Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Friday, November 14, 2008
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Monday, November 03, 2008
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Thursday, October 16, 2008
By the way, I have only given Ohio and Florida to McCain because I do not think the voting will be fair in either state. If there does turn out to be irregularities, I will renew my call to remove Florida from the electoral college, and start looking at Ohio next. See how quick they get their acts together if that were to happen!!
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
If you are interested, it is short and can be found here: http://www.newser.com/story/39904/if-obama-were-white-hed-be-hit-twice-as-hard.html. (So can my comment, but I have copied and expanded it here.)
While it is true that generally, I would say it was Sarah Palin and not John McCain that has been stoking hatred, it is John McCain that is paying for it. The reality is that the Dems have been going equally soft on McCain because he is a war hero, something the Republicans didn't do for Kerry. Where conservatives took a war hero and tried to lie about his accomplishments, no one has pointed out that what McCain gave for his country was a great sacrifice, but getting shot down and imprisoned for years is not a qualifying event for President. And NO ONE is taking any shots against Palin, presumably because she is a woman---except to point out the numerous things she says that do not make sense. The democrats have treated John McCain better than George W. Bush did in the 2000 primaries. Conservatives just cannot accept that they were in charge of the WhiteHouse for 8 years, the congress and senate for 6, and have made such a disaster of things that the country is leaning left. Rather than take responsibility, which conservatives never do, they will now blame their losses on fears of being labeled racists if they said "the truth". My friends, you have pointed out about Ayers, and the democrats pointed out about Wright long ago. But those aren't the issues. They are the economy, Iraq, the environment and the future of America, and on those fronts are why Obama is leading.
It is not pretty watching conservatives panic. Amusing, but not pretty. Would that they had spent years worrying about our soldiers dying in Iraq, our 45 million uninsured Americans, business getting rich while ordinary Americans were falling behind and the looming energy crisis, they would not have to panic now as America might even agree that Obama was too inexperienced. But now, thanks to the mess the W. Bush Administration and Republican Congress created, people are craving that change, even if there is an element of unknown. Better the unknown that seems in the right direction, than the known which clearly isn't.
Monday, October 13, 2008
McCain scrambles to remake candidacy with 'comeback' speech. Decides to start discussing issues instead of anti-Obama rhetoric. Palin speechless.
Oh yeah, and McCain says he is going to talk issues---as soon as he gets some. No, no he has some, he just likes to change them often. It's like a hermit crab trying on different shells, he just wants to see which one is best, and by best, he means which one does not get ripped apart by the pundits and the public, so he can move on to the next issue. Remember, John thought the economy was good before he thought it was bad. He thought the bailout was bad before he thought it was good. And he thought Sarah Palin was a good choice and now he tries not to think of her at all.
Here is a link to his blog:
Sunday, October 12, 2008
I have weighed in here on the negatives of Obama in the past. I have weighed in on some of the positive aspects of John McCain from the distant past. Haven't bothered to weigh in on some John McCain's weaknesses when he was a Republican that I liked. Why bother? And all his time in the Senate so, actually hasn't accomplished much. It's true, what he said in the debate about his record, that he is reached across the aisle, but also that he hasn't always been like by people in his party or the other party. It's true. He doesn't get along with enough Republicans or Democrats to accomplish very much. He never has. More recently, for several years, he has tried to get along with the most conservative Republicans by kissing up to George Bush and showing that he can be the kind a guy that they can get behind. Pathetically, they still haven't really gotten behind him, but that's okay because let's be real, they’re not going to vote for Barack Obama. I guess McCain is most worried that they won't come out and vote at all. Now in the last debate, John McCain explained in just a couple of sentences, that he's going to fix the economy and catch Osama bin Laden because those things are really not that hard. Not that hard?! John McCain is either a liar or is sadly confused and deluded. These have been two of the greatest hallmarks of the George W. Bush administration. In just a couple of sentences John McCain has proven what he's been trying to stop the Democrats from doing for quite some time. He proved he is just like George W. Bush. And as I have stated here, anything we could possibly fear about the unknown of Barack Obama, has sadly already been realized by George W. Bush and company. This is why I can wholeheartedly endorse Barack Obama for president and why I dearly hope his deeds will match his words and the feeling and compassion behind them, and that he will do his best to fulfill the promises and expectations his belt among the people who were going to vote for him. His words and deeds and what actions we have seen, have all been of a man who cares about this country and all the people in it. There is no history or uncovered documents and letters that would lead us to believe there is anything more to fear from Barack Obama than fear itself.
