Category Archives: Politics

Category for all posts of political nature. Be forewarned, I am a patriot who believes in the Second Amendment and that your rights end where my nose (or property line) begins.

Since When is Health Insurance an Inalienable Right?

For over a month now, that question has been screaming in my head. Because of that, I’ve been working on this post little by little. Then I saw this morning that Neal Boortz wrote a blog post saying the same thing! lol

Ok, so maybe he’s smarter and a faster writer than me, but I’m glad that I’m not the only one trying to shout that message from the roof tops!

So, I’ll share with you what I’d already written, then send you over to Neal’s post – since he’s so much better with words than I.

The Issue is NOT About Access to Health Care

This is NOT an “access to health care” issue – everyone has access to care. The issue is who pays for it. So this is really an “access to health insurance” issue. But the last time I checked health care was NOT an inalienable right. This is more of Obama’s “spread the wealth” Marxism, and not about making our health care system more efficient and inexpensive.

Government Run = Failure

It’s a proven fact that government run ANYTHING doesn’t work well. More so has it been proven that socialized medicine doesn’t work. Go look at the numbers in Europe and Canada. Health care cost more, is a major tax burden on the citizenry, and doesn’t improve care at all. As a matter of fact, it rations care to such a point that people actually DO die due to lack of access!! Talk about a real “access to health care” issue.

Seek the Right Care

The deadbeats who mooch off our system are one of the reasons health care costs so much. Instead of taking care of themselves to ensure better health, and going to a doctor’s office or the local health department when they do become sick, they insist on going to the hospital – which costs more! Obama care will only create more of these deadbeats. Especially when people start loosing the insurance they already have (and are happy with) as a result of the new regulations.

Conflict of Inerest

There is a MAJOR conflict of interest for one entity (the government) to be both regulator AND competitor.

Let the Free Market Work Out Its Own Solutions

By making the government a competitor in the market place, Obama care will also stifle the free market system that is ALREADY seeking its own solutions. More and more doctors are opting out of insurance plans and are taking patients on a fee only basis instead. Not only is this their way of reducing their own costs, but it is also a means of reducing the increasing government interference into the personal and private relationship between patient and doctor – stifling best-care practices.

Stop the Out of Control Spending!!!

Obama has already tripled the national debt with no plan to pay for it! While every household in America is tightening the belt, our government is out of control. The Obama Administration and the Democrat Congress has already admitted that this will cost much more than everyone originally thought – which was already much more than most were willing to approve. And they still have no idea how this will be paid for!!!! When is enough enough? STOP THE SPENDING ALREADY!!!

Well… you can see that I’ve not fleshed out some of my points. But in the interest of time (Congress is voting on this already!!!), I think it’s best to “get it out there.”

Now, here’s the link I promised to Neal Boortz’s post: Healthcare is Not a Right.

Federal Budget Proposal

This was an email received from my dad. I usually delete such things, especially since what it proposes is so obviously “out there” & would never happen – thus it’s really no more than tongue-in-cheek humor. BUT it also hits so close to the truth of the issue hat I couldn’t resist posting.

When a company falls on difficult times, one of the things that seems to happen is they reduce their staff and workers.  The remaining workers need to find ways to continue to do a good job or risk that their job would be eliminated as well.  Wall street, and the media normally congratulate the CEO for making this type of “tough decision”, and his board of directors gives him a big bonus.congress

Our government should not be immune from similar risks.

Therefore: Reduce the House of Representatives from the current 435 members to 218 members and Senate members from 100 to 50 (one per State). Also reduce remaining staff by 25%.

Accomplish this over the next 8 years. (two steps / two elections) and of course this would require some redistricting.

Some Yearly Monetary Gains Include:

$44,108,400 for elimination of base pay for congress. (267 members X $165,200 pay / member / yr.)

pinkslip$97,175,000 for elimination of the above people’s staff. (estimate $1.3 Million in staff per each member of the House, and $3 Million in staff per each member of the Senate every year)

$240,294 for the reduction in remaining staff by 25%.

$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork barrel ear-marks each year. (Those members whose jobs are gone. Current estimates for total government pork earmarks are at $15 Billion / yr)

The remaining representatives would need to work smarter and would need to improve efficiencies. It might even be in their best interests to work together for the good of our country? (Now there’s a new idea!)

We may also expect that smaller committees might lead to a more efficient resolution of issues as well. It might even be easier to keep track of what your representative is doing.

Congress has more tools available to do their jobs than it had back in 1911 when the current number of representatives was established.  (telephone, computers, cell phones to name a few).

Note:

Congress did not hesitate to head home when it was a holiday, when the nation needed a real fix to the economic problems.  Also, we have  senators that have not been doing their jobs for the past 18+ months (on the campaign trail) and still they all have been accepting full pay.  These facts alone support a reduction in senators & congress.

Summary of opportunity:

$44,108,400 reduction of congress members.

$282,100, 000 for elimination of the reduced house member staff.

$150,000,000 for elimination of reduced senate member staff.

$59,675,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining house members.

$37,500,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining senate members.

$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork added to bills by the reduction of congress members.

$8,073,383,400 per year, estimated total savings. (That’s 8-BILLION just to start!)

Big business does these types of cuts all the time.

If Congresspersons were required to serve 20, 25 or 30 years (like everyone else) in order to collect retirement benefits there is no telling h ow much we would save. Currently they get full retirement after serving only ONE term.