Cato has a peice that talks about how and why our health care system, for all its faults, is much better than any other system, including Britain and Canada.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
News and Commentary re: the great health care debate.
Fox News reports that Medicare Trustees say program will spend more in this year (2009) than it takes in. And team P/R/O want us to let them federalize everyone's health care? WTF???
Monday, May 11, 2009
Editorial Summary - 11 May 2009
Richard Posner is a big name in Law & Economics and is a Federal judge. When he speaks, I listen. Period. Here, he tells of what caused the current economic recession, how severe it is, and what can be done to get us out of the recession. His ideas are clearly more conservative than what is coming out of P/R/O (Pelosi/Reid/Obama), yet phrased in a way that might appeal to independents and some moderate Democrats.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Editorial Summary and Review - Sunday, 22 March 2009
Fed's Secrecy Policy is 2 Years Old
WND.com
Rate: **** (4)
Ok. Not an OpEd – but important
In 2006, the Federal Reserve stopped reporting M3. For those of you who are not economists, M3 is the amount of cash in circulation. When the Fed prints a $100 bill, M3 increases by $100.00 When the Fed takes a $100 bill out of circulation, M3 decreases by $100. Although the article is a tad conspiratorial sounding, the importance of discussing M3 is so high that people need to read this.
- Because the Fed is not reporting this number anymore, the American people do not know how much of the “stimulus” is being borrowed and how much is being just printed. Since the quantity of dollars is unknown, the amount of inflation that must be occurring right now (even if the effects are not yet seriously felt), is also unknown. The inability to accurately price goods for inflation can only lead to more volatility and large price swings.
Let's Have a Constitutional Showdown
Henry Lamb
WND.com
Rate: **** (4)
Call to action for H.R. 450, “Enumerated Powers Act” (authored by Rep. John Shadegg). Legislation would require Congress to cite chapter & verse on what section of the Constitution authorized each section of the legislation. Author makes a call for action after explaining the bill, asking for talk radio callers and constituent outreach to Congress and then says that “Soon, congressmen will have to sign the bill or explain why they won't.” Saying that the author is a little optimistic is like saying that D.C. has a few liars and thieves. Just a few...
- Two big things here: 1) Did I see that a Congressman other than Ron Paul supports the Constitution??? Damn. I need to put out my joint, walk off the munchies I'm getting, and re-read this. 2) Although I love the idea of this legislation, the discussion of how private citizens can get involved is valuable information that I want all of MY readers to know.
Vindicating McCain
WSJ.com
Rate: *** (3)
Remember the OB1 v. Mac debates? Mac said the economy was fundamentally sound and got creamed. Mac said that he wanted to tax employee health benefits and everyone freaked out. Then last week, OB1 said the economy is fundamentally sound. Now WSJ article says that OB1 wants to tax employee health benefits. Hmmm... Who did we elect? Oh yeah. The guy whose rhetric was so over-the-top about how unfair taxing health benefts would be that I thought that he thought that this was the 3d rail. Blah. Big difference though on Mac v. OB1 on the health care tax. Mac wanted to restore valuation of services through prices. OB1 wants socialized health care.
Government vs. Confidence
Michael Gerson
Townhall.com
Rate: *** (3)
Not a typical Op/Ed piece. Contains a series of assertions beginning with an explanation of how either Geithner or Dodds put bonus loophole in place and the new “AIG outrage” bonus tax. This series of events is then tied to an argument about why the government is not going to succeed in getting the private sector to invest in the banks' toxic assets.
- The abnormal design of this Op/Ed makes it somewhat difficult to follow. It sounds more like an angry rant followed by an assertion that the administration is in La-La-Land in its recovery plan rather than a well-thought out argument. One thing saves this piece – No one else is making this link – that the Obama/Geithner/Dodds behavior on AIG bonuses is going to scare away anyone who would otherwise consider investing in toxic assets.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Editorial Summary and Review - 20 March 2009
Begins with a review of Chris Dodd's AIG - Bailout Bonus connection and the implications on his political career. Makes a brief reference to AIG donations to Obama. Ends with a bang. If we own AIG, is it a violation of the First Amendment for AIG to have a division that promotes Shariah? Thomas More Law Center is suing the government. Stay tuned.
