Skip to main content

Health Care Phooey

.
The furor over a national health care system is sad. Good people are on both sides of the arguement. If the present system is to be fixed to provide health care for everyone, it is the government that will have to manipulate the rules and regulations to make it possible. If the present system is to be trashed completely and replaced with a brand new government directed health care plan, it will also require the government to design new rules and regulations. Anyway you cut it, the government must be involved.

Some of us would like to reduce the impact of government, keep government as small as necessary to carry out existing responsibilities, and to return to honest and fiscally responsible representation. Those on this side of the arguement are usually in favor of fair but limited welfare programs and adequate military defenses.

The more liberal citizerns among us would like the government to be a large as necessary to expand the amount of government intrusion in free market capitalism. They disregard the positive impact of individual initiative in favor of  more welfare driven programs regardless of costs - and regardless of potential failure. They assure us that a strong military defense is no longer necessary, and by reducing the military we will realize enough money to enact their social driven agenda.

In the middle of all this turmoil (either way) there must be a reduction of our freedoms.

More later . . . .

Comments

Rain Trueax said…
What makes you trust insurance companies with your health care? As things stand, they are the ones dictating it and that doesn't make you worry but the government providing it as they do with Medicare, government employees, or the Veterans does? Do you hear all the stories from people who have not been able to buy insurance, been kicked off of it, or pay horrendously high premiums out of fear of the alternative? To buy insurance without a corporation behind you is to take a big chunk out of what many people make per month. But that's okay? To me if government doesn't get involved, this situation with insurance and medical costs is going to escalate to the point that only the richest, the poor or those employed by the government will be able to afford any of it. I have been lucky with coverage most of my life but I worry what will happen for my kids if this situation keeps growing worse :(
November 12, 2009 at 7:01 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gloves Off

. OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS BETRAYED OUR TRUST AGAIN. Whether we are Democrat or Republican, Liberal or Conservative, makes no difference at all. Our legislators voted according to "what's best for them". It was clear that the people want to reduce the costs and improve access to our overall health care system. It was also VERY CLEAR that they did not want the 2000 page legislative monstrosity that was produced by a small number of far left liberal Democrats, who worked behind closed doors to fashion a pork filled blunderbuss that virtually no one has been able to read, or discuss, or debate, or offer alternatives to specific unreasoned clauses. It is (now) a BAD BILL , passed by BAD POLITICIANS, that compose a BAD MINORITY segment of America's out-of-control government. AND WE HAVE NO LOGICAL WAY TO PAY FOR IT EITHER. The far left liberals like to point at  SOCIAL SECURITY   as a text book success. They are wrong and will not admit it despite the concrete evide
20 comments
Read more

Why Blackwater Mercenaries

Over some years the name Blackwater shows  up in the news. It is, by their own estimation, the largest mercenary group in the world. I think I first noticed it when reports from Iraq mentioned they were employed (by whom?) to escort and protect members of the Iraqi government from place to place. Then I became aware that they had joined several of the firefights between our marines and Iraqi enemies. I wondered just how these mercenaries (that supposedly came from the United States) were  hired by someone (who?) to fight? That led to the question of just who would be responsible if a situation involved the accidental killing of an innocent bystander? It  might be a little sticky for an unauthorised mercenary contracted by the United States but not a member of our military forces.  Or suppose a Blackwater type killed a military Iraqi combatant and was then captured by the enemy. Would he be treated as a spy, or as a American combatant, or whatelse?  And would the Geneva Convention
18 comments
Read more

Sarah-palin-itus

. Am I the only one that watches the liberal roar caused by the soccer mom . . . and laughs?   I suspect Sarah is a nice and decent person who will eventually prove to be a better political critic than elected official. But who knows. She projects an effervescent personality, a better than average intelligence, and solid conservative values. Still,  as a political leader of consequence I suspect she is a female Peter. You do remember THE PETER PRINCIPLE don't you. Dixon
10 comments
Read more