So You Want to Know What I Think About the Health Care Bill

I have been in mourning for the last few weeks in preparation for this day. Why? because I knew begging you to call and write your congressmen would do no good. Why? because if you have democratic congressmen most of them had no intention of listening to you unless you were for the health care bill. Though if I saw polls correctly only a slight majority of Americans are vehemently opposed to this bill.

Why?

Because over time we've become a society that slowly allows the government to take over our lives in the name of providing for us or in the name of safety, and after a little while we become used to and dependent upon those provisions and so we let them keep taking more and more of our tax dollars as long as they keep providing for our needs.

This is why I'm in mourning. I no longer believe that a majority of Americans care about liberty and freedom. I believe freedom loving Americans are in the minority and because of how our system is set up, we won't find actual representation in Washington unless we all move into the same districts and can elect our own representatives.

Don't tell me the Republicans are going to step up and represent us, because where were they on health care when they held the house and the senate in the 90's? They could have introduced and passed legislation to increase competition across state lines for health insurance and introduced legislation prohibits denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions. Then they could have put the parameters around pre-existing conditions that they could be subject to higher premiums or patient portions as negotiated between the patient and the insurance companies. But the republicans did nothing when they had the chance so don't tell me they are going to suddenly step up and start representing freedom loving Americans. Hannity and Limbaugh can sell it if they want, but I'm not buying. Running on repealing the legislation in November seems disingenuous to me.

Nancy Pelosi made some comment after the Health Care Bill passed comparing it to Social Security and Medicare passing. While I disagree with her view of it being a good thing, she's right. Social Security and Medicare are bankrupting this country and Health Care will be the nail in the bankruptcy coffin. Next time you get a social security statement in the mail read it.

This is from my statement received in February of this year:

"In 2016 we will begin paying more in benefits than we collect in taxes. Without changes, by 2037 the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted* and there will be enough money to pay only about 76 cents for each dollar of scheduled benefits...."

What do you think is going to happen with health care if the government is in charge of it? As it is, premiums will go up for everyone and/or insurance companies will go bankrupt until there's no one left but the government to bail us all out and that's how they'll get the 'universal coverage' they (and many Americans) want so badly.

Do I hope the Republican platform of repeal works in November? Sure I do, but here's how I would like to see it happen; All republicans that are up for re election get booted in their republican primary in favor of their opponent, whoever it is. Let's get rid of the old republican blood that is more than happy to spend our money on things like corporate bailouts and get fresh blood in there. If Sarah Palin were a real 'maverick' she'd be campaigning against John McCain instead of for him. Instead of campaigning for Rick Perry here in Texas for governor, she'd have campaigned for Debra Medina. Who is she you ask. Exactly my point. I will be voting for the libertarian candidate. Out with the old, in with the new.

Mandated Health Insureance a Tax Increase on the Middle Class?

You Decide

President Obama spoke with George Stephanopoulos. He claims the fact that George looked up the definition of tax in the dictionary is proof that's he's stretching that claim.

What do you think?



What I don't believe is that no matter how much he says it will be deficit neutral, there's no way in hell for that to happen. So I'd like to know how the president defines deficit neutral.

The Health Care Debate Continues

As time moves on, the health care debate does too. And all we see is the passionate debate for or against it, with no real discussion of what's broke about the system and what specific aspects that need fixing. It seems that there are 2 schools of thought; Government run health care or increase insurance competition without the government entering the business. HR 3400 is the Republican solution to health care which simply put, has tax credit provisions for maintaining health insurance, and allows for small businesses to pool into groups to purchase insurance for their employees at large group rates, and more blah blah blah about fraud waste and abuse and so on.

Let me tell you something, when you have a middle man administrating the care whether it's the government, in the case of Medicare and Medicaid, or the private sector in the case of all other insurance, rates are predetermined/negotiated. Which means the insurance company or the government tells the provider how much they will pay them for a certain service or procedure regardless of cost. A set up like this encourages fraud waste and abuse on so many levels. Meaning a doctor sees a patient and takes the opportunity to run all sorts of tests and procedures, ordinarily unnecessary but particularly if it is of no harm to the patient in order to increase their reimbursement. All they have to do is justify it medically, and when you are an expert in the game you can justify anything. This is especially easy to do and difficult to prove on older patients or if the patient makes any comment that could be construed to justify ordering this or that, which is another billable item.