This is exactly why we should not mix economy and state. Muslims in the United States have a right to worship as they please and to choose to deal only with corporations that do not offend their religion. Bravo to AIG for meeting an untapped market. Now, the bailout appears to create a situation where the Constitution must be violated. Either a government owned corporation funds and promotes religion, or people who made contracts with AIG when it was a private corporation will have their contracts wrongfully violated by the U.S. government. The only other option I see is to remove AIG from the public sector entirely.
Has a summary of the history of top bracket income tax rates and spells out the macro-effects of tax cuts vs. tax increases on the country over the decade(s) after the tax policy change. Speculates that the 90% tax on over $250K may not be about AIG. Although it came through different channels, the $250K number is the same that Obama uses to describe "the RICH" that he wants to tax.
I am not a conspiracy nut. Although I do believe that Obama wants to "spread the wealth around", I do not currently subscribe to the idea that he is planning to raise the ordinary top bracket to 90%. It is much more likely that this is nothing more than the Demos trying to play CYA. But even if I don't agree with the hint of conspiracy in Kudlow's piece, he does a good job of explaining the long term (uber-macro)-effects of changing the top marginal tax rate. More Americans need to know this information.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Should I Run?
In recent weeks, I have begun to give serious consideration to running for Congress. Why? What can I do? How can a libertarian-Republican win in California's 5th Congressional District, where Doris Matsui won reelection with 75%, as a legacy candidate? I will focus on values. Or more specifically, I will focus on those ideas and policies that can appeal to the values of more than just the conservative right. So where does this idea come from? What policies does it hold? Read on.
In the final few weeks of the election, Dennis Prager made a comment on his radio show about how everyone is a so-called "values voter." He pointed out that the values the left hold are different than the values on the right. The most common values among those of the left are equality and fairness. The most common values on the right are life, tradition, and functionality (what works). As a libertarian, I can tell you that the most common value of libertarians is freedom, with federalism being a clear second.
Looking at this list, the following values stand out: Life, tradition, freedom, equality, fairness, federalism, and practicality. Any policy goal that can appeal to all of these values will be a winning issue and one that should have a good chance of actually being implemented into law. Any policy goal that can appeal to most of these values, and at least not offend those values it does not explicitly appeal to, would likewise be a strong policy to promote.
The reason why this is so important can be summed up by an idea implanted in my brain by my former debate team coach, K.C. Boylan. She mentioned that when making an argument, if you do not tailor the argument to the values of your audience, they might see your lips move and hear some sort of noise, but they will not understand what you are saying. Being able to tailor an argument to the values of the audience is so important that if someone could come up with policies that could be presented to appeal to liberal, conservative, and libertarian values alike, the proponent of these policies would likely be able to vault to a 100% electoral college landslide win of the United States Presidency.
With this in mind, while taking one of my nightly walks, I brainstormed for a couple of hours on what policies I could present differently (changing only arguments, not policies) to people on different parts of the political spectrum.
So what policies can be presented in such a way as to appeal to most or all of these above-listed values? The details will be for another day, but for now, I will say this:
* FLAT TAX (freedom, equality, fairness, practicality)
* REMOVE CANNABIS FROM SCHEDULE 1 (freedom, federalism, fairness, equality, practicality, life)
* IMMIGRATION REFORM (freedom, equality, fairness, practicality, life, tradition)
In order to flesh these ideas out, I will post detailed position papers over the next few days, in which I will show how each of these platform ideas appeals to the listed values, and therefore why each should be able to appeal to liberals, conservatives, and libertarians, while offending noone.
