Thursday, August 20, 2009
Now they are saying that the Public Insurance option with drive down costs and make insurance companies have to be more competitive. Really? Can they explain to me EXACTLY how that will happen?
I am basing my thinking on existing government insurance programs. They already exist and anybody that lives in a Coastal area is well aware of it. It is called - Citizens Insurance. It was created to cover those individuals that lost their insurance due to catastrophic events, however it is an expensive option and created as a last resort. For those of us that have Citizens, it is only because the private carriers don't want to take the risk on our older homes and because there is not incentive to do so. So, they simply throw us to the government. Exactly what will happen here. They will throw all souls with pre-existing conditions, overweight, hypertensive, etc. to the government and they will only insure the cream of the crop at very competitive rates. So yes, cost will go down for only a select few.
So, when the government receives all of these hi-risk, hi-cost souls that need to be insured, our/the government costs will inevitably go up.
So, again, how will this bring costs down?
Also, bringing insurance costs down is not the ONLY solution, we need to actually bring down other health related costs down as well. Such as, Hospital costs, drug costs, legal costs, unnecessary testing, etc. etc.
This health care bill needs to be addressed from many sides and not just the obvious or easier targets.
Again, just my opinion!
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Chalk one up for the little guy....we stood up and it counted. We need to continue to stand up to these power-hungry bureaucrats and we WILL get our way. They are simply scared of us and of losing their cushy jobs.
I don't have to tell you that I am fervently opposed to the "Public Option" because any and all government run programs are inefficient, costly and simply put, failures. We can not afford, financially and otherwise, to have a failed health system, because we wanted to change it. This is too delicate and critical!
I understand that there are some +/- 50M Americans without health insurance for a whole variaty of reasons and it would be the civic thing to offer them affordable and accesible health insurance, if they chose to get it. NOT by force!
This, of course, does not mean we need to change the plans, rules or options for the other 250M Americans that are doing alright.
They claim that the system is "Broken"....I just love how they use this term for everything they want to change...this is truly the new "N" word. We are going to have so many "N" words after this administration is through that we are going to need a new "N" dictionary.
So, since the system is "Broken" they want to change it. However, they want to change it partially.
What do I mean by partially? Well, I am glad you asked.
- They are not discussing Legal reform. Not just by Tort reform because that will only limit damages and such, but does not actually prevent the actual lawsuit.
- They are not discussing unnecessary tests done by the doctor, not to enrich himself, but to protect himself from possible litigation that would enrich the lawyers and add HUGE costs to the system. THIS WOULD BE A TRUE HEALTHCARE SAVINGS!
- They are not discussing the costs of drugs with Pharmaceutical companies. They need to make money and thus develop new drugs, but allowing us to unite and negotiate special drug pricing as groups.
- They are not discussing availability of National Health Insurance plans and allowing more competition so consumers can shop around for the best and most affordable health plan.
- Adopting or using the Medicare risk contract option as a viable National option for private Health insurance or groups.
As you can see there are many important and intricate parts of this Health Insurance debate and possible change that are yet to be analized. Simply taking pieces of the system will not solve the problems with the sytem nor will it have any financial savings in the short-medium or long term. It will simply be doing a small change to say that you did something.
If the intention is to simply say you did it...then it is merely for political gain, but it is a costly game, because it will cost the American people a great deal and not just financially.
You can see that some of the points I bring up are not only important, but very complicated and huge interest groups involved that don't want these parts to be touched. So, a complete Health Insurance change is almost impossible.
Have you wondered why the insurance companies have not been out screaming and crying about the "Public Option"??? You would think that such and option would drive them out of business, right? It is my opinion that to some extent they are in favor of that option. No, I am not going crazy...hear me out. If there is the "Public Option" they will simply stop taking on the risk, thus throwing 250M souls to the government option, knowing full well that the government can't handle it and at which point they will ask the private insurance companies back to the table to negotiate some kind of contract and the insurance companies, know that at that time they can negotiate more lucrative and favorable terms than they had when they were direct. Why, because since the government is using our money, they don't care to pay more! The free-market always wins and are smarter than our government.:-) Thank God for that!
I am still in awe and schock to see support for this Health Care proposal in the 40's. Do any of those people that support these bills not analizing all of the pieces? Have they never traveled to another country and visited a public hospital? or is it that they are just focus on the idealistic fantasy of "everybody is entitled to health care" without truly understanding what that means and how difficult it actually is to do it correctly.
We all want health insurance for everybody, but everybody needs to share in the cost of doing so. Not just doctors and not just the taxpayers....the lawyers, the pharmaceuticals, the insurance company....it has to be a "comprehensive" reform and not just a "piece" of reform.
By the way, since we are on the topic. Mr. President, please stop vilifying doctors claiming that they are performing treatments solely based on the fee schedule. If this were the case, we would be Overweight, Pre-diabetic, Pre-hypertensive, Pre-osteartritic, etc. patients without tonsils and with one arm. Mr. President, I hope the presidential doctors are not really paying too much attention to what you are saying, because the next time you get sick you might find your self without tonsils!!!
Long one, I know, but I had a lot to say and it will be a long debate.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
I am very happy that the hostages have been returned and are back in the US, safe with their families.
