"Many of you thinking of voting for Obama have asked why I support Romney. It may not make me popular, but I believe it is important we all stand up for what we believe in ... And I enjoy and respect what you all believe too. But in case you want to know, here it is ...
I vote for the person who most matches my beliefs. Government should limit its effort to primary services such as keeping us safe (law enforcement, military, justice system), providing infrastructure and education for people age 5 to 18. I am sure there are many more things, but these are the top ones that come to mind. The point is that the government is currently trying to do way too many things that weren't in the original framework of the government. Hence, our current $16 trillion debt.
I want citizens to be free to use our time, talents and money to support the individual goals of our own lives. If people need help, we should help them privately and not depend on an inefficient government to help the unfortunate. We have a duty to help people who need help, but I choose to do this through my church and other non profit organizations.
I don't want the government involved in my healthcare choices or payment of healthcare services. As a person with multiple health disorders, that sounds like a nightmare to me. I want to keep my money and purchase my own health insurance. I want to pick my own doctors.
I am pro life and believe all life begins at conception. And that the baby should be protected regardless of its reason for being created. The baby's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness should be protected by the law. Through out my years of infertility, I witnessed abortions being the every day solution when doctors put too many embryos in a woman which caused 3 or more babies to be created. The doctors would "reduce" the pregnancy to one or 2 babies seemingly without hesitation. What is going on in our world when you can choose to kill a baby you just purposely created???
I want America to be energy independent so we can all save money at the pumps. This alone will literally put money in the pockets of almost every American. Money they can use however they need to for their family.
Will Mitt Romney do exactly what he says or exactly what I want? Of course not. But he will certainly be more likely to make the fiscally and morally responsible choices I believe in than Obama. Just look at how Obama handled the travesty of Libya. How can anyone trust him after he lied about something so significant? And even if he didn't lie, at best he and his staff were terribly incompetent.
I understand and respect if you don't believe these things. It really is okay. That is what is great about America. We can all have a say. We can all have a vote. Thank God, and God bless America! Now get your vote in ... for Romney!:)"
Friday, October 26, 2012
Vote Romney: A Woman's View
Here is an excellent letter that my brilliant and caring sister Elizabeth posted on her Facebook page.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
39 comments:
I want America to be energy independent so we can all save money at the pumps.
Just in passing, I would note that energy independence doesn't mean a savings at the pump. Countries that are are energy independent pay the same prices for energy we do.
--Hiram
"We have a duty to help people who need help, but I choose to do this through my church and other non profit organizations."
To how many people do we owe this duty? How many can the churches help?
If the number of the first is greater than the number of the second, haven't we failed in our duty this letter claims that we have? Are religious institutions today volunteering to step forward to assume America's health care costs. If not, why not?
--Hiram
"I don't want the government involved in my healthcare choices or payment of healthcare services. As a person with multiple health disorders, that sounds like a nightmare to me. I want to keep my money and purchase my own health insurance. I want to pick my own doctors."
But what happens if health insurance is lost? Are there still choices? Given the pre-existing conditions? Mitt Romney says that this is a game we play, and suggests that those who have pre-existing conditions are losers of that game.
Do we agree?
--Hiram
Though it may or may not decrease the price at the pump significantly, since the world trades oil as a commodity. Being energy independent would ensure that our source of supply could not be cut off. And it should reduce the cost somewhat since we are not shipping bulk oil half way around the world. And finally, we would be buying oil from our companies, employing our employees and paying our land owners instead of possibly supporting enemies, terrorists, etc.
On a related note... Anybody know how much money the USA makes from drilling on and pumping from Public lands? It seems this should be a big revenue source for the USA given the amount of Public land there is...
The bigger question is why aren't people working harder, learning more and paying their own Medical costs. How did they become so reliant on others to provide something that they should be earning?
As for pre-existing issues, it is a problem as we have discussed before. G2A PEC Fraud How to ensure insurability when there are people that will take advantage of it...
And I would swear that Romney said he would he address many PEC's of those that have kept their insurance up to date.
Bloomberg PEC
"Though it may or may not decrease the price at the pump significantly, since the world trades oil as a commodity. Being energy independent would ensure that our source of supply could not be cut off."
The letter writer's issue was that energy independence would make energy cheaper. It would not. It could in fact may energy more expensive. Energy cut offs, boycotts, perhaps, are a different concern. In this global economy, that isn't much of a concern. Too many countries produce oil; if we can't get it one place, we can get it another. More of a concern is if a major energy producer goes off line, reducing worldwide supply generally. But that would increase the price of domestically produced energy whether we increase it or not. Let's go back to the concern of the letter writer. What she wants is cheaper energy, or perhaps that related thing lower her energy costs. For that, you have to increase the supply of energy, and that means looking to alternative energy sources, or reducing consumption through conservation. Neither of those approaches has been favored by Republicans.
