Archive for the ‘liberals’ Category

Hillary Healthcare and Iowa

Friday, January 4th, 2008

As many of you know, I often disagree with Joe Paduda regarding his healthcare views. I don’t have to look far to find good examples of where I disagree with him. Below is a post from Joe on 01.03.2007 the day of the Iowa Caucus at,

“Hillary’s strength - health care

Among Democrats polled in Iowa who are most concerned about health care, Hillary Clinton has a substantial lead (38% v 21% for Edwards and 18% for Obama). While health care is not the top issue (the economy is), it is for 24% of Iowa Democrats.

And it remains a big issue for the rest of America - a gut issue, one that keeps voters up at night, worried about coverage for their moms, dads, and kids. It bleeds over to the economy and jobs - with health insurance tied to employment, many middle-class voters are keenly aware that losing a job means losing health insurance. This is not an esoteric, remote intellectual issue - it is the neighbor who just lost her job, the “pennies for a cancer victim” tin can at the convenience store, the parent too young for Medicare and too wealthy for Medicaid.

With the Iowa race wide open, the gut issue of health care could be a deciding factor.

The caucus environment is one where neighbors talk to neighbors about issues that concern them, and about which candidate is best suited to fix that problem. Yes, Hillary Clinton has her share of detractors, but many are undecided and Hillary owns health care. And that may just make the difference for her in Iowa.”

The results of the Iowa Caucus are in, and Hillary came in THIRD. If healthcare is owned by Hillary, as Joe states, then democrat voters in Iowa must not be as interested in the topic as Joe believes. Yes, polls indicate it is an important issue. Yet, they also have indicated for some time that the economy is very important as Joe states, despite what is still a great economy in the US. Voters will ultimately decide who our next President will be, but don’t be so sure that Hillary owns healthcare. She nearly socialized our system in 1993/1994 and I don’t know that voters have forgotten.

Hillary’s Christmas Ad

Monday, December 24th, 2007

I watched Hillary Clinton’s Christmas ad yesterday. In the TV ad, she is seen sitting by a Christmas tree with wrapped packages each tagged with her wishes for us all. These items include: Alternative Energy, Universal Pre-K, Bring Home the Troops, Middle Class Tax Breaks, and of course Universal Healthcare.I am struck by several items from this ad as Hillary shows her true colors as she is trying to get the Democrat nomination. All of her “gifts” to us includes redistribution of wealth. How else could one explain Universal Healthcare and Universal Pre-K? Someone has to pay for these “gifts” and she would make sure it came from the “rich” as Democrats define that particular class of Americans. The problem of course is that Democrats define the “rich” as a much larger percentage of Americans than most people realize. Her Robin Hood mentality is counter to all things American.

Next, Hillary’s ad feels a little degrading. She is playing Santa and supposedly giving gifts to us all as if we are little children. Does Hillary really think she is smarter than the rest of us?

It seems clear to me from this ad that Hillary is trying to win by giving out money for votes. Both Democrats and Republicans use this method, and ultimately it is bad for the country. I think it was Ben Franklin that said we are basically doomed as a Republic when we start voting ourselves money. For me, I think that is Hillary’s plan.

Finally, Bill Clinton always scared me a little, but for the most part he was held in check by a Republican congress in the 1990s. Hillary is a different story. I truly believe she is a socialist (she wants to redistribute wealth). This Christmas ad just reinforces my thoughts on her. What are your thoughts about Hillary?

Healthcare Blogs And Their Liberal Point of View

Saturday, November 10th, 2007

I have been reading a lot of blogs today regarding the overall healthcare debate. Most of what I read on the Internet tends to be from a Liberal point of view. I think all views should be heard, but it is interesting that Liberals are so very angry over this topic, and seem to post in a disproportionate volume compared to Conservative views. Granted, that is just my anecdotal observation, but it does seem one sided. Also, these sites can’t seem to help themselves in throwing in comments about their anti Iraq war feelings on a healthcare post. I still have not figured that one out.

All of this reading has me thinking about my own employees and their various situations. Our employees pay a net of $31 a month for individual healthcare insurance from a major carrier. Every employer can afford the same type of insurance we offer if they choose to. Obviously some of them simply choose to not offer the benefit. In other cases, we have employees that just decide they don’t want healthcare insurance. That is their choice (at least for now). Either way, it really makes me wonder why the whole issue of the uninsured has to be so complicated.

I would like to see everyone have to buy insurance coverage. I just think it makes sense for the greater good of us all. By itself, that one factor would help control costs for all Americans. If any American can afford a cell phone and cable bill combined, they can buy health insurance. If they can’t afford both, then get rid of the cell phone and cable, the health insurance is more important. Also, I don’t have a problem with Employers being mandated to offer insurance to its employees, with help to small businesses from the government. Yet, I would prefer that employers pay into a pool based on employee size and all American’s purchase insurance on their own, just like they do car insurance.

I guess my bottom line here from reading all the post today is this. Too many people want the government to run healthcare. That is one major mistake if we go down that road. The people that tend to want this who post on the blogs believe incorrectly that all the problems in healthcare go away with government intervention. If only they had a larger thought capability and realized it would make things much much worse. So, keep the government out of my life as much as possible, but a proper role for government would be to help make sure that all Americans have access or help in purchasing private insurance.

My individual employees pay $31 net for great coverage. Can someone please fill me in on how an employer or employee can’t afford this?

Lack of Information by Liberals on SCHIP

Sunday, October 28th, 2007

I always have fun reading the liberal blogs and just how far off these people are. The comments below are from

“In the days following the President’s last veto, Dems and Republicans began to see the light, as they felt pressure from their constituents to support such a good bill. We’ll see that pressure continue. We may never change the President’s attitude toward providing healthcare for children, but we may shift the power dynamic soon regarding who gets to make that decision.”

First, The USA should not pay for healthcare for individuals over the age of 21. This bill that Bush Vetoed would have paid for the healthcare of “children” to 25 years of age. Also, the wages were way off regarding who qualified. No one that I know of has a problem with poor or working poor having tax paid subsidized healthcare, but it should not be for everyone. President Bush has not said he wants children to die in the streets from lack of healthcare. The liberals just can’t get this right about Bush.

The SCHIP bill is simply an attempt by the liberals to extend government controlled healthcare to the majority of citizens. If this bill had been signed by President Bush, most “kids” up to age 25 would have healthcare via the government and seniors 65 and over would be mostly in government ran programs. Hmm, that would have only left age 26 to seniors totally in the private sector. Again, it just seems to me that the SCHIP bill was an effort to piece mill nationalized healthcare.

After Hillary’s failed healthcare attempt in the early 1990s, the Clinton administration and its T.V talking helpers said it would just have to be done one piece at at time. I guess we see that happening with SCHIP.