Scary October for voters

Four more years of Obama? Now that’s SCARY! Happy Halloween 2012.

The real problem with the healthcare system

If Congress is really interested in solving the healthcare crisis in this country they would stopped medical “scalping”. Recently on NBC Nightly News there was a report on third party companies that set themselves up as middlemen in the medical supplies game. They showed a cancer drug that the manufacturer charges $12.00 a vial for, that had been marked up by medical scalpers to over $900.00.

This is one of the many reasons that healthcare is so expensive in this country. There apparently are no regulations preventing this type of profiteering. Hospitals and other service providers routinely double-(or even triple)bill for services received. Or they charge for services that were not rendered. This is especially true in the cases of people who have insurance, Medicare or Medicaid. These service providers feel that if someone else is paying then no harm no foul. Most people with insurance don’t read the itemized bill to insure that they are being charged properly. They have insurance so the big companies will foot the bill. This of course drives up premiums for the rest of their customers.

When Congress passed Obamacare they did little if anything to stop these insane and immoral practices. Instead they simply tried to force everyone to drop their drawers and take it, spreading the same costs around. The problem with this mentality is that because it does nothing to address the underlying one of the causes of spiraling healthcare costs, medical scalping, it will only exacerbate the situation. Instead they passed a bill that will most likely be found unconstitutional. However we have laws against scalping and price gouging and they have NOT been found to be unconstitutional.

This lack of intelligence in lawmaking shows that the healthcare bill was really about vote buying and control of the American public. Both major parties receive campaign contributions from some of the companies and they certainly are not going to endanger their revenue streams by actually making good law.

We need a new Congress that’s smart enough and morally strong enough to say no, and yes when absolutely necessary.

Economy vs. defense

Events over the last few days have shown that the worst of the financial crisis has already occurred: fifty-two percent of Americans elected Barack Obama president. It is a cliché that in tough economic times people vote for Democrats, but it is what it is. The opposite cliché is that when the issue is national security, the people usually vote for Republicans. In this year’s election, people only saw the economic trouble and not the threat from Islamic terrorists and rogue nations. After all, 9/11 was seven years ago. That kind of thing can’t happen again, right? Wrong.

As I am writing this, the Indian people are picking up the pieces from a major coordinated attack in the city of Mumbai. There are hostages and over one hundred people are dead and hundreds are injured. Of course, Islamic terrorists have claimed responsibility. Witnesses claim that some of the terrorists were demanding American and British tourists.

Closer to home intelligence officials claim that they have credible evidence that terrorists are targeting New York City subways for Thanksgiving. The believed goal is to close down Amtrak’s Northeast corridor. This would shut down holiday traffic, as well as Black Friday traffic between Boston and Washington, D.C.

As I said earlier the problem is that the Americans’ that voted for Obama were only concerned with the economy. They apparently forgot the harm that September 11 caused to our economy. And there are worse threats than airplanes slamming into buildings.

Many on the Left have argued that they are just as strong on national defense as Republicans. Yet Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the chairperson of the House Financial Services Committee wants to downsize the military. In addition, Vice President-elect Joe Biden told backers during the campaign that he believed that there would be a major terrorist attack within six months of Obama’s inauguration, “to test” the new president. He added that then-candidate Obama might do some things in response to such an attack that people might not understand. However, he pleaded with people to be patient with him. This statement has always raised the hackles on my neck. It’s not because I feel it confirms what Republicans said about Obama’s lack of experience. It’s because it sounds much more Orwellian than I care for.

We are about eight weeks from the inauguration of a man who has only three years of service on the national level. He did not sponsor any meaningful legislation during that time and mostly voted “present” during legislation. Somehow, he has become the “Chosen One” that will lead this country out of the wilderness that the Left have claimed for the last eight years that we have been wandering in. The Left claim that he has the practical understanding to appoint experienced people that can make up for any lack of experience in any given area. But in the end it will be Barack Obama that has to make the final decision. If the American people have any sense whatsoever they will remember that in 2012. Assuming that is, of course if some group hasn’t irradiated a major city or infected large numbers of people with some horrible plague. If this has happened then the only people that can be held ultimately responsible for such a tragedy will be Barack Obama and the people that voted for him.

What's in a name?

Fascist, communist and socialist. These are all familiar epithets that are used in political discourse. This has been especially true in this country over the past two decades, with the Right calling members of the Left communists or socialists and the Left calling Conservatives, fascist. And every now and then you'll hear the dreaded “n” word: Nazi. The fact of the matter is that these are all slightly different flavors of the same philosophies. The core of all of these political systems is the supremacy of the State.

During the early part of the 20th century governments and philosophers began to break away from the monarchies and empires of the past. They felt that royalty and oligarchs always put the people, the proletariat on the bottom of the totem pole. Socialists and others felt that the way to end this was to put the control of the government into the hands of the people. Something similar had been tried before with republican forms of government, first with the Greeks, and more recently with the United States of America and the French Republic.

However, the political philosophers saw what they felt was a flaw in the republican model. They knew that some would achieve more than others. Some would be richer, smarter, wiser. The socialists believed—and still believe—that all men are equal, not just in the basic rights of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, but also in every way. They believed that no one should have more than another. That regardless of whether a person works hard they should be given room, board and food, that everyone should drive a similar model of car or live in a similar house. Socialists believed that it was the duty of the State to provide an equalizer for all citizens. This is antithetical to what it means to live in a free society.

However, what Liberals don't tell you is that Nazism started in the same way. Nazi stood for the “National Socialist Workers Party” in Germany. The like all fascists believed in government control of private business. Now this differs slightly from socialism as it was envisioned by Marx, Engels and other founders of socialism in that they believed that the government should not only control businesses but that they should also own all businesses. But with modern socialism this has been modified more in keeping with fascist principles of private ownership, with heavy government regulation. Perhaps the fall of communism throughout the world has led to this modification of core principles. One need look no further than China, which has a communist government with much of the businesses being owned by private individuals. Both fascism and socialism believe that utilities and transportation, as well other services, should be owned and operated by the government.

In the final analysis, the names and terms that people use for the various political groups in this country are more similar than politicians and pundits—particularly Liberals—would have you believe. Instead of being an accurate description of the opposing side, they are simply different names than the standard “Republican” and “Democrat”. The Left uses “fascist” and “Nazi” against those on the Right, even though those terms have very little difference in meaning from Left-oriented “socialist”. While the Right uses the “socialist” tag for the Left even though there are elements to the neo-conservative movement that are firmly entrenched in socialist beliefs.

So, what is in a name?

Hey mom, I'm on TV

Well will wonders never cease? I actually made onto the CNN/YouTube Republican presidential debate. I have spent the day taling to reporters believe it not.

Here is a link to an article about it in the Birmingham News.