Welfare makes the middle class poor (Greedy Goblin copy paste)

Most low-earner, but hard-working people don't see (and no one explained to them) how the welfare leech make them poor. They say: "my tax is low, and while I'm not happy paying the state even a penny, if I would pay zero, it wouldn't help me much. I would save a couple hundred bucks a year. The big difference would be if that billionaire wouldn't be such a greedy bastard and would pay me 5K more.".

Right-wing publicists answer some techno-blabla about "salaries are also affected by the forces of supply and demand" or "we must remain competitive with China where the salaries are much lower" or "the huge tax we must pay forces us to economize" or something like that. The blue collars don't understand it and take it as bullshit. The right-wing in turn call them dumb six-pack Joes.

The problem is not that the above is "too technical". The problem is that it's wrong in the sense that it's not answering the blue-collar's question: why am I poor? "Six-pack Joe" is right that it's not tax making him poor and tax cut wouldn't help him. The right-wing and libertarian anti-tax movements fail because they cannot offer solution to the worker class. They are poor and don't want to be, especially in the country that they carry on their back with hard work.

The blue collars are right that they would be poor even if they would pay no tax and the welfare of the inactives would come from some magic source, like some foreign country would pay for it. It's not the little tax they pay make them poor. It's the welfare itself.

There are countries where the median income is $1-2000. In Hungary where I live, it's about $7K. German pensioners who have low pension in Germany, often move to Hungary and live like high-middle class from thesame low pension that Germany sends them. How?

To be rich, you don't need money. You need products and services. You need a home, you need food, you need health care, you need transportation and so on. In such countries you can buy these goods for cheap. How? Because the producers of these have no better options. I can build a good house from $20K as I can hire hard-working masons and carpenters who work for $4/hour.

Can you do the same? No, because if we would transfer the same masons to your country, they would receive $3-4000/year welfare so they would refuse to work for lousy $4/hour.

The blue-collar $20K earner is probably above the median. Every second person earns less than him. However he cannot benefit from it, as these people won't work for him. If he needs a baby-sitter, he must compete with $100K earners for the limited baby-sitter supply. He supposed to be in the middle of the food chain, in the middle of the status ladder. He is called "middle class" for a reason.

But welfare simply eliminates the people below him from the work market, making him the poorest. If welfare would be removed even if the taxes are not changed, he would instantly be much richer as (some of) the former welfare leeches would offer him services and goods for very low price. He could afford from the same money to employ gardener, baby-sitter, cook, shopping boy, maintenance guy. He could get his home and car maintained from a couple hundred, saving him buying a new one. He could have hand-made clothes fitted to his body. He could eat in restaurant every day or get cooked food from cheap basic materials at home from his cook. His town could afford to employ streetsweeps, street-gardeners, graffiti-hunting security guards, day-care workers and so on. He would live like he should: in a clean and tidy neighborhood served by servants.

Also, the social status of the blue-collar would sky-rocket. Currently he is just another poor guy living nearly on the same standard as the inactives. But if the inactives would gain no benefit, they would stand out of the neighborhood. The worker guy would be the dream of the inactive girls, the man who has his own home and decent food every day. The worker woman would be the one who wears handmade clothes instead of Salvation Army stuff like the inactives. "My mom and dad both have jobs" would be a source of pride for kids as it would mean decent clothes, computer at home, vacations sometimes and so on, while the other kids wear and eat the (surely healthy but boring) stuff the child care services provide and electronics would be only seen in school.

For a social "poorness" is relative. My granddad's favorite memory was that he had the first TV in the village. I saw it in an old photo. It was smaller than my backup screen that collects dust, it was monochrome and blurry to the limit of usefulness. But it made him the most envied guy in town for months. Making others poorer makes a social rich instantly. He would no longer has to keep up with the Joneses. He would be the Jones!

Welfare simply inflates salary. Salaries should not be measured in $. It should be measured by welfare units. If we would write a zero to every dollars, the blue-collar would make $150K, without being any more rich than yesterday. If the ratio of his salary : welfare would increase, that would make a difference.

