Whoa! Let's get the right message. It's not going to take a bloodhound to sniff this one out even though a blue dog tries to bury the evidence.
Sen. Max Baucus (MT) throws out the public option in order to get Republican support? Or, Senator Baucus throws out the public option to ensure Big Insurance financial support?
Even though Republicans run a well-organized auto-pilot scare tactics plan, a recent August study shows 77% support choice of public option. And why not? This adds one more choice to what many consider to be a monopoly of two. Floridians recently complained of out of control insurance costs due to only two providers to choose from. Health insurance is a near-monopoly in all states.
Health care reform is the choice of public option. Without public option, there is no reform. The middle of the road health care measure proposed by Senator Baucus is a slap in the face.
Unlike fifteen years ago, the time is now. So what is the hold up?
Republicans who give no support (and don't intend to under this administration) to any health care reform endorsed by Democrats, and Democrats without backbone.
Max Baucus, Kent Conrad, Blanche Lincoln and Thomas Carper received big money from Big Insurance. Was their vote bought and paid? Voters from their respective states will have to decide.
One thing for certain, people of all colors and political persuasions elected President Obama for the promise of major insurance reform. Some in this group lost everything they owned due to catastrophic illness, others lost their insurance when they lost their job. Many were turned down or dropped by insurance companies due to pre-existing conditions. Or treatment was denied. Many of these people live each day in fear that one of their family members will get sick and there is no money for doctor or medicine.
I would not want to be in the shoes of the Democrat who turns back on President Obama's promise, and therefore the people who put him in office.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Idaho Liberal Demos Ready to Drop-Kick Blue Dogs
President Obama ran on health care reform. Change, change, change. And the people voted. Many people who had never voted before did so for the promise of health care reform. Their stories were heard. We listened, and many of us identified with them. Those who couldn't afford insurance. People who lost their insurance, jobs, homes, and all of their savings due to catastrophic illnesses. People labeled uninsurable.
The media proclaimed that everybody wanted health care reform. Translation: health care reform providing every man, woman, and child with affordable, accessable health care. Obama said it could be done, and we believed that it would be done. Turns out we have a couple of problems.
Problem One: Everybody knows exactly how to do it best.
The man on the street, the barber, and patrons of the local coffee shop know the health care reform solution and share it freely. Magazines and newspapers are filled with articles presenting what should be and could be done. Our small town local doctor presented his plan in our weekly newspaper (Foutz, Michael. "Solution in health care debate." Kuna Melba News 12 Aug. 2009: 6)
Problem Two: Politics at its best.
Forget the 50 million uninsured. Forget about non-partisan efforts doing what is best for the nation.
The uninsured weren't included in the reform plan. How many of the first time voters were uninsured and cast their first ballots based on hope and promise of that weight being lifted from their shoulders? Will they vote a second time?
Non-partisan reaching out to solve the nation's health care dilemma apparently meant reaching out for votes. Republicans are quick to scare and incite fear of the existing health reform proposal. One of the biggest targets is the end-of-life paid counselling sessions, a beneficial and helpful service, that would be made available for families. Sarah Palin called them "death panels," and they were unfairly criticised by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), among others. Kathleen Sebelius (Sec. Health and Human Services), hopes the end-of-life sessions will remain intact.
As predicted, the Blue Dog Democrats join the ranks of the dissident Republicans. This creates a sore spot for many Idaho Democrats. It raises the question, Are you looking out for health care needs of Idahoans and the country, or are you looking for votes? As initial health reform promises are being dropped, members of the democratic party may drop-kick a blue dog or two out of office.
The media proclaimed that everybody wanted health care reform. Translation: health care reform providing every man, woman, and child with affordable, accessable health care. Obama said it could be done, and we believed that it would be done. Turns out we have a couple of problems.
Problem One: Everybody knows exactly how to do it best.
The man on the street, the barber, and patrons of the local coffee shop know the health care reform solution and share it freely. Magazines and newspapers are filled with articles presenting what should be and could be done. Our small town local doctor presented his plan in our weekly newspaper (Foutz, Michael. "Solution in health care debate." Kuna Melba News 12 Aug. 2009: 6)
Problem Two: Politics at its best.
