Morality? Seriously?

For those of you that have not heard, the administration just conducted a conference call with religious leaders to gain their support for the administration's health care program. The administration claimed that everyone (Every American) has a "moral obligation" to provide health care to every individual. So, the smoke screen is clearing. The intentions are now very clear. This is about health care entitlements.

Putting aside the whole separation of church and state thing. And, the reason that the colonies wanted independence from England in the first place. I am really surprised that the administration would turn to the church for support. Do they really think that church members have forgotten about the Democratic Party's stand on Abortion? What about the morality of Abortion? How can this administration be citing morality out of one side of their mouth, and liberal social policies out of the other? In particular, this President is going to probably be the one that appoints enough judges to the Supreme Court to ensure a very liberal interpretation of the constitution for many years to come. I'm sure we will hear how the administration does not really support Abortion. But, the evidence says something else. The judge that was just appointed to the Supreme Court seems to be socially very liberal. So, how can this administration and the Democratic Party on the whole be supportive of Abortion on one hand, and claim that everyone has a moral obligation to provide health care on the other?

While we are on the topic of morality, I would like to know how congress can continue, in good conscience, to vote themselves pay and benefit increases, when hundreds of thousands of working class Americans are continuing to lose their jobs every week. Isn't this a moral, or at least an ethical issue?

And, then there is the boycott against Whole Foods. I do not know who started this. But, I do know that a campaign has been started to boycott Whole Foods, because their Founder and CEO came out against the President's health care plan. If anyone had taken the time to investigate this properly, they would have found that the Whole Foods CEO has reduced his salary to a single dollar a year. And, he is donating all his stock option proceeds to charity. This is a perfect example of what happens when people act without thinking. Yet, these hate mongers from the extreme left have decided to do a boycott against Whole Foods. Get the facts, people! Do not act without thinking! If anything, we should be supporting the Whole Foods CEO as an example of what all corporate CEOs should be like. Think about it - he has made enough money and now he is giving back to the community. One more detail: the Whole Foods boycott is not going to hurt the CEO; it's only going to hurt the workers. If Whole Food's revenues drop, they are going to have to release employees. Do you see the real problem here? It's what my grandmother used to call "Penny wise and Pound foolish". All the Democrats can focus on is the Health Care Entitlements. And, they are determined to bully anyone that does not agree with them. That is why the administration is collecting the names of folks that are sending out emails criticizing the administration's policies. Rather than recognizing that working class Americans do not want health care entitlements, these folks are trying to silence the opposition to their plans. They are trying to ram the President's health care plan down the throats of average, hard working Americans. And, they will demonize anyone - ANYONE - who does not agree with them. Look at the example with the Whole Foods CEO. This is a guy that I would like to have representing me in Washington. This is a guy that seems to have Morals and Ethics. Clearly, this is not a guy that would be voting himself raises, when his constituents are losing their jobs.

Is the Democratic Party seriously claiming the Moral high ground on Health Care?

Isn't it ironic that the Democratic Party would be Pro-Choice for Abortion, but, not Pro-Choice when it comes to Health Care?

Health Care Kool Aid

If you were ever going to get involved, now is the time. It seems the Democrats are now positioning to use their majority in the House and Senate to "push through" health care legislation. It seems that the Democrats believe they have a mandate from the people to make this happen.

Why are the Democrats wanting to do health care reform? Its simple: there are approximately 45 million uninsured Americans. And, their goal is simple: provide affordable health care to those voters. You see, there is a certain segment of America that has given up on the American dream, and simply wants as much as they can get from the government. It's the "I'm gonna get mine" mentality. So, I am appealing to the rest of the Americans - the majority of Americans - who are not (I hope) just trying to get as much as they can, without earning it.

Well, other than those who do not have insurance, can anyone tell me what is wrong with the system we have today? I have a few points, but, I do not want to get stuck on these. Nothing is perfect. These are simply some areas of concern:

• Catastrophic Health Care - Insurance companies like to limit their liabilities. So, they limit the amount of care you can receive based on a cap on expenditures. For those individuals with Cancer or some other major illness, this can be financially devastating. Perhaps the government can provide a non-profit entity (like the FDIC) that provides re-insurance for those cases when expenditures will exceed the maximum life-time benefit.
  