Next up: we'll hear from Satan.
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Since generalization is built on statistical evidence I am quite sure it saves lives in institutions where the creativity is lacking, or the attention is not quite there, where they are understaffed and overworked, so it is not a good idea to abandon them completely. Rather, they should be used as a measurement tool to compare what treatment is being done at organizations that are doing below acceptable limits. For the best institutions they should be used to figure out what they are doing right and how to ultimately make those generalizations even better.
It is important to create a tier structure that takes into account the kinds of cases, the hospitals are taking on. We don’t want to encourage hospitals to shy away from the toughest cases, or those institutions that currently do, and should handle the toughest cases, to worry about how they may skew their results in a negative manner.
Clearly, we need to hold providers accountable. Just as we want people who repair all our homes or cars. We need to understand that unlike homes, cars and computers, fixing people is not an exact science, and everything we need to know is not known. Having said that however, we have a right to expect that our providers are not only well trained and licensed, but are knowledgeable and prepared to practice using established, statistically beneficial guidelines, unless they have a good and experienced rationale to divert from these guidelines.
We should not allow insurance companies and Medicare to start dictating treatment. When the only way for a provider to get paid is by following the guideline of treatment, even when they strongly have reason to believe they can do better than those guidelines, then they won’t, and medical science will not march forward. Insurance companies and the government are always looking for a way to pay out less, and this is reasonable if they can find ways to more efficiently offer the same or more effective care. However, what’s necessary here is the creation of a more comprehensive and multi-tiered evaluation system and check and balance system, to allow providers to do what they do best, yet help them to avoid some of the pitfalls and errors to which many of them are prone.
We can do better. We must not allow insurance companies, nor government, to choose what is easy and expedient. Simple cost-cutting and financial constraints are not going to fix our health care system, nor halt health care inflation in the future, unless we accept the realities that major change must be affected. At the same time, we must preserve what is best about our system, and that is our well-educated provider system, our top-notch research and development system and our cutting edge development of technology in healthcare and related fields. We can do better and we will do better.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Some Presidents have terror trust upon them, like Bill Clinton in 1993 when, without warning the World Trade Center was attacked. Others are prepared and forewarned with their great understanding of the world around us, like George W. Bush who ran during the 2000 debates as the "anti-terrorism President". After 9/11 George W. Bush said he would have "moved heaven and earth to have stopped those attacks". Since it has long been established that he had warning that Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden were planning to use our own airplanes against us in a terror attack, we can presume that rather than figurative, W. Bush was being literal. Apparently he might move heaven and earth, which I am pretty sure he actually cannot do, but he would not order the airlines to lock their cockpit doors; something that has been done since the attacks, and has long been credited with helping Israel's airline, EL AL, avoid hijackings. Because he was warned but failed to act in any way, shape or form, George W. and his administration get a big NEGATIVE on their first brush with terrorism. George W. then invaded Afghanistan, the hideout of Osama bin Laden, after establishing that he and Al-Qaeda were the culprits. That goes down as a big POSITIVE. We then invade Iraq, even though intelligence tells us they are not related to the attacks, do not harbor Al-Qaeda, in fact Saddam Hussein was afraid of Al-Qaeda. That's okay. We don't claim they had anything to do with 9/11. We claim they are dangerous on their own right, preparing weapons of mass destruction and all. When this turns out to be false, and we start to learn that the administration knew these were lies, we suddenly start to claim they were part of 9/11 all along. By 'WE' of course, I mean our Government. Then the bipartisan commission finds, as we knew all along, that Iraq had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda or 9/11. George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John McCain and Joe Lieberman have apparently not read any of this intelligence or been briefed on any of these reports. Many citizens of our country and people around the word have been getting the message however. That would go down as another big NEGATIVE. Our destroying the Iraqi military and having not a clue how to fill the void allowed Al-Qaeda to, for the first time, get a foothold in Iraq and start killing our troops with roadside bombs and Iran supplied anti-tank and helicopter weaponry. Incidentally, also empowering Iran. Our use of torture and indefinite imprisonment during the conflict has helped to turn Arab sentiment against us that had been won over back by the Gulf War. Our hypocrisy has tainted us not only in the MidEast, but on the entire world stage, emboldening Russia. We'll call that another real big NEGATIVE. Our