Rambling Man

The following rebuttal is to the Sun-Telegraph Editor's Report.

The link to the article is provided as a courtesy.


I can't believe what I am reading. This story meanders through several thoughts held together by the basic premise that politicians of any ilk can't be trusted with a potato gun. The thing I can't figure out about the piece is that if you wouldn't support the current legislation, why the hell would you criticize Scott Brown for opposing it. Voting against a specific measure isn't the same as being against the idea that lies beneath it. It would be nice if when you refer to the sides, you label them with their party affiliations so that the truly asleep for the last year will one day wake up and understand that the Democrats were excluding Republicans and the Republicans acted to block a very bad health care bill from passage.


Obama got elected because enough conservatives didn't bother to vote for McCain. Liberals took more seats in Congress because everyone blames the in-power government when crisis is afoot and the democrats did a masterful job of capitalizing on Bush's misfortune, just as Bill Clinton capitalized on Bush 41's.

Taking super majorities in both houses (after convincing Arlen Specter to switch parties), and the White House, you would think that the Democrats would have shoved everything down our throats at record speed. It sure looked that way with the Stimulus bill that was designed to hold unemployment to 8%.

Instead, we saw the Super-Majority begin to feed on itself, with various wings fighting and not compromising each other. Recall they did not need any republican support for any measure. That is how they acted. No conference and no information. Straight party line voting, not for the sake of the nation, but for the sake of the party.

With respect to health care, there were enough examples of voter outrage this summer at tea-party rallies and town hall meetings to cause politicians to pull back and try to understand what the voters were saying. Those in power dismissed the efforts as astro-turf instead of grass roots or ridiculed with sexually suggestive terms and that angered the voting public even more.  You don't have to have an Ivy League education to do basic math. Congress is highly unlikely to be able to capture the 500 Billion or so in waste and abuse (aren't those illegal) in Medicare and so you can look for higher taxes or lower services in the long term.


Opposing this super majority, in my opinion, is like supporting the colonists who through off the yoke of unfair taxes and oppressive and un-representative government. Every "reform" this government has proposed in the last 18 months will cost the average tax payer hundreds to tens of thousands per year. The only progress that will satisfy President Obama will the kind that takes money from those who earn it and distribute it to those who can't or won't work.

Trust them with a potato gun? I wouldn't trust them with my potato's.


Editor's Report from the Sidney Sun-Telegraph this day

One of my favorite quotes comes from a movie appropriately titled “Armageddon.”

As General Kimsey looks up at the group of misfits asked to save the planet from certain doom, he says, “The fate of the planet is in the hands of a bunch of retards I wouldn’t trust with a potato gun.”
From politicians to CEOs, there are a lot of people fitting and deserving of that designation.
A bunch of retards I wouldn’t trust with a potato gun ... funny. I laugh almost every time I hear it.

I’m not laughing today. I have had my fill of all of them. Just to be clear, Americans don’t need government taking over anything. Period. However sometimes, something needs to be done.
Example: Banks.
Last week an apologetic bank CEO spoke on Capitol Hill, reminding us that banks wasted our hard-earned money on risky behavior that led to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.
It wasn’t that government wanted to step in, they had to.

Thanks to wasting money on admitted compensation practices that led to excessive risk-taking and poor decisions, the banks and their CEOs needed “bailed out.”

The Senate’s health care bill is not much different. Americans don’t need government to take over every aspect of health care, but obviously something needs to be done.

Politicians on this subject continually rub people the wrong way, no matter what side a person is on.
If a person supported the recent health care bill in the Senate, they feel those against the bill aren’t fighting for what they should be.

If a person doesn’t support the health care bill, they feel those who proposed it and are trying to pass it, are unfit to do so and are ruining the country.

Either side a person is on, there are conflicts.

Frankly, I am extremely disappointed in both sides on the health care issue.

