Dear Congressman Rogers
I have read your recent e-mailing regarding health care reform and while I agree there needs to be a change in the Health care system I know that Government intervention/funding needs to be reduced not increased. Government caps on profits, and fees lead to less available product from the manufacturers. This is one problem other countries have run into with Government capped pricing. They are now buying US made drugs instead of producing product in their own country. If the manufacturers cannot make a profit, then they no longer want to produce the drugs. Hillary found this out when she capped the Flu Vaccine price. The next year we ran out of vaccine since no one was making it because there was no profit. Now YOU want to do this on a grander scale? Sorry, history shows it does not work. Forget caps, and help eliminate wasteful legislation and allow US businesses to do what they do best, manufacture goods (drugs) people want.
The main problem I see with our health care program is that people (insurance customers) have no reason to watch their choices, no reason to negotiate with doctors on price, and no reason to choose cheaper medications that are available. IF the US had a reason to watch their spending you would DEFINITELY see a reduction in Health Care Spending, a reduction in Health Care Pricing, and a happier more informed populace.
HSA is a very good program (Health Care Spending Account) that allows reduced monthly fees, savings account for copay and deductible that rolls over and collects interest, and a sense of investment that encourages thrifty use of health care dollars. Existing Health Care system encourages "get the most I can for my dollars" and increases spending and decreases Insurance company profits (thus higher prices to end customer).
HSA should be expanded to include the current Flexible Spending Account system that encourages users to blow their money in a "use it or lose it" system that benefits no one.
Government needs to get out of the way and make people responsible for their Health Care spending and allow the insurance companies to offer more savings incentive programs and drug companies to develop new drugs while making the older ones cheaper.
Bottom line... The insurance industry and drug companies were developed BY INDIVIDUALS. NOT the government. So why should it be controlled BY the government. It would not exist without Profit, Incentive, and a Need.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Cash for Clunkers - My letter to The Honorable Mike Rogers
I am writing in opposition to the "Cash for Clunkers Bill". As a proud owner of older cars (1985 Cavalier 30 mpg and a 1994 Pontiac Transport 27 mpg) I am frightened by the high and mighty thinking of those in Congress that believe that everyone should drive brand new cars. If this bill passes I will in the very near future be forced to pay much MORE for a used car since now ANY old car is essentially worth $4500 as a trade in. This is more money out of my pocket in wasteful government spending AND more money in purchasing my next used car PLUS I will most likely have to take a loan out for my next one (all previous purchases have been cash in hand "responsible" buying) including all the bank fees PLUS I will then need "Full Coverage" insurance since it is funded by a bank. This is 4+ times more than I have previously spent on cars due to needless government interaction. This defiantly hurts my ability to survive in this recession.
I guess when someone makes $150 thousand a year and gets a raise every year since 2000 http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/97-1011.pdf (I have not had a raise in Michigan since the 90's and not likely too in the future) you can tell everyone to "buy new".
I personally respect cars as historical objects and worthy of preservation. If some of this garbage legislation had happened years ago there would be NO Model A or T Fords, No Auburns/Cords/Dusenbergs, NO 52 Chevy Pickups, NO 1957 Chevys, NO 1965 Mustangs, NO 1969 Chargers, NO 1984 Buick Grand Nationals, NO 1985 Cavaliers, left anywhere, and ABSOLUTELY NO supporting aftermarket industry, NO Custom Industry, NO Classic Car restoration industry, and NO incentive to look back and see older cars as beautiful and historical pieces of AMERICAN art. IF the current "older" cars (past 8 years??? I cannot afford a 2001 right now...) are scrapped, then there will be NO used parts, NO reason to make aftermarket parts, NO reason to continue an industry based on "older" cars.
My running comment to people is when I see a new car I like I say "I am going to have one of those... 10 years from now". With this bill, that will not come true, since it will be over 8 years old.
