The Formula 1 season comes to a close this weekend with Jenson Button having wrapped up the championship in the last race in Brazil. This weekend's penultimate race is on a brand new $1 billion track in Abu Dhabi. I saw the track for the first time today in the practice session broadcast. WOW! What a facility! Expensive, modern, high tech. The track is built next to a marina with countless yachts docked to watch the race. One of the vessels can only be modestly called a "yacht." It's a freaking SHIP! The announcers were compelled to explain that it was not a building we were seeing in the background shots.

Anyone who pays any attention to current events knows that Abu Dhabi, in the Unite Arab Emirates, is swimming in wealth. While the rest of the world's economies are faltering and the U.S. is in the worst recession in eight decades, how come the UAE is realizing untold wealth and we're not?

Oil. The entire economy of the UAE is built on oil. The U.S. buys oil from the UAE as do many countries.

The U.S. has as much oil as the UAE. We also have coal, natural gas, and the technology to build nuclear power plants; just like France does and just like we're "encouraging" Iran to build. However, our government will not allow us to explore, mine, develop and use those resources. While our appointed "rulers" in Washington (and Sacramento) fiddle while the U.S. burns, there is untold wealth ready to be made available to the American people. And, with today's technology, it can be acquired and used with little or no environmental impact. Just ask the Norwegians, some of the greenest people on Earth, and who drill for oil off their beautiful pristine coast.

I encourage everyone to watch the Formula 1 race this weekend. It should be a good race in spite of the World Champion already being decided. The only other spot that's assured is fourth place and all others are up for grabs. And while you're watching, take notice of the extraordinary riches that are within our grasp and could stimulate our economy like no Government program ever has. If only our misguided, irresponsible politicians weren't committing national suicide that is.

Less than a week after Saturday Night Live mocked President Obama for accomplishing absolutely NOTHING in his first nine months in office, the Nobel Foundation awards him the Nobel Peace Prize. Now, this is hardly surprising as the Nobel Foundation has been an anti-American, liberal organization for decades. Only Americans who openly criticize the U.S., without pointing out that the U.S. has been the most effective force for peace, freedom and liberty in human history, are eligible for the award. Therefore, Al Gore and Jimmy Carter are the most recent Americans to be awarded the prize. The Nobel voters must have felt that "tingle all up and down their legs" during Obama's international apology tour this year. This is most likely the accomplishment that so impressed the Nobel voters.

The most effective leaders who brought about peace in my lifetime were Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II. They ended the decades long cold war against an oppressive regime without ever firing a shot. They didn't win a Nobel Peace Prize; although Mikhail Gorbachev did. As did the unapologetic terrorist Yasser Arafat. Mohandas Gandhi never won either, although he was nominated five times. Is there any name more synonymous with peace than Gandhi?

The Los Angeles affiliate of CBS radio this morning likened the award to giving an emmy to a TV show still in production. I'm pretty certain that the international community is optimistic that Obama will finally bring about a European Socialism to the U.S., thus eliminating the world's biggest economic power, meaning competitor. I hope they regret their decision.

The Ammo Ban (AB962) and the Gunshow Ban (SB585) have passed all legislative checks, and have been on your desk for more than a week. If you do nothing, these will become law. Our Second Amendment rights have been under attack by Democrats in California for decades and these two bills are more of the same. These will do NOTHING to prevent or prosecute criminals, only to disarm their victims, the law abiding citizens.

I was to understand that you are a Republican. Republicans believe in our Constitutional Rights. Kennedy Democrats do not. Are you a Republican or a Kennedy Democrat? Do you believe in the Second Amendment which specifically states that our right to keep and bear arms should not be INFRINGED? Republicans believe this, Kennedy Democrats do not. 

The fact that these two bills have been sitting on your desk for over a week indicates that your critics may be correct: you are a Republican In Name Only (RINO). I voted for you in the past, but if you have any future ambitions for political office, I suggest that you stop being a "girly-man" and veto the damn bills!

