I am trying to wrap my mind around the new health care legislation that is about to be passed by the senate. I keep hearing from people "You better be worried because when the government takes over health care they'll pay you a lot less." But I can't help but think this is a nowhere near a government takeover of health care. I would love input, to see if I am missing something here. From what I understand, if this senate bill passes soon, it will:
1. Require all Americans to have some type of health insurance (no public option will be offered by the government.)
2. Require all health insurance companies to take on every applicant regardless of pre-existing condition.
3. Make it illegal for a health insurance company to drop your coverage if you become ill.
4. Use higher taxes here and there to subsidize those in lower income group's health insurance plans.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this a giant Christmas gift to health insurance companies? They have the threat of the IRS coming in and fining you $X,000.00 for not buying health insurance. How is this not good for health insurance? I can see a couple problems, health insurance companies that previously denied applicants who were high-risk will now be forced to insure them, paying extremely high medical bills, raising everybody's premiums. Those not able to afford the premiums, with or without the governmen't help, will be penalized by the IRS for not being able to buy health insurance. I'm not sure if I'm ready to throw my whole weight and support behind this bill, but I am happy that people who were previously unable to get health insurance will now be able to do so. Please feel free to post your own worries, concerns, or positives you can see coming from this. I am ready to learn.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Something nice to say
Well school is over for me now and out of sheer boredom I decided to put up a post on here. And since it seems most of what goes on here is debating issues, I decided to do something a little different. I'm going to post 3 things I like about republicans and 3 things I like about democrats.
Republicans first.
#1 Republicans remind me of my dad who scolds me after I spend my money on something stupid, telling me I need to spend less money than I earn. Usually I think it's annoying, but overall very, very smart. This is how I view republicans. Scolding the democrats for spending too much money on something stupid, like a 1.3 million dollar projector for a planeterium in Chicago. If there was no one to try to stop the democrats from spending like Paris Hilton in Hollywood, we'd be in even more serious trouble than we are now.
#2 I really like the republicans commitment to veterans and troops. These guys probably don't get enough praise and support. I've taken care of a lot of WWII veterans in my work (hospice), and I really admire these guys. Even the soldiers of today fighting in the middle east, I don't think I could do it, and I'm grateful there are people who will. I feel like republicans do a better job at showing support for the military and for veterans than democrats do.
#3 My favorite thing about republicans has to be their love of guns. As a huge hunter and outdoors lover I definitely fit in a million times better with NRA card carrying republicans than PETA card carrying democrats haha. With republicans in charge I know my hunting activites will always be legal and they'll always let me have my guns.
Now the Democrats
#1. My favorite thing about democrats is their tolerance and usual open-mindedness to other lifestyles. All the real democrats I have known have been very caring, open-minded, tolerant people who would never make anyone feel bad about the way they choose to live their life. They believe the way other people choose to lead their life is their business and their business alone. And that's the way I feel. I really like that open-minded attitude.
#2. Another thing I like about the democrats is their determination to help out the little guy. The poor single mom, or the poor student, or the working class family trying to make ends meet. I know the way they help them (usually by taxing the rich) is a controversial issue, but I still feel like they want to help these people out by food stamps, pell grants, medicaid, utilities assistance, etc.
#3. The last thing I want to mention about the democrats is their action on global warming. I am a huge believer that global warming is caused by us emitting greenhouse gases like CO2, N20, and CH4. I personally think we need to limit our greenhouse emissions. A few years ago the world took action by eliminating the use of CFC's (chlorofluoro hydrocarbons found in aerosol cans and refrigerators) and by so doing we stopped the progression of the ozone hole over Antartica. Now it's time for that same type of issue when it comes to global warming, and I feel like democrats are a little stronger overall on this issue than the republicans.
It is because of these reasons I'll probably stop claiming to be one party or the other. I really have things I like about both, but I probably fall somewhere in the middle leaning left a slight majority of the time. I'd invite whoever wants to to maybe offer what you like or admire about one, both or other parties. I just get bored reading the news all day and want to hear what the people on this blog think about it.
