Well, we now have a bill passed through the House of Representatives that hopes to reform our dysfunctional healthcare system. I actually watched part of the floor debate late saturday nite and to be honest there was only a few strong speeches from the Republicans that nite, while there were several strong and persuasive speeches by Democratic leaders, especially that of Rep. Weiner (yes that's his real name). He held up a copy of the Insurance package that each member of Congress and employee of the Federal government receives and asked the body shouldn't every American receive this kind of choice when it comes to their healthcare? He made a very good point, for several reasons but primarily because members of Congress receive excellent healthcare because they get a choice of several different plans and more importantly they will continue to have this great health insurance even after they leave Congress! To me, this is ridiculus because even if a person is elected for just once term (whether it be 2 years for House members and 6 years for Senators) they get government-aided healthcare for the rest of their lives...shouldn't they at least have to several terms before we start having to pay for their healthcare? This rationale is the reason many Americans and even several politicans have called on Congress to fully embrace the "Public Option" and be forced to take it themselves to prove it is a worthwhile venture and to be honest that does makes some sense to me...but the primary problem with this is it would cost far too much to be even remotely viable..
On the issue of costs, this bill is trully a hard pill to swallow...over $900billion over the next ten years according to the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) and is "paid for" according to many leading Democrats, something I and most Republicans find unlikely. While directly this bill may not add to the deficit, it's the indirect effects that will likely affect the growing deficit. For example, one sticky issue that wasn't even covered in this House bill is what will happen to healthcare premiums under this bill...which sounds crazy because how can this massive bill is...which just proves what the Democrats' real goal from the start was...Coverage not Cost. Now this isn't a terrible position to have because to be honest you compare our healthcare statistic to ALL other industrialized nations and it will make you angry and disgusted...but as this time in our nation, with a still ever-present recession to deal with, Cost is what most Americans are concerned about and most believe we can worry about greater coverage later. As of right now, no one knows what such a bill would do for those of us who already have healthcare insurance either from private providers or employee-provided coverage. Does that make any sense to anyone out there??
Another sticky part of this bill is the idea of an individual mandate. This mandate would mean every American would have to get health insurance or else get fined by the government. Though there are subsidizes for those who can't afford such, this is the current aim of the Public Option. To many, including the President and myself, its makes some sense. Think about it, everyone is required by law to have car insurance in most states and which is more important your car's safety or your health? But this bill warps this good idea, because though most states do require you to have car insurance the federal government doesn't. This idea of the federal government telling its citizens that it has to buy something or else is not only ridiculus but borderline unconstitutional. An individual mandate should, like the Public Option, be left to each individual state to decide. Good thought...Terrible follow-through
Finally, the idea of not passing any kind of reform is also very difficult to comprehend. While I would be ok with it being delayed til the economy was stronger and could better handle it, I don't honestly believe the Republicans will be anymore accomodating with this issues in few years then they are now. If this is going to be our only chance to pass some reform then now is the best time to do it but I'm not sure if the final bill that emerges will be the best reform possible but that is the hazard of politics. Compromises are a necessity in politics and to hope for a perfect bill is setting yourself up for disappointment..but I often wonder why it is so hard for lawmakers to take a logical approach to the issues that affect all Americans today...perhaps I am the one being overly hopeful...but regardless this nation desperately needs some reform especially when compared to ALL other industrialized nations in the world.
So what should we, as American citizens, do about this Healthcare reform debate? The thing to do is do lots of research on all the proposals and bills and write/email/call your congressman/congresswoman or senator and tell them what you think because if you sit on the sidelines and don't put in your input you might just get something you don't like or support...so Pay Attention citizens!
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Where's the Middle-ground in this Healthcare Debate?
The Healthcare debate, the most divisive issue of 2009 (and likely will continue next year) is seemingly closer than ever to a conclusion. The Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (who I am most definitely NOT a fan of..) has stated that they hope to vote on the House bill (H.R. 3962) on a rare Saturday session. Most likely the House will pass the bill and this would be one step closer to Healthcare reform. Of course it will hardly mean the end of the issue because not only does the Senate have to pass a bill, the two bills will then have to merged together and the final bill will then go to the President for signing. To be honest, I largely support most of the measures in the current House bill but the price tag and the massive scope of it does bother me a bit. I have paid a great deal of attention to the healthcare debate and have read the current bill. To me, it seems that the Democrats are putting too much too fast in this bill and therefore it makes it a hard pill to swallow. I have always wondered why they didn't try a staggered approach, for example:
1st Bill (pass before 2009 is out)- Ban Insurance companies from dropping people for "pre-existing conditions". Remove the Insurance companies anti-trust exemption.
