Senator Snowe,
I may not be a resident of Maine, but I am a constituent of yours do to the fact that your vote on Healthcare Reform will have severe and detrimental effects on my parents, children, friends, colleagues and myself.
By voting to move the bill out of the Finance Committee you have breathed renewed life into this monstrosity of a bill.
By setting your position as being for a trigger, you have set the debate between a trigger for a public option and just a public option. The debate on that aspect of Healthcare Reform should begin and end with no public option. Let's call the "public option" what it is; a "socialized insurance plan." They don't make bones about using that language in Europe.
Senator Snowe, I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt. I would like to believe that you are interested in helping your constituents attain necessary medical care. If that is your goal, the direction that this bill is going will not make anything easier to attain.
Take the Federal Government out of the health insurance industry as much as possible and trust us, the American People to do what needs to be done for each other. We are the most charitable people in the world.
Do you realize that if all of the organizations that have produced commericials, and done media buys throughout the nation for the last six months had taken that money and put it into a charitable medical fund to help the poor get care, we would not even need to have this debate.
The Federal Government being in the business of Healthcare Insurance Provider does not exist anywhere in the Constitution of our great nation. Nor does the Federal Government's ability to force the American People to purchase a product (health insurance) under penalty of "fines".
Please do not be a party to this obvious Executive power grab. I don't know why your Democratic colleagues in the House and the Senate are so quick to expand the power of the Executive Branch while diminishing their own.
I know the snow ball is rolling down the mountain side, but all it takes is one strong person to generate enough heat to melt it and preserve the lives, the liberty and the ability to pursue happiness in America.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
A Letter to Patrick Murphy Regarding HealthCARE
I believe that we need tort reform. Any discussion of healthcare reform with out this is non-sense. The exorbitant cost of healthcare is due in large part to frivolous law suits which result in unnecessary care being given to patients out of fear of lawsuits, and exhorbitant malpractice insurance costs which are then passed onto the end user.
I believe that individuals should be given the same tax deduction when they purchase their own insurance as their employer gets for purchasing it for them.
I believe that we should be able to choose our insurance plans from among the 1000s that are available throughout the country rather than being limited to the 3 or 4 that we can currently choose from in PA.
I believe doctors who donate their time and services to the poor should be able to deduct this from their Federal Income Taxes as a charitable donation.
I believe that we should be able to buy a term health insurance plan like we do with life insurance.
Regarding the question about what kind of reform we need in order to cover the uninsured: Why is every option for providing health insurance an option that requires the government to provide it? This should be about making sure that the poor, the old and the sick are able to get healthCARE. The idea of insurance is a means to an end. Do some or all of suggestions above and the costs will come down considerably, making it easier for hard working families to afford the care they need, while not robbing us of our most basic freedoms.
As for the question of pre-existing conditions, certainly nobody should be denied coverage because they've been sick. That is why you get health insurance. But we must be responsible in how we approach this. Perhaps I could be open to the idea of subsidizing the risk pool for the insurance companies if they assume the risk of insuring those with pre-existing conditions, but frankly I just don't trust Washington enough right now to handle even that money appropriately. If the money were collected and administered at the township or county level and the Federal Gov were left out of it, that would be ideal.
To sum it up, I believe that no man should be enslaved because another man needs healthcare (not a doctor, nor a "taxpayer"). United States citizens are the most generous people in all the world and yet your colleagues in congress and our President believe that we need to have our money stolen from our pockets, run through the government sausage maker and then dealt out to those who need healthcare. If we were able to keep more of our hard earned money, not only would we be able to better afford our own healthcare, but we could bypass the beaurocracy and have more to give directly to those in need.
Be a true "Blue Dog" Mr. Murphy. Vote "no" on anything that even remotely resembles the non-sense currently running through congress and push for true "Common Sense" reforms that will not cost us money we don't have (have you seen the debt clock?), nor strip us of our individual liberty.
I put a great deal of thought into this, and I would appreciate it if you actually read it and consider it. If you plan on responding to me with a form letter, or the usual platitudes, save your bandwidth as I would only appreciate a personal and reasoned response.
