Tempest in a BlogSpot!

Lions and Tigers and all that Shit.

You want healthcare for all? Don't you double dog DARE raise my already freaking astronomical taxes to pay for it. We've already discussed my rate of taxation (and no representation) in an earlier post, and that's my beef. Every single plan I've heard put forth by any politician would end up resulting in a tax increase to pay for it. Why? Why? Why?

This is bullshit.
What would happen if we repealed that great $21.99 tax break Ole Georgie Porgie gave us a few years back and earmarked that for our own NHS? What a radical idea? Let me see...if I am doing the correct math (doubtful) my after tax 21.99 becomes.....30.78 pre tax. Since that is bi weekly....12 months in a year...times 24...that is $738.86. That should pay for a rug rat at a health clinic, right? Now, it doesn't pay for private care, but if you are employed and have insurance through your employer, why should you go to the clinic? So you get shots, basic preventative healthcare, basic dental, and emergency care. Everything else comes out of your own pocket.

Here is what would happen: the government will develop and offer a program (who cares how it is funded) for people with little or no income. Employers (WalMart) will suddenly realize that by creative accounting they no longer need to even OFFER insurance to certain classes of employees, because the government offers it as a free benefit. A benefit of being a citizen. So suddenly you have private and public firms finding imaginative ways to continue to rape the public's pocket while padding their own - they will all eventually stop even negotiating with insurance providers for things like corporate rates and discounts. Do people even realize how much power large corporations hold over the insurers? I mean, it's a big deal for a company like....Coke....to walk up to BCBS and say "fuck you, I'm not paying this anymore". BCBS will cave EVERY TIME. This is what it will take. Not little schmuck's like you and me, guys, but companies demanding change. They may not be the ones to use the service, or foot the lions share of the bill, but they are the ones with the wherewithal and the political and financial clout to have things change.

If you think this doesn’t already happen, please look into the statistics of the number of children enrolled in PeachCare whose parents are employees of Walmart (as an example – and y’all know I despise WMT, so take it with a grain of salt, and I will happily find OTHER EXAMPLES if necessary).

I mean, it's a great idea to have two levels of service - public and private. I'm all for it. Don't raise my taxes to pay for someone else. I do not want to have enforced charity. I do not care what anyone else thinks of that opinion. I work for a living, and I work hard to take care of myself and my dogs, and my family.

(and if I were poor, I would have my tubes tied. It's a personal decision, but I feel it is irresponsible and to a degree immoral to have children you cannot provide for).

As for the other matter. I have to say, I’m torn. It is certainly a tragedy that a parent has lost a child because they were relying upon faith instead of medicine. I certainly have respect for the power of faith. And on the other hand, I have respect for the law. There are so few demonstrated incidences of, for example, god reaching down and healing someone in two seconds who is in a diabetic coma because her parents refused to seek medical attention (or give her insulin) that I have a hard time thinking that faith is going to triumph law. It’s a simple fact that without medical attention, that child was going to die. God gave her parents the tools to save the child themselves – it was called “911”. They chose to pray rather than dial – I think at the least that makes them criminally negligent. That’s what I’d go for. Homicide seems too harsh. So does manslaughter. Criminal negligence – they did just lose a child.

The end.