taxes apply equally to everyone at all income levels and are in fact stolen by the federal government from today’s wage earners to pay the obligations they have accumulated and owe to unemployed, disabled, and retired members of past generations of taxpayers. Further, the so-called rich taxpayers already pay these taxes on disproportionate amounts of their incomes and at most only see pennies on the dollar in benefits because they earn and save too much money in private retirement accounts.
President Bush didn’t invent these taxes, but I seem to remember several famous Democrats like Roosevelt and Johnson whose fingerprints are all over these bait and switch programs. Yes they are unfair and need reform or outright elimination, but every time Bush and the Republican congress even try to talk about changes and improvements, they suffer under the age old liberal tactic of “scaring the old people” to get votes. “The Republicans are gonna take away your Social Security benefits…run to the polls and vote for us and we'll save you...”
Numerous web sites like http://www.bushtax.com/ go even further with their arguments, indicating that, beyond the excessive amounts of money “given” to the rich in this country by existing tax cuts, the Federal government’s tax policies have actually shifted additional costs to the middle class in the form of increased property taxes and greater tuition costs at state colleges and universities as the state governments see a reduction in the federal gravy-train of grants and other funding.
Give me another break, plu-eaze. So more and more "working families" own their own homes and have to pay corresponding property taxes and more and more children of "working families" are graduating from high school and entering college and incurring the associated tuition costs. Here's an option for you--rent a house and get a job at McDonalds after you finish 12 grades of government school.
And here is the real problem--up to the late 1970’s or early 1980’s most state governments operated with a budget surplus. Since that time, most states and many cities have engaged in a spree of hiring employees, building new programs, and generally increasing their spending—following the federal business model—and now they are all facing deficits of THEIR OWN MAKING. It is not the federal government’s job to step in and bail the Governors, state legislatures, and city councils out of their mess. Let the voters go to the polls and correct their spending problems at the state and local level this fall.
Rational spending policies and letting people keep more of their hard earned money will allow the Federal Budget to take care of itself. Continued income redistribution and expanding dependence on government for employment, health care, and retirement will be the death of us all fiscally.
“YOU CAN’T GET AN INCOME TAX CUT IF YOU DON’T PAY INCOME TAXES.”
Did you get that? Adding a further collorary to this concept:
“DON’T EXPECT AN INCOME TAX RETURN IF YOU DON’T PAY INCOME TAXES.”
I’m afraid that at least half of the US population has lost track of these concepts. Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry loves to talk about tax fairness for Americans. If he and Mr. Edwards (two so called “limousine liberals”) were to win the election this November, he says that the first thing they would do next January is to roll back all of President Bush’s tax cuts..
Mr. Kerry’s campaign dialogue is peppered with references to President Bush and the Republican Congress enacting “tax cuts for the rich” instead of “tax cuts for working families.” A report issued in late August by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) shows that nothing could be further from the truth.
Kerry wants tax cuts for “working families.” Let me ask the question, exactly what is a "working family?" Does the term “working family” mean that both parents, all of the children, and the family pets each hold full time or part time jobs? Does the term “working family” only apply if you make less than $50,000 per year in total income? Does the term imply that people making over $100,000 don’t work for a living and/or don't have families ?
In fact, Senator Kerry, the Democrat’s, and other liberals of all stripes and colors use of the term “working family” plays to the most basic form of envy and class warfare that has been a staple of politics since the income tax was enacted.
As this editorial in the Detroit News (a newspaper in a city full of Kerry’s so called “working families”) so eloquently opines, Bush hasn’t gotten the credit he deserves. Consider this. After the hated tax cut, in 2001 the top 10% of taxpayers earned 38.3% of the total taxable federal household income, but they actually paid 66.7% of the federal income taxes. The top 20% of taxpayers earned 51.1% and paid 74.8%.
What else do they want? I know, I know…”those evil rich people don’t need all of their money.”