I believe that individuals should be given the same tax deduction when they purchase their own insurance as their employer gets for purchasing it for them.
I believe that we should be able to choose our insurance plans from among the 1000s that are available throughout the country rather than being limited to the 3 or 4 that we can currently choose from in PA.
I believe doctors who donate their time and services to the poor should be able to deduct this from their Federal Income Taxes as a charitable donation.
I believe that we should be able to buy a term health insurance plan like we do with life insurance.
Regarding the question about what kind of reform we need in order to cover the uninsured: Why is every option for providing health insurance an option that requires the government to provide it? This should be about making sure that the poor, the old and the sick are able to get healthCARE. The idea of insurance is a means to an end. Do some or all of suggestions above and the costs will come down considerably, making it easier for hard working families to afford the care they need, while not robbing us of our most basic freedoms.
As for the question of pre-existing conditions, certainly nobody should be denied coverage because they've been sick. That is why you get health insurance. But we must be responsible in how we approach this. Perhaps I could be open to the idea of subsidizing the risk pool for the insurance companies if they assume the risk of insuring those with pre-existing conditions, but frankly I just don't trust Washington enough right now to handle even that money appropriately. If the money were collected and administered at the township or county level and the Federal Gov were left out of it, that would be ideal.
To sum it up, I believe that no man should be enslaved because another man needs healthcare (not a doctor, nor a "taxpayer"). United States citizens are the most generous people in all the world and yet your colleagues in congress and our President believe that we need to have our money stolen from our pockets, run through the government sausage maker and then dealt out to those who need healthcare. If we were able to keep more of our hard earned money, not only would we be able to better afford our own healthcare, but we could bypass the beaurocracy and have more to give directly to those in need.
Be a true "Blue Dog" Mr. Murphy. Vote "no" on anything that even remotely resembles the non-sense currently running through congress and push for true "Common Sense" reforms that will not cost us money we don't have (have you seen the debt clock?), nor strip us of our individual liberty.
I put a great deal of thought into this, and I would appreciate it if you actually read it and consider it. If you plan on responding to me with a form letter, or the usual platitudes, save your bandwidth as I would only appreciate a personal and reasoned response.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Who is Misinformed?
Upon reading a recap of Senator Specters appearance on one of the Sunday shows and once again hearing about how I am the victim of misinformation, I immediately went to the esteemed Senators website and sent him the letter below. I don't feel any better.
Senator Specter,
I will not take up your valuable self promotion time with a lengthy e-mail. I have heard you on the circuit talking about misinformation. You seem to believe that by reading the bills that are under discussion, analysing their content and reviewing the positions of those crafting the bills, that we the people are somehow misinformed. Perhaps this is a misconception you have derived from your lack of experience in actually reading the bills you vote on. I understand Mr. Specter, you have to act fast sometimes.
I am not a member of a mob, I certainly do not where Brooks Brothers. I am a working man who is now forced by your actions to take time away from work, and family to direct my energy toward making sure that the self serving children in Washington grow up and realize that theft is wrong, extortion is wrong, bribery is wrong. Such basic lessons that as a former prosecuter I would think you would have learned. Healthcare is not a magic bullet Senater. Perhaps you have been misinformed.
Senator Specter,
I will not take up your valuable self promotion time with a lengthy e-mail. I have heard you on the circuit talking about misinformation. You seem to believe that by reading the bills that are under discussion, analysing their content and reviewing the positions of those crafting the bills, that we the people are somehow misinformed. Perhaps this is a misconception you have derived from your lack of experience in actually reading the bills you vote on. I understand Mr. Specter, you have to act fast sometimes.
I am not a member of a mob, I certainly do not where Brooks Brothers. I am a working man who is now forced by your actions to take time away from work, and family to direct my energy toward making sure that the self serving children in Washington grow up and realize that theft is wrong, extortion is wrong, bribery is wrong. Such basic lessons that as a former prosecuter I would think you would have learned. Healthcare is not a magic bullet Senater. Perhaps you have been misinformed.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
In Response to Bruce
http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/local/the_intelligencer/the_intelligencer_news_details/article/27/2009/july/19/conservative-activism-on-the-rise-1.html#tx_pbcomments_comment163939
Bruce Wrote:
I am a Democrat but I am not the type of liberal Democrat to whom a few of you refer. I expect no handouts and have not received a nickel of help for 30 years and never asked for help. I work full time and am seeking a second job to pay the basics. That's real life.
