.jpg)
As little as six months ago, Senator Clinton was the overwhelming choice of the left for the Presidential nomination. Then she lost eleven straight contests to Senator Obama and the wheels came off her campaign. Now after winning two big primaries on Tuesday, Senator Clinton is proclaiming her rightful spot right next to BHO. Not so fast. She still trails Obama in the important count of delegates and the even more important still category of like-ability. Many pundits believe that she could win out the remaining primaries and still not get the nomination. It's all in the math. Hillary, however, learned from a different math book. Right now she is busy lawyering up, readying her staff for an all out war in the super delegate realm and setting the groundwork for a re-vote in Florida, if not Michigan. In the end, no one really wants another run with the Clintons. Everyone just wants to move on.
That leads me to Senator Obama. Regardless of whether you think he has the experience or not, I happen to think his experience level is satisfactory, his speech resonates louder than his policy. When you get right down to it, there is not much difference between him and Hillary. She voted for the war before she voted against it, he never voted for it. They both want nationalized healthcare. He will ask you nicely to buy into it, she will force you. They are both big taxing, big spending liberals. Obama was even voted most liberal in the Senate - over Ted Kennedy OUCH! His rhetoric is pleasing to the ears. We all want change of some kind, right? I have "hope" as much as the next guy, but Obama reminds me of a snake oil salesman in the old west. Just drink the BHO potion and it will cure what problems you have. Problem is everyone buys into it, but no one ever feels better. Go sell socialism somewhere else, we're all stocked up here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
No thanks. I have a sneaky feeling that the BHO potion tastes like Kool-Aid!
Millie
You don't want nationalized healthcare. What do you offer as an alternative?
People are going without their medications because they can't afford them. They wait until they are near death before seeing a doctor.
We need to spend a lot less on the war and a lot more on our citizens. Again, what is your alternative?
War versus healthcare - apples and oranges. I offer free market solutions. Health Savings accounts, paying individuals an incentive for staying healthy or changing their destructive lifestyle. I offer buying pools in communities or states to drive down the cost of insurance by sheer numbers. I offer incentives to physicians and insurers for well checks and nutrition education rather than merely developing drugs to mask a larger problem. I offer allowing insurers to charge for health insurance like they do auto insurance, if you lead a destructive lifestyle, you will pay more. Finally, I offer personal responsiblity as the root that drives everything else. I won't force you to buy insurance, but you know the consequences of ignoring it. Shirley, you know well that there is help available to those that can't afford their meds, and nationalized healthcare already exists in the form of medicaid and medicare.
Daniel,
First of all, I was not talking about war vs. healthcare I was talking about a limited number of dollars to be spread around.
You seem to think illness is caused by life style. This could apply to lung cancer, for instance but not for many other illnesses. The problem is that insurance is expensive no matter how healthy a person is. Group rates are already based on the number of claims and the amount of claims for a company. If a smaller company has a large number of older people chances are their insurance claims will be high, therefore their rates will go up the following year. The burden will shift to the workers who must pay a higher portion premium or maybe the employer will have to quit offering insurance as a benefit.
As far as the help for meds. It normally comes in the form of sample drugs from the doctor or an indigent plan through the drug company. Unfortunately drug companies are limiting their samples. It is becoming increasingly difficult for doctors to give their patients free meds.
It is getting harder everyday for the lower to middle income people to provide for themselves and their families.
PS I'm not sure what type of incentives you are referring to for well checks. Please don't say it will work like an HMO.
According to the CDC, $35 billion per year is spent on disease that is directly linked to diet or obesity alone! According to the CDC, every American has an average of $116 built into their insurance premiums to cover the cost of smoking related problems. How's that for lifestyle changes. The incentives I was referring to would be a premium discount from insurers to policy holders if they have a health assessment once per year and do not smoke. Why will an insurance company pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to cover a heart by-pass but will not cover a visit to a nutritionist. Finally, we need to move the health industry into the information age by having medical files online. It will reduce errors, make it easier to change doctors and ultimately save Americans and the government money.
Post a Comment