Is it a truly Affordable Health Care?

I am continuing to ask others what is important in this election.  Recently I have been getting the Affordable Care Act as a main issue and reason to vote for Obama.  One gentleman noted that without Health Care Reform, he would not have insurance.

I responded with a personal dilemma that I hope helps put this into perspective and as a Senior I am wondering if I am not alone on this.

I want to share with you something that is being impacted by the upcoming election that affects me personally.  I am asking all of you who support Obama, especially those of you who consider the Affordable Care Act to be the main reason for supporting Obama to reflect on my situation and help me to understand why I should vote for Obama.

Many of you know that I have a form of cancer called indolent, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.  This requires aggressive treatment from time to time and I am looking at a possible bone marrow transplant over the next several months.  While I am not certain what the overall cost will be, I am certain it will be well in excess of $100,000. 

We have been blessed with a good job that has allowed me to purchase decent insurance at a rate that has been fairly affordable.  One way we have tried to manage our health care expenses and to more directly be responsible for our health care costs is that I chose a higher deductible (about;$7,000) and opted for a health savings account (HSA).  We have funded this HSA with the difference between the deductible and our anticipated out of pocket expenses.

Because of Obama's So Called Affordable Health Care plan, beginning in 2013, I will only be able to set aside $2,500 annually into my HSA.  This means that I will be "on the hook" without tax assistance for the difference between my deductible and $2,500.

This leaves me with a dilemma.  My choices would be keep the high deductible, take the 2,500 into the HSA account and pay out of pocket the nearly $5,000 of the difference between my deductable and the HSA without consideration against my after tax income.  This means that at my current tax bracket, I must earn $6,100 in order to have a net of $5,000 for my deductible.

My other option is pay nearly double my monthly premiums in order to get my deductible down to close to $2,500.  In either case, the so called Affordable Care Act makes my health care less affordable.

So when Obama tells you that he is not raising taxes on the middle class, I submit my situation as evidence piece number one that he is being less than honest on this matter.  I am confident that this is not the only situation in which this legislation has not fully represented the costs, especially to seniors who often need the most health care.

So you tell me, how is the Affordable Care Act helping me and why is it in my best interest to re-elect the President?  I'll be listening.

What Issues Are Important to You in This Election?

Why I Am Voting FOR Mitt Romney and Not Merely Against Obama

For some time now I have been asking many people this simple question: "For you, what are the key issues of this campaign"?

I have been delighted to hear both the willingness to engage on the subject and the wide range of issues that people consider when voting. It has been illuminating and educational.

When those I have engaged in this conversation have the respect to turn the question back on me, here is my answer....

3 Critical Crises

Our country is facing a series of crises of unprecedented magnitude. While we could engage on many, for me the focus must be on 3 critical concerns:

1)  Economic Growth

2)  the federal debt

3)  National Security

 

To me these three critical issues dwarf all other considerations.

 

Why? Because no matter your stand on education, health, social issues, etc., (all worthy of concern) no meaningful action, one way or another, can truly take place, until we get our own house in order. To be concerned about who should be allowed to marry who or how health care should be distributed, is a little bit like choosing between removing my valuables from  a safe or saving the lives of people in a house that is in flames.  Clearly, if we have time and it is safe, you want to do both. Unfortunately I am afraid that we don't have the time to even have that discussion.

When lives are at stake, the priority should be on saving lives.

Economic Growth

In this election, the first and most dangerous fire is jobs and the economy. However, it is not merely about how many people we put to work but also what kind of economic philosophy is going to drive our country going forward. Here are our choices as I see them.

Do we work to restore a commitment to prosperity and the creation of wealth, or one in which we merely put people to work?

The President’s plan is one that relies on direct funding of work with little or no regard of the source of those funds.  To be clear, I believe in the great work of teachers, firefighters, police officers, and road construction workers. As the son of a man who taught unselfishly for 50 years, I can testify to the difference that one teacher can make in the lives of a human being.

But we need to take a step back to understand that what allows for great teachers to flourish is an underlying healthy economy that generates enough wealth to support the hiring of great teachers, firefighters and police officers. Small Business, Entrepreneurs and owners of private enterprise are the creators of goods, products and services.  These products and services, when they are successful, lead to wealth creation, good jobs and the ability to provide sufficient funding for necessary public works, schools and the services that protect all of our citizens, especially the most vulnerable. So, a vibrant economy is critical, because without it, all other services, programs, and initiatives become "at risk" regardless of their merit.

Mitt Romney Has a Better Approach

Instead of directly funding the middle layers of our economy in which the government takes the role of directing the funds of the wealthy and future taxpayers to our noble teachers, firefighters, etc, Mitt Romney proposes that the role of government  should be to encourage private sector growth, by freeing up funds, primarily through a fair and level tax policy and reasonable regulation that promotes private investment, creating opportunity for wealth creation and solid jobs for all. The wealthier all of us are as citizens, the more we have available to extend the judicious use of citizen led initiatives, including but not limited to government programs to address the wide range of the social challenges we face.  Simply put, people, with the freedom to invest and take risks, will do a better job of creating a wealthier society that impacts us all than well meaning, but limited government bureaucrats.