Some observations: I see that our property taxes are too high and the cost of living here in CB is just too high. Whether the Dems or the GOP are in power, they spend too much, they keep our military over funded, spread out all over the world, places where we should not be. That's part of our federal debt as well. I thought we were supposed to be funding defense. When did the Feds decide to go on all out offense as a permanent strategy? What do you think that is costing each American working family? On that strategy, both partiees are to blame. By the way, I have traveled to three continents and every one I met loves Americans...but they dislike our foreign policy. That's significant when you think about developing a money saving strategy for foreign policy. Yes to protection but no to unnecessary wars. Obama should know this. Perhaps he is getting bad advice and will wake up soon. I see no difference between Obama and Bush on bloating the military budget.
I stated that I never received money from the feds. Now I have to tell all of you that I do need help with my family's health care. If I lose our plan due to it's high cost, then I suppose I have to walk into the emergncy room...I cannot even go to the clinic as I make $5000 a year over the criteria for use of the clinic. This is not a conservative or liberal problem.
Perhaps the readers on this board need to take a step back and think about what are the issues to vote for in 2010. How about no more funding the rich; reduce unnecessary offensive military action; provide basic universal health care; stop giving money to other countries to bribe their friendship and compliance; reduce public funding for free housing; expand jobs at home in green energy; stop funding teacher and state workers' pensions...you see where I am going. If we are to have a federal government, make every dollar count and use the money wisely to benefit the hard working folks who try. No freebies. Neither the Dems or the GOP have exhibited that type of judgment in the last 30 years.
My Response
Bruce, I am with you on many of your points. As far as your health care issue goes, Your local or State government should increase the income limit for going to the clinic. Every State should do that and then the Fed can stop taxing us for Medicare, etc. This would offset the inevitable, but necessary cost increase at the State level. At least then we would know that our money is going to help our fellow Pennsylvanians instead of going to bailout less responsible States with whom we have no representation.
I agree that our military is spread out on too many fronts, and our military budget is bloated. There must be a common sense solution to balancing our security with fiscal responsibility and adherence to the Constitution.
As for funding the rich, what seems to be happening in Washington, on both sides of the aisle is an enormous money laundering scheme. Large corporations like Goldman Sachs, and GE give huge donations to candidates to help get them elected. Once elected, these politicians return the money with interest. It used to be in the form of favorable regulations, etc. Now there is no pretence anymore. They just handover huge checks to these corporations.
This is why we need to return to the Constitutional form of having our Senators voted into office by our State legislatures. So our Senators will be beholden to nobody but our State governments and consequently the people represented by it.
Bruce Wrote:
I am a Democrat but I am not the type of liberal Democrat to whom a few of you refer. I expect no handouts and have not received a nickel of help for 30 years and never asked for help. I work full time and am seeking a second job to pay the basics. That's real life.
Some observations: I see that our property taxes are too high and the cost of living here in CB is just too high. Whether the Dems or the GOP are in power, they spend too much, they keep our military over funded, spread out all over the world, places where we should not be. That's part of our federal debt as well. I thought we were supposed to be funding defense. When did the Feds decide to go on all out offense as a permanent strategy? What do you think that is costing each American working family? On that strategy, both partiees are to blame. By the way, I have traveled to three continents and every one I met loves Americans...but they dislike our foreign policy. That's significant when you think about developing a money saving strategy for foreign policy. Yes to protection but no to unnecessary wars. Obama should know this. Perhaps he is getting bad advice and will wake up soon. I see no difference between Obama and Bush on bloating the military budget.
I stated that I never received money from the feds. Now I have to tell all of you that I do need help with my family's health care. If I lose our plan due to it's high cost, then I suppose I have to walk into the emergncy room...I cannot even go to the clinic as I make $5000 a year over the criteria for use of the clinic. This is not a conservative or liberal problem.
