We have moved our blog onto our own domain name. If you have been directed to this site by mistake and are loooking for the Mohave County Republican Central Committee Blog please click here to be redirected to our new page!
Thank you,
Sarah Markham,
Webmaster for MCRCC
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Brief Explanation of Arizona’s Sixth Special Session
The Senate adjourned the Sixth Special Session sine die today, after the House voted on the last of the special session bills. A brief explanation of each bill and its status is below:
SB 1001: statewide special election (Burns). Calls a statewide special election on May 18th, and includes reimbursement for counties for election costs.
-Approved by the House and Senate and signed by the Governor.
SB 1002: budget reconciliation; appropriations; education (Burns). Authorizes a roll-over of payments to K-12 schools and universities.
-Approved by the Senate last week. Amended in the House to make the rollover conditional upon the enactment of the House jobs package. The Senate opted not to concur and instead adjourned without acting on the amended bill, killing the measure.
SB 1003: revenue bonds; lease-purchase; finance (Burns). Authorizes the sale of up to $300 million in bonds against lottery revenue and authorizes the lease-purchase of additional state buildings.
-Approved by the House and Senate and transmitted to the Governor, awaiting signature
SB 1004: state lottery; authorization (Burns). Re-establishes the State Lottery Fund and the State Lottery Commission and provides for the repayment of bonds.
-Approved by the House and Senate and signed by the Governor.
SB 1005: standard deduction; non-residents; pro-rate (Burns). Prorates the standard income tax deduction for non-resident filers based on the ratio of Arizona gross income to federal adjusted gross income.
-Approved by the House and Senate and signed by the Governor.
SCR1001: temporary sales tax; repeal (Burns). Refers to the ballot a temporary one-cent sales tax increase for three years. The election is set for May 18, 2010.
-Approved by the House and Senate and transmitted to the Secretary of State to be placed on the ballot.
SB 1001: statewide special election (Burns). Calls a statewide special election on May 18th, and includes reimbursement for counties for election costs.
-Approved by the House and Senate and signed by the Governor.
SB 1002: budget reconciliation; appropriations; education (Burns). Authorizes a roll-over of payments to K-12 schools and universities.
-Approved by the Senate last week. Amended in the House to make the rollover conditional upon the enactment of the House jobs package. The Senate opted not to concur and instead adjourned without acting on the amended bill, killing the measure.
SB 1003: revenue bonds; lease-purchase; finance (Burns). Authorizes the sale of up to $300 million in bonds against lottery revenue and authorizes the lease-purchase of additional state buildings.
-Approved by the House and Senate and transmitted to the Governor, awaiting signature
SB 1004: state lottery; authorization (Burns). Re-establishes the State Lottery Fund and the State Lottery Commission and provides for the repayment of bonds.
-Approved by the House and Senate and signed by the Governor.
SB 1005: standard deduction; non-residents; pro-rate (Burns). Prorates the standard income tax deduction for non-resident filers based on the ratio of Arizona gross income to federal adjusted gross income.
-Approved by the House and Senate and signed by the Governor.
SCR1001: temporary sales tax; repeal (Burns). Refers to the ballot a temporary one-cent sales tax increase for three years. The election is set for May 18, 2010.
-Approved by the House and Senate and transmitted to the Secretary of State to be placed on the ballot.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Candidates on Slate for 2010
After the State G.O.P. meeting I found myself overwhelmed with all the information I'd obtained throughout the day. I talked with a multitude of candidates, and each of them gave me some of their campaign brochures. And because I'd had some very wonderful espresso that day, I was ON TASK and I asked all the right questions. This is a huge year in elections and we've got a lot of qualified and hard working Republican candidates we need to support. If we begin the in-fighting and embarassing behavior, a Democrat is going to swoop in and take the seat. Our state has had it happen many times over. Why do you think we ended up with Harry Mitchell (Maricopa County's Democrat Congressman)?
I have no respect for a Republican candidate that resorts to underhanded, tacky maneuvers to discredit other Republican candidates. We are supposed to be the respectable bunch in all these politics, not the spoiled brats who can't control our behavior.
