Healthcare "Reform"

If you read nothing else in this posting, please read and heed the last paragraph.

Our local daily newspaper has been printing regular letters to the editor, touting the need for a government healthcare option or immediate healthcare reform. These writers say we have got to get control over the glutenous insurance companies.

Here's the problem with the current healthcare system; it relies too much on insurance. Think about the following scenario (PLEASE FOLLOW THIS THROUGH); patient goes to doctor when too sick to remedy with an over-the-counter medicine. The doc visits with the patient for five minutes, writes a prescription and sends the patient on their way. Patient pays the $20 copay (usually before even being seen) and goes off to the pharmacy. When the patient sees the "explanation of benefits" he sees the following; doctor's office charged $115, insurance allowed $85, patient paid $20 copay so the insurance covered the remaining $65. Sounds okay until you remember the patient is paying $200+ per month for his insurance premium. So the patient is paying $2,400 per year, employer is paying (at least) another $2,400 per year for health insurance. $4,800 per year for single coverage health insurance and the patient maybe goes to the doc 2-4 times per year.

Now, let's say we started buying health insurance like we do car insurance; only for the unusual or unexpected expenses that would cause us unusual financial hardship. Now the doctor's offices would have to charge "market rates" or fees that patients can afford out of pocket. Thus, maybe the doctor visit only costs $35-$50 which sounds like much more than the $20 copay until you realize that now the monthly insurance premium might be more like $75-$100 because it is only covering major medical expenses. In this example the patient is paying half the annual premium, thus saving $1,200 per year. Even if he goes to the doc 4 times during the year, at $50 per visit, he is still saving over $1,000 per year. The employer is also saving on the premium, allowing them to invest that money in development/growth of the company.

I submit to you that anyone demanding a "government option" health insurance to lower the cost of insurance has never fully understood the disastrous homeowner's insurance situation in Florida. Basically, the state got into the insurance business to be the insurer of last resort. But the state required the private insurers to keep rates artificially low. Ultimately all but one of the major private insurance companies left the state. Thank you politicians!

There is not one federal government program that has proven to be at least as efficient or beneficial as promised. We are supposed to be The United States of America, not the Federally Dictated States of America. Think about what that means.

Educated people have said to me they don't voice their opinion because they think it doesn't matter. Thank God the founding fathers of our country (and all the militia men) didn't think this way!

Free Speech & Campaign Finance

How precious it is that the local newspaper (Pensacola News Journal, or PNJ) is outraged at the Supreme Court's finding that corporations and unions cannot be limited in their expenditures to promote political candidates (Buy The People, PNJ Opinion page, January 24, 2010). The PNJ states the word "people" is included in the First Amendment, not "corporations or unions."

The First Amendment actually reads; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Bold is added by me. The word "people" is in the phrase regarding assembly, the freedom of speech phrase doesn't exclude anyone. Congress did make a law that abridged the freedom of speech within 30 days of an election (commonly known as McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform).

The PNJ makes the claim that elections will now be paid for by the highest bidder. Hmm, how strange it is that the one thing newsies report to us during elections is how much money each candidate has raised. They use this as a basis for how likely the candidate is to be a contender. Funny also that we've all known politicians have been bought by lobbyists for years and more recently they've been so bold as to buy each other's votes on bills with outright bribes using taxpayer money.

Every time a "news organization" is accused of anything, they cry "free press, free press!" PNJ is owned by Gannett corporation. Should they be limited in their opinions prior to an election?

We all know there's a lot of funny business when it comes to campaign finances, but for a newspaper, owned by an often opinionated corporation that thrives on it's protection under the First Amendment, to then cry foul when other corporations are given the same protection is laughable to say the least.

If We Are At War With Al Qaeda...

When the President gave his speech this week on the failure to prevent the Christmas Day underwear bomber, he said "we are at war with al Qaeda, a far-reaching network that attacked us on 9/11, killing 3,000 people and is plotting to attack us again."

This statement raises a question that I've heard no one, not even Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity raise. That is; if we are at war with al Qaeda and they attacked us on 9/11 and Khalid Sheik Mohammed has admitted to being the mastermind of that attack, why is he not classified as an enemy combatant and tried as such instead of going through the civilian court system here in the United States. Our elected representatives should be demanding this from our president.

God Save America should replace God Bless America as our new slogan.