FREE "UNIVERSAL" HEALTHCARE - ANYTHING BUT FREE

This topic was requested sometime ago by Guido of Northern Trip.  It's one that we have all heard a lot about, especially since one of its main proponents, Senator Hillary Clinton, is running for President.  Thank you, Guido, for your request.  I'm sorry it took so long to get to posting it.  There's a lot of information I've had to wade through in order to get sourceable, factual information.

The term "universal healthcare" is a dressed-up term for socialized medicine.  Those in favor of government healthcare don't like it to be called socialized medicine, and even say that they're not the same thing.  The reasoning here is beyond me.  Encyclopedia Britannica defines socialism as " a system of social organization in which property and the distribution of income are subject to social control rather than individual determination or market forces."  Under so-called universal healthcare, the distribution of healthcare would be subject to social control (the government) rather than "individual determination or market forces."  Sounds like socialism to me.

Continuing on, I first want to address the cost of "free" government healthcare.  On the surface, it sounds fantastic.  No more insurance premiums.  No more out-of-pocket expenses that insurance won't pay, which seems to go up constantly.  After all, we've been paying taxes for years, so why not let the government take care of our healthcare costs?  Let's take a look at it.  Socialized medicine is anything but free.  It has to be paid for, by somebody.  Who pays for it?  The best way to answer this question is to look at an example of universal healthcare already in place.  In 1994, a version of "Hillarycare" was implemented in Tennessee, called TennCare.  According to an article in the Wall Street Journal entitled HillaryCare in Tennessee, The Disaster That Might Have Been for the Whole Country, TennCare consumed up to ONE-THIRD of the state's annual budget.  If you go to TennCare's website, right on the front page it states that the annual budget for the program is $7 BILLION.  The State of Tennessee's current total annual budget is about $26.5 BILLION.  That still works out to nearly a third of the total budget.  Want to guess who pays for this extra $7 BILLION?  John Q. Taxpayer in the form of higher taxes.  The state got into so much financial trouble over TennCare that then Governor Don Sundquist tried to pass a state income tax.  The attempt failed, so Tenneseeans don't have a state level income tax.  The state derives it's income mainly from its gasoline tax and sales tax.  Governor Phil Bredeson wanted to dismantle TennCare totally.  In an address to the Tennessee School Board Association, Governor Bredesen said,"It makes no sense for one facet of our responbilities, health care, to be able to come to the table first and eat and drink all it wants, then if there is anything left over, we can consider our other responibilities."  That really sums it up.  For the record, Governor Bredesen is a Democrat.

The next problem with socialized medicine.  Patients have to wait for treatment.  I don't mean a few hours at the Emergency Room or a day or two to get in to see a doctor.  I mean months.  Walter E. Williams, a Professor of Economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, VA, syndicated columnist and author, wrote an article for TownHall.com in February 2007 entitled, Do We Want Socialized Medicine?  He cited a report in London's Observer that said "an unpublished report shows some patients are now having to wait more than EIGHT MONTHS for treatment, during which time many of their cancers become incurable."  According to the World Health Organization, about 10,000 British people die unnecessarily each year from cancer.  In December 2001, the Observer reported that one in five bowel cases which were curable at the time of diagnosis had become incurable by the time of treatment.

We hear Canada's system touted as the example that the U.S. should follow for government healthcare.  The situation there is no better.  Dr. Williams continued in his article quoting the Fraser Institute based in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.  The Fraser Institute has an annual publication called "Waiting Your Turn".  This report gives the average wait times for treatment under Canada's healthcare system.  These wait times varied from 4.9 weeks for oncology to 40.3 weeks for orthopedic surgery.  The average wait for a CT scan ranged from 4.3 to 9 weeks, MRI 10.3 to 28 weeks, and ultrasound 3.8 to 8 weeks.  These wait times obviously prolong patients' suffering and sometimes death is the result.  Despite this, Canadian law prohibits private clinics from providing services covered by the Canada Health Act.  That is why Canadians have come for years to the U.S. in droves for treatment.  I understand this, too, may soon be illegal for them to do so.