And now that Dean Martin is leaving the State Treasurer's office to campaign for Governor, we have candidates stumping for his position.. Do we want a Democrat in the Treasurer's office? Do we want a Democrat Attorney General? Uh, heck no. Do we want Democrats to take the open seats at the Corporation Commission? Right now there are two on that board, and if we sit back we could end up with more. If you don't know how important the Corporation Commission is, then you need to get on Wikipedia and start reading. Commissioners decide whether or not our utility rates are going up. They make decisions that RULE OUR LIVES!
I can't type the words Party Unity because those that don't understand it will just blow it off. People are under the assumption that Party Unity means we can't disagree with each other. Not so. We are all thinkers, we all have our favorite candidates, so be it. But when Republicans start beating up on Republicans, we look like asses. We become divided, and our message gets lost in all the tabloid behavior. So I guess I'll start chanting something else. Maybe something from the Rodney King library of famous quotes.
Shawna Thornton
I have no respect for a Republican candidate that resorts to underhanded, tacky maneuvers to discredit other Republican candidates. We are supposed to be the respectable bunch in all these politics, not the spoiled brats who can't control our behavior.
And now that Dean Martin is leaving the State Treasurer's office to campaign for Governor, we have candidates stumping for his position.. Do we want a Democrat in the Treasurer's office? Do we want a Democrat Attorney General? Uh, heck no. Do we want Democrats to take the open seats at the Corporation Commission? Right now there are two on that board, and if we sit back we could end up with more. If you don't know how important the Corporation Commission is, then you need to get on Wikipedia and start reading. Commissioners decide whether or not our utility rates are going up. They make decisions that RULE OUR LIVES!
I can't type the words Party Unity because those that don't understand it will just blow it off. People are under the assumption that Party Unity means we can't disagree with each other. Not so. We are all thinkers, we all have our favorite candidates, so be it. But when Republicans start beating up on Republicans, we look like asses. We become divided, and our message gets lost in all the tabloid behavior. So I guess I'll start chanting something else. Maybe something from the Rodney King library of famous quotes.
Shawna Thornton
The State GOP Meeting - My Review
Republicans from around the state gathered in Scottsdale to attend to some Party business and meet Arizona candidates from all districts.
Mohave County was represented with 25 votes, nearly half of which were proxy holders. This was my first chance to attend this particular event in person since I am usually working in Nevada on this day every January, so I was very happy to be able to participate.
The meeting started off strong with Governor Brewer, Senators McCain and Kyl, and Congressman Trent Franks as well as others urging attendees to stay involved and continue to push the Republican agenda. G.O.P. Chairman Randy Pullen ran the meeting and kept things moving quite nicely, and for the most part the program was interesting and inspiring. After all, how do you get people across the state to volunteer their time and donate their money? You inspire them.
Chairman Pullen even set aside quite a bit of time at the podium for statewide candidates (including myself) to step up and announce their candidacy. Very nice!
The new officers were voted on and sworn in, and our very own Buster Johnson was elected 2nd Vice President of the State G.O.P.'s Executive Board..
Now, as with every one of these state level meetings, Resolutions are presented to the voting body and they are debated. I've never seen a meaningful Resolution. The last state level meeting I went to actually had a Resolution congratulating the host hotel for the great food and wonderful service, and that couldn't have been further from the truth!
On Saturday, a total of 13 were on the slate, only two were amended, and the Resolutions all passed. I was surprised at the fact that one of the Resolutions went without discussion; the decision to exclude Independent voters from the Republican primaries.
Whoa, a meaningful Resolution!! Now that this Resolution has been passed, it will go to litigation and possibly by this year's primary on August 24th we will have no Independent voters deciding who the Republican candidates are. I've discussed this possibility with several Independents, some of them didn't care, some of them were extremely upset.
If I were an Independent (and I was, many years ago....in college) I would be rallying the masses to protest this! But here is how organized they are: I visited their website and it hasn't been updated in two years.
www.independentvoting.org
I guess they don't care THAT much.
The fact of the matter is; REPUBLICANS support the candidates. REPUBLICANS contribute to their campaigns. REPUBLICANS knock on doors to get people to vote. REPUBLICANS pay attention and are educated voters. REPUBLICANS sign and circulate petitions to get candidates to the primaries. So why would we want the opinion of the Independents in our primaries, deciding who we're going to spend our time and money on?
Exactly.
