Posts (page 2)

I don't take glee in the fact that South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford got caught being an adulterer. I could care less about who he sleeps with. What strikes me as laughable is the fact that Republicans want to impeach for adultery. Wouldn't that decimate their own ranks?

What Sanford should be impeached for,  however, is his blatant misuse of state funds for personal and political travel. That is worthy of impeachment, not where he may or may not have placed his very married penis.

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.

I can understand why so many people are having difficulty understanding the term "public option" because there are a lot of liars and distorters out there.

SO ... in plain English, here's what the "public option" is all about:

If you want to stay in a traditional insurance program that excludes people using the phrase "pre-existing condition" and only makes the CxOs of insurance companies ridiculously wealthy (by not letting sick people get insurance), then you keep the insurance you have.

IF YOU DO NOT ... your OPTION is to go with the government insurance.

That's it, people.

Other countries, such as Germany, Denmark, England (and on and on and on) determined that there is a conflict of interest between public health and for-profit insurance companies. So what did they do? They went with government-subsidies insurance, and EVERYONE has insurance.

It's just that simple, people. What are you afraid of? That brown-skinned people will be able to participate in health care? Just curious.

OK, people, let's look at the facts using the actual verbiage contained within the proposed healthcare bill and not the rantings of people who are getting PAID by private insurance lobyists.

A guy has started a Facebook page about how the proposed plan would seriously compromise care for persons with disabilities. He specifically quoted Part 3, Subtitle D, so I READ all of that section.

*SIGHS*

Let me tell you what that section says (in plain English):

"You cannot enroll after the annual enrollment period (Jan. 1, 2011) [um, just like your insurance through work, IF you have it] UNLESS you / family member has been newly diagnosed with a qualifying condition."

SO ... just like PRIVATE insurance, there is an ANNUAL enrollment. If you, as a responsible adult or caregiver do not have the organizational capacity to enroll your child who needs insurance into this program by the deadline ... then you have failed (not the program). Oh, and UNLIKE private insurance, you CAN enroll past the deadline IF you have a NEW diagnosis. (Private insurance does not give you that courtesy. In fact, private insurance would DROP your disabled child because disabilities are typically PRE-EXISTING.

Just so you can read it yourself (and not rely on someone else to interpret the facts for you, here is the actual text of the specific section (I downloaded the PDF version of the bill; you should, too):

PART 3—TREATMENT OF SPECIAL NEEDS PLANS
14 SEC. 1176. LIMITATION ON ENROLLMENT OUTSIDE OPEN
15 ENROLLMENT PERIOD OF INDIVIDUALS INTO
16 CHRONIC CARE SPECIALIZED MA PLANS FOR
17 SPECIAL NEEDS INDIVIDUALS.
18 Section 1859(f)(4) of the Social Security Act (42
19 U.S.C. 1395w–28(f)(4)) is amended by adding at the end
20 the following new subparagraph:
21 ‘‘(C) The plan does not enroll an individual
22 on or after January 1, 2011, other than during
23 an annual, coordinated open enrollment period
24 or when at the time of the diagnosis of the dis25
ease or condition that qualifies the individual as

an individual described in subsection
2 (b)(6)(B)(iii).’’.

SEC. 1177. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY OF SPECIAL NEEDS
4 PLANS TO RESTRICT ENROLLMENT.
5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1859(f)(1) of the Social
6 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–28(f)(1)) is amended by
7 striking ‘‘January 1, 2011’’ and inserting ‘‘January 1,
8 2013 (or January 1, 2016, in the case of a plan described
9 in section 1177(b)(1) of the America’s Affordable Health
10 Choices Act of 2009)’’.
11 (b) GRANDFATHERING OF CERTAIN PLANS.—
12 (1) PLANS DESCRIBED.—For purposes of sec13
tion 1859(f)(1) of the Social Security Act (42
14 U.S.C. 1395w–28(f)(1)), a plan described in this
15 paragraph is a plan that had a contract with a State
16 that had a State program to operate an integrated
17 Medicaid-Medicare program that had been approved
18 by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services as
19 of January 1, 2004.
20 (2) ANALYSIS; REPORT.—The Secretary of
21 Health and Human Services shall provide, through
22 a contract with an independent health services eval23
uation organization, for an analysis of the plans de24
scribed in paragraph (1) with regard to the impact
25 of such plans on cost, quality of care, patient satis-