What I am trying to say is that as long as there is a intermediary that must employ doctors, nurses and administrative personnel to administer payment on behalf of the patient, fraud waste and abuse will continue. Do you not find it fraudulent that insurance companies can deny coverage on the basis of a preexisting condition? But they can. This is the issue I think Americans can agree on and where we ought to start. That doesn't mean these patients might not have to pay higher premiums or higher deductibles or co-insurance.

Let's be honest, the fact that we pay premiums just means that insurance is just a payment plan for our routine medical care that is expected to even out over time. How else is an insurance company going to make money? For example. My parents were without health insurance when they first got married, by choice. They could have paid for it, but money was tight and it was a risk they chose to take since they are both very healthy. About a year later, dad went to the ER for kidney stones. They paid the discount they were offered to pay in full at the time of service. (All facilities offer this probably doctors too, some just make you ask for it) Calculated out, it cost about what insurance premiums and a deductible would have cost them for the time period of being uninsured. Had they put that money in savings every month, they would have had that money at the time of service instead of having to put it on a credit card.

I will say it again, if doctors and patients ban together to cut out the middle man, whether the government or insurance companies and take back personal responsibility for our health care, (dare I say live healthy lives?) I bet the cost of care would drop dramatically because doctors wouldn't have to employ staff or pay agencies to bill and collect from insurance companies. They could just collect the full amount up front at the time of service and I bet it would be lower than the "negotiated rates" they get from insurance companies or Medicare because Doctors and facilities would truly have to compete for your business. See my previous post about this issue on July 12. But I know 90% or you or more will likely disagree with me on this issue just like 90% of America is going to disagree with me about privatizing social security.

My point of this post is rather than each side insisting on their solution and their solution only, both of which only treats the symptoms, how about we think outside the box and treat the problem. At the very least, let's focus on 1 part of the system that we can all likely agree on (preexisting denial, or perhaps something else) and start there if the majority don't really want to treat the problem. As it is it just seems like a political power grab taking freedom from you and me the consumers.

President Obama Just Made My Last Point

Without intending to, President Obama just made the same point of my last post. Check it out.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090811/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_health_care_overhaul

"As long as they have a good product and the government plan has to sustain itself through premiums and other non-tax revenue, private insurers should be able to compete with the government plan, Obama said."

"'They do it all the time,'" he said. "'UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. ... It's the Post Office that's always having problems.'"

Seriously, do you want the government running your health care?

Something the Government Has a Monopoly on is a Risk???

This has been going on for awhile now but I haven't seen much discussion about it in the blogosphere. The GAO (Government Accountability Office) released their report a few weeks ago putting the U.S. Post Office on its "high-risk" list. What does this mean?

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09937sp.pdf

"There are serious and significant structural financial challenges currently facing the Postal Service...."

"Mail volume fell by 9.5 billion pieces in fiscal year 2008 to a total of 203 billion pieces and is projected to fall by 28 billion pieces in fiscal year 2009 to a total of 175 billion pieces. USPS expects mail volume and revenue to continue declining next year, and flat or continued volume decline over the next 5 years. USPS projects a net loss of $7 billion this fiscal year, with outstanding debt increasing to over $10 billion, and a cash shortfall of about $1 billion. USPS also expects that its projected losses will continue in fiscal year 2010."

I don't know about you all, but 90% of our mail is junk mail that we may or may not look at. Even if those sending it don't define it as junk mail. That doesn't count bills. Bills fall in the 10% category for us, though many are foregoing bills sent in the mail so they can be notified by email, or have it automatically drafted from their checking account once a month. We pay as many of our bills by credit card to rack up the points as we are allowed to pay that way and make one payment to our credit card a month. This reduces our personal use of the USPS as well as many others we know. Between automatic bank drafts and consolidation of bill payment, and contacting each other by email when ever we feel like it, demand for the USPS has dropped.

So the USPS, which if you didn't know is run by the federal government, can't find a way to remain profitable. Is that a surprise to anyone? So let me ask you this, are you willing to pay more taxes so that the USPS can remain a viable business in spite of decreased demand and so that all those postal workers can keep their jobs?

I leave you with this; do you want the same government who couldn't keep the USPS a viable business running your health care? Making decisions about your life?

A Move in the Right Direction for Health Care

Health care is the big item on the White House agenda as of late. It's the hot topic we knew they were going to tackle ASAP and if they get their way, increases the power and influence of government in all of our lives. In my March 31, 2009 post I discussed a need for health care to move away from the current insurance system. This would take providers developing and alternative to working with insurance companies in much the same way Walmart has lead the way for low prices on generic drugs.