Seriously folks, how can you cut taxes on someone that already doesn’t pay taxes? The bottom 20% of income earners already gets an earned income credit and a resulting tax refund equaling 5.7% of their non-taxable income. The bottom 40% of households earned 9.7% of the total household income and had a negative tax rate of 2.8%. This means, even after Bush’s tax reform, that the imperial federal government of the United States uses the IRS to take money from the top 60% of income earners and give it to the bottom 40%. The Dem’s figure that if they can just increase this figure from 40% to 51% that they will be guaranteed re-election to local and national offices for eternity. (See Mob Rule – Part I)
When faced with the above facts supporting that the tax cut is truly across the board, the liberal Democrats then take another track. They start jumping up and down about how the tax cut fueled a record setting Federal Budget Deficit. Again not true. While the 2003 deficit is a record number of total dollars, at 3.1% it was in fact smaller as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) than it was in 1976 under Carter (4.1%,) in 1985 under Reagan (5.1%,) and 1992 under Clinton (4.4%.) The problem is spending, not income.
Why does that matter, you might ask. Here’s an example: Say that one year a business has a $50,000 net income, but expenses also equaled $50,000 and the owner choose to borrow and additional $10,000 during the year to fund new product development costs. The next year, however, the new products sell well and the gross income doubles to $100,000, but expenses go up proportionally and the owner keeps working on expanding the business so the total debt increases to $15,000.
Record deficit scream the stockholders! Wrong you government school educated imbeciles. While the amount spent in excess of income rose by $5,000, the debt as a percentage of income actually fell from 20% to 15%, a deficit spending reduction of 25%. Put away the calculator and college diploma, simple 6th grade math tells the story. Why can’t the AP, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times get this right?
As a last resort, the Democrats and other liberals come out and claim that the middle class is unfairly burdened by FICA/FUTA/Social Security taxes. In former President Reagan’s words: “there (they) go again…” FICA/FUTA/Social Security taxes apply equally to everyone at all income levels and are in fact stolen by the federal government from today’s wage earners to pay the obligations they have accumulated and owe to unemployed, disabled, and retired members of past generations of taxpayers. Further, the so-called rich taxpayers already pay these taxes on disproportionate amounts of their incomes and at most only see pennies on the dollar in benefits because they earn and save too much money in private retirement accounts.
President Bush didn’t invent these taxes, but I seem to remember several famous Democrats like Roosevelt and Johnson whose fingerprints are all over these bait and switch programs. Yes they are unfair and need reform or outright elimination, but every time Bush and the Republican congress even try to talk about changes and improvements, they suffer under the age old liberal tactic of “scaring the old people” to get votes. “The Republicans are gonna take away your Social Security benefits…run to the polls and vote for us and we'll save you...”
Numerous web sites like http://www.bushtax.com/ go even further with their arguments, indicating that, beyond the excessive amounts of money “given” to the rich in this country by existing tax cuts, the Federal government’s tax policies have actually shifted additional costs to the middle class in the form of increased property taxes and greater tuition costs at state colleges and universities as the state governments see a reduction in the federal gravy-train of grants and other funding.
Give me another break, plu-eaze. So more and more "working families" own their own homes and have to pay corresponding property taxes and more and more children of "working families" are graduating from high school and entering college and incurring the associated tuition costs. Here's an option for you--rent a house and get a job at McDonalds after you finish 12 grades of government school.
And here is the real problem--up to the late 1970’s or early 1980’s most state governments operated with a budget surplus. Since that time, most states and many cities have engaged in a spree of hiring employees, building new programs, and generally increasing their spending—following the federal business model—and now they are all facing deficits of THEIR OWN MAKING. It is not the federal government’s job to step in and bail the Governors, state legislatures, and city councils out of their mess. Let the voters go to the polls and correct their spending problems at the state and local level this fall.
Rational spending policies and letting people keep more of their hard earned money will allow the Federal Budget to take care of itself. Continued income redistribution and expanding dependence on government for employment, health care, and retirement will be the death of us all fiscally.
