MESSAGE VS. MESSENGER

I have talked to many people regarding this very important election. Every election is important but I think this one carries a special importance because it will give control to the Democrats to the Legislative Branch, the Executive Branch and the power to appoint judges to the Judicial Branch of the government. As Americans we need to decide if the liberal agenda is what is best for this country.

With the passion I possess regarding politics I tend to bring up the election to most everyone I meet, much to my wife's dismay. Every time I talk to an Obama supporter I like to probe the reason for their choice and each time I am somewhat amazed. Never have I gotten a deal breaker issue, a contrary political philosophy or a solid explanation of their choice. Normally I get talking points put out by the opposing party with little understanding of what it means. "Bush has screwed up so bad", "the Republicans don't care about me", "John McCain has no new ideas", but when I ask what that means they either don't know or recite a reason which is totally contrary to fact. I was recently told my an intelligent, successful friend that he was supporting Obama but didn't know exactly why.

I can tell you why Sen. Obama is about to become the 44th President of the United States of America because he is extremely competent and effective as a public speaker. He has the ability to make people follow him to the unknown and make them feel comfortable on the way. If he was a salesman he could be GE's top salesman with only the Amish territory. He's the kind of leader who could convince his followers to drink the Kool-Aid. How else can we explain the blind followers of his flock? All these traits that Barack Obama possess John McCain does not.

The tough financial crisis in the U.S. has caused people to look for help and for some reason they are looking to Washington to fix their problems. My contention is that Washington has caused much of the problem and is not where the solution lies. John McCain is a member of a party that has a credibility problem. They promised America a smaller government but did not deliver, the promised fiscal responsibility and did not deliver, and they became responsible for an unpopular war which was supported by both parties. (Obama claims to have been against the war from the beginning but he did not have to back that up with a vote. I compare that to refereeing a game from the stands. Its different when the call actually has an effect.) The current White House has been blamed for the economy but if people really investigate the mess it is obvious the problem has many to blame.

I implore people to get beyond the person and look at the issues. Obama promises a larger government which requires more revenue and he promises more taxes on American companies which will make it harder to compete in a world economy and drives jobs away. Before he started making campaign promises he was dedicated to gun control. He is committed to National Health Care which WILL reduce effectiveness and drive costs up requiring more taxes. He does believe in a more powerful federal government which is taken from the states and the individual American people. Obama and the Democrats are committed to higher fuel costs to force Americans to demand alternative fuels. And most importantly he believes in the idea of redistribution of wealth. He told "Joe the plumber" this and he said it before in this 2001 interview.


Maybe he could lead the United States out of the bondage of a struggling economy into the desert of the unknown and deliver us the ten commandments of prosperity but I don't think he has the credentials. PLEASE DO NOT CONFUSE THE MESSAGE WITH THE MESSENGER.

CHANGE VS. CHANGE?

Both candidates are claiming they are the instruments of change. Can they both be right? What are they changing? Do we really need radical change? Can either of them deliver change?

First let's take a look at the political spectrum. Here is how I see it. On one end, the right, you have no government services and no taxes, pure capitalism. On the other end, the left, you have total government services and 100% taxation, pure socialism. Conservative are pulling the political rope towards the right and liberals are pulling it towards the left. Neither wants the pendulum to swing entirely one way or the other but both feel the nation needs to lean more towards their side.

Barack Obama promises of change are directed at the policies currently in place. He wants government to take care of its citizens with more government programs and, of course, he will need more revenue to acomplish this goal through higher taxes. He believes the current policies are leading the nation in the wrong direction and need to be changed. He has also claimed he will change the partisanship in the government but shows no sign of being able to accomplish this since he is considered the "most liberal" member of the Senate. In debates he has also claimed he will change some foreign policy decisions and change the way we are viewed by the world. Many of thsoe decisions appear very dangerous from the view of his opponents and exposed in the debates with John McCain and the Democratic primaries. Changing the way we are viewed by the rest of the world would be nice as long as it does not compromise our ideals and principles. The President must watch out for the interests of the U.S. and world view is irrelevant unless it is good for the U.S.

John McCain promises of change are more changes in the way Washington works. He wants to get beyond the bipartisanship currently plagueing our government where embarrassing or discrediting the opponent is more important than accomplishing anything. His view is that the current policies are headed in the right direction they just need to be administered properly. Less government intervention into everyday life of Americans and relieve the American businesses of excess regulation. McCain believes he has the ability to work in a bipartisan way. Standing up to the Democrats when they are wrong and the Republicans when they are wrong. He believes he can make policies with either side of the isle and is not scared to anger the others.

Obama is probably more equiped to change the direction and McCain is probably more equiped to change the tone of Washington. McCain has stepped across the isle more than once to write a piece of legislation with a co-sponsoring Democrat and pissed off the Republicans. Obama differs from the current administration on most matters and will create much more liberal policies.

The kind of change this country needs is to change the way Wasnington works. First, let's get rid of the leaders who have trouble following their moral compass. If they are cheating on the families or have problems with the law what makes anyone think they can suddenly do what is right for the country. If they are making decisions for personal gratification in their personal life they will make them in their votes. Get rid of all the adulterers, perverts, tax evaders and anyone else who does not follow a sense of common decency. Second, we need politicians to quit taking positions simply because of political affiliation. The political environment in Washington has become so nasty that nothing can get accomplished. As I stated earlier, neither party wants the pendulum to swing entirely to their extreme so why can't the politicians find common ground on individual bills.