Shawna Thorton
Mohave County was represented with 25 votes, nearly half of which were proxy holders. This was my first chance to attend this particular event in person since I am usually working in Nevada on this day every January, so I was very happy to be able to participate.
The meeting started off strong with Governor Brewer, Senators McCain and Kyl, and Congressman Trent Franks as well as others urging attendees to stay involved and continue to push the Republican agenda. G.O.P. Chairman Randy Pullen ran the meeting and kept things moving quite nicely, and for the most part the program was interesting and inspiring. After all, how do you get people across the state to volunteer their time and donate their money? You inspire them.
Chairman Pullen even set aside quite a bit of time at the podium for statewide candidates (including myself) to step up and announce their candidacy. Very nice!
The new officers were voted on and sworn in, and our very own Buster Johnson was elected 2nd Vice President of the State G.O.P.'s Executive Board..
Now, as with every one of these state level meetings, Resolutions are presented to the voting body and they are debated. I've never seen a meaningful Resolution. The last state level meeting I went to actually had a Resolution congratulating the host hotel for the great food and wonderful service, and that couldn't have been further from the truth!
On Saturday, a total of 13 were on the slate, only two were amended, and the Resolutions all passed. I was surprised at the fact that one of the Resolutions went without discussion; the decision to exclude Independent voters from the Republican primaries.
Whoa, a meaningful Resolution!! Now that this Resolution has been passed, it will go to litigation and possibly by this year's primary on August 24th we will have no Independent voters deciding who the Republican candidates are. I've discussed this possibility with several Independents, some of them didn't care, some of them were extremely upset.
If I were an Independent (and I was, many years ago....in college) I would be rallying the masses to protest this! But here is how organized they are: I visited their website and it hasn't been updated in two years.
www.independentvoting.org
I guess they don't care THAT much.
The fact of the matter is; REPUBLICANS support the candidates. REPUBLICANS contribute to their campaigns. REPUBLICANS knock on doors to get people to vote. REPUBLICANS pay attention and are educated voters. REPUBLICANS sign and circulate petitions to get candidates to the primaries. So why would we want the opinion of the Independents in our primaries, deciding who we're going to spend our time and money on?
Exactly.
Shawna Thorton
The Truth About Clean Elections
The clean elections process was a voter initiative passed by voters in the late 90's. It was suppose to be meant as a way for the "little people" quote on quote to get into the big league and run for office. You had all these millionaires running for office and winning time after time again because let's face it their wallet was way bigger than your average Joe. So the clean elections process came along to help the little people out. Candidates (depending on if they are running for state or federal) have to get so many signatures and five dollar contributes to qualify but once they do the state matches their funds so your average Joe can REALLY compete against the millionaire candidate running off of private money. Neat idea huh? Well a couple problems - first off there was no income barrier on the program so now you HAVE those millionaires running off of clean election when they frankly don't need to. Or you have those average Joe's running against John McCain for example who has tons of money and the state having to match those funds. Basically - OUR tax dollars are going to fund THEIR campaign! I don't know about you - but I tend to have an issue knowing MY tax dollars are funding certain people's campaigns. If I want to donate to a political campaign I will, but I don't want my tax dollars going to just any particular campaign. Another issue with it is that the money isn't ALWAYS used for legit reasoning. I won't go into detail on that myself. I think the following article does an excellent job of explaining it! Click here to read the article - it's worth the read!
The court right now has stopped the public fund matching of the clean elections campaign but of course it's going to be appealed most likely. Some Republicans are trying to push even further a voter initiative onto the ballot for this November in order to repel the initiative that created Clean Elections in the first place.
My comment : The program may have started out with good intentions but it has proven that you can't mix politics and campaigning with tax payer money! As much as it was started with the right purposes - realistically it's not a worth while program and IS one that needs to be repealed.
Sarah Markham
The court right now has stopped the public fund matching of the clean elections campaign but of course it's going to be appealed most likely. Some Republicans are trying to push even further a voter initiative onto the ballot for this November in order to repel the initiative that created Clean Elections in the first place.
My comment : The program may have started out with good intentions but it has proven that you can't mix politics and campaigning with tax payer money! As much as it was started with the right purposes - realistically it's not a worth while program and IS one that needs to be repealed.
