|
 |
||
|
Latest Stories
Recent blog posts
|
February 4, 2008 - 11:58am.
I will attempt to keep this one polite. Admittedly, it IS a hard thing to do when somebody threatens my rather humble living with more legalized theft of the fruits of my labor. This year I became self employed. It was a simple straight forward decision based on my inability to find a niche that I could stomach in corporate America's race for the buck above all else. In the last decade or so, I HAVE been quite successful in my dealings with corporate America...more than I had any expectation of ever being as a matter of fact... As I said, a personal decision based on the deep seated need to live a more sedate pace of life, and see if I can make a go of it making my own way. This is not without it's perils, as any of you out there reading this either know first hand, or at least have an idea of what I'm talking about. The 40 hour, 5 day a week concept was the first thing to go. Several other things such as health insurance and discretionary income will for the immediate future also be missing from the "game plan" for at least a year...minimum. Now we have that "daughter of privilege" (told you, I WILL TRY to keep it polite...)stating publicly that she'll simply confiscate (read as steal) even MORE of the money that I break my butt to earn? Who the hell does she think she IS? This needs to stop!! I am getting the impression this woman thinks that we live to serve her, and that somehow "the government" owns our wages? I understand that she's an educated woman. Very well educated. So how thew hell does somebody with this much education not realize that there IS NO such thing as "government money", or for that mater "Government" as a separate entity under the Constitution of this country? Plainly, she missed the civics course where it was explained that the People are the source of power under the Constitution, and that they work FOR US. Further, the monetary system is a sham. The only "Government money" is that which is taxed from the tax paying populace...once again, the People, ARE the power. NOT the other way around... She needs to sue the school(s) that she went to, for not giving her the education that she paid for. They all do. Universal health care in this country is every bit as much a blessing as it is a curse for those of us already taxed beyond all good reason. Personally, at nearly 49 years old, I count my blessings on being as healthy as I am. Actually for my age group, I'd put my health in the top tier, even well above that of friends and family that are in some cases are 20 plus years younger than I am. So it leads me to the question, if we already have state (taxation driven) health care schemes, why do we need a Federal duplication of this? The same question holds true for the opposite. If we're going to have a Federal (taxation driven)why do we need to have a state version? My question to anyone out there reading this is as follows: Based on the wording of the tenth amendment to the Constitution: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People." Seemingly making the issue of decision making in the name of the People pretty clear as to who does what. So why IS there a Federal finger in the health care pie at all? Clearly (at least to me at this point...) it seems that if the citizens of a given State WISH to have universal health care through a State mandated taxation, then that's really all that needs to be happening...so again, why is the Federal government "in on the act" so to speak? Can someone out there tell me how the Feds justify this abject waste of money, time, and effort in duplicating what should be a State to State decision? Equally, can someone illuminate me on how and when the Feds got to the point where they felt it was legal for them to do so? I suspect that they are not doing ANY of this legally at all... Now there's a thought. Some somnambulist servant of the flatulent cattle that purport to lead this country, reaching into my hard earn money in a provably illegal manner...Food for thought that. Lastly, for the legal minds out there: With the scope of your (collective wisdom) experience, can this (insert expletive) woman be stopped, if perchance she manages to get elected as President?  Technorati Tags:
Capitol Hill Blue's columnists, blogs and reader comments Capitol Hill Blue is an independent, non-partisan news site that belongs to no political party and subscribes to no political or philosophical point-of-view. Our columnists are welcome to their opinions but readers should understand that their views do not necessarily reflect the editorial policies of this web site. We also welcome comments to selected opinion columns and in our popular ReaderRant discussion forum. Please remember, however, that we believe in civility on this web site and comments may be reviewed, moderated or removed if we feel they contain obscenities, racism, bigotry, anti-Semitic remarks or attack other posters. Our goal is reasoned discussion on issues facing this nation and we do not feel that goal is served by personal attacks and by seeing how many cute adjectives you can attach to an elected official or politician's name. Copyright © 2008 Capitol Hill Blue
|
User login
 |
Historically her "true
Submitted by Flapsaddle on February 4, 2008 - 2:44pm.Historically her "true colors" have always been apparent - it is just that many people suffer from the political equivalent of color blindness. She managed to rig for silent running after the so-called 1994 "Hillary Health Care" plan blew up in her face - and was instrumental in handing Congress to the GOP.