• Other excuses for not providing coverage; like pre-existing conditions. Insurance companies use models to determine how much they should change, and still make money. By excluding pre-existing conditions, they are reducing their amount of spend. I think this should simple be illegal. Insurance companies should provide coverage. You should not have to have a law degree to figure out what is covered and what is not. Keep it simple.
  
• When a person leaves an employer, their coverage is terminated. Cobra is not affordable. In fact, many times Cobra is more expensive than what the same insurance costs the employee and employer combined. Perhaps Cobra could be modified so that the employer portion of the coverage is picked up by the unemployment insurance. And, the individual can just continue to pay the amount that was being deducted from their paycheck.
  

Again, I absolutely do not want this to become misquoted. These are issues that I see with the current system. And, you will notice that these are problems that face all Americans - not just those who are economically disadvantaged. All of these items can be fixed without the government having to raise your taxes by so much as a nickel.

My grandfather always said, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". It looks to me like the Democrats have a single agenda, and that is to provide insurance to those who are economically disadvantaged. But, if this means that we have to spend 250+ billion dollars a year, then that is absurd! Take a look around. We are in the worst economic situation since the great depression. And, this thing is not over. Rather than trying to provide entitlements (yes, they are entitlements if the government has to spend money to make them happen), the government should be focusing on the still rising unemployment rate. People are not getting new jobs. Yes, the rate is not increasing as much as it was before. But, it is still increasing! To try to push through this kind of health care reform is completely irresponsible.

This administration has taken to the bully pulpit to try to get the momentum back on their side. They are trying to convince you, the average American, that they are working on your behalf. Do you feel like this administration is representing you? Do you feel like the congress is representing you? Is your health care situation really that bad? Do you want to go to a government run health care system, just so those who are not really contributing to the productivity of the country can have health care? Do you really think that government price fixing is going to work? After all, it worked so well in the former Soviet Union. In this last national election, I voted 60/40; because I believe in selecting the right person. And, I have decided that this issue is important enough to me, that I will vote against anyone that votes for this kind of health care reform. This means that the Democrat I voted for as my congressional representative will lose my vote! I don't expect it to come to that; I think my representative is one of the Democrats that understands the issues. Nevertheless, I encourage every other American to look at the facts. Don't be fooled by all the tactics designed to distract from the simple truths. Think this thing through. If this health care reform becomes law, we will be stuck with it forever.

Don't drink the Kool Aid!

Kash for Klunkers

Have you heard about this new government program?  Well, essentially, this program is giving automobile buyers an incentive to get rid of their old (and theoretically inefficient) automobiles.  The belief is that we can help the economy and the environment by getting old gas-guzzlers off the streets; while replacing them with nice shiny new American made cars.  Sounds like a great idea, huh?   Yep, its simple.  You just go down to the local car dealer, and they will give you a larger than normal trade-in for your old car.  And, the government will send them a check.  That's right - its free money!  Or, is it free?  Well, my grandfather always told me there was no such thing as a free lunch.  If the government is writing checks to automobile dealers, then, where are they getting the money from?  Well, the only source of income for the government is the taxpayer.  This means that the money is ultimately coming from the taxpayer's pocket. 

So, who is really getting the benefit from this program?  Think about this for a minute.  If you pay taxes, and you did not buy a new car, have you gotten any benefit from this program?  It looks to me like the only two groups, in general, that are benefiting from this  program are the automotive industry and the consumers who are buying the cars.  Isn't this really benefiting the auto unions and the lowest income earners?  Weren't these the two biggest supporters for this administration?  Well, it looks like their support is being rewarded.  It looks like this is yet another "Share the wealth" program.  Am I wrong?  Aren't we creating revenue for the automotive industry by spending tax dollars?  Isn't this a subsidy for lower income Americans, so they are able to buy new cars?  Aren't they going to get more benefit from this program than the middle class folks?  Seems like "Share the Wealth" to me.

