Michael Moore's not too happy with President Obama -- he feels like Obama is betraying the left wing of the party, calls for Obama to be strong and get universal health care passed, i.e. a single payer, government run health care program just like Medicaid, Medicare, and other socialist programs in the United States.
Moore has a good point. Some commentators, like O'Reilly, say Obama ran on a centrist platform. He only seemed centrist because he was running against other left-wingers -- Clinton and Edwards. But Obama was the furthest left of the three. Beck has it right -- Obama said exactly what he was going to do in the campaign.
Well, almost. He backed off his pre-campaign push for a single-payer health care plan, and I suppose Moore and other lefties thought he did that only to get elected, and once in the White House, he'd go back to his single payer stance.
Why hasn't he? Because he knows it won't pass? Moore has a good point that if believe in something, stand up for it, and don't compromise. Moore thinks that Obama, as President, has the moral obligation to push what he believes, and what his big supporters thought he believed -- that's why they supported him.
I agree. A President should be true to himself. Obama revealed enough of himself during the campaign and in his pre-campaign speeches and writings that no one should be surprised that he is a marxist socialist. And I think the far left is right to be angry with Obama -- they truly thought he was going to fight for what "they" wanted, because as Moore so aptly put it, Obama is one of them.
Of course it's also very interesting that Moore is so successful in a capitalist system putting out an anti-capitalist movie. Oh, such irony!
I couldn't find a youtube on his recent criticisms of Obama, but I did find this one commenting on Obama's move to the center (which is still quite a ways to the left in my opinion).
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
AARP - Insurance fraud?
You may have heard about the squabble in Congress over Humana, who offers Medicare Advantage policies to seniors, sending out letters to its enrollees warning of the negative impact of current health reform bills. Congress voted to gag Humana on a technicality that providers of Medicare Advantage cannot advise seniors on policies.
However, AARP, which is very vocal in support of current health care reform bills, and who has done a massive campaign to get seniors to support it, was not included in the gag.
I can understand the Congress not gagging AARP -- hypocritical to the extreme, but expected. But what is AARP's motivation in all of this. Does it really think any of these bills are going to help seniors, when they all call for various cuts in Medicare?
The American Spectator perhaps exposes AARP's motivation -- it can make more money selling traditional Medicare gap policies than it does on Medicare Advantage.
"In 2008, AARP generated $652.7 million in revenue by selling products like Medigap supplemental Medicare insurance, accounting for over 60 percent of the group's revenue, according to an analysis of its financial statements cited in the report released by the House Republican Conference.
If the House Democrats health care bill becomes law, the report argues, it would be a boon to AARP, because while Medicare Advantage plans will be required to pay out 85 percent of the money collected in premiums to claims made by policy holders, the requirement would only be 65 percent for the kind of Medigap policies sold by AARP."
Would making 35% profit compared to 15% profit be enough motivation for AARP to sell out seniors? And isn't it terribly hypocritical for Mr. Obama and the Congress to demonize insurance companies for caring more about profits than about their enrollees' health care?
Glenn Beck has called for 56 members of Congress to refound America by coming clean on the corruption in their own parties. So far, he has 5 on board.
Maybe he should also call for employees of large businesses to come clean on corruption within their own businesses. The refounders are guaranteed anonymity, and the same could be done with the employees. There are laws to protect whistle-blowers, but I think Beck's way might be more successful.
And labor unions as well.
However, AARP, which is very vocal in support of current health care reform bills, and who has done a massive campaign to get seniors to support it, was not included in the gag.
I can understand the Congress not gagging AARP -- hypocritical to the extreme, but expected. But what is AARP's motivation in all of this. Does it really think any of these bills are going to help seniors, when they all call for various cuts in Medicare?
The American Spectator perhaps exposes AARP's motivation -- it can make more money selling traditional Medicare gap policies than it does on Medicare Advantage.
"In 2008, AARP generated $652.7 million in revenue by selling products like Medigap supplemental Medicare insurance, accounting for over 60 percent of the group's revenue, according to an analysis of its financial statements cited in the report released by the House Republican Conference.
If the House Democrats health care bill becomes law, the report argues, it would be a boon to AARP, because while Medicare Advantage plans will be required to pay out 85 percent of the money collected in premiums to claims made by policy holders, the requirement would only be 65 percent for the kind of Medigap policies sold by AARP."
