Only in America can you be denied health care for being sick

I know.. I know. Of all the posts to write after such a long break, I come back with this... the one thing that everyone is sick of? It's a big deal to me, something that needs to be done, and something that has generated so much waaarbargarbhal that I can only truly hope that Republican party dissolves into history and never heard from again in its current form - that however isn't to say that the Democrats are doing much better.

We currently have 45 million Americans without insurance. Either because they make too little and their employer doesn't provide it and they can't afford it or the people are just flat-out un-insurable. Of these 45 million undoubtedly some of them are going to go to the hospital at some point in the time being un-insured. And what happens when they do? The vast majority of them don't pay their bill. Most (if not all?) people under the poverty line are covered as is with Medicare/Medicade, but those who aren't are stuck footing the bill by them selves and if what I read was correct most people with those bills end up filing for bankruptcy anyway at which point we're footed with the bill. I already pay my medicare/medicade tax but yet I can't use it? If I'm already paying for other peoples health insurance why not just have the Government provide a basic level of care for everyone?

I'm not saying I want private insurance to go away, I don't agree with the Government coddling us from cradle to grave but we do need something to fill the gap. Purely market-based systems don't work. That's what we've had for the past (30?) years and it's done nothing but screw us time and time again as people are denied claims or told they're un-insurable due to one reason or another. I'd sure as hell rather have the government standing between me and the doctor then an insurance company. At least I get a vote in the government and they aren't allowed to discriminate.

Insurance companies are for-profit, and in most cases they don't give a damn about what happens to the patient as long as they get a profit generated for their shareholders. My daughter was born almost 11 months ago and I still get letters from the insurance company that says "We over-paid, you owe another X amount". I cannot tell you how many times I've gotten those letters since Olyveas birth and nothing frustrates me more.

And then we have the whole insanity that is called COBRA which is taking your current employer insurance with you when you leave your job. And the cost of taking my current insurance with me? $2,000-$3,000. I can't recall the exact number but it was over $2k. How is this okay? How are we willing to tolerate this? More importantly how are we willing to listen to the bullshit that Rush and Beck spew just to draw more buzz and generate more revenue. If ANYONE thinks that either of these two morons gives a damn about the welfare of common Americans they're in for a rude-awakening. They don't care about policy, they don't care about negotiating or getting anything done. They're out to pick a fight, generate buzz, and drive revenue. And yet we take what they say as gospel.

It's so frustrating to see all these morons bemoaning about them "losing their country". Well ya know what, talk to me when you repeal the Patriot Act, re-apply Habeas Corpus, or remove warrant-less wire-tapping. Let me know when you're willing to actually to talk policy and not spew partisan talking points.

What's this, a post?!

I can't believe it's been so long since I blogged! I didn't even blog on my birthday.. what's wrong with me? I'm 26 by the way. My daughter is soon to turn one in a few months. Where has the time gone?

There are a few things I wanted to comment on that have been going on in the local news. One of them being nothing new but I thought brought an interesting argument to the table. That debate being abortion and the pro life/choice movement. The argument being that no one who is pro-choice is anti-life (which I don't think any sane person could argue anyway) but that it's more of a question of at what level do you allow the government to claim possession/rights over a life and how far can a goverment go to protect a life? My personal thoughts is that any real ground that can be made will come from the middle where there are core-beleifs given up on both sides and plans are set in motion to lower un-planned pregnancy rather then out-lawing abortion.

The other situation going on that I'm really interested in is Iran. There's a part of me that is fascinated and jealous of the events going on in Iran, that these people are going through these motions and bringing about change in their own country. I don't think we'll see a "free" or "friendly" Iran or any of the non-sense I've been hearing from the news or twitter. perhaps more welcoming of Western ideals, sure. There's a part of me that is envious of what they're doing, willing to take a stand in the face of their Supreme Leader saying "back down or we will crush any revolt". But it's also remarkable that here in America we have a transfer of power that has for the most part always remained peaceful and the fact we pull that off is amazing. I'm hoping that however the events in Iran play out that the end result is a "better" Iran in the eyes of the Iranian people, regardless of how we view that country.