Original Source

Obama administration follows the Peter Principal.

Kagan may have been an excellent law school dean.

As a jurist she has no experience at all. Nada, zilch, none so she would be mediocre at best.

I can see merit in the argument of appointing someone outside of judges to the Supreme Court to get real-world perspective. After all, the Constitution does not require that an appointee be an attorney or judge.

From what I have read I cannot see Kagan’s career as anything but academic and an insider of politics. She’s a lot like Obama, an academic with no experience for the position she seeks.

Why do they do this?

Reuters: "The US economy grew at a slightly slower-than-expected pace in the first quarter, held back by inventories and exports. Resurgent consumer spending offered evidence of a sustainable recovery. Gross domestic product expanded at a 3.2 percent pace, the Commerce Department. Analysts polled by Reuters had forecast GDP, which measures total goods and services output within US borders, growing at a 3.4% rate,"

of note: "Excluding inventories the economy expanded at a 1.6 percent rate following a 1.7 percent pace in the fourth quarter." Take out the census workers and you have a better picture. Recovery? What recovery??

CNN:"While there may be signs of greater strength, the report also detailed some of the headwinds facing the economy. Investment in residential real estate fell nearly 11%, ending a two-quarter rebound in that battered sector and subtracting from overall growth. And commercial real estate investment dropped at a 14% rate."

If residential real estate and commercial real estate are dropping at 11% and 14%, pretty much tells you there is no growth.

Yet this is spun like great news. I wonder why?

CNBC, August 28, 2008. The GDP was 3.3%. The media was reporting it like a recession. "Despite the surprising growth in the US economy in the second quarter, many economists and average Americans aren't convinced that the country has avoided a recession. 'The reason this feels like a recession is from the standpoint of the consumer it basically is,' said David Resler, the chief economist at Nomura Securities. 'Consumer spending is very weak. It isn't going to get any stronger at any time soon, and that's with the benefit of the economic stimulus.' The Commerce Department attributed the unexpected 3.3% jump."

Of course, this is right before the election. So the Commerce Department attributed the unexpected 3.3% jump in the GDP to stronger than expected consumer spending and exports.

So now we've got 3.2%, and, cheerleading! "We're coming back." Seems a bit dishonest that back in 2008 3.3% was DOOOOM!!!

How to ruin a nation.

Nearly half of US newspaper and broadcast TV news executives believe their organizations will fold within 10 years unless they find new revenue streams, according to a survey released on Monday.

So revenues are down, jobs are being cut. This does not point to a recovered economy, regardless of the hopes and wishes of the administration. A committee of economists, charged with determining the official turning points in the nation’s business cycles, certifies the beginnings and ends of recessions. But this time, the committee members say, the evidence is not so easy to decipher.

Newsweek magazine declares that "America's back!" We hear numbers out of Wall Street. We see covers of magazines like that. People are in the grips of unemployment and poor financial times wondering when they're going to start feeling some of this.

Add that to the huge tax increase that will hit everyone, just to prop-up unsustainable socalist programs. That is just more money out of the pockets of hard working Americans to line the pockets of those who want a free ride. No wonder most of us feel overtaxed!

Obama likes to spend money, our money, with no regard for outcome or sustainability. The stimulus package is a dismal failure by Obama's standards. With the anti-job regime puffing away on the tax dollar hash-pipe millions of jobs are lost and may never return. You start to wonder if this was the plan? More people dependent on a fat government.

We know that FDR's new deal was a raw deal. Nothing his government spent could stop the great depression. You would think someone so "highly intelligent" would look to history. The only glimmer of light is that the congress is too inept to take advantage of running the whole show. I guess it could be that there are a few representatives that actually care about the Country and not the ideology.

Still we sit watching prices going up, jobs being lost, lies being told and ponder a future that is not bright. A future where the current regime is unwilling to defend itself.

There is a lot of great things happening. The awesome Tea Party movement is driving a fiscally conservative grass roots agenda that has much promise for November elections. And Paul Ryan has emerged as someone who represents this much needed view.

