In Failing Health

Summer supposedly is officially over 3 weeks into September, but let's be honest, internally we all consider September 1st as the real end of summer, and Labor Day as the last good day to relax, which is odd considering its name.

Coming in September, Congress will reconvene after the mandatory month long vacation. It's actually a nice reprieve to have Congress cease to sell-off our rights one month a year.

With Congress back in action, we have the newly named KennedyCare on the docket, formerly ObamaCare, formerly ClintonCare, et cetera. Of course, we already have MediCare and Medicaid, which marginally address the health issues for the elderly and those who are too poor to have their own insurance.

Well, let's start with the new suggested name, KennedyCare, named after the "Lion of the Senate," which I did not look up as to why he was called that -- I was happier assuming it meant he pounced unsuspecting innocent victims.

Teddy Kennedy, recently portrayed as some sort of hero despite a long history of events that are, at least to me, the antithesis of being a hero. Hmm, looking at the wiki page on him, it says he was kicked out of Harvard for cheating on his Spanish test, let back in after being a good person, wound up killing a girl named Mary Jo Kopechne but only faced a 2 month suspension for doing so, lived a hedonistic life, worked with the KGB against Reagan, helped his nephew get acquitted of rape in 1991, co-sponsored No Child Left Behind (NCLB), and The Freedom of Information Act. I approve of that last one, and by default, I have to despise NCBL because my wife teaches.

Because of a small plane accident in the 1960s, Kennedy has had back pains ever since then (err, up until August 25th that is) and as such, has been a strong proponent of nationalized health care. So now that he is gone, many politicians are calling for it to be called KennedyCare in an effort to put an emotional emphasis on passing it. Win one for the gipper, I suppose.

Good luck. And I mean that as insincerely as possible.

Let's look at Nationalized health care. I briefly talked about this a few months ago when I was rallying against socialism as a whole. Honestly, we've been steadily cruising that way since Woodrow Wilson made the Federal Reserve in 19... uhm, 1917? Meh, go back and read it if the date is that important to you. We're just missing a few more pieces before we're totally socialized: 1st amendment, 2 amendment and nationalized health care. It ultimately about controlling your populace.

House Bill 3200 has been the main focus thus far. There has been ample information and misinformation about it. So much so, that the White House asked people to narc on those spreading "disinformation" that seemed "fishy." Disinformation is deliberate wrong information -- happens all too often in campaigns. However, what the White House asked was illegal by the Privacy Act of 1974, and they are now being sued for it.

Let's look at the merits of passing health care reform. As claimed, there are 47 million people in the US without health care coverage, or roughly 18% of "Americans." This number includes several million illegal aliens (9.73 million), people who are able to afford health care but opt not to (9.1 million), people in-between health care coverages, people who are in college, and a myriad of other individuals. In short, it actually isn't as high as reported above (and that website debunks the 47 million claim anyway, which Obama cited).

Next, how much clamoring did you hear from the US citizens begging for Health care reform anyway? None? I worked at the Oregon Health Plan for a bit, and believe you me, just about anyone can get health care coverage. Not only that, it is illegal for hospitals to turn people away and Ted Kennedy also passed the COBRA laws to protect uninsured you. Now then, the US government, on the the other hand, isn't fairing too well with Medicare and Medicaid. They plan to go broke soon. Here's the quote from the top of that link: "The federal budget is on an unsustainable path, primarily because of the rising cost of health care." So the federal government is in financial trouble for the health care it already provides, and now they want to cover more people as well. Yeah, that sounds like a swell idea...

Meanwhile, of the 1300 health insurance companies in the US, the top 10 posted a combined $13 billion dollar profit last year overall. Excessive? Well, maybe. But at least they aren't running in the red like the multi-trillion dollar government. This is one element that we need to be wary of with the government -- they aren't making money on taking over health care, they're just creating new debt for us and our children (and their children) to assume at a later date. Here's what I mean: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has stated that to cover 16 million people for ten years, it'll cost over $1 trillion dollars. Uh, we don't have that laying around anywhere...

Above all, there are the political by-words of "single payer system" and what does that mean, really? It means one option. No shopping around between BlueCross/BlueShield, Providence, Kaiser, or what have you. It is a one stop health care coverage and no Slurpee-for-you station. And we specifically do not want that. Americans like options. We're a picky folk and we like it that way. If it takes 1 trillion to cover 16 million over ten years and the US earns 14 trillion a year in GDP, how much would it cost us to cover everyone for that same time. Meh, too late to do math. Of course, some one could just pony up more money to cover us all. "Single payer system" rhetoric has been dropped since the first month it was mentioned.

Going back to why this is necessary. Is it? I mean, this is a really bad recession, and we've already spent too much money on the economy trying to mitigate the effects of a recession. Shouldn't this sort of idea come up when the economy is doing well, and we have a surplus to pay for such benefits? Or maybe we should fix the bankrupt Medicare/caid and Social Security (which is the biggest ponzi scheme in the world). I just do not get the need to rush this through, regardless of who dies in the Senate.