Federal Debt Secondly we have a federal debt  that is out of control. It is irresponsible and unconscionable that we would allow the federal debt to increase to $16 trillion. This puts at risk future prosperity and limits the options that we have available for the necessary work of government. I simply will not stand by to pass along this large debt to my children and their children.  It is immoral and unfair.  It also saps our nation’s ability to meet our basic responsibilities.

 

How so?  With every dollar that we spend on the interest servicing our debt, we lose a dollar for other necessary programs. This means every dollar sent to China to service the debt is a dollar we don't have for social security, medicaid, healthcare, programs for education, national  security – or anything else, just name it. This is a beast that must be controlled and the most powerful way to approach this is to combine a sensible way of reigning in the spending, combined with a “pedal to the metal” fueling up of economic growth. Bear in mind that for every 1% rise in the GDP we contribute almost $700-$800 billion is added revenue for the federal government. This is why having economic growth is the number one priority for taming the federal deficit.  Having success with this first and most important issue makes the tough work of the second much easier.  Most of the pundits who are looking for the specifics in the Romney/Ryan plan and state in pontificating terms "that it does not add up", are guilty of looking at the economic world from a static perception. It does not add up because they have no faith in the power of an American economy unleashed. Imagine what would happen to our government revenues if we could coax and extra 2% RISE OUT OF THE GDP? Why it might be enough to raise even the fortunes of California.

 

Here, Mitt Romney along with his partner Paul Ryan have an absolute sterling record of success in managing and controlling budgets and turning around difficult situations so that success could be achieved.  Whether   you look to his work in the private sector, his volunteer work during the winter Olympics, or his unpaid leadership as Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt has a superior track record of success in turning around challenging situations and leaving many much better off.

 

Foreign Policy Finally our current foreign-policy is a disaster. The question isn't should we have a foreign policy that enhances the security of the United States and leads to a safer world? That is a nearly universally shared goal. The better question is, how do we best achieve that? 

Here again I think that Romney has a distinct and positive solution. First and foremost he clearly differentiates himself from the president by calling for a stronger commitment to military and defense spending. It's a sensible 20% of GDP commitment to military spending which is consistent with our level of commitment for over 40 years.  Having the interest payments on our debt going to fuel Chinese expansion of their military is unconscionable.  If we reduce the level of payments to the Chinese we can afford to update and modernize  our own military, thus  enhancing  the strength of our military force. Obama has proposed over $500 billion in cuts to the military and a reduction in our military force. Compared to Ronald Reagan’s successful foreign policy initiatives, Obama couldn't provide a more diametrically opposed philosophy.   Ronald Reagan famously demonstrated, the effectiveness of “Peace Through Strength” -- and I believe that Romney brings that same essential proven successful philosophy to his approach on foreign-policy. Drones and Special Forces alone will not provide us the security nor offer us the options that come from a military that cannot be challenged. All foreign issues are not simply “criminal actions” that necessitate a limited police like response.  Nothing is as potent as having a complete top to bottom military that is second to none.

Now some may challenge this with, “How can we afford a military buildup when we are struggling with deficits?”  A sensible question.  I respond with three points:  It is a matter of priorities: 1) Economic Growth, key to all other issues.  2) Reduce foreign interest payments with fair budgets, 3) maintain security spending @20% of GDP.  This means that we manage security spending in a manner that is affordable and makes economic growth and reduction of foreign debt payment THE critical issues in order to achieve those security goals.

This then allows the United States to project influence into dangerous parts of the world and have our influence be taken seriously. I believe that the current administration's approach puts at serious risk our standing in the world.

 

So there you have it, these are my top issues and reasons for voting for Mitt Romney and not necessarily against Pres. Obama.

 

Mitt is a man who was successful in turning around businesses with  and setting them up for sustained success.  He turned a troubled Olympics around, , guiding the 2002 Winter Olympics into one of the most successful endeavors in Olympic history.  Finally, he demonstrated his ability to be an effective leader in a government executive position.  As governor of the state of Massachusetts, he was able to bring an out-of-control budget under control, while at the same time managing the education standards of that  state  in such a way that they were envy of others.  

We must elect Mitt Romney not merely to defeat President Obama, but because he is the right man at the right time that will tackle these three most important issues in a manner that, I believe. will help turn this country .

These are my issues and concerns.  That is why I am voting for Romney and not necessarily against President Obama!

What are your issues and concerns?

Some Thoughts on Our First "Gay" President

I know that some time back I stated that I would not engage in the so called "Gay Marriage" debate as I think that this is a discussion that has lost any semblance of rational thought about and that it has instead become an emotional cause celeb within our culture.  However, recently, Newsweek annointed our President as the First Gay President.  I simply had to offer my thoughts one last? time.

A friend of mine provided a link to a site entitled "10 Reasons to Ban Gay Marriage".  This led to a discussion about what it means to be married in America today.  Below are some of my thoughts on the matter.....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An Open Letter To my Well Meaning Supporters of Gay Marriage,

Thank you for your humorous post that intends to shame us into seeing the bigotry of our position. 