In 1776, the good people of Massachusetts led the colonies in a declaration of war on Britain, an oppressive monarchy that among other things, levied excessive taxes as a punitive weapon against the people. In 1947, the people of Massachusetts appointed another monarchy that for 62 years has, among other things, levied excessive taxes as a punitive weapon against the people.

The very fact that a single person can serve 47 years as a Senator is reason enough to seriously consider term limits. The Kennedys embody the very core belief of liberals that the common people are too stupid to make decisions for themselves. Instead, we need a ruling class to tell us how to run our own lives. And so was created "Camelot."

We have allowed the Kennedys the privileges of royalty to be above the law. Ted Kennedy was given a pass for Chappaquiddick. If a "commoner" had committed such an act of criminal irresponsibility, they would have been imprisoned and any public career ruined. While Ted Kennedy lobbied for and passed punitive estate and inheritance taxes that have forced families to sell off businesses and farms that have been in their families for generations, Ted Kennedy benefited from trusts and private foundations and offshore accounts in Fiji that have shielded the Kennedy fortune from the IRS.

The Kennedys seem to have an entitlement attitude toward governing (not to be confused with serving) the people. John, Robert, Ted, and now Patrick Kennedy all have devoted their lives to imposing their rule over the masses with the consent of the liberal people of Massachusetts. Luckily, Caroline's entitlement to the Senate was derailed by an interview that should have been more ridiculed than Sarah Palin's Katie Couric performance; but, she is royalty after all and Sarah is just a commoner like the rest of us. Ted Kennedy alone, given the spending and debt imposed on future generations, has probably spent more of my money than I have.

So, I hope that Teddy Kennedy will rest in peace. I never wished illness or death on the man. Only that he would lose his day job. Let's agree to put an end to the monarchy.

From: Bill

Thanks for the information.  I see it is an opinion piece and can only assume it is accurate.  I know that I don't pay 61% of my income in federal, state, and local taxes.

 

We monitor all the networks at work, Fox is a favorite.  The more I watch the more it makes me laugh.

From: Steve 

August 12 is day 224. 224/365 = 61% of the year. Is the San Francisco Chronicle "fair and balanced" enough for you? http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/columns/oped_contributors/Cost-of-government-day-comes-a-month-later-this-year-53006242.html

Again, you're trying to force me into an extremist box and advocating no government at all. But now it's 45% of GDP. Is there any limit at all for you? 48% like Europe? 60%? 100% What is your personal level of tolerance? Under Carter the top marginal tax rate was 70%. You may disagree, but I consider that immoral. Ending slavery cost us a war and many lives, but it doesn't cost the government anything today. Giving women the vote doesn't cost anything today. Education, fire and police should be the responsibility of state and local governments, not the Federal government. I'm willing to pay local and state taxes (up to a limit) for those services, I just don't see why the residents of any state have to send their education taxes to Washington, only to have them take their cut and dole it back to where it came from.

As for the FOX thing, I watch it every day and see Democrats, leftist activists, all points of view argued and presented every night. Both sides are given an equal amount of time to make their case. So I have to respectfully disagree with your assertions. I don't know anything about the Florida Court of Appeals, but if it's anything like the 9th District Court of Appeals here in California which is overturned something like 75% of the time, then OK, whatever. Glenn is a showman, and admits it, but that doesn't diminish his message at all. I also watch George Stephanopolis every Sunday, read the Economist magazine published in London, read the LA Times, read AP and Reuters on the Internet and listen to CBS talk radio (news, not commentary). I think I'm getting a clear picture and get a pretty balanced picture.

From: Bill

Steve,

 

My opinion on Glenn Beck... well it is "not very high."  But he is an entertainer and people get entertainment from him.  People like to hear him speak.  Of course Judge Judy makes more money than he does.

 

Where do you get your stats?  How did we pay 61% to the government?  If people don't want government - great! let's start cutting and see what happens. Cut DOE, TSA, DOT, DOC, SEC, local fire, police, and schools.  If we aren't willing to pay for it then we just won't do it.  Well I've seen countries like this - please go see one and then tell me why we should emulate their example.  The America you are describing is make-believe - it never existed and never will.  If I am missing the any examples please let me know.  I am willing to follow anyone's best practices but are they real? 

