This is the new play from the White House - and I've got to wonder if it is in response to all the investigative journalism Fox News has been using to expose Obama Administration-friendly organizations (ACORN). Take the chance to read this article about the White House's effort to marginalize Fox's objectivity:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/18/white-house-escalates-war-fox-news-1925819282/
One of these days, I would love to hear a specific complaint that holds water. Something that I can read and say, 'yeah, Fox got that wrong.' You know, of course they have gotten some things wrong - every news organization does. But if the White House has a legitimate complaint, they should show us what Fox has been reporting, and then show us how they are wrong?
Why don't they do this? Is it because repeating what Fox News reports is detrimental to the administration's public perception and they want to avoid re-running negative press?
Or is it simply because it is part of the liberal game-plan that any time someone blows a whistle on their agenda, they immediate dump mud on the person/organization and try to portray them as "biased, right-wing zealots (and therefore aren't truly relevant and we shouldn't listen to them)."
Even if the White House is spot-on with this... even if Fox News is really, really biased and non-objective - why are they the only news organization in the cross hairs? CNN and MSNBC (to name only 2 of the many) are highly biased and that has been shown (in specific cases) over and over again.
All in all, this makes me smile. As I read the article, I kept thinking to myself: "Fox ratings will only go up with this kind of press." And it has according to the article; apparently Fox News' ratings have gone up 20% this year. That's huge. The funny thing is, I'm not a huge Fox News person. I just find their stories more interesting, more relevant, and more representative of how I view the world.
The Obama Administration is walking a dangerous line by calling to the carpet a news organization with such a huge platform and influence on the public... not to mention ballsy reporters who will dig deep and expose corruption.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Never thought I'd say this, but...
I'm siding with the Muslims on this one.
A club football team in Paris known as PFG - or Pro Foot Gay, because they are a team comprised of gay football players - is threatening litigation on a Muslim team after the Muslim team decided they would not compete with the PFG team because they "don't agree with their philosophy."
So the press is throwing around terms like "homophobic" and "intolerant". Well, yeah. My question is: when exactly did it become wrong to be intolerant of people's choices? If someone commits murder, are we not intolerant of their behavior?
Wait, I know the argument you want to give me. Homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone. Well, there are very relevant arguments against that overly-stated mantra; none that an immoral, god-less society will really consider, though. So for the sake of argument, let's say nobody gets hurt any more or less in a gay relationship than in a straight one. Philosophically speaking, I am against homosexuality. And I am not in the monority. Obviously, I have my reasons. Our society has gotten to the point that I am expected to keep my philosophy entirely to myself in order to avoid being "homophobic" or "intolerant". Why should we care? Really? Why should we be so concerned about being labelled "intolerant".
A couple weeks ago, we went to McDonalds. As I was getting the kids out of the car, there was a man in the parking lot yelling across to his friend in very colorful and persistent offensive language... and he knew we were there with our three little ones. As I stepped away from the car to kindly ask him to stop, my wonderful wife beat me to the punch and not-so-kindly told him to stop. Obviously, we don't want our kids to hear such coarse and offensive language. My wife showed intolerance towards his language. Those words can not hurt my children in any measurable way. The words can not break their arms or scratch their knees. In fact, it is likely that our kids would forget the language after getting their chicken nuggets. However, as members of this obsessively non-judgemental society, are we to close our eyes and ears and ignore all forms of deviant behavior, or do we have the right to draw the line and stand up when the line is crossed?
When my wife tells the guy that he should choose different words when he is in public, is she showing judgement towards that man? Or is she showing judgement towards his behavior? I know my wife, and I know that she could say what she said to him, and 5 minutes later have a pleasant conversation with him and invite him over for dinner that night.
So I learned something from my wife that day. And I learned something from the Muslims this week, as well. We all have a line in the sand were we become "intolerant" of certain bahavior, regardless of others' opinions and responses. Where exactly your line is drawn depends on many factors. Ironically, an ever-increasing number of people have moved their "intolerance line" so far that the only thing they are intolerant of is when they perceive other people being intolerant.
But as for me, I'm siding with the Muslims on this one.
A club football team in Paris known as PFG - or Pro Foot Gay, because they are a team comprised of gay football players - is threatening litigation on a Muslim team after the Muslim team decided they would not compete with the PFG team because they "don't agree with their philosophy."
