Thursday, January 28, 2010

State of the Union?

I still don't know what the state of the Union is after watching Mr. Obama's speech. It seemed to be more of an exercise in insulting the American people, the Supreme Court and those members of Congress who refuse to do his bidding, than an update on where we are now.

I will freely admit that I did not watch the entire speech. We were at a Bible study during the first bit and when we got home, my three lie/speech limit was quickly reached. (Actually my son was working on his SOTU Barack Bingo card and had to shush me. His exact words were "Mom, I can't hear if he's saying anything on my card with you back there saying "liar, liar, pants on fire".

Here are just a few of the bits that really annoyed me.:
The overwhelming evidence for global warming - Has no one told Mr. Obama that when the base information for a scientific conclusion can be shown to be fallacious or questionable that the conclusion then becomes fallacious/questionable as well?

I refuse to pass this burden on to future generations - The deficit/debt has been regulated to the point that it will double under his administration, with his encouragement and approval and he can comment about not wanting to pass on burdens to future generations?

No lobbyists in my administration. There are at least 12 former professional lobbyists employed by this administration.

Transparency - Really?, then where is the C-Span coverage of the closed door meetings on healthcare?

We must increase our exports by ?% - Does he think he can force the citizens of other countries to consume more of our products legislatively?

America must lead - And I'm to take this seriously from a man who has spent a part of nearly every international trip he has taken apologizing for America?

Does this man, or his speechwriters, believe that none of the American people can remember things longer than a goldfish? But at least I'm not a member of the SCOTUS or Congress who had to sit there politely while he insulted them to their faces. So, I wonder what the state of the union is when the individual currently sitting in the office of the president believes such behavior is appropriate for this speech.

"He that speaketh truth sheweth forth righteousness: but a false witness deceit"~Proverbs 12:17

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Cadillacs Anyone?

Insurance companies use a number of criteria for determining how much a policy will cost. Among these are the occupation of the applicant, the services that applicant wants covered, the applicant's age and location. This is not to give them an excuse for denying coverage. Businesses want to serve you-that's how they make money. It is rather to determine how much they will be likely to have to pay out during the course of a year's coverage. Jobs like carriage driving, construction and custodial work are far riskier than a typical office job. Higher risk = higher premium. Older people tend to have more claims than younger people. The body wears out. Older = higher premium. People who live in large cities have a higher risk of things like auto accidents or violent crime than those who live away from people. Living in a high risk area= higher premium. If an applicant wants to cover every conceivable medical test and procedure known to man, that's also going to cost more.

Unfortunately, Congress has decided to use the cost of any given insurance policy as a guide to what that policy covers. They have declared that a policy that costs ~ $23,000/year for a family or ~$8,500/year for an individual must be a "Cadillac plan". By which they mean to imply that such a plan is only purchased by the evil, greedy people who have "played the system" to be better off than "ordinary" people. They are using the cost of the policy as an easy button to convince the American people that those who can afford such policies, ought then to be fined so that everyone can get coverage. In addition to ignoring the risk factors that go into the pricing of health insurance policies, they are lying to the American people for yet one more power grab. One more huge shift towards collectivism.

The truth is that someone who works at a risky job in a big city will pay far more for the same coverage as someone who works at a low risk job in a small town. For Congress to ignore this, and penalize the high risk worker, essentially for taking a high risk job, is going to cost America yet more jobs and make it that much more difficult and expensive to get anything done that requires a high risk worker.

America is all about risk. We value the freedom to take risks and the freedom to fail. That includes failing to have adequate coverage. It includes the risk of incurring a lifelong debt to pay for the medical services that one would receive in extremis, regardless of one's ability to pay.

Our medical system is not broken. I have read that the real impetus for this legislation is that doctor after doctor and clinic after clinic are refusing to take Medicare/Medicaid patients on a non-emergency basis anymore, because those patients are served at a loss to the doctor/facility. That, rather than being conspiracy theory, type collectivism pushers, Congress is just so stupid as to think that by providing no way out for healthcare providers and insurers, and taxing the dickens out of the rest of us to pay for it, it will solve the problem.

If that's the case, I wonder what they will do when, in 3-4 years, all the baby boomers are retired and aging and the 45% of healthcare providers polled retire because they don't care to be forced to work under the provisions of this bill. How will Congress "fix" the healthcare system then?

The unions who supported this Congress and this administration into office suddenly realized that many of their members have healthcare plans that put them into that "Cadillac" category by price. Upon realizing this, did they throw their weight against the legislation? Did they have a sudden revelation of patriotism to impel them to protect their members through opposing this unconstitutional and unconscionable legislation that will destroy the American health care system? No, they paid to play, so they just went to their pet legislators and collected their payoff.