Joke

This biker walks into a bar, and sees a man sitting all by himself, just staring at his glass. Fifteen, twenty, then thirty minutes pass, and the guy hasn't so much as glanced away. So the biker, in a mischievous mood, walks over to him, grabs the drink, and swallows it all in a single gulp. Suddenly, the man starts to weep uncontrollably.

"Jeez, if I'd known you'd do that, I wouldn't have drank your beer!" Said the biker, startled. "I was only kidding. Here, let me buy you something. Anything you want."

"You don't understand." Said the man, still crying. "I've had the worst possible day. I woke up 30 minutes late, and when I got to work, my boss fired me. So I go out to my car, only to find it's been stolen out of the lot. So I get a cab, but when I get out, I realize I've left my keys and wallet inside. I get home, and I find my wife in bed with another man...

"To top it all off, I was sitting here just picking up the courage to kill myself, and you come by and drink my poison!"

The Government is causing Obesity!

My buddy Flying Van is hostile towards school lunches. I believe he feels that the government is spending his money incorrectly. A point I am in agreement with.

The idea behind the lunch entitlement is that poor people can not afford to buy food or they care so little about the kids they have they choose not to feed them or they lack the training on how to purchase and prepare food. Seeing how kids are required to go to school, this makes it a logical place to feed these poor starving kids, who must be thinking about their empty stomachs instead of learning reading, writing and arithmetics.

That is to say your brain needs calories to function. Add to that the fact that hunger is a distraction and you have a prime example of the Government aiding education!

One of the primary problems with the above idea that people are starving. No doubt there are people in the US, who cannot access the cornucopia of goodness. If someone is starving the human thing to do is to get them fed, then have them to feed themselves. Finally have them help feed those who are starving.

So holding a parent responsible for providing for their child gets jettisoned. Having a community wanting to help the less fortunate is also jettisoned. And the chance of the child learning to feed themselves is shunted towards letting the government feed you.

Case in point: If you are on food stamps the USDA added incentives and other changes that targets the link between Obesity and Food Stamps with an idea to trim rampant obesity rates among low-income groups. Obesity is not caused by starvation... Right?

So we know that food stamps, from the government, are making poor people fat. Now I read that school lunches are not just making sure that hungry kid has sustenance to insure better performance. No our School lunch program, from the government, are making hungry kids Obese.

I never got\purchased school lunches. My mom made me a sandwich with some fruit and veg for quite a number of years. Sadly, many of those lunches were never eaten. Sometime around third grade I was responsible for my own lunch. Which means I had breakfast and dinner at home and ignored lunch. In HS I was on swim team and had instant breakfast (beats upchucking). Again, if I did have some lunch it was not everyday.

Basically, I was too lazy to make a lunch and too busy to bother with lunch. When I did eat, I made up for the missing meals. I did a pretty good job of burning off any extra calories as well.

Now my daughter needs to have regular intervals of food intake or she gets listless. My nephew would have to eat a certain nutritional balance to avoid nasty headaches.

To my way of thinking. Yes, we need to feed habitually hungry kids. The parents need to be held responsible or face some kind of consequence. Funding a Union does not seem to be covering the basic need.

More Man Made Climate Anthropomorphic Warming Globes... huh?

This is just embarrassing to read. Al Gore has driven off the cliff of sanity with this rambling incoherent Op Ed Piece. Although, there are others who believe the fear mongering to the point they killed themselves and attempted to kill their baby. There are some deranged wacko's out there, thank the lord who must have protected this child.

Seriously Mr. Gore, there must be better ways to make money off of your cultist zealots...

The fraud of the IPCC is finally being investigated! As the emerging 2007 data "errors" are FUNDAMENTAL, not incidental. (errors... yeah, right, welcome to political science)

Oddball little article from the 1989 NYT someone dug up. US Data Since 1895 Fail to Show Warming Trend! President Obama himself tells us we cannot Control Nature... Unless the "Democrat Messiah" is writing the cap and trade legislation? WTH?

Quick Hits.

Who is going to pay for health care reform? New York! Applause for their elected representatives!

The wonder of Government Run health care! UK is a model for the US!