I know these ideas will be successful. Maybe the leadership of each of the conservative, liberal, and libertarian movements will find fault with these policies. But when I have stated these policy goals (including the details to be added later), and the tailored arguments to the values of the audiences, I have received standing ovations from teacher's union democrats, trial lawyer democrats, libertarian friends, economically conservative businessmen, and conservative commentators alike. These ideas and the arguments that will soon be posted will win. And they will win big.
In the final few weeks of the election, Dennis Prager made a comment on his radio show about how everyone is a so-called "values voter." He pointed out that the values the left hold are different than the values on the right. The most common values among those of the left are equality and fairness. The most common values on the right are life, tradition, and functionality (what works). As a libertarian, I can tell you that the most common value of libertarians is freedom, with federalism being a clear second.
Looking at this list, the following values stand out: Life, tradition, freedom, equality, fairness, federalism, and practicality. Any policy goal that can appeal to all of these values will be a winning issue and one that should have a good chance of actually being implemented into law. Any policy goal that can appeal to most of these values, and at least not offend those values it does not explicitly appeal to, would likewise be a strong policy to promote.
The reason why this is so important can be summed up by an idea implanted in my brain by my former debate team coach, K.C. Boylan. She mentioned that when making an argument, if you do not tailor the argument to the values of your audience, they might see your lips move and hear some sort of noise, but they will not understand what you are saying. Being able to tailor an argument to the values of the audience is so important that if someone could come up with policies that could be presented to appeal to liberal, conservative, and libertarian values alike, the proponent of these policies would likely be able to vault to a 100% electoral college landslide win of the United States Presidency.
With this in mind, while taking one of my nightly walks, I brainstormed for a couple of hours on what policies I could present differently (changing only arguments, not policies) to people on different parts of the political spectrum.
So what policies can be presented in such a way as to appeal to most or all of these above-listed values? The details will be for another day, but for now, I will say this:
* FLAT TAX (freedom, equality, fairness, practicality)
* REMOVE CANNABIS FROM SCHEDULE 1 (freedom, federalism, fairness, equality, practicality, life)
* IMMIGRATION REFORM (freedom, equality, fairness, practicality, life, tradition)
In order to flesh these ideas out, I will post detailed position papers over the next few days, in which I will show how each of these platform ideas appeals to the listed values, and therefore why each should be able to appeal to liberals, conservatives, and libertarians, while offending noone.
I know these ideas will be successful. Maybe the leadership of each of the conservative, liberal, and libertarian movements will find fault with these policies. But when I have stated these policy goals (including the details to be added later), and the tailored arguments to the values of the audiences, I have received standing ovations from teacher's union democrats, trial lawyer democrats, libertarian friends, economically conservative businessmen, and conservative commentators alike. These ideas and the arguments that will soon be posted will win. And they will win big.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Ron Paul & Prop 13
I have said in the past that I support Ron Paul (R, Tex) for president. In those prior blogs, I indicated that I did not believe that he had any chance to win the Republican nomination. I now change that opinion. I now believe that he WILL win the Republican nomination. My change in opinion comes from the following analyses: 1) the similarities of the other candidates; 2) Howard Dean; 3) Crossover primaries and the independant vote; 4) California's anti-property tax initiative from 1978, Proposition 13.
1) The other Republican candidates are too similar to each other and will split the vote.
My first point here is that ALL of the other Republican primary candidates support continuing the war in Iraq. That includes all 9 of the other candidates who have participated in the first three Republican debates AND Fred Thompson. I believe (will look up and verify later) that Newt Gingrich does as well. Any Republican primary voter who wants to end the war will have only ONE candidate who agrees with them.