taking the eye off the ball by going into Iraq leaves the job undone in Afghanistan, allows the Taliban to regroup and lets Osama gets away. NEGATIVE. That's five events with one positive and four negative for, or a 20% positive percentage. If you took math anywhere but President Bush's classes at Yale, you know that is a failing grade. If there is any place where John McCain most agrees with George W. Bush, it is in the fight on terror. Do the math. What is really sad is that because the Republicans talk tough, people actually believe them, even with their abysmal record. These are smart people, some of them anyway. If a stockbroker told them he'd make them a lot of money but had a terrible track record of losing people's money, these people would never listen to them. If they were shopping for a car and the salesman said this is the best car in the world, they would still look up Consumer Reports to objectively verify this. But let a Republican talk tough on terror, and it doesn't matter that they have done absolutely nothing, well, almost nothing, and certainly done almost nothing right. Like I said, DO THE MATH, and if you don't want to vote for Obama, then write in a vote for a house plant, or a sponge, or anything or anyone not McCain/Palin, because this country and its citizens cannot afford 4 more years of fighting terrorism the Republican way. We need to start fighting the real threats and we need to focus on that fight until we beat them! But when you do cast your vote, before you write in that house plant, remember that Bill Clinton, a democrat--shudder---caught the 1993 attackers of the World Trade Center, and when Al-Qaeda attacked us in other countries, Bill Clinton sent in cruise missiles, and when Saddam Hussein would break the no-fly zone, Clinton would bomb his bases and other military targets. By that count, Bill gets a passing grade. You can vote Obama, or vote for a sponge (Spongebob for President, anyone?), but I think we'll all probably be better off with Obama.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Country First. That's the sign that the Republicans wave around at their convention. I guess they are trying a change of pace, since they tried putting their country last and the richest people first from 2000-2006. They still put their country last from 2006-2008 but it was less comprehensively because they lost the congress, because the country woke up and realized they were being put last. Just about their entire convention has been about veterans. Veterans are heroes and patriots, but that does not mean they are qualified to be President. If you only had to be a brave war hero, then John Kerry would have been our President the last 4 years, and America might have already been on the road back to the greatness it deserves. We can't change the past, but we can fix the future. The Republicans had their chance...and they messed things up. True, we don't need Obama to get us out of Iraq because despite what the Republicans want; Bush wanting the war to continue and McCain saying we will stay there 100 years, the Iraqis are throwing us out! Still, we need a change to right so many other things. Vote Obama. Or go ahead and write in your vote for a sponge, a Buick, a house plant, what-have-you, just not John McCain or any other Republicans.
By the way, did you notice those young Republicans cheering Rudy Giuliani saying John McCain would keep the fight against terrorism on the offensive? Why are they at the convention? Why haven't they enlisted to fight the good fight in Iraq (or even better---the real fight in Afghanistan)? The old Republicans love to cry for war because they aint going, and they aint sending their kids either, make no mistake. Seem a bit hypocritical? Alright, it's true, not just a bit. Of course, not all Republicans are hypocrites. John McCain's kid is in Iraq (as will soon be Joe Biden's), and Palin has family going as well, but sadly, that is pathetic, not patriotic. The only terrorists they will get to shoot at in Iraq were ushered in by George W. Bush, as has been pointed out in this blog before. If Republicans are so easily fooled, and fail to learn when the truth is pointed out to them; that Iraq had nothing to do with 911, and a bipartisan commission pointed that out, and that the Bush Administration lied, and covered up these issues, how can you trust such easily fooled people to run your country? The answer of course, is you can't, and when you try, you get the last 8 years. And Bush was the guy doing the fooling! He's the clever one! The rest are just still believing the lies he sowed! At this point it should just be NUFF SAID. Time will tell.
Monday, September 01, 2008
I just want you to know that I have happily worked for insurance companies selling both life and health insurance as well as managing entire units and regions for those companies. Nevertheless, I must call this section, "how the evil insurance companies screwed up everything".
You see, in the 70s and 80s, when insurance companies are able to make ordinals of money on safe interest-bearing investments, they took their eye off the ball and simply reimburse whatever charges doctors and hospitals submitted. This allowed for out of control costs growth and waste. There was no fiscal discipline for decades in healthcare. This is by far not the only cause of the situation, but because the insurance companies acted as insulation between the public and providers, there was never the need to deal with the spiraling costs. Of course, due to the complexity of healthcare, it’s never going to be cheap, and there is no developed nation where health care is quality where it is cheap, although in many places it's less costly and more efficient than it is in the United States.