Tax day tea party? Give me a break

http://taxdayteaparty.com/
Seriously? It's okay to be pissed off now when there's a democrat in the whitehouse? Where the frak was your outrage when Bush was approving the bailout. Where was your rage when Paulson asked for and recieved all those billions of dollars with NO oversight?

You beat up that straw man, Republicans, you beat it up real good.

The founding fathers, conservitaves, and you

So I was thinking the other day about what we call conservitive, liberal, and everything in between.  When was the last time we had anything close to a conservitive president?  I know the majority will say "Ronald Reigan" but I call total shens  on that and would say Ike.  He warned us of all the things to come and yet no Republican president after him took a lick of advice.  So why not Reigan you ask?  There was nothing conservitive about him.  He surfed us into a massive debt (surfing is borrowing debt to pay debt) which wasn't fully paid off until the Clinton era.

The changes that "Conservitives" have implimented in the last eight years are astounding by any measure, one could say "Revolutionary" in the sweeping changes they brought in and how they flipped our goverment on its head.  But Obama can be in office for two months and he's burning the Republic to the ground?

I'm not pleased with Obama signing in some things he signed, I'm not pleased with Congress voting for them.  But most of what Obama has signed into law was pushed for by the Bush administration.  We're getting the government we deserve.  How many of you can say what your senator has or hasn't voted for?  Do you hold them accountable to do the job you elected them to?  People shouldn't be afraid of their government, the government should be afraid of their people.

Comment change

I changed the comment system so anyone can comment, there is no longer an authentication needed, just the word verification.  Hopefully that will help out.... anyone that reads this.

Enough is frakking enough. I'm looking at you, media

What ever happened to real journalism?  Ya know.. the kind where they informed people instead of just giving drive-by hits worded whatever way they wanted them to be to get the biggest scare factor?  I'm referring mostly to this piece of crap article written by Derek Broes - http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/dbroes/2009/04/03/youve-been-warned/

The first part makes it sound like the government controls pay for anyone (at least to my reading) when it only has the legal right to make alterments to companies that took TARP money and that doesn't include companies that did work for bailed-out companies.  So if you did work with AIG but didn't work for AIG, you're fine.

And why is this such a big deal?  The federal government has bailed out these companies, the US people are a major shareholder of the said companies and we have every right to dictate what pay is what until we are paid in full.  Don't like it?  Don't accept TARP money and don't run your company into the ground.

The second part of the article goes into the SERVE act which re-establishes AmeriCorp and other volunteer services.  This time around people that serve are given tax breaks, credits to go to college, etc.  I think it's a fantastic incentive to get people to donate their time that normally wouldn't or couldn't afford college any other way.

Search for H1664 H1338 on http://thomas.loc.gov/ to read the language of the bill.

Where did it all go..... wrong? Or atleast where did it all change.

I don't want to imply that anything is "wrong" or that I'm unhappy with anything but as I was listening to NPR today I had to wonder... where did I get my centrist/slightly-left beliefs?  My parents are staunchly republican, most of the influences in my life have been very Conservative, and yet I find my self at odds with the very beliefs that I grew up with.  Not all of them, there's a lot of things I like about the Conservative values but I do find myself more and more disagreeing with some of their core values.

The "Right" says to protect the sanctity of marriage by keeping it man-woman.  I find myself saying "Okay, then separate government from it and make marriage a religion ceremony and the government will view everything as a civil union".  Who cares who you marry/love, it's not the role of the government to dictate your lifestyle.

The "Right" says we're a nation founded on judeo-christian values but that's not the case either.  Religious freedom was a law put in place to stop the federal government from coming in a persecuting religions.  No one talks about local governments and all the horrible persecutions they did.  The founding fathers knew that religion should play no role in government because it would lead to the same things that happened in England, at lest on a federal level.  I'm sure they were wise enough to recognize that they couldn't pin down persecution in local colonies.  

I'm not saying either side has it right but whatever happened to our separation of church and state?  Where did we get the audacious idea that it was fine for us impose our beliefs through a federal government.  I get that, for example, Utah will always be a Mormon state and will be influenced that way... and I'm fine with that.  I'm fine with state rights being what they are and the federal government having to take a far more neutral stance.  But where the state and the federal government have to play together, local religion should play no part and we should be mature enough to keep the two separate.