In closing (and I doubt you actually get to read this) the Cash for Clunker bill is harmful to the supporting aftermarket/parts industry, harmful to taxpayers depending on the used car market for transportation, and harmful to those wishing to collect these future classics. The Cash for Clunkers bill is lopsided thinking that everyone wants and deserves a new car. You only deserve a new car if you want and work for it, not given to you by government. The Cash for Clunkers bill is a clunker in itself and the cash should be given back to the taxpayers instead of eating up funds and killing an industry for the sake of socialism. p.s. Hitler funded VW "The Peoples Car", another classic older historical vehicle.
BTW this clunker bill is redundant as last years high steel prices generated a record amount of older vehicle scrapping for recycled steel. Even fully drivable cars were sacrificed as they were worth more as scrap then for resale. See, the FREE market has a use for everything if left to it's own devises instead of government controlled.
Government is "BY the people and FOR the people", not just for the people that fit the little mold that is established by government.
I guess when someone makes $150 thousand a year and gets a raise every year since 2000 http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/97-1011.pdf (I have not had a raise in Michigan since the 90's and not likely too in the future) you can tell everyone to "buy new".
I personally respect cars as historical objects and worthy of preservation. If some of this garbage legislation had happened years ago there would be NO Model A or T Fords, No Auburns/Cords/Dusenbergs, NO 52 Chevy Pickups, NO 1957 Chevys, NO 1965 Mustangs, NO 1969 Chargers, NO 1984 Buick Grand Nationals, NO 1985 Cavaliers, left anywhere, and ABSOLUTELY NO supporting aftermarket industry, NO Custom Industry, NO Classic Car restoration industry, and NO incentive to look back and see older cars as beautiful and historical pieces of AMERICAN art. IF the current "older" cars (past 8 years??? I cannot afford a 2001 right now...) are scrapped, then there will be NO used parts, NO reason to make aftermarket parts, NO reason to continue an industry based on "older" cars.
My running comment to people is when I see a new car I like I say "I am going to have one of those... 10 years from now". With this bill, that will not come true, since it will be over 8 years old.
In closing (and I doubt you actually get to read this) the Cash for Clunker bill is harmful to the supporting aftermarket/parts industry, harmful to taxpayers depending on the used car market for transportation, and harmful to those wishing to collect these future classics. The Cash for Clunkers bill is lopsided thinking that everyone wants and deserves a new car. You only deserve a new car if you want and work for it, not given to you by government. The Cash for Clunkers bill is a clunker in itself and the cash should be given back to the taxpayers instead of eating up funds and killing an industry for the sake of socialism. p.s. Hitler funded VW "The Peoples Car", another classic older historical vehicle.
BTW this clunker bill is redundant as last years high steel prices generated a record amount of older vehicle scrapping for recycled steel. Even fully drivable cars were sacrificed as they were worth more as scrap then for resale. See, the FREE market has a use for everything if left to it's own devises instead of government controlled.
Government is "BY the people and FOR the people", not just for the people that fit the little mold that is established by government.
Friday, October 03, 2008
More Junk Mail
Just an FYI... I got ANOTHER junk mail ad supporting Obama the very same day I posted how O' supports junk mail and spam. Just another proof that our inconvenience or imposition means nothing to Obama...(or at least his staff eh?)
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
OBAMA supports junk mail and spam
Hey, if Obama can talk about all the big business tax cuts and how the White House will be run by Lobbyists if McCain gets in, then I guess I can talk about how OBAMA supports junk mail and spam.
Thursday I got a large flyer from Obama. It was big, full color and full of Obamaisms. Too bad that I as a taxpaying business man cannot afford to send out fliers like this due to all the taxes that Granholm (DEM) has implemented. Actually in the flier it says that Obama will end tax breaks for businesses. Lucky us in Michigan, Granholm has already done that. Technically it says he is going to end them for companies that deal with overseas, but in this day of WalMart and Harbor Freight, there is no way to compete unless you do at least something overseas. Nice global thinking there O'.