So the press is throwing around terms like "homophobic" and "intolerant". Well, yeah. My question is: when exactly did it become wrong to be intolerant of people's choices? If someone commits murder, are we not intolerant of their behavior?
Wait, I know the argument you want to give me. Homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone. Well, there are very relevant arguments against that overly-stated mantra; none that an immoral, god-less society will really consider, though. So for the sake of argument, let's say nobody gets hurt any more or less in a gay relationship than in a straight one. Philosophically speaking, I am against homosexuality. And I am not in the monority. Obviously, I have my reasons. Our society has gotten to the point that I am expected to keep my philosophy entirely to myself in order to avoid being "homophobic" or "intolerant". Why should we care? Really? Why should we be so concerned about being labelled "intolerant".
A couple weeks ago, we went to McDonalds. As I was getting the kids out of the car, there was a man in the parking lot yelling across to his friend in very colorful and persistent offensive language... and he knew we were there with our three little ones. As I stepped away from the car to kindly ask him to stop, my wonderful wife beat me to the punch and not-so-kindly told him to stop. Obviously, we don't want our kids to hear such coarse and offensive language. My wife showed intolerance towards his language. Those words can not hurt my children in any measurable way. The words can not break their arms or scratch their knees. In fact, it is likely that our kids would forget the language after getting their chicken nuggets. However, as members of this obsessively non-judgemental society, are we to close our eyes and ears and ignore all forms of deviant behavior, or do we have the right to draw the line and stand up when the line is crossed?
When my wife tells the guy that he should choose different words when he is in public, is she showing judgement towards that man? Or is she showing judgement towards his behavior? I know my wife, and I know that she could say what she said to him, and 5 minutes later have a pleasant conversation with him and invite him over for dinner that night.
So I learned something from my wife that day. And I learned something from the Muslims this week, as well. We all have a line in the sand were we become "intolerant" of certain bahavior, regardless of others' opinions and responses. Where exactly your line is drawn depends on many factors. Ironically, an ever-increasing number of people have moved their "intolerance line" so far that the only thing they are intolerant of is when they perceive other people being intolerant.
But as for me, I'm siding with the Muslims on this one.
Monday, September 14, 2009
ACORN
Hopefully you've heard this story already. Though if you haven't, I wouldn't be surprised. Last Friday, reports emerged on the internet about an organization called ACORN (them of the alleged practices of voter fraud, cheating, etc) being exposed as an unscrupulous organization willing to lie, cheat, and promote fraud to achieve their purposes.
In short, a man and a woman - dressed as a pimp and a prostitute - walk into an ACORN office and inquire about getting a loan for a house in which the woman plans on running her prostitution business. Her business is, of course, illegal. A government agency helping her in her efforts to run this illegal business is corruption. However, here is the catch: the man and woman set it up to record the conversation. After the incriminating interviews took place, the videos were sent to Fox News.
There are just so many things wrong with this organization:
1. If you get a chance to watch these videos, you will notice that the man sets up these workers
brilliantly. The workers attempt to be somewhat vague in their statements, saying things like, "You don't have to tell the government what you do. Just make up a business name and say you perform 'services'". Then the man says, "But what we are doing is illegal! We will get in trouble for breaking the law." The workers follow up his statement by repeating that even though it is illegal, they don't have to report the nature of the business to the government and can therefore skirt the legality of it.
2. The man told the workers that he is bringing in underage El Salvadoreans to work as hookers, and the workers didn't even bat an eye.
3. These workers are women! Women having no problem with this man pimping the girl. No problems with the girl offering her services in their neighborhood. And NO PROBLEM with them bringing in young girls (probably against their will) to work in the brothel.
4. This man (as of Monday morning) has submitted 3 different videos in 3 different ACORN offices, each with the same result... corruption, greed, and fraud!
On top of all this, Foxnews.com and CNN.com both broke this story on Friday. Foxnews pulled no punches and gave us the obvious and sad story. On the other hand, CNN pretended to play the high road and avoided accusing ACORN of doing anything wrong. CNN's dancing around the issue was comical with statements such as "the video appears to be edited in places" and "both women appear enthusiastic to help". Here is the CNN story as it appeared on Friday.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/10/acorn.prostitution/index.html?iref=newssearch
In short, a man and a woman - dressed as a pimp and a prostitute - walk into an ACORN office and inquire about getting a loan for a house in which the woman plans on running her prostitution business. Her business is, of course, illegal. A government agency helping her in her efforts to run this illegal business is corruption. However, here is the catch: the man and woman set it up to record the conversation. After the incriminating interviews took place, the videos were sent to Fox News.