Sarah Markham
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
The Pros & Cons Of Letting Independents In Our Primary
Because I like to play devil’s advocate, I thought I’d lay out for everyone the pros and cons of letting the Independents vote in the Republican Primary. A lot of states, including Arizona, where open primaries are allowed are finding themselves faced with the question on if letting the Independents vote is a good thing or a bad thing for the two party system. I will be the first to say I do not like our two party systems, but it is what it is and until this country decides that it wants real change it isn’t going to change any time soon. I will also say that I do not think that it’s fair that the Republican Party can put all of the work into supporting Republican candidates for the primary election to only have an independent voter come in, vote in our primary, and vote for the candidate that probably should have been on the Democratic ticket instead of the Republican one (there are a few but I will not mention them in this particular blog). With all that said though – should we deny Independents the right to vote in our primary elections?
Well let’s look at the pros and cons:
The main pro of allowing independents to vote in our primary is voter participation. If one votes in the primary election they are more opt to vote in the general election. If they pulled the Republican ticket in the primary they are more opt to also vote for the Republican candidate in the general as well. So voter participation should be a main factor in allowing independents to vote in the primary election; however, statistics show voter participation is actually a con.
Let’s look at Hawaii for example who went to open primaries in 2006. Prior to changing they had a voter participation of 74% (I’d love to see those numbers again) in 1978 in their primary election. That number fell to 42% in 2006. Many blame the drop on the transition to open primaries. The closed primary system has more of an incentive for people to join one of the major parties. This leads to people being more involved in the voting process. With the open primary, some argue, more voters become independent and are less likely to participate in the nominating or election processes.
Another con of allowing independents to vote in the primary election is based on the assumption that it will cause manipulation and dilution. Let’s take the 2008 Presidential Election for example. In the beginning, no one thought John McCain would be the front runner for the Republican Party going into November, yet he was. Why was that? Some believe it had to do with some states (Arizona was not one of them though) allowing open primaries in the Presidential Preference elections. Most Independent voters who were allowed to pick a party on the day of the Primary chose John McCain. For example in New Hampshire, Mitt Romney won among registered Republicans, but John McCain won overall. Likewise, in South Carolina, Mike Huckabee won among self-identified Republicans, but John McCain won the state. The question has to be asked – if every state went to closed primaries for the Presidential Preference Election would McCain have been our man in the Presidential race for 2008?
Arizona doesn’t allow open primaries in the Presidential Preference Primary but should they allow them at all in any other primary? If you are registered Independent and want to vote in the primary this August – as of right now all you have to do is pick a ticket when you go. Democrat or Republican? And you can vote. Should that change? In California the answer is split – the Democrats allow it and the Republicans do not. Should the Arizona GOP continue to allow the Independents to vote in our primary or should we close our doors?
It’s not an easy question to answer and one that could have consequences either way. Some Independents might view it as the Republican Party turning a blind eye to them. I have a lot of friends who are Independents who I cannot get to switch. They would love to get involved, but they won’t choose a side (I think it’s a younger generation thing that people hate to have to pick a side). Or will the Independents view it as an opportunity to finally switch back to one party over the other? Will it make people pick a side and get more involved or will it come off as us shutting the door in their face?
I don’t have the answer for you. I’m just playing devil’s advocate and laying out the pros and cons. To allow or not allow – that is the question!
Sarah Markham
Well let’s look at the pros and cons:
The main pro of allowing independents to vote in our primary is voter participation. If one votes in the primary election they are more opt to vote in the general election. If they pulled the Republican ticket in the primary they are more opt to also vote for the Republican candidate in the general as well. So voter participation should be a main factor in allowing independents to vote in the primary election; however, statistics show voter participation is actually a con.
Let’s look at Hawaii for example who went to open primaries in 2006. Prior to changing they had a voter participation of 74% (I’d love to see those numbers again) in 1978 in their primary election. That number fell to 42% in 2006. Many blame the drop on the transition to open primaries. The closed primary system has more of an incentive for people to join one of the major parties. This leads to people being more involved in the voting process. With the open primary, some argue, more voters become independent and are less likely to participate in the nominating or election processes.