Forget the 50 million uninsured. Forget about non-partisan efforts doing what is best for the nation.
The uninsured weren't included in the reform plan. How many of the first time voters were uninsured and cast their first ballots based on hope and promise of that weight being lifted from their shoulders? Will they vote a second time?
Non-partisan reaching out to solve the nation's health care dilemma apparently meant reaching out for votes. Republicans are quick to scare and incite fear of the existing health reform proposal. One of the biggest targets is the end-of-life paid counselling sessions, a beneficial and helpful service, that would be made available for families. Sarah Palin called them "death panels," and they were unfairly criticised by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), among others. Kathleen Sebelius (Sec. Health and Human Services), hopes the end-of-life sessions will remain intact.
As predicted, the Blue Dog Democrats join the ranks of the dissident Republicans. This creates a sore spot for many Idaho Democrats. It raises the question, Are you looking out for health care needs of Idahoans and the country, or are you looking for votes? As initial health reform promises are being dropped, members of the democratic party may drop-kick a blue dog or two out of office.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Health Care: A Crisis Mandating Reform
The state of the economy predicts more loss of jobs and home foreclosures. The number of uninsured is close to 50 million and growing. It is estimated that current health care's cost to our economy is sixteen per cent or more. Health care costs are out of control, and reform can't wait.
Big name reform advocates include not only AARP, but - hold onto your hat! - phRma and the AMA as well. According to the July Kaiser Health Tracking Poll, the public still supports health care reform.
Why the legislative delay?
What should be a Red White Blue effort to save our country's health care crisis falls into the political quagmire of Red vs Blue. As though this isn't enough, the Blue presents obstacles from within.
Blue dog Democrats insist the proposed legislation is too expensive.
Representative Walt Minnick states that he is "working for a more balanced bill supported by the majority of my constituents." Would the majority of Rep. Minnick's district 1 constituents be Republican?
Do any of the following requirements for a health care bill that a blue dog can support resound of GOP agenda?
Big name reform advocates include not only AARP, but - hold onto your hat! - phRma and the AMA as well. According to the July Kaiser Health Tracking Poll, the public still supports health care reform.
Why the legislative delay?
What should be a Red White Blue effort to save our country's health care crisis falls into the political quagmire of Red vs Blue. As though this isn't enough, the Blue presents obstacles from within.
Blue dog Democrats insist the proposed legislation is too expensive.
Representative Walt Minnick states that he is "working for a more balanced bill supported by the majority of my constituents." Would the majority of Rep. Minnick's district 1 constituents be Republican?
Do any of the following requirements for a health care bill that a blue dog can support resound of GOP agenda?
- Fully funded
- Available to all
- No "socialized medicine"
- Reduced cost
If all of the above can't be met at this time, do we follow the precedent established by the last administration and ignore it? Or, do we follow Clinton's lead, make an attempt, then drop it when the going gets tough?
Not on President Obama's watch. He says, "I'm the president . . . this has to get done." The majority of Americans agree.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Republocrats for All
Accusations that Colin Powell acts like a Democrat is no surprise. Recently, Tom Ridge made the same news. Newt Gingrich is another moderate Republican that raises the hackles of the Republican conservative base.
Idaho Governor Butch Otter was accused of behaving like a Democrat during his fight for Idaho transportation funding during the recent 2009 legislative session. His argument for preventative measures to ward off drastic outcomes and expenses down the road (pun intended) came off like an Al Gore sound bite.
Idaho Representatives Walt Minnick(D) and Mike Simpson(R) cast votes like fraternity brothers who meet up afterwards for a cold one.
Maybe there is something to this Republocrat business. As members of both parties slide to the middle, the conservative base and the liberal base grow smaller and smaller. The teeter-totter becomes balanced. The pull of gravity might as well take a yoga break-Nobody slammed, nobody hurt.
Isn't this exactly what President Obama wants? The two major parties pulling together putting partisan biases and prejudices aside, to work for the good of our country during these troubled times? The economy gets fixed, a chicken and a job in every pot, a health care system that works, global warming stopped in its tracks . . .
Nice, but who will we cuss, blame, rant and rave when things go wrong if everyone is responsible and in agreement?