Would making 35% profit compared to 15% profit be enough motivation for AARP to sell out seniors? And isn't it terribly hypocritical for Mr. Obama and the Congress to demonize insurance companies for caring more about profits than about their enrollees' health care?
Glenn Beck has called for 56 members of Congress to refound America by coming clean on the corruption in their own parties. So far, he has 5 on board.
Maybe he should also call for employees of large businesses to come clean on corruption within their own businesses. The refounders are guaranteed anonymity, and the same could be done with the employees. There are laws to protect whistle-blowers, but I think Beck's way might be more successful.
And labor unions as well.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Why do President's lie?
Well, the list of Presidential lies/deceit goes on and on. LBJ making up the Tonkin Bay incident; Nixon's lies are too many to enumerate; Clinton's lie "I never had sexual relation with that woman." Many believe Bush lied about WMD in Iraq, but my personal opinion is he acted in good faith on the intelligence he had at the time.
Has Obama lied to us? Well, he persists in saying the penalty for being uninsured under the new health care reform is not a tax, but every bill labels it a tax.
Has he also lied in the hardship stories he tells to convince us we need his health care reform? In at least one instance he did. He told of a man in the middle of chemotherapy who was dropped by his insurance company after the company found out he had gall stones that he didn't report, his treatment was delayed, and he died. Glenn Beck, in the video link, exposes the truth. The man was fully covered, and receiving expensive stem cell treatments, paid for by his insurance. He did die -- but many who undergo even the most extensive treatments die from cancer. Case in point, Farrah Fawcett and Patrick Swayze for some recent examples.
Beck suspects the story was misrepresented to convince we Americans that public health insurance would prevent this horror from ever happening. I agree with Beck.
Obama has to be sure the stories he uses are thoroughly vetted and he sticks to the facts. It bodes ill for this President that the truth isn't enough to make the case for his radical health care reform.
Here's the link for the video: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/videos/
Has Obama lied to us? Well, he persists in saying the penalty for being uninsured under the new health care reform is not a tax, but every bill labels it a tax.
Has he also lied in the hardship stories he tells to convince us we need his health care reform? In at least one instance he did. He told of a man in the middle of chemotherapy who was dropped by his insurance company after the company found out he had gall stones that he didn't report, his treatment was delayed, and he died. Glenn Beck, in the video link, exposes the truth. The man was fully covered, and receiving expensive stem cell treatments, paid for by his insurance. He did die -- but many who undergo even the most extensive treatments die from cancer. Case in point, Farrah Fawcett and Patrick Swayze for some recent examples.
Beck suspects the story was misrepresented to convince we Americans that public health insurance would prevent this horror from ever happening. I agree with Beck.
Obama has to be sure the stories he uses are thoroughly vetted and he sticks to the facts. It bodes ill for this President that the truth isn't enough to make the case for his radical health care reform.
Here's the link for the video: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/videos/
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Hamlet -- a lesson for our day?
Former President Clinton today said the "vast right-wing conspiracy" that Hilary thought was responsible for trying to bring Bill down during his presidency is still virulent and now aimed at President Obama. Clinton seems incapable of understanding honest dissent and disagreement -- one can't oppose a democrat without being accused of belonging to a vast right-wing conspiracy. Sigh!
That said, there are some, on both sides of the political aisle, that are indeed motivated by hate and a ultra-strong desire to destroy the other party. For those people who find themselves capable of saying, I hate President Bush, or, I hate President Obama, (fill in the name as you like), you might want to take a lesson from Hamlet, because in the process of trying to destroy the President, you will destroy the Nation.
Hamlet, written by Shakespeare, is a complex work that plays to the base human emotions of revenge and hate. Many readers and critics, most in fact, consider Hamlet a hero because he revenged the murder of his father. However, I have a dissenting minority view - I believe Shakespeare wants us to see the destructive nature of hate and revenge, even to bringing a nation into captivity by an enemy.
Hamlet's father was King, and Hamlet is mourning his father's death and his mother's sudden marriage to his Uncle Claudius, now the King of Denmark. Hamlet sees a ghost which claims to be his father, which tells him that King Claudius murdered him, in his sins, and consequently he is burning in hell. His father wants him to get revenge on King Claudius.