Now, I don't blame the insurance companies for everything or necessarily even the majority of the current problems. I also wouldn't blame them almost at all if they made a reasonable rational attempt to fix the problems that they did create. But they did not they, like the government, tried Band-Aid fixes that not only do not address the problems that are unfair in their attempts at what meager solutions they offer.
Their cost containment solutions are always aimed at the end providers, ignoring what those providers cost of doing business really is. Now, I have stated myself but I believe we spend enough on healthcare already, but I know that to fix the system to make it operate on these budgets requires major policy retooling. To go to the last end of the providers and say you've got to charge less, we are not paying you any more next year than we did this year, we are only paying for this many days of hospitalization and we won't take into account that people aren't machines and we can't always know exactly what's going on inside them and what the outcome is going to be, are all punitive measures with no rational basis for expecting them to work , or work efficiently. Neither government nor insurance companies get it. There is no simple fix here. Insurance companies place in this business is going to need to change drastically. Insurance companies and HMOs aren't doing a good job, aren't doing the right job and aren't set up correctly for what our healthcare system needs. On a much more superficial basis I am going to begin to lay out here what I do much more comprehensively in my book; and that is how we are going to need to remake the interplay of insurance companies, government funding and healthcare providers into something that works now and will continue to work into the very far foreseeable future.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
What does it really mean to be an American? What is a patriotic American? A few great Americans wrote that "all men are created equal". If they had lived in more enlightened times I am quite sure they would have said "all people are created equal". It has been a long time since Republicans treated all Americans, much less all people, as equals. In the last eight years George W. Bush has treated only those who are rich and friends of his and Dick Cheney's as equals. Conservatives of George W. Bush's ilk lie and obfuscate to meet their own personal agendas. They tell you that you need smaller government because it's not right for government to interfere in your lives. I'll tell you government should be as little involved as absolutely possible. The convince you that really all government is for us to protect you from invading nations, and other than that you should really be on your own; because its best for you that way. Then they'll tell you they can have an abortion, can have sex with who you choose, probably love to have certain kinds of sex and only allowed to marry people that they deem proper. What they really mean when they tell you that you need smaller government is that they feel that rich people like them shouldn't have to help out the poor and sick. They don't care about healthcare reform because they can afford health insurance. They want to make it illegal for you to have an abortion, but then cut programs that would provide aid for you and your child once they're born. In case you were wondering, this is not the American way. It's not what our forefathers fought for. It's not the meaning of their written words. If you study history and historical documents you will find that the people who founded this country were great people and great thinkers. They took risks and committed selfless acts. There are almost no politicians alive today who could stand up to a comparison with those that started this great nation. Our soldiers are patriots. They risk their lives for protecting our great nation. Even in wars that you may consider unjust, from Vietnam through the Iraq war, you can only blame the wars on the politicians, but you must respect and revere what our soldiers offer up to their nation. Our police and firefighters are patriots. They lay it on the line for their fellow country people every day. When you vote you are committing a patriotic act. When you speak out, whether for or against your government, you are committing a patriotic act. Your forefathers created this great nation and thousands of lives have been laid down through the years to protect your rights to say what you have to say. If you look at the politicians who tried to paint dissenters as unpatriotic you will see that they have committed more unpatriotic acts; more acts diametrically opposed to the well and teachings of our forefathers, then anyone else. It is no surprise that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have spent a good part of their administration painting critics of theirs as unpatriotic, because they are perhaps the most unpatriotic leaders of this great nation that we have seen in our own lifetimes. Now, I'm not going to call John McCain unpatriotic. He served his country and he suffered for it. He tried to round on his conscience and cleanly, and was ripped apart by George W. Bush in 2000 because of it. This year, with the Republicans so out of favor, he could've run as the renewed and reinvigorated John McCain who stood for something for many years. He chose not to. To pander to the right wing conservatives he sold his soul, and not to Satan but far worse, to George W. Bush. He has aligned himself with unpatriotic liars who have sullied the great history of our nation. No, I will not call John McCain unpatriotic. However, his campaign and his presidential ambitions have aligned himself with those that are so unpatriotic that it would be a crime against this nation to reward his poor choices by voting him into the White House. I do not know a lot about Barack Obama. I think that's the problem, nobody does. I don't know how he'll react in a crisis or how he'll handle world affecting events, but I do know he hasn't made the poor choices John McCain has. Also in the limited things we do have from Barack Obama we can see a consistency of purpose and compassion throughout the years. I also believe, while they should not have snubbed Hillary who I do believe was qualified to be president, that in choosing Joe Biden he has shown his openness to be guided by experience at his side. Thus, after analyzing our forthcoming election I can only find that the right thing for America and the patriotic thing to do, is to elect Barack Obama and Joe Biden to be president and vice President of the United States later this year.