There are just so many things wrong with this organization:
1. If you get a chance to watch these videos, you will notice that the man sets up these workers
brilliantly. The workers attempt to be somewhat vague in their statements, saying things like, "You don't have to tell the government what you do. Just make up a business name and say you perform 'services'". Then the man says, "But what we are doing is illegal! We will get in trouble for breaking the law." The workers follow up his statement by repeating that even though it is illegal, they don't have to report the nature of the business to the government and can therefore skirt the legality of it.2. The man told the workers that he is bringing in underage El Salvadoreans to work as hookers, and the workers didn't even bat an eye.
3. These workers are women! Women having no problem with this man pimping the girl. No problems with the girl offering her services in their neighborhood. And NO PROBLEM with them bringing in young girls (probably against their will) to work in the brothel.
4. This man (as of Monday morning) has submitted 3 different videos in 3 different ACORN offices, each with the same result... corruption, greed, and fraud!
On top of all this, Foxnews.com and CNN.com both broke this story on Friday. Foxnews pulled no punches and gave us the obvious and sad story. On the other hand, CNN pretended to play the high road and avoided accusing ACORN of doing anything wrong. CNN's dancing around the issue was comical with statements such as "the video appears to be edited in places" and "both women appear enthusiastic to help". Here is the CNN story as it appeared on Friday.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/10/acorn.prostitution/index.html?iref=newssearch
As the story progressed and ACORN fired the workers involved (implying/confirming that the allegations are true), Fox News continued to give us the news. CNN.com however, pulled the story altogether. I guess corruption in nation-wide government agencies isn't new-worthy at CNN, though Kanye West is worth 2 stories (see CNN.com front page).
The bias in our media infuriates me. I'm not saying Fox News isn't biased, but I AM saying the CNN and most of the liberal media is biased and shameless!
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Quick Hits
A shotgun approach to some of my more recent thoughts...
- I never thought I would see the day that I wished I had SPAM blockers to protect me from White House emails.
- Anyone who wants to know how hot it is here in Havasu right now should bake some cookies, and when they reach in to take the finished product out, just hold your head down there as close as you can for about a minute. THAT's how it feels to walk outside in the afternoon here. Oh... I forgot a step -- send the finished baked goods to me.
- Speaking of cookies... was watching a cooking show the other day and my wife wanted me to make the Stir-Fry being spotlighted. Now, I'm not boasting, but when I sat down to eat this meal, I was entirely disappointed that it was nowhere as good as my own Stir-Fry. I'm not braggin', I'm just sayin' mine was better is all...
- Speaking of my wife... I am now officially married to a hot 30 year old mom! (only about half of you will get why that is so cool)
- Speaking of things that are cool... the Dodgers sure seem to be cooling off. I am starting to worry a little about the boys in blue. Their relief pitching is getting worse as the season continues. Broxton especially seems to be losing his stuff. Heading into September with a weak bullpen makes me nervous.
- Speaking of September... Fall means it's time for college football, but more specifically, USC football. Here's my preseason take on the Trojans. I know their defense is supposed to be weak compared to last year - but then again, last year they had one of the best defenses ever. So, yeah, there is going to be a drop-off. I still think the defense will be very good and the offense, I think, will be just as good as always. I don't buy the some ol' story line that there are going to be considerable quaterback problems for them. Seriously: Carson Palmer, Matt Leinart, John David Booty, Mark Sanchez, (insert here a top recruit with excellent wide receivers, offensive line, running backs, and coaching). I think things will be fine offensively.
- Speaking of offensive... are there really sane Americans who support this Hugo Chavez character? Shutting down any anti-Chavez media outlets. Did you see the picture of his thugs, er, supporters beating down a reporter?
So there is a long list of American leftists who support Chavez, including, of course some of the nutters in Hollywood. The IRONY!! The people who were constantly in front of the camera utilizing their American right to disparage President Bush are supporting a leader in another country who would silence those very actions. I guess the answer to my question, is that, no, there aren't any sane Americans supporting Chavez. Just some "useful idiots" as Vladimir Lenin might have called them.