My second point here is that the other Republican candidates can be bunched into a few categories: the anti-immigration candidates, the PRO-LIFE candidates (as the only thing they are known for and the only thing they really care about), the whatever-public-polls-say-at-the-moment candidates, Rudy (who cannot win the primaries because of his liberal views on abortion and gun control), and McCain, who has two laws bearing his name that guaruntee him as unelectable in the primaries: the recent immigration bill and the campaign finance (incumbent protection) law.
There is only one candidate who has crossover appeal for the general election (Dems and 'Pubs), and who has a unique constituency, and whose views are ultimately acceptable to a significant number of the Republican primary voters: Ron Paul.
2) Howard Dean (and the rise of the Internet-candidacy).
Howard Dean was badmouthed by the mainstream press to the extent that he was mentioned at all. And yet, he won enough votes to earn himself the chairmanship of the Democrat's National Committee. How did he do this? The Internet. Gore might have invented the internet (or so he claimed). Howard Dean showed how to harness the power of the Internet. Despite poor national poll showings on a daily basis, he won a large number of supporters in the active online community. This translated into an incredible primary election night streak of successes that would have been even greater had there been more candidates out there to attract and divide the non-internet Democrat primary voters. The Republican candidates are of sufficient number (see above) that a major internet candidacy has a real chance of not just winning a couple of primaries, but of actually sweeping the whole damn thing.
Ron Paul's supporters have been accused of 'poll spamming' by those who don't agree with him. Why? Because in the aftermath of EVERY presidential debate so far, he has come out in clear first place. We are not just talking about a few percentage points here. He has outpaced the top 3 (Rudy, McCain, & Romney) by something along the lines of 2-1, with all of their votes being COMBINED! Is there some spamming going on? Probably. But even if you say that ONLY Ron Paul's supporters are spamming the polls, this indicates that Ron Paul is clearly the candidate of choice among the internet savvy. At worst, it indicates that the other candidates have no clue as to how to manipulate unscientific polls. Far more likely, IMHO, the majority of Ron Paul's supporters are daily internet users and so he gets a disproportionate vote online. However, the same was true of Howard Dean. Let's see how this one plays out on Feb. 5. My guess, Ron wins BIG in New Hampshire and combined with my next point, translates that into a massive win on Feb. 5th.
3) Crossover voters.
Okay, this one really is cheating IMHO. But it is also the law. Many states allow voters to choose on election day which party's primary they will vote in. The Democrats effectively have no real choices. They can vote for the woman, the black man, or the rich white trial attorney. Whichever face they put on it, they are voting for nationalized health care, ending the war in Iraq, and ending the "Bush tax cuts for the rich." From a substantive perspective, there is no difference between them other than background, race, and gender. Because of this, many Democrats (at least those who care about policy instead of identity politics) might end up deciding to cross over and vote in the Republican primary. Since almost all Democrat primary voters agree that the war in Iraq should end, if they do cross over for the primary vote, there is only ONE candidate that they might go for: Ron Paul. I have 3 friends who are democrats. 2 have said that they might consider crossing over. My dad, a die-hard teacher's-union democrat who has never (to my knowledge) voted Republican in his life watched the latest (3rd) Republican preidential primary debate. Without any prompting from me, and without even knowing that I support Ron Paul (I do not discuss politics with him), he said that Paul was the only one who made sense. Plus, for those democrats who care more about the Iraq issue than any other, crossing over and voting for Paul makes sense. If Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination, the US will be exiting Iraq no matter which party wins the 2008 general election! My guess is that as democrats realize this, that even if Ron Paul does not gain a plurality of Republican primary voters, that he will still win the primaries where crossover votes are allowed.
4) Prop 13.
In 1978, the people of the State of California got an initiative placed on the ballot and passed it to severely limit property taxes specifically and the ability of the legislature to increase ANY taxes generally. This measure was OPPOSED by the Republican establishment, the Democrat establishment, ALL major elected officials and most local officals, Big Labor, Big Business, and the Main-Stream Media (MSM). The little guy was sick of high taxes. The little guy won.