On Tuesday July 7, I found this article on msnbc.com. Take some time to read it as it is a great example of where I think health care should go.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31777054/ns/health-health_care/

Basically it discusses a Seattle Clinic that was started by doctors tired of dealing with insurance companies. The attract new doctors by offering stock options. They offer care to patients from $39-$119 a month depending on age and level of insurance. No one is rejected for preexisting conditions. It also covers round the clock unrestricted care and 30-minute appointments

It doesn't cover catastrophic care, but the article reports that a 30 year old person could expect to pay $133 per month for such coverage. Obviously that goes up with age.

Here's the thing, my employer sponsored premium is $350/month. They cover that but I have to pay deductibles, co-insurance, and co-pays. Every time I go to the doctor I pay $20 or $30 for a specialist. Just think, if my employer didn't have to pay $350 for my insurance and instead gave me a $350 raise to go out and buy my own insurance, the least I could pay anywhere from $172 - $252 a month for coverage. This leaves me an extra $100/month plus any of my copays and coinsurance to cover any medication I might need on occasion, or lab work that I usually have only once a year, or anything else that might not be covered in the services offered by their clinic.

This is a link to the clinic's services that they offer.
http://www.qliance.com/services.html
And while they don't offer all specialty services, they do offer the basic preventative care and disease management which is what most people are needing. They are an example of how specialty care providers could get together and offer their specialty services refusing to work with insurance. Prenatal and maternity care come to mind. Although I know from a previous job that many doctors and providers already have reduced rates for those paying cash for these services. But people always think they need insurance. Radiology groups could refuse to deal with insurance which greatly reduces the staff they need to run the business office, which reduces the costs to you the patient. I'm sure if they put their heads together they could come up with even more ways to reduce your costs, and to encourage people to use their services every once in awhile to help reduce costs over time.

In reality, insurance is just a method of prepaying for services you will use. But we have become so accustomed to our employers providing us insurance or the government doing these things for us that we don't want the responsibility of saving that $200-$300/month just for health care expenses. Trust me people you don't want the government in charge of your health care. If you want health care bad enough, if it becomes a priority to you, you will pay for it. And if you will pay for it, a doctor will see you and treat you. It just hasn't become a priority for most people and they are spending the money elsewhere and are under the impression that they can't afford quality coverage. The reality is they don't want to pay for it so the next step is to demand the government find a solution so they don't have to pay for it. They are just going to take it out of your check each month before you get paid.

What do you all think of what this clinic is doing? They are saving money on the office staff it would required to bill insurance companies, that also have to employ people to process your claims. The providers and the insurance companies are in the business of making money so who do you think ultimately pays for these 2 sets of people to process your claims? They go into the cost of health care provided to you. You pay for it. Don't kid yourself and say your company pays for it or the government pays for it. You're salary is probably a lot less over time because your benefits fall into your compensation package, and you pay taxes to the government to pay for everyone on government insurance. Unless the government is supporting you.

Nationalized Health Care - Are You Sure That's What You Want?

The hot topic the last couple of weeks, other than the election in Iran, has been the push by the White House for rapid Health care reform. Rapid Reform. Am I the only one disturbed at the speed at which the federal government wants to move to develop reform? Did they not rush into the bailouts that many of us disapprove of? Do you really want them to rush into reform that essentially adds people to the Medicare and Medicaid rolls which are actually already in trouble and not actuarially sound? They are going to be behind soon and yet the grand idea is to increase their rolls? Does this sound logical to you? Because it certainly does not sound logical to me.

Not only are we bankrupting existing generations but future generations are in trouble. You want to encourage people to NOT have kids to add to the tax base, this is one way to do it.

http://cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/19/health.care/index.html

Have we become such a complacent nation that we don't care whatever the government does with our money and we don't care how much of our money they take? Or are we just not paying attention and have no clue that the money is running out, and that sooner than later the only way to get it is to increase taxes on those of us who work for a living?

Write your senators and representatives. Let them know what you think!!! If they don't listen to you, vote them out of office!!! Or pretty soon we will all be working hard only to turn over most if not all of our money to the government who are about as efficient as....well government.

