I wasn't going to do it, honest. Blog about the Health Care Reform bill, that is, but these opinions just keep rattling around in my head interfering with an otherwise normal day of writing.
This reform scares me as much as the one proposed by the Clinton's, primarily because like so many other people, I don't think the federal government constitutionally has the right to enact such a law.
Granted the system as it operates needs to be reformed to stop the continued rise of health care costs, but there has to be a better way.
The price tag for this bill is staggering. Not only in what it will cost to implement, but what it cost in campaigning to pass it. Added to that will be the millions, perhaps billions, spent to defend it in court.
Hardly had the announcement of the bills passage been made when reports started flooding news outlets about state lawmakers who are lining up to challenge its constitutionality and wage an outside-the-Beltway war against it in the courts.
So now the government is going to spend millions to defend a bill that is going to cost billions and somehow that is good?
The other issue I have with the bill is the pork attached to it, pork that was given in exchange for votes. That is something Obama promised would not happen on his watch, and yet he was doing much of the dealing. I'm sure his defense is "that's the way business is done in Washington" and that is true. But he promised it wouldn't be business as usual in Washington if he was elected.
This nonsense we call politics will never change unless some brave politicos stop moving that line they will not cross until we can no longer see it.
What about you? Do you think the outcome was worth the process?
Showing posts with label health care reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health care reform. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Friday, December 11, 2009
Thinking About Government
In light of the huge national debate on health care reform, I found a statement by Neal Boorz in his 2008 address to the graduates of Texas A&M University thought provoking. To put it in context, it was the part of his speech where he talked about individual rights as opposed to group rights. He said that Liberals care more about group rights and are driven by a group mentality, and Conservatives think more about the individual rights.
According to his assessment, it is the Liberal mindset that pushes for more government programs and assistance, which is a driving force supporting issues like health care reform.
This is part of what Boorz had to say in that noteworthy speech:
"So, here I am saying negative things to you about government. Well, be clear on this: It is not wrong to distrust government. It is not wrong to fear government. In certain cases it is not even wrong to despise government for government is inherently evil. Yes ... a necessary evil, but dangerous nonetheless... somewhat like a drug. Just as a drug that in the proper dosage can save your life, an overdose of government can be fatal."
As the recent Tea Parties have indicated, more and more people in the United States are feeling the effects of a government overdose, and the powers in Washington have become like some huge monster that is so out of control that nobody can figure out how to rein it in. The deficit is growing by giant steps. Federal interference in states' business is on the increase. "Pork" spending and lobbying is burning up millions of dollars. And politicians are so busy being politicians, they forget the job they were sent to Washington to do.
Insurmountable problems?
No.
Revise the campaign system so there is only six months for campaigning before an election. Period. Get rid of lobbyists and don't allow campaign donations over $1,000 from a business or corporation. Send single issue bills through the House and Senate without any "add ons."
Streamline government. I mean, really streamline the administration of offices and agencies. What jobs are vital for running the country, and what jobs are just there for show? Get rid of the IRS as it now works. The agency costs millions to operate and if the taxation process was simplified we could pare down the deficit in just a few years. Flat tax anyone?
And MOST IMPORTANTLY -- pardon the shout, but you can tell I feel strongly about this -- stop spending more than we have and giving IOU's to the Chinese.
Whew, I'm glad I got that off my chest.
What about you? Any suggestions as to how to unsnarl the horrible mess in Washington? Or do you not think it is a horrible mess? I'm open to opposing opinions. That's what makes for a good discussion.
According to his assessment, it is the Liberal mindset that pushes for more government programs and assistance, which is a driving force supporting issues like health care reform.
This is part of what Boorz had to say in that noteworthy speech:
"So, here I am saying negative things to you about government. Well, be clear on this: It is not wrong to distrust government. It is not wrong to fear government. In certain cases it is not even wrong to despise government for government is inherently evil. Yes ... a necessary evil, but dangerous nonetheless... somewhat like a drug. Just as a drug that in the proper dosage can save your life, an overdose of government can be fatal."