Another con of allowing independents to vote in the primary election is based on the assumption that it will cause manipulation and dilution. Let’s take the 2008 Presidential Election for example. In the beginning, no one thought John McCain would be the front runner for the Republican Party going into November, yet he was. Why was that? Some believe it had to do with some states (Arizona was not one of them though) allowing open primaries in the Presidential Preference elections. Most Independent voters who were allowed to pick a party on the day of the Primary chose John McCain. For example in New Hampshire, Mitt Romney won among registered Republicans, but John McCain won overall. Likewise, in South Carolina, Mike Huckabee won among self-identified Republicans, but John McCain won the state. The question has to be asked – if every state went to closed primaries for the Presidential Preference Election would McCain have been our man in the Presidential race for 2008?
Arizona doesn’t allow open primaries in the Presidential Preference Primary but should they allow them at all in any other primary? If you are registered Independent and want to vote in the primary this August – as of right now all you have to do is pick a ticket when you go. Democrat or Republican? And you can vote. Should that change? In California the answer is split – the Democrats allow it and the Republicans do not. Should the Arizona GOP continue to allow the Independents to vote in our primary or should we close our doors?
It’s not an easy question to answer and one that could have consequences either way. Some Independents might view it as the Republican Party turning a blind eye to them. I have a lot of friends who are Independents who I cannot get to switch. They would love to get involved, but they won’t choose a side (I think it’s a younger generation thing that people hate to have to pick a side). Or will the Independents view it as an opportunity to finally switch back to one party over the other? Will it make people pick a side and get more involved or will it come off as us shutting the door in their face?
I don’t have the answer for you. I’m just playing devil’s advocate and laying out the pros and cons. To allow or not allow – that is the question!
Sarah Markham
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Lock Me Up & Throw Away The Key – Merry Christmas America
Well the Democrats in the United States Senate gave America their Christmas gift early this morning – health care reform. Yeahhhh! Right? No!! I have a feeling this is one of those gifts we’ll all be asking to return at the beginning of the New Year, and unlike Walmart there is no return policy when it comes to the United States Government.
I currently have health insurance. Well I have it for another seven days. I will no longer be allowed on my parent’s health insurance due to age starting January 1st, 2010. My employer does not offer me health insurance because I am not considered full time. So the only other option for me is to go and get my own health insurance. I do admit health insurance is expensive, and denying someone coverage because of pre-existing condition is ridicules. So yes in that since health care does need to be reformed, but it needs to be done so in a fiscally responsible and intelligent matter. What the Senate just passed is neither of those two things.
I went shopping for my own health insurance about a month ago. It was going to cost me around $130 dollars a month which is something I can afford. I was all for it until I saw what it covered. It covered nothing!! It covered 20% of all medical expenses occurring through hospitalization, doctor visits, labs, etc etc. Why would I want to pay $130 dollars a month for a health insurance plan that covers in my opinion NOTHING! I don’t get sick that much (knock on wood). I am one of those people who believe most sickness is mental and in your head. I don’t believe in medication (except Tylenol of course). So why would I want to be paying $130 dollars a month for coverage that I probably won’t use much and that pay nothings! So I have decided to be one of many Americans and start the New Year without health insurance. Because to get health insurance that currently pays for anything and is worth while costs upwards to around $300 dollars a month (and that’s if your lucky and healthy like me).
This new Health Care Reform that was passed by the Senate requires every American to have health insurance and it says that if you can’t afford they will offer you subsidies to help pay for it. Okay they are going to offer me financial assistance to help pay for my health insurance. Great! But I probably wouldn’t qualify for that anyway, and I do have to ask – if I didn’t want to shell out $130 dollars to pay for crappy health insurance coverage why would I want tax payers to shell out $130 dollars a month to pay for it? I know the government sure as hell isn’t going to offer to pay that $300+ bill a month for quality health insurance for me.
There are many things wrong with this bill – first off it does not save this country money. The articles all say that this bill will cut the deficit by $130 billion dollars which isn’t technically a lie. Medicare will be cut $130 billion dollars over the course of 10 years to help pay for it. So yes, the deficit will be cut. However read between the lines people – this health insurance reform bill will cost America over $1 Trillion throughout the next ten years. So yes you are cutting $130 billion here and there but you’re paying over $1 trillion in the long run for this bill. Do you even know how many zeros are after the world one trillion? It just amazes me that our government thinks it’s okay to spend spend spend. The state governments have to live within their means. Why is it that the federal government can get away with spending money it does not have and borrowing money like money grows on trees? We don’t have the money to pay for this!! And you are going to ruin health care rather than save it in America!