Make no mistake! Hillary Clinton is a power-crazed control-freak. And this applies not only to Clinton but to just about any other candidate you care to name.
Most respectfully,
T. J. Flapsaddle
Can she be stopped? you ask.
Submitted by knockknock on February 5, 2008 - 2:14am.Can she be stopped? you ask. Hopefully, Obama will do just that. If he becomes the Dem candidate, that should stop her.
One thing I don't get is
Submitted by JoyfulC on February 5, 2008 - 8:48am.One thing I don't get is that so many people here claim that they feel everyone should be responsible for his or her self -- and yet, dare anyone try to enforce that responsibility, and there are fits of outrage.
Obviously the American people want universal health care, but at the same time, they don't want it to be mandatory. How does that work? When it comes to something like insurance, surely people here are intelligent enough to realize that it can only remain affordable if people pay into it when they don't need it, instead of waiting until they do. Creating a system where health care is more affordable, and then leaving it up to American consumers to decide when and if to buy it (or deciding whether to buy a new car or big screen TV or health insurance) is a recipe for disaster. We'd end up with essentially the same situation we have now, because costs couldn't possibly be kept low if people are only willing to pay insurance premiums when they can't afford to pay cash.
Clinton's only being practical. Do you have a better solution? One that will guarantee nearly full health care coverage that will allow people to opt in if and when they feel like it? Then put it on the table. It's easy to criticize, but come up with something better.
You're right. It IS a real
Submitted by mterry on February 7, 2008 - 11:20am.You're right. It IS a real issue. And, you're right again when you say that I have criticized without offering a solution. Thank you for pointing that out.
The more I think about it, the more I realize that the "one size fits all" health insurance is not the totally right answer. It may be eventually.
But when you have a people that eat and smoke themselves into huge increases in the national rates of diabetes, heart disease,lung cancer and obesity, just to name a few, and take absolutely no personal responsibility for these self inflicted injuries...
Why SHOULD the cost of that be universal? I would be willing to carry my share of the costs to get people away from the T.V. (smirk) and out from in front of a computer, and get them outside for a couple of hours a day.
Just that bit of education, and action will make an enormous difference in people's health nationally.
Maybe the answer lies in universal coverage for children up to the age of 18. Then as legally recognized adults they can decide if they wish to participate in a national health care scheme or not.
But you are right. I don't have a solution either. It does need to be thought out. HOWEVER, the thrust of what I was trying to say is that Ms. Clinton must not be allowed to arbitrarily confiscate the hard earned wages of those that WISH to opt out. THAT is very definitely a good example of the tyranny the founders looked to avoid.
M. Terry.
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
~George Washington
Actually, I don't believe
Submitted by JoyfulC on February 10, 2008 - 11:41am.Actually, I don't believe that it will work by allowing people to choose to buy or by garnishing wages when they don't. I think ultimately the US will end up with a universal health care system supported by taxes, probably an extension of medicaid/medicare. And I doubt this will kill the insurance industry. Here in Canada, we have provincial health insurance, but most of us also have extended insurance through our employers or other group offerers. This takes care of things like drug costs, dental, optical, chiro, physio, etc. etc. (Ours even covers weird stuff like reiki, acupuncture and marital counseling.)
I must confess that I find it somewhat meanspirited to set one's self up as the epitomy of righteousness and then condemn all others for their bad choices, asking why one should be forced to pay for them. It makes me wonder if some people would actually be smugly satisfied to see people dying with no comfort or care by the side of the road! A while back, another poster here noted that he'd fallen on ice and hurt his arm, and was amazed that people walked right by like they didn't see, no one offering to help him to his feet and see if he was okay. But really, when you see statements like "But when you have a people that eat and smoke themselves into huge increases in the national rates of diabetes, heart disease,lung cancer and obesity, just to name a few, and take absolutely no personal responsibility for these self inflicted injuries...", isn't that the same thing?
I think it's got to be a rare person who never makes a poor choice -- or at least, a choice that might be considered poor by others.