Let's discuss just how bad (or good) or medical coverage is. First, no other country in the world matches our superior care or innovation in medicine. It is a business and we drive it forward. I've heard made mention that US citizens actually do have the longest life spans in the world, but because we drive fast and play war, it shortens the overall life span. But, regardless of that, the average life span is rising in the US anyway.

Remember how long you waited at the ER last time? 2 hours? Yeah, you were furious, but here's Canada's average: + 20 hours. How many of us can stay up that long? Here's the most recent famous claim that over 4,000 UK women had given birth in hallways because there weren't enough beds. You stay classy, England!

Logistically speaking, however, we do not have enough doctors, hospitals, nurses, etc., to help the supposed 47 million uninsured or even half that. Also, the government would determine the pay rate for visits, surgeries, therapies, and I believe there would be a professional revolt to that. Plus, the government is chronically slow on payment as well.

So, what to do... Well, if we had to do something just to save what programs the government already runs in health care, here is an idea that really needs to be addressed: tort reform. Just a snobby lawyer way of saying curbing medical malpractice law suits. Texas recently did it, and their results are astounding! This was on the ballot a couple of years ago here in Oregon, and I voted it down, but this was due to one story (oh boy, here we go -- side tangent) about a guy who had testicular cancer in the lefty, and the doctor accidentally removed the righty, and ultimately he was left with a scholarship to eunuch school. In all honesty, you couldn't offer me the annual US GDP for my boys. Yeah, that's right, they are priceless! So there'd have to be an asterisks for me to approve of Texas' system, but the results are undeniable there.

What we do need is health insurance reform. [Read that link written by a doctor here in Oregon -- it will give you the best insight.] I don't want to regulate it any more like the power companies who's profits are capped by legislation. And I certainly do not want the government coming in, under-cutting the competition, and forcing employers to abandon private coverage which would dump people into the government care. If I were an employer, I would. After all, you'll be paying higher taxes for this public option to exist, so why bother paying private insurance premiums as well?

So in my opinion, we don't need a federal government oversight health care option. What we do need is tort reform with a "save the nads" clause for people who have that concern. Deregulation would be nice, because people who pay for insurance in middle-America pay less than those on the east coast, yet they cannot (by law) get the same coverage in other regions.

But realistically, in one of those links above, 9.1 million people chose not to have health care and earn over $75,000 a year. They don't want it! If we're going to expand government health care, let's do it for those under a set amount of income that do want it, and they can pay a subsidized premium for it. If they sign up for it, they agree to caps on potential law suits, and have mandatory health screenings for preventative measures -- medical, dental and vision. The premuims have to be comparable to other companies so people don't flock to it and overwhelm the system.

And no, illegals do not get this option. Call it racism if you must, but I call it 'the law.'

And lastly, it should be a state matter. There's nothing in the constitution that says the government should have a role in health care. It might even be illegal -- you're health records in a data base controlled by government bureaucrats. Super. Well, at least they could verify that FAFSA form for my Eunuch University application.

You'll note that I haven't talked about, "death panels," "assisted suicide," "paid abortions," "free sex changes," "coverage for illegals," and a litany of other topics. Truth is, the bill isn't finalized as lots of things could change before it gets voted on. I'll probably have to revisit this topic once again. Hopefully it will not be so scatter-brained as this post. I've been working on this for too long, and I am anxious to move on. Not the lack of links in the latter half?

And yes, I will miss Michael Jackson more than Ted Kennedy.

Skeptically intrigued

Heavens to Betsy! It's been 3 weeks since I posted last. And how on Earth did Betsy get Heavens? Doesn't seem fair in a socialized world... Someone ought to create a government department to regulate that Betsy gal and spread the wealth. Hmm, may need some more taxes to fund said department. Not it!

Bah! What to talk about today...

So, a couple of weeks ago the "mainstream media" reported on the whole "birther" movement, a moniker that they so aptly applied to those that have questions about whether or not the current President of the United States (POTUS) has an actual long form birth certificate. The term "birther" is meant to ridicule those that espouse this notion. It is much easier to ridicule than come up with solid, factual answers. I do it all the time, add humor, and the issue becomes a moot point.

Well, let's dive in and see what we can find, shall we?

First and foremost, the Certification of Live Birth was released to the intertubes. It is not a COLB form, which is an actual birth certificate that states all the details; the doctor, the hospital, etc. Also of note, it is a 2007 reprint, not issued back in August 4, 1961 when Barak Obama was born. The problem with this form is that it lists his race as "African" when in 1961, the Department of Health and Human Services mandated that all colored people were lised as "Negro." Odd, but maybe Hawaii was pro-active. Secondly, the above data (doctor, hospital) are missing. Thirdly, getting a Hawaiian birth certificate like the one above wasn't too hard to do as the government of Hawaii was engaged in amping up their population count to cook the books for more funding for Welfare, and representation in Congress. So, there are some fishy things about the scanned internet version, let alone that Hawaii's own Department of Health will not comment on the authenticity of that document (but say they've seen the original).