I get it. You want to re-define marriage. Ok. I accept your proposal to redefine marriage. So.... What should the new definition be? Why that definition? What is the intended purpose for codifying that definition into state law? Just asking. 

If you are seeking my support for your new definition I need to understand the purpose and why the state should extend rights and benefits to same sex couples and deny rights to other forms of relationships. Again, what should the new definition be?

Let's Take Out the Religious Argument for A Moment

Let's begin by taking out for a moment the religious aspects to marriage, and simply focus on why the state is involved in marriage at all.  Looking at over nearly a century and a half of marriage and family law, you see a clear pattern that squarely places the foundation of the laws associated with marriage and family on a fundamental principle of protecting women and children.  That is why we had marriage and family law in the first place or at all as a state sponsored/regulated institution.  

Until 1850, there were no State Laws Governing Marriage

There were no state laws covering marriage or children at all in the US until New York enacted legislation, primarily designed to protect women in the 1850s. Over the years the notion of what constitutes marriage and family law has evolved and spread to all other states.

In a watershed moment in the late 60s/early 70s California began the latest round of marriage and family law shifts with its introduction of the no-fault divorce.

The primary purpose of all of the laws that have been enacted up to and including the no-fault divorce laws were primarily designed to protect women and children in those relationships. So we have nearly a century and a half of marriage and family law whose primary purpose was to protect families especially women and children.
Today We Are Being Asked to Consider Something Very Different

Now we are being asked to expand and extend the definition of marriage to include a group of people for whom it was never the intention to cover in the original purpose of the laws governing marriage. I am not arguing that the state should not alter or expand the rights and privileges of citizens, I am simply pointing out that to accomodate this change, we must consider the foundational principles we are using to support the change.

So, you see, it is a redefinition.  Especially as you consider it from a legal perspective. Also what you are proposing is based upon introducing an altered/expanded purpose for these laws.

If your argument rests upon the idea that you are eliminating discrimination, I suggest that this is not, in fact, the case.  What you are proposing continues discrimination. Why?  It continues discrimination in excluding marriages within families (think brother/sister, father/daughter) and it continues to exclude marriages between other forms of domestic partnerships such as polygamist relationships.

So it is clearly seen that the argument, that we are doing this in order to eliminate discrimination is, in fact, not true. So, my question remains what should be the definition of marriage? Further, and of more relevance, what should be, from a state perspective, the purpose of marriage (or at least the laws that support marriage)?

Now you may conclude from this writing that I am anti-gay. I disagree. My question is more a fundamental policy question. What I am looking to understand is that if we are going to expand the rights of a particular group of people then what is the purpose of that expansion of those rights?  Why should we provide those rights to those people and not others.

A Radical Suggestion

I have a radically different view on the whole situation. I believe that the state should get out of the marriage business completely. That all relationships, from the perspective of the state, should be defined in a form of civil contract. No (state) marriages at all.

Marriage and marriage ceremonies would revert to the auspices of religious institutions. So anyone could be "married" as long as the religious institution would confer that title but it would have no legal standing. The legal standing for the relationship would be defined by civil contract, a "civil union" for all.  Marriage (as commonly understood by religious institutions) and Civil Unions (the underpinning legal set of rights for people, would, in-fact, be two separate things.

This point of view would allow for the preservation of traditional marriage for those Americans that value that while at the same time allowing for the rights and responsibilities to be conferred upon any reasonable relationship. we could look at it not from an emotional perspective but really from a policy perspective.

Final Thoughts, Resigned to the Inevitable

My final thoughts are that for some time I have felt that technology powerfully impacts society and the values we share.  In many respects, the introduction of the birth control pill has led to a fundamental shift of sex from one whose primary purpose is to have children to one whose primary purpose is to have pleasure.  Certainly both have always been present, but there has been a fundamental shift in what is primary.  Add to this an overpopulated world in which technology performs so much of our labor and children become an economic burden instead of a benefit.  The perceived value of families, in general and children in particular goes down.   Finally, through technology and social mores, it is no longer a necessity to have a man and woman "lay together" in order to conceive children and you have a perfect storm in which new "definitions" of family are not just possible, they are almost inevitable. 

So, I return to the stand I took months ago when I stated I would not engage in this debate any more as I think it is not worth fighting and other more fundamental issues are before us.  The "gay" marriage train has left the station and I think that it is invitable.  If given an opportunity to vote against it, I will, because I do not agree that this is the best solution for our society.  We have been well served with marriages in which there is one man and one woman.  I value children and their well being.  The evidence remains overwhelming that children are best served in a loving, stable, comitted relationship in which a father and a mother are married to each other.  I believe that the state should continue to respect and protect families and children.  I will continue to argue for these ideals of family.  I simply think that because of technology, my position is one that is not shared by an ever increasing wave of a generation who operates in a self-focused world of pleasure that no longer sees the value in old fashioned concepts such as husband/wife, father/mother, children of values.

So I am resigned to the inevitable.  Have your new definition.  Just remember, there are long term consequences to these decisions that you may not have completely thought through.

Your thoughts my friend?