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Hillary Clinton did an amazing job in her speech at the Democratic national convention. She mended fences, praised and pushed Obama , and attacked John McCain. In short, she did everything she was supposed to, and everything the Obama people could have hoped for. So why was Michelle Obama looking so miserable throughout Hillary's speech? Could it be because she looked so presidential? Could it be that she was afraid the audience would be thinking they picked the wrong candidate? Some think Obama has been struggling in the polls because he seems to have lost his direction. He snubbed Hillary for his vice presidential candidate, and could Michelle Obama now be realizing what a terrible mistake that was; failing to create the dream ticket because of his own stubbornness and pride? Joe Biden's a really good guy. Maybe he's qualified to be president, but he sure didn't get many votes when he tried. He's not likely to bring many votes he couldn't get over to Obama. By choosing Biden, after extolling the virtues of going outside the box and not picking a Beltway insider and looking for somebody who didn't have the same old jaded Washington experience, he merely appeared to be caving in to the criticisms that McCain has leveled at him that he somehow escaped when Clinton and Edwards and Biden, et al., leveled them at him themselves. In one fell swoop, choosing Biden over Hillary, but yes, choosing someone like Biden, created the look of a panicky candidate with no firm belief in his own rhetoric. As Hillary said, we need a democrat President...but will we get one in 2008? Stay tuned.
I am sorry that I've been away so long. Many factors influenced that. Partially because I was so disgusted at what's gone on politically in this country in the last several months. Before I start talking about all of that again, and I do believe what's going on is going to impact health care reform, I wanted to remind everybody that this is a healthcare reform blog some going to put as some of my latest writings on healthcare reform that I have just rewritten in my hopefully forthcoming book:
we need to remember that when dealing with healthcare reform, we need to understand that health care is a lot like electricity; in that it is essential and everyone should have access to it. We need to leave as many aspects free market as possible, but at the same time. It needs to be run with a lot of regulations. Not only dealing with safety, as it has up to now, but it's dealing with access and financing as well.
The reasons are many why we need to preserve what's best about the United States healthcare system. The attacks on our system are numerous, but many are specious as well. While obviously something needs to be done about costs, because it is pointed out that we spend the most on healthcare, it is wrongly pointed out that it obviously is not worth it because we don't have the best longevity rates of a modern population. But of course, we are the most modern population, the richest country, and raise our standard of living for the majority of Americans many years before the rest of the modern world Court up. Because of this, in some ways we are more obese and slovenly than the rest of the world. But as our nation comes to grips with this and starts to work on this, the rest of the world is busily trying to catch up. They are consuming more empty calories, more refined sugars and flour and actually see smoking rates rising in their countries. As one of the earlier pioneers of the modern industrialization movement, America also had the good fortune and subsequent burden of utilizing materials and processes that turn out to be dangerous and/or greatly polluting. While some materials, because of our discoveries and other nations discoveries, will be spared from use in other emerging nations now, we are still seeing the cycle of initial over polluting because of emerging industrialization.
As we are ahead of the curve in "rich country" diseases, I believe we will be ahead of the curve in regaining good health. You will see as America's longevity rates increase that many other modern era countries will stagnate or begin to decrease, before making their own U-turn back to health.
It is of the utmost importance that the amazing research and good work that we do here in the United States is not hampered by a bureaucratic, shortsighted government system. This is why we need government controls and oversight, but a free market solution to the healthcare crisis.
Looking at the total amount that America spent on all healthcare in 2007, I am of the belief that we spend enough. The areas that were going to tackle our waste, realignment of insurance, realignment of physician practice, oversight. In general through process improvement techniques and various cost-cutting initiatives, while you might find it tough to take 20% of your family's budget, a large corporation that hasn't been through extensive cost-cutting in the recent past can often remove 10 to 40% of costs without a significant deterioration of functioning. I think it would not be unreasonable to be able to remove 20% of costs out of our healthcare system and then work back in a vigorous inflation rate so that going forward practitioners, suppliers and providers would all find comfortable increases built into the system.