2nd Bill (pass by Spring '10)- Pass measures (whatever they may be I'm not an expert on this) to lower insurance premiums
3rd Bill (pass by the end of 2010)- Establish a national Public Insurance Option for those who can't afford private insurance and allow each state to decide whether they want to "opt-in" by Legislative vote. And make members of Congress have to apply for this Public Option.
This makes the most sense to me, but it would be a much longer and possibly painful process but it would mean at the very least some reform would be achieved and would likely get some bipartisan support. But regardless, until very recently the Republicans have just sat by and yelled and screamed and not offered their own plan, that was til a few days ago. But to be honest if the Democratic bill is too much too fast, the Republican bill is much too slow and just pointless. The Republican bill, while costing less and would lower premium costs, would only cover a few million more people and would continue to allow Insurance companies to drop people for pre-existing conditions. The only advantage I can see that this bill does for the Republican is that they can at least claim they put up a bill, as terrible as it is.
Today the Republican house members (not all) held a "press conference" at the Capital in which several thousand Tea Partiers attended and vented their anger and outright ignorance towards to Healthcare reform. Led by Michelle Bachman, who the people of Minnesota should be ashamed of, she stated that as Thomas Jefferson stated that a revolution is good every once and a while. Are you serious? A congresswoman, supposedly a responsible and patriotic American, believes this healthcare debate requires a REVOLUTION to resolve. I honestly expect such chatter from Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh because they aren't accountable to anyone but for a member of congress to say such things and think she can get away with it is disgusting...what would be worse is if the people of Minnesota re-elect her though I know it is possible because a congressman from my home state of Iowa (Steven King) continues to win re-elections regardless of the ignorance and idiocy he often displays. At said rally posters in the crowd displayed beliefs that the actions of the government are socialist or worse (such as a poster that compared healthcare reform to a image of corpses at the Nazi concentration camp..) and I just wonder whether these people even try to research what they are protesting or they just blindly follow television/radio pundits as if what they speak is the truth. I've got news for these morons, the vast majority of Western Europe have either a "socialized healthcare system" or a single-player system that these people claim the Democrats are trying to pass, guess what, they haven't become Socialist/Marxist states deprived of freedom and liberty! Instead they have true universal healthcare and it costs much less than our current system and they often have longer life expectancies. I wonder how Michelle Bachman or Steve King would explain that? I think its insulting to all Americans that they believe we are politically weaker and simple-minded than our European counterparts and that allowing Healthcare reform pass would be the beginning of some kind of terrible Socialist takeover. I have honestly tried for months now to understand where Tea Partiers and right-wing crazies are coming from but I just don't get it. I may not think the current Healthcare bill the Democrats are pushing is perfect (and most agree it isn't) but the Republicans counter bill is just a joke. How do they expect political independents to think they are really trying to force a healthy debate on this issue when all they seem to do is yell and scream, but I don't think the Democrats have handled this the best either, they have been very partisan (not quite as much as Republicans) but the whole issue just illustrates the biggest problem with our political system. The idea of trying to find middle-ground and crossing the party lines is either seen as party treason or simply used as a political ploy to win votes..both parties should be ashamed of themselves...Somehow the political middle ground in Congress has become a No-Mans Land where Republicans and Democrats alike dare not tread...
1st Bill (pass before 2009 is out)- Ban Insurance companies from dropping people for "pre-existing conditions". Remove the Insurance companies anti-trust exemption.
2nd Bill (pass by Spring '10)- Pass measures (whatever they may be I'm not an expert on this) to lower insurance premiums
3rd Bill (pass by the end of 2010)- Establish a national Public Insurance Option for those who can't afford private insurance and allow each state to decide whether they want to "opt-in" by Legislative vote. And make members of Congress have to apply for this Public Option.