Ron Paul is OPPOSED by the Republican establishment, the Democrat establishment, Big Labor, Big Business (they like corporate subsidies), and the MSM. The people are sick of gevernment officials enacting tax hikes, engaging in wars of aggression, and ignoring the Constitution. In light of the similarity of the other Republican candidates, the rise of the Internet-candidacy, and the ability of voters in many states to cross party-lines for the primary elections...
1) The other Republican candidates are too similar to each other and will split the vote.
My first point here is that ALL of the other Republican primary candidates support continuing the war in Iraq. That includes all 9 of the other candidates who have participated in the first three Republican debates AND Fred Thompson. I believe (will look up and verify later) that Newt Gingrich does as well. Any Republican primary voter who wants to end the war will have only ONE candidate who agrees with them.
My second point here is that the other Republican candidates can be bunched into a few categories: the anti-immigration candidates, the PRO-LIFE candidates (as the only thing they are known for and the only thing they really care about), the whatever-public-polls-say-at-the-moment candidates, Rudy (who cannot win the primaries because of his liberal views on abortion and gun control), and McCain, who has two laws bearing his name that guaruntee him as unelectable in the primaries: the recent immigration bill and the campaign finance (incumbent protection) law.
There is only one candidate who has crossover appeal for the general election (Dems and 'Pubs), and who has a unique constituency, and whose views are ultimately acceptable to a significant number of the Republican primary voters: Ron Paul.
2) Howard Dean (and the rise of the Internet-candidacy).
Howard Dean was badmouthed by the mainstream press to the extent that he was mentioned at all. And yet, he won enough votes to earn himself the chairmanship of the Democrat's National Committee. How did he do this? The Internet. Gore might have invented the internet (or so he claimed). Howard Dean showed how to harness the power of the Internet. Despite poor national poll showings on a daily basis, he won a large number of supporters in the active online community. This translated into an incredible primary election night streak of successes that would have been even greater had there been more candidates out there to attract and divide the non-internet Democrat primary voters. The Republican candidates are of sufficient number (see above) that a major internet candidacy has a real chance of not just winning a couple of primaries, but of actually sweeping the whole damn thing.
Ron Paul's supporters have been accused of 'poll spamming' by those who don't agree with him. Why? Because in the aftermath of EVERY presidential debate so far, he has come out in clear first place. We are not just talking about a few percentage points here. He has outpaced the top 3 (Rudy, McCain, & Romney) by something along the lines of 2-1, with all of their votes being COMBINED! Is there some spamming going on? Probably. But even if you say that ONLY Ron Paul's supporters are spamming the polls, this indicates that Ron Paul is clearly the candidate of choice among the internet savvy. At worst, it indicates that the other candidates have no clue as to how to manipulate unscientific polls. Far more likely, IMHO, the majority of Ron Paul's supporters are daily internet users and so he gets a disproportionate vote online. However, the same was true of Howard Dean. Let's see how this one plays out on Feb. 5. My guess, Ron wins BIG in New Hampshire and combined with my next point, translates that into a massive win on Feb. 5th.
3) Crossover voters.
Okay, this one really is cheating IMHO. But it is also the law. Many states allow voters to choose on election day which party's primary they will vote in. The Democrats effectively have no real choices. They can vote for the woman, the black man, or the rich white trial attorney. Whichever face they put on it, they are voting for nationalized health care, ending the war in Iraq, and ending the "Bush tax cuts for the rich." From a substantive perspective, there is no difference between them other than background, race, and gender. Because of this, many Democrats (at least those who care about policy instead of identity politics) might end up deciding to cross over and vote in the Republican primary. Since almost all Democrat primary voters agree that the war in Iraq should end, if they do cross over for the primary vote, there is only ONE candidate that they might go for: Ron Paul. I have 3 friends who are democrats. 2 have said that they might consider crossing over. My dad, a die-hard teacher's-union democrat who has never (to my knowledge) voted Republican in his life watched the latest (3rd) Republican preidential primary debate. Without any prompting from me, and without even knowing that I support Ron Paul (I do not discuss politics with him), he said that Paul was the only one who made sense. Plus, for those democrats who care more about the Iraq issue than any other, crossing over and voting for Paul makes sense. If Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination, the US will be exiting Iraq no matter which party wins the 2008 general election! My guess is that as democrats realize this, that even if Ron Paul does not gain a plurality of Republican primary voters, that he will still win the primaries where crossover votes are allowed.
