Am I the only one that finds it amusing that the Republican Party’s idea of "family values" means hiring hookers, expense account strip joints, cheating on your wife with another woman, or cheating on your wife with a man?
Apparently letting gays get married would be far more dangerous to the "sanctity of marriage" than any of these things. From all of the reports of closet gay Republican politicians, I can see why they think so.
My guess is, to their way of thinking, if it is legal for a man to marry a man, ALL men will leave their families to marry other men. This must be a Republican phenomenon, because I have to assure everyone that, no matter how legal they make it for me to marry a man, I rather like women. Even if, by some awful twist of life, my wife was to leave me, I would still not marry a man to replace her. I have to think that most folks feel this way. Maybe I am wrong.
Most folks thought their Republican Congressmen were heterosexual, God-fearing family oriented men.
To quote one of my favorite Simpson’s characters: "HA HA"
Showing posts with label partisan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label partisan. Show all posts
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Sunday, March 21, 2010
No Mandate for Private Services
I keep hearing folks say that it is unconstitutional for the United States Government to mandate that we, the American people, purchase the services of a private business. Several states’ Attorneys General have promised to sue the Federal Government if the insurance reform bill in front of the House of Representatives passes.
OK, I have a fix, at least for the mandate part. How about if we do not insist that everyone buy health insurance. How about if, instead, we say the following:
You, as an American Citizen, do not have to maintain Health Coverage on yourself. But if you opt to not carry coverage, and something happens to you, such as an unforeseen illness or injury, then you will be required to pay cash, up front, out of your own pocket or forgo any treatment for said illness or injury.
You see, right now, if you do not have coverage and something happens, you can go to a public hospital, get treatment, and simply not pay the bill. That debt then reverts to the rest of us, and our tax dollars pay for your treatment. You will have to be required to pay cash up front because we cannot take the chance that you will simply SAY that you will pay on an installment plan and then just disappear or allow your payments to lapse.
So you pay up front or you simply fix the problem yourself. That way we all can be sure that those of us who have insurance aren’t being double billed.
OK, I have a fix, at least for the mandate part. How about if we do not insist that everyone buy health insurance. How about if, instead, we say the following:
You, as an American Citizen, do not have to maintain Health Coverage on yourself. But if you opt to not carry coverage, and something happens to you, such as an unforeseen illness or injury, then you will be required to pay cash, up front, out of your own pocket or forgo any treatment for said illness or injury.
You see, right now, if you do not have coverage and something happens, you can go to a public hospital, get treatment, and simply not pay the bill. That debt then reverts to the rest of us, and our tax dollars pay for your treatment. You will have to be required to pay cash up front because we cannot take the chance that you will simply SAY that you will pay on an installment plan and then just disappear or allow your payments to lapse.
So you pay up front or you simply fix the problem yourself. That way we all can be sure that those of us who have insurance aren’t being double billed.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Oppose anything the Democrats Attempt
This is a letter I intend to send to the four people who allegedly represent me in Washington, D. C.:
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Senator John Cornyn, Representative Michael Burgess, and President Barack Obama.
I will blog this and any response (if there is any) at oakminde.blogspot.com
I use the word "you" to refer to the Republican Party because three of the four people are members of that institution.
I have noticed that most, if not all, of the Republican Party seems to be opposed to any kind of national health care system. You call it a government takeover, compare it to socialism, and in Washington, you simply refuse to participate in the proceedings or just block the proceedings. Since you are opposed so vehemently to any of the suggestions the Democrats have put forth, I would be extremely interested in being educated as to what your alternative ideas are. I feel certain that the status quo, allowing insurance company executives rake in multimillion-dollar salaries while denying care to their customers, is not your plan. Or is it? I have not yet heard a single intelligent proposal out of the Republican wing of government. All I hear, day in and day out, are complaints that the plan(s) the Democrats have put forth will not work.
Now let me give you an idea. I pay $6,000 a year in premiums to my insurance company, to cover myself, my wife, and my daughter. They pay their CEO 18 million dollars a year. They pay several highly placed executives close to that, I assume. They also pay enough in dividends to entice investors to park money in their stock. All the while denying care to customers. Since the highest paid government employee makes $450,000 a year, I have to assume that the head of Medicare makes considerably less than that. I think you will have a difficult time finding anyone that is currently covered by Medicare who would be willing to give it up, so I have to think that that system works.
I would never be described as the "brightest bulb in the pack" but it seems to me that if I give that $6,000 a year to Medicare instead of a for-profit insurance company, and everyone around does the same thing, we might just be able to make it work. I would even bet that it wouldn’t have to be all of the $6,000, so there might even be some savings on my end. Even if it is all of the $6,000, as long as there is not some insurance company flunky declining to cover the colonoscopy that my doctor thinks I need (as my insurance company did earlier this year), I will be happy. You can call it a tax increase if you feel like you have to, but in my book, I am already paying that tax to a private company.
Certainly there are things that need to be done to cut out waste and fraud in the system, but I think that can easily be taken care of once we have everyone adequately covered.