The realignment of physician practices going to be uncomfortable to many. It is going to reek of government controls because it is literally redefining physicians roles in society. However the proof fashion of physician is just not a profession that has gotten out of control with independence and entrepreneurialism. In reality if we look at physicians as healthcare executives, we can conjure whether so many should be independent? You don't meet a lot of independent vice presidents of corporations. Sure some executives become consultants, or they take a new idea and start a Corporation. Doctors can do the same. But the fundamental system of delivering healthcare through independent entrepreneurs encourages waste. These independent physicians are not adding anything in the form of lower pricing, better services or products or new innovations as would happen when the entrepreneurs begin new companies. These practitioners just go out into the fields to do business as usual like everyone else in the medical field and hope to bring in enough patients for them to make ever more money. It would be like if a McDonald's employee left and started another chain of hamburger joints, and created an exact duplicate of McDonald's and charge the exact same prices. Of course, he would be sued for copyright infringement, but more so, if he did not add to the equation by making everything better or cheaper, he would fail because nobody would find a reason to go to him instead. With physicians, it's true that all things being equal you might choose a physician whose a block or two closer to your home, but more likely you will choose one in your health plan, and that's the extent of most people's shopping. We need a certain amount of physicians in this country to take care of everybody so there is room for them to exist. But just like the copycat of McDonald's the majority of these physicians don't add anything by being independent as opposed to hospital paid employees in offices placed throughout the community.
When a physician works for a hospital and is placed in a field office and knows what salary he's going to make then, just like an executive at a Corporation, he knows the only way he's going to get above average raises will be to do a good job, get good results, do well for the customers and do his best to keep costs in line for the Corporation. Therefore, an adequate physician can expect to get raises in line with inflation, a superb physician keeping his eye on all these things we just mentioned can expect to get excellent raises. A physician who does a subpar job would lose his job like any executive of the cooperation, I would not have to wait to be sued by enough people that his license and ability to earn an income would become in jeopardy. This should be a much tighter run ship and a better self policing agency. This will wring out costs from the system and remove stress from the physicians. Those who are most entrepreneurial, whoever better way to do things, a way to save money for the patient, or who can do a better job for the patience, will still rise to the surface and will be able to open their own independent practices. I do not aim to outlaw independent practices. But it will become necessary to charge more, to have a higher co-pay, for those in independent practice. Therefore, only those that add to the value proposition, that do something better than their colleagues, will be able to run a private practice because they will be the only ones will be ever convince people to pay a higher co-pay to come to see them. In one fell swoop we would have cut costs and created a system where only those who can better the system and improve care will be doing the work independently.
Our system is not broken, it simply was designed with no cost controls. The cost controls that are trying to be placed on the system now, especially by government, are ridiculous. They simply arbitrarily decide that they're not going to pay more for something, they don't cut costs a cutting reimbursements on procedures, they trying to turn back the clock by medical providers at the same time that they voted raises for themselves and allow executives to have ever more exorbitant pay packages. The way the government tries to do it is unconscionable. But we do at a cost controls because the costs are out of control. The methods I speak of will bring in controls after creating a more efficient less expensive system, and then we'll build then comfortable increases into the future. Some form of change is coming, over that we can be sure because the system cannot continue to stand the way it is. Forgetting about how much it's pointed out in the rest of the world, we will point out here many times that they were too many people uninsured, too many underinsured and we already pay more than enough for all of it. There it changes that will be less painful and at the same time more beneficial. While you will see many systems offered to control costs by controlling K. our was simply limiting expenditures, you will see that these are not healthcare reform but healthcare reduction and limitation. When I speak of here is reform, and while change is scary, I believe reform will be embraced far more than reduction and limitation as proposed by the government.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Satan Here. LH is on his way back to blogging and he promises some stuff to make it worth the wait for all of you that have been waiting LOL. But seriously folks, or should I say folk, I partially blame myself for the lull as I have been too bored to offer up any discussions to LH. And I understand somethings have gotten in the way of his appearing here but I understand he is back! In the meantime, he was so disappointed in Obama's choice of Joe Biden for his Veep candidate that he felt I should write a bit about it since he felt it was my fault. I did whisper it in Barack's ear, but it was a joke. I thought he would pick Hillary, it was the only logical choice. He picks everything he criticized Hillary for, confirming all the things McCain criticizes him for. Politics as usual...bad politics. More from LH on this soon, as he gave me a strict word count limit. He doesn't seem to trust me. Because of this, you will not hear the one about the 3 Victoria's Secrets Models that were sent to Hell by accident. It was a good one, I tell you, but I do not have the space to tell you. Sorry.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Next Up: HealthCare Reform Plans and Satan weighs in on the Primaries!!!!!!