 

In case you mention the founding fathers?  We had limited government back then.  Women couldn't vote or own property, we could have slaves, no health care, no fire or police protection, no education system for the masses, limited military, only white man land owners could vote, man I miss the good old days.  What did we ever change?  WWGBS?  What would Glenn Beck Say?

  

The GOP has stated for years they wanted to get rid of the Department of Education but they took n o action to do it.  They made government grow.  They created the TSA.  What a farce.  In the military we have reservists - most are GOP members and love FOx, Glenn Beck, etc.  They beg to get on orders to work in the government.  These are folks who hate big government but beg to be part of it.  My point:  if you don't like government then don't work for it.  I refer to them as White Collar Welfare.

 

Here is an interesting read:

In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.

 

Lawyers paid by Bill O'Reilly's bosses argued in court that Fox can lie with impunity.  It's their right under the 1st Amendment

 

FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves.

December 1996, Jane Akre and her husband, Steve Wilson, were hired by FOX as a part of the Fox “Investigators” team at WTVT in Tampa Bay, Florida, to investigate bovine growth hormone (BGH), a controversial substance manufactured by Monsanto Corporation.

Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts. Fox editors then tried to force Akre and Wilson to continue to produce the distorted story.

 

Akre and Wilson refused and threatened to report Fox's actions to the FCC, they were both fired.

August 18, 2000, a unanimous Florida jury found that Akre was wrongfully fired by Fox Television when she refused to broadcast (in the jury's words) “a false, distorted or slanted story”  The jury awarded her $425,000 in damages.

 

FOX appealed the case, and on February 14, 2003 the Florida Second District Court of Appeals  overturned the settlement awarded to Akre.

 

In a stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a "law, rule, or regulation," it was simply a "policy." Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly.

 

During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so.

Fox then filed a series of motions seeking more than $1.7 million in trial fees and costs from both Akre and Wilson.

 

My put:  If we had tort reform Fox would have been limited to $250K.

 

 

Bill

From: Steve 

Today, August 12th is Cost of Government Day. We've worked all 7 1/2 months to pay for Government. A People of the Government, by the Government and for the Government. We are slaves. 

I didn't say do nothing on health care, in fact I proposed solutions that I would like to see. Add to that tort reform, which will never happen because they contribute too much campaign money to the politicians, and we have a good start. If you ate an entire box of chocolate and after you were finished you turned down another bon bon, could someone accuse you of not liking chocolate? We've had 61% of working for the Government this year and I'm full. No more. We've finished the elephant and we're being force-fed a whale.

Stimulus money may be for the US, but we're borrowing the money from China. You can go out and buy a Ferrari for your family and go into debt with the excuse that it's for your family. It doesn't change the fact that it's a bad investment.

Power corrupts. We have to start scaling back on the power that Washington has over us, because we both agree it's corrupt. Whether it's Bush or Obama, they have too much power.

I'm reading Glenn Beck's Common Sense, which also includes the version by Thomas Paine. Recommended reading.

From: Steve

I'm not advocating elimination of Government. You worked in the Military, which is a necessary Government program. So necessary, that it's require by Article I of the Constitution. I also believe that Government has a role in regulating commerce and capitalism to make sure that the laws are upheld and that everyone plays by the rules. However, when Government runs or owns the means of commerce, such as health care, it is regulating itself which is a dangerous conflict of interest. See Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac. I believe in the American people to run their own lives and make the millions of daily decisions that result in markets functioning at their most efficient, cost effective and beneficial to society as a whole. It is only when Government interferes and picks winners and losers, grants political favors, and uses the tax code as a weapon, that markets fail. Inevitably, the same Government officials who are responsible for the failures place the blame on the failure of capitalism, the free markets or private enterprise and use it as justification to take our freedom of choice away from us. See Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

I especially believe in the 10th Amendment to the Constitution which states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people." I don't see anything in the Constitution allowing the United States to own health insurance, banks, or auto companies. Although it won't happen in my lifetime, I would very much like to see a dismantling of Government ownership of all programs not specifically delegated to it by the Constitution.