This is the first lesson to be learned -- the murdered King is in hell because of his own sins! So, he did not live an exemplary life. How many of those who want to bring a President down have their own sins -- perhaps equal to or worse than the one they hate? First remove the beam from thine own eye, then help the brother remove the mote from his.
What results when Hamlet decides to revenge his father's murder? In one way or another, Hamlet brings about the deaths of: Polonius, his girlfriend's father; Ophelia, his girlfriend; Rosencrantz and Guildenstern; Laertes, Ophelia's brother (thus an entire family dead because of Hamlet); his uncle Claudius; his mother Gertrude; and Hamlet himself. The final scene is Hamlet giving Denmark to Denmark's worst enemy -- Prince Fortinbras of Norway. All the while, Hamlet thought himself a hero.
We are all created with reason and intelligence; and it is our constitutional duty to be engaged in our governmental processes. Rigorous debate is healthy for the nation. Party loyalty is a virtue, not a vice -- if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything! Indeed, partisanship helps the country steer a middle course.
But hatred and revenge are destructive, not productive. We see it when radical left-wingers and right-wingers severely distort the message from the other side and maliciously malign its motives. Hatred and revenge destroy, and if we do not keep these radical fringe elements in check, they may well succeed in handing over our great nation to our worst enemy -- and all the while believe they are heroes for doing so.
So, former President Clinton, there is no vast right-wing conspiracy to bring Obama down -- but there are a whole lot of very concerned Conservatives who do not want his legislation to pass. He is far too left of center for many of us. But there are a few, in the fringes on each side, that pose a real threat to the security of our great nation, and we must keep them in check.
That said, there are some, on both sides of the political aisle, that are indeed motivated by hate and a ultra-strong desire to destroy the other party. For those people who find themselves capable of saying, I hate President Bush, or, I hate President Obama, (fill in the name as you like), you might want to take a lesson from Hamlet, because in the process of trying to destroy the President, you will destroy the Nation.
Hamlet, written by Shakespeare, is a complex work that plays to the base human emotions of revenge and hate. Many readers and critics, most in fact, consider Hamlet a hero because he revenged the murder of his father. However, I have a dissenting minority view - I believe Shakespeare wants us to see the destructive nature of hate and revenge, even to bringing a nation into captivity by an enemy.
Hamlet's father was King, and Hamlet is mourning his father's death and his mother's sudden marriage to his Uncle Claudius, now the King of Denmark. Hamlet sees a ghost which claims to be his father, which tells him that King Claudius murdered him, in his sins, and consequently he is burning in hell. His father wants him to get revenge on King Claudius.
This is the first lesson to be learned -- the murdered King is in hell because of his own sins! So, he did not live an exemplary life. How many of those who want to bring a President down have their own sins -- perhaps equal to or worse than the one they hate? First remove the beam from thine own eye, then help the brother remove the mote from his.
What results when Hamlet decides to revenge his father's murder? In one way or another, Hamlet brings about the deaths of: Polonius, his girlfriend's father; Ophelia, his girlfriend; Rosencrantz and Guildenstern; Laertes, Ophelia's brother (thus an entire family dead because of Hamlet); his uncle Claudius; his mother Gertrude; and Hamlet himself. The final scene is Hamlet giving Denmark to Denmark's worst enemy -- Prince Fortinbras of Norway. All the while, Hamlet thought himself a hero.
We are all created with reason and intelligence; and it is our constitutional duty to be engaged in our governmental processes. Rigorous debate is healthy for the nation. Party loyalty is a virtue, not a vice -- if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything! Indeed, partisanship helps the country steer a middle course.
But hatred and revenge are destructive, not productive. We see it when radical left-wingers and right-wingers severely distort the message from the other side and maliciously malign its motives. Hatred and revenge destroy, and if we do not keep these radical fringe elements in check, they may well succeed in handing over our great nation to our worst enemy -- and all the while believe they are heroes for doing so.
So, former President Clinton, there is no vast right-wing conspiracy to bring Obama down -- but there are a whole lot of very concerned Conservatives who do not want his legislation to pass. He is far too left of center for many of us. But there are a few, in the fringes on each side, that pose a real threat to the security of our great nation, and we must keep them in check.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Hypocrisy, Deceit, and Stupidity
1) Rich actors and actresses condemning the rich insurance company execs in the new pro-Obamacare commercial. I guess they think only people in their profession should be millionaires. Or maybe they can't afford health insurance.
