Exactly who are the people who support this HC bill?

We all know conservatives and Republicans hate this bill. But many think it's because we're listening to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, and we really don't know what's in the bill.
So I found an article that breaks down the bill pretty well. And for the record, it's the very liberal Jane Hamsher from the very liberal Huffington Post. I hope that's enough of a qualifier for people to listen. Here are some points from her article (click title to link to Huffington and read for yourself):

"Real health care reform is the thing we've fought for from the start. It is desperately needed. But this bill falls short on many levels, and hurts many people more than it helps them."

Myth 1: This is a universal health care bill.
Fact: The bill is neither universal health care nor universal health insurance. According to the Congressional Budget Office:

Total uninsured in 2019 with no bill: 54 million

Total uninsured in 2019 with Senate bill: 24 million

Myth 2: Insurance companies hate this bill.
Fact: This bill is almost identical to the plan written by AHIP, the insurance company trade association, in 2009.
The original Senate Finance Committee bill was authored by a former Wellpoint vice president. Since Congress released the first of its health care bills on October 30, 2009, health care stocks have risen 28.35%.

Myth 3: The bill will significantly bring down insurance premiums for most Americans.

Fact: The bill will not bring down premiums significantly, and certainly not the $2,500/year that President Obama promised during his campaign.

Myth 4: The bill will make health care affordable for middle class Americans.

Fact: The bill will impose a financial hardship on middle class Americans who will be forced to buy a product that they can't afford to use.

Myth 5: This plan is similar to the Massachusetts plan, which makes health care affordable.

Fact: Many Massachusetts residents forgo health care because they can't afford it. A 2009 study by the state of Massachusetts found that:

21% of residents forgo medical treatment because they can't afford it, including 12% of children

18% have health insurance but can't afford to use it

Myth 6: This bill provides health care to 31 million people who are currently uninsured.

Fact: This bill will mandate that millions of people who are currently uninsured purchase insurance from private companies, or the IRS will collect up to 2% of their annual income in penalties. Some will be assisted with government subsidies.

Feel free to click and read the article. Plenty more.

Intelligent conservatives hate this bill because they know what's in it. And intelligent liberals hate this bill because they know what's NOT in it. We of course don't agree on these things, but it's clear that we agree that this health care bill just signed into law is garbage.

So, who likes this bill? There are only two possible explanations:

1) The politically ignorant sheep who believe what Obama, Pelosi, and the rest of the politicians are telling them.

or

2) Democrats who are more interested in "winning" and pushing something Republicans don't want. This is a sad example of partisan politics that anyone would support something this bad just because you view your opponent as the enemy and since they hate it, you like it.

Both of these are examples of how sad U.S. politics are these days...

MORE handouts necessary?

In the State of the Union earlier this week, Obama said he wants "...debt forgiveness for people who have been repaying their college loans for at least 20 years."

“In the 21st century, the best anti-poverty program around is a world-class education,” Obama said in yesterday’s speech. “No one should go broke because they chose to go to college.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2…

Okay, let's THINK and find everything wrong with this.

1) We can't get kids to finish high school. Funding college is not the problem. Let's identify the problem and fix it. Obama's plan will help a very small percentage of kids in poverty.

2) Why is it a good message to say we should take a loan out and it will be forgiven in 20 years? What is my incentive to pay it off sooner? Why should others pay for my education?

3) Even if we were able to create this wonderful land of gum drops and candy canes, and every single person were able to then go on and get a 4-year degree, do you know what would happen? Do you understand supply and demand? If everyone has one, it's useless. Then you'd need at least a Master's Degree to deliver pizzas.

So why do the Democrats continue to push programs that sound nice to the politically ignorant public, yet will cause more problems than they will solve?

Some more health care info...more Democrat scare tactics

I keep hearing people throw things out like "Our life expectancy is way lower than those with nationalized health care." That must mean it's better, right? Well, unlike many sheep, I like to actually think critically and look at data. Here's some that I found:

Life expectancy @ birth
#8 Canada (81.16)
#10 Sweden (80.74)
#37 United Kingdom (78.85)
# 47 U.S. (78.14)

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_li…

Murder rates per capita:
#24 United States (4.2 per 100,000)
#44 Canada (1.5 per 100,000)
#46 United Kingdom (1.4)

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mu…

Also, Lowest annual motor vehicle death rate (per 100,000, so it has nothing to do with the U.S. having more people):
#1 Sweden (5.7)
#3 United Kingdom (6.2)
#8 Canada (10.4)

U.S. (15.4)
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml…

Lowest annual accidental death rates:
#2 United Kingdom (20.5 per 100,000)

http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/causes.ht…

"Investigators from the Department of Family Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston compared the results of two large-scale studies of the US population in 1988-1994 and in 2001-2006. In the intervening 18 years, the percentage of adults aged 40-74 years with a body mass index greater than 30 has increased from 28% to 36%; physical activity 12 times a month or more has decreased from 53% to 43%; smoking rates have not changed (26.9% to 26.1%); eating 5 or more fruits and vegetables a day has decreased from 42% to 26%; and moderate alcohol use has increased from 40% to 51%. The number of people adhering to all 5 healthy habits has decreased from 15% to 8%."

http://www.prisonplanet.com/following-a-…

So in the U.K., they live months longer on average. In Sweden and Canada, a couple years. But our murder rate is roughly 3 times higher, our auto accident rate is at least 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 times higher.
Add in our overall unhealthy lifestyle, where we are exercising less, eating less fruits and vegetables, and drinking more...

