Hi
Thursday the President will conduct a so called bipartisan health care summit. I wish him luck but I don't expect mush to be accomplished. In reality it seems like a feeble attempt to get republicans to agree to a bad piece of legislation. The only bipartisanship to come from this is the distrust from the American people. The voter anger will be aimed at both major political parties, and the American people will be the ones to suffer. This is the time for partisan politics, the republicans should stand for what the voters want, no Obamacare, and the republicans should not sign on to any legislation which gives us Obamacare.
The tea parties were held in order to let the politicians what the American people want, the republicans must respect that feeling or else be doomed. Let's hope that we get some fortitude from the republicans. If not, keep in mind those who caved and remember their names when the 2010 elections come around.
Keep saying those prayers for our service people.
GOD Bless
Showing posts with label Health care. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Health care. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Obama Health Care
Hi
The president is at it again. We are seeing another effort to pass unwanted health care reform down our collective throats. When will this end? I know I speak for many people when I say that the government no longer is doing the best thing for the people.
On TV we see liberal pundits still try to justify the attempt to pass this health care legislation but no one addresses the fact that the public doesn't want Obamacare. It has been mentioned often that the people want some reform but things like tort reform and allowing insurance carriers write policies across the state lines. The democrats will not even discuss this, solely because the trial lawyers want it and the lawyers contribute t democratic candidates. The democrats are playing to their donors even though it creates a hardship on the general public. We have one big weapon, vote the bums out in midterm elections and then vote the president out in 2012. Save the country. Please look at what any candidate stands for before making your decision on election day. This past election which was primarily an anti Bush vote showed how dangerous a vote can be if the electorate do not consider the stand and policies of the candidates.
Continue t pray for our troops.
GOD Bless
The president is at it again. We are seeing another effort to pass unwanted health care reform down our collective throats. When will this end? I know I speak for many people when I say that the government no longer is doing the best thing for the people.
On TV we see liberal pundits still try to justify the attempt to pass this health care legislation but no one addresses the fact that the public doesn't want Obamacare. It has been mentioned often that the people want some reform but things like tort reform and allowing insurance carriers write policies across the state lines. The democrats will not even discuss this, solely because the trial lawyers want it and the lawyers contribute t democratic candidates. The democrats are playing to their donors even though it creates a hardship on the general public. We have one big weapon, vote the bums out in midterm elections and then vote the president out in 2012. Save the country. Please look at what any candidate stands for before making your decision on election day. This past election which was primarily an anti Bush vote showed how dangerous a vote can be if the electorate do not consider the stand and policies of the candidates.
Continue t pray for our troops.
GOD Bless
Thursday, February 11, 2010
More on health care
Hi
I would like to advance another idea on reforming health care coverage. In the past I mentioned tort reform and I will expand on that subject. This post is about Class Action lawsuits.
A CLS (Class Action Lawsuit) is a legal action wherein plaintiffs with a similar complaint are lumped together in one lawsuit. The reason for this is it makes it easier to try similar cases without many witnesses, court time, different lawyers, etc. As a rule CLS does serve a purpose because it eases the burden on our court system and it does not present any undue hardship on plaintiffs. My remarks are aimed at CLS in medical malpractice cases.
When I was younger and still practicing law the states (NY) passed a law which in effect ruled that when all attorneys in a state charge the same for a legal matter it amounts to price fixing, which is a no-no. At that time the question was the fee for handling a house closing. Now the fee varies and basically is determined by market forces. CLS should be governed the same way. It is no different than other legal matters and the change would put the fee charged on a competitive basis. We all know what happens when competition is introduced. The fee usually goes down. It would be a simple thing, make all CLS suits federal cases. Because the legal costs would be reduced the cost of insurance, and accordingly, health care would be reduced. The people would be the beneficiaries of this reform.
I cannot understand why our president and congress have not made these changes already. (Well, yes I can - catering to special interests). We should demand this change from our government. If they donot respond vote the rascals out in November.
Keep praying for our service people.
GOD Bless
I would like to advance another idea on reforming health care coverage. In the past I mentioned tort reform and I will expand on that subject. This post is about Class Action lawsuits.
A CLS (Class Action Lawsuit) is a legal action wherein plaintiffs with a similar complaint are lumped together in one lawsuit. The reason for this is it makes it easier to try similar cases without many witnesses, court time, different lawyers, etc. As a rule CLS does serve a purpose because it eases the burden on our court system and it does not present any undue hardship on plaintiffs. My remarks are aimed at CLS in medical malpractice cases.
When I was younger and still practicing law the states (NY) passed a law which in effect ruled that when all attorneys in a state charge the same for a legal matter it amounts to price fixing, which is a no-no. At that time the question was the fee for handling a house closing. Now the fee varies and basically is determined by market forces. CLS should be governed the same way. It is no different than other legal matters and the change would put the fee charged on a competitive basis. We all know what happens when competition is introduced. The fee usually goes down. It would be a simple thing, make all CLS suits federal cases. Because the legal costs would be reduced the cost of insurance, and accordingly, health care would be reduced. The people would be the beneficiaries of this reform.
I cannot understand why our president and congress have not made these changes already. (Well, yes I can - catering to special interests). We should demand this change from our government. If they donot respond vote the rascals out in November.
Keep praying for our service people.
GOD Bless
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Health care reform - Part II
Hi
Just a reminder that yesterday I wrote about one step which should be taken in order to "fix" health care. This blog will address reform two. Creating an environment of competition is a good way to lower costs of existing health care policies. In order to create the environment of competition we must pass some effective legislation to clear obstacles.
Currently health care insurers must comply with state regulations. These regulations vary from state to state. I am not a big believer in federal intervention but in this instance a "LIMITED" intervention is needed. Because federal law supersedes state law the federal government should enact legislation that would allow health care insurers to write policies in all states. The effect of this would be that the doors of competition would be open. Insurers could cross state lines to write their insurance policies. The people would be given less costly insurance because of the element of competition. However there is one potential pitfall, government take over of the insurance. To protect against this the legislation should be drafted so that the federal government has only a say in setting up private insurers and will never have any regulatory powers. The insurer would have to comply with the laws of the state in which the insurance company writes the policy.
As a side effect there would be less wiggle room for an insurer to claim a "preexisting" condition. When a person moves he can carry his insurance with him. It would alleviate the problem with paper work. I don't see any down side for this.
There is some resistance to this idea. It comes from lobby groups like AARP, Trial Lawyers associations and similarly situated groups who would see their gravy train disappear. What a shame. The American public benefits. Still more to come.
Continue to pray for the protection of our brave service people.
