Oct 23, 2013

Something that Annoys Me

I have noticed recently that if you're against the government intervening in every possible fashion, then you're completely against anyone getting help, according to a liberal. Not every liberal. There are those that have that compassion like the rest of us to help others but are understanding that holding people accountable is the best way. Unless of course they're disabled in any way or cannot provide for themselves. The difference between these two ideologies has battled since Plato and Aristotle. No wonder why there's such controversy.
Why do conservatives donate more of their money, blood and volunteer, when liberals want government to solve such social issues?  (Source 1.) Even this guy makes a good argument for both sides (Source 2)

Even then, there is heavy criticism that the study was wrong to begin with. For example, asking someone if they're Very Conservative, Conservative, Moderately Conservative, Middle of the Road, Moderately Liberal, Liberal or Very Liberal could have a very different meaning.

Read that again. A very different meaning. Hence why the study wasn't so good in the first place. As it turns out, liberals donate to secular non-profits and conservatives donate to religious-based organizations. Even then, there are far less liberals than conservatives. Conservatives a greater in number, giving them the win of donations (because of greater numbers).

I am considered middle of the road when it comes to my politics but for those that don't even care to know the rest of what I believe in, they assume I'm "very conservative" which is not true.
Nor am I "very liberal."

Update November 2nd:
This still surprises me every time I see that ridiculous bumper sticker "Republican Healthcare Plan: Don't Get Sick" couldn't be further from the truth. If anything, the GOP and a better half of the country agree that people should be held accountable for their actions but also agree (with the other half) that there needs to be a social safety net. Not a permanent safety (unless disabled, etc;) but a temporary fix. Instead, what systems were in place are no longer actually helping people in the manner that was intended.

1. http://www.newsmax.com/ThomasSowell/Conservatives-Donate-Liberals-compassion/2012/09/10/id/451295

2. http://www.gordon.edu/ace/pdf/Spr07BRGrinols.pdf

Oct 21, 2013

The Affordable Care Act and It's Website

The infinite wisdom of the Blue Party, for the last 4 years, really came shining through. Not that I want peopel to get sick or anything. I just simply disagree with some of their views. Despite my views on the Affordable Care Act, I am actually sad that the website is giving people too many problems. The goal was that our government would provide equality for those uninsured but instead, our Federal government simply makes it a law that you must buy health insurance. A law? What is so "equal" about forcing people to buy a crappy deal called health insurance?
I'm sorry, but isn't this a problem to begin with? Our government is appealing to the ideals of crony-capitalist's (the lobbyists) under the premise that it will create "equality." 
This same pressure from lobbyists were one of the many causes of the last recession....(the housing boom and bust). Yes, banks were given quotas to give the underserved home loans when they couldn't afford them, under the guise that these mortgages would be secured from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
Same story!!!!
Sure, there are great ideas in the ACA that a lot of people thought of several years before but some of it's parts are potentially disastrous.

But forcing people to buy health insurance?  (I will only dive into few flaws, despite there are more) (Also, there are plenty of GOOD things within the ACA, which a lot of the GOP had something to do with. Yes.)

What's worse is the proponents suggest that the younger crowd should opt in this program, so they can help pay for the elders with the worsening diseases. The idea is that the younger crowd pays into the "risk pool" and it helps pay for the rest. First flaw is that rising healthcare costs are unavoidable until you fix the root of the problem, instead of subsidizing it. Second flaw....

Contradiction: the ACA also imposes a law that 26 year olds and under remain on their parents plan. How can we get the younger folds (er uh, force them to buy insurance) when they're already able to be on their parents plan? So, how are we to pay for those attached to the newly formed Medicaid programs when tax revenue is getting lower and lower? How are we going to afford to pay for our elders under this new exchange when so many of our younger crowd refuse to pay into such a program (because of how expensive it is).

Now their government website is down for the health care exchange? All of these millions spent on advertising the ACA and the website is down? I thought this was supposed to help, not hinder.

America is need of healthcare and particularly, preventive medicine. How can we get there if our government is forcing people to buy something they can't afford?

Also, if you believe socializing is better, get this: the healthcare costs will remain the same and continue to grow.

And if you still disregard that last statement, then please do not vote for "fixing" the prices of healthcare costs. Keep in mind that it causes shortages which absolutely result in a lack of equity because only the rich could afford the actual services.

And if you still disregard the last two statements, don't forget how inefficient the government is with your tax dollars....

And if you disregard anything that I say then...ah never mind. 

Oct 6, 2013

Government Shutdown From Lack of Objectivity Not Compromise

        Many people in our country are blaming one political party or the other.  Many are blaming Republicans because their wanting to defund the ACA. This is true. However, what people forget is what happened oh….about since 2006. Many of those on the Republican side were advocating for healthcare reform, many of these reforms backed by economists who heavily research such policy. Well, the other party said “no” every time. Then passed their own with a new president in charge.

        However, this bill (it’s now a law) is still being researched and its effects are only known from a historical standpoint from economists (If you want to know their opinions, research that). Mainly because there’s so much in it and that is hard to really know what will happen with so many different, even contradicting aspects, in that bill. However, there are numerous parts that probably should have happened years ago. Guess what? These ideas have been on the table for a while from both parties….but that’s a different subject.

So, if anything, this is simply the straw that broke the Elephant and Donkey’s back.

Both had a common goal

Both had a different means.

Both were wrong completely wrong because they lacked something very important with such issues: objectivity.

What ever happened to the 17 government shutdowns because the Democrats didn’t want to compromise? (years ago) No. It’s more like this: where was EVERYONE and why aren’t thinking clearly?

Politics should have never been about “winning.” Clearly, every political party believes that their side should “be that party that passed healthcare reform” when the other party tried a half-dozen times before hand and “won” against the other. It should have never come to this.

I mean, how many people still believe that everyone will magically get healthcare, when it mainly makes it a law that you have to buy health insurance?

The Affordably Care Act has another name to it. It’s called Romney-Care.