However, I have a few questions? What were they doing in N. Korea in the first place? How and why did they get detained?
Also, why was the USA so adamant on getting these two women back? Who do you get ex-President Clinton to negotiate for you. I wonder if every regular US citizen would get the same treatment from our government? Or is it only when you get detained by countries they want to negotiate and at the time that it is critical in the negotiation process? I wonder?
Everybody is focusing on what concessions we gave them for this successful return, and now we know that one of the things coming from this negotiation is the 1-party talks, which North Korea wanted in the first place. My focus is more on how and why did this occur or was it orchestrated in the first place in order for us to get to this point? I am not usually a conspiracy theorist, but I can't believe anything they do or tell me anymore and this particular case, just seems too convenient .
This is not an important issue for domestic policies, but it is something that has been on my mind for the last week or so.
I travel a great deal and was wondering if I ever get hijacked or arrested, will I be able to meet ex-President Bill Clinton when he personally comes to pick me up in his private jet? Perhaps I should get arrested in Venezuela, Honduras or other conflict countries that might be interesting to the US.
Friday, August 7, 2009
In thinking about the political system and why it is not working, I have come up with Polling as the biggest culprit. Before you call me crazy, let me explain.
Years ago, politicians would tell us what they believed in and what and where they wanted to do for the country. If we agreed, we voted for them and if we disagreed, we did not vote for them or did not vote at all.
Today, that is not the case. Politicians tell us what we want to hear. They use polling to choose their words, they choose the topics, and they even choose the audience to say certain things. The best at this use of polling, we thought, was the Clinton machine, but we now see that the Obama camp is very effective and efficient at using this technique better and bigger than before.
What is the problem with using polling? Well, simply, that politicians never tells us what they really believe in. What are their convictions, what are their ideas and/or opinions for the country? We never really see their character and because of this, they sway and flow on issues according to what is modern or popular, rather than sticking to their principles.
It is my opinion that polling needs to restricted or controlled....yes, yes, I know that this is virtually impossible, but think about it. If they did not know what we wanted or were thinking, they would have to tell us what they thought or believed in and then we can make better decisions on our public officials. Don't you think that would be a better way to pick them? At least we would have public officials with some convictions- agree or disagree with them!
To use a poker analogy....They know our cards (because of polling) but we really don't know their cards....HUGE disadvantage for us.
Congress is out for the August recess and in organizing their Town Hall meetings, they have encountered constituents that are voicing their opinion, opposition, sometimes frustrated and for the most part - somewhat beligerent. To tell you the truth, I don't blame them and they are well within their rights!
Our contitution gives us the RIGHT to assemble and also (as far as I can remember) the RIGHT to FREE speech. So, what is wrong with these people voicing their opinions and/or opposition. So, these congressmen don't like it and feel they are being attacked. Ohhh...poor baby...suck it up! (As Busch did for many, many years from the liberals) This is part of the job....or did you think you could do whatever you wanted in Congress and we are all supposed to shut up, bow our heads and agree? Well, my friends. NOT IN AMERICA!
Now, I hear the press, the congress and even the White House saying that all of these people in the Town meetings are plants by the GOP, they are Nazi's, they are fakes, etc. etc. Now they are saying they will mobilize the unions, the community organizers and such to combat these regular people that are interrupting the Democratic congressmen. They, of course, don't care that some, if not many, of the people in these Town Hall meetings are registered democrats. This only tells me that they don't care about republican or democrat, they just care about silencing anybody that disagrees, questions or opposes any of their plans. Even if you are "one of them"!
The White House wants information from people to report other people that have differing or opposing information, directly to them so they can "clarify" this "mis-information". Really? Really? Not that they want to have people reported? Not that they want to spin the information out there? Not that they want to have people spying on other people and informing the government on them? Sure...I believe them, absolutely and why not? They have my best interest at hand!
Saturday, June 27, 2009
OK, here is my take on it.
Let's assume for one milli-second that Global Warming is actually a fact....yes, for just a milli-second!
So, we pass Cap and Trade, our business adjust to lower the carbon foot-print, exchange credits, our energy prices go up, our economy suffers, etc. etc. This will only open the door even more for China and India to produce more products that we are no longer producing due to Cap and Trade and in turn their carbon foot print increase and thus Globabl Warming continues, yet we have lost our competitive edge becasue of an altruistic ideology and a one-sided approach to a solution.
I am not sure if the milli-second is up or not, but my point is that regardless of what side of the Cap and Trade argument you are on, it does not make any sense for us to do this alone and not countries like China, Russia, India, Brazil and others. That's it!
I am obviously firmly against Cap and Trade because it is another way for the government to control our lives and freedoms under the rouse of saving the environment.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
His is meeting with what is considered the BRIC Nations.- Brazil, Russia, India and China and calling for the UN to increase the access and membership of other nations to the UN.
I say, great!!! Let them do this and tell the UN that we can no longer participate, or allow them to hold their meetings in NY and they should find another place to hold their meetings. Good Luck with that!
It is very easy to speak about supporting the UN and giving the UN more power when we are one the strongest financiers of the UN.
What happens to the UN if leave? I would love to see that!
New World Order??? For how long? For as long as a new president or dictator is in power in all of these nations they want to include? The stability of 3rd. world governments is appealing as a "World Order".