GOD Bless
Just a reminder that yesterday I wrote about one step which should be taken in order to "fix" health care. This blog will address reform two. Creating an environment of competition is a good way to lower costs of existing health care policies. In order to create the environment of competition we must pass some effective legislation to clear obstacles.
Currently health care insurers must comply with state regulations. These regulations vary from state to state. I am not a big believer in federal intervention but in this instance a "LIMITED" intervention is needed. Because federal law supersedes state law the federal government should enact legislation that would allow health care insurers to write policies in all states. The effect of this would be that the doors of competition would be open. Insurers could cross state lines to write their insurance policies. The people would be given less costly insurance because of the element of competition. However there is one potential pitfall, government take over of the insurance. To protect against this the legislation should be drafted so that the federal government has only a say in setting up private insurers and will never have any regulatory powers. The insurer would have to comply with the laws of the state in which the insurance company writes the policy.
As a side effect there would be less wiggle room for an insurer to claim a "preexisting" condition. When a person moves he can carry his insurance with him. It would alleviate the problem with paper work. I don't see any down side for this.
There is some resistance to this idea. It comes from lobby groups like AARP, Trial Lawyers associations and similarly situated groups who would see their gravy train disappear. What a shame. The American public benefits. Still more to come.
Continue to pray for the protection of our brave service people.
GOD Bless
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Health care reform
Hi
Now that I have tackled the flat or fair tax issue I am going to express myself on health care reform.
We have to look at health care reform in 2 different ways.
The first is to reform the health care system which is already in existence. Those of us who have adequate health care don't want our politicians meddling with the system. Heaven knows they cannot get many things right. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Unfortunately too many politicians think they know better than every body else. (The liberal bible says so). We must keep reminding these people that just because they have a few letter after their name they are not necessarily the smartest person in the room. With existing health care we must bring down the cost. This is done by enacting a form of tort regulation and further enacting a federal law which allows insurers to write policies across state lines.
A tort is a civil wrong. A malpractice suit is a typical tort. Under existing law the plaintiff is allowed what is called punitive damages. In most states this is an amount 3 times the amount of actual damages. The purpose is to punish the wrong doer, in this case the medical provider. The medical provider guards and protects himself by purchasing malpractice insurance. We all know that the cost of this malpractice insurance finds its way into our medical bills. If we were to eliminate the punitive element but keep the remaining tort legislation the plaintiff would still get his compensation. Since a large portion of the award for punitive damages goes into the hands of the trial lawyers. This is paid for by malpractice insurance, so it follows if we eliminate the punitive damage awards, we lower the insurance costs. This is then passed on to the medical care recipient. The cost of existing medical care would be lowered for all without any significant loss to the patient.
In my next blog I will cover the second scenario, "Does the government (we the people) have an obligation to provide free health care for every one?" Stay tuned.
Continue to pray for our brave service people.
GOD Bless
Now that I have tackled the flat or fair tax issue I am going to express myself on health care reform.
We have to look at health care reform in 2 different ways.
The first is to reform the health care system which is already in existence. Those of us who have adequate health care don't want our politicians meddling with the system. Heaven knows they cannot get many things right. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Unfortunately too many politicians think they know better than every body else. (The liberal bible says so). We must keep reminding these people that just because they have a few letter after their name they are not necessarily the smartest person in the room. With existing health care we must bring down the cost. This is done by enacting a form of tort regulation and further enacting a federal law which allows insurers to write policies across state lines.
A tort is a civil wrong. A malpractice suit is a typical tort. Under existing law the plaintiff is allowed what is called punitive damages. In most states this is an amount 3 times the amount of actual damages. The purpose is to punish the wrong doer, in this case the medical provider. The medical provider guards and protects himself by purchasing malpractice insurance. We all know that the cost of this malpractice insurance finds its way into our medical bills. If we were to eliminate the punitive element but keep the remaining tort legislation the plaintiff would still get his compensation. Since a large portion of the award for punitive damages goes into the hands of the trial lawyers. This is paid for by malpractice insurance, so it follows if we eliminate the punitive damage awards, we lower the insurance costs. This is then passed on to the medical care recipient. The cost of existing medical care would be lowered for all without any significant loss to the patient.
In my next blog I will cover the second scenario, "Does the government (we the people) have an obligation to provide free health care for every one?" Stay tuned.
Continue to pray for our brave service people.
GOD Bless
Friday, January 15, 2010
Health care fiasco
Hi
I must write about the health care reform fiasco that is going around DC currently. Where do I begin.
The president is selling his political soul to get this passed (Dr Faust anyone). Congress is being bribed by the president. This all translates into a shaft job on the American people. What a bunch of cruds we have governing. If they would only adhere to our Constitution and obey the intent.
I am so sick and tired of this kind of treatment to the American populace, and I only hope that the voters show these people the door in November. Please do.
Please pray for the decent people who are defending our liberties.
GOD Bless
I must write about the health care reform fiasco that is going around DC currently. Where do I begin.
The president is selling his political soul to get this passed (Dr Faust anyone). Congress is being bribed by the president. This all translates into a shaft job on the American people. What a bunch of cruds we have governing. If they would only adhere to our Constitution and obey the intent.
I am so sick and tired of this kind of treatment to the American populace, and I only hope that the voters show these people the door in November. Please do.
Please pray for the decent people who are defending our liberties.
GOD Bless
Sunday, December 20, 2009
My take on health care reform
Hi
Why am I not surprised by the turn that the health care reform legislation has taken. I am referring to the recent events. Democratic senators have switched sides on the legislation, why Because they have been bribed. The president has promised financial aid to the states that these senators represent in exchange for a favorable vote. Real leadership. I repeat my lament, why can't we elect statesmen instead of cheap politicians? Heaven help us.
The so-called Blue Dog Democrats, Nelson, Bayh, and Landreau have gone against principles they have stated earlier. In effect they have prostituted themselves. It is very difficult to accept this. I would like to pose these questions, "Doesn't your vote in effect become an earmark? The end result is the same. Where's the change?" I know I will not get an answer, but I think that the American people are asking the same questions and will remember at election time. I know I will.
It seems that the leadership is hell bent on giving us some legislation despite the fact that polls show the people don't want what is being proposed. To me this is a complete lack of leadership on the part of the Congress and the President. We desere better.
I'll keep writing on these subjects,so please stay tuned.
Please continue to pray for our brave warriors, they show leadership and character,and deserve our support.
GOD Bless
Why am I not surprised by the turn that the health care reform legislation has taken. I am referring to the recent events. Democratic senators have switched sides on the legislation, why Because they have been bribed. The president has promised financial aid to the states that these senators represent in exchange for a favorable vote. Real leadership. I repeat my lament, why can't we elect statesmen instead of cheap politicians? Heaven help us.