Oil companies are global concerns. The fact is, by relying on oil, we are subsidizing terrorism. Where else does Iran get the money for it's nuclear energy program? Lots of alternative energy sources are local. It's not the Iranian winds we would be harnessing.
--Hiram
?
"The bigger question is why aren't people working harder, learning more and paying their own Medical costs."
People pay their own medical costs through their insurance. I don't wish to be personal here, so let me comment more generally. The way insurance works, the broader the risk is spread, the cheaper it is for everyone. Some folks have higher than average expenses. They are the ones that benefit from broad based insurance, which includes things like insuring preexisting conditions. For people in that category to insist that they want to narrow the base that insures them, join a pool of higher risk insured makes to me the opposite of sense. Their insurance costs will go up, and the choices they will have in real terms will narrow. And if they lose their insurance, they may not be able to replace it all, and the costs of their care will have to be covered by someone else, their local church perhaps.
I am often amazed at how Mitt Romney doesn't understand these pretty basic concepts. I guess Bain Capital never took over an insurance company.
--Hiram
"lower her energy costs. For that, you have to increase the supply of energy"
Excellent point. That could include producing more from our own lands, and not reducing our use abundant inexpensive sources we are already are using. So let's open the federal lands and get pumping, it could reduce world wide energy costs and pay off some of our national debt.
Also, let's keep using clean burning coal and the other source the left are trying to shut down. While increasing our use of wind, etc.
So according to your logic, we will reduce our insurance costs if we broaden the base with a bunch of individuals who don't pay premiums or wait until they have a conditions to start paying premiums. You have a funny way of doing math.
As for Liz's desire to keep Gov't out of her healthcare issues, she is apparently willing to scarifice some money and take some risk inorder to take responsibility for her life and situation. Government's job from her and my perspective is to support our society's function, not to ensure that everyone is coddled and taken care of equally whether they make a concerted effort or not.
"That could include producing more from our own lands, and not reducing our use abundant inexpensive sources we are already are using."
We aren't capable of producing any where near enough oil to have much of an impact at all on global markets. The world is a big place.
In terms of energy independence, it's important also to keep in mind that new oil from the US would be expensive to produce. Those platforms in the Gulf don't come cheap. And let's bear in mind that expensive energy also comes with expensive environmental costs, another issue Republicans, with their remarkable capacity for self delusion, like to believe doesn't exist.
"she is apparently willing to scarifice some money and take some risk in order to take responsibility for her life and situation."
Not specific to your sister, but this is the problem. We, not the expensive to insure, are taking the risk and bearing the cost. It really comes down to a matter of trust. I don't trust people who say that they are assuming the risk of gambling on their own health care or the health care of their family. I think that when they lose the bet, when one of their children develops a medical condition they can't afford to treat, and I guess their church is unable to pick up the cost for, I don't trust that they won't find a way for someone else, doctors, hospitals, shareholders of health care providers, and ultimately the taxpayers to provide that treatment and pay for it's cost. And I don't trust ourselves to do the immoral thing, and to walk away leaving that person or that's person's child to live and perhaps to die with the negative consequences of losing a health insurance bet. I am just cynical that way, I guess.
I have to say, somebody has got something basically wrong here. Making insurance more expensive and more difficult to obtain isn't in the interest of expensive or high risk individuals. By advocating for those policies, they are doing two bad things for the rest of us; making our insurance more expensive or with lower coverage, and they are exposing us to greater risk in that the burden of that's person's health care will fall on the rest of us. The burden and the cost of that person's choices falls on the rest of us, who don't have a very good way to choose to refuse it.
--Hiram
we will reduce our insurance costs if we broaden the base with a bunch of individuals who don't pay premiums or wait until they have a conditions to start paying premiums.
That's the point of the individual mandate as developed by conservative think tanks. They wanted individuals to be responsible for health care costs by being required to pay for insurance. Very big on individual responsibility, those folks. The liberal alternative would have been single payor, health care paid for by taxes. That's socialism so we can't have that.
--Hiram
Looks like if we double production, we could impact the world oil supply pretty substantially. Oil producing Countries Just think of all that available Federal revenue that could be spent on the needy while reducing the cost of oil for all of us...
Single payer is just another term for inefficiency, government control and make the successful pay for the low effort folks.