Greece is going broke. The USA citizens may get first hand experience!

What happens when you raise taxes on the Rich? They Leave!

Nice someone got a job. $3000.00 an hour! Good work if you can get it!

Do not be discouraged after all the Housing Market is starting upwards!

New home sales leading the US recovery!?

OOOPS! AP must have been spinning earlier!

One would hope that the economists who continue to get their predictions wrong, and the media outlets that carry them, are going to recognize that what the Wall Street Journal and Investors Business Daily have been referring to as "the Uncertainty Economy," has cast a pervasive pall over the entire economy, and must be considered in some way when formulating predictions.

Until it is, we're going to keep seeing "Unexpected Surprises."

Oregon budget gap

Oregon voted it okay to raise taxes. It was sold as only the rich will loose and our schools will win.

Which, is of course, politics per usual.

There is a guy who started up a business in a nearby town. He has been building slowly over the last couple of years and has been able to hire five employee's. Doing so he had a $5000.00 loss for 2009, he does not mind paying $150.00 for the new minimum tax, he thinks $100.00 min would have been enough (It used to be $10.00). However, now he will have to pay taxes on receivables (isn't that a sales tax?) around $2000.00 that he just does not have, so one of the workers is now laid off (flush that training if they find another job) and his losses for 2009 is now $7000.00.

He just raised his prices by 1.5% in an attempt to generate income to call back he employee..

The Oregon Republican party weighs in on this measure.

Chicago is wanting to attract Oregon businesses to a less hostile climate. And here.

Freedom Demolition

At one point in time I was talking to a friend about firearm purchases. His contention was anyone who owned a firearm was a danger to society. Recently I was reading about certain TV sets being banned in California. The phrase "Why would anyone buy something like that?" popped into my mind. That question, in one context, is perfectly reasonable. In another context, one dealing with banning or regulation, is the elimination of freedoms.

Are there certain things a person should not be able to buy? Sure, weapons grade plutonium, for instance. The line that gets drawn is a slippery slope fraught with peril.

One of the channels on the TV played Demolition man, and it had a bit more social commentary then I had given credit. Given the current administrations perchance for regulation and neologisms.

Napolitano preferred the euphemism Man-Made disaster in place of Terrorist Attack. Iin the film: homicide is referred to as a "non-sanctioned life termination" and as "Murder Death Kill" or "MDK". The loosening of decency standards depicted is more of a conservative bent then liberal. A violation of the Verbal Morality Statute, is punishable by police reprimand or a fine. In liberal fashion though, the fine is automatically deducted from a citizen's finances.

Then the government control of media in that the favorite songs of the time are old 20th-century commercial jingles (kid oriented ones) and many words have gained redundant, childish repetitions: to be happy is to experience "joy-joy" feelings. Which bodes of the nanny state.

Then comes the crux. It is explained that anything "not good for you" is deemed "bad" and therefore illegal, including alcohol, caffeine, contact sports, non-educational toys, meat, spicy and unhealthy food, table salt and tobacco (sound familier?). Firearms can only be seen in museums (Gun Control!). Physical contact was recognized as causing the spread of disease and is now seen as unusual (This is enforced in Elementary school). Even high-fives have been replaced with energetic waving. Procreation is carried out in a laboratory (Heavily regulated no doubt); abortion is illegal, but so is unlicensed pregnancy. I can see Nancy Pelosi salivating at the prospect!

I ponder why it is those elected to 'represent us' sometimes feel the need to "protect us from ourselves?"

Compassion enough to starve people?

July 2008. New York decides that people are too stupid to make choices around diet and by banning Trans fatty acids they will stop obesity, or some such nonsense. Here you have government forcing people to do something, this is an elimination of freedom.

But Trans Fats are bad right? This is a good thing right? NYC looking out for the little guy, the Government as parents protecting their swaddling children from harm...

Lets take a food kitchen in NYC, one that distributes food to the hungry. There are LOTS of hungry right now, work is scarce, money is scarce. These food kitchens run off of donations, which are also down at the moment. So lets take a hypothetical example: A church decides to have a collection of food for a local shelter. They deliver the food, it is accepted with a Thank you.

