John

On a personal level, if you know me at all, you know that I’m not an abrasive individual that lets politics and personal relationships go hand in hand. I respect the person before I respect the debate, during the debate, and after the debate. Heck, I hardly call it a debate because for me I just want to converse and have a meeting of the minds. I’m not one of those people who are impossible to sway, because unlike others, my personal opinions are based on how I’m able to understand the perceptions of others. While the reality of your reasoning behind the position is unrelated to my personal experience, this by no means suggests that you are out of touch with it, because honestly, who really *is in touch with reality all the time and knows better most of the time?

Well, Bill Maher apparently does and it’s comments like these that fuel animosity between liberals and conservatives. ***Conservatives are not exempt from this hypocrisy either***

Democrats in America were put on earth to do one thing: drag the ignorant hillbilly half of this country into the next century, which in their case is the 19th — and by passing health care, the Democrats saved their brand.

Read the entire article here. I think the GOP does fine with what they have considering they don’t even need to vote considering how outnumbered they are. The legislative process is dictated and governed by two of Congress’ most liberal members, Sen. Reid, and Speaker Pelosi, both who are in quite contrast to even the moderate Democrats. Current Democratic leadership is pushing legislation most of the time in favor of a purely liberal agenda, and the GOP is fighting for compromises. The GOP has nothing to give up on a Democrat-crafted bill, so they must fight for what they don’t wish to give in to. The only cooperation that Bill Maher and liberals are wanting from the GOP is something I have learned called “capitulation” or, BOHICA, “bend over here it comes again”. Mr. Maher, co-operating is a two-way street. The ball is in the Dem’s court right now and they dictate the gameplay, if they want the GOP to play along then the Dems need to be prepared to make sacrifices. I think the current HCR bill vs. the first HCR draft is a great example of cooperation regardless whether or not a single GOP member voted for it.

In my experience with hillbillies, or Southerners, or Texans, whatever you’d like to call it – the general consensus I get from these folks is: Do whatever you want, just not to me.

The most disturbing part of this quote to me however is, “…drag the ignorant hillbilly half of this country into the next century, which in their case is the 19th…”

In regards to Bill Maher, all the arguments, perspectives, and thoughts toward liberals as being elitist, haughty, etc… all seem to make sense as any opposition from the Right is viewed as inferior and disregarded as such. Indicators would point to Bill Maher, if he were to read this entry, simply dismissing this entry as a waste of time, and another conservative sore loser bitter over a Democratic victory in 2008. I would agree with this being a waste of time, but I would disagree with the latter. Most people wish to be left alone in their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but it seems that liberals like Bill Maher believe that he, and like-minded colleagues have instead been called to save America from itself, standardize how we live, all because the collective know better. It’s difficult to see the “American” in how liberals approach the idea of our people and our country. It’s as though they have no sense of nationalism, or patriotism, but simply a desire for standardized structure with the name “America” on it. It seems that most of the commentary I hear from mainstream media liberals label America as a generic name for the land we are on. They don’t advocate their agendas because they are Americans, but because “this is America, and that’s what being in America allows us to do”. Do you see the disconnect? Do you see where I find the lack of even a little bit of national pride or patriotism disturbing?

I will concede though, the song “I’m Proud to be an American” has become rather cliché, outdated, and silly sounding… but then I guess so has being an American. Instead, we just happen to live here and these are our privileges. Let’s fight about them.

Liberals make the argument that accusations of “socialism” are baseless and fear-mongering tactics from Conservatives. Never mind that the accusations are reflective of liberal policies and standards that are micromanaged, and must be in writing. Liberals look to the law to gain acceptance/validation for their way of life, Conservatives look to what the law doesn’t say and what it doesn’t need to say in order that we preserve this thing called “freedom”. The truth is, fears of socialism have merit. Sure, it’s not socialism by name, but it is becoming socialism by practice and standardization. The early drafts of the HCR bill were not kidding about what some conservatives labeled “death panels” disguised as pre-death counseling for the elderly.