The kind of change we don't need is the change in philosophy. We do need less government in our lives, we need the American people to decide how to spend their own money and not the government. BUT, we need people who will hold true these ideals and quite compromising them for personal gain, for more power or for more pork for their district. Let's put country first in every decision made in Washington. The Republicans gained power using these exact principles but went to Washington and did not fulfill their promise. They deserved their own demise. Let's get rid of them and put individuals in power who will promise smaller government and deliver and if not, get rid of them. We do not need to turn over our personal freedoms to the government and we do not need to make people more dependant upon the government.

The recent economic woes this country is experiencing is not as a result of the current administration's policies but as a result of a compromise to those policies. Deregulation did not cause the problem but lack of oversight or a propensity to ignore the warning signs in favor of a more optimistic interpretation of the facts. More government intervention will hurt our economy, making it harder for businesses to compete in this world economy. Increase regulations, increase requirements and increased taxes will force some businesses to move their businesses abroad or raise their prices only to drive the buyers abroad.

Changing the view the rest of the world has of United State's would be nice. It would be nice to be seen as the great moral and economic leader of the world again but it cannot be at the expense of our security. The President will become the leader of the free world but it does not mean we need to appease the rest of the world. He needs to watch out for the interests of the U.S. and if those interests align with a rosey view from the world great, if not too bad.

Neither candidate match the needs of the country but Barack Obama's goals are dangerous for this country. So, for the kind of change that is needed in this country John McCain IS the better choice.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Yes, our healthcare system has issues we need to address but the quality of care in the United States is second to none.

Before we address specifics we need to address a misconception: A Right cannot be something that is taken from another. If someone else has to pay for it, it is not a "right". Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are rights, health insurance cannot. This was discussed in the second debate and Sen. Obama was wrong. My neighbor has no right to something I earned.

In 2000, the World Health Organization put out a ranking of the world's health care system and ranked the U.S. as having the 37^th best health care system in the world. 37^th??? How could that be? I thought we were the best. Let's take a closer look at why the ranking was lower than expected. First, the WHO has an agenda, they hope they can promote an ideological change to a more universal system. They want everyone to have health coverage and use their rankings as a tool to achieve this. The major factor that placed the U.S. as 37^th is the fact the U.S. does not have universal coverage. It has nothing to do with the quality of care. In addition, many of the factors they use are subjective and are based on assumptions on the relative importance of the components. This is not an objective report! They want to encourage countries to adopt a universal health care system so they created a report to help facilitate their goal.

Let's take a look at health care here in the U.S.

• Anyone can go to a hospital that receives government funds and they will not be turned away. They are not going to let someone die in the parking lot. When they realize the patient is unable to pay they write off the care. So, we are not talking health care we are talking health insurance.
  
• What we are really talking about is redistribution of wealth. Another program where the wealthy foot the bill for the many.
  
• No plans suggested have done anything to deal with the cost of the coverage just who is paying for it.
  
• Due to the bureaucracies, there is virtually nothing the government can do more effective or efficient as than the private sector.

What the system needs is competition and currently there is virtually none. Ask a doctor's office what a procedure will cost. You will get a variety of answers but not a price. Providers are use to billing insurance companies an excessive amount to max out the amount they will pay for a procedure. When someone else is paying the bill you are not too concerned about the price. What if providers were forced to publicize what they charge for the different procedures? Imagine, "I think we need an MRI and it will cost $1,200." What if everyone paid their own bills?

In 2003 President George W. Bush signed a health care bill and part of this bill was the establishment of Health Savings Accounts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account The HSA works with a high deductible health care policy and gives the individual the ability to put that amount into an account tax free. Since the plan has a high deductible the premiums are cheaper. Any money left in the account after paying health care expenses is treated similar to an IRA. The worst case scenario is the bills are paid with pre-tax money. The best case is there are no health care bills and the individual gets to keep the money. Since they get to keep any savings, HASs make the individuals aware of what they spend and what is being billed to the insurance company. I have an HAS and here are some examples of the benefits:

1. I wanted to buy custom arch supports so I called a guy my Sports Medicine doctored recommended. I called the guy and asked him how much they were since I was paying and he said $250 so I set up an appointment. He molded my feet, ordered the orthotics, called me back when they were ready and I was on my way. I received a bill for $800. They had billed me for 3 therapy sessions (1 to tell me I needed them, 1 to mold my feet, and 1 when I tried them on when I picked them up) on top of the inserts. The guy worked for a hospital and that was the way they did it and that is the way most health care providers work. Since I was paying out of pocket I fought the bill.
   
2. In 2005 I had an episode where I thought I was having a heart attack. I went to the hospital and had several tests which all proved I didn't have a heart attack and I was feeling better. At this point the doctor had decided it looked more like an anxiety attack but still wanted to run some tests. After I told her I was paying out of pocket she was comfortable not running more test.
   
3. My daughter hurt her foot playing soccer and after the doctor reviewed the x-rays he wanted to have an MRI. I asked him what he could find that would change the treatment and he said nothing he just wanted a better look. We did not have the MRI.

Health Savings Accounts may not be the answer to everyone's needs. I do not have all the answers to our health care problems but there are characteristics that need to be part of the solution and most importantly is competition, both insurer and provider. Somehow we need to get competition in prescription drugs. The most important characteristic we DO NOT need is government control!!! Obama's plan is the first step towards national health care, a single payor system. His plan will not go far enough and will need to take it a step farther and government take over.

I believe neither candidate's plans make the changes needed to address our health insurance problems but I take great exception with a characteristic of Obama's plan, eliminating pre-existing conditions. This is a fundamental part of health insurance plans. Think about it, if there were no pre-existing conditions clause on a policy people could wait until they were seriously ill before buying coverage. I could pay for all my Doctor visits and prescriptions until I found out I was seriously ill and then buy a policy. This is just an empty promise that sounds so good but is totally impractical.