Next, the shelter goes through the food and throws away anything with Trans fats. Because it is much better to go hungry or starve then risk obesity?

Oh, BTW this is NOT hypothetical! This is an example of government gone wild and hurting people.

When a small church comes to the Bowery Mission bearing fried chicken with trans fat, unwittingly breaking the law, they’re told “thank you.” Then workers quietly chuck the food, mission director Tom Bastile said.

“It’s always hard for us to do,” Basile said. “We know we have to do it.”

Umkay, So now its a depression?

This is a Depression...

And the Media responds!

• Politico: Rush Limbaugh Pounces on Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize

• UK Telegraph: Obama's Won the Nobel Peace ? WTF?!

• AP: Analysis: He Won, But for What?

• Washington Examiner: Huh???!!!!! Even Pro-Obama Press is Stunned by Nobel Decision- Byron York

• UK Times: Comment: Absurd Decision on Obama Makes a Mockery of the Nobel Peace Prize

• ABC: Obama on Nobel Prize Win: 'This is Not How I Expected to Wake up This Morning'

• Wall Street Journal: Nobel Committee's Decision Courts Controversy

• American Thinker: President Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize - Not a Misprint

• Commentary: Contentions:The Michael Moore of Oslo - John Podhoretz

• National Review: A Fitting Prize, in a Way

• Reuters: Obama is Surprise Winner of Nobel Peace Prize

• AP: Obama Says He'll Accept Nobel as 'Call to Action'

• FOXNews: How to Win the Nobel Peace Prize In 12 Days

• Weekly Standard: Meet the People Who Were Passed Over for Obama

• Washington Examiner: Can a Sitting President Receive a Nobel Peace Prize? - J.P. Freire

• US News & World Report: Obama Should Decline the Nobel Peace Prize - Doug Heye

• FOXNews: Obama's Nobel Is Premature, Historians and Political Scientists Say

Government run health care (*again*)

One of the arguments FOR the public option is the insurance companies rejecting claims. Said public option would somehow be better.

Beverly Gossage, Research Fellow for Show-Me Institute and founder of HSA Benefits Consulting wondered which insurance companies rejected the most claims. She found her answer in the AMA’s own 2008 National Health Insurer Report Card. Well now this is interesting

The Medicare denial rate found in the study was roughly 1.7 times that of all of the private carriers combined.

You would think Medicare's sheer size might enable it to have smoother procedures with its providers that would enable it to turn down a lower percentage of claims.

Why should Americans accept the idea of a government-run system when, based on documented government experience, they will be more likely to see their claims denied?

Lest we forget almost every state run system has refusals to treat in the first place! Which is currently against the law in hospital emergency rooms in the U.S.

Additional Link

You might just be....

If you shout out that our president lies, you might just be a racist.

If you criticize our president, you might just be a racist.

If you listen to conservative talk radio, you might just be a racist.

If you watch Fox News, you might just be a racist.

If you suggest our president is racist, you might just be a racist.

If you are against the government takeover of health care, you might just be a racist.

I have no doubt that somewhere in the great country there are people who feel that ethnic origins make one superior, thus make another inferior. I further realize that genetics, environment, hard work and access to better education, can make a person "superior" in certain area's.

The term racism is now being bandied about as a tactic rather then fact. I believe it is now the liberal synonym to socialism. In other words both are being misused and thus redefined.

Can someone make a racist statement and not be a racist? Can a defined racist comment be rendered "non-racist" due to the commenter's ethnic origin?

Are there acceptable forms of discrimination? Are there acceptable forms of intolerance?

I'm getting really sick and tired of everyone being accused of racism, I hope everyone else is starting to feel the same.

Chemical imbalance

t is a bit cloudy, not enough to rain. Summer is ending, the kids are starting to gear up for Collage. Connor is at his new Jr. High School. We are trying to figure out how to work our schedual so I can get him on the bus and Tina can get him off the bus. At the same time we are working so he can get himself off the bus and into the house on his own. The idea is at some point we may be unable to get home before the bus and he would be able to go inside and be okay.