This makes the most sense to me, but it would be a much longer and possibly painful process but it would mean at the very least some reform would be achieved and would likely get some bipartisan support. But regardless, until very recently the Republicans have just sat by and yelled and screamed and not offered their own plan, that was til a few days ago. But to be honest if the Democratic bill is too much too fast, the Republican bill is much too slow and just pointless. The Republican bill, while costing less and would lower premium costs, would only cover a few million more people and would continue to allow Insurance companies to drop people for pre-existing conditions. The only advantage I can see that this bill does for the Republican is that they can at least claim they put up a bill, as terrible as it is.
Today the Republican house members (not all) held a "press conference" at the Capital in which several thousand Tea Partiers attended and vented their anger and outright ignorance towards to Healthcare reform. Led by Michelle Bachman, who the people of Minnesota should be ashamed of, she stated that as Thomas Jefferson stated that a revolution is good every once and a while. Are you serious? A congresswoman, supposedly a responsible and patriotic American, believes this healthcare debate requires a REVOLUTION to resolve. I honestly expect such chatter from Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh because they aren't accountable to anyone but for a member of congress to say such things and think she can get away with it is disgusting...what would be worse is if the people of Minnesota re-elect her though I know it is possible because a congressman from my home state of Iowa (Steven King) continues to win re-elections regardless of the ignorance and idiocy he often displays. At said rally posters in the crowd displayed beliefs that the actions of the government are socialist or worse (such as a poster that compared healthcare reform to a image of corpses at the Nazi concentration camp..) and I just wonder whether these people even try to research what they are protesting or they just blindly follow television/radio pundits as if what they speak is the truth. I've got news for these morons, the vast majority of Western Europe have either a "socialized healthcare system" or a single-player system that these people claim the Democrats are trying to pass, guess what, they haven't become Socialist/Marxist states deprived of freedom and liberty! Instead they have true universal healthcare and it costs much less than our current system and they often have longer life expectancies. I wonder how Michelle Bachman or Steve King would explain that? I think its insulting to all Americans that they believe we are politically weaker and simple-minded than our European counterparts and that allowing Healthcare reform pass would be the beginning of some kind of terrible Socialist takeover. I have honestly tried for months now to understand where Tea Partiers and right-wing crazies are coming from but I just don't get it. I may not think the current Healthcare bill the Democrats are pushing is perfect (and most agree it isn't) but the Republicans counter bill is just a joke. How do they expect political independents to think they are really trying to force a healthy debate on this issue when all they seem to do is yell and scream, but I don't think the Democrats have handled this the best either, they have been very partisan (not quite as much as Republicans) but the whole issue just illustrates the biggest problem with our political system. The idea of trying to find middle-ground and crossing the party lines is either seen as party treason or simply used as a political ploy to win votes..both parties should be ashamed of themselves...Somehow the political middle ground in Congress has become a No-Mans Land where Republicans and Democrats alike dare not tread...
Monday, November 2, 2009
Tea Partiers a Sign of Things to Come?
With the NY-23 Election tomorrow, the news stations are all talking about the amazing rise of the nobody Conservative candidate Hoffman and the departure of Scozzafava from the race. This only leaves Hoffman and Owens, the Democrat in the race, and now polls show Hoffman with a small lead, so what does this say about things to come?
Many have said (including myself) that this race has divided the Republican Party and that this infighting could be a self-defeating issue for them. But after doing some reading and researching I've realized this is only a small part of a bigger issue for not only the GOP but for the whole American political system. While the Tea Partiers didn't necessarily pick Mr. Hoffman they are his strongest and more important supports, even more so than the many prominent politicans who came out to bat for him. They were powerful enough to force Scozzafava out of the race and now their man is in front. While I don't agree with a lot of things Tea Parties say nor do I agree with some of their tactics, if would be foolish to underestimate them or simply call them "astroturf". I do however understand why they're angry and do agree in principle with some of their ideas such as term limits, tax reform, and out of control spending. Now do I believe all Tea Partiers are conservatives? No, though it would appear the majority are, this is because Conservatives were the first and most successful at capitalizing on this anger towards the government. Regardless, this movement is very much real and appears (at least to me) to the first group capable of launching a viable third party and shake out political system to its core.