4) Prop 13.
In 1978, the people of the State of California got an initiative placed on the ballot and passed it to severely limit property taxes specifically and the ability of the legislature to increase ANY taxes generally. This measure was OPPOSED by the Republican establishment, the Democrat establishment, ALL major elected officials and most local officals, Big Labor, Big Business, and the Main-Stream Media (MSM). The little guy was sick of high taxes. The little guy won.
Ron Paul is OPPOSED by the Republican establishment, the Democrat establishment, Big Labor, Big Business (they like corporate subsidies), and the MSM. The people are sick of gevernment officials enacting tax hikes, engaging in wars of aggression, and ignoring the Constitution. In light of the similarity of the other Republican candidates, the rise of the Internet-candidacy, and the ability of voters in many states to cross party-lines for the primary elections...
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
The 'Pub debate - Rudy v. God; McCain; Paul; Tancredo
Last night's Republican presidential primary debate wasquite interesting. While it lacked a stellar moment for my candidate of choice (Ron Paul), it had some moments of humor and was instructive on several candidates.
The humorous moment of the night was clearly when Rudy was talking about abortion. There was a thunderstorm going on that knocked out the sound several times. When Rudy was equivocating on the issue (I agree generally with Rudy on this one), a major lightning strike hit and the sound went out. All the other candidates backed away from Rudy, holding their hands up to shield themselves from him. Rudy then pointed upwards and made a comment about how his parochial school upbringing and the timing of the lightning strike made him somewhat nervous. The Hand of God indeed!
LEADERSHIP
John McCain showed real leadership last night. I don't like him at all because of his incumbancy protection law that he is so proud of (aka campaign finance; aka no-one can criticize a candidate as an election draws near). I will NOT vote for him under any circumstances because of this - even if it ends up being McCain v. Hillary. That said, he showed a strong defense of his immigration bill and showed that he has real leadership abilities for the war on terror.
ON AVOIDING ASKING THE QUESTION
Health care was a major topic in last night's debate. There was ONE doctor on the stage. When discussing morality, they immediately turned to the one minister on the stage. But for health care, for some reason the moderator ignored the only doctor present: Ron Paul. How in the heck could this happen? Oh wait, it would have showed all the other Demopublicans and Republicrats that have spoken on this over the last few days to be playing with a 51 card deck. Check that. They would have been shown to be playing with a 2 card deck - the 2 jokers. All the real cards would have been with Paul. But the MSM doesn't want the public to see a real health care alternative - eliminate the perverse incentives that drive up health care costs by having people pay for their own insurance. Currently, because of tax incentives (to have employers foot the cost of insurance which then foots the cost of the care), most Americans pay only about 5% of their health care costs out of pocket. So they want more and don't understand what the costs are! Give the same tax incentives to private individuals for buying insurance or for paying out-of-pocket without buying insurance. If people know what health care actually costs, they can make rational decisions about how to live and what medicine they actually need. But hearing that would harm the chances of getting long Canadian and European and Cuban type lines for the emergency room (ie, nationalized health care). The Demo plan (they are all the same) and the Romney plan are both anti freedom plans designed to further mask the true costs of health care so that people want more without seeing the real price, which is going to have to come out of taxpayer wallets.