- Speaking of tyrannical leaders, I finally finished the 5th Harry Potter book (the start of the school year really slowed my pace). So far, this has been my favorite (book and movie) - in case anyone was keeping score. By the way, the tyrannical leader I am speaking of is of course Lord Voldermort.
- I never thought I would see the day that I wished I had SPAM blockers to protect me from White House emails.
- Anyone who wants to know how hot it is here in Havasu right now should bake some cookies, and when they reach in to take the finished product out, just hold your head down there as close as you can for about a minute. THAT's how it feels to walk outside in the afternoon here. Oh... I forgot a step -- send the finished baked goods to me.
- Speaking of cookies... was watching a cooking show the other day and my wife wanted me to make the Stir-Fry being spotlighted. Now, I'm not boasting, but when I sat down to eat this meal, I was entirely disappointed that it was nowhere as good as my own Stir-Fry. I'm not braggin', I'm just sayin' mine was better is all...
- Speaking of my wife... I am now officially married to a hot 30 year old mom! (only about half of you will get why that is so cool)
- Speaking of things that are cool... the Dodgers sure seem to be cooling off. I am starting to worry a little about the boys in blue. Their relief pitching is getting worse as the season continues. Broxton especially seems to be losing his stuff. Heading into September with a weak bullpen makes me nervous.
- Speaking of September... Fall means it's time for college football, but more specifically, USC football. Here's my preseason take on the Trojans. I know their defense is supposed to be weak compared to last year - but then again, last year they had one of the best defenses ever. So, yeah, there is going to be a drop-off. I still think the defense will be very good and the offense, I think, will be just as good as always. I don't buy the some ol' story line that there are going to be considerable quaterback problems for them. Seriously: Carson Palmer, Matt Leinart, John David Booty, Mark Sanchez, (insert here a top recruit with excellent wide receivers, offensive line, running backs, and coaching). I think things will be fine offensively.
- Speaking of offensive... are there really sane Americans who support this Hugo Chavez character? Shutting down any anti-Chavez media outlets. Did you see the picture of his thugs, er, supporters beating down a reporter?
So there is a long list of American leftists who support Chavez, including, of course some of the nutters in Hollywood. The IRONY!! The people who were constantly in front of the camera utilizing their American right to disparage President Bush are supporting a leader in another country who would silence those very actions. I guess the answer to my question, is that, no, there aren't any sane Americans supporting Chavez. Just some "useful idiots" as Vladimir Lenin might have called them.- Speaking of tyrannical leaders, I finally finished the 5th Harry Potter book (the start of the school year really slowed my pace). So far, this has been my favorite (book and movie) - in case anyone was keeping score. By the way, the tyrannical leader I am speaking of is of course Lord Voldermort.
- And speaking of movies... I need to take my wife out on our anniversary this weeked and I think it would be prudent to watch something romantic (unlike last year when we saw Dark Knight). Any suggestions??
Until next time...
Until next time...
Thursday, August 6, 2009
My nerd initiation
This will be short and sweet...
A meaningful idea occured to me the other day and I thought to myself, "this would be a really good thing to blog on." So I sat down first to get some work done on the computer, then to post a blog. As I started sorting through my thoughts on how to present this, I kept drifting to the Harry Potter book I am reading that I really like and really want to finish. So let the hazing begin. It's 9:30, the kids are asleep, my wife is watching So You Think You Can Dance, and all I want to do is read about a boy-wizard. I hope I haven't lost all credibility.
p.s. I'll post again soon... I am almost done with the book.
A meaningful idea occured to me the other day and I thought to myself, "this would be a really good thing to blog on." So I sat down first to get some work done on the computer, then to post a blog. As I started sorting through my thoughts on how to present this, I kept drifting to the Harry Potter book I am reading that I really like and really want to finish. So let the hazing begin. It's 9:30, the kids are asleep, my wife is watching So You Think You Can Dance, and all I want to do is read about a boy-wizard. I hope I haven't lost all credibility.
p.s. I'll post again soon... I am almost done with the book.
Friday, July 24, 2009
American's 'acted stupidly' by electing Obama
Stop me if you've heard this one...
A white police officer arrests a black man. The black man calls it racial profiling. The white officer says it was for his own safety. Who really knows other than the two people who were there?