Let’s keep it real folks – the Senate version of the bill took out the public health option. The House version left it in however; but I see it going to President Obama without the public option in there. Adding the public option is going to sky rocket the costs even more. If you think $1 trillion dollars is a lot to spend over ten years, you can’t even imagine what it would cost with the public option in there. So anyway, so the government is going to be the health care police (or at least that’s what I’m calling it). They are going to make sure that every American has health insurance and that health insurance companies are not denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. Okay but how does that lower costs in the long run? You are forcing insurance companies to pay for this pre-existing conditions (and I’m not saying that someone should be denied because of them because they shouldn’t. It’s not Mary Jane’s fault she got breast cancer at the age of 25, but the point is …) and that is going to sky rocket costs! How does the federal government plan to keep the costs down? Premiums will be raised, the price of medical treatment alone will sky rocket. If you thinks costs are bade now and health insurance is at the point of ‘why have any’ you just wait until all of this goes into affect. You’re going to see health insurance companies going out of business because of if. Oh but wait there is hope! There is language in the bill that says that health insurance companies cannot charge an individual a higher premium based on their pre-existing condition. Great! Now they are just going to raise everyone’s overall premium to pay for these pre-existing cases. So in the long run, everyone will suffer because of it.
I have heard a lot of people compare forcing Americans to have health insurance is like forcing Americans to have car insurance. I tend to disagree with that statement. You are right every American is forced to have car insurance; however the difference is simply that you can purchase your car insurance across state lines. You can’t do that with health insurance. If I live in Arizona, I have to get Arizona Blue Cross Blue Shield. I can’t go and find a California based company to get my health insurance through. So they are NOT the same thing. There is competition with car insurance. There is not so with health insurance. The Federal Government needs to be open up the state boarders when it comes to health insurance. Competition is a good thing, and opening up state boarders is the only way the costs will even begin to come down. So forcing Americans to have health insurance is not the same thing as forcing us to have car insurance. And I will say this – no government is going to force me to have health insurance. I ask what happens to those who refuse to get health insurance? Are you going to come lock me up and put me in jail?
And I love the wording on this one that has been quoted in every news article I have read online regarding the Senate’s passage of health care reform: “Employers would be induced to cover their employees through a combination of tax credits and penalties.” Induced means they would be encouraged to offer health insurance through tax credits. But once you get into the word “penalties” it’s more like they will be required to cover their employees for health insurance. In a time of an economic recession, small businesses cannot afford that and this will close a lot of small businesses if you want my opinion.
So at the end of it all, I do have to say Merry Christmas America. I hope each and everyone one of you has a wonderful Holiday. I am spending it with family and friends. So I am sure it will be a wonderful occasion.
And when the Holidays are over, the tinsel is put away, and the decorations are taken down – I ask our government – where is the return line because we don’t want nor like your gift!
Happy Holidays Everybody!
Sarah Markham
I currently have health insurance. Well I have it for another seven days. I will no longer be allowed on my parent’s health insurance due to age starting January 1st, 2010. My employer does not offer me health insurance because I am not considered full time. So the only other option for me is to go and get my own health insurance. I do admit health insurance is expensive, and denying someone coverage because of pre-existing condition is ridicules. So yes in that since health care does need to be reformed, but it needs to be done so in a fiscally responsible and intelligent matter. What the Senate just passed is neither of those two things.
I went shopping for my own health insurance about a month ago. It was going to cost me around $130 dollars a month which is something I can afford. I was all for it until I saw what it covered. It covered nothing!! It covered 20% of all medical expenses occurring through hospitalization, doctor visits, labs, etc etc. Why would I want to pay $130 dollars a month for a health insurance plan that covers in my opinion NOTHING! I don’t get sick that much (knock on wood). I am one of those people who believe most sickness is mental and in your head. I don’t believe in medication (except Tylenol of course). So why would I want to be paying $130 dollars a month for coverage that I probably won’t use much and that pay nothings! So I have decided to be one of many Americans and start the New Year without health insurance. Because to get health insurance that currently pays for anything and is worth while costs upwards to around $300 dollars a month (and that’s if your lucky and healthy like me).