I can hear all the counter arguments now.  "The automobile industry is essential to the American economy".  Oh yeah, what about all the other industries?  What about the hundreds of thousands of IT professionals that have lost their jobs because of outsourcing?  I don't see any "Kash for Komputers" programs out there.  Let me be clear, I am not saying that we should do a program for the IT professionals too.  My point is simple: you cannot save every industry.  Natural selection is the nature of capitalism.  If an industry is not keeping up with competition, then, it should become extinct.  The American car industry did not keep up.  Unions have driven the cost of labor to the point of non competition.  I'm not going into the auto industry rant again - see my "Horse & Buggy" post.  Nevertheless, why is the automotive industry is getting all this help?  We know the auto unions have provided an enormous amount of support for this administration?  Doesn't this seem just a bit "fishy" to you?  Sorry ... could not resist the reference!  :-)

Haven't we learned our lesson on subsidies?  Isn't this current economic mess the result of consumers buying things they could not afford?  When is the madness going to stop?

This program seems to be a shining example of the politics of the day.  If the administration was going to do something about the economy, by spending lots of "future tax revenues", I would think they should target a broader base of Americans.  This program (Kash for Klunkers) looks to me like a reward to this administration's supporters.  In general, I am not at all happy that the government is spending money it does not have.  However, if the government wants to spend money to address the economy, then why not put the money towards programs that have a broader impact?  For example, one of the biggest problems we (Americans) are having is unemployment.  And, this administration has been touting the number of uninsured Americans as a justification for their health care reform.  Why not kill two birds with one stone?  Why not provide health insurance to those that have lost their jobs?  If we are going to single out a group of Americans for "government aide", then, we should make sure this decision is not based on politics.  Unemployment is the biggest threat to our future.  The right thing to do, would have been to put government funding into providing unemployment benefits (including health care) for unemployed Americans.

Flag Away!

This post is in response to something posted on the White House website. I quote:

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out
there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care.
These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or
through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them
here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an
email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that
seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov"

<Takes a Deep Breath>

To say that I was shocked by this would be a gross understatement. I have been thinking about this for the last couple of days. I wanted to make sure I was not overreacting. Of course, the right wing talk radio folks are all over this; comparing these actions to those taken by Hitler in the days leading to World War II. I have also heard references to McCarthyism. After thinking about this for the last couple of days, I have concluded that this is one of the worst things this administration could have done. I will leave the other comparisons to those high paid talk radio hosts. I wish to convey the point-of-view of the average, disappointed American, who is now not sure just what kind of change this administration is really trying to bring to this country.

Let me start with the impact to civil rights, and the right of a US citizen to not be oppressed by their government. I thought the Democratic party was an advocate of civil rights, including the right for an individual to protect their privacy. Wasn't this the basis of the attacks on Bush 43? So, how is this any different from what the Bush administration did? In fact, in my opinion, this is worse. This was not about a unilateral policy that enabled the government to listen to our phone calls. This administration is asking neighbors to inform on neighbors. Think about it. Read what was put on the White House website. This clearly states that they cannot watch everyone; so, they want Americans to report the "fishy" behavior of other Americans.

Now, I am sure this administration will say that people (average Americans like you and me) are just overreacting. That, all they wanted was the content (the substance) of the arguments, so they can better prepare their rebuttals. Well, they clearly did not think this through; kind of like the New York fly-over with Air Force One. You have to think about human nature to understand this point. What is the easiest way for someone to forward the information, this administration requested, to the email address provided? Answer: you hit the forward button on the email program. Given the level of technical expertise this administration has with the Internet, how did they think people would forward the information to the White House? Doesn't this look like the intention was to get not only the substance of the emails, but also to have a record of who sent the email in the first place? This administration wants us to believe that this was the only way to get the substance of the emails. I reject this argument. It's called Google. Anyone on the planet knows that if you want to find something on the Internet, you just ask Google. So, the only logical conclusion is that this administration is not interested in the content of the discussions, but, rather, the participants in the discussions.