There are plenty of solutions to heath care that are better than essentially increasing the medicare and medicaid rolls. Tax deductibles for purchasing insurance for one. Allow for more free market purchasing for health insurance (ability to cross state lines to purchase health insurance which increases competition) for another. I'm sure many of you have other options that would be better than a government run insurance that would encourage people to switch to the government insurance. Trust me if you're paying the government insurance premium, no matter how low, you will also be paying increased taxes, waiting lines, at the expense of quality of care. Are you sure this is what you want?

Please I beg you, contact your politicians.

Back to the 2010 Budget - Department of Health and Human Services

Here's the link to the part of the budget specific to Health and Human Services. It's only 4 pages so I think it's worth a read.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2010_new_era/Department_of_Health_and_Human_Services1.pdf

But if you can't bring yourself to read 4 pages, here are the highlights provided on page 1.
Funding Highlights:
• Accelerates the adoption of health information technology and utilization of electronic health
records.
• Expands research comparing the effectiveness of medical treatments to give patients and
physicians better information on what works best.
• Invests over $6 billion for cancer research at the National Institutes of Health as part of the
Administration’s multi-year commitment to double cancer research funding.
• Strengthens the Indian health system with sustained investments in health care services for
American Indians and Alaska Natives to address persistent health disparities and foster healthy
Indian communities.
• Invests $330 million to increase the number of doctors, nurses, and dentists practicing in areas
of the country experiencing shortages of health professionals.
• Supports families by providing additional funding for affordable, high-quality child care,
expanding Early Head Start and Head Start, and creating the Nurse Home Visitation program
to support first-time mothers.
• Strengthens the Medicare program by encouraging high quality and efficient care, and improving
program integrity.
• Invests over $1 billion for Food and Drug Administration food safety efforts to increase and
improve inspections, domestic surveillance, laboratory capacity and domestic response to
prevent and control food borne illness.

First of all, I don't support government funded research of diseases. People don't need to be compelled to give to research, they will do it as they see a need. I highly encourage private efforts to raise funds for research. Look at how successful St. Jude's is at raising money for research and treatment of kids with cancer. But I shouldn't jump on this one since it's unpopular to oppose government funding of diseases.

Here's what the highlights don't tell you but the website does. The budget establishes a reserve fund of $630 Billion over the next 10 years to "finance fundamental reform of our health care system that will bring down costs and expand coverage." If you think $630 Billion over 10 years is enough to provide universal health care, you're crazy. It will cost more than that a year most likely. And that creates health care rationing. Ask Canada or England or any other country with it. It might not be too bad for routine care, but what are you going to do if you get a life threatening disease or a pain causing condition or need a knee or hip replacement. Do you want the government telling you when you can get it taken care of? How would you like to have to live with pain unnecessarily for years before it gets treated? The older you are the further down on the list you go because you're expendable. How's that for a violation of your civil rights?

Pharmacy's have already started a solution to the problem with their generic drug programs thanks to the leading of the oh so evil Walmart. And I thought Walmart only hurt people. Now for doctors and hospitals to follow suit. Actually in essence they do. If you go to a hospital most if not all of them will offer you a self pay discount to pay up front if you don't have insurance, which is equal to or greater than the discount provided by membership to an insurance network. (The discounts very by negotiated rates with various insurance providers). If you don't choose this option and you go through the emergency room, they will set up a payment plan. Many doctors will also negotiate with you if you ask them.

Do you want to know what's driving up the cost of health care other than uncompensated care? I'm going to tell you whether you want to or not. Insurance companies have become the middle man between patients and providers. They are not non profit companies. They are for profit. So now two entities are trying to make a profit from providing you a service. Since you are the only one paying money, who do you think is paying for the profit to the insurance company and the doctor? You are, or your company is. The insurance company has to pay people to process and pay your claims and the doctors and facilities have to pay people to file claims to insurance companies including Medicare and Medicaid offered by the supposed cost saving government. What if patients and providers got together to eliminate the middle man for routine care? You wouldn't have to pay insurance premiums which you could now save to pay cash for your health care. Providers would now be competing for your business on price and quality of care. Perhaps they could create their own premium based care where you pay them $X/month and they agree to see you and treat you as needed. They could tailor levels of care/cost to your age, family history, or desires.

Step two is encourage health savings though health savings accounts like are available now. I hate to use the term "mandate," but this would be an acceptable alternative in my mind. Only rather than losing any unspent money, it should be able to roll over to the next year in an effort to save for additional unexpected medical emergencies that can arise in our lifetime that may fall outside of routine care. If a balance gets to a point where it exceeds a certain cushion amount, a person can take that money out tax free for educational use, or be rolled over to a 401k or traditional IRA. (This is working under the assumption that the Fair Tax isn't implemented)

This may not be a perfect plan but it's a start and it's a better and more cost effective alternative to government run health care.