You don't like the way the Government was run under the Republicans. I actually agree with you. I dislike it even more under the Democrats. Maybe we can agree they all have gained too much power when they can exert such economic power and catastrophe over the people. And, tick so many people off on both sides of the aisle. My answer is to take power away from the Government, both Republicans and Democrats, and limit their ability to interfere with our lives. The health care reforms proposed by the House are a move in the wrong direction. So is cap and trade, so is the stimulus bill, bailouts, TARP, etc.

As far as Iraq, I teased a friend of mine who was bitching constantly that Iraq was costing us $1 billion a month. After the first $700 billion stimulus, then TARP, then the omnibus budget, projections of $10 trillion in spending, he came to realize that $52 billion per year started to look like chump change.

I'm sure your Government run health care is everything you say it is. It should be. It's sure costing us plenty. A lot more than private insurance is. In fact, it's bankrupting our country and when the baby boomers retire, will enslave your children and grand children. I hope you have plenty to leave them in your will. Although, if you do, the Government will confiscate 50% of it off the top and then levy income tax to your inheritors. So, wasn't Walter Reed a military hospital? I don't think that's the example you want to use, is it? I've heard horror stories about Veterans hospitals for years, but I will defer to your opinion on that.

I'm glad you mentioned that we're building power plants in Afghanistan. The Washington politicians won't allow us to build power plants in our own country. They won't let us drill for resources in Alaska or right off the California or Gulf coasts. California could close it's budget deficits if the Democrats would just let us get the oil. They won't let us use clean coal technology that would not pollute and would provide a significant percentage of our country's energy. We're building water projects in Afghanistan and Iraq, but the environmental laws have shut down the water to the Central Valley of California to save a minnow. This has thrown thousands of families out of business, dried up their farms and killed their crops. This is an unimaginable horror reminiscent of the dust bowl days, although Government created not nature. Not only will we have to import our energy, we'll now have to import our food. Washington (and Sacramento) bureaucrats are committing national suicide, and I'm fed up!

I love this country too and would like to see us get back to the principals that made us the greatest nation on earth. Freedom. Capitalism. Entrepreneurship. Not European Socialism which is where we're headed. We're better than that. The American people are better than that. Washington has lost touch with those core principals. 

From: Bill

Steve,

 

I appreciate your comments.  I merely passed on an article written by an elected representative who was stating facts verse fiction.  The words of the author are his and his alone.  I did review the five bills - all in draft and it appeared to me the representative is correct.  I am not sure which house bill you are referring to in your comments.

 

I have been a government employee for almost 30 years.  I truly believe government has a purpose.  Many feel the size of government is too big, too inefficient, and basically the root of all evil.  I have only worked for the DoD so I will limit my comments to what I have seen..  I know waste when I see it.  The amount of waste the last eight years was incredible.  I have seen outsourcing - and I have seen many times when government completes again the private section - government surprisingly is the best value.  These are facts.   I know many are asking how the current administration and congress will pay for any changes in health care.  Great question.  But where was this concerned when we gave a blank check for Iraq?  This wasn't a concern then why is it a concern now?  Almost a trillion dollars spent - granted I have seen where the money went.  The taxpayers used borrowed money to pay for first class facilities in these countries.  My point is if we can borrow money to build power plants in Afghanistan - a country that lacks the infrastructure and education base to support - why can't we borrow money to pay for health care for our own citizens? 

 

I am realist and I see daily how government works - it is not pretty.  I have also been in countries without governments.  I consider us very lucky to be in this country.

 

I work on the resources side within the DoD.  I understand how the legislation process works.  So when I hear statements made those on the left and right I look them up in the draft bills.  If you did the same I bet we would agree on who is telling the truth.