This is just a very brief overview of the problems with socialized medicine.  The cost is enourmous both in terms of the inevitable major tax increases to pay for it and also human suffering. The government bureaucracy to administer this on a national level would be staggering.  Just the anti-fraud section would have to be huge.  This system would be way too tempting a target for fraud.  Using the TennCare example, a number of pharmacies in middle Tennessee were charging the system for medicines they never delivered.  This system involves taking your tax dollars and mine and redistributing it nationally, including to pay for the higher health care cost of those who engage in high health risk activities such as smoking, illegal drug use, alcoholism, etc.  If you lead a healthy lifestyle, you would still pay.

I am only able to scratch the surface in one entry, but I hope this gets readers thinking this all the way through.  If I have comments contrary to my post, or suggestions for entries covering other aspects of socialized medicine, I will make additional posts.

Please take the time to read the articles I've hyperlinked.  The complete articles will give a more complete overall view.  It's well worth the time spent to obtain this vital information because it can affect your health, the quality of your health care, the length of time you have to wait for it, and your standard of living.  

Tags: Socialized Medicine, Socialism, Universal Healthcare, Hillary Clinton, Canada, United Kingdom, Great Britain

GOVERNMENT ATTACKS ON CHURCHES - HERE WE GO AGAIN PART 1

My wife mentioned to me that she heard from her mother that Creflo Dollar was under investigation by the government.  This is naturally intrigued and I wondered what the government was up to this time.  I sort of figured, but I wanted to research it out for myself. What I found was that Senator Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, had begun an investigation late last year into not only Creflo Dollar’s ministry, but five others too.  The other ministries are Kenneth Copeland, Joyce Meyer, Paula White, Bishop Eddie Long, and Benny Hinn.  According to Senator Grassley’s website, he is conducting this investigation after “complaints from the public and news coverage regarding certain practices at six ministries.”  I would say that if the truth were known it was 99.9% (liberal) news coverage and 0.01% public.  Just how many people actually contact their Congressman about ANYTHING??  The article on Senator Grassley’s website doesn’t offer much detail, naturally.  Anytime we’re in danger of losing more of our freedom, isn’t it interesting how politicians keep us in the dark until it’s too late?  Anyway, I did a brief investigation into the investigation.  I had to travel to the FOX News website for more complete information.  FOX News’ report quotes Senator Grassley as saying, “The allegations involve governing boards that aren’t independent and allow generous salaries and housing allowances and amenities such as private jets and Rolls Royces.”  Allegations from where?  From whom?  Senator Grassley, of course, doesn’t say, but if this isn’t an attack on Christian ministries, then these “allegations” must be from some heavy duty supporters (donors) of Senator Grassley.  Do you think for one second that you could make a phone call to your Congressman, and actually expect an investigation, or anything for that matter, to happen?  In the VERY NEXT QUOTE, Senator Grassley says, “I don’t want to conclude there’s a problem . . .”  Political double-talk.  “ . . . but I have an obligation to donors and the taxpayers to find out more.”  OK, so we’re not smart enough to determine what ministries we, AS INDIVIDUALS, are legitimate and to which WE CHOOSE to donate.  Not surprising, since government is very elitist in nature, and therefore doesn’t hold us in very high regard.  Government has the attitude that it knows better how to take care of us than we do.Newsflash, Washington, NOT TRUE.

 

This type of investigation is unprecedented.  According to this same article by FOX News, “experts also say it stands out as an unusual case of the government probing the inner workings of religious organizations.”  It certainly does stand out.  In the past, such investigations were conducted by the IRS either directly or by referrals from Congress.  This appears to be one way of stepping up the attack by our government on Christian organizations.  The attacks on Christians and Christian organizations by the government has been going on for years.  One example of this has been through the income tax system in an attempt to cut off donations.  The IRS tried this by eliminating the ability to list donations on anything but their longest tax return forms.  Charitable contributions appeared on less complicated forms in years past, but were eliminated over a period of years one by one.  Note something else here:  you notice that Senator Grassley chose six of the ministries that do the most good here and abroad?  Most of these ministries are world-wide in nature, and the others support mission work.  This includes aid to starving and needy people here and in other countries.  Coincidence?  Government doesn’t really like for the private sector, or the religious sector to do anything better than it does. 