You are correct, we already pay for the folks that really need help with their medical issues. No need to make it another entitlement that is made complicated, expensive, impersonal, ineffective, etc by bureaucrats, politicians and the public unions.
Single payer is just another term for inefficiency,
Single payor systems like Medicare and the veterans' system are widely acknowledged to be more efficient than health care generally. For one thing, they don't retain the private insurance layer, which serves no useful purpose in providing health care.
We accepted the inefficiency of the system when we accepted the individual mandate. Certainly both the individual mandate and the Republican proposals are much more complicated than single payor.
--Hiram
We'll see how well Medicare's most recent attempt at forced price controls works. If the the clinics stop taking those patients or quality suffers, we'll know it was a bad idea. Here is someone that seems pretty middle of the road and informed regarding the topic. Crains Detroit Medicare Cuts
Single payer is just another term for inefficiency,
Single payor systems like Medicare and the veterans' system are widely acknowledged to be more efficient than health care generally. For one thing, they don't retain the private insurance layer, which serves no useful purpose in providing health care.
We accepted the inefficiency of the system when we accepted the individual mandate. Certainly both the individual mandate and the Republican proposals are much more complicated than single payor.
--Hiram
Any links to prove your opinion?
Here is a link:
http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2011/09/20/medicare-is-more-efficient-than-private-insurance/
And they are legion. Medicare does a much better job in controlling costs than private insurers, which is why a lot of health care providers complain about Medicare. It's administrative costs are much lower because it doesn't have to pay health insurers who add little of value to the health care system.
All those choices the letter writer wants? All of them create inefficiencies in the medical care system. So does the desire to be part of a smaller, riskier pool. That's why the letter writer's insurance costs are higher. The letter writer is willing to sustain the cost of those inefficiencies now, but what if something changes?
--Hiram
Here is a link on veterans' care:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0501.longman.html
--Hiram
Thanks, I'll look through them.
By the way, refusing to pay more is not managing costs as my link noted. It is just paying less, which comes with a risk of adverse consequences.
Health Affairs Medicare
Washington Monthly Veterans Care
Health Affairs Medicare 1
"By the way, refusing to pay more is not managing costs as my link noted."
Sure, it is, at least one way of managing costs. I reduce my costs by refusing to pay more all the time.
"It is just paying less, which comes with a risk of adverse consequences."
That's true too. But, at the moment, we are exploring the adverse consequences of not managing health care costs. We pay too much for health care, more than any other industrialized country. If you want to do something about that, you either have to find ways to cut costs or at least slow the growth of costs. The letter writer seems to suggest that America's churches are willing to step up and assume this duty on behalf of all Americans. Apparently, collections at Sunday services have been coming in a little higher than expected recently. I look forward to hearing the specifics of their proposal.
--Hiram
When you refuse to pay more, do you still expect to get the product/service for less or do you just pass on getting it for now.
We do pay more for many reasons, as we have discussed before. Going to single payer addresses very few of them. Unless of course we do create the "monster" rationing, death panel, no law suit, etc entity that many fear.
G2A Healthcare Drivers
Remember my "Italy" story... A friend's land lady got a cancer that was unlikely to be cured. The state sent a check for ~$50K and told her to enjoy her last 6 mths of life...
In the USA we would drop $500,000 in hopes of a miracle... Insurance companies like United Healthcare may be villified for only paying out per the paid for policy that was agreed to, but Obama's talk of unlimited service is just silly.
"You're the reason there's a little girl with a heart
disorder in Phoenix who'll get the surgery she needs because an
insurance company can't limit her coverage." DNC Transcript
When you refuse to pay more, do you still expect to get the product/service for less or do you just pass on getting it for now.
Sometimes. It's a question of market power, and also economies of scale. That's why you get better prices from discounters and at Costco, that sort of thing.
I have to admit, I find this response surprising. I routinely shop around, and fully expect to get better prices when I buy in bulk. Presumably, if we bought medical services, or medical products in bulk, we would get better prices. I guess this seems a fairly obvious point to me.
As for the anecdote, I don't think policy should be driven by anecdote. The reality is, if you are concerned about the deficit, you have to cut costs. If you aren't concerned with the deficit, you don't. It's a very simple choice.
==Hiram
So you think citizens that currently appreciate their unique, personalized and tailored Macy's level of healthcare service and care should give it up for a Costco level of service because you want the government involved in wealth transfer?
I am a Costco member by the way and I love the store, but I sure don't want Medicare's and Obamacare's price control attempts to drive our country's healthcare model there.