 

I have single payer insurance.  I have had it 30 years. I currently am under Tricare and under the Veteran Administration.  Both are world class and I wouldn't trade my insurance for any other program.    My family is under Tricare.  They can chose their own doctors, etc.  This system works so well I want it for you too.  And if don't want it - you could (just like my family an d just like me) choose your own program.  I am a federal employee - I elected NOT to pick any of the programs offered by the federal government - the same programs offered to our congress.  Yes Tricare, although not perfect, is very very good system.  A government option would increase competition.

 

I am sending this email to all who originally received it.  But I excluded sending it to the White House.  I am guessing you were joking.

 

Let's continue this discussion.

 

Bill

From: Steve (FUFODOG)

You lost the argument in the first sentence when you referred to Republicans as morally depraved. The first to resort to name-calling loses. If you actually believe that this supports your position then I feel sorry for you, Bill. I don't think any reasonable rebuttal will persuade you and I think you really need to explore the source of your hate. I, and I imagine many of your friends, do not appreciate e-mails calling me names. If that's to be the intellectual level of your debate, then please "unsubscribe" me from further ideological diatribes. 

 

I guess dissent, which was considered patriotic when it was against Bush, is now manufactured, artificial and, according to Nancy Pelosi, "un-American" or, according to you, "morally depraved." It's OK for the current President to be a community organizer, but those who organize around issues he disagrees with are to be scorned and denigrated. Yeah, that's fair. By the way, Gallup, Rassmussen, PEW, and NBC/Wall St. Journal polls all show that Americans are opposed by 53% to the proposal in increasing numbers as the details are made available and discussed. By Nancy Pelosi's logic, the majority of Americans are now "un-American." Are they "morally depraved" too, or just stupid in your opinion? 

 

So, to explain my opposition to the House bill: 

 

Government is too big, too costly and too inefficient already. Government spending in 2009 is projected to be 45% of GDP http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html.. That's before the $1.6 trillion spending proposed by the House for health care. We are entering the realm of Socialism. Consider that government spending in France and Germany, who DO consider themselves Socialist countries, is around 48% to 49%. Government already has too much control over our lives and the trend is going in the wrong direction. 

 

In 1965 Medicare was originally supposed to cost $9 billion by 1990. The actual cost? $66 billion. Medicare is bankrupt. According to AP and MSNBC (hardly Republican sympathizers) the "looming Medicare shortage is seven times the size of the one that Social Security faces and nearly four times the entire federal debt." The current proposed budget for the House bill to reform health care is $1.6 trillion. Neither the House, nor the President has told us how they are going to pay for this. Especially if Obama keeps his promise to not raise taxes on those who earn under $250. If the government taxed everyone who makes over $250 thousand at 100%, it would still not pay for health care, let alone TARP, cap and trade, the omnibus budget, stimulus 1 or potentially stimulus 2. Am I "morally depraved" for wanting government live within its means? Is this so unreasonable? 

 

The U.S. spends $800 billion a year on Medicare and Medicaid, $60 billion of which is estimated to be lost to fraud. If Government can't run existing health care programs any better than th at, why should we trust them to expand health care through more Government programs? 

 

Massachusetts and Tennessee have both i implemented public options for health care and both states are being bankrupted by the programs as they are substantially exceeding their budgeted costs. 

 

The Fact/Fiction argument presented by Herb Kohl is somewhat misleading. He's correct in many of his assertions that the current version of the bill does NOT contain some of what he calls fiction. However, at least 31 new federal programs, agencies, commissions and mandates are created by this bill. Consequently, although the bill does not include many of the details that Americans are concerned with, these agencies and commissioners will have to implement the bill with all of those details that are yet to be determined. Determined BY THEM! That's why no one knows, not even Herb Kohl, what impact this bill will have on our health care system. Those specifics will be implemented outside the legislative process by design so that Herb Kohl will be able to deny complicity when it all goes wrong. 

 

So, who will Obama appoint to these coveted commissions? Perhaps his czars and advisors provide an insight into that question. 

 

Ezekiel Emanuel, one of Obama's advisors and brother of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel wrote in January of this year "when implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated... The complete lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather than instrumental value." This sounds like rationing to me. 

 

Cass Sunstein, Obama's Regulatory czar, is also advising the President on health care said in the Columbia Law Review in 2004 "I urge that the Government should indeed focus on life-years rather than lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people." 