Apparently, President Obama thinks this is an important enough issue to deal with. Mr. President says that the "Cambridge police acted stupidly (to make this arrest)." Then, he states the media is obsessing over the issue. Well... yeah - you thought it was important enough to pass judgement on. Next comes this gem: "There's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately." (And really, anyone with a shred of logic or common sense - you don't even need both - can refute this statement.) How often do we hear presidents passing judgement on individual law enforcement officers AND playing the race card at the same time? Hate to say you started this media frenzy President, but - "you started it!"
Yes, we can and will argue over the rights and wrongs of both Officer Crowley and Professor Gates, but my question is: does it raise anyone else's eyebrows when the President of the United States looks at race first as he did here, admitting to not having the facts, but still making those statements, and therefore puts himself in a completely non-objective position? For you or I, losing our objectivity over an issue is usually forgivable. When it's the man running the country, it bumps Health Care Plan issues. I read a quote that sums it up well: "Automatically, the words are more significant when it comes out of the president's mouth" - Whit Ayres, Fox News.
Now Obama wants to set up a meeting with the officer, the professor, and himself to have a beer at the white House. How cool! (I think that is the response Obama is looking for when he makes those kinds of statments... please wake me when everyone else gets sick of it, too.) For reference on this statement, see: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/32132522#32133926
(6:15 into clip)
"Have a beer (at the white House)." Come again? What exactly is the president going to do at this meeting? Talk the professor out of suing the police department and Officer Crowley? Seriously, would this meeting have any other purpose than an attempt to improve Obama's declining approval ratings? They will say that this is with the purpose of discussing and improving race relations in America, but would anyone with half a mind fall for that?
It really has come down to this point for me. I simply can not watch President Obama speak, or VP Biden for that matter, without my double-talk radar blowing up. He continually makes ambiguous statements that are INTENDED to either mislead us, allow him to sit on the fence ("I should have callibrated those words differently"), or protect him when he is wrong ("This economic stimulus package will create or save X number of jobs" [paraphrased]). It drives me absolutely crazy to try to interpret what he is saying because nothing is straight-forward. In the end, I just don't take anything he says at face value. That's okay (though unfortunate) when you are talking about your next door neighbor. It's downright scary when you're talking about the leader of the free world.
I really, really want President Obama to succeed, but with each passing week, I become increasingly unable to see how he will with the way he operates his administration. In short, we have elected a man who will lead us deeper into the abyss, tell us we really aren't headed that way, and then blame others for what he did. Let me correct that sentence. Those things have already happened...
A white police officer arrests a black man. The black man calls it racial profiling. The white officer says it was for his own safety. Who really knows other than the two people who were there?
Apparently, President Obama thinks this is an important enough issue to deal with. Mr. President says that the "Cambridge police acted stupidly (to make this arrest)." Then, he states the media is obsessing over the issue. Well... yeah - you thought it was important enough to pass judgement on. Next comes this gem: "There's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately." (And really, anyone with a shred of logic or common sense - you don't even need both - can refute this statement.) How often do we hear presidents passing judgement on individual law enforcement officers AND playing the race card at the same time? Hate to say you started this media frenzy President, but - "you started it!"
Yes, we can and will argue over the rights and wrongs of both Officer Crowley and Professor Gates, but my question is: does it raise anyone else's eyebrows when the President of the United States looks at race first as he did here, admitting to not having the facts, but still making those statements, and therefore puts himself in a completely non-objective position? For you or I, losing our objectivity over an issue is usually forgivable. When it's the man running the country, it bumps Health Care Plan issues. I read a quote that sums it up well: "Automatically, the words are more significant when it comes out of the president's mouth" - Whit Ayres, Fox News.
Now Obama wants to set up a meeting with the officer, the professor, and himself to have a beer at the white House. How cool! (I think that is the response Obama is looking for when he makes those kinds of statments... please wake me when everyone else gets sick of it, too.) For reference on this statement, see: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/32132522#32133926
(6:15 into clip)
"Have a beer (at the white House)." Come again? What exactly is the president going to do at this meeting? Talk the professor out of suing the police department and Officer Crowley? Seriously, would this meeting have any other purpose than an attempt to improve Obama's declining approval ratings? They will say that this is with the purpose of discussing and improving race relations in America, but would anyone with half a mind fall for that?