But in a way, isn't that a false issue here? One of those things that distracts us from the real problem? The insurance situation in the US sucks big time. Even for people who normally qualify for insurance through their employers. Our daughter lives in the US and works in radio. Last year around this time, she quit a job in one market and moved to another, without first having secured a job in that market. Although she had one within the month, she went through a period of time where there was a gap in her insurance. What if someone would have run a red light and crashed into her during that time? What if she would have gotten pregnant during that time? What if, after her new insurance kicked in, it was discovered that she had cancer or some other "pre-existing condition" -- would her new insurance have covered it?
We hear such stories every day coming out of the US of such tragedies being suffered by otherwise productive, contributing members of society. Insured Americans pay through the nose for insurance, even with group rates, and yet, it's still a crap shoot, to some degree, as to whether they'll be covered. The private insurance companies have had ample opportunity to address these problems over the course of decades, but have failed to. As someone else pointed out on this site, both Medicaid and Medicare were created to deal with those people that the insurance companies don't even want to be bothered with. And to some degree, I understand -- because insurance companies exist for the purpose of making profits. Every decision they make has to be made with an eye to profitability. (Yep, they don't mention that part in their flashy ads, eh? ;-) But Americans need more than to be assured that insurance companies are profitable. They deserve better. It's time for the government to step in and bring the quality of health insurance in the US up to levels found in other civilized countries around the world -- such as Canada.
Joyful? Do you really feel
Submitted by bryan mcclellan on February 5, 2008 - 10:22am.Joyful? Do you really feel we should be responsible for some tanning freak Idiot who gets skin cancer in California,or a hiker that gets half his ass chewed off by a bear in Alaska,and as a result mandatory theft of wages to certify stupid behavior sends most blue collar Americans into fiscal free fall?Thats putting the needs of the one ahead of the rights of the many.We don't need big sister or big brother band-aid solutions that starve our already paltry piggy banks.Give us stable jobs and a fair wage for our labors and we will take care of ourselves.Dammit, America was built on the principle of INDEPENDENCE,why are people so eager to relinquish freedom of choice?We've become a nation wanting handouts instead of a hand up.To surrender a proud tradition of can do for, ooh please I've fallen ,I think I'll just lay here till Government rolls me over rubs my belly, jams a Xanax down my gullet and rifles my pockets is INSANE!
So Bryan, I take it you
Submitted by JoyfulC on February 5, 2008 - 12:20pm.So Bryan, I take it you don't have insurance, don't want insurance and are never going to have insurance?
Because baby, if you have insurance, then YOU'RE ALREADY PAYING FOR ALL THIS and then some. Do you really think that the insurance premiums you pay now are based soley on your medical history and your choices?
That's not how insurance works.
Did you ever notice that people are more likely to be insured when they have a shot at group health plans, perhaps through an employer or an association? Know why? Because group rates are lower. And that's the whole point of this. In order to get the best rates for everyone, we need to ensure that everyone pays into it. However, we know that many people will make bad choices -- like not buying health insurance until they think they need it -- and that will affect rates for everyone. This is a situation where the government needs to step in and protect us all from the bad choices of a few.
Really, I'm shocked by some people's reactions to this. Myself, I'm more annoyed at them reaching into my pockets to pay for wars to gain and protect access to mineral resources in other lands for corporations that turn around and charge me exhorbitant prices so they can make obscene profits, one quarter after another. The idea of having to pay to actually improve the quality of life in the United States for all Americans doesn't really strike me as a bad thing.
Joyful:I did not mean to
Submitted by bryan mcclellan on February 5, 2008 - 6:03pm.Joyful:I did not mean to discount your opinion and apologize for screaming at the top of my fingers.As always an inordinate amount of words is needed to express my view so I'll be brief,We are fast approaching a time when all rights will be turned into privileges/(legislation for our own good).They (Govt)call take home pay disposable income,well I'm here to say I'll do the disposing of said income as I see fit. I've already shared enough with the blood sucking entity that has become our tax till they drop federal vampire better known as the Federal reserve/IRS.Stop the wars,make the corporate borg pay it's fair share, and Don't Tread On Me!