Isn't it a testament to our great health care system that we are where we are?

Can we stop spreading ignorance and have a real discussion about what we can do to help bring down costs?

Democrats' "scare tactics" debunked

Is it global warming? Is it global cooling, like the scientists predicted in the 1970s? Is it climate change? Yeah, climate change. That way, whether it goes up or down, we can blame it on CO2, in order to push an agenda.
Well, here are 4 of the most recognized scare tactics, and why each one is wrong.

1) Sea levels will rise and flood the coasts.

Quick multiple choice. If the entire Arctic Ice Pack melted, how much would sea levels around the world rise?
A) 4 inches
B) A foot
C) 2 feet+
D) Exactly zero because I’m not an idiot and I understand Archimedes Principal

Hope you picked D.
http://www.seed.slb.com/v2/FAQView.cfm?I…

2) Himalayan Glaciers are melting.

“The UN’s top climate change body has issued an unprecedented apology over its flawed prediction that Himalayan glaciers were likely to disappear by 2035.”
“The 2007 report, which won the panel the Nobel Peace Prize, said that the probability of Himalayan glaciers “disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high”. It caused shock in Asia, where about two billion people depend on meltwater from Himalayan glaciers for their fresh water supplies during the dry seasons.”
“It emerged last week that the prediction was based not on a consensus among climate change experts but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999. That scientist, Syed Hasnain, has now told The Times that he never made such a specific forecast in his interview with the New Scientist magazine.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/en…

3) Polar sea ice levels are decreasing

Although the website claims these numbers are below normal, we only have to look at the recent numbers.
Arctic sea ice extent averaged over December 2009 was 12.48 million square kilometers (4.82 million square miles), 210,000 square kilometers (81,000 square miles) above the record low for the month, which occurred in December 2006.

I don’t know guys, looks like they’re now INCREASING.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

4) The Polar bear population is decreasing due to loss of Arctic Ice.

"In the 1950s the polar bear population up north was estimated at 5,000. Today it's 20- to 25,000, a number that has either held steady over the last 20 years or has risen slightly. In Canada, the manager of wildlife resources for the Nunavut territory of Canada has found that the population there has increased by 25 percent."

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/a…

“Not so fast. According to a U.S. Senate and Public Works Committee report, the “alarm about the future of polar bear decline is based on speculative computer model predictions many decades in the future. Those predictions are being “challenged by scientists and forecasting experts,” said the report.”
“Harry Flaherty, chair of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board in the capital of Iqaluit, says the polar bear population in the region, along the Davis Strait, has doubled during the past 10 years. He questions the official figures, which are based to a large extent on helicopter surveys.
“Scientists do a quick study one to two weeks in a helicopter, and don’t see all the polar bears. We’re getting totally different stories [about the bear numbers] on a daily basis from hunters and harvesters on the ground,” he says.”

http://www.examiner.com/x-32936-Seminole…

English, the official language of the U.S.?

One of the more hotly debated topics in the country these days is whether or not legislation should be passed, making English the official language of the United States. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, 47 million people age 5 and over, or 18% of our entire population, spoke a language other than English at home (1). With almost 1 out of every 5 Americans speaking another language at home, some are concerned with the long-term consequences if our country keeps heading in its current direction. For the sake of each individual, as well as the benefit of the nation as a whole, it is imperative that we make English the official language of the United States.
Those who are against English becoming the official language of the U.S. have many reasons for believing so. In a letter written regarding making English the official language in Brown County, Wisconsin, Micabil Diaz-Martinez of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) states that passing this legislation would violate the rights of non-English speaking Americans. In his words:
The ACLU opposes proposed Constitutional amendments or legislation which will characterize English as the official language of the United States or any state or local jurisdiction therein to the extent that such amendments or legislation would mandate or encourage the erosion of or have the effect of eroding the rights of language minority persons. The ACLU believes English-only laws that make English the "official" language of government and particularly those which broadly restrict the government's ability to use languages other than English in communicating and delivering services to non-English speaking Americans, violate civil rights and liberties. (2)