As the recent Tea Parties have indicated, more and more people in the United States are feeling the effects of a government overdose, and the powers in Washington have become like some huge monster that is so out of control that nobody can figure out how to rein it in. The deficit is growing by giant steps. Federal interference in states' business is on the increase. "Pork" spending and lobbying is burning up millions of dollars. And politicians are so busy being politicians, they forget the job they were sent to Washington to do.
Insurmountable problems?
No.
Revise the campaign system so there is only six months for campaigning before an election. Period. Get rid of lobbyists and don't allow campaign donations over $1,000 from a business or corporation. Send single issue bills through the House and Senate without any "add ons."
Streamline government. I mean, really streamline the administration of offices and agencies. What jobs are vital for running the country, and what jobs are just there for show? Get rid of the IRS as it now works. The agency costs millions to operate and if the taxation process was simplified we could pare down the deficit in just a few years. Flat tax anyone?
And MOST IMPORTANTLY -- pardon the shout, but you can tell I feel strongly about this -- stop spending more than we have and giving IOU's to the Chinese.
Whew, I'm glad I got that off my chest.
What about you? Any suggestions as to how to unsnarl the horrible mess in Washington? Or do you not think it is a horrible mess? I'm open to opposing opinions. That's what makes for a good discussion.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Socialism Taking Over Democracy
Appearing on the NBC's “Meet the Press,” Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said a tax surcharge on wealthy Americans is one of several options under discussion in Congress to help pay for overhauling the nation’s ailing health system.
That didn't exactly come as a news flash. The "tax the wealthy" option has been bandied about a lot in this whole debate over health care reform and how to pay for it, but this is not a good move. It is just one more step into the quagmire of socialism.
For some people, that might be okay. Let the government take over running everything in our lives, and we just have to sit back and enjoy the benefits. Nothing for us to worry about, right?
Wrong.
What little control we have over things that are important will be lost, and every facet of our lives will be handled with the same care and concern and efficiency as we now enjoy while dealing with the IRS, Medicare, Social Security, Veterans Affairs, and the good old Postal Service. When was the last time you settled an important issue with any of these agencies is a timely and efficient manner?
Reams and reams of documents are created to administer all these fine agencies -- documents rift with rules that cannot be bent, broken, or ignored even when they don't make sense. That means that we are pretty well stuck with whatever the government says, and if we don't like it, too bad.
According to some polls and public commentary, most Americans are in favor of the current health reform plans, as well as the idea of taxing the biggest earners to pay for it, but I question those results. Nobody I know is in favor of a government controlled health system. Nor are they in favor of imposing an unfair tax on a certain group, even though there are some members of that certain group who deserve having something stuck to them.
What do you think?
That didn't exactly come as a news flash. The "tax the wealthy" option has been bandied about a lot in this whole debate over health care reform and how to pay for it, but this is not a good move. It is just one more step into the quagmire of socialism.
For some people, that might be okay. Let the government take over running everything in our lives, and we just have to sit back and enjoy the benefits. Nothing for us to worry about, right?
Wrong.
What little control we have over things that are important will be lost, and every facet of our lives will be handled with the same care and concern and efficiency as we now enjoy while dealing with the IRS, Medicare, Social Security, Veterans Affairs, and the good old Postal Service. When was the last time you settled an important issue with any of these agencies is a timely and efficient manner?
Reams and reams of documents are created to administer all these fine agencies -- documents rift with rules that cannot be bent, broken, or ignored even when they don't make sense. That means that we are pretty well stuck with whatever the government says, and if we don't like it, too bad.
According to some polls and public commentary, most Americans are in favor of the current health reform plans, as well as the idea of taxing the biggest earners to pay for it, but I question those results. Nobody I know is in favor of a government controlled health system. Nor are they in favor of imposing an unfair tax on a certain group, even though there are some members of that certain group who deserve having something stuck to them.
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)