Diana is heading back on her own at collage. She came a long way from last year. She has a better feel for Collage and knows some people. She found a nice catholic church she can attend. Her studies are going well and her association with the Ford Foundation is great. I am glad she had a summer off. Not to many of those left. Trevor just needs to realize what he needs to do to be successful. He KNOWS what needs doing, he just has not made that tiny step of deeds over words.

My job is unsure, the unemployment here is near 10%. There was a job posting that I could actually do, funny thing is there is now, no record of the job listed in the e-mail. The company says they decided to hold off on filling the position, so they pulled the ad. *sigh*

My diet is still going but mentally I keep wondering, am I there yet? Breaking below 200 lbs would be nice and could happen as soon as this week. I was doing more exercise, then I had surgury with a dang long recovery. Seems every couple of days I strain the stitches and end up bleeding again. So the wanting to exercise and not being able too is irksome.

It would be so nice to get some bills paid down, get some more into savings. Ah well.

Obamafood (Its a Right)

Let us say that people think food is far too expensive. Food is a right, I mean, you can't go without food. So lets say Obama came along and said, "ObamaFood can drive down what your spending on food. Make sure you get what food you want, when you want it and that there's no discrimination. Nobody's will eat better than you do and you're going to eat no better than anybody else."

The Obama administration says they can cut the cost of food. They will say that they're going to drive down the profits of the greedy farmers, they're going to drive down the profits of the greedy shipping industry, and then they're going to attack the food stores, the grocery stores that sell at too large a profit.

Speaker Pelosi would call food stores, grocery stores immoral! And to keep them all honest, Obama then would create real competition with a public option for you to buy food from. The government will be in the business of distributing and getting to you food at an affordable price.

**I posted this on Shoo's blog, RBG liked it so, I figured I would re-post it. Original concept from Rush L.**

John Stossel's Take: Commentary from Co-Anchor of ABC News' "20/20"

Competition

08/25/2009 2:44 PM

"Choice, competition, reducing costs -- those are the things that I want to see accomplished in this health reform bill," President Obama told talk-show host Michael Smerconish last week.

Choice and competition would be good. They would indeed reduce costs. If only the President meant it. Or understood it.

In a free market, a business that is complacent about costs learns that its prices are too high when it sees lower-cost competitors winning over its customers. The market -- actually, the consumer -- holds businesses accountable and keeps them honest. No "public option" is needed.

So the hope for reducing medical costs indeed lies in competition and choice. Today competition is squelched by government regulation and privilege.

But Obama's so-called reforms would not create real competition and choice. They would prohibit it.

In place of the variety of products that competition would generate, we would be forced "choose" among virtually identical insurance plans. Government would define these plans down to the last detail. Every one would have at least the same "basic" coverage, including physical exams, maternity benefits, well-baby care, alcoholism treatment, and mental-health services. Consumers could not buy a cheap, high-deductible catastrophic policy. Every insurance company would have to use an identical government-designed pricing structure. Prices would be the same for sick and healthy.

In this respect, it wouldn't matter whether or not Congress created a "public option," a government insurance plan. In either case, bureaucrats would dictate virtually every aspect of the health-insurance business.

What Obama says in favor of a public option -- as of today, at least -- tells us how little he understands competition.

A letter from one of my Representatives.

Dear Mr. Kiester:

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about health care reform. I appreciate hearing from you.

In adopting reforms to the system of providing health care in the United States, Congress and the President should take heed of the adage "First, do no harm". Many Americans, particularly the 160 million who benefit from employer provided health insurance are happy with their coverage, their chosen doctor and the coverage provided under their plan.

I believe that reform should not be paid for by taxing the benefits of those already covered. They should not force anyone to change plans or providers. Finally, expanded coverageto the uninsured should not add to the ballooning federal deficit.