No need to worry. There will always be radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Ed Schutz, and outspoken politicians like Dick Cheney and Dennis Kucinich. Those who can place blame, take blame, and keep the political dust stirring. I suppose in the long run that's good.
Even so, it would be nice if the dust settled long enough for the Republocrats to put together a good health care system.
Idaho Governor Butch Otter was accused of behaving like a Democrat during his fight for Idaho transportation funding during the recent 2009 legislative session. His argument for preventative measures to ward off drastic outcomes and expenses down the road (pun intended) came off like an Al Gore sound bite.
Idaho Representatives Walt Minnick(D) and Mike Simpson(R) cast votes like fraternity brothers who meet up afterwards for a cold one.
Maybe there is something to this Republocrat business. As members of both parties slide to the middle, the conservative base and the liberal base grow smaller and smaller. The teeter-totter becomes balanced. The pull of gravity might as well take a yoga break-Nobody slammed, nobody hurt.
Isn't this exactly what President Obama wants? The two major parties pulling together putting partisan biases and prejudices aside, to work for the good of our country during these troubled times? The economy gets fixed, a chicken and a job in every pot, a health care system that works, global warming stopped in its tracks . . .
Nice, but who will we cuss, blame, rant and rave when things go wrong if everyone is responsible and in agreement?
No need to worry. There will always be radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Ed Schutz, and outspoken politicians like Dick Cheney and Dennis Kucinich. Those who can place blame, take blame, and keep the political dust stirring. I suppose in the long run that's good.
Even so, it would be nice if the dust settled long enough for the Republocrats to put together a good health care system.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Don't Mess with my Guns
A vote for Obama is a vote against guns. This cry grew louder after the election. Today, emailed messages of the "Ten ways Obama is Destroying our Country," places loss of Second Amendment rights high on the list.
Local buzz indicates tightening of gun control is feared more than economy based concerns.
I remember when we used guns for hunting. Gun safety and hunting skill were part of a child's upbringing. From the age of twelve, I learned how to walk a corn field for pheasant with four or five other hunters without fear of getting pelted by buckshot. Hunting was a way of life in our Idaho farming community near the Snake River.
To my knowledge, a thief never came to our house. If so, the trouble maker would have met Dad's 12 gauge shotgun. However, his love for the doubled-barrel shotgun centered on bagging plump pheasants, not Second Amendment rights.
Rep. Walt Minnick and Sen. Mike Crapo assure us that gun control is not on the menu this session. There are too many pressing problems to take care of before Obama can meddle with our Second Amendment rights. The message is that legislators from either party are against letting that new president, dead set on destroying our country, mess with our guns.
What's behind this fear of losing guns? Why is there a rush of people across America stockpiling ammunition? During his campaign, President Obama took a stand against gun crime by calling for the Tiahrt (Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-KS) restrictions to be removed. He continues this stand today. Some call this a common sense stand.
Tihrt stands in the way of law enforcement by restricting access of important trace data making it impossible to stop the flow of illegal guns to criminals.
The Second Amendment to the United States Constituion reads: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
A key phrase seemingly overlooked is "a well-regulated militia." Those crying for A gun in every pot rather than A chicken in every pot, tend to overlook the well-regulated part.
Logically, freeing law enforcement to trace guns back to the criminals who obtained them and inventory checks for loss and theft are not going to stop all of the criminal based activity involving gun trafficking. But, it will stop some of it. Don't we want to enable rather than hinder law enforcement to stop the flow of illegal guns? Sounds like common sense to me.
Illegal arsenals are found containing grenades with launchers and bazookas. If someone breaks into my place armed with one of those, my daddy's shotgun is going to look like a Dollar Store toy.
Local buzz indicates tightening of gun control is feared more than economy based concerns.
I remember when we used guns for hunting. Gun safety and hunting skill were part of a child's upbringing. From the age of twelve, I learned how to walk a corn field for pheasant with four or five other hunters without fear of getting pelted by buckshot. Hunting was a way of life in our Idaho farming community near the Snake River.
To my knowledge, a thief never came to our house. If so, the trouble maker would have met Dad's 12 gauge shotgun. However, his love for the doubled-barrel shotgun centered on bagging plump pheasants, not Second Amendment rights.