faction, and other subjects as specified by the Sec2
retary. Not later than December 31, 2011, the Sec3
retary shall submit to Congress a report on such
4 analysis and shall include in such report such rec5
ommendations with regard to the treatment of such
6 plans as the Secretary deems appropriate.

Out of curiosity regarding whether or not the United States is a Christian nation and whether or not God is even in the founding documents, I have done some research today. I discovered the following facts by doing word searches on the text versions of these documents. The following documents have or no not have the various references to God and Christianity:

Declaration of Independence

God – 1 reference

Nature’s Creator – 1 reference

Christian – 0 references

Christianity – 0 references

Christendom - 0 references

Articles of Confederation

God – 0 references

Nature’s Creator – 0 references

Christian – 0 references

Christianity – 0 references

Christendom - 0 references

Constitution

God – 0 references

Nature’s Creator – 0 references

Christian – 0 references

Christianity – 0 references

Christendom - 0 references

Bill of Rights

God – 0 references

Nature’s Creator – 0 references

Christian – 0 references

Christianity – 0 references

Christendom - 0 references

The founding documents do not mention God as often as one might think. In fact, the only founding document to mention God is the Declaration of Independence, in the Preamble when Thomas Jefferson wrote “the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them” and then the second paragraph and:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights …”

Does this sound as if the Founders were setting up a Christian nation? No, and here’s why:

Article III of the Bill of Rights: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …”

The Founders did not create a Christian nation. I hate to disappoint you all with the truth, but there it is. What they DID do is ensure that you have a right to worship (or not) the way that YOU want, not the way the state wants.

So … ponder that for a while.

Judeo-Christian ethic … what does that even mean? Jewish-Christian ethics? I think if you ask members from either religion, they would agree that Jewish is NOT the same as Christian and vice versa (even the Jews for Jesus would have to acknowledge that fact). Some would say that Judeo-Christian is a tradition … “we come from the Judeo-Christian tradition!” they might exclaim.

Really? Both have been persecuted at the hands of the other goin’ on two thousand some odd years. Sounds more like the Punch and Judy tradition to me.

Why did the Founders deliberately omit religious references or setting up the United States as a Christian nation? Well, the MAIN reason was that citizens had come from countries where there was an established religion, and if you weren’t a member of that religion, persecution was your lot in life. The Founders did not want to set up one religion over the other. There were Baptists, Jews, Quakers, Catholics, Deists and a variety of other religions that the early citizenry followed.

Setting any one of those OVER the others would have been permission for the “established” religion to persecute the others. The Founding Fathers thought religious persecution was, frankly, a load of crap, and they didn’t want that crap in their new country. That seems pretty wise to me.

I have heard a lot of the right-wingers bangin’ on about how the United States was founded as a Christian country, and I know why they do that. It’s very politically expedient to align themselves with the ultra conservative Christians to get out the “grass roots” votes. But here’s the thing: It’s a falsity. (That’s a nice way of saying that it’s a big, fat lie.)

Most of the Founding fathers were not even Christians to begin with. They were Naturalists or Deists. They believed in A god, just not the Christian God or Trinity. Just wasn’t their cup o’ tea, as it were. Some of them were Christians, however. They just didn’t press their personal belief set onto all the rest of the United States citizenry, though. (I really appreciate that of them.)