Republicans first.
#1 Republicans remind me of my dad who scolds me after I spend my money on something stupid, telling me I need to spend less money than I earn. Usually I think it's annoying, but overall very, very smart. This is how I view republicans. Scolding the democrats for spending too much money on something stupid, like a 1.3 million dollar projector for a planeterium in Chicago. If there was no one to try to stop the democrats from spending like Paris Hilton in Hollywood, we'd be in even more serious trouble than we are now.
#2 I really like the republicans commitment to veterans and troops. These guys probably don't get enough praise and support. I've taken care of a lot of WWII veterans in my work (hospice), and I really admire these guys. Even the soldiers of today fighting in the middle east, I don't think I could do it, and I'm grateful there are people who will. I feel like republicans do a better job at showing support for the military and for veterans than democrats do.
#3 My favorite thing about republicans has to be their love of guns. As a huge hunter and outdoors lover I definitely fit in a million times better with NRA card carrying republicans than PETA card carrying democrats haha. With republicans in charge I know my hunting activites will always be legal and they'll always let me have my guns.
Now the Democrats
#1. My favorite thing about democrats is their tolerance and usual open-mindedness to other lifestyles. All the real democrats I have known have been very caring, open-minded, tolerant people who would never make anyone feel bad about the way they choose to live their life. They believe the way other people choose to lead their life is their business and their business alone. And that's the way I feel. I really like that open-minded attitude.
#2. Another thing I like about the democrats is their determination to help out the little guy. The poor single mom, or the poor student, or the working class family trying to make ends meet. I know the way they help them (usually by taxing the rich) is a controversial issue, but I still feel like they want to help these people out by food stamps, pell grants, medicaid, utilities assistance, etc.
#3. The last thing I want to mention about the democrats is their action on global warming. I am a huge believer that global warming is caused by us emitting greenhouse gases like CO2, N20, and CH4. I personally think we need to limit our greenhouse emissions. A few years ago the world took action by eliminating the use of CFC's (chlorofluoro hydrocarbons found in aerosol cans and refrigerators) and by so doing we stopped the progression of the ozone hole over Antartica. Now it's time for that same type of issue when it comes to global warming, and I feel like democrats are a little stronger overall on this issue than the republicans.
It is because of these reasons I'll probably stop claiming to be one party or the other. I really have things I like about both, but I probably fall somewhere in the middle leaning left a slight majority of the time. I'd invite whoever wants to to maybe offer what you like or admire about one, both or other parties. I just get bored reading the news all day and want to hear what the people on this blog think about it.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
A story that tugged at my heartstrings
We have already established that adultery is a bipartisan phenomenom, well I have found another one. An extreme dislike for the BCS. This story today in the USA today tugged at my heartstrings, and gives me a little hope.
A House subcommittee approved legislation Wednesday aimed at forcing college football to switch to a playoff system to determine a national champion, over the objections of some lawmakers who said Congress had more pressing matters.
The bill, which faces long odds of becoming law, would ban the promotion of a postseason NCAA Division I football game as a national championship unless that title contest is the result of a playoff.
The measure passed by voice vote in a House Energy and Commerce Committee subcommittee, with one audible "no," from Rep. John Barrow, D-Ga. "With all due respect, I really think we have more important things to spend our time on," Barrow said before the vote, although he stressed he didn't like the current Bowl Championship Series, either.
The bill's sponsor, GOP Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, said the BCS system is unfair and won't change unless prompted by Congress.
The vote came three days after the BCS selections were announced, including the Jan. 7 national title game between No. 1 Alabama and No. 2 Texas.
The measure moves to the full House Energy and Commerce Committee.
In a statement before the vote, BCS executive director Bill Hancock said, "With all the serious matters facing our country, surely Congress has more important issues than spending taxpayer money to dictate how college football is played."