The so-called Blue Dog Democrats, Nelson, Bayh, and Landreau have gone against principles they have stated earlier. In effect they have prostituted themselves. It is very difficult to accept this. I would like to pose these questions, "Doesn't your vote in effect become an earmark? The end result is the same. Where's the change?" I know I will not get an answer, but I think that the American people are asking the same questions and will remember at election time. I know I will.
It seems that the leadership is hell bent on giving us some legislation despite the fact that polls show the people don't want what is being proposed. To me this is a complete lack of leadership on the part of the Congress and the President. We desere better.
I'll keep writing on these subjects,so please stay tuned.
Please continue to pray for our brave warriors, they show leadership and character,and deserve our support.
GOD Bless
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Where does health care lead us
Hi
My title is a question and I would like to try and answer the question. Most people want heallth care reform but, here's the catch, these same people want a sane and sensible reform package.
Most of the programs being tossed about in congress fail to answer the real problem, but instead focus on how to make a government take over more palatable. Guess what, a government take over is not palatable with the vast majority of Americans. The people have spoken through polls, town hall meetings and tea parties. The real problem is that the congress refuses to acknowledge these wishes. As usual liberal thinking comes up with the philosophy that "they" know better. Well they don't.
If congress were serious about health care, the first problem they should address is the high cost of the coverage of insurance in place already. Much of the cost is attributable to malpractice insurance. The malpractice insurance is high because of runaway jury awards. Congress need not take away the patients right to sue, only they should adjust the award process. Currently juries can award punitive damages. These are awards aimed at punishing the medical practitioner. The law can be changed to eliminate these excessive and unnecessary chrges. If we were to eliminate the punitive damage portion of awards then the patient would still get his/her fair compensation for any harm and the doctor would pay less insurance. This savings could be passed to the patient in the form of lower charges for medical services.
The next area of reform needed is the limitation placed on insurers which prohibits carriers from writing policies across state lines. Under the current system carriers have little or no competition because not all carriers write policies in all 50 states. If the federal government were to eliminate this cross state prohibition then carriers would open up new markets and compete with carriers in all states. Competition would drive the prices down and the patient benefits. Of course the only people who oppose this are the malpractice trial lawyers. (Just remind yourself how much money Edwards made on the tobacco settlements). Congress should put the people first, not the special interest such as trial lawyers. We can only pray that they do so.
When you pray for our brave service people add a prayer that congress will be blessed with the wisdom to do the right thing. Thank you.
GOD Bless
My title is a question and I would like to try and answer the question. Most people want heallth care reform but, here's the catch, these same people want a sane and sensible reform package.
Most of the programs being tossed about in congress fail to answer the real problem, but instead focus on how to make a government take over more palatable. Guess what, a government take over is not palatable with the vast majority of Americans. The people have spoken through polls, town hall meetings and tea parties. The real problem is that the congress refuses to acknowledge these wishes. As usual liberal thinking comes up with the philosophy that "they" know better. Well they don't.
If congress were serious about health care, the first problem they should address is the high cost of the coverage of insurance in place already. Much of the cost is attributable to malpractice insurance. The malpractice insurance is high because of runaway jury awards. Congress need not take away the patients right to sue, only they should adjust the award process. Currently juries can award punitive damages. These are awards aimed at punishing the medical practitioner. The law can be changed to eliminate these excessive and unnecessary chrges. If we were to eliminate the punitive damage portion of awards then the patient would still get his/her fair compensation for any harm and the doctor would pay less insurance. This savings could be passed to the patient in the form of lower charges for medical services.
The next area of reform needed is the limitation placed on insurers which prohibits carriers from writing policies across state lines. Under the current system carriers have little or no competition because not all carriers write policies in all 50 states. If the federal government were to eliminate this cross state prohibition then carriers would open up new markets and compete with carriers in all states. Competition would drive the prices down and the patient benefits. Of course the only people who oppose this are the malpractice trial lawyers. (Just remind yourself how much money Edwards made on the tobacco settlements). Congress should put the people first, not the special interest such as trial lawyers. We can only pray that they do so.
When you pray for our brave service people add a prayer that congress will be blessed with the wisdom to do the right thing. Thank you.
GOD Bless
Friday, September 11, 2009
Obama and health care
Hi
The much awaited speech re health care came and went and I don't know any more about it than I did before the speech. The "glib" president didn't come across with any new explanations of his agenda, same old trite proposals. The American public has rejected these proposals but the democrats still are trying to push them off on us. I just wish that the republicans will hold and get enough blue dog democrats in the senate to defeat this terrible bill.
The one thing that amuses me is the so called cooperative insurance carriers. In my writing I have said that a MUTUAL type of insurance carrier would tend to lower costs. The big difference between my idea and that which is floated about in congress is that under my plan the mutual company would compete in the market place, not be over regulated by the government. Government regulation only serves to cause inefficiency and waste. (Amtrak, Post Office, Medicare and Medicaid, (remember Obama is saying there is enough waste to pay for the covering of the uninsured), and the congressional cafeterias, etc. The list of government management failures should serve as a caution for any federal takeover. Ann Coulter pointed out last night on a talk show that Bernie Maddoff and his Ponzi scheme was under federal over sight. Look at what that got us. Do we need more of the same? I hope not
Stay tuned as I will write about Obama and his dealings with some shady organizations. Interesting.
Pray for the soldiers.
GOD Bless
The much awaited speech re health care came and went and I don't know any more about it than I did before the speech. The "glib" president didn't come across with any new explanations of his agenda, same old trite proposals. The American public has rejected these proposals but the democrats still are trying to push them off on us. I just wish that the republicans will hold and get enough blue dog democrats in the senate to defeat this terrible bill.
The one thing that amuses me is the so called cooperative insurance carriers. In my writing I have said that a MUTUAL type of insurance carrier would tend to lower costs. The big difference between my idea and that which is floated about in congress is that under my plan the mutual company would compete in the market place, not be over regulated by the government. Government regulation only serves to cause inefficiency and waste. (Amtrak, Post Office, Medicare and Medicaid, (remember Obama is saying there is enough waste to pay for the covering of the uninsured), and the congressional cafeterias, etc. The list of government management failures should serve as a caution for any federal takeover. Ann Coulter pointed out last night on a talk show that Bernie Maddoff and his Ponzi scheme was under federal over sight. Look at what that got us. Do we need more of the same? I hope not
Stay tuned as I will write about Obama and his dealings with some shady organizations. Interesting.