To sum up: There is NO conspiracy to take God out of our history. None. Nope. Nada. Never happened. Consider this the opportunity to calm down and learn some history. And remember, whenever someone tells you something in a definitive fashion (such as “there is a WAR on Christmas!” always, ALWAYS check out the facts. Do some research. Google is your friend. And call them on it when they are wrong.

We're number one! Um ... really? 

 

The "birthers" (those who do not believe President Obama is an American citizen despite the release of his Hawaii birth certificate) are in the news again because uber-conservative, Lou Dobbs will not let them fall into ignominy.

Even though he has finally said that he believes the Hawaiin birth certificate is real, NOW he's concerned because he does not believe that Hawaii was properly admitted into the Union and therefore, President Obama was not born in the United States.

Listen, you wing nuts! Title 8 of the U.S. Code CLEARLY specifies that anyone born of an American citizen ... is him/herself an American citizen. This means that if you go on vacation in Ireland and are pregnant and suddenly give birth to your child in Ireland ... your child is an AMERICAN CITIZEN and fully eligible to run for the highest office in this land.

If you continue to buy into this wingnuttery, you are seriously mental and should be treated kindly, but firmly placed in rooms with soft walls and given the finest psychiatric care.

Sure, my birthday was three days ago, and this gift was two days before that, but I'm still basking in the glow.

I'm talking about the gift that keeps on giving, the Category 5 Moron (according to Bill Maher), the now FORMER Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin.

She officially stepped down on July 26, and in her typical "mavriky" style or ramblin' speechifyin' ... she gave us several more gems of her "wisdom."

My favorite is "Progress all the way around so we can progress." That sounds a lot like "position flexible also."

Something I can't quite put my head around was her tying our current military action in Iraq to mean that the military is paying for our First Amendment right to the freedom of the press. Folks, learn your damn history. That particular freedom was bought back in the War for Independence. While I love me some troops (and am even related to some of them), they are not protecting the Bill of Rights at this current moment. They are fighting in a police action in Iraq due to the Bush Doctrine (that Palin could not say whether she agreed with or not when Charlie Gibson interviewed her because she does not know what it is).

Anyway, Palin calls on the Fourth Estate (that's another historical term about which she knows not) to "quit makin' things up" in honor of the troops. Honoring the troops is making sure that they have all of their benefits. Honoring the troops might include standing for them during a parade. Honoring the troops is paying your taxes so that the military can pay its soldiers.

You can honor your country by knowing it's history, it's Bill of Rights, and it's Constitution, which is THE founding document that all federal office holders should know. (By the way, "position flexible also" is nowhere to be found in that particular document.)

So thank you, Sarah Palin, you wing nut! Thanks for stepping down from the governor's office. The plain fact of the matter is you simply do not have the skills for the job.

The Republican scare machine is up and running, people, and it's out to GETCHA! Rush and his cohorts have been saying that the universal health care bill will include mandatory END OF LIFE counseling! (Boogah boogah boooooogaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!) And that counseling is defined as "steps on how to end your life."

They are really good, because the first part is true (the section within Advance Care Planning Consultation, pg. 425) does discuss End of Life Planning.However, it does not include discussing how to kill yourself (or state-sponsored euthenasia, as they are calling it). End of Life Planning means, creating a Living Will, establishing a health proxy, should you become unable to communicate, and planning out what your care should be right up until the end. That way, we have no more publicized Florida-type dramas over the last wishes of someone who is comatose.

See how they did that? One part truth, 50 parts lie. What's in it for them, you ask? Why, kick-backs from the industries that would LOSE if we ALL get the health coverage we need, namely health insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies.

What kind of person do you have to be to lie to the American people like that? What kind of GULLIBLE do you have to be to believe it? (Because I have some excellent ocean-front property in West Texas to sell you.)

Seriously, though ... always check the facts. Do not believe anyone at face value, especially regarding politics (no matter what side of the aisle you prescribe to). In this case, Repbulicans and Blue Dog Democrats are lieing to us out the wazoo.

Health coverage for everyone is a good thing, people. It's not the boogie-man.