I have two previous posts on this blog concerning health care. I am asking questions, because as an American citizen I am entitled (according to the first amendment) to the answers. I am not willing to accept "trust me - this is going to be good for all Americans". I want to know details. Our elected officials need to remember that they are supposed to be serving the interests of the American people. And, as an American citizen, I take my responsibility to elect competent
leadership very seriously. This is why I want to know what is happening; so when it comes time to elect my leadership, I can make an informed decision. Perhaps I am being a bit paranoid, but it looks to me like this administration is trying to intimidate me into not asking questions. Its almost like they are afraid that if I ask questions, then others will start to ask questions. And, that once enough people start asking enough questions, public opinion will shift away from what this administration has worked so very hard to craft. What else could explain this administration's motivations for asking neighbor to inform on neighbor?

I am very disappointed in this administration. There are two ways to look at this: either this was yet another error in judgment, or, the intention was to make a list of those who do not agree with them. Neither of these are acceptable, and, this is certainly not "Change I can believe in". Why would this administration need such a list? The only logical answer is intimidation. It's bad enough that the government is listening to all our phone calls. But, at least the their purpose is to protect innocent Americans. This, on the other hand, is strictly political. How can this administration expect the American people to believe in what they are doing, if they are trampling our civil rights whenever they please? Of all the administrations, you would think this administration would be respectful of our civil rights. Instead, it looks to me like the same old nasty politics. Only, this time its worse. This time the administration wants to turn neighbor against neighbor. What happened to the promise of working together for America? Where these just words to get elected?

For those of you out there who are trolling the blog-o-sphere looking for blogs to turn into this administration, here I am! There is a nice convenient "send email" link on the top navigation for this blog. I have provided you with the email address - all you have to do is cut-n-paste. As a moderate independent (60/40 in the last election), I vote for the person that I think will do the best job. When we vote, we are essentially "hiring" our leadership. As an employer, I have a certain standard that I use to make sure I hire only quality personnel. I use this same standard when selecting who I will vote for in an election. I have suggested a number of things in my blogs that I believe would be beneficial to our country. And, I would love to have this administration reading through my suggestions and opinions. There are also a number of questions that I would still like answered on health care. So, flag away!

Health Care Entitlements

This is a followup post to the "Show me the Numbers" post on the proposed "universal" heath care system.

I cannot stress how important it is that Americans understand what is being proposed. Particularly, since I heard a member of the administration on CNBC this morning talking about how they were going to make health care more affordable by injecting competition into the
market. I do not want to repeat the entire "Show me the Numbers" post (you should read that one for context). But, I will repeat that competition is the only way to lower costs. Well, someone from the administration must be monitoring my posts (along with the thousands of
other folks blogging this issue - I am sure!). This morning, the spokesperson from the administration stated that they were going to lower health care costs by offering government health care as a "competitive" option. Now that is what I call a spin! The administration wants you to believe that by "giving" health care away, they are going to force other health care providers and insurers to lower their prices. They are disguising this entitlement as market
competition. This is a win-win situation for the administration. First, they get to do what they want to do: provide health care entitlements to a certain segment of the population for free. Second, they want you to believe that this will constitute competition for the rest of the health care industry. They need for you to believe that this will make everyone's health care costs go down. If you do not believe them, there is no way this legislation will get through. It is absolutely imperative that Americans do their homework on this issue.

Stick to the principals:

• Prices are lowered by competition, not by government regulation or spending
• Health care must not become another entitlement; any health care program must be run like a non profit venture or trust

The pundits are right, the Democrats are no longer a "tax and spend" party. The Democrats have evolved into a "borrow and spend" party. And, before all the Republicans start to strut around - this whole situation is your fault for losing the trust of the American people in the first place! If the Republicans had stuck to their fiscal conservative values, instead of trading them for "at any cost" social conservative values, we would not be in this situation.

The Democrats have figured out how to keep those voters, who are only interested in getting what they can out of the government, happy. And, they are going to be rewarded by votes that will keep them in office. Brilliant. Think about it, voters of today get the benefit, while the
voters of tomorrow get stuck with the bill.