 

During Obama's prime-time town hall on health care, Jane Sturm told the President that it took three doctors to agree to implanting a pacemaker in her 100 year old mother’s chest. She is now 105. Would Obamacare have denied her life? Obama's response? "Well now that's a tough one ... that costs a lot and maybe we will have to say, just take the painkiller." Sounds like rationing to me. 

 

Barbara Wagner, an Oregon resident who is covered through the state of Oregon's government health care plan, was denied an important cancer drug she requested and instead was offered a drug for assisted suicide. She eventually got the cancer drug she needed, donated by the evil Pharmaceutical companies, not the state. Oregon's bill didn't include an assisted suicide provision when it was passed either. 

 

Herb Kohl misleads the reader with some of the noted objections. For example, he says "none of the proposals being considered by Congress would make private health insurance illegal." No one that I've heard or read is saying that it would. What opponents are pointing to is that the bill will fine employers who do not provide insurance 8% of total salary expenses. 

 

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Employer Costs for Employee Compensation: All Civilian Workers,” September 2007, In 2006, U.S. employers spent 9.9% of payroll on health insurance contributions. An 8% penalty will be a cost effective solution for employers to reduce costs. This will lead many employers to eliminate private insurance for their employees, forcing them into the public option, and putting many private insurers out of business. So, when supporters of the House bill claim that the bill won't eliminate private insurance and you can keep the insurance you have, they are literally correct, but fundamentally dishonest. 

 

The Government can easily undercut private insurance by channeling more tax dollars into the government program. We can argue whether this will happen, but I don't believe I'm "morally depraved" for believing that it will. 

 

I believe that Government IS the problem and IS the reason why health care is so expensive. For example, there are 1,300 insurance companies in the U.S. that provide health insurance. I am only allowed to buy insurance from those companies that are licensed in California, which requires them to provide ridiculous coverage for acupuncture and trans-gender therapy, among other things. By opening up interstate commerce of insurance plans, we could significantly increase competition and lower costs. This is a Government restriction, not an insurance company restriction. 

 

Why is my employer responsible for shopping for my insurance? Because of Government mandated employer provided health insurance. I changed jobs last year, but wasn't allowed to keep my insurance because it's not an option on my current employer's plan. If I bought the insurance I was happy with, my employer would be prohibited from contributing to it, refunding me their contribution amount, AND the Government wouldn't let me deduct the expenses from my income for taxes. Another Government restriction that's unnecessary, increases the cost and limits choice and availability. 

 

What we need is personalized insurance, not nationalized insurance. Consumer choice, not only in the selection of insurance, but in the spending of insurance money on our own health care will lower costs, increase availability, and improve quality as it does in all areas where capitalism is allowed to work. Some Government regulation, not ownership, of the insurance industry and provisions for emergency care and vouchers for lower income people to purchase their own insurance is change I can believe in. 

 

So, Bill. I'm passionate about this issue but not "depraved." What about you? You initiated this conversation. Are you interested in a discussion, or are you only interested in a one-sided debate where opposing opinions are suppressed? Here's your intellectual honesty test for today. If you're firm in your convictions then you should have no problem forwarding this rebuttal to the same distribution as your original e-mail. If you're unwilling to do this, then I can only conclude that you're an ideologue with no interest in debate, only propaganda. If the latter is the case, please unsubscribe me from further propaganda. 

 

PS. I imagine you will forward my "fishy misinformation" to the White House Office of black-balled citizens and I'll probably end up on a domestic terrorist watch-list for expressing an opinion different from the Messiah. In that case, President Obama: I would like you to read the Privacy Act of 1974, which was passed after the Nixon administration used federal agencies to illegally investigate individuals for political purposes. Enacted after Richard Nixon's resignation in the Watergate scandal, the statute generally prohibits any federal agency from maintaining records on individuals exercising their right to free speech. 

Part 1 of a friendly debate with an old friend on health care. Bill initiated the conversation by forwarding the following e-mail.