THE ELIMINATION OF TANCREDO AS A SERIOUS CANDIDATE
Tancredo came out and said he wants to put a stop on illegal immigration. I applaud him. His stances against pork-barrel spending are also applaudable. But when the jack-ass says he wants to stop LEGAL immigration in addition to illegal immigration, he has now eliminated himself from serious contention for the presidency. At least I hope he has. It would be a very poor reflection on the US and our race relations if he were to actually get elected after taking a stance like that. Kill the damn 'spics! So much for "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddle masses yearning to be free...". The guy needs to take a trip to NYC and relearn what it means to be an American. Unless his parents are Navajo, that is.
Prior to that statement, Tancredo had done such a good job in the debate I was actually considering putting him on my approval list along side Rep. Ron Paul and Gov. Bill Richardson (d). Now - the guy went off his rocker on a nationally televised debate. To hell with him. The mic should have gone out on him the way it did on Rudy.
The humorous moment of the night was clearly when Rudy was talking about abortion. There was a thunderstorm going on that knocked out the sound several times. When Rudy was equivocating on the issue (I agree generally with Rudy on this one), a major lightning strike hit and the sound went out. All the other candidates backed away from Rudy, holding their hands up to shield themselves from him. Rudy then pointed upwards and made a comment about how his parochial school upbringing and the timing of the lightning strike made him somewhat nervous. The Hand of God indeed!
LEADERSHIP
John McCain showed real leadership last night. I don't like him at all because of his incumbancy protection law that he is so proud of (aka campaign finance; aka no-one can criticize a candidate as an election draws near). I will NOT vote for him under any circumstances because of this - even if it ends up being McCain v. Hillary. That said, he showed a strong defense of his immigration bill and showed that he has real leadership abilities for the war on terror.
ON AVOIDING ASKING THE QUESTION
Health care was a major topic in last night's debate. There was ONE doctor on the stage. When discussing morality, they immediately turned to the one minister on the stage. But for health care, for some reason the moderator ignored the only doctor present: Ron Paul. How in the heck could this happen? Oh wait, it would have showed all the other Demopublicans and Republicrats that have spoken on this over the last few days to be playing with a 51 card deck. Check that. They would have been shown to be playing with a 2 card deck - the 2 jokers. All the real cards would have been with Paul. But the MSM doesn't want the public to see a real health care alternative - eliminate the perverse incentives that drive up health care costs by having people pay for their own insurance. Currently, because of tax incentives (to have employers foot the cost of insurance which then foots the cost of the care), most Americans pay only about 5% of their health care costs out of pocket. So they want more and don't understand what the costs are! Give the same tax incentives to private individuals for buying insurance or for paying out-of-pocket without buying insurance. If people know what health care actually costs, they can make rational decisions about how to live and what medicine they actually need. But hearing that would harm the chances of getting long Canadian and European and Cuban type lines for the emergency room (ie, nationalized health care). The Demo plan (they are all the same) and the Romney plan are both anti freedom plans designed to further mask the true costs of health care so that people want more without seeing the real price, which is going to have to come out of taxpayer wallets.
THE ELIMINATION OF TANCREDO AS A SERIOUS CANDIDATE
Tancredo came out and said he wants to put a stop on illegal immigration. I applaud him. His stances against pork-barrel spending are also applaudable. But when the jack-ass says he wants to stop LEGAL immigration in addition to illegal immigration, he has now eliminated himself from serious contention for the presidency. At least I hope he has. It would be a very poor reflection on the US and our race relations if he were to actually get elected after taking a stance like that. Kill the damn 'spics! So much for "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddle masses yearning to be free...". The guy needs to take a trip to NYC and relearn what it means to be an American. Unless his parents are Navajo, that is.
Prior to that statement, Tancredo had done such a good job in the debate I was actually considering putting him on my approval list along side Rep. Ron Paul and Gov. Bill Richardson (d). Now - the guy went off his rocker on a nationally televised debate. To hell with him. The mic should have gone out on him the way it did on Rudy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)