It really has come down to this point for me. I simply can not watch President Obama speak, or VP Biden for that matter, without my double-talk radar blowing up. He continually makes ambiguous statements that are INTENDED to either mislead us, allow him to sit on the fence ("I should have callibrated those words differently"), or protect him when he is wrong ("This economic stimulus package will create or save X number of jobs" [paraphrased]). It drives me absolutely crazy to try to interpret what he is saying because nothing is straight-forward. In the end, I just don't take anything he says at face value. That's okay (though unfortunate) when you are talking about your next door neighbor. It's downright scary when you're talking about the leader of the free world.
I really, really want President Obama to succeed, but with each passing week, I become increasingly unable to see how he will with the way he operates his administration. In short, we have elected a man who will lead us deeper into the abyss, tell us we really aren't headed that way, and then blame others for what he did. Let me correct that sentence. Those things have already happened...
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Healthy Care
Most (if not all) of you know that we had a scare last week with our baby. For a couple days, we had an increasingly fussy infant on our hands, followed by a very lethargic day of him mostly sleeping. As Saturday afternoon became Saturday evening, his symptoms increased to the point where we realized that he HAD to see a doctor. In the emergency room, the staff appropriately informed us that if he was going to need extended care, he would have to be taken to Las Vegas, as Lake Havasu City does not have the facilities to care for an infant (a different discussion for a different day). Later, they informed us that he would be flying to the child care facility in Vegas, as it required immediate attention.
As with any good mother, my wife's attention was completely on comforting and caring for the little guy. As the father, my mind starts processing through the many other issues we are now facing...
-what to do with the other kids
-did my wife eat dinner?
-how to politely, but firmly, tell the doctor that my baby is not flying to Vegas without his mother
-how to efficiently get myself to Vegas (cause I would be driving) with the things we need for our stay
...and not the least of my concerns...
-how much of this is my insurance going to pay?
In short, at that point (as far as insurance claims go) we were facing:
-the trip to the Havasu ER
-an ambulance ride to the airport in Havasu
-medical flight from Havasu to Vegas
-ambulance from Vegas airport to Sunrise Children's Hospital
-urgent care surgery
-recovery in the hospital.
This all leads me to the topic of this post... health care. First off, let me say that I am categorically against state-run programs. I don't see the logic behind paying more of my money to the government for them to decide how to spend it. I know it sounds great to have "free" health care, but all that really means is that the people who are paying most of the taxes in this country will be paying more, and the pool of individuals who are actually getting truly free health care (already receiving health care through the government and not paying their portion of the bills, i.e. taxes) will just increase in size. Let me also say that I have been on state health care. In fact, my wife and kids are on a modified state care program now (we pay our premium directly to the state). I understand the benefit of welfare medical insurance. This is difficult for me, considering my ideals; while we are not a poor family, we certainly can't afford to pay the $492 a month it would cost to cover my family.
Now on one hand, I can say that my family and I haven't historically required a great deal of medical attention. When you consider the the amount of money being spent each month by myself and my employers towards insurance over the years, I have got to think that the insurance companies are making a killing off of my family. On the other hand, this little trip to the emergency room combined with the air ambulance, etc., surely cost the insurance companies a lot of that money they have made off of me over the years (not sure the cost of all this stuff, but of what I can find, the transportation alone probably cost around $30,000).
So, what is the deal with this? I can't be doling out close to $500 per month on health insurance. Still, the insurance companies need to charge enough to pay our claims. And, yes, it is a business for them, too; they need to make some money off of us. I appreciate that President Obama is trying to reform health insurance, as it clearly needs reforming. I just obviously have concerns over how he plans to reform health care.
The way I see it, one of three things needs to happen:
- Either we need to just accept - as citizens - that it is going to cost A LOT of money to insure ourselves (and I recognize Americans have been doing for some time now), which will (continue to) result in millions of under- and uninsured Americans... which will effectively mean that taxpayers will be picking up the tab anyway as these uninsured can't pay their hospital bills.
- Or government needs to step in and make a pay schedule that will be (what they believe to be) fair to everyone so all can receive "free" health care.
- Or... the cost of health care needs to drop into a range that allows insurance companies to lower their rates, thus making it possible for people to be able to afford health care. This would also mean that insurance companies need to pay the claims as they are billed, so there isn't this circular problem of over-billing to compensate for underpayment, and underpayment to compensate for over-billing.