This new Health Care Reform that was passed by the Senate requires every American to have health insurance and it says that if you can’t afford they will offer you subsidies to help pay for it. Okay they are going to offer me financial assistance to help pay for my health insurance. Great! But I probably wouldn’t qualify for that anyway, and I do have to ask – if I didn’t want to shell out $130 dollars to pay for crappy health insurance coverage why would I want tax payers to shell out $130 dollars a month to pay for it? I know the government sure as hell isn’t going to offer to pay that $300+ bill a month for quality health insurance for me.
There are many things wrong with this bill – first off it does not save this country money. The articles all say that this bill will cut the deficit by $130 billion dollars which isn’t technically a lie. Medicare will be cut $130 billion dollars over the course of 10 years to help pay for it. So yes, the deficit will be cut. However read between the lines people – this health insurance reform bill will cost America over $1 Trillion throughout the next ten years. So yes you are cutting $130 billion here and there but you’re paying over $1 trillion in the long run for this bill. Do you even know how many zeros are after the world one trillion? It just amazes me that our government thinks it’s okay to spend spend spend. The state governments have to live within their means. Why is it that the federal government can get away with spending money it does not have and borrowing money like money grows on trees? We don’t have the money to pay for this!! And you are going to ruin health care rather than save it in America!
Let’s keep it real folks – the Senate version of the bill took out the public health option. The House version left it in however; but I see it going to President Obama without the public option in there. Adding the public option is going to sky rocket the costs even more. If you think $1 trillion dollars is a lot to spend over ten years, you can’t even imagine what it would cost with the public option in there. So anyway, so the government is going to be the health care police (or at least that’s what I’m calling it). They are going to make sure that every American has health insurance and that health insurance companies are not denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. Okay but how does that lower costs in the long run? You are forcing insurance companies to pay for this pre-existing conditions (and I’m not saying that someone should be denied because of them because they shouldn’t. It’s not Mary Jane’s fault she got breast cancer at the age of 25, but the point is …) and that is going to sky rocket costs! How does the federal government plan to keep the costs down? Premiums will be raised, the price of medical treatment alone will sky rocket. If you thinks costs are bade now and health insurance is at the point of ‘why have any’ you just wait until all of this goes into affect. You’re going to see health insurance companies going out of business because of if. Oh but wait there is hope! There is language in the bill that says that health insurance companies cannot charge an individual a higher premium based on their pre-existing condition. Great! Now they are just going to raise everyone’s overall premium to pay for these pre-existing cases. So in the long run, everyone will suffer because of it.
I have heard a lot of people compare forcing Americans to have health insurance is like forcing Americans to have car insurance. I tend to disagree with that statement. You are right every American is forced to have car insurance; however the difference is simply that you can purchase your car insurance across state lines. You can’t do that with health insurance. If I live in Arizona, I have to get Arizona Blue Cross Blue Shield. I can’t go and find a California based company to get my health insurance through. So they are NOT the same thing. There is competition with car insurance. There is not so with health insurance. The Federal Government needs to be open up the state boarders when it comes to health insurance. Competition is a good thing, and opening up state boarders is the only way the costs will even begin to come down. So forcing Americans to have health insurance is not the same thing as forcing us to have car insurance. And I will say this – no government is going to force me to have health insurance. I ask what happens to those who refuse to get health insurance? Are you going to come lock me up and put me in jail?
And I love the wording on this one that has been quoted in every news article I have read online regarding the Senate’s passage of health care reform: “Employers would be induced to cover their employees through a combination of tax credits and penalties.” Induced means they would be encouraged to offer health insurance through tax credits. But once you get into the word “penalties” it’s more like they will be required to cover their employees for health insurance. In a time of an economic recession, small businesses cannot afford that and this will close a lot of small businesses if you want my opinion.
So at the end of it all, I do have to say Merry Christmas America. I hope each and everyone one of you has a wonderful Holiday. I am spending it with family and friends. So I am sure it will be a wonderful occasion.
And when the Holidays are over, the tinsel is put away, and the decorations are taken down – I ask our government – where is the return line because we don’t want nor like your gift!
Happy Holidays Everybody!
Sarah Markham
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