Sunday, January 06, 2008
I had hoped to stay out of the primary season, because I prefer to wait until the final candidates have been chosen, before putting in my comments. However, I have not been able to ignore what is going on lately, mainly because it is so pathetic. When it looked like Hillary Clinton was a shoo-in, it really wasn't necessary to say much. I'm not saying she was a guaranteed great president. I'm just saying that of the field that was running, she appeared to be the best.
There is, after all, no possible way, with the country and the world in the state that we have helped to create, that any Republican candidate could possibly gain back credibility for their party and even remotely have a chance to win the 2008 presidential election...unless of course the democrats were to run, oh, say, a pineapple* as their candidate. Alas, of course, the Democrats are doing what they are always so good at doing, and are trying to once again pick a pineapple, or other such unelectable candidate. Actually, they would run a pineapple if they could...but since they are not in season, they would run an unripe and unelectable neophyte candidate instead.
I think Hillary is a good candidate and she will make a good president. Is she the best candidate out there? I was kind of leaning towards Al Gore, but I think she's the best of who's actually running. I like Mike Bloomberg, but I think he is considering getting in too late for him to be properly vetted. Independents are also at a disadvantage in this system, even with his considerable financial resources.
These other candidates are trying to turn Hillary’s experience into the “status quo” because between the two of them they have NO experience. She does have 35 years trying to help people and effectively (and sometime ineffectively) making changes! She has made mistakes that she has learned from. The others haven't had the opportunity and we can't afford for them to learn on the job. Only the inexperienced try to make experience into a bad thing, but the American people need to see through this. It is true that you can have bad experience, George W. Bush has certainly shown us that. But Hillary has a near lifetime of dedicated public service where her and her family have fought for everybody in this country. Wrong or right she has always tried to do what's best and has tried to make major changes for the betterment of this country. She has a track record of successes and failures. Everyone else brings nice oratory and good intentions. But you need more than that to run the greatest country ever on the face of the earth. By the way, Hillary has good intentions too; she has just backed them up with actions.
Let me also say here that, I like Oprah, I like her and respect her a lot. She is an amazing human being, who has accomplished a lot, and I hope someday to be on her show. However, I cannot explain why she so exuberantly endorsed Barack Obama. She's been around long enough and experienced enough to know that great change is possible in this country, but at the same time she knows it didn't come from just good intentions or good oratory. It required difficult and forceful action and painful transitions. It not only requires many forces and people working together, but strong leadership to get there. You cannot unite just with good intentions. You need strong leadership. Jimmy Carter was a perfect example of how good intentions could fail to work, and he was working with a Democratic Congress and Senate. Ronald Reagan is a good example of someone who can get what he wanted accomplished, even when dealing with a Democrat Senate and Congress, he was bullying with them., and brought his case to the American people to have them help him push his agenda along. Now, this is not to say that Mr. Obama does not have the additional qualities necessary, but that we have no reason to know if he does. If there is one job, that even though you cannot know what it is like until you have it, that cannot afford much of a learning curve, it is President of the United States. He might make a great President someday, and we may indeed find out, but I don't think he has shown us enough to get there now. We had another inexperienced guy, who said he would cross party lines and be a "uniter, not a divider" and who needed to learn on the job (and hasn't, by the way) and as we all know, George W. really did not work out well.There is still time for the Democrats and Hillary to turn this around and preserve the Presidential election for the Democrats, and subsequently, for the betterment of our country and the world. But it doesn't look good.
*(This pineapple debacle may stem from the Democrats misunderstanding of a recent CNN/Reuters Poll that asked: "If an election for President were held today and the choices were Barack Obama, John Edwards, John McCain, Mitt Romney or a Pineapple, which way would you vote? The Pineapple won this hypothetical election by a two to one margin over the runners up.)
Well, the New Hampshire results are in, and either a lot of new Hampshire residents read my blog, or maybe I should have named this post: Who's Dumber than Iowa Democrats? But we shall see where things go from here before I rename anything.