Pray for the soldiers.
GOD Bless
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
health care
Hi
In the last blog I forwarded some ideas for health care reform. I also deferred the reforms concerning those who are uninsured,not I will address that part of the problem.
There have been several numbers tossed around and I feel that we must first determine just how many people we are talking about, after all, if we don't define the problem how can we fix it?
The usual number is 65 mil, (no matter because any number is only an estimate). Let's discuss a large chunk of these,the illegal immigrants. My thought is that we owe these people nothing,especially health care that we pay with our taxes. By removing this group we are now talking about a more manageable number. There is another large segment of the uninsured population, the young who opt not to have coverage. They work under the theory that they need a doctor only a few times, therefore, they self insure. A government plan would force these people to buy insurance, why? Shouldn't these young people have the right to choose how they spend their money? After all,they knew how to earn the money, they must be intelligent enough to know how to spend it. Leave these people alone. Let the youth learn what is important in their own lives, this would serve to strengthen their life resolve.
The next group, mostly the very wealthy, choose to self insure. Again my thought is to leave them alone. The government wants to force them to get coverage, and even worse, the government wants the taxpayers to pay. Do we need to spend our tax dollars on insuring people like Bill Gates?
When you take out those who fall into the above groups you have a more manageable number. Most of these would want insurance so we should make it more affordable. If we were to follow the suggestions outlined in my previous blog. many in this group could afford coverage. For those who don't. I would create an assigned risk type of pool. This was used in many states to insurance high risk auto drivers, why not use it in the health care field? Insurance companies would be compelled to write some percentage of this pool, probably based on what they write on policies outside the pool. Cheaper yes, and the best part is that it lets us only pik up the tab for the truly needy. We would see this through higher premiums on policies written outside the pool.
As fr now the subject is still under consideration, these are ideas which I feel would help us all, after all we are the people who pay taxes for any plan. Stay tuned.
Pray for the service people.
GOD Bless
In the last blog I forwarded some ideas for health care reform. I also deferred the reforms concerning those who are uninsured,not I will address that part of the problem.
There have been several numbers tossed around and I feel that we must first determine just how many people we are talking about, after all, if we don't define the problem how can we fix it?
The usual number is 65 mil, (no matter because any number is only an estimate). Let's discuss a large chunk of these,the illegal immigrants. My thought is that we owe these people nothing,especially health care that we pay with our taxes. By removing this group we are now talking about a more manageable number. There is another large segment of the uninsured population, the young who opt not to have coverage. They work under the theory that they need a doctor only a few times, therefore, they self insure. A government plan would force these people to buy insurance, why? Shouldn't these young people have the right to choose how they spend their money? After all,they knew how to earn the money, they must be intelligent enough to know how to spend it. Leave these people alone. Let the youth learn what is important in their own lives, this would serve to strengthen their life resolve.
The next group, mostly the very wealthy, choose to self insure. Again my thought is to leave them alone. The government wants to force them to get coverage, and even worse, the government wants the taxpayers to pay. Do we need to spend our tax dollars on insuring people like Bill Gates?
When you take out those who fall into the above groups you have a more manageable number. Most of these would want insurance so we should make it more affordable. If we were to follow the suggestions outlined in my previous blog. many in this group could afford coverage. For those who don't. I would create an assigned risk type of pool. This was used in many states to insurance high risk auto drivers, why not use it in the health care field? Insurance companies would be compelled to write some percentage of this pool, probably based on what they write on policies outside the pool. Cheaper yes, and the best part is that it lets us only pik up the tab for the truly needy. We would see this through higher premiums on policies written outside the pool.
As fr now the subject is still under consideration, these are ideas which I feel would help us all, after all we are the people who pay taxes for any plan. Stay tuned.
Pray for the service people.
GOD Bless
Monday, September 7, 2009
Government healthcare
Hi
There is a lot of discussion going on concerning government health care, now I am adding my opinion.
To really understand this situation we must look at the entire health care situation. We find it divided into segments with two glaring areas ripe for improvement. The first is the many uninsured and the second is the problems of cos and transferability of the insurance already in place. Lets address them separately.
For the easier problem involving cost and transferability there is an easy solution. Currently insurance companies are not allowed to write health care insurance across state lines. When you consider that we allow auto and life insurance companies to cross state lines, doesn't it make sense to allow health care companies to have the same opportunities. The lobbyists for the AARP and other groups that get monies from insurers claim that this will led to higher costs. Just the opposite is true. If an insurer in Pennsylvania is cheaper than one in Washington,DC, you can solve the problem by allowing the carrier in Pennsylvania to write insurance for DC Contrary to what these lobbyists say the insurance companies that charge lower premiums would not increase premiums, but, in order to keep customers, they would be forced to keep premiums low. Raising premiums only keeps new customers from changing their coverage. The higher priced coverage is the one that would lose and in order to keep their existing customers and attract new ones, those insurance carriers would have to lower their premiums. Now just multiply this scenario by the carriers in all states and you can see how the market place supply and demand principle would have a serious effect on lowering premiums.
The second problem facing those who have adequate coverage is the thing known as "preexisting conditions". This is usually one of the problems when an insured moves across state lines and must get new coverage. If we correct the requirement that only in state residents can be covered, we basically solve this problem. Why are politicians so reluctant to use common sense and pass this type of legislation? The American people deserve better from our elected leaders.
Another area of correction is the modification of tort reform legislation. Doctors and health care provider pay an enormous amount of money for malpractice insurance. Actually, we pay it through higher doctor fees. If we were to adopt some form of a cap on damages, especially punitive damages, we could lower costs. Again this is a problem for politicians because they serve special interests, namely groups like trial lawyers. Why don't the politicians look out for the people? I repeat, we deservebetter.
Still another area of correction that can be made is in the advertising of prescription medications. We've seen them all over our TV sets. They always add a caution to talk to your doctor. Great, but if my doctor needs me to tell him what prescription medicine is good for my condition, I want another doctor. The cost of these TV ads is just added to the cost of the medicine, wouldn't you rather have that cost transferred to research where new and better medication could be developed. I know I would.
In my nest writing I will address the question of the uninsured, bear with me and stay tuned.
Pray for our brave service people.
GOD Bless
There is a lot of discussion going on concerning government health care, now I am adding my opinion.
To really understand this situation we must look at the entire health care situation. We find it divided into segments with two glaring areas ripe for improvement. The first is the many uninsured and the second is the problems of cos and transferability of the insurance already in place. Lets address them separately.