I recognize that I may be oversimplifying this, but it seems to me that when considering all things, the third option would be best for our country. The hard part is figuring out how to make that happen (maybe someone who reads this will know and leave a comment, cause I certainly don't know). I imagine at the very least it would require people in the medical fields and the insurance companies (and the ambulance-chasing lawyers) to function within a moral and ethical fair zone in regards to money. Again, I just don't know how that is going to be enforced, but I take consolation in the idea that there are representatives for us right now working on this trying to do the right thing and give us strong, positive health care reform... and I hope (I am trying very hard not to being cynical here) they make the right long-term decisions that are best for all Americans.
What I can say is that my little boy is doing better and I appreciate all the love, prayers, and concern over him.
As with any good mother, my wife's attention was completely on comforting and caring for the little guy. As the father, my mind starts processing through the many other issues we are now facing...
-what to do with the other kids
-did my wife eat dinner?
-how to politely, but firmly, tell the doctor that my baby is not flying to Vegas without his mother
-how to efficiently get myself to Vegas (cause I would be driving) with the things we need for our stay
...and not the least of my concerns...
-how much of this is my insurance going to pay?
In short, at that point (as far as insurance claims go) we were facing:
-the trip to the Havasu ER
-an ambulance ride to the airport in Havasu
-medical flight from Havasu to Vegas
-ambulance from Vegas airport to Sunrise Children's Hospital
-urgent care surgery
-recovery in the hospital.
This all leads me to the topic of this post... health care. First off, let me say that I am categorically against state-run programs. I don't see the logic behind paying more of my money to the government for them to decide how to spend it. I know it sounds great to have "free" health care, but all that really means is that the people who are paying most of the taxes in this country will be paying more, and the pool of individuals who are actually getting truly free health care (already receiving health care through the government and not paying their portion of the bills, i.e. taxes) will just increase in size. Let me also say that I have been on state health care. In fact, my wife and kids are on a modified state care program now (we pay our premium directly to the state). I understand the benefit of welfare medical insurance. This is difficult for me, considering my ideals; while we are not a poor family, we certainly can't afford to pay the $492 a month it would cost to cover my family.
Now on one hand, I can say that my family and I haven't historically required a great deal of medical attention. When you consider the the amount of money being spent each month by myself and my employers towards insurance over the years, I have got to think that the insurance companies are making a killing off of my family. On the other hand, this little trip to the emergency room combined with the air ambulance, etc., surely cost the insurance companies a lot of that money they have made off of me over the years (not sure the cost of all this stuff, but of what I can find, the transportation alone probably cost around $30,000).
So, what is the deal with this? I can't be doling out close to $500 per month on health insurance. Still, the insurance companies need to charge enough to pay our claims. And, yes, it is a business for them, too; they need to make some money off of us. I appreciate that President Obama is trying to reform health insurance, as it clearly needs reforming. I just obviously have concerns over how he plans to reform health care.
The way I see it, one of three things needs to happen:
- Either we need to just accept - as citizens - that it is going to cost A LOT of money to insure ourselves (and I recognize Americans have been doing for some time now), which will (continue to) result in millions of under- and uninsured Americans... which will effectively mean that taxpayers will be picking up the tab anyway as these uninsured can't pay their hospital bills.
- Or government needs to step in and make a pay schedule that will be (what they believe to be) fair to everyone so all can receive "free" health care.
- Or... the cost of health care needs to drop into a range that allows insurance companies to lower their rates, thus making it possible for people to be able to afford health care. This would also mean that insurance companies need to pay the claims as they are billed, so there isn't this circular problem of over-billing to compensate for underpayment, and underpayment to compensate for over-billing.
I recognize that I may be oversimplifying this, but it seems to me that when considering all things, the third option would be best for our country. The hard part is figuring out how to make that happen (maybe someone who reads this will know and leave a comment, cause I certainly don't know). I imagine at the very least it would require people in the medical fields and the insurance companies (and the ambulance-chasing lawyers) to function within a moral and ethical fair zone in regards to money. Again, I just don't know how that is going to be enforced, but I take consolation in the idea that there are representatives for us right now working on this trying to do the right thing and give us strong, positive health care reform... and I hope (I am trying very hard not to being cynical here) they make the right long-term decisions that are best for all Americans.
What I can say is that my little boy is doing better and I appreciate all the love, prayers, and concern over him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