Okay, these two issues do not overlap well. We have documentation that when Barak was born, a couple of announcements were made in the local paper about the birth. Both list his residence as 6085 Kalanieloae Hwy. Interesting to note, they never lived there (instead, Waikiki, same city as the University they attended). This residence belonged to Prof. Orland Lefforge who taught at the University of Hawaii who had bought the house in the 1950s and died there in 1973. Not only that, there are 4 people who say they saw Barak being born, all 4 of which live in Kenya and are under a gag order by the Kenyan Government which is controlled by Prime Minister Odinga, Obama's cousin. But you can hear his grandma speak about it on YouTube. So, notices in the local papers with wrong address, witnesses in Kenya under gag order. Take your pick.

One thing the media did with their label was pin the argument down on one specific point, when in fact, the "birther" movement encompasses a lot more than that. After birth, Barak's mom "Stanley" married Lolo Soetoro from Indonesia, and they moved there as a family. At that time in Indonesia, just as today, you cannot have dual citizenship and go to school, and you have to be adopted. We have "Barry Soetoro's" grade school report from Indonesia, so we know he attended -- aside from the fact he mentions it in his book "Dreams of my Father". So, in order to do that, he would have had to declare himself a citizen of Indonesia, probably through adoption. This would make him, according to law, ineligible for POTUS. Remember, not my rules, but those of our country.

Let's look at the stipulations for being president: must be 35 years of age, natural born citizen, and have resided in the US for the last 14 years. He definitely has 2 of the 3.

He comes back to Hawaii after the marriage dissolves. He attends Occidental College in California, Columbia, and then Harvard. You know, we have all of Bushes and Kerry's college records -- it's public knowledge. Obama attended 3 schools of higher education. Do you know how many grades we have? None. Furthermore, his roommates were all Muslim foreign exchange students. Why? Was he purporting to be an exchange student too? Getting government grants to get the money to do so? And then there's that 1981 trip to Pakistan during a US ban to travel there because the country was under Marshall law. How did he do that on a US passport? How about his State Senate record? All locked and sealed with the supposed COLB form.

Not to mention the blatant forgery of Barak's Selective Service card. Read it all, there is no way around the intention there -- a 1990's form with a 2008 seal with a 1970's stamp when he should have done it on his 18th birthday in 1979. Forgery, fruad, whatever.

So that is the "birther" movement in a nutshell. And quite frankly, people have a right to know that their current president is legally and lawfully able to serve in that capacity -- it's in the Constitution and we're obligated to uphold it, lest we be criminals ourselves. Perhaps these are the negative rights Obama referred to in the Constitution -- it bars outsiders from serving in the Presidency. Rightfully so, we don't want foreign policy on our soil.

But here's the kicker, if Obama isn't born in the US, then what? He steps down and we get Biden? Ugg. Or worse, Pelosi? And what if Obama says he's not stepping down? Tyranny? After all, the majority did elect him... And even if 10% are willing to fight/be violent to keep him in office, that's millions of people willing to lay down their lives for this hope and change.

With that in mind, color me skeptical of the whole thing because if it ever does come to a head, I'll be waiting for a major shake-up to occur; either the issue will be dead and proven that he is an American citizen, and we can finally get over this mess, or we'll see something we've never even considered before. And that is more scary than anything to me.

The officiators at the Department of Health for Hawaii say they have seen the real long form birth certificate. Release the damn thing already! Otherwise, why is Obama spending $1.4 million in legal fees trying to stop the courts from making a decision on his Birth Certificate? One soldier has already gotten out of serving in Iraq by bringing up a lawsuit against the legitimacy of Obama.

Oh, and then this shows up: Barak Obama Facebook says he's 52, not 48! Sure, maybe it was hacked, or not his "official" official page, or just riling up the masses again. Ridiculous at any rate. If he were 52, then the 2007 birth reprint is a fake, Hawaii was still a territory, his mom was 14, and we have even more issues to discuss. Most likely a typo. Better be anyway...

And if this still hasn't piqued your interest, perhaps this article will. Short and sweet, so it'll take you less than 5 minutes to read. Note the amount of comments.

You have a right to be skeptical, this is your country and it works because we follow laws, even if they are 232 years old. I'd prefer that Obama be a real US citizen, but I would like to have that proven beyond doubt, and currently, there is too much doubt. I shall remain skeptical on the matter, hoping that it's just another conspiracy theory like so many others; Roswell, JFK, moon landing, big foot, 9/11, and so on and so forth. The proof is in the pudding, so give us the pudding.