Here's a reminder/plea for you to write your congressmen and let them know what you think about the budget. I believe they are supposed to vote on it later this week. Email them, Call them!!! Do it now!!!

Political Parties - Constitution

Ok I'm going to break from my lecturing on contacting your representatives and caring about the economy and national debt and get back to reviewing the various political parties. Today I'm going to discuss the Constitution Party. Here's why this party is interesting to me. Politicians have to swear to uphold the constitution, so it seems to me that all politicians should be constitutionalists, but as we all know, that is not the case. What we do know, is that all parties have a few issues that they perceive are the most important and the Constitution party is no exception.

On the home page they list their 7 principles.
Seven Principles of the Constitution Party are:
1. Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;
2. Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual;
3. Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;
4. Property: Each individual's right to own and steward personal property without government burden;
5. Constitution: and Bill of Rights interpreted according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers;
6. States' Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, nor prohibited by the Constitution to the states, is reserved to the states or to the people;
7. American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances.

What I will say about the list is that I think that focusing on a couple of them (Ok I'll say it, 1 & 3) distract from the common good of people in our nation. It really doesn't matter if I agree with them or not, fighting over these issues distract from the importance of the other 5. Many people will say that 2 contradicts what they say about 1 & 3 and so they may want to rethink their approach or their focus on 1 & 3, unless they want to give up the importance of liberty, which is what this nation was founded on.

The full platform can be found here and I will discuss some of them in more detail. http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php
As always feel free to ask me my opinion on any that I don't call out here.

Bring Government Back Home
"Over time, the limitations of federal government power imposed by the Constitution have been substantially eroded. Preservation of constitutional government requires a restoration of the balance of authority between the federal government and the States as provided in the Constitution, itself, and as intended and construed by those who framed and ratified that document"

"We pledge to be faithful to this constitutional requirement and to work methodically to restore to the States and to the people their rightful control over legislative, judicial, executive, and regulatory functions which are not Constitutionally delegated to the federal government.We stand opposed to any regionalization of governments, at any level, which results in removal of decision-making powers from the people or those directly elected by the people."

I Lola for president, do completely agree with this. The representatives in the federal government have gotten so power hungry, on every side of the aisle, that average people feel powerless to do anything about it. Yeah you can go vote and you can contact your representatives, but the reality is they can ignore you if they feel like it. That said get out and vote and write your representatives and encourage your family and friends to do the same. If you elect me, I will work to fight this nonsensical abuse of power.

Cost of Big Government
"A legitimate and primary purpose of civil government is to safeguard the God-given rights of its citizens; namely, life, liberty, and property. Only those duties, functions, and programs specifically assigned to the federal government by the Constitution should be funded. We call upon Congress and the President to stop all federal expenditures which are not specifically authorized by the U. S. Constitution, and to restore to the states those powers, programs, and sources of revenue that the federal government has usurped."
.....
"We call for the systematic reduction of the federal debt through, but not limited to, the elimination of further borrowing and the elimination of unconstitutional programs and agencies.
We call upon the President to use his Constitutional veto power to stop irresponsible and unconstitutional appropriations, and use his Constitutional authority to refuse to spend any money appropriated by Congress for unconstitutional programs or in excess of Constitutionally imposed tax revenue."

"The debt could be more rapidly eliminated if certain lands and other assets currently held by the federal government were sold, and the proceeds applied to the debt. This policy should be employed, and funds from the sale of all such assets should be specifically applied to debt reduction."

I don't really have anything to add to this other than the sale of certain federal assets being applied to the debt is a fabulous idea. Too bad that takes away power/control in their minds, so the likelihood of that happening....pretty slim in this puppy's opinion. But I support it completely.

Health Care and Government
"The Constitution Party opposes the governmentalization and bureaucratization of American medicine. Government regulation and subsidy constitutes a threat to both the quality and availability of patient-oriented health care and treatment."

"Hospitals, doctors, and other health care providers should be accountable to patients - not to politicians, insurance bureaucrats, or HMO Administrators."

"If the supply of medical care is controlled by the federal government, then officers of that government will determine which demand is satisfied. The result will be the rationing of services, higher costs, poorer results - and the power of life and death transferred from caring physicians to unaccountable political overseers."