So then Friday, I get ANOTHER flyer from O'. Now mind you, I am NOT a Democrat (really???) and I have never voted DEM, registered DEM, or ever even hinted I may be open to DEM, and yet O' thinks I may be swayed to his side by a high dollar flyer with the nice picture of grumpy looking Cheryl VerEllen saying the economy is crashing. Apparently the implication is that McCain IS Bush and it is Bush's fault that Michigan slid from high status to almost last. Guess she does not realize that the slide happened AFTER she voted Granholm in TWICE!!! Look at how Michigan fell and that is how the rest of the country will fall if we tax the heck out of it.
Funny how these fliers have a lot of pictures and very little text... Hmmmm...
Do you really want more junk mail???? Do you really want more SPAM???? According to OBAMA, poor John McCain does not even know how to work a computer... How is he going to send you spam???
Vote for less Spam, Vote for less junk mail, vote McCain.
Thursday I got a large flyer from Obama. It was big, full color and full of Obamaisms. Too bad that I as a taxpaying business man cannot afford to send out fliers like this due to all the taxes that Granholm (DEM) has implemented. Actually in the flier it says that Obama will end tax breaks for businesses. Lucky us in Michigan, Granholm has already done that. Technically it says he is going to end them for companies that deal with overseas, but in this day of WalMart and Harbor Freight, there is no way to compete unless you do at least something overseas. Nice global thinking there O'.
So then Friday, I get ANOTHER flyer from O'. Now mind you, I am NOT a Democrat (really???) and I have never voted DEM, registered DEM, or ever even hinted I may be open to DEM, and yet O' thinks I may be swayed to his side by a high dollar flyer with the nice picture of grumpy looking Cheryl VerEllen saying the economy is crashing. Apparently the implication is that McCain IS Bush and it is Bush's fault that Michigan slid from high status to almost last. Guess she does not realize that the slide happened AFTER she voted Granholm in TWICE!!! Look at how Michigan fell and that is how the rest of the country will fall if we tax the heck out of it.
Funny how these fliers have a lot of pictures and very little text... Hmmmm...
Do you really want more junk mail???? Do you really want more SPAM???? According to OBAMA, poor John McCain does not even know how to work a computer... How is he going to send you spam???
Vote for less Spam, Vote for less junk mail, vote McCain.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
A lesson from the United Way
What do you think about when you think United Way? Worthy charity? Doing good for other people? Helping your fellow man? You would be correct. United Way has actually been around since 1887. In fact it is older than the act that created a "non-profit" status.
How about "Goodwill"? They help those with disabilities and "cannot work" situations. They started back around 1902. Are they doing good work? Have they failed miserably? If so why are they still around?
So.. If the United Way and Goodwill (and many many other charitable organizations) are doing such a great job then WHY does the government need to do it? All of these "programs" that Obama wants to implement, and many that are in place (welfare to name one) are already being done by other people. Actually being done by other people BETTER then the government can do it. The thing the government is good at is taking your money and giving it to someone else (and losing half of it on the way there) without YOU choosing to do so. What the next president should do is instead of taking my money they should give me a 1 to 1 credit for giving donations to Goodwill, United Way, and the whole slew of other worthy organizations the I CHOOSE to give it to. That way the government does not need to waste time, energy, and my money, by giving away to people I do not even think deserve it.
A little history, the government is "for the people, by the people". That does not mean "for the poor people", it does not mean "for the uninsured people" and it definitely does not mean "for the I do not want to work so I am gonna get welfare people". It means "for the people", ALL the people, of which the MAJORITY have jobs, work, and make money so they can survive themselves. Why take "the peoples" money and give it to those who do not contribute? Groups like United Way and Goodwill have stipulations about who gets money, the government cannot do this since it is by all the people. YOU can decide who to give your money to when you donate and you can be assured it gets used correctly. With the government, do you think it is getting used correctly??? Who has his hands in the pot? Who is influencing what state gets the most of it? You just do not know!