For the easier problem involving cost and transferability there is an easy solution. Currently insurance companies are not allowed to write health care insurance across state lines. When you consider that we allow auto and life insurance companies to cross state lines, doesn't it make sense to allow health care companies to have the same opportunities. The lobbyists for the AARP and other groups that get monies from insurers claim that this will led to higher costs. Just the opposite is true. If an insurer in Pennsylvania is cheaper than one in Washington,DC, you can solve the problem by allowing the carrier in Pennsylvania to write insurance for DC Contrary to what these lobbyists say the insurance companies that charge lower premiums would not increase premiums, but, in order to keep customers, they would be forced to keep premiums low. Raising premiums only keeps new customers from changing their coverage. The higher priced coverage is the one that would lose and in order to keep their existing customers and attract new ones, those insurance carriers would have to lower their premiums. Now just multiply this scenario by the carriers in all states and you can see how the market place supply and demand principle would have a serious effect on lowering premiums.
The second problem facing those who have adequate coverage is the thing known as "preexisting conditions". This is usually one of the problems when an insured moves across state lines and must get new coverage. If we correct the requirement that only in state residents can be covered, we basically solve this problem. Why are politicians so reluctant to use common sense and pass this type of legislation? The American people deserve better from our elected leaders.
Another area of correction is the modification of tort reform legislation. Doctors and health care provider pay an enormous amount of money for malpractice insurance. Actually, we pay it through higher doctor fees. If we were to adopt some form of a cap on damages, especially punitive damages, we could lower costs. Again this is a problem for politicians because they serve special interests, namely groups like trial lawyers. Why don't the politicians look out for the people? I repeat, we deservebetter.
Still another area of correction that can be made is in the advertising of prescription medications. We've seen them all over our TV sets. They always add a caution to talk to your doctor. Great, but if my doctor needs me to tell him what prescription medicine is good for my condition, I want another doctor. The cost of these TV ads is just added to the cost of the medicine, wouldn't you rather have that cost transferred to research where new and better medication could be developed. I know I would.
In my nest writing I will address the question of the uninsured, bear with me and stay tuned.
Pray for our brave service people.
GOD Bless
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Health care fiasco
Hi
I was driving home when I heard a news report concerning the late Senator Kennedy. I said to my wife,, "How long before the democrats make a move to use his death as a means of getting a health care bill passed?" It didn't take long.
Can you believe the audacity of these characters? The body isn't cold yet and they are already calling for this sham of a reform bill to be rushed through and signed. Some of these characters really have thick skins, but we knew that. Senator Dodd, D-CT, is out front leading the charge. I guess we can expect this kind of behavior from him given what he has done so far in politics. Oh, to have statesmen elected instead of two bit politicians.
I deliberately did not comment on the Kennedy death because I feel we should have a temporary period of mourning and respect for the family, the public debate can wait for a few days.
There will be some further comments concerning the health care reform debate, stay tuned.
Meanwhile,pray for our brave service people and include a prayer for Ted Kennedy, let GOD judge him now.
GOD Bless
I was driving home when I heard a news report concerning the late Senator Kennedy. I said to my wife,, "How long before the democrats make a move to use his death as a means of getting a health care bill passed?" It didn't take long.
Can you believe the audacity of these characters? The body isn't cold yet and they are already calling for this sham of a reform bill to be rushed through and signed. Some of these characters really have thick skins, but we knew that. Senator Dodd, D-CT, is out front leading the charge. I guess we can expect this kind of behavior from him given what he has done so far in politics. Oh, to have statesmen elected instead of two bit politicians.
I deliberately did not comment on the Kennedy death because I feel we should have a temporary period of mourning and respect for the family, the public debate can wait for a few days.
There will be some further comments concerning the health care reform debate, stay tuned.
Meanwhile,pray for our brave service people and include a prayer for Ted Kennedy, let GOD judge him now.
GOD Bless
Monday, August 24, 2009
Health Care & the democratic party line
Hi
If you have been following my writing you are aware that I am not particularly fond of the proposed health care options that the democratic party has advanced. I especially dislike the idea that you will have a single payer system. The democrats, elected ones and pundits would have you believe that it is the republicans who re holding up any reform. Let's look into the facts.
Despite what democrats say they have enough votes in both houses to pass any reform they wanted. Republicans cannot stop them. Yesterday on Fox News I heard Juan Williams, a pundit that I admire, say some things that gave me reason to pause. He stated the democratic party line, republicans are negative and should come on board for reform. This falls short in logic, the democrats don't need the republican support. Point in case, they passed the stimulus and the pork barrel legislation in the finance bill without republican support. I can conclude that there is only one explanation, deep in their hearts the democrats sense that the health care reform bill will be a failure, and they are trying a CYA move so they can foist off some blame on republicans when the bill fails. I hope for the sake of us taxpayers the republicans do not fall for this move.
The second point the democrats are making is the use of so called co-operatives. Would any democrat please tell me where the difference is between a government controlled co-op and a government agency. The bureaucrats would dictate price, extent of coverage, where and how much coverage is to be given and the rest of the garbage associated with the one party payer. We pay taxes for these people's salary and we will pay for any costs associated with any change, don't we deserve better? I know I think so. Please write to your cngressmn and tell him how youfeel.
Continue to pry for the servce people.
GOD Bless
If you have been following my writing you are aware that I am not particularly fond of the proposed health care options that the democratic party has advanced. I especially dislike the idea that you will have a single payer system. The democrats, elected ones and pundits would have you believe that it is the republicans who re holding up any reform. Let's look into the facts.
Despite what democrats say they have enough votes in both houses to pass any reform they wanted. Republicans cannot stop them. Yesterday on Fox News I heard Juan Williams, a pundit that I admire, say some things that gave me reason to pause. He stated the democratic party line, republicans are negative and should come on board for reform. This falls short in logic, the democrats don't need the republican support. Point in case, they passed the stimulus and the pork barrel legislation in the finance bill without republican support. I can conclude that there is only one explanation, deep in their hearts the democrats sense that the health care reform bill will be a failure, and they are trying a CYA move so they can foist off some blame on republicans when the bill fails. I hope for the sake of us taxpayers the republicans do not fall for this move.
The second point the democrats are making is the use of so called co-operatives. Would any democrat please tell me where the difference is between a government controlled co-op and a government agency. The bureaucrats would dictate price, extent of coverage, where and how much coverage is to be given and the rest of the garbage associated with the one party payer. We pay taxes for these people's salary and we will pay for any costs associated with any change, don't we deserve better? I know I think so. Please write to your cngressmn and tell him how youfeel.
Continue to pry for the servce people.