Perhaps the readers on this board need to take a step back and think about what are the issues to vote for in 2010. How about no more funding the rich; reduce unnecessary offensive military action; provide basic universal health care; stop giving money to other countries to bribe their friendship and compliance; reduce public funding for free housing; expand jobs at home in green energy; stop funding teacher and state workers' pensions...you see where I am going. If we are to have a federal government, make every dollar count and use the money wisely to benefit the hard working folks who try. No freebies. Neither the Dems or the GOP have exhibited that type of judgment in the last 30 years.
My Response
Bruce, I am with you on many of your points. As far as your health care issue goes, Your local or State government should increase the income limit for going to the clinic. Every State should do that and then the Fed can stop taxing us for Medicare, etc. This would offset the inevitable, but necessary cost increase at the State level. At least then we would know that our money is going to help our fellow Pennsylvanians instead of going to bailout less responsible States with whom we have no representation.
I agree that our military is spread out on too many fronts, and our military budget is bloated. There must be a common sense solution to balancing our security with fiscal responsibility and adherence to the Constitution.
As for funding the rich, what seems to be happening in Washington, on both sides of the aisle is an enormous money laundering scheme. Large corporations like Goldman Sachs, and GE give huge donations to candidates to help get them elected. Once elected, these politicians return the money with interest. It used to be in the form of favorable regulations, etc. Now there is no pretence anymore. They just handover huge checks to these corporations.
This is why we need to return to the Constitutional form of having our Senators voted into office by our State legislatures. So our Senators will be beholden to nobody but our State governments and consequently the people represented by it.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Thursday, May 14, 2009
What Laws Are For in Todays Government
I have been racking my brain lately. I have been trying to figure out why the government would want so much control of the minutia of our daily lives. From controlling the electricity in our homes, to how much cola we can drink to which doctor we can see. If you break one of their laws, look out!.
But why? Sure there is that abstract idea of power, but power to what end?
As I am currently reading "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand, I have come across a quote from a character named Dr. Ferris that brings some clarity to my concerns on this subject. When I read them, I imagine Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi or Rahm Emanual speaking them. Please read below:
"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris [government]. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
But why? Sure there is that abstract idea of power, but power to what end?
As I am currently reading "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand, I have come across a quote from a character named Dr. Ferris that brings some clarity to my concerns on this subject. When I read them, I imagine Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi or Rahm Emanual speaking them. Please read below:
"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris [government]. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
A More Transparent Government?
After 8 years of secrecy, behind the scenes machinations, Dick Cheney, Haliburton, and bills passed in the cover of night, we are finally free.
As of January 20, 2009, change has come to Washington, and with it the promise of a more transparent government.
Thank goodness!!
I am a teensy bit confused however. Since President Obama's administration is, at least, as secretive as the Bush Administration, and making secret deals with large financial institutions while rapidly usurping private enterprise and our liberties, I am not sure what is meant by a more transparent government.
Does this mean that we will soon be governed by parents who move from family to family. Well let's see..."Trans" means "across" and "parent" means "the source" so a more "Transparent" government could mean that for more things "across" the board the government will be the "source". Would it be a surprise to anyone if a politician parsed words in such a way?
Oh no, wait, that's crazy talk. The truth is that "transparent" government just means that there will be more "transgendered" people in government. Yes, that's it. That sounds much more likely.
As of January 20, 2009, change has come to Washington, and with it the promise of a more transparent government.
Thank goodness!!
I am a teensy bit confused however. Since President Obama's administration is, at least, as secretive as the Bush Administration, and making secret deals with large financial institutions while rapidly usurping private enterprise and our liberties, I am not sure what is meant by a more transparent government.
Does this mean that we will soon be governed by parents who move from family to family. Well let's see..."Trans" means "across" and "parent" means "the source" so a more "Transparent" government could mean that for more things "across" the board the government will be the "source". Would it be a surprise to anyone if a politician parsed words in such a way?
Oh no, wait, that's crazy talk. The truth is that "transparent" government just means that there will be more "transgendered" people in government. Yes, that's it. That sounds much more likely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To Distraction Culture
Posts
All Comments