One of the biggest conflicts in our early history was the colonies opposition to taxation without representation. The new health care bill, school taxes, etc… are examples of a similar taxations that exist without regard for the individual citizen’s way of life, but instead are piling the expenses on to the whole. Insurance companies are not the only culprits here, the government has their issues as well. The government standardizes health care coverage which doesn’t make insurance companies compete because the power to compete has everything to do with the ability to customize and choose what is offered and what is not, but the new HCR bill requires that medical insurance cover certain things, even if they do not apply to you. As such, insurance companies basically now offer cookie cutter coverage but luckily we still seem to have options for now, as staunch HCR proponents believe this current bill is in the right direction towards creating a public option. However, this goes so much further than government and insurance, but also to the need for tort reform. Medical malpractice insurance is ridiculously expensive and provides enormous operating expenses for a doctor to even see you. Why is medical malpractice insurance so expensive? It’s not solely because we have some bad doctors out there who make mistakes, but because malpractice lawsuits (both legitimate and frivolous) getting clogged in the legal system are COSTLY and this provides a steady increase in costs of medical care (on the healthcare side) in an attempt to offset this.

I wish health insurance was more like car insurance, although to be fair, this is impossible given the complexity of healthcare vs. the relative ease of car insurance. (Speaking of, should you be required by your state to have car insurance?) Reason I ask is because you only have full coverage insurance so that the company you are financing the car through can protect its asset, not you. Otherwise, if you fully own the car, you will more than likely switch to the cheaper liability only coverage.

Should you pay school taxes in your district if you are childless, or if you elect to send your child to private education?
Should you pay a portion of your insurance premium to cover non-applicable to you healthcare conditions?
*Should you pay for maternity and newborn coverage if you are childless, and or choose to remain so?
*Should you pay for mental health, or substance abuse coverage if you A.) Do not have/legal guardianship of a mental patient? B.) Do not have a substance abuse history, or are currently not involved in substance abuse?
*Should you pay for prescription drugs if you are not in need of them?

The thing is, aside from school taxes, the healthcare things listed above are a few of the essential health benefits that insurance must now cover no matter what plan you have, at least that’s my understanding of it. Section 1302 HCR bill.

It’s not quite logic, but I do understand the benefit of sharing the wealth in regards to healthcare because the more people you have paying for it, the less cost per individual. I do not suggest that this is a stupid idea, but I do suggest that people should not be mandated to participate if they elect not to, government mandates are unconstitutional by the way. I was under the impression that insurance companies were supposed to compete for our business and prove their necessity instead of the government mandating that insurance companies provide coverage for everybody.

Again, the blame is cyclical in nature which logically leads you to assume that government, insurance, and the current tort system all have responsibility for the rising costs of healthcare. However, if I had to choose the order of most responsible to least responsible it would be this: 1.) Government 2.) Tort system 3.) Insurance

1.) Government is not just Congress, or the President… it’s the FDA, it’s Department of Agriculture, and it’s the other administrative agencies that Congress has created that has been captured by the very people they were designed to regulate. That being said, our government is responsible for the…
2.) The litigious nature of people and its toll on the system. You can sue for anything it seems, and while many suits are legitimate grievances that deserve justice, there’s also many that are based on opportunism from both the clients and lawyers who pursue settlements, NOT justice. I do not know how to fix this as I am not a legal expert by any stretch of your imagination, but surely you can see how this is an issue, and a costly one.
3.) Insurance companies — the thing about this HCR bill that has me really happy is that now people can get insurance if they need it. (Need is a key word here). Up till the HCR bill, insurance companies wanted to cover people who posed the least risk, and deny/drop the people who needed help.

All that to say, I do not disagree with a liberal on all points like it seems they would disagree with conservatives. I do not discount the idea that there are those who identify with liberals, who may feel that way toward conservatives. There seems to be a large disparity between the amount of tolerance being demanded by people on the Left, versus what they are willing to grant those on the Right.

In summation, conservatives or “freedom” lovers do not look to the law to grant and determine rights. Liberals or “freedom” lovers seem however to rely on the law and what they think it should say these days to grant and determine rights. Our constitution is a good one, designed to be anti-monarchy and the church that gave him power. Neither conservatives or liberals should be allowed to let their religion/ideology (same thing) be that creative medium to make and enforce laws.

I just wish that both sides realize the futility of their extremes.