From: Bill

Health Care Fact FACT vs. FICTION for Senior Citizens: Disgusting Republican Lies Disputed

The morally depraved Republican Party insists upon spreading lies (and lying about themselves)--maybe that's the only way their message would have a chance of winning out over health insurance reform. One of my two great Sens.--in this case Herb Kohl, sends along this very helpful guide for seniors to cut through the Republican Lie Machine of dishonest and false rumors. Sorry it is so long--but the GOP has spread so many lies that it takes time to debunk them all.

Health Care Reform: FACT vs. FICTION 

Brought to you by the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging The Senate Special Committee on Aging has a responsibility to represent the concerns of America’s seniors. As its Chairman, I will work to make sure that changes to our health care system are in seniors’ best interests. Your representatives in Congress have been working for months to put together a plan for health reform. Though progress has been steady, as of August, there are still several proposals in flux. Please be aware that Congress has not yet formulated one bill, and that no final decisions have been made about what will be included in health reform .

Nevertheless, there are countless rumors swirling about “the health care bill,” many of which are meant to scare older Americans. A good rule of thumb is that if it sounds too ridiculous to be true, it probably is. This document has been prepared by the Senate Special Committee on Aging to set the record straight. Thank you for our interest. 

Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI) 

Chairman 

FACTS ABOUT MEDICARE 

FACT vs. FICTION 

Health care reform will replace Medicare and Medicaid. 

This is FICTION. 

Health reform will not replace Medicare or Medicaid. In fact, the proposals to date work to strengthen both programs and improve their systems. Health care reform will not dissolve or radically change Medicare. 

Most seniors are happy with Medicare. In fact, Medicare boasts a higher satisfaction rate than private insurance. The reform proposals to date will work to strengthen Medicare, and will not make any significant changes to the way seniors receive their health care services. 

Health care reform will cut Medicare and take away choices for seniors. This is FICTION. 

Under health care reform, Medicare will continue to offer seniors the choices they need. Health care reform ill also include provisions to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicare. But this will not keep you from vetting procedures that you need , when you need them. The government is creating a “Czar” who will decide what treatments are best for certain conditions and force physicians to treat patients in a certain way. 

This is FICTION. 

The House proposal includes provisions to fund research that will compare treatments for certain conditions. This type of unbiased, fact-based research will be available to both patients and doctors to help them to make the best individual treatment decisions for each person. In addition, the proposal also explicitly prohibits "denying or rationing" medical care based on this research. 

The House health care reform bill would require doctors to give seniors “suicide counseling.” 

This is FICTION. 

The House proposal does not tell seniors how to die, nor urge doctors to do so. The proposal empowers seniors to voluntarily make their own decisions on end-of-life care in advance, in consultation with a trusted 

physician. Part of planning for the future could be creating a living will that includes your wishes for the end of life, so that your instructions are followed to the letter. No matter what your wishes are, the health reform proposal will not take any of those choices away from you. In fact, it helps to make sure that your choices are respected. 

Health care reform will lead to rationing. 

This is FICTION. 

There’s no bill or proposal in Congress that would ration health care. We do need to reexamine the way that we pay for health care in this country. Thus far, the proposals are focused on paying for value and quality of care over volume of services. Under our current system, some providers are incentivized to run duplicative tests and over-order expensive treatment, though these procedures might not be what the patient needs to get better. An improved health care system will lead to smarter health care choices, but that does not mean it will limit your options. 

If you have private insurance now, your care is already limited when your insurance company decides what procedures to pay for and which doctors to cover. Insurance companies can deny you coverage if you have a pre-existing condition. And they can make payments and premiums prohibitively high for American families. 

Congress is working to minimize these denials and barriers to quality health care. The House health care reform bill would make private health insurance illegal or would eliminate it in five years. 

This is FICTION. 

None of the proposals being considered by Congress would make private health insurance illegal. In fact, the House proposal specifically allows people to keep their current private health insurance. Those who are 

uninsured would be allowed to choose from a range of private insurance plans as well as a new public insurance option. 

Health care reform will require people to sign up for government health care, especially if they 

don’t have any insurance right now. 