It is time and past for America's Union workers to remember that they are the power behind the unions and that they are Americans first. Congress isn't the only place that needs a change of personnel.

"Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it. " ~Duet 1:17

Saturday, January 16, 2010

We the People or Obama the king?

A New York Times article entitled " In Health Talks, President Is Hands-Off No More " came out today.The first paragraph says: "President Obama has taken full control of the health care negotiations, casting himself for the first time in the role of mediator between the House and Senate during a 72-hour marathon of talks that have turned his White House into a de facto Congressional conference. "
How very nice that Congressional Democrats are willing to share what they are doing with the president, when they have been unwilling to show their employers, the American people, what they are doing to the future of our health care system.
I thought it was the role of Congress to craft legislation and the role of the president to give it his approval or his veto.

"When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn. "~ Prov 29:2

Sunday, January 10, 2010

So much to post about, So little time.

Here we are, at the beginning of a new year and the challenges before us are myriad and mounting. I'd like to take a moment raise awareness of this issue.
UNICEF has announced that Somalia plans to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child treaty, leaving the US as the only UN member state still holding out. This Treaty is appalling in it's generality and scope. In my opinion, the US should not sign on to this treaty for a number of reasons.

  • This sentence, in the preamble to this treaty takes a definitive stand on when life begins:
    "Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth" (emphasis mine) Combined with Article 6 section 1( "1. States Parties recognize that every child has the inherent right to life.") I think this effectively outlaws abortions-all abortions. I, personally, am in favor of outlawing abortion, even in the case of rape or incest, because in my view that child did not commit the crime. I do, however, strongly object to a lack of consideration for the life of the mother. A couple who must choose between the mother's life and that of her unborn baby for health reasons has enough stress without the government sticking their two cents worth into that decision.
  • This treaty would create an unconscionable financial burden upon the nation as Article 6 states:"2. States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child." This is further strengthened by Article 7, sections 1 and 2, which state:"1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents. 2. States Parties shall ensure the implementation of these rights in accordance with their national law and their obligations under the relevant international instruments in this field, in particular where the child would otherwise be stateless."
  • Article 7, sections 1 and 2 also leave a whole lot of leeway for government interference with the raising of our children. Article 7 section one could be read as saying the child has the right to be cared for by his/her biological parents. Then section 2 says the State must make this possible. Article 7 , section 1 may outlaw adoption as well as egg and sperm donation. Because the state would be required to ensure the child "the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents".

Now this may all sound fairly innocuous, until you factor in the idea that the state must make possible a parent's ability to raise their child. This opens the door not only to abuse on the part of the state, but abuse of the state on the part of the citizenry. I have heard teen aged girls plotting to get pregnant so that they can go on welfare and get out of their parent's houses under the current welfare system of the state of WI. How much worse would this become under this treaty? Can't find a job-or just don't want to? Don't worry, the government is bound by international treaty to make you able to care for your children. Isn't the character of young girls like the ones I overheard degraded enough without adding this sort of temptation? This treaty says parents(plural) That means all those young men getting their machismo on by fathering children they don't care for could also demand benefits from the government, does it not?

This treaty, in mandating that the government provide for such things, also creates a mandate for in-home checks by government officials. In home checks on every child, not just those who have been reported as at-risk for one reason or another. In home checks with government criteria to be met whether the government's criteria for a healthy home matches your own or not.

I think we are better than that. If you don't like the possibilities for government meddling in our private lives and the lives of our children contained within this treaty, I would strongly suggest you check out Parental Sign the petition and join the fight.

"Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.
As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth.
Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate."~ Psalm 127:3-5

Monday, January 4, 2010

Happy New Year!

Wishing everyone a Happy New Year.

  • May we go forth into this new year with the Lord's blessing and guidance and be better than we were.
  • May God grant us wisdom and knowledge and the strength to stand on our principles without compromise.
  • May we, as a nation, never forget the author of the divine providence that has gifted us with a nation like no other throughout the last 200+ years and may we be grateful for all of His works.
  • May we step up to defend our freedom and our faith unashamedly and without fear.
  • May we hold our honor dear, as a nation and as individuals.
  • May we understand and practice good manners.
  • May we hold each other in our hearts as made in the image of God and therefore deserving of our love, even as God loves and died that His blood could cover each of us if we are willing to accept it.
  • May we understand that free will is the greatest gift that God has bestowed upon us and may we cherish it as we turn to God to do His will out of that freedom.
  • May we recognize the need, as did our founders, to pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor to the maintenance of this great nation and may we not waver from that pledge when the time comes to realize that such things will be required of us.
  • May we remember that although our opinions may divide us, we are one nation.
  • May we defend her as the gift of Almighty God to free and independent people.

    "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. "~Romans 5:18