Problem with Price Controls
So you think citizens that currently appreciate their unique, personalized and tailored Macy's level of healthcare service and care should give it up for a Costco level of service because you want the government involved in wealth transfer?
Absolutely, and that's the Republican position as well. Let's bring the markets into this.
==Hiram
I have to say I do find this frustrating. You can't cut spending without cutting spending. Either the deficit is a problem or it isn't. If you think that it is, then you are going to have to make some tough choices about the things we spend money on, and health care is one of them.
==Hiram
Republicans love to talk about tough choices in general terms, but they don't like talking about them in detail. And in practice, they mostly like to put them off. That's why I get a kick out their plans for Social Security and Medicare which they always time to come into effect years and decades into the future, putting off the day when they will be held accountable for them.
Paul Ryan is never more Republican than when he says he will balance the budget in the year 2040.
--Hiram
Back to the Responsibility Hierarchy, the Federal Gov't programs and the Wealthy should not be responsible for your quality of life.
TAKE SOME PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY !!!
Time for the Pelosi video again...
This is a classic
After watching that, don't you just want to get out your wallet and give these folks some more cash???
The arguments here are all flawed to some capacity. For energy independence, we can look to our neighbor to the north, Canada, and see that they have all the oil reserves they need, but they still pay about the same (adjusted for currency and taxes) as we do for gas. Small thinking fails to realize that oil is a global commodity and the simple laws of supply and demand drive its price fluctuations. Being dependent on less oil through the use of alternative fuels and higher mileage vehicles will lower our costs at the end of the day, but it's an investment up front.
A large part of why the Federal Government has so many programs to help people is because, frankly the people are the Government. We forget that when we villify big Government too quickly. A large reason why we have so many programs to help people is because at times of great need, our other institutions (churches, charities, etc.) could not keep up. And they still can't. Bread for the World, for example, estimates that $50,000 would be required from every church in America to keep up with the cuts proposed in the Ryan budget. This is unlikely.
The reality is, the Government IS ALREADY involved in health care, and we already have a subsidized system. For example, if someone uninsured goes to the ER for their ear infection, and cannot pay, those bills are passed onto us in higher bills for us, or through bankruptcy protection, etc. Having a basic plan that covers everyone and requires everyone to pay, would actually reduce the need for people getting a free ride on health care. Don't believe the scare tactics paid for by the insurance companies. National health care plans work quite well for Canadians and Europeans. As for wanting to be able to pick your own doctor, think about this. If your husband were to lose his job, and you had no health care coverage for your multiple medical conditions, what would happen? COBRA allows you to continue the coverage at 101% of the premiums for up to 18 months, or about $1200-$1500 per month for family coverage. Then you're out. Because of your pre-existing conditions, there are few (if any) private plans that will insure you. So even if you have the money to purchase your own coverage, they won't cover you because you are too high of a risk.
Energy: I think we all agree that it is a global system and commodity based. However one does not constrict the low cost alternatives (oil & coal) while investing in the future alternatives without expecting to drive costs up. Besides if there is black gold in them there Public lands, let's get it out and sell it before the price drops. (put proceeds against national debt)
Big Gov't: Everyone is voting for there self interests... Yup
Insurance: Work with folks that were placed over seas in single payer countries. It wasn't pretty. If anything serious was happening, they were told to buy a ticket and get home ASAP.
I agree that Pre-Existing Condition coverage should be mandatory if the person has stayed in the pool. I think that is aligned with Romney's plan. G2A PEC Fraud
John, Romney's plan only guarantees pre-existing coverage if there had been continuous coverage, which is the current law for group coverage plans anyhow.
And you're wrong that liberals are interested in big government for self-serving interests. Just wrong.
Excellent, its a good law.
Both sides vote for self serving reasons. Why do you think so many Catholic Hispanics like Obama? Why do so many wealthy like Romney? Etc etc etc
John, it's not, because it doesn't cover individual plans, only group plans.
I don't get the Catholic Hispanics...
I mean I don't get what you mean by that...
Many Hispanic Catholics should be against Obama due to their church's Pro Life Anti-abortion stance. Yet late actions by Obama and the promise of more has them flocking to his banner.
HP Dream Act
Now let's remember that this is the equivalent of a Presidential pardon. These folks budged in line in front of millions of law abiding potential immigrants that followed due process. Worse yet their presence helps to keep low skill job wages low. And here he is promising more to come while millions wait legally in line all over the world.
Seems they are voting their self interests even over their religion... Or maybe it is for nephew Juan... You get the idea.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/30/opinion/a-big-storm-requires-big-government.html
Post a Comment