GOVERNMENT ATTACKS ON CHURCHES - HERE WE GO AGAIN PART 2

It just proves how inefficient and bureaucratic our government is. 

 

Since Senator Grassley chose not to follow past procedures by making a referral to the IRS, I wonder how Senator Grassley thinks he is more qualified in accounting and the tax code than IRS investigators.

 

I think if this is allowed to continue, the precedent set could be devastating.  The door would be wide open to persecute any church any where by arbitrarily demanding to investigate their finances.  Since organized religion (and I don’t use the term in the usual negative sense) is the biggest threat to liberalism and total government control of the masses, then the easiest way to eliminate that threat is through attacking the finances.  Old tactic.

 

In closing, I have a suggestion.  Since Senator Grassley is SO concerned about how DONORS’ and TAXPAYERS’ is spent, I propose a disclosure of SENATOR GRASSLEY’S finances.  How many houses does Senator Grassley own, what kind of cars does he drive (oh, I forgot, he doesn’t drive, someone does that for him), and oh let’s not forget his private (taxpayer funded) jet too.  Just to set things in perspective, let’s review just a few of the Congressional perks according to the National Taxpayers Union website:  high six-figure salaries that annual increases in the cost of living rarely touch due to their own pay increases – that THEY vote on; pension benefits that are two to three times that of similarly paid executives in the private sector; health and life insurance, that, ¾ and 1/3 the cost of is paid for by, yep you guessed it, YOU AND I; vehicles, not limited to, but including limousines; travel to distant places (other than their home districts), many of which are just plain “junkets”, which are paid for by YOU AND I of course; what’s called the “franking privilege” which give Congressional members millions in TAX dollars for creating a favorable public image; and exemptions from tax, pension, and other laws from which individuals do not enjoy such exemptions, and who creates these exemptions? Yep, the lawmakers themselves.

 

One last thing:  from OpenSecrets.org, here is a copy of Senator Grassley’s fundraising finances:

2003-2008 Source of Funds 

Individual contributions	$3,600,015	(52.2%)
PAC contributions	$2,798,735	(40.6%)
Candidate self-financing	$0
Other	$498,006	(7.2%)

2003-2008 PAC Contribution Breakdown

   Business                                              $2,574,65    (91.7%)

   Labor                                                  $70,000      (2.5%)

   Ideological/Single Issue                      $162,479      (5.8%)

See something here?  For one, candidate self-financing – a flat $0.00. Political Action Committees (PAC) though?  40.6% of his total contributions.  And where does most of the PAC money come from?  Business, coming in at 91.7%.  Now, wonder what a comparison between this and Senator Grassley’s voting record would turn up?  Thinking this is just on the Republican side of the aisle?  Not so, major PAC money contributions have been a way of life in Washington for many years now, the parties notwithstanding.

 

I just think that instead of spending MINE AND YOUR hard-earned tax money on “investigating” ministries that have a proven outreach track record, I think we need to turn around and take a long hard look at all the perks and benefits extended to members of Congress that is worth millions of dollars of OUR money, in addition to their salaries.  If Senator Grassley is so worried about a few ministers having the finer things in life,  then Congress needsobey Matthew 7:5: “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”  If we eliminated these luxury perks and exemptions enjoyed by Congress due to their mere existence, I think we would see a big change for the better in not only our tax laws but government overall. Congressmen would be more like, well, people whowork for a living.

 

Tags: Creflo Dollar, Kenneth Copeland, Bishop Eddie Long, Benny Hinn, Paula White, Joyce Meyer, Religion, IRS, Senator Charles Grassley

DISCUSSION ABOUT S. 2453 CONT'D

This is in response to the comment posted by THATBOYAINTRIGHT in my previous post.  The first point I would like to make addressess whether or not an employee is here legally or not, and that employers may fire legal immigrants under this bill.  For the purpose of this discussion, legal or not makes no difference.  There are large numbers of Hispanics that come here legally, but have no desire to become Americans.  They do not assimilate with our culture.  They turn entire geographic areas into extensions of their own country.  And, many will not learn English.  All S. 2453 says is that an employer does not have to retain someone that will not learn the language so they can work for that employer.  We all know that without some type of protection, businesses would be forced to accomodate non-English speaking employees.  Leftist organizations such as the ACLU are just waiting in the wings to once again bypass our entire legislative process and file their lawsuits for such accomodations.