How does it violate civil rights and liberties? First, Diaz-Martinez writes that “by restricting the government's ability to communicate with and provide services to non-English speaking Americans, many of whom are children and elderly citizens, English-only laws deny fair and equal access to government.” Diaz-Martinez also states that “English-only laws are based on assumptions predicated on false and disparaging stereotypes about today's immigrants. Thus, they foster anti-immigrant bigotry and intolerance and exacerbate ethnic tensions” (2).
While I understand the concern regarding government communicating with its citizens, sometimes we just need to use common sense. According to some estimates, there are as many as 300 different languages being spoken in the United States (3). There is no way we can expect our government to print legal documents or just be able to readily communicate with all these people. While this may be an extreme example, we can even look at some of the more common languages spoken. The 2000 U.S. Census asked respondents if they spoke a language other than English at home and, if so, which one. There were twelve non-English languages that had over 500,000 people claim that was the language they spoke at home (including over 28 million Spanish) (1). Is it realistic that our government must cater to all of these people who speak another language? Should our government be responsible for printing legal documents in Portuguese, Arabic, Russian, Vietnamese, etc.?
I believe the answer is simple. There is no way our government can appease every individual. We can’t pick and choose some languages, like Spanish, that will get preferential treatment. It’s a slippery slope. Passing legislation to make English the official language would actually solve the problem. Only then will everyone be clear as to what is expected, English. And in order to function in society and be able to communicate with government, everyone should speak it. It is then, and only then, that no one would be denied “fair and equal access to government.”
As for Diaz-Martinez’s assertion that English-only laws “foster anti-immigrant bigotry and intolerance and exacerbate ethnic tensions,” I think nothing could be further from the truth. Just like his last argument, I believe the exact opposite is true. The truth is bigotry and intolerance does exist. Yet I would argue that it is because they are not speaking English.
Let’s look at history as our example. Most people look at all “white” people as the same. But that was not always the case. When the Irish, Polish, and Germans came to the United States, they were seen as lazy, dirty, and basically classless by the “native” English and French. Over time, that went away. Why? All were unified by their language. And all were considered American. A law encouraging all citizens to speak English would speed up the process, and make all people in our country feel united as Americans.
Passing legislation to make English the official language of the U.S. would not be an unprecedented move by our country. Most countries have an official language (4). And many that have different languages, especially in if they’re spoken in different areas of the country, run into problems with communication and elitism by one or more of the groups (see: Africa).
Another thing to consider is if the role was reversed. Sometimes it’s easy to be hypocritical and have expectations for others, yet have different rules if it applies to you. But here that is definitely not the case. I put myself in those shoes. What if I moved to France for work? Would I be so egotistical that I demand that everyone speak to me in English? That signs and papers be written in English so it would be convenient for me? No. I would expect to learn French, and I’d try to do it rather quickly to make it easier on myself. And I would do it because I would be there for a reason. I would be grateful for the opportunity the country was offering, and my goal would be to try to blend in to their society.
One last thing to consider is the sectionalism that is happening in this country. For the first 100 or so years of this country, our country was divided, while not literally the whole time, between North and South. Even before the Civil War, it was divided because they had different needs and ideals. Manufacturing in the North, farming in the South. Slavery in the South, not in the North. At this time, people’s loyalties lied more with their region than their country. And frankly I am concerned that at some point down the road the Southwest United States will decide that they have a different language, a different society, and different needs than the rest of the country. This is not a section of New York City, or Dearborn, MI. It’s an entire chunk of our country. Will it end up in secession and war? I can’t claim I know, but I believe it’s a real concern.
In the end, the idea that we shouldn’t pass legislation to make English the official language is about being politically correct. It’s about people making you believe that if you want English as the official language, you are anti-immigrant and/or racist. This couldn’t be further from reality. Encouraging all to become fluent in English is to their benefit. It will be easier to find a job, communicate with others, and altogether assimilate into society. But more importantly, it’s better for the country. Sometimes we have to make sacrifices for the greater good. And learning the language that most people in the country speak, is not too much to ask.

Is the GOP listening?

Click title to link to article:

"ALBANY, N.Y. – Fighting plunging support, Republican Dierdre Scozzafava abruptly suspended her campaign Saturday in the 23rd Congressional District special election that has exposed a rift among national factions of the party."

"The announcement comes after a Siena College poll found she was in third place with 20 percent of the vote in the heavily Republican district that has been safe ground for the party for more than 100 years. Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman and Democratic nominee Bill Owens were too close to call with 35 percent and 36 percent, respectively."

Scozzafava was a Republican In Name Only (RINO). Her voting record says she's more liberal than most Democrats. And the people could see through that.

Newt Gingrich supported Scozzafava, saying:

“I just think it is a mistake for the conservative movement to think splitting in the special election is a smart idea,” Gingrich said. “If we give that seat to the Democrats, shame on us.”

Well I say shame on you Gingrich. The people want a conservative, and the GOP are not listening to their base. Didn't they figure it out when we didn't come out and vote for McCain?
This is great news for the conservatives. Maybe they're listening now.

Liberals and our School System

Recently there's been discussion on how to increase education and scores in the U.S. (again...). Obama and other liberals think the answer is more school. Longer hours. Clearly, more government involvement.

But when you look at the top countries in the world, like Japan and South Korea, there's one thing the libs are ignoring.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/2…

They still are CONSERVATIVE in their values. They value hard work and education.

They understand the importance of having two parents in the home, evidence by their low divorce rate. They actually SACRIFICE for the sake of their children. Noble thought, huh?

http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/sta…

Teenage pregnancy (births and abortions) are low because they value life and marriage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_pre…

The answer is simple. Two parents in the home. Morals. Values.
So are liberals blind to this, or they don't care because their selfish agenda is more important?