2) Obama continuing to say that the fine on uninsured is not a tax, when every bill calls it a tax.
3) The objection to Cadillac insurance policies. For the life of me, I can't understand why they are a problem to anyone. It's just an excuse to tax someone to pay for a mega government-spending bill. And, unless it has a specific adjustment for inflation, in not too many years, inflation will catapult most insured people into that excise tax category. And to think the insurance companies aren't going to pass on the tax to the consumers?
4) The objection to catastrophic insurance. Again, for the life of me, I can't figure this one out, either. Some of you who are old enough remember that that was the purpose of insurance "in the beginning." To keep us from going bankrupt because of a very costly disease or accident. We expected to have health care expenses, and we budgeted for them, or we made monthly payments. But Obama will not allow them.
5) Afghanistan. The members of Congress who worry that Afghanistan will become another Vietnam are the very ones opposing sending more troops. Aren't they intelligent enough to understand that we quagmired and eventually lost in Vietnam precisely because it was a policy of containment -- when Nixon went in to win, they slapped him down with the War Powers Act. Either fight to win, or bring our troops home.
6) Are we now seeing real justification for the Patriot Act that gave what many thought to be too much power to the Government? Especially now with Iran heating up? It doesn't take a fatalist to predict that anyone with terrorist connections already in the US will unleash their fury on us if we take a strong stand against Iran, i.e., something that will actually work.
2) Obama continuing to say that the fine on uninsured is not a tax, when every bill calls it a tax.
3) The objection to Cadillac insurance policies. For the life of me, I can't understand why they are a problem to anyone. It's just an excuse to tax someone to pay for a mega government-spending bill. And, unless it has a specific adjustment for inflation, in not too many years, inflation will catapult most insured people into that excise tax category. And to think the insurance companies aren't going to pass on the tax to the consumers?
4) The objection to catastrophic insurance. Again, for the life of me, I can't figure this one out, either. Some of you who are old enough remember that that was the purpose of insurance "in the beginning." To keep us from going bankrupt because of a very costly disease or accident. We expected to have health care expenses, and we budgeted for them, or we made monthly payments. But Obama will not allow them.
5) Afghanistan. The members of Congress who worry that Afghanistan will become another Vietnam are the very ones opposing sending more troops. Aren't they intelligent enough to understand that we quagmired and eventually lost in Vietnam precisely because it was a policy of containment -- when Nixon went in to win, they slapped him down with the War Powers Act. Either fight to win, or bring our troops home.
6) Are we now seeing real justification for the Patriot Act that gave what many thought to be too much power to the Government? Especially now with Iran heating up? It doesn't take a fatalist to predict that anyone with terrorist connections already in the US will unleash their fury on us if we take a strong stand against Iran, i.e., something that will actually work.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Taxes on sodas, Iran, and other issues
San Francisco wants to tax sodas because, it says, they contribute significantly to obesity and other serious health problems.
I think if a city or state wants to increase revenue, that it's okay to target non-essential foods, such as sodas. However, spare us the sanctimonious lecture.
Iran is indeed a problem. In 1962, Kennedy put a blockade around Cuba to prevent Russia from installing nukes on that island, which would have put America in grave danger. Russia backed down. I do believe Iran would back down if we put her under blockade. I seriously doubt, however, that either the US or the international community has the fortitude to withstand such an action. Iran is going to stall us long enough to break our resolve.
Afghanistan. Mr. President, If you aren't in Afghanistan to win, then bring our troops home. If you don't trust the man you appointed to run this war, then appoint someone you do trust. Mr. President, make up your mind.
ACORN. My gosh, how many scandals does it take to convince the whole country that this organization is corrupt at its core. Some left-winger posted an article about someone that was laid off from ACORN because of the reduced funding caused by the exposure of these scandals. The article lamented how poor people will not be getting the help they need. This attitude is disgusting. First, it's a lie. The funding cuts have not yet been implemented and won't be until Pres. Obama signs the bill, and who knows how long that's going to be. Second, to tolerate corruption on this scale on the argument that some poor people now will not get the help they need is evil. It's evil because the money that is going into ACORN is helping only a fraction of the poor that it would help if the organization were not corrupt. So, it is a slap in the face of the poor to knowingly accept the corruption that denies them the services they need.