Don't kid yourselves, this is a fact. If you're deemed too old or you're not considered a "national hero," you'll be bumped down on the list for something you need that is in demand. You want to be able to make your own health care choices not depend on the government to make them for you. They can't do it as well as you can.


This is where I'm going to stop as these get long, but I encourage you to take a closer look at their platform. But these 3 are a start that would get this country on the right track. My theory is some of the issues will be a little hard for some of you to take since we have been brainwashed to drift further and further from the constitution. I even stated my concerns with the focus. So even people that consider themselves conservative might find themselves disagreeing with some of the stated positions. Whether you agree completely or not, it is a fact that elected officials are supposed to swear to uphold the Constitution and the fact is they haven't been for years and years and years. Long before many of you were born.

Socialized Healthcare

I wonder how many of you out there really think that national health care is the answer to our health care needs. My follow up question to those of you that think it's a fabulous idea is "have you been to the emergency room lately for stitches, whiplash, sprained ankle or anything of the likes?" Depending on the area you live in, you probably had to wait a long time just to go back to see a doctor. And then once you got back there you probably had to wait some more. The reason being, the ER is filled with people that should be going to a doctor, but the reason they go to the ER is because;

1. The ER cannot turn them away by law
2. Many of them have no intentions of paying their bill hence why they go to the ER rather than a doctor. Because a doctor can ask for payment up front and refuse to see a patient if they haven't paid.

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is a socialized as you want your medicine to get. And I question the logic in allowing people to get away with not paying their ER bills because they don't care about their credit or they give a false social security number. I question the logic in telling ERs that they must treat everyone that comes into the ER regardless. They ought to be able to tell people with colds to go see their doctor along with other ailments.

But I'm sure those of you for socialized medicine think that doctors should have to treat everyone that comes to them regardless of their ability to pay. Let me tell you what happens under this system. More and more people refuse to pay which means more and more accounts go to collections, many of which are deemed noncollectable, and doctors no longer find it worth their while to stay in business. So they retire earlier, find other lines of work and advise kids not to bother going to medical school because the risks now outweigh the reward. So there are fewer and fewer professionals to treat more and more patients. But now these professionals are also employees of the government. And as the government realizes there are fewer professionals to meet the demand of the health care needs and wants, they start rationing health care.

So that elective radical mastectomy you want to prevent breast cancer because it runs rampant in your family will have to wait until it becomes cancer. Anything now considered elective, will no longer be an option until it threatens your life. So you will have to learn to live with the pain, discomfort, and even embarrassment your condition causes you. And if it does turn life threatening and you are over the age of 55, good luck on getting moved up on the priority list. The reasoning; you've lived a decent long life and are close to retirement so it's better for the government if you die before retirement so they don't have to take care of you after you stop work. They need the younger viable workers with 20-30 years of work left in them to keep working to pay taxes, so they'll take priority over an older person.

But this is what you all want. Because you naively think it's free. Nothing is free. it's only free to the person that refuses to pay taxes. But then again if you don't work to pay into their tax system, I'm sure you'll be moved down on the priority list for care as well. Because what good are you if you refuse to work so the government can take all your money to give you "free" nationalized health care?

Food for Thought, Never to Forget

Check out this article regarding the bail out of wall street from Time.com.
www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1845209,00.html
For those of you that don't want to bother reading it, I have copied the last paragraph for your reading pleasure to sum it up. "Let the poorly managed, overly risk-taking financial institutions fail! Always remember that Wall Street and the real economy are not the same thing."

Don't forget people, it's still not over. They are going to continue to try and use your tax dollars to pass some sort of bail out. Keep writing your senators and representatives to let them know you oppose any kind of "loan" or however they want to spin it, with your tax dollars.

Gas prices. Don't get complacent because they are coming down some. I realize they have agreed to let the ban expire on off shore drilling. But let me remind you of a simple fact of why this is so important. Billions of dollars are being sent to the middle east to support our demand for oil. This is money that we will spend regardless, but it is currently helping their economy. Just think what a boost it is to our economy if we stop sending it overseas and start to spend that money in our own economy.

Health Care. Here's a quote that you never ever ever want to forget about when talk comes up of nationalizing health care:

"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free!"

P.J. O'Rourke

Just remember nothing is free when it comes to the government. And the only people out there to pay for it is you and me. Be careful what you ask them to take care of because they will likely do it less inefficiently than you could yourself, or someone else for you.