Next is who determines what constitutes "basic English".  Here the bill would have to be "fine tuned" some to stop the lawsuits before they even started.  Senator Alexander had to write this piece of legislation in a very short time in order to stop the out-of-control Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.  This bill has been referred to committee for review.  The "fine tuning" needed will undoubtedly take place here, that is, if the Democrats don't kill it completely.

The next thing that was pointed out was that the two employees at the SALVATION ARMY were hired to sort clothes in a back room and therefore, their ability to speak English was a moot point.  First of all, how can a supervisor give any kind of directions to employees if the employees don't understand what's being said? Without S. 2453, guess what?  The EMPLOYER would have to learn Spanish.  My question is, why should they?  Employers in foreign countries do not learn English to accomodate English-only speaking Americans, and I don't blame them.  According to the article in the BOSTON GLOBE, the SALVATION ARMY contends that sorting in the backroom was not their only job.  I have shopped in SALVATION ARMY THRIFT STORES before, and I have asked people in the back if they had an item or where I could find it.  I understand the Salvation Army's point.

The last point is that of having an official language.  The reason given for Congress defeating such measures is that the government would no longer have to accomodate other languages.  Why should they?  For generations, immigrants have been coming to our country and assimilating into our society.  They learned our language, adopted our way of life, and observed their homeland customs in their homes.  They were very grateful of the opportunity and blessing to be here, and were only too happy to adapt.  There were no demands that we adapt to them.  No other country in the world does it, and why should we, and why do we?  The one thing I don't understand . . . what makes the Hispanics so vastly different from all the other immigrant groups?  It has gotten to the point now that not only do we have more and more radio stations that are Spanish only, but billboards with not one word of English on them.  And I'm talking about Latino-owned businesses either.  I'll just go ahead and say it - one of the companies is MCDONALD'S, and one of their Spanish-only billboards is in MARIETTA, GEORGIA.  There's another in the Atlanta area advertising BUDWEISER beer, and it's Spanish only.  No other group has enjoyed such "service." 

Unfortunately, in this case, the resources the Salvation Army will have to use to litigate this case will mean a large number of disadvantaged people will not be able to receive their assistance.  The Salvation Army doesn't have a choice but to litigate, because if they don't, they and ALL other businesses will have to hire job applicants that can't communicate with customers.  Warm bodies just drawing  paychecks I guess.  But, we all know that if the Federal government ever sues you, you have already lost.  They keep up the litigation with their unlimited (taxpayer funded) resources until the defendant's resources are gone.  Pretty tyrannical, huh?  I'm sure the EEOC doesn't care anything about the people they're hurting.  They feel invincible, and for all intended purposes, they are.  We can't vote them out, nothing. The EEOC has sunk to a new low, even for a Government agency.

Thank you again to THATBOYAINTRIGHT for this discussion.  All commentary is welcome, including differing points of view.  This journal is all about exercising your rights under THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

Tags: Salvation Army, S. 2453, Senator Lamar Alexander, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Immigration, Hispanics

POINT . . .COUNTERPOINT (TO BORROW A TITLE)

This is a reply to the comment from THATBOYAINTRIGHT who offers a contrarian point of view.  Thank you for posting your comment including the link to the article in the BOSTON GLOBE.  Here’s the link: 

 

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/12/28/firing_of_spanish_speakers_leaves_many_unfazed/

 

In my reply, I’ll offer a few key points.  Here’s the first part of the comment post:

 

“The email posted equates speakers of a foreign language (i.e. Spanish) with illegal people. They are two separate issues and since companies can fire illegal people anyway one is not even relevant to the other.”

 

I didn’t get this out of the article.  I can see where people would since when one speaks of Hispanic immigrants there are many that assume that the reference is to illegal immigrants.  I agree they are two separate issues since it cannot be assumed that all Hispanics or Spanish-speaking people are here illegally.