I think we can decipher between true sports fans and those who don't care in congress. What do you guys think? Should congress take action against the BCS? Or should they focus on just health care and the war? I like what the subcommittee chairman, Rep. Bobby Rush, an Illinois Democrat who co-sponsored the bill, said, "We can walk and chew gum at the same time." Last year, Texas, USC, and Utah were all cheated out of a shot at the national title, and millions of dollars for their program. College football is the only system in the world where a champion is not determined by a playoff. Is congress overstepping its bounds? My response: I don't care!
A House subcommittee approved legislation Wednesday aimed at forcing college football to switch to a playoff system to determine a national champion, over the objections of some lawmakers who said Congress had more pressing matters.
The bill, which faces long odds of becoming law, would ban the promotion of a postseason NCAA Division I football game as a national championship unless that title contest is the result of a playoff.
The measure passed by voice vote in a House Energy and Commerce Committee subcommittee, with one audible "no," from Rep. John Barrow, D-Ga. "With all due respect, I really think we have more important things to spend our time on," Barrow said before the vote, although he stressed he didn't like the current Bowl Championship Series, either.
The bill's sponsor, GOP Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, said the BCS system is unfair and won't change unless prompted by Congress.
The vote came three days after the BCS selections were announced, including the Jan. 7 national title game between No. 1 Alabama and No. 2 Texas.
The measure moves to the full House Energy and Commerce Committee.
In a statement before the vote, BCS executive director Bill Hancock said, "With all the serious matters facing our country, surely Congress has more important issues than spending taxpayer money to dictate how college football is played."
I think we can decipher between true sports fans and those who don't care in congress. What do you guys think? Should congress take action against the BCS? Or should they focus on just health care and the war? I like what the subcommittee chairman, Rep. Bobby Rush, an Illinois Democrat who co-sponsored the bill, said, "We can walk and chew gum at the same time." Last year, Texas, USC, and Utah were all cheated out of a shot at the national title, and millions of dollars for their program. College football is the only system in the world where a champion is not determined by a playoff. Is congress overstepping its bounds? My response: I don't care!
The church & Libs
Something has always baffled me. If you're a member of the church, how in the world are you liberal? I mean, the church is comprised of VERY conservative values and principles. Please explain this to me. I'm at a loss.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Afghan War Speech Follow-Up
That last post reminded me of this Daily Show clip which is just hilarious, particularly the revised speeches at the end (FF to 8:00 if you just want to see that)
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-december-2-2009/30-000
[This is Devin. I took the video off because it was too long and was bogging the site down a little too much. I'm fine with posting videos, but in the future, if the video you want to post is more than 2-3 minutes long, either create a hyperlink or include the link so we can copy and paste to go watch the video on someone else's site instead.]
Now everybody's happy lol
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-december-2-2009/30-000
[This is Devin. I took the video off because it was too long and was bogging the site down a little too much. I'm fine with posting videos, but in the future, if the video you want to post is more than 2-3 minutes long, either create a hyperlink or include the link so we can copy and paste to go watch the video on someone else's site instead.]
Now everybody's happy lol
Thursday, December 3, 2009
The War in Afghanistan
Holla Atchya! My name is David Wallace Bennett and I have recently been invited to comment on Our Political Ramblings, an invitation I accepted with glee. You may find my posts and comments to be a bit jocular at times, but hopefully I'll have something of value to add, on occasion. I grew up in Massachusetts and currently attend school in Utah.
I have been thinking heavily about the War in Afghanistan this week (I have been pondering the past seven days, not thinking exclusively about the happenings of the war that transpired during this week, peradventure you were confused) and I have been reading the New York Times, specifically in regards to President Obama's speech. While my opinions are still in the developmental phase (likened unto dough that has yet to rise, but is still malleable)- I do have some thoughts.