GOD Bless
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Health care - who is lying
Hi
This is being written to try to crystallize the health care debate in my own mind. Every body is throwing around sound bites and bits about how the other side is "stretching the truth". Now its my turn, only I will try to tell what I perceive as truth.
RATIONING:
My question is, How can we add 25 million (estimated) new patients without any visible means of increasing health care providers? The counter is that we already treat these people in emergency rooms, hence no need to increase doctors, just move them around. The logic of this point of view escapes me, it does not address the fact that if "free" medical care is provided to those who are not now covered, these people will see doctors more often and many times when there is no emergency. By logic this new Obamacare will cause a shortage of medical providers. The answer down the road will be rationing.
COST:
Is there any one who believes any government estimate of future costs? If there is, let's sell that person the Brooklyn Bridge. Buying the Brooklyn Bridge makes about as much sense as trusting the government to estimate future costs. The only conceivable way to curb costs, rationing health care (see above), increasing taxes, cutting down on reimbursement to providers, and setting up a panel to deny care to the elderly are all self defeating. Is any of these methods what we really need or want? I say no. For example just look at the other government run businesses, Congressional cafeterias (they switched from congressional control to privatization), Amtrak, a social security system which is being bankrupt by the very same congress and president who are trying to sell us on Obamacare, medicare, the list goes on.
VOCAL OPPOSITION:
It seems to me to be basic to our Constitutional rights that we, the American people exercise our RIGHT to Free Speech. The arrogant politicians feel they are elite and do not have to listen. Boys and gals, the party is over, the giant (American people) is awake and is speaking. Shouldn't you politicians listen, and not try to mock us? Boy when are these politicians going to get the message, we are angry.
I will try to keep up on the medical care takover in future writings. Stay tuned.
Now I ask that you pray for our service people.
GOD Bless
This is being written to try to crystallize the health care debate in my own mind. Every body is throwing around sound bites and bits about how the other side is "stretching the truth". Now its my turn, only I will try to tell what I perceive as truth.
RATIONING:
My question is, How can we add 25 million (estimated) new patients without any visible means of increasing health care providers? The counter is that we already treat these people in emergency rooms, hence no need to increase doctors, just move them around. The logic of this point of view escapes me, it does not address the fact that if "free" medical care is provided to those who are not now covered, these people will see doctors more often and many times when there is no emergency. By logic this new Obamacare will cause a shortage of medical providers. The answer down the road will be rationing.
COST:
Is there any one who believes any government estimate of future costs? If there is, let's sell that person the Brooklyn Bridge. Buying the Brooklyn Bridge makes about as much sense as trusting the government to estimate future costs. The only conceivable way to curb costs, rationing health care (see above), increasing taxes, cutting down on reimbursement to providers, and setting up a panel to deny care to the elderly are all self defeating. Is any of these methods what we really need or want? I say no. For example just look at the other government run businesses, Congressional cafeterias (they switched from congressional control to privatization), Amtrak, a social security system which is being bankrupt by the very same congress and president who are trying to sell us on Obamacare, medicare, the list goes on.
VOCAL OPPOSITION:
It seems to me to be basic to our Constitutional rights that we, the American people exercise our RIGHT to Free Speech. The arrogant politicians feel they are elite and do not have to listen. Boys and gals, the party is over, the giant (American people) is awake and is speaking. Shouldn't you politicians listen, and not try to mock us? Boy when are these politicians going to get the message, we are angry.
I will try to keep up on the medical care takover in future writings. Stay tuned.
Now I ask that you pray for our service people.
GOD Bless
Monday, August 17, 2009
Health care contiinued
Hi
Today I will address some additional thoughts concerning the pending legislation about government health care reform. It seems to me that we have conceded the fact that our free market system has caved under to a government plan. We can only limit the government plan to one which regulates health care, but does not dictate the care. That must be between doctor and patient. If they choose to include family it is their option,and it never should be mandated, especially by the government (bureaucrats). Having said that I think that the system would be best served by some change.
Previous blogs have spelled out some reforms, but these should be added.
A cap or some other control on tort legislation must be written into the law. It must NOT be a government supervised cap but one which takes into account the free market, the actual harm done to the patient, the degree of culpability on the part of the medical provider. One way this can be done is by use of a similar panel or board as we now have in most states to govern Workers Compensation (WC). WC panels are legally empowered to give damages in lieu of a negligence tort suit. Both parties present their evidence and the board makes a decision based on the evidence. The reason it works is that the board members are not influenced by the fact that an insurer is actually paying most claims. The emotional effect of a jury system is eliminated. Medical providers have an option, provide WC insurance coverage offered by a licensed entity, or pay out of pocket. The vast majority (if not all) would opt for the insurance option. This would offer an incentive for providers to be effective and do good work or else they face an exorbitant cost for insurance. The providers who do better work will find that the premiums they pay decreases. The providers who do poorly will either subsidize the others or improve, it is a matter of economics and business sense.
It is repetitive but the other aspect of health care reform include (but not limited to) all federal employees from the president to the park ranger must be covered by the same plan as the taxpayers. It is my understanding that Sen T Kennedy, D-MA, has written an amendment that would exclude congress from the new changes when made. Real leadership and a lot of care for the poor and the people of the country.
Private insurers must be allowed to cross state lines and write insurance for out of state residents. Yesterday on Fox Cable News there was a spokesman (lobbyist) for the AARP, his objection was that allowing insurers to cross state lines would serve to drive up the price of the lesser expensive carriers. Either this man has been in DC too long or he has poor human nature skills. The lower cost carrier would attract the people and would not raise prices to match the prices that the higher carriers charge. To do so would only drive the customers back to the other carriers. The mission of insurance companies is to sell insurance, not drive customers away. True unsubsidized competition would do this and would be achieved.
Another option is the use of co-ops or mutual companies. These are policy holders owned and the profit factor is therefore greatly reduced. I see this as a win-win situation. As an added feature,a mutual company would serve to diminish the lower priced carriers from raising prices. It would be economic suicide.
Let's pray our elected politicians make these changes, we need them.
Pray for the service people.
GOD Bless
Today I will address some additional thoughts concerning the pending legislation about government health care reform. It seems to me that we have conceded the fact that our free market system has caved under to a government plan. We can only limit the government plan to one which regulates health care, but does not dictate the care. That must be between doctor and patient. If they choose to include family it is their option,and it never should be mandated, especially by the government (bureaucrats). Having said that I think that the system would be best served by some change.
Previous blogs have spelled out some reforms, but these should be added.
