So, just my 2 pennies about the whole healthcare thing. For reform, against reform, doesn't matter.
If health insurance is mandated (or you can pay a fine to not have it) and there is no public option we have just admitted that powerful lobbies own the country.
Just think carefully here. Everyone MUST have health insurance, but your options are completely controlled by a cabal of companies out for profit.
Don't buy into the "everyone has to have car insurance" bit. You don't HAVE to own a car. You are a living person, so, umm, you kind of have to exist. Or, if you cease existing, it doesn't matter anymore anyway.
If we are going to force everyone to buy health insurance then we need to also insure (haha) that affordable, useful options are out there.
Cut rate health insurance won't work like cut rate auto insurance. Heck, cut rate auto insurance doesn't really "work" if you do have a wreck, but it does keep you legal to drive.
So, just remember folks, no matter your views, if our Congress mandates health insurance for all without a viable alternative to private insurance or some sort of regulatory board with TEETH, well, let the nightmare begin.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Getting Older
Well, I normally don't post a ton about my life. I'm a private person and well, I'd rather rant and rave.
This week has been rough. I have a grandpa in the hospital with a mild hematoma. He's 92 and well, the prospect of brain surgery isn't pleasant and the prospect of him living with the current issues isn't pleasant either.
My wife's grandmother went into the hospital after the cliche "I've fallen and can't get up." Sadly, it wasn't funny at all. She was dizzy, had been having headaches, and her heart rate was mid 40s.
The ER she was at almost released her! Thankfully she couldn't stand and my wife and her cousin (both granddaughters) were there to say, um, admit her.
Well, today (3-4 days later) she'd had a CT scan, NO MRI (until tonight) and things hadn't gotten better. In fact they got much worse. Her eye was drooping, her arm and leg hurting.
Finally the do an MRI and she's had a stroke in her medulla oblongata. This would explain the low heart rate, the labored breathing. She's conscious, but now the next step (what is the next step?) Has to be taken.
I'm upset with the hospital, as is my wife, because they didn't seem NEARLY as concerned by the abnormally low heart rate as we were. SOMETHING had to be causing it!
I suspect she had a mini-stroke the first day and a full on one today. That's only what I think. I have no proof of that. My wife is going to lodge a complaint about the ER treatment as they were going to release a 76(?) year old woman with a 45bpm heartrate!
Also, my mom gets to go in for a biopsy monday. YAY! *with as much sarcasm as can be* I'm thankful the doc noticed something and while he says its most likely nothing at all to be worried about, checking is good.
So, please, lots of prayer for the extended Schurter/Maddox families as its been a bad couple weeks medically.
This week has been rough. I have a grandpa in the hospital with a mild hematoma. He's 92 and well, the prospect of brain surgery isn't pleasant and the prospect of him living with the current issues isn't pleasant either.
My wife's grandmother went into the hospital after the cliche "I've fallen and can't get up." Sadly, it wasn't funny at all. She was dizzy, had been having headaches, and her heart rate was mid 40s.
The ER she was at almost released her! Thankfully she couldn't stand and my wife and her cousin (both granddaughters) were there to say, um, admit her.
Well, today (3-4 days later) she'd had a CT scan, NO MRI (until tonight) and things hadn't gotten better. In fact they got much worse. Her eye was drooping, her arm and leg hurting.
Finally the do an MRI and she's had a stroke in her medulla oblongata. This would explain the low heart rate, the labored breathing. She's conscious, but now the next step (what is the next step?) Has to be taken.
I'm upset with the hospital, as is my wife, because they didn't seem NEARLY as concerned by the abnormally low heart rate as we were. SOMETHING had to be causing it!
I suspect she had a mini-stroke the first day and a full on one today. That's only what I think. I have no proof of that. My wife is going to lodge a complaint about the ER treatment as they were going to release a 76(?) year old woman with a 45bpm heartrate!
Also, my mom gets to go in for a biopsy monday. YAY! *with as much sarcasm as can be* I'm thankful the doc noticed something and while he says its most likely nothing at all to be worried about, checking is good.