For sure, this idea will put a lot of insurance folks in need of a new career. I, for one, do not care if the multi-millionaire CEO of my insurance company suddenly has to go out and find a legitimate job.
I think that if we adopt this plan, and demand that Congress uses it for themselves as well, we can adequately cover every citizen of the United States and ensure that the coverage is fair and comprehensive.
As an afterthought, I also included Senator Bernie Sanders in the recipients. I hear him on the (liberal) Thom Hartmann show every Friday morning, and he seems to actually care about the American people. He supposedly does not accept campaign contributions from corporations, only from regular folks like you and me. I don't know if this is true or not, but I do know that he sounds intelligent and informed.
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Senator John Cornyn, Representative Michael Burgess, and President Barack Obama.
I will blog this and any response (if there is any) at oakminde.blogspot.com
I use the word "you" to refer to the Republican Party because three of the four people are members of that institution.
I have noticed that most, if not all, of the Republican Party seems to be opposed to any kind of national health care system. You call it a government takeover, compare it to socialism, and in Washington, you simply refuse to participate in the proceedings or just block the proceedings. Since you are opposed so vehemently to any of the suggestions the Democrats have put forth, I would be extremely interested in being educated as to what your alternative ideas are. I feel certain that the status quo, allowing insurance company executives rake in multimillion-dollar salaries while denying care to their customers, is not your plan. Or is it? I have not yet heard a single intelligent proposal out of the Republican wing of government. All I hear, day in and day out, are complaints that the plan(s) the Democrats have put forth will not work.
Now let me give you an idea. I pay $6,000 a year in premiums to my insurance company, to cover myself, my wife, and my daughter. They pay their CEO 18 million dollars a year. They pay several highly placed executives close to that, I assume. They also pay enough in dividends to entice investors to park money in their stock. All the while denying care to customers. Since the highest paid government employee makes $450,000 a year, I have to assume that the head of Medicare makes considerably less than that. I think you will have a difficult time finding anyone that is currently covered by Medicare who would be willing to give it up, so I have to think that that system works.
I would never be described as the "brightest bulb in the pack" but it seems to me that if I give that $6,000 a year to Medicare instead of a for-profit insurance company, and everyone around does the same thing, we might just be able to make it work. I would even bet that it wouldn’t have to be all of the $6,000, so there might even be some savings on my end. Even if it is all of the $6,000, as long as there is not some insurance company flunky declining to cover the colonoscopy that my doctor thinks I need (as my insurance company did earlier this year), I will be happy. You can call it a tax increase if you feel like you have to, but in my book, I am already paying that tax to a private company.
Certainly there are things that need to be done to cut out waste and fraud in the system, but I think that can easily be taken care of once we have everyone adequately covered.
For sure, this idea will put a lot of insurance folks in need of a new career. I, for one, do not care if the multi-millionaire CEO of my insurance company suddenly has to go out and find a legitimate job.
I think that if we adopt this plan, and demand that Congress uses it for themselves as well, we can adequately cover every citizen of the United States and ensure that the coverage is fair and comprehensive.
As an afterthought, I also included Senator Bernie Sanders in the recipients. I hear him on the (liberal) Thom Hartmann show every Friday morning, and he seems to actually care about the American people. He supposedly does not accept campaign contributions from corporations, only from regular folks like you and me. I don't know if this is true or not, but I do know that he sounds intelligent and informed.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Republican Purity Test
Do people truly not remember anything?
Are we going to collectively go to the polls in 2010 and vote based on what the Democrats have not been able to do? Or are we going to vote based on what the Republicans have stood in the way of? Will we remember the 1994 "Contract for America" (also known as the "Contract on America").
Will we, as a people, remember that from 1994 to 2006 the Republicans had control of the legislative and judicial branches of the government? And that from 2000 to 2006 they had control of the entire government? Will we remember what they did and did not do while they had control?
We got a couple of wars we had no business being in, we got decreasing regulation on the financial sector; we got really good legislation for the credit card industry; and a whole lot more that was good if you were a corporation or wealthy American, bad if you were a tax paying middle class citizen.
Oh good Lord, I certainly hope this happens.
Apparently the GOP has come up with a set of guidelines they are thinking of requiring any candidate to swear to uphold before they will allow him/her to call him/herself a Republican.
Red text is the "test", black text is my comments. There is a link to the news story at the end.
REPUBLICAN PURITY TEST
(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama's "stimulus" bill.
Because anything from Obama is bad? So far the Republicans have been pretty consistent about opposing anything put forth by the current administration or the Democratic Party. Smaller government like President Bush 43 made? Smaller national debt like the same guy gave us? Lower deficits? Let me get this straight. Lower deficits like Clinton gave us? Or "lower" deficits like the totally Republican run government gave us from 2000 to 2006, largely accomplished by hiding war costs? Lower taxes for the rich and higher taxes for the middle class like Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 gave us?
(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare.
Because market-based worked so well for the banksters. Just kinda sucked for the rest of us. And again with the anti-Obama thing.
(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation.
See my comments on #2. At least they left our President out of this one.
(4) We support workers' right to secret ballot by opposing card check.