Rep. Walt Minnick and Sen. Mike Crapo assure us that gun control is not on the menu this session. There are too many pressing problems to take care of before Obama can meddle with our Second Amendment rights. The message is that legislators from either party are against letting that new president, dead set on destroying our country, mess with our guns.
What's behind this fear of losing guns? Why is there a rush of people across America stockpiling ammunition? During his campaign, President Obama took a stand against gun crime by calling for the Tiahrt (Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-KS) restrictions to be removed. He continues this stand today. Some call this a common sense stand.
Tihrt stands in the way of law enforcement by restricting access of important trace data making it impossible to stop the flow of illegal guns to criminals.
The Second Amendment to the United States Constituion reads: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
A key phrase seemingly overlooked is "a well-regulated militia." Those crying for A gun in every pot rather than A chicken in every pot, tend to overlook the well-regulated part.
Logically, freeing law enforcement to trace guns back to the criminals who obtained them and inventory checks for loss and theft are not going to stop all of the criminal based activity involving gun trafficking. But, it will stop some of it. Don't we want to enable rather than hinder law enforcement to stop the flow of illegal guns? Sounds like common sense to me.
Illegal arsenals are found containing grenades with launchers and bazookas. If someone breaks into my place armed with one of those, my daddy's shotgun is going to look like a Dollar Store toy.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
New Deal, Old deal, Big deal
Everyone is trashing FDR and the New Deal. In case of doubt, everyone refers to members of the GOP.
Made possible by President Obama and the state of our country, the GOP has raised the smouldering Old Deal (anti-FDR) into a roaring blaze.
Old deal, old talk:
FDR was responsible for the economy and the Great Depression.
World War II solved the Depression, and FDR's New Deal had nothing to do with it.
FDR's Big Spending programs like the CCC, WPA, and TVA put more people out of work and worsened the economy.
"Black Tuesday" and thus the Great Depression can be placed on the Hoover administration. Of course WWII ended the Depression, but that doesn't diminish FDR's New Deal. Big spending? Perhaps that was the thinking of the time. Realistically, his emergency measures were too narrow, too conservative. His proposed budgets were not large enough to provide the impact needed to stop the Great Depression.
Idaho is blessed with WPA buildings and roads. The CCC had a positive effect on Idaho, too. President Roosevelt said the CCC enhanced the value of both natural and human resources. Try telling the people who worked on these projects that they were worse off. Try telling their present day family members.
The anti-FDR and anti-Obama group makes comparisons between the two. They compare FDR's Fireside chats to Obama's Internet chats. Lately, they compare FDR's wheelchair to Obama's cigarets.
Big deal.
Is there a parallel here?
President Hoover (Republican) and his poor economic policies caused the Great Depression and the people call on President Roosevelt (Democrat) to fix it. President Bush (Republican) and his poor economic policies create disaster and the people choose President Obama (Democrat) to fix it.
Made possible by President Obama and the state of our country, the GOP has raised the smouldering Old Deal (anti-FDR) into a roaring blaze.
Old deal, old talk:
FDR was responsible for the economy and the Great Depression.
World War II solved the Depression, and FDR's New Deal had nothing to do with it.
FDR's Big Spending programs like the CCC, WPA, and TVA put more people out of work and worsened the economy.
"Black Tuesday" and thus the Great Depression can be placed on the Hoover administration. Of course WWII ended the Depression, but that doesn't diminish FDR's New Deal. Big spending? Perhaps that was the thinking of the time. Realistically, his emergency measures were too narrow, too conservative. His proposed budgets were not large enough to provide the impact needed to stop the Great Depression.
Idaho is blessed with WPA buildings and roads. The CCC had a positive effect on Idaho, too. President Roosevelt said the CCC enhanced the value of both natural and human resources. Try telling the people who worked on these projects that they were worse off. Try telling their present day family members.
The anti-FDR and anti-Obama group makes comparisons between the two. They compare FDR's Fireside chats to Obama's Internet chats. Lately, they compare FDR's wheelchair to Obama's cigarets.
Big deal.
Is there a parallel here?
President Hoover (Republican) and his poor economic policies caused the Great Depression and the people call on President Roosevelt (Democrat) to fix it. President Bush (Republican) and his poor economic policies create disaster and the people choose President Obama (Democrat) to fix it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