Shame on the one side for their lack of transparency and the alleged kickbacks to certain states, and numerous other things that are not in the best interest of the county right now in the proposed reform.
And shame on the other side for simply blasting the other side, and never having any realistic solutions to the problem. This side never has an answer that is helpful or well thought out, just that “the other side is wrong, and ruining America.”
I wouldn’t trust the politicians on either side with a potato gun.
I don’t want government completely taking over health care, no one does, including government.
But, if insurance companies offered an affordable product and good service on their own, no intrusion would be needed.
When Americans spoke loud and clear for “Change” in the last presidential election, what did they think that change would entail?
Who did they think would force insurance companies to be responsible and open state borders for a more competitive market, or make them insure you even if you are sick, or eliminate coffin-nailers such as pre-existing conditions?
Did those voters think the insurance companies would do it on their own? I guarantee you, the companies won’t.
Is total government control of health care the answer? No. But that was never proposed.
As you have heard by now, last night Massachusetts voters, mostly Independents, took on the issue of health care reform by electing Republican Scott Brown to the Senate, taking away the 60 votes needed to pass any type of reform.
Sen. Brown’s campaign was primarily based on ‘stopping any form of health care reform.’ He reinforced this time and time again during his run for office, saying that he “opposed the health care legislation that is under consideration in Congress and will vote against it.” He never said it needed changed or tweaked, he just vowed to vote against the bill if he gets the chance.
Brown’s solution for helping Americans with the exorbitant cost of health insurance, according to his Web site, is to “support strengthening the existing private market system with policies that will drive down costs and make it easier for people to purchase affordable insurance.” Note that he doesn’t say HOW he is planning to get oversized insurance companies to suddenly change their policies, maybe he will send them a sternly written request.
So, thanks to a well-run campaign against health care reform, the same voters that voted for “Change,” have now decided that change is unacceptable.
All of this coming from a man that supported health care reform that passed in his home state in 2006, and from a voting populous that is 98 percent covered by health insurance, thanks to their state’s own health care bill.
According to the Massachusetts’ government Web site, basically, this is how the bill covers nearly all of its residents:
“The bill promotes individual responsibility by creating a requirement that everyone who can afford health insurance obtain it, while also responding to concerns about barriers to health care access. Provisions in the bill aim at achieving nearly universal health insurance coverage, but also maintain a strong safety net that has historically distinguished the state.”
“The purpose of this ‘Individual Mandate’ is to strengthen and stabilize the functioning of health insurance risk pools by making sure they include healthy people (who, if not offered employer-sponsored and -paid insurance, are more likely to take the risk of not having insurance) as well as people who know they need regular health care services (and therefore are more likely to go to great lengths, and expense, to obtain insurance.) The financing of the bill is based on redirecting some of the public funds we currently spend on ‘free care’ provided through hospitals, to provide subsidized health insurance to the uninsured. The mandate is another way to make sure people do not rely on “free care” for their health care, but that they get comprehensive insurance.”
Sound familiar? It should. It has many similarities to the health care bill soon to be filibustered in the Senate.
I don’t entirely agree with the bill in the Senate, and no matter what changes may have been made, I never would have. And, I definitely don’t think government should take over health care completely, but reform is needed. And since reform is needed, who is going to offer that reform?
The wasteful CEOs? Probably not. The wealthy insurance companies? Doubtful. The side saying no reform is even needed? Very funny.
We don’t need government-run health care, but someone needs to step in and set some ground rules and policies.
Both sides have a responsibility – just like they always have – to work together for the good of the American people. Based on their track records, I doubt that will ever happen, especially on this issue.
Both sides continue to just throw out unsubstantiated so-called facts, expecting the people in their corner to believe them.
One side says the proposed reform is self-sustaining, the other side says it will cost billions and cause the U.S. to crumble.
When asked where their facts come from, both sides simply claim, “independent studies show.”
So, who is right? Neither side.
Simply put, neither side can obviously be trusted with a potato gun. Heck, I wouldn’t trust either side to even use an oven to bake a potato.