I am not real sure what is up with this one, but anytime I see Republican response to anything union, I have to assume that it is going to be horrible for unions and non-union workers alike.
(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants.
I got nothing for this one. One of those things that I happen to be in almost total agreement with the GOP.
(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges.
What? Victory? Someone please define what that means. All terrorists dead? How do you quantify that?
(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat.
Because we have not yet managed to start World War III, and sticking our noses there might just do it.
(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act.
Keep the government out of our business, but it’s OK for them to be in our personal lives? If you truly want to maintain the "sanctity of marriage", make it harder to get a divorce. Otherwise, just admit that you hate gays and move on.
(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion.
What? I thought the Republicans were FOR private, for-profit insurance companies? Aside from the government funding of abortion, these are all things that private insurance companies do now.
(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.
Because anyone, no matter how psycho he/she may be, should be allowed to own a Howitzer or an M1 Abrams.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl996
Are we going to collectively go to the polls in 2010 and vote based on what the Democrats have not been able to do? Or are we going to vote based on what the Republicans have stood in the way of? Will we remember the 1994 "Contract for America" (also known as the "Contract on America").
Will we, as a people, remember that from 1994 to 2006 the Republicans had control of the legislative and judicial branches of the government? And that from 2000 to 2006 they had control of the entire government? Will we remember what they did and did not do while they had control?
We got a couple of wars we had no business being in, we got decreasing regulation on the financial sector; we got really good legislation for the credit card industry; and a whole lot more that was good if you were a corporation or wealthy American, bad if you were a tax paying middle class citizen.
Oh good Lord, I certainly hope this happens.
Apparently the GOP has come up with a set of guidelines they are thinking of requiring any candidate to swear to uphold before they will allow him/her to call him/herself a Republican.
Red text is the "test", black text is my comments. There is a link to the news story at the end.
REPUBLICAN PURITY TEST
(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama's "stimulus" bill.
Because anything from Obama is bad? So far the Republicans have been pretty consistent about opposing anything put forth by the current administration or the Democratic Party. Smaller government like President Bush 43 made? Smaller national debt like the same guy gave us? Lower deficits? Let me get this straight. Lower deficits like Clinton gave us? Or "lower" deficits like the totally Republican run government gave us from 2000 to 2006, largely accomplished by hiding war costs? Lower taxes for the rich and higher taxes for the middle class like Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 gave us?
(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare.
Because market-based worked so well for the banksters. Just kinda sucked for the rest of us. And again with the anti-Obama thing.
(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation.
See my comments on #2. At least they left our President out of this one.
(4) We support workers' right to secret ballot by opposing card check.
I am not real sure what is up with this one, but anytime I see Republican response to anything union, I have to assume that it is going to be horrible for unions and non-union workers alike.
(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants.
I got nothing for this one. One of those things that I happen to be in almost total agreement with the GOP.
(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges.
What? Victory? Someone please define what that means. All terrorists dead? How do you quantify that?
(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat.
Because we have not yet managed to start World War III, and sticking our noses there might just do it.
(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act.
Keep the government out of our business, but it’s OK for them to be in our personal lives? If you truly want to maintain the "sanctity of marriage", make it harder to get a divorce. Otherwise, just admit that you hate gays and move on.
(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion.
What? I thought the Republicans were FOR private, for-profit insurance companies? Aside from the government funding of abortion, these are all things that private insurance companies do now.
(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.
Because anyone, no matter how psycho he/she may be, should be allowed to own a Howitzer or an M1 Abrams.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl996
Friday, September 4, 2009
Tell your kids to drop out
In 1988, Ronald Reagan, a white Republican president, addressed the students of America in a televised speech. He spoke about how tax cuts increase revenue, gun control, and a few other partisan subjects. I, for one, do not remember anyone having an aneurysm over that speech. Now, 21 years later, Barack Obama, a black Democrat president, wants to give a speech on the importance of staying in school, getting good grades, and taking responsibility for one’s own education. People are apoplectic, claiming a fear that he will deliver a speech laden with partisan politics. Folks are promising to keep their kids out of school that day. Excuse me? Are these people stupid? The White House and the US Department of Education have both averred that this speech will be over nothing but the importance of getting a good education. There will be no political agenda attached, unless you can consider keeping kids in school an agenda. The president of the United States of America wants to tell your child how important it is for him or her to be a good student and you don’t want your child to participate? There is no way anyone is going to convince me that this isn’t, at best, partisan in the extreme, or, at worst, racist. I do not claim to know the motives of parents on this issue, but I do claim to know that they are idiots. Keeping your child out of school for this occasion not only sends them a message that it is perfectly all right to disrespect the office of the President, but also that it is all right to skip school because you do not agree with the content of the day’s activities. I wish this had been an option when I was in school; I can’t think of many days I would have attended. Reagan preached the necessity of cutting taxes for the richest amongst us, apparently believing that rich folks will voluntarily pass on those riches that we, the peons, pay extra for them to keep. This didn’t raise an eyebrow. Apparently the right has no problem with a president delivering a speech, even if it is partisan, to schoolchildren, as long as he is a Republican.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