While the prospect of a viable third party capable of at the very least challenging the Democrats and GOP to keep their promises, I'm not sure the Tea Partiers can actually pull it off. What I believe is the true origins of this movement is the key to a third option in American Politics. The anger and discontent with our current way of things in Washington D.C. is very real and is the key to any successful Third Party whether it be Tea Partiers or Whigs. This movement seems to already have emboldened the Whigs to run for several federal offices which is fairly impressive considering out size. But it is too early to say who will be the last one standing is this political conflict or who will best utilize it.
The one prediction I do believe will come to pass is a transformation of the GOP as a whole. The fight for NY-23 has shown that the Tea Partiers are strong enough to get national figures to back the non GOP candidate Hoffman and force the GOP into a corner. When Scozzafava departed the race, she endorsed the Democrat Owens who is closest to her beliefs and now has been called a traitor by the same cornered and out of touch GOP that supported and who in the same breath jumped to support Hoffman. While this isn't surprising, it does show that the GOP is struggling with how to deal with friction between the Right and the RINOs (Republicans in Name Only). The fact that the only prominent Republicans to support Scozzafava was Newt Gingrich and the Republican House leader is very telling. Many on the news shows (especially MSNBC) has been talking on and on about who the GOP will soon become RINO free and could spell death to the GOP. While I don't necessarily agree with that assessment, I do believe the GOP is going to have to decide what to do with Tea Partiers, join them or not and this decision will decide what kind of party the GOP will be in the near Future. Either way, there are a growing number of American who call themselves neither Republicans or Democrats that will decide the political future of America.
Many have said (including myself) that this race has divided the Republican Party and that this infighting could be a self-defeating issue for them. But after doing some reading and researching I've realized this is only a small part of a bigger issue for not only the GOP but for the whole American political system. While the Tea Partiers didn't necessarily pick Mr. Hoffman they are his strongest and more important supports, even more so than the many prominent politicans who came out to bat for him. They were powerful enough to force Scozzafava out of the race and now their man is in front. While I don't agree with a lot of things Tea Parties say nor do I agree with some of their tactics, if would be foolish to underestimate them or simply call them "astroturf". I do however understand why they're angry and do agree in principle with some of their ideas such as term limits, tax reform, and out of control spending. Now do I believe all Tea Partiers are conservatives? No, though it would appear the majority are, this is because Conservatives were the first and most successful at capitalizing on this anger towards the government. Regardless, this movement is very much real and appears (at least to me) to the first group capable of launching a viable third party and shake out political system to its core.
While the prospect of a viable third party capable of at the very least challenging the Democrats and GOP to keep their promises, I'm not sure the Tea Partiers can actually pull it off. What I believe is the true origins of this movement is the key to a third option in American Politics. The anger and discontent with our current way of things in Washington D.C. is very real and is the key to any successful Third Party whether it be Tea Partiers or Whigs. This movement seems to already have emboldened the Whigs to run for several federal offices which is fairly impressive considering out size. But it is too early to say who will be the last one standing is this political conflict or who will best utilize it.
The one prediction I do believe will come to pass is a transformation of the GOP as a whole. The fight for NY-23 has shown that the Tea Partiers are strong enough to get national figures to back the non GOP candidate Hoffman and force the GOP into a corner. When Scozzafava departed the race, she endorsed the Democrat Owens who is closest to her beliefs and now has been called a traitor by the same cornered and out of touch GOP that supported and who in the same breath jumped to support Hoffman. While this isn't surprising, it does show that the GOP is struggling with how to deal with friction between the Right and the RINOs (Republicans in Name Only). The fact that the only prominent Republicans to support Scozzafava was Newt Gingrich and the Republican House leader is very telling. Many on the news shows (especially MSNBC) has been talking on and on about who the GOP will soon become RINO free and could spell death to the GOP. While I don't necessarily agree with that assessment, I do believe the GOP is going to have to decide what to do with Tea Partiers, join them or not and this decision will decide what kind of party the GOP will be in the near Future. Either way, there are a growing number of American who call themselves neither Republicans or Democrats that will decide the political future of America.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Divided and Conquer?