So, please, lots of prayer for the extended Schurter/Maddox families as its been a bad couple weeks medically.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Movies: A Mini Rant
I think about movies too much. This is strange, since I don't watch all that many movies, and most of the ones I do are silly fun action movies, but really I do.
I suppose I do because I expect certain things out of different sorts of movies. Action movies I just want fun entertainment. Sci-fi/fantasy, coherent plot and a decent story.
Drama, well, I don't watch much drama and here's why: Real life has enough drama for me!
What brings on this hatred (not really) of all things dramatic? Well, Katrina rented Revolutionary Road last night. It was critically acclaimed which I'm starting to decide is a real strike against a movie being watchable.
The premise is this. Leonardo Decaprio and Kate Winslet are married with 2 young kids in the suburbs in the 1950s. They hate their lives as Leo works as an ad-man for Knox Business Machines (IBM) and Kate is a housewife who is in community theater.
The movie starts with a huge fight between them and it really goes down from there. Its a litany of 1950s stereotypes, questioning of life, bad behavior and just painful things to watch on screen.
A list of the issues "dealt with (brought up I should say): Consumeristic life in the suburbs, the pointlessness of many corporate jobs, the housewife's lament, the having more kids to prove you wanted the first, abortion, greed, dreams of a different life.
The movie doesn't so much deal with these issues as chronicle them. The life of Leo and Kate is miserable, unhappy, and all too common in America of the 1950s or today.
Which brings me to my point. Why would I want to watch a movie about this? I know people who's lives are like this. This isn't raising my awareness to anything. This isn't making me "deal with" or "confront" any issues.
Its merely a sad depressing tale of two people who's lives didn't turn out as they wanted and who don't seem to really want to work on themselves.
The movie might end great. About 90 minutes into it give or take Katrina hated it enough to give up as well. Or she just wanted to shut my sarcastic comments up. Either way.
Avoid this piece of trash at all costs. Unless you like reveling in other people's misery.
edit- Thinking about this a bit more, I'm not sure the movie was even well made. Its set in the period very well. But, the flashbacks are few, far between and seem sort of an after thought. It, I dunno. Just avoid it.
I suppose I do because I expect certain things out of different sorts of movies. Action movies I just want fun entertainment. Sci-fi/fantasy, coherent plot and a decent story.
Drama, well, I don't watch much drama and here's why: Real life has enough drama for me!
What brings on this hatred (not really) of all things dramatic? Well, Katrina rented Revolutionary Road last night. It was critically acclaimed which I'm starting to decide is a real strike against a movie being watchable.
The premise is this. Leonardo Decaprio and Kate Winslet are married with 2 young kids in the suburbs in the 1950s. They hate their lives as Leo works as an ad-man for Knox Business Machines (IBM) and Kate is a housewife who is in community theater.
The movie starts with a huge fight between them and it really goes down from there. Its a litany of 1950s stereotypes, questioning of life, bad behavior and just painful things to watch on screen.
A list of the issues "dealt with (brought up I should say): Consumeristic life in the suburbs, the pointlessness of many corporate jobs, the housewife's lament, the having more kids to prove you wanted the first, abortion, greed, dreams of a different life.
The movie doesn't so much deal with these issues as chronicle them. The life of Leo and Kate is miserable, unhappy, and all too common in America of the 1950s or today.
Which brings me to my point. Why would I want to watch a movie about this? I know people who's lives are like this. This isn't raising my awareness to anything. This isn't making me "deal with" or "confront" any issues.
Its merely a sad depressing tale of two people who's lives didn't turn out as they wanted and who don't seem to really want to work on themselves.
The movie might end great. About 90 minutes into it give or take Katrina hated it enough to give up as well. Or she just wanted to shut my sarcastic comments up. Either way.
Avoid this piece of trash at all costs. Unless you like reveling in other people's misery.
edit- Thinking about this a bit more, I'm not sure the movie was even well made. Its set in the period very well. But, the flashbacks are few, far between and seem sort of an after thought. It, I dunno. Just avoid it.