That said there are problems with our existing system. I've talked with small business owners who have seen their insurance renewals denied because one employee became sick or was injured. Others have complained about sustained policy price increases or exclusions of existing medical problems. These types of complaints point towards the insurance reform I have been pushing for 20 years; to have the insurance industry play by the same rules as other industries in America. Insurance companies and Major League Baseball are the only two industries exempt from anti-trust laws. That means insurance companies can legally collude to raise prices and exclude individuals from coverage. I have introduced legislation, H.R. 1583, to repeal this exemption. The Consumer Federation of American estimates that repealing the anti-trust exemption could help lower healthcare premiums by 10 percent.

The plan being considered in the House would focus on a few key factors. First and most importantly, it would make sure that every American has comprehensive health insurance that they know they cannot lose even if they lose their job or get sick. It would stop insurance companies from denying coverage to people based on preexisting condition. It would guarantee coverage to all Americans with a minimum package of benefits. For the millions of people who have insurance through their employer nothing will change. For Individuals and small businesses that do not have or cannot afford to provide insurance, they would be able to get affordable insurance by choosing from a "health insurance exchange". This exchange would give them a wide array of insurance plans to choose from, including, if they so choose, a public option. They can choose the plan and level of benefits they want. If they want to pay extra for a premium plan, they can. If they want just the basic package, they can choose that as well. The idea of an exchange is to pool risk, meaning the premiums paid for the plans in the exchange are put into one big pot which will lower premiums for everyone. Furthermore, there would be limited subsidies for lower income families and individuals to make sure everyone can afford coverage.

The insurance industry wants it both ways. They complain about the prospect of a public plan option as "unfair competition" while at the same time they are fighting tooth and nail to retain the antitrust exemptions so they don't have to truly compete with one another. They don't want reform. They want profits. As a result they and their allies are doing their best to frighten the public about what the health reform proposal currently being written inCongress will or will not do.

Opponents say that the bill would lead to fewer choices for Americans to choose their plan or doctor. The truth is the proposals being considered in the House will increase choice by giving people the ability to choose from an array of private and public health insurance options. Most importantly, if you like the doctor or plan that you have now, you can keep it. The bill will simply give people more choices, especially since one of the critical reforms is taking away the insurance industry's ability to deny coverage and care.

Some have warned that the bill would "ration care". The bill would actually take medical decisions away from insurance companies and put them in the hands of doctors, nurses and patients. No longer will insurance companies, whose primary goal is profits, dictate what care patients receive.

Some people warn of the "Canadian System" of people waiting in line to receive care and having to come to America to get a needed procedure. This is a bogus argument because the plans being considered in Congress today are nothing like the Canadian or European systems. What we are considering is an American system, based on choice and savings.

Simply put, we must do something soon or we face a health insurance crisis. The 47 million Americans in our country today lack health insurance get their health care in the most expensive way imaginable; by waiting until it's too late and going to an emergency room. The cost of this care is then passed on to the rest of us who have health insurance at the rate of over $100 billion a year in increased premiums and higher taxes. If we don't act now, the cost an employer-sponsored family health insurance plan will reach $24,000 by 2016 forcing most American households to spend 45% of their income on health insurance. This is unacceptable to me.

To be clear, I fully support the idea that people who are happy with their health insurance should be able to keep what they have. However, the cost of not doing anything is too great for all of us.

Sincerely,

Rep. Peter DeFazio
Fourth District, OREGON

The lost art of debate.

Once upon a time, someone used the phrase "Straw Man Argument" I had no clue what that meant so I headed to the Jr. High Library and found some information about fallacious arguments.

A List Of Fallacious Arguments Something like this list provided via the information superhighway. (Thank you Al Gore!)

As of late there has been lots of dissent over health care and the general direction of our country. Some opinions are very strong, well worded with real world examples to draw conclusions upon. Other opinions are barking a party line.

While some tend to use tricks to deal with the issues while not dealing with them. Or President loves the Straw Man argument and has been diligently using this device with nearly each of his pleadings of support on his version of Health Care.

There are accepted ways to argue, debate teams are a prime example of this. Being able to argue either side of an issue really gives you a good clear understanding of the issue. This would be regardless of your personal belief.

There is a big difference between discussion and debate and argument. Recognizing a straw man, for instance, for what it is can give you a clearer picture. Same with other debate tactics.