As many of us have seen in the last week or so there is a hotly contested political fight in New York Congressional District 23 between the Democratic candidate, the Republican candidate and a Conservative Party candidate. Many have claimed this is a preview of what the 2012 election will be like, and if so I don't see why any Conservatives would be celebrating. I did some research and normally the Conservative Party of New York doesn't field candidates and instead throws its support behind either the Republican or Democrat, but not this time. Dede Scozzafava, the Republican nominee, is apparently not conservative enough for not only the conservatives in the NY-23 but also prominent Republicans across the nation including Fred Thompson, Sarah Palin, Gov. Tim Pawlenty and others. The only real prominent support from the Republican party Scozzafava is getting is from Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. This rift between the party establishment and its more conservative elements is very telling.
So why don't they think Scozzafava is the right person for the job? Because while she is endorsed by the NRA, she also is pro-choice and pro-gay marriage and is supported by local "Leftist" groups such as the Working Families Party and New York State United Teachers. So instead these prominent Republicans are supporting Doug Hoffman, who is very conservative and seems only to want to talk about the national issues and not local issues which he apparently knows little about. In a recent interview with a local newspaper, Hoffman was asked about local issues and problems and couldn't answer any of them! Now while having opinions on national issues is good there is big difference between Senators and Representatives. Senators represent the entire state and therefore are expected to to represent the entire state's interests in the Congress. Representatives on the other hand are elected by smaller districts and therefore are expected to represent their District's interests in Congress first, national interests second. So the idea of a candidate for Congress who knows little or nothing about the district he is trying to win over is just simply ludicrous. This point is reinforced by Newt Gingrich who believes the local Republican party leadership is the ones who should making the decision on who to run since they know the local interests and electorate best, I couldn't agree more.
The Larger issue with this situation is that in all likelihood the infighting of the Republicans is likely going to give the Democrat (Owens) a good chance of winning. And then where would that leave the Republican Party? It leaves many of its members confused and conflicted as to where the direction of the party is. What is says to me is that come 2012 the Republican party will have to choose whether they will be the party of Conservatives or the Party of Moderates and that choice is probably going to be very messy and more importantly..counter-productive. Divided and Conquer? Guess what, You're doing it wrong!
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28760.html
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/conservative-partys-hoffman-unable-to-answer-questions-on-local-issues-in-ny-23.php
So why don't they think Scozzafava is the right person for the job? Because while she is endorsed by the NRA, she also is pro-choice and pro-gay marriage and is supported by local "Leftist" groups such as the Working Families Party and New York State United Teachers. So instead these prominent Republicans are supporting Doug Hoffman, who is very conservative and seems only to want to talk about the national issues and not local issues which he apparently knows little about. In a recent interview with a local newspaper, Hoffman was asked about local issues and problems and couldn't answer any of them! Now while having opinions on national issues is good there is big difference between Senators and Representatives. Senators represent the entire state and therefore are expected to to represent the entire state's interests in the Congress. Representatives on the other hand are elected by smaller districts and therefore are expected to represent their District's interests in Congress first, national interests second. So the idea of a candidate for Congress who knows little or nothing about the district he is trying to win over is just simply ludicrous. This point is reinforced by Newt Gingrich who believes the local Republican party leadership is the ones who should making the decision on who to run since they know the local interests and electorate best, I couldn't agree more.
The Larger issue with this situation is that in all likelihood the infighting of the Republicans is likely going to give the Democrat (Owens) a good chance of winning. And then where would that leave the Republican Party? It leaves many of its members confused and conflicted as to where the direction of the party is. What is says to me is that come 2012 the Republican party will have to choose whether they will be the party of Conservatives or the Party of Moderates and that choice is probably going to be very messy and more importantly..counter-productive. Divided and Conquer? Guess what, You're doing it wrong!
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28760.html
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/conservative-partys-hoffman-unable-to-answer-questions-on-local-issues-in-ny-23.php
Monday, October 26, 2009
Can Tort Reform really save our healthcare system?
Well not quite, or at least not as much as some Senators/Representatives would have us believe...according to the good people at FactCheck.org (who originally debunked President Bush's claim of hundreds of Billions that could be saved) has recently revised their opinion of malpractice reform. While reform wouldn't save us (the taxpayers) HUNDREDS of Billions, it would still save a good chunk of change. According to FactCheck and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), could save 0.5 percent which translate to $11 billion a year. Now while this isn't the massive savings Republicans have claimed, I definitely think that when it comes to Healthcare reform every little bit of savings is step in the right direction.
Here's FactCheck's analysis:
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/malpractice-savings-reconsidered/
Here's FactCheck's analysis:
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/malpractice-savings-reconsidered/
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Fair and Balanced?