"Big" Government
So, my brother has an interesting post on cutting government spending. Its interesting, and here's some of my thoughts on it.
Going off of the Havoc Pennington post, I suppose I'm more in the "cut government by 10-20%." I like the general ideals of libertarianism, but since I view man as naturally flawed, not naturally good (and very distinct from naturally evil) I can never truly support libertarians because I don't trust people enough.
I don't trust the government much either, but they tend to slow things down enough that nothing totally insane happens that often.
It would seem that 21% of the budget going to Defense/War on Terror is high, I personally would much rather see that at 10-15% with no Iraq war, but you can't turn back the clock.
But, as my dad points out, that's only about 1/3 of what is going to programs that only suck more money out of the system. That is the underlying problem of socialist styled programs. France is going broke over its healthcare/welfare/retirement system. Sarkozy has all but said that they can't afford to keep doing things the way they have been.
The problem with entitlement systems or government funded programs is as people live longer and longer, you get more people getting payed out and fewer paying in. It also doesn't help that Congress can't help but raid the "surplus" for things like Social Security as extra spending money. That it hasn't been legislated illegal is only proof of how completely screwed our government is.
Case in point. Listening to NPR the other day it was a story on how the SEC missed the AIG mess. Well, the SEC along with the Commodities watchdog have overlapping duties. But, they don't/didn't communicate well so AIG just played them off against each other. They were interveiwing an excongressman who said he tried to combine them, but the Agriculture committee chairman didn't want to give up the power (and money) from the position.
Why do I share this story? Because the system is broken. Since both parties get elected mainly to stay elected (and attempt to push through what their lobbyists pay them for) real change isn't going to happen.
Our political system, and many of the rulings on "free speech" pertaining to politics almost insures that any plans the government comes up with will eventually end up broken, bloated, and pandering to the rich and or corporately connected.
Don't get me wrong. We spend far too much money in this country as citizens and government. We're going broke. This isn't just our leaders fault.
What IS their fault is they are too interested in getting reelected and/or getting cushy high paying lobbying jobs down the line to do what is right, not what is politically convient or expedient.
The statement both sides want to spend 105% is true. And its going to bankrupt us and slowly push us to 2nd nation status.
Going off of the Havoc Pennington post, I suppose I'm more in the "cut government by 10-20%." I like the general ideals of libertarianism, but since I view man as naturally flawed, not naturally good (and very distinct from naturally evil) I can never truly support libertarians because I don't trust people enough.
I don't trust the government much either, but they tend to slow things down enough that nothing totally insane happens that often.
It would seem that 21% of the budget going to Defense/War on Terror is high, I personally would much rather see that at 10-15% with no Iraq war, but you can't turn back the clock.
But, as my dad points out, that's only about 1/3 of what is going to programs that only suck more money out of the system. That is the underlying problem of socialist styled programs. France is going broke over its healthcare/welfare/retirement system. Sarkozy has all but said that they can't afford to keep doing things the way they have been.
The problem with entitlement systems or government funded programs is as people live longer and longer, you get more people getting payed out and fewer paying in. It also doesn't help that Congress can't help but raid the "surplus" for things like Social Security as extra spending money. That it hasn't been legislated illegal is only proof of how completely screwed our government is.
Case in point. Listening to NPR the other day it was a story on how the SEC missed the AIG mess. Well, the SEC along with the Commodities watchdog have overlapping duties. But, they don't/didn't communicate well so AIG just played them off against each other. They were interveiwing an excongressman who said he tried to combine them, but the Agriculture committee chairman didn't want to give up the power (and money) from the position.
Why do I share this story? Because the system is broken. Since both parties get elected mainly to stay elected (and attempt to push through what their lobbyists pay them for) real change isn't going to happen.
Our political system, and many of the rulings on "free speech" pertaining to politics almost insures that any plans the government comes up with will eventually end up broken, bloated, and pandering to the rich and or corporately connected.
Don't get me wrong. We spend far too much money in this country as citizens and government. We're going broke. This isn't just our leaders fault.