 

“In truth, this bill is a political gimmick... part of the desperate attempt by some to play on the emotions of folks in order to discriminate.

But I will play along and take the issue at face value....

This bill wants to give employers the ability to fire people... but it is unclear =who= they want to be able to fire.

I think the bill is quite simple and very clear.  I disagree with the idea that it’s a political gimmick.  This is a response to an out of control Federal agency.  After the Salvation Army had given these employees an employment opportunity in the first place even though they could not speak English was a gracious act.  After having been employed for MORE THAN AN ENTIRE YEAR, and they couldn’t speak even conversational English, it was appropriate to release them.  According to the Boston Globe article, they were only required to learn basic English.  How can you serve customers in an English-speaking country when you can’t talk with them?

      
“Are these employees people with the ability to speak =both= English and Spanish who choose to speak Spanish to each other, or are these employees who are unable to speak English?”

 

The bill, S. 2453, does not refer to bi-lingual people.  If the people who were fired from the Salvation Army were bi-lingual, there would not have been a problem.  S. 2453, Section 2, only requires an employee to speak English while engaged in work [subsection (o) (1)]. Section 2, subsections (2)(A)(B) specifically exclude meal breaks, rest periods, other types of breaks from the use of English.  The definition of these breaks in Section 2,subsection (2)(B) uses the Federal government’s definition already in existence.

 

“And what of those people who are here legally & are still learning the language? I know some people here from SE Asia who have been here 10 years & are still learning the language. After working all day, they take English classes 2 nights a week.”

 

Legal or illegal doesn’t matter as stated in the first paragraph of the comment.  It does not take more than a year to learn at least SOME English.  The SE Asian people referred are making the effort.  After ten years, I guarantee they can speak basic English, although maybe not perfect.  They are obviously interested in having a very good command of the English language as shown by their perserverance.  That’s OK.  I have conducted business with many Asians who speak broken English, but they can communicate and do business.  S. 2453 simply makes states that an employer can require an employee to speak or agree to speak English while performing work activities.

I’ve copied the actual bill below as taken from the Library of Congress’s website: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.2453:.

I wanted everyone to see it for themselves instead of just taking my word for it.

 

 Protecting English in the Workplace Act (Introduced in Senate)

S 2453 IS

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 2453

To amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to clarify requirements relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of national origin.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

December 12, 2007

Mr. ALEXANDER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

A BILL

To amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to clarify requirements relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of national origin.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Protecting English in the Workplace Act'.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENTS REGARDING SPEAKING ENGLISH WHILE ENGAGED IN WORK.

Section 703 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-2) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(o)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to require an employee to speak, or an applicant for employment to agree to speak, English while engaged in work.

`(2)(A) An individual shall not be considered to be engaged in work under paragraph (1) during a bona fide meal period, a rest period, or any other break, during which the individual is not required to perform any duties.

`(B) In this paragraph, the term `bona fide meal period' means such a period, and the term `rest period' means such a period, within the meaning of section 785.19 of title 29, Code of Federal Regulations (or any corresponding similar regulation or ruling).'.

 

“In summary: the bill can easily be used to fire people because of their nationality, race, or any other pre-text. And since it doesn't distinguish between legals & illegals, it can be used to discrimiante against =legals= here too.”

There is nothing in S. 2453 that would allow people to be fired because of their nationality, race, anything else.  The Civil Rights Act and an abundance of caselaw would prohibit that.  S. 2453 does not authorize any employer to use such criteria to fire someone.  It doesn’t distinguish between legals and illegals, because for this issue, it is not relevant.  You have many immigrants that came here legally but have no interest in becoming Americans and assimilating which includes learning the language.

 

THATBOYAINTRIGHT stated he just wanted to keep the discussion going.  You have, and I thoroughly enjoy point and counterpoint, to borrow a phrase.  Thanks again for your post.

Tags: Salvation Army, Framingham, Massachusetts, Boston Globe, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission lawsuit, English, Immigration, Civil Rights Act, Senator Lamar Alexander, S.2453