This is FICTION. 

The health reform proposals being considered thus far would allow people to choose between a menu of private health insurances and, under some proposals, a government-run “public option.” It is important to remember that the “public option” would be just that: an option. Seniors who already have health coverage would not need to worry about switching insurance at all, and Medicare will stay intact. Congress will reserve your ability to choose your health insurance plan, your doctor, and your hospital. No Illegal immigrants would receive government  funded health coverage if health reform passes. 

This is FICTION. 

The House proposal explicitly forbids spending federal dollars on illegal immigrants. On Page 143, Line 3, Section 146, it says: "No Federal Payment for Undocumented Aliens. Nothing in this subtitle shall allow federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States." 

Members of Congress refuse to give up their health plans to take the public option. This is FICTION. 

Reforming our nation’s health care system is meant to give every American access to quality, affordable health care – just like Members of Congress have. In fact, one of the Senate proposals would require members of Congress to join the public option, giving them the opportunity to show Americans the trust they place in government-run health care. 

Health care reform won’t go into effect until 2013—in five years. 

This is PARTIALLY FACT. 

Congress recognizes that it takes time to change the health care system. The final legislation will be phased in over time. Though some of the changes would occur shortly after the bill is passed, others may take several years.

The difference between Republicans and Democrats is: Republicans want everyone to be rich; Democrats want everyone to be poor.

I'm less afraid that Republicans will break their promises, than I am that Democrats will keep theirs.

The Lovelle Mixon shooting and killing of four Oakland police officers is being used as a justification to enact a laundry list of new gun control laws by our State and Federal representatives. Proposals include making the expired Federal assault weapons law permanent; placing limits on ammunition sales, requiring registration of “high capacity” magazines, biometric handgun safeties, serial number imprinting on ammunition, and just about every other anti-gun idea that infringes on our right to keep and bear arms.

These representatives and activists think that we are stupid enough to believe that if we just passed more laws, that these kinds of incidents would not happen. Right.

Mr. Mixon was hardly a model, law abiding, citizen. According to Wikipedia: Beginning at age 13, Mixon was arrested multiple times for battery, and by age 20 he began serving a Corcoran state prison sentence following a conviction for assault with a deadly weapon during an armed robbery in San Francisco. After he was paroled, Mixon was in and out of prison. At the time of his assault on the officers, he was living in East Oakland at his grandmother's house and was wanted on a no-bail arrest warrant for violating his current parole conditions. On March 20, 2009, the day before Mixon killed the police officers, Oakland police learned that Mixon was linked by DNA to the February 2009 rape of a 12-year-old girl who was dragged off the street at gunpoint in the East Oakland neighborhood where Mixon's sister lived. Investigators said that he may have committed as many as five other rapes in the same neighborhood during recent months, however no convictions had been secured before Mixon's death and the DNA investigation continues. If Mixon had been arrested for his parole violaton, he would have faced at most six months in prison; if convicted of rape, he faced a life sentence.

Mixon had also been the primary suspect in a previous murder case, however due to lack of evidence he had been charged only with lesser violations: possession of drug paraphernalia, forgery, identity theft, attempted grand theft, and receiving stolen property.

The Oakland shootings took place in California, the state with the most restrictive gun control laws in the country already. Besides the shootings themselves, it was illegal for Mr. Mixon to own or possess any firearm, let alone an AK-47, used in the shooting. AK-47’s have been illegal for ten years already.

So, why on earth do our representatives figure that more laws would prevent future occurrences of these types? New laws won’t do a single thing except to give the criminals even more leverage over law abiding citizens’ right to protect themselves. How Mixon got the guns used in the shootings or whether he used high capacity magazines has not been disclosed.

The answer is that this tragedy is being exploited by anti-gun zealots to advance an ideological agenda, regardless of the facts. Only two weeks ago, there was a Columbine-like shooting in Germany, which has some of the strictest gun control regulations in the world. The fact is that across the country, and the world, there is no correlation between the existence of strict firearms regulations and a lower incidence of gun-related crimes.