Have I gone nuts or something?

Two topics today:
First, how the hell can I like both Johnson and Obama?

This is a question that I've been asked by a number of people, I suspect in attempts to discredit my knowledge of politics. Of course, we all want to believe that those who disagree with us are idiots, or at the very least, ignorant on whatever given subject... and we generally measure the knowledge of others by how much they agree with us. Arrogant, to say the least - to act in such a way assumes that we are the ultimate authority on a subject.

On the surface, perhaps, it would seem that the two are complete opposites - more so than Obama and Romney, even. But, that's only true if your attention is only focused on the current hot-button issues. Government spending, certainly... Obamacare... stuff like that. What about liberties and equal rights? Johnson supports equal rights for same sex couples, and so does Obama. On women's issues, hard to compare... they are pretty close. I guess it would depend on perspective. Obama said he would get rid of the Patriot Act, but sadly renewed it. I figure Johnson would be the one to actually end it. They both advocate internet freedom, although it's easier to trust Johnson's hands-off approach on this. Johnson wants to legalize marijuana, Obama has kept quiet on the subject... but has admitted to smoking the stuff in the past. Gun rights... well, I was nervous about Obama at first, but he has so far stood up for them pretty well even in the face of foreign leaders practically demanding that he tighten gun laws or ban them altogether.

The thing is that both candidates really want about the same thing, though Obama's more a politician (if you've been keeping up with my blog, you know that that's not exactly a compliment). They both want to improve the economy, but they have different plans. They both want America and its people as a whole to be better off, but go about it different ways. Different paths to (hopefully) the same goal. Obama's idea is to give more government aid, while Johnson's is to have the government back off. Both ideas can work, and both ideas can seriously fuck things up, all according to how it's done.

The Republicans, for example, claim to want government to back off. However, their idea of backing off is to deregulate for corporations and to give more and more tax breaks to the wealthiest, and will do any favors they can for the wealthiest while screwing over the rest and and accusing any who object of "class warfare." They are, after all, helping themselves out in doing so. Kind of like voting themselves an off-the-record pay raise. But, that's the extent of their "small government" - they still want to legislate your morals.

The Democrats on the other hand... the nannies. Their legislation tends to intrude on personal decision making, such as Bloomberg's ban on big soft drinks. And while well intentioned, raising the minimum wage in itself isn't going to work - it'll cause lay-off's and price increases, thus increasing the overall cost of living. Let's remember, business owners and execs (even the ones that really are rolling in the money) don't want to take a pay cut just to give their workers pay that they can actually live on. Also, while I don't support relaxing current environmental regulations, tightening them unnecessarily in the US really won't do much until other nations catch up. Comparatively speaking, we're not doing too terrible hear. However, look at China. Look at Mexico. Fiscally speaking, it would take much less for them to catch up to us. We should still always look for improvements, but let's also let our own businesses catch up on their profits a bit and encourage other nations to catch up on their pollution controls.

Anyway, between Obama and Johnson, I think it would be a win if either one of these candidates won. Romney, not so much. For me, the tie-breaker may be Obamacare, which brings me to my second topic:

How the hell can I support Obamacare?

Won't it completely bankrupt the healthcare industry? Think of it this way - you're driving your brand new black 2012 Dodge Challenger (WANT!), then someone runs a red light and smashes into your new beauty of a car. No problem, insurance will take care of that... oh? What's that? The other driver doesn't have insurance? Damn... well, guess it's a good thing you had to pay extra for that uninsured driver coverage, huh? Except while the hell should you have to?

Consider this: a lot of Americans don't have health insurance. It's not because they're irresponsible; it's because they can't afford it. Or they get denied because of pre-existing conditions. Not all employers provide health insurance, after all... my last two jobs didn't. Nonetheless, if someone walks into a doctor's office in extreme pain or in need of emergency help, legally, they have to help at least to stabilizing the patient... thankfully. The value of someone's life shouldn't depend on how rich they are. This leaves the patient with a debt to the doctor's office/clinic/hospital... and in many cases, the patient will not be able to pay off said debt, leaving the doctor's office/clinic/hospital with a bad debt and not much they can do to collect it.