Lately we Americans have been bombarded with headlines about the media war between the White House and Fox News, mainly over the claim that Fox isn't really a new organization and instead is the media wing of the Republican party. To be honest I do find Fox's motto of being "Fair and Balanced" quite comical, but I believe that most citizens are missing the overall point, that News media is almost ALWAYS BIASED! But is it really such a terrible thing? When I was in college I took a class in Comparative Politics which compared the political systems of Western Europe to the United States and one interesting point is that in the United Kingdom most of the major news media are not only politically biased, they are proud of it!
Now do I believe that this is the right way for news media to act? I believe that true news agencies should just talk about the facts and give both sides of an arguement a fair chance to defend their stance...For example, Fox news early on in the Healthcare debate broadcasted several erroneous claims about the various bills...which were then echoed by other news agencies and many people watching just naturally assumed that these claims were true because they "trust" Fox. The amazing thing to me is that these news agencies with their vast research resources didn't seem to have anybody actually READ the bills which makes them just as bad as so many politicans that never read the bills they vote on....though all this missinformation did give the good people at Factcheck lots of work to do lol.
To me, I have always believed the news media is biased and it doesn't surprise me. These media groups are owned and controlled by very wealthy people and they know that they can display their political views THROUGH their news stations without taking any of the heat. So while I believe the media should try its best to be as un-biased and just tell you the facts and not take sides, I don't believe any of us are going to see that anytime soon and I believe that this is just part of the nature of American politics.
Now don't get me wrong, I think personalities like Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, or Keith Olbermann have every right to display their opinions on both television and radio. That is their 1st Amendment right. My issue is that some of these individuals purposely miss-represent the facts to advance their own agendas which is MAKING MONEY and they do this by saying controversial (or outright untrue) things that they know will draw in viewers, boast their ratings and make them more money. And I believe that the White House has every right to challenge any news agency that doesnt truthfully represent FACTS. Now do I go as far as Keith Olbermann in saying that Fox news isn't a real news agency and just the media wing of the Republican party? Not quite. Just as I wouldn't say that MSNBC is the media wing of the Democratic party or CNN or whatever...the real questions is are news media biased? Of course! Should we be shocked? Nope!
Now do I believe that this is the right way for news media to act? I believe that true news agencies should just talk about the facts and give both sides of an arguement a fair chance to defend their stance...For example, Fox news early on in the Healthcare debate broadcasted several erroneous claims about the various bills...which were then echoed by other news agencies and many people watching just naturally assumed that these claims were true because they "trust" Fox. The amazing thing to me is that these news agencies with their vast research resources didn't seem to have anybody actually READ the bills which makes them just as bad as so many politicans that never read the bills they vote on....though all this missinformation did give the good people at Factcheck lots of work to do lol.
To me, I have always believed the news media is biased and it doesn't surprise me. These media groups are owned and controlled by very wealthy people and they know that they can display their political views THROUGH their news stations without taking any of the heat. So while I believe the media should try its best to be as un-biased and just tell you the facts and not take sides, I don't believe any of us are going to see that anytime soon and I believe that this is just part of the nature of American politics.
Now don't get me wrong, I think personalities like Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, or Keith Olbermann have every right to display their opinions on both television and radio. That is their 1st Amendment right. My issue is that some of these individuals purposely miss-represent the facts to advance their own agendas which is MAKING MONEY and they do this by saying controversial (or outright untrue) things that they know will draw in viewers, boast their ratings and make them more money. And I believe that the White House has every right to challenge any news agency that doesnt truthfully represent FACTS. Now do I go as far as Keith Olbermann in saying that Fox news isn't a real news agency and just the media wing of the Republican party? Not quite. Just as I wouldn't say that MSNBC is the media wing of the Democratic party or CNN or whatever...the real questions is are news media biased? Of course! Should we be shocked? Nope!
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Going Out of Business?
Going Out of Business?
A recent TV advertisement has claimed that Medicare will be bankrupt in just 8 years...I think the good people at FactCheck.org might have something to say to that lol...
Shared via AddThis
A recent TV advertisement has claimed that Medicare will be bankrupt in just 8 years...I think the good people at FactCheck.org might have something to say to that lol...
Shared via AddThis
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)