What IS their fault is they are too interested in getting reelected and/or getting cushy high paying lobbying jobs down the line to do what is right, not what is politically convient or expedient.
The statement both sides want to spend 105% is true. And its going to bankrupt us and slowly push us to 2nd nation status.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Rein in your morons
I like guns. They are fun to shoot. I believe they are something most people should legally be able to have. I think that the laws governing them should be logical (wouldn't that be nice?).
However, if you're pro-gun, maybe in the NRA, or just really like your guns, I have a suggestion. Attempt to rein in the morons on your side. Really. Please?
It might be legal to carry around assault rifles in plain view in Arizona. That doesn't mean it should be done (or legal, but that's a different discussion). If you value the right to bear arms, please, work hard to get idiots like these to STOP BEING MORONS!
The people who did this (and who incidentally were doing it as a radio stunt for what they believe) were merely a distraction. And a bad one at that. Its stupid, even if legal, to carry around heavy weaponry in plain view at a crowded event.
Especially one that will be highly politically charged anyway. Its not exercising your rights. Its a show of force.
Like I said, I like guns. But that doesn't mean I want to see heavy weaponry just carried around by anyone with a permit. Especially at an event where there are lots of people present. At a machine gun shoot, go for it.
So, what I'm saying is this. If the moron fringe (please tell me its a fringe) of the pro-gun movement keep this up, you're going to see the opposite effect happen as moderates like me on gun control get pissed off and start to vote more and more rights away.
Call it exercising your rights, I call it intimidation. And that always backfires. It really does. I would be intimidated by someone walking around at a large public gathering with an AR-15. That sounds like something that happens in Iraq, not the USA.
Can't we love our guns and not be stupid about it?
(Oh, and if you REALLY want to be scared, read the guy's quotes. It'll also point out why I don't care much for Jefferson. Oh, and here is a bit more about Mr. Creepy)
However, if you're pro-gun, maybe in the NRA, or just really like your guns, I have a suggestion. Attempt to rein in the morons on your side. Really. Please?
It might be legal to carry around assault rifles in plain view in Arizona. That doesn't mean it should be done (or legal, but that's a different discussion). If you value the right to bear arms, please, work hard to get idiots like these to STOP BEING MORONS!
The people who did this (and who incidentally were doing it as a radio stunt for what they believe) were merely a distraction. And a bad one at that. Its stupid, even if legal, to carry around heavy weaponry in plain view at a crowded event.
Especially one that will be highly politically charged anyway. Its not exercising your rights. Its a show of force.
Like I said, I like guns. But that doesn't mean I want to see heavy weaponry just carried around by anyone with a permit. Especially at an event where there are lots of people present. At a machine gun shoot, go for it.
So, what I'm saying is this. If the moron fringe (please tell me its a fringe) of the pro-gun movement keep this up, you're going to see the opposite effect happen as moderates like me on gun control get pissed off and start to vote more and more rights away.
Call it exercising your rights, I call it intimidation. And that always backfires. It really does. I would be intimidated by someone walking around at a large public gathering with an AR-15. That sounds like something that happens in Iraq, not the USA.
Can't we love our guns and not be stupid about it?
(Oh, and if you REALLY want to be scared, read the guy's quotes. It'll also point out why I don't care much for Jefferson. Oh, and here is a bit more about Mr. Creepy)
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Yes, actually, I believe it is.
Sitting here at work, getting a nice little break from the phones for once, I'm watching two nice bigscreen flat panel TVs.
One is showing the Cardinals beating up on the Reds. The other someone has put on Fox"News" and talking heads are talking.
I can't hear what's going on, but Robert Gibbs was talking to the media and the little "info bar" was telling me what he was talking about. The gist was, "Townhalls are not indicative of how people feel."
I'm guessing this is due to the shameful behavoir of many people at townhall meetings who have decided (and have been encouraged by the Republicans) to disrupt them by shouting, yelling, filibustering and not discussing anything.