A cap or some other control on tort legislation must be written into the law. It must NOT be a government supervised cap but one which takes into account the free market, the actual harm done to the patient, the degree of culpability on the part of the medical provider. One way this can be done is by use of a similar panel or board as we now have in most states to govern Workers Compensation (WC). WC panels are legally empowered to give damages in lieu of a negligence tort suit. Both parties present their evidence and the board makes a decision based on the evidence. The reason it works is that the board members are not influenced by the fact that an insurer is actually paying most claims. The emotional effect of a jury system is eliminated. Medical providers have an option, provide WC insurance coverage offered by a licensed entity, or pay out of pocket. The vast majority (if not all) would opt for the insurance option. This would offer an incentive for providers to be effective and do good work or else they face an exorbitant cost for insurance. The providers who do better work will find that the premiums they pay decreases. The providers who do poorly will either subsidize the others or improve, it is a matter of economics and business sense.
It is repetitive but the other aspect of health care reform include (but not limited to) all federal employees from the president to the park ranger must be covered by the same plan as the taxpayers. It is my understanding that Sen T Kennedy, D-MA, has written an amendment that would exclude congress from the new changes when made. Real leadership and a lot of care for the poor and the people of the country.
Private insurers must be allowed to cross state lines and write insurance for out of state residents. Yesterday on Fox Cable News there was a spokesman (lobbyist) for the AARP, his objection was that allowing insurers to cross state lines would serve to drive up the price of the lesser expensive carriers. Either this man has been in DC too long or he has poor human nature skills. The lower cost carrier would attract the people and would not raise prices to match the prices that the higher carriers charge. To do so would only drive the customers back to the other carriers. The mission of insurance companies is to sell insurance, not drive customers away. True unsubsidized competition would do this and would be achieved.
Another option is the use of co-ops or mutual companies. These are policy holders owned and the profit factor is therefore greatly reduced. I see this as a win-win situation. As an added feature,a mutual company would serve to diminish the lower priced carriers from raising prices. It would be economic suicide.
Let's pray our elected politicians make these changes, we need them.
Pray for the service people.
GOD Bless
Thursday, August 13, 2009
The cure for health care
Hi
As I write, a strong debate is going on in the nation, how to fix health care. Previously I mentioned I would have some possible solutions, well, here they are.
The president keeps talking about how his government subsidized system would mean competition. The fallacy of that argument is that it would do the exact opposite. How can anybody compete with a government subsidized company or agency? The truth is that it would not be done because to do so would be a blueprint for failure. The president has ulterior motives, to drive all into government controlled health care. If Obama really wants to introduce competition into the equation, there is a simple way, without government control. Presently health care insurers cannot operate across state lines, why not just lift this ban? Insurers would compete against one another and the more efficient and better run carriers would survive. The free market place wold take care of that. Insurers could operate at a lower cost and build these cost savings into their price structure.
Another method would be to allow more mutual companies to write health care insurance policies. The profit motive is greatly diminished because the policy holders own the company and it would be in their best interest to pay a lower premium. Every body wins.
It seems to me that the real reason behind the liberal push for health car reform is to take over control by the government, not to look out for the people. This speaks volumes to the leadership of both the president and the congress. We need REAL CHANGE.
The president has "lied" about who supports his plan, he has used a child, a daughter of one of his minions, to ask a prearranged question at a town hall meeting. Is this leadership? I say no.
Keep writing and letting your representatives now where you stand.
Continue to pray for the armed services.
GO Bless
As I write, a strong debate is going on in the nation, how to fix health care. Previously I mentioned I would have some possible solutions, well, here they are.
The president keeps talking about how his government subsidized system would mean competition. The fallacy of that argument is that it would do the exact opposite. How can anybody compete with a government subsidized company or agency? The truth is that it would not be done because to do so would be a blueprint for failure. The president has ulterior motives, to drive all into government controlled health care. If Obama really wants to introduce competition into the equation, there is a simple way, without government control. Presently health care insurers cannot operate across state lines, why not just lift this ban? Insurers would compete against one another and the more efficient and better run carriers would survive. The free market place wold take care of that. Insurers could operate at a lower cost and build these cost savings into their price structure.
Another method would be to allow more mutual companies to write health care insurance policies. The profit motive is greatly diminished because the policy holders own the company and it would be in their best interest to pay a lower premium. Every body wins.
It seems to me that the real reason behind the liberal push for health car reform is to take over control by the government, not to look out for the people. This speaks volumes to the leadership of both the president and the congress. We need REAL CHANGE.
The president has "lied" about who supports his plan, he has used a child, a daughter of one of his minions, to ask a prearranged question at a town hall meeting. Is this leadership? I say no.
Keep writing and letting your representatives now where you stand.
Continue to pray for the armed services.
GO Bless
Monday, August 10, 2009
We are finally getting through
Hi
Well for once it is starting to look as if the politicians in Washington are getting the picture. I am encouraged by news reports about some democrats who have expressed points of view contrary to the "party talking points".
One house member actually voiced concern about the tea parties/town hall meetings and said he believes that they are not the fully staged affairs the democratic party would have you believe. The voice of the people is starting to get through.
On another front a democratic senator has stated that he would possibly favor a health care bill without the one payer inclusion. I only hope that this is the start of the congress finally listening to the wants of the people. Let's hope so.
The people have shown that they want to be heard and now we re getting results. Keep your eected representatives aware of how you feel.
Please pray for our service people.
GOD Bless
Well for once it is starting to look as if the politicians in Washington are getting the picture. I am encouraged by news reports about some democrats who have expressed points of view contrary to the "party talking points".
One house member actually voiced concern about the tea parties/town hall meetings and said he believes that they are not the fully staged affairs the democratic party would have you believe. The voice of the people is starting to get through.
On another front a democratic senator has stated that he would possibly favor a health care bill without the one payer inclusion. I only hope that this is the start of the congress finally listening to the wants of the people. Let's hope so.
The people have shown that they want to be heard and now we re getting results. Keep your eected representatives aware of how you feel.
Please pray for our service people.
GOD Bless
Friday, August 7, 2009
Open letter about health care
Hi
Before I go any further let me make one point clear, I consider myself a conservative and I do not live in any district represented by a congress person who favors the health care reform bill.
This letter is addressed to people like Congressman Doggett of Texas, Senator Spector of Pennsylvania and all others who espouse the so called health care reform.
It is in the form of a series of questions:
The proposed health care reform will dictate what kind of insurance my employer will cover me with, (please don't try to tell me there is choice, a government subsidized agency will offer lower premium insurance, so who is going to opt for the higher cost?) my question is simply this - If you dictate what my employer purchases for me, why don't you set an example, since the American public owns the government, let us choose your health plan?