McCain. Glenn Beck said that McCain as President would be worse for the country. That is being turned around to Beck saying that McCain would be a worse President. That is not the same thing. Beck said McCain is not nearly as progressive as Obama, and on many issues he agrees with McCain. However, Beck points out, Obama is galvanizing -- he is SO progressive that it's a real eye-opeing shock to see what he is all about. McCain's progressiveness is much more low-key, and thus tolerable. Beck likened it to putting a frog into cold water and turning on the heat (McCain) compared to throwing a frog into boiling water (Obama).
However, I disagree with Beck. I do believe McCain has had a change of heart about the border situation, which Beck does not acknowledge. I also believe we would be winning Afhanistan and we would be standing up to Iran. And, McCain would put a stop to the pork that is snuck into the bills. So, I don't think McCain is progressive enough to harm the country.
But the most important point is, if Obama is not stopped, our country is going to suffer irreparable harm.
I think if a city or state wants to increase revenue, that it's okay to target non-essential foods, such as sodas. However, spare us the sanctimonious lecture.
Iran is indeed a problem. In 1962, Kennedy put a blockade around Cuba to prevent Russia from installing nukes on that island, which would have put America in grave danger. Russia backed down. I do believe Iran would back down if we put her under blockade. I seriously doubt, however, that either the US or the international community has the fortitude to withstand such an action. Iran is going to stall us long enough to break our resolve.
Afghanistan. Mr. President, If you aren't in Afghanistan to win, then bring our troops home. If you don't trust the man you appointed to run this war, then appoint someone you do trust. Mr. President, make up your mind.
ACORN. My gosh, how many scandals does it take to convince the whole country that this organization is corrupt at its core. Some left-winger posted an article about someone that was laid off from ACORN because of the reduced funding caused by the exposure of these scandals. The article lamented how poor people will not be getting the help they need. This attitude is disgusting. First, it's a lie. The funding cuts have not yet been implemented and won't be until Pres. Obama signs the bill, and who knows how long that's going to be. Second, to tolerate corruption on this scale on the argument that some poor people now will not get the help they need is evil. It's evil because the money that is going into ACORN is helping only a fraction of the poor that it would help if the organization were not corrupt. So, it is a slap in the face of the poor to knowingly accept the corruption that denies them the services they need.
McCain. Glenn Beck said that McCain as President would be worse for the country. That is being turned around to Beck saying that McCain would be a worse President. That is not the same thing. Beck said McCain is not nearly as progressive as Obama, and on many issues he agrees with McCain. However, Beck points out, Obama is galvanizing -- he is SO progressive that it's a real eye-opeing shock to see what he is all about. McCain's progressiveness is much more low-key, and thus tolerable. Beck likened it to putting a frog into cold water and turning on the heat (McCain) compared to throwing a frog into boiling water (Obama).
However, I disagree with Beck. I do believe McCain has had a change of heart about the border situation, which Beck does not acknowledge. I also believe we would be winning Afhanistan and we would be standing up to Iran. And, McCain would put a stop to the pork that is snuck into the bills. So, I don't think McCain is progressive enough to harm the country.
But the most important point is, if Obama is not stopped, our country is going to suffer irreparable harm.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Qadaffi is absolutely right!
Not on everything, of course, but he is spot-on in his assessment of the UN:
"He . . . chastised the U.N. for being unable to prevent or stop what he numbered at sixty-five conflicts since the Security Council was established, and called for U.N. headquarters to be moved out of New York."
The UN is an abysmal failure, and why everyone can't see that is beyond my ability to understand. Besides not being able to prevent or stop any of the conflicts since its inception, it severely restricts our national sovereignty, putting us under the burden of having to get permission to do what needs to be done as the primary peacekeeper for the world. When we act to enforce UN resolutions, the world gets mad at us.
Not only should the UN get out of New York, the United States should get out of the UN.
"He . . . chastised the U.N. for being unable to prevent or stop what he numbered at sixty-five conflicts since the Security Council was established, and called for U.N. headquarters to be moved out of New York."
The UN is an abysmal failure, and why everyone can't see that is beyond my ability to understand. Besides not being able to prevent or stop any of the conflicts since its inception, it severely restricts our national sovereignty, putting us under the burden of having to get permission to do what needs to be done as the primary peacekeeper for the world. When we act to enforce UN resolutions, the world gets mad at us.
Not only should the UN get out of New York, the United States should get out of the UN.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)