And sadly, I feel this is completely how much of America is right now.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not harkening back to the halcyon days of yor when bipartisanship meant you might beat your opposition with your cane in a session of Congress. Its not like media feeding into people's fears and predujices is new.
What is new, is how you can totally isolate yourself to people who agree with you. You never have to listen to those who disagree, except on talk shows where they are invariably shouted down. You never have to engage in a discussion about issues, so people only know how to shout about them.
The 2 party system promotes this as the party in power doesn't really want to work with the other party anymore than to get bills passed.
Partisanship is not new. But it is getting uglier. It saddens me that townhall meetings in 2009 are no more civil than many probably were in 1809. This doesn't surprise me, but it does make me sad.
One is showing the Cardinals beating up on the Reds. The other someone has put on Fox"News" and talking heads are talking.
I can't hear what's going on, but Robert Gibbs was talking to the media and the little "info bar" was telling me what he was talking about. The gist was, "Townhalls are not indicative of how people feel."
I'm guessing this is due to the shameful behavoir of many people at townhall meetings who have decided (and have been encouraged by the Republicans) to disrupt them by shouting, yelling, filibustering and not discussing anything.
And sadly, I feel this is completely how much of America is right now.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not harkening back to the halcyon days of yor when bipartisanship meant you might beat your opposition with your cane in a session of Congress. Its not like media feeding into people's fears and predujices is new.
What is new, is how you can totally isolate yourself to people who agree with you. You never have to listen to those who disagree, except on talk shows where they are invariably shouted down. You never have to engage in a discussion about issues, so people only know how to shout about them.
The 2 party system promotes this as the party in power doesn't really want to work with the other party anymore than to get bills passed.
Partisanship is not new. But it is getting uglier. It saddens me that townhall meetings in 2009 are no more civil than many probably were in 1809. This doesn't surprise me, but it does make me sad.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Cash for Clunkers
Alright, I have lots of issues with this program. I'll try and be brief.
This is not a stimulus. It is merely getting people to buy the car NOW they would've bought in a few months or a year. This is not "rejuvenating" the industry, it is spiking sales which will then slump back to "meh."
Jobs aren't really being created by this as car manufacturers are not going to ramp up production to meet demand as they understand demand is spiking, not actually going up.
This is also a tax on the poor. Sure, 4500 for your junker is nice, but if you have no credit or can still only afford a car that costs 6000, how does this help you? Oh, and it'll drive up the price of used cars and quite possibly the prices on keeping old cars running, especially if they blow an engine. So, the poor are not benefiting from this at all.
Also, the environmental impact is negligible at best. Sure, you're taking fuel inefficient cars off the road. And moving them to junk yards. Yes, many parts of them will be recycled, but there will still be rusting blocks of iron. AND, its replacing them on the road with cars that still pollute.
Yes, they pollute yes, which is good. But, its not like there will be less cars on the road, because THAT is truly a zero emission car. The one that isn't there.
I guess I'm just frustrated by the waste and the bait and switch that seems to be going on.
This is not a stimulus. It is merely getting people to buy the car NOW they would've bought in a few months or a year. This is not "rejuvenating" the industry, it is spiking sales which will then slump back to "meh."
Jobs aren't really being created by this as car manufacturers are not going to ramp up production to meet demand as they understand demand is spiking, not actually going up.
This is also a tax on the poor. Sure, 4500 for your junker is nice, but if you have no credit or can still only afford a car that costs 6000, how does this help you? Oh, and it'll drive up the price of used cars and quite possibly the prices on keeping old cars running, especially if they blow an engine. So, the poor are not benefiting from this at all.
Also, the environmental impact is negligible at best. Sure, you're taking fuel inefficient cars off the road. And moving them to junk yards. Yes, many parts of them will be recycled, but there will still be rusting blocks of iron. AND, its replacing them on the road with cars that still pollute.
Yes, they pollute yes, which is good. But, its not like there will be less cars on the road, because THAT is truly a zero emission car. The one that isn't there.
I guess I'm just frustrated by the waste and the bait and switch that seems to be going on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)