The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) addresses these issues. First, insurance companies won't be able to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions... and make no mistake, they will find any asinine reason they can to do so. Childhood asthma, depression, PCOS (Poly-Cystic Ovary Syndrome... fairly common, many cases go undiagnosed and untreated)... the list goes on. Insurance companies are a business after all, and they want their profits.

Next, the question of insurance companies being hurt, or them jacking up their rates. Obama essentially called bullshit on the insurers on this one in the form of the 85-15 rule. That is, 85% of their funds go to patient care with the remaining 15% used for whatever they feel like - administration, whatever. 

As for the question of the metaphorical uninsured driver... that's where the especially controversial individual mandate comes in. Basically, everyone is going to pay into healthcare somehow, if not through insurance, then through a fine or whatever you want to call it, that is withheld from tax refunds. I suppose you could call said fine your annual insurance dues.

I think that Obamacare does deserve a chance. It likely will reduce overall costs associated with healthcare on the private level as well as the government level as well as giving everyone at least minimal health insurance of some kind.

What does eet meeean, man!?

In case you didn't hear, the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), including the individual mandate. Reactions are varied, including many saying they'll move to Canada to avoid the universal healthcare. Well, I'll hope that works out for them. Maybe they'll find Canada's universal healthcare more acceptable. Yes... I am being ironic.

For my part, I'm not fond of the individual mandate, but I can see why it may be needed. It's either that or more taxes... although it would take me about fifteen minutes to come up with a list of things we could axe or scale back on to make up for it, starting with a fairly thorough audit on all government spending.

However, on the idea of universal healthcare coverage in itself, I like it. Healthcare is expensive. Very fucking expensive. There are any number of reasons for it... many can be attributed to greed, some of it corporate, some of it belonging to those who are overly quick to run to a malpractice attorney. And it is easy to see why many people think of the insurance companies as being evil. Yes, they are a business, yes, that means they should be turning a profit. But at the same time, what if instead of spending all those extra profits on ad campaigns and lobbying, they spent it on actually taking care of people?

I'll let you in on a little info on myself. I've been without any kind of health insurance for well over two years now, starting when I was laid off from a particular job. The next job I had simply didn't provide health insurance. COBRA wasn't a viable option, as it wouldn't have left me enough money to even come close to paying rent each month. My present job isn't giving me enough hours to qualify for their health insurance. Thankfully, I'm in fairly good health overall, but that can always change... in a heartbeat, so to speak. However, if I were to try for private insurance, I would be denied. Why? Because of the pre-existing conditions. In my case, depression or possibly PTSD, either one's a kiss of death for insurance. Also, having had asthma as a child would disqualify me.

My girlfriend was also laid off from a job a few months ago. She's a little more concerned about the "what-if's" than I am. She tried for private insurance, and after a very invasive phone interview, she was rejected based on having PCOS - a fairly common condition, affecting 5-10% of all women, maybe more, and in her case, not severe. She receives no special treatments for it. But it was still enough to deny her coverage altogether.

With Obama himself, I remember him saying his inspiration for this (other than Romney's own bill in Massachusetts) was his own mother having cancer and being denied live-saving coverage as a result.

So yeah, for me it's personal. It's personal for Obama as well.

2012 Elections and my Endorsement

By now, you are probably tired of hearing about election stuff. I know I am, and there is still a number of months to go. However, that doesn't make it any less important.

Republicans... Republicans. Ugh. They had a chance to get some major victories in. While many of the reasons people hate Obama are basically bullshit, the fact is that a lot of people still hate him regardless. But hate is generally synonymous with stupidity, so it requires only a little rhyme and no reason.

All in all, I'd say that the TEA Party is the worst thing to happen to Republicans and the best thing to happen to Democrats in a very long time. Regardless of how stupid they are, the fact is that they are good at getting their candidates nominated. And said candidates tend to be extreme... like Christine O'Donnell. While such candidates may set the conservatives all afire with glee, it's ultimately the moderates who decide an election. We moderates tend to dislike extremists. Most politicians are aware of this, and thus switch to pandering to moderates once they get the party nomination, never mind how much they painted themselves as an extreme party loyalist during primaries. Just remember... "Independent" isn't spelled with an (R) or (D).