The second question is about the latest talking points coming from Washington. Why are you trying to paint the people attending tea parties and town hall meetings as crazed, fanatic right wing locos? Did you say that about the civil rights marchers and protesters, did you say that about the illegal immigrants who had that march for illegal rights, did you say that about the environment activists when they demonstrated? I didn't hear any complaint from liberals, you lost your right to complain. What you are doing amounts to hypocrisy. We deserve better than that.
The last point I will make in this blog is one which has been said by many people, If government health care is so good, why don't you vote to cover congress and demonstrate just how good it is? Put your vote where your mouth is.
I only hope that some of you read this and reconsider your vote for this monstrosity.
Now please pray for our brave service people who serve so that we may have town halls.
GOD Bless
Before I go any further let me make one point clear, I consider myself a conservative and I do not live in any district represented by a congress person who favors the health care reform bill.
This letter is addressed to people like Congressman Doggett of Texas, Senator Spector of Pennsylvania and all others who espouse the so called health care reform.
It is in the form of a series of questions:
The proposed health care reform will dictate what kind of insurance my employer will cover me with, (please don't try to tell me there is choice, a government subsidized agency will offer lower premium insurance, so who is going to opt for the higher cost?) my question is simply this - If you dictate what my employer purchases for me, why don't you set an example, since the American public owns the government, let us choose your health plan?
The second question is about the latest talking points coming from Washington. Why are you trying to paint the people attending tea parties and town hall meetings as crazed, fanatic right wing locos? Did you say that about the civil rights marchers and protesters, did you say that about the illegal immigrants who had that march for illegal rights, did you say that about the environment activists when they demonstrated? I didn't hear any complaint from liberals, you lost your right to complain. What you are doing amounts to hypocrisy. We deserve better than that.
The last point I will make in this blog is one which has been said by many people, If government health care is so good, why don't you vote to cover congress and demonstrate just how good it is? Put your vote where your mouth is.
I only hope that some of you read this and reconsider your vote for this monstrosity.
Now please pray for our brave service people who serve so that we may have town halls.
GOD Bless
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Government health care
Hi
The battle wages on. On one side you have the politicians (mostly democrats) claiming that the protesters at town meetings are staged and placed to disrupt. (When the big orchestras played in Europe they called these people "clacks"). This is what the Democratic Party is trying to do with their talking points.
On the other side the people and certain media people are saying that it is the voice of the people. The problem is who is correct.
A look at the facts will reveal certain true facts. At least one town meeting was held by a Republican, would the Republican National Committee disrupt their own meeting? Hardly. The shortsighted view held by the politicians is that because it is orchestrated they need not pay attention. Let them feel this way, it's a one way ticket to losing an election. Boys and gals, this is the real thing. The American people are fed up with the elitism of the elected officials. We want representatives who listen, not dictate. Give us the courtesy of at least reading and digesting the bill before you try to sell it. Better yet, put your health care where your mouth is. This entire problem can be solved by simply making the proposed bill a law and cover only the federal employees including congress, the president and the cabinet. After all, if it is good for us it should be good for you. One Connecticut congressman (a democrat) has already done so. A one year trial period would determine if the plan does what it is supposed to do. I repeat, put your health care where your mouth is. That would be leadership.
My advise is to keep protesting until the insiders get it, freedom of speech is still in our Constitution. Keep up the work of letting your representative now your true feelings.
Continue to pray for our brave military personnel.
GOD Bless
The battle wages on. On one side you have the politicians (mostly democrats) claiming that the protesters at town meetings are staged and placed to disrupt. (When the big orchestras played in Europe they called these people "clacks"). This is what the Democratic Party is trying to do with their talking points.
On the other side the people and certain media people are saying that it is the voice of the people. The problem is who is correct.
A look at the facts will reveal certain true facts. At least one town meeting was held by a Republican, would the Republican National Committee disrupt their own meeting? Hardly. The shortsighted view held by the politicians is that because it is orchestrated they need not pay attention. Let them feel this way, it's a one way ticket to losing an election. Boys and gals, this is the real thing. The American people are fed up with the elitism of the elected officials. We want representatives who listen, not dictate. Give us the courtesy of at least reading and digesting the bill before you try to sell it. Better yet, put your health care where your mouth is. This entire problem can be solved by simply making the proposed bill a law and cover only the federal employees including congress, the president and the cabinet. After all, if it is good for us it should be good for you. One Connecticut congressman (a democrat) has already done so. A one year trial period would determine if the plan does what it is supposed to do. I repeat, put your health care where your mouth is. That would be leadership.
My advise is to keep protesting until the insiders get it, freedom of speech is still in our Constitution. Keep up the work of letting your representative now your true feelings.
Continue to pray for our brave military personnel.
GOD Bless
Monday, July 20, 2009
The Obama health care and its relationship to illegal aliens
Hi
This is about the effect of the Obama health care bill going through congress now. The bill would give free (don't you believe it, you and I pay for it through taxes) health care. I just want to explain how I see the end result of this type of legislation. First the illegals come into this country against our laws, then we don't prosecute or even deport them. Instead we give them free education, clinic care and at the same time we exempt them from taxes. We bend over backwards to accommodate these ILLEGAL aliens by giving them these free services and if they do not know how to access these perks, we explain how in a foreign language. Is this really Christian care as we were taught?
The answer is simple, legislate a good, fair and honest piece of law that benefits all. We would give these illegals dignity, not the feeling of a dependent class of people. It would require a price to be paid, honesty and hard work. There are many ideas out there which would achieve the goal of dignity for the illegal aliens, please ask congress to pass legislation which would achieve the goal of honesty.
I will continue towrite about what Ifeel should be done, please stay tuned.
Pray forour brave service people.
GOD Bless
This is about the effect of the Obama health care bill going through congress now. The bill would give free (don't you believe it, you and I pay for it through taxes) health care. I just want to explain how I see the end result of this type of legislation. First the illegals come into this country against our laws, then we don't prosecute or even deport them. Instead we give them free education, clinic care and at the same time we exempt them from taxes. We bend over backwards to accommodate these ILLEGAL aliens by giving them these free services and if they do not know how to access these perks, we explain how in a foreign language. Is this really Christian care as we were taught?
The answer is simple, legislate a good, fair and honest piece of law that benefits all. We would give these illegals dignity, not the feeling of a dependent class of people. It would require a price to be paid, honesty and hard work. There are many ideas out there which would achieve the goal of dignity for the illegal aliens, please ask congress to pass legislation which would achieve the goal of honesty.
I will continue towrite about what Ifeel should be done, please stay tuned.
Pray forour brave service people.
GOD Bless
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