Let your government representatives know that you want to be in control of who gets your money. Tell them to back off on government spending and let we the people handle our own charities instead of the government acting like one big mandatory charity.
How about "Goodwill"? They help those with disabilities and "cannot work" situations. They started back around 1902. Are they doing good work? Have they failed miserably? If so why are they still around?
So.. If the United Way and Goodwill (and many many other charitable organizations) are doing such a great job then WHY does the government need to do it? All of these "programs" that Obama wants to implement, and many that are in place (welfare to name one) are already being done by other people. Actually being done by other people BETTER then the government can do it. The thing the government is good at is taking your money and giving it to someone else (and losing half of it on the way there) without YOU choosing to do so. What the next president should do is instead of taking my money they should give me a 1 to 1 credit for giving donations to Goodwill, United Way, and the whole slew of other worthy organizations the I CHOOSE to give it to. That way the government does not need to waste time, energy, and my money, by giving away to people I do not even think deserve it.
A little history, the government is "for the people, by the people". That does not mean "for the poor people", it does not mean "for the uninsured people" and it definitely does not mean "for the I do not want to work so I am gonna get welfare people". It means "for the people", ALL the people, of which the MAJORITY have jobs, work, and make money so they can survive themselves. Why take "the peoples" money and give it to those who do not contribute? Groups like United Way and Goodwill have stipulations about who gets money, the government cannot do this since it is by all the people. YOU can decide who to give your money to when you donate and you can be assured it gets used correctly. With the government, do you think it is getting used correctly??? Who has his hands in the pot? Who is influencing what state gets the most of it? You just do not know!
Let your government representatives know that you want to be in control of who gets your money. Tell them to back off on government spending and let we the people handle our own charities instead of the government acting like one big mandatory charity.
Friday, June 06, 2008
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Bush Vetos Stem Cell Bill
Yeah Bush !!!!!
Veto that thing and veto it hard.
You may think I am being hard on "all those poor people who need this research", but I am NOT. What the news agencies are NOT telling you is that this ONLY applies to "Embryonic" research and NOT ADULT stem cell research. The media keeps hyping embryonic as the last possible hope for Parkinson's and numerous other bad things. And yet,,, More hope has come out of adult stem cell research than ANY embryonic stem cell research. The ONLY reason there is such a push for embryonic is because it is patentable. The big drug companies (the very companies that are sooo bad at lowering drug prices) are pushing the embryonic so the can patent the cure and make BIG MONEY off the poor Parkinson's (and others) people. The people who are voting and pushing for this to happen are either extremely deluded by the hype OR are on the take from the Big Money Drug companies.
Next time you read a news article, check the fine print and notice he hasd vetoed "Embryonic" stem cell research and NOT adult stem cell research.
BTW: Adult stem cell research has led to many breakthroughs and has help thousands of people where Embryonic stems cells have not produced any clinical successes. Ask yourself WHY the push for something that looks like a dead end? Money!
Veto that thing and veto it hard.
You may think I am being hard on "all those poor people who need this research", but I am NOT. What the news agencies are NOT telling you is that this ONLY applies to "Embryonic" research and NOT ADULT stem cell research. The media keeps hyping embryonic as the last possible hope for Parkinson's and numerous other bad things. And yet,,, More hope has come out of adult stem cell research than ANY embryonic stem cell research. The ONLY reason there is such a push for embryonic is because it is patentable. The big drug companies (the very companies that are sooo bad at lowering drug prices) are pushing the embryonic so the can patent the cure and make BIG MONEY off the poor Parkinson's (and others) people. The people who are voting and pushing for this to happen are either extremely deluded by the hype OR are on the take from the Big Money Drug companies.
Next time you read a news article, check the fine print and notice he hasd vetoed "Embryonic" stem cell research and NOT adult stem cell research.
BTW: Adult stem cell research has led to many breakthroughs and has help thousands of people where Embryonic stems cells have not produced any clinical successes. Ask yourself WHY the push for something that looks like a dead end? Money!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)