Anyway, generally speaking, the Republican Party didn't give choices to be very enthusiastic about during the recent primaries. The one I liked ended up being shunned as a trouble maker and was generally ignored. Unfortunate for the Republicans, because I think the guy could have won against Obama. No, I'm not talking about Ron Paul - I see him as a hypocrite and religious fundamentalist.

Consider the choices offered, though. Most were TEA Party types. Religious fundamentalists to the core, all logic be damned. Preaching smaller government in the same breath as preaching for more invasive government... sorry, but small government doesn't tell you who you can marry or be in the bedroom with, or dictate religious morals as a whole.

Well, counting out the one I like, I'd say Romney was the lesser of the evils offered... but still evil. It is painfully obvious that he is out of touch with all but the rich and super rich, though he tries to paint himself as being otherwise. Don't get me wrong; I'm not one who hates the rich... I only hate those who are greedy/snobby about it, or painfully out of touch. I still remember reading a complaint from one rich person (not a parody) about how people without money just don't understand how hard it is to live on $250,000 a year. Perhaps he should try living on about $10/hour to see why we're not exactly sympathetic to his plight.

Romney really is a politician through and through, and a painfully out of touch rich guy through and through. He is one of those who really has loved "off-shoring" American jobs for quick profits, and he panders relentlessly, constantly changing his stances. I can respect someone who changes their stance after thinking things through... but his changes in stance have been a result of pandering, not deep thought.

For any who may have been curious about an endorsement from me... I like Obama overall. He did inherit a hell of a mess from Bush the lesser, and I knew before anyone even announced they were considering to run for the spot that the next president would likely be unpopular for making hard, but necessary decisions. That's not to say that I endorse him or entirely approve of his actions. For instance, I am thoroughly disappointed in his decision to not only not overturn, but to instead strengthen the misnamed Patriot Act. As for Obamacare... I'm watching and waiting. I don't like the individual mandate... but other than that, I'm waiting for a better alternative to be offered. "Let them die" isn't an option, else I suggest you volunteer yourself to that philosophy.

If I endorse a candidate, it would be the one I mentioned earlier that the Republicans shunned and ignored - Gary Johnson, who now is on the Libertarian ticket. I don't agree with all his stances, but I do know that 1) he is brilliant, 2) he is fair, and 3) he's willing to think about and reconsider his stances if new evidence is presented (for example, his change in stance on the death penalty, now being against it after finding that his policy also would have resulted in the execution of a specific innocent man). In truth, what more can one ask for in a leader? Check him out and give him your support... and spread the word! Gary Johnson (L) for president, 2012

Obamacare

Like the Supreme Court justice, I won't pretend that I've read it - it's 2,700 pages long, and not exactly entertaining. Like most bills, it's probably unnecessarily lengthy, but contrary to how some are talking, it's again nothing new. Sometimes it's likely because a bill does cover a lot of subject matter, and every loophole needs to be closed, and sometimes it's for a more nefarious purpose - to discourage anyone (including congress) from reading much of anything beyond the title, as is my suspicion with the Patriot Act.

Of course, neither side is immune to using such tactics. At any rate, for those who have forgotten, Obamacare is not the bill's actual name - it's the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Here's a fourteen page summary. It's kinda surprising that Fox News' propaganda against it has gotten so popular as to make even supporters of the bill forget its actual name, although "Obamacare" really doesn't sound too terribly negative, despite attempts to make it into a dirty word.

The main thing that makes me wary is a mandate. Sometimes care simply isn't affordable, even if it's on a sliding scale. Yes, you can file for free care... but anyone who has ever filed for government benefits knows it takes a very long time... and in the meantime, you're still getting fined for not having said benefits.

Otherwise though, I like it. I like that it bans disqualification over "pre-existing conditions." Call me anti-capitalist for that if you like, but seriously - cancer won't go away just because you lost your job and the benefits that go with it. Should money, or blind luck in not being laid off from a job, be such a strong deciding factor in life-or-death decisions? I like that it makes healthcare available to all Americans.

I've noticed that those who protest it the most strongly are the same ones who, if asked why they dislike it, they'll provide answers such as "it's un-American," or "it's socialist." Good luck finding people that can actually point to specific parts and reasons for the dislike - they dislike it because Obama came up with it. They dislike it because someone with a loud voice who pretends to be more knowledgeable than most told them to dislike it.