#1) The war in Afghanistan will not be won militaristically. Like the Gadianton Robbers of olden days (are you people LDS?) the Taliban may die out only to return again. Their extreme ideas and intense hatred will just resurface after the US declares the 'Mission Accomplished.' They are not like the Tamil Tigers with a finite location and limited members. I agree that we can weaken their forces and destroy their top commanders, but unlike Nazi Germany they cannot be entirely annihilated.
I have been thinking heavily about the War in Afghanistan this week (I have been pondering the past seven days, not thinking exclusively about the happenings of the war that transpired during this week, peradventure you were confused) and I have been reading the New York Times, specifically in regards to President Obama's speech. While my opinions are still in the developmental phase (likened unto dough that has yet to rise, but is still malleable)- I do have some thoughts.
#1) The war in Afghanistan will not be won militaristically. Like the Gadianton Robbers of olden days (are you people LDS?) the Taliban may die out only to return again. Their extreme ideas and intense hatred will just resurface after the US declares the 'Mission Accomplished.' They are not like the Tamil Tigers with a finite location and limited members. I agree that we can weaken their forces and destroy their top commanders, but unlike Nazi Germany they cannot be entirely annihilated.
More Thoughts of the day
In response to some previous conservative quotes, here are a couple of liberal ones I enjoyed.
1st, from Dave Barry, a humor-based newspaper columnist.
The Democrats seem to be basically nicer people, but they have demonstrated time and again that they have the management skills of celery. They're the kind of people who'd stop to help you change a flat, but would somehow manage to set your car on fire. I would be reluctant to entrust them with a Cuisinart, let alone the economy. The Republicans, on the other hand, would know how to fix your tire, but they wouldn't bother to stop because they'd want to be on time for Ugly Pants Night at the country club.
2nd, from JFK, no introduction needed:
What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then ... we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal." [September 14, 1960]
3rd and last, Winston Churchill:
Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.
And so Jeff and Devin I've concluded you either have no heart, or just aged right past your 20's. Just kidding guys.
1st, from Dave Barry, a humor-based newspaper columnist.
The Democrats seem to be basically nicer people, but they have demonstrated time and again that they have the management skills of celery. They're the kind of people who'd stop to help you change a flat, but would somehow manage to set your car on fire. I would be reluctant to entrust them with a Cuisinart, let alone the economy. The Republicans, on the other hand, would know how to fix your tire, but they wouldn't bother to stop because they'd want to be on time for Ugly Pants Night at the country club.
2nd, from JFK, no introduction needed:
What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then ... we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal." [September 14, 1960]
3rd and last, Winston Churchill:
Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.
And so Jeff and Devin I've concluded you either have no heart, or just aged right past your 20's. Just kidding guys.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Thoughts of the Day
Again, brought to you by my one of my favorite economists and social commentators, Thomas Sowell. These should spark some interesting and lively debate. Note: they are intentionally random and are not meant to be read together in context. Comment on them individually if you'd like.
"Sometimes we seem like people on a pleasure boat drifting down the Niagara river, unaware that there are waterfalls up ahead. I don't know what people think is going to happen when a nation that already sponsors international terrorism has nuclear bombs to give to terrorists around the world."
"Internationally, the law of the jungle ultimately prevails, despite pious talk about "the international community" and "world opinion," or the pompous and corrupt farce of the United Nations."
"Since this is an era when many people are concerned about "fairness" and "social justice," what is your "fair share" of what someone else has worked for?"
"Sometimes we seem like people on a pleasure boat drifting down the Niagara river, unaware that there are waterfalls up ahead. I don't know what people think is going to happen when a nation that already sponsors international terrorism has nuclear bombs to give to terrorists around the world."
"Internationally, the law of the jungle ultimately prevails, despite pious talk about "the international community" and "world opinion," or the pompous and corrupt farce of the United Nations."
"Since this is an era when many people are concerned about "fairness" and "social justice," what is your "fair share" of what someone else has worked for?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
