I am not a Tiger Woods fan. I am awed by his accomplishments, I am impressed with his physical gifts, but most impressed with his mental toughness and concentration ability that is unmatched in the history of golf, maybe in the history of professional sports. So what is my problem with Tiger Woods? Why am I not a fan? The answer is easy, I do not watch a lot of golf on TV, but I almost always watch The Majors. Tiger Woods has in the past completely ruined the majors by essentially lapping the field...making Saturday's "moving day" the day when he blows by the field and Sunday's final round a boring battle for second place. I know he does not always make chumps of his PGA rivals, but he has done it enough that I root against Tiger Woods, not because I don't like him and don't admire his game as well as his constant dedication to improving his already spectacular game. I root against Tiger Woods, at least for the first three days of the major tournaments, so the last day will be worth watching. I look forward to golf's majors tournaments. Watching Tiger Woods increase his 5 shot three round lead into a 10 shot pummelling of the field just is not that much fun.
However, this year Tiger is injured. While he is on track to be back in time to play in the US Open, there is a risk that he could miss the tournament. Pondering the possibility of a Tiger-less US Open, I must admit, is much more unattractive to me than the prospect of another 10 shot Tiger Woods victory. Winning a Tiger-less major in golf's Woods-era, would be like having 2 extra games to break Babe Ruth's home run record...there would always be a cloud over the victory..."congratulations Mr US Open winner on your victory today...do you think you would have won if Tiger had played?" Sorry, but the question would have to be asked.
So I am a reluctant anti-Tiger fan. However, we need him back for the US Open. I am rooting for Tiger's speedy return and hope that he comes to the US Open in great form. So while I truly hope there is a full field for The Open, I hope my reward for backing Tiger's speedy and full return is not another Tiger blowout. I have seen those already. They bore me. I think I may be able to get on the Tiger Woods wagon when he is 45 or so and having to keep up with the wonder-kids of the next golfing generation. He will probably only win the US Open of 2020 by a stroke or two...which would be great fun.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Monday, May 26, 2008
Expectations and Reality
Do you think the Founders of this nation considered the prospect of an ignorant electorate with no vested interest in society electing equally ignorant representatives to the highest positions in the federal government?
I think that a flawed assumption of the founders is the assumption of an informed electorate. I think that there was an assumption of basic literacy. I think the Founders incorrectly assumed that the electorate would have an understanding of economics and history. Clearly this is lacking in today's America. Listen to the expectations from voters that the president is responsible for and should fix high gas prices, that the government should provide most if not all basic services, and that everyone is essentially owed a base standard of living. There is little to no sense of history, how we got where we are as a nation, mistakes we made as well as things we did right. This makes for an electorate susceptible to the latest political snake oil salesman promising government programs and benefits well outside the bounds of government responsibility and government's ability to pay.
The political class is not in much better stead than the voters they court. When presidential candidate Barack Obama cites the Roosevelt/Churchill/Stalin meeting at Yalta as an example from history that validates his ridiculous idea to meet unconditionally with the leaders of Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela. the clear axis of evil in the world and clear enemies of the United States, something is a little amiss in how we have implemented the ideas of the Founders. Maybe someone should point out to Barack that the United States, Great Britain, and The Soviet Union were allies in World War II and that the meetings in Yalta set the table to open a second front against the Germans. It was funny in "Animal House" when John Belushi asks the question "was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?". It is not that funny when the likely democratic presidential nominee confuses who was fighting who in the second world war.
Somehow I think that Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and Adams has higher expectations of our political leaders and for the electorate in general. We may have a hard time finding a lot of voters who know the relevance of Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and Adams. I wonder if Barack Obama knows that they were on the same team?
I think that a flawed assumption of the founders is the assumption of an informed electorate. I think that there was an assumption of basic literacy. I think the Founders incorrectly assumed that the electorate would have an understanding of economics and history. Clearly this is lacking in today's America. Listen to the expectations from voters that the president is responsible for and should fix high gas prices, that the government should provide most if not all basic services, and that everyone is essentially owed a base standard of living. There is little to no sense of history, how we got where we are as a nation, mistakes we made as well as things we did right. This makes for an electorate susceptible to the latest political snake oil salesman promising government programs and benefits well outside the bounds of government responsibility and government's ability to pay.
The political class is not in much better stead than the voters they court. When presidential candidate Barack Obama cites the Roosevelt/Churchill/Stalin meeting at Yalta as an example from history that validates his ridiculous idea to meet unconditionally with the leaders of Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela. the clear axis of evil in the world and clear enemies of the United States, something is a little amiss in how we have implemented the ideas of the Founders. Maybe someone should point out to Barack that the United States, Great Britain, and The Soviet Union were allies in World War II and that the meetings in Yalta set the table to open a second front against the Germans. It was funny in "Animal House" when John Belushi asks the question "was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?". It is not that funny when the likely democratic presidential nominee confuses who was fighting who in the second world war.
Somehow I think that Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and Adams has higher expectations of our political leaders and for the electorate in general. We may have a hard time finding a lot of voters who know the relevance of Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and Adams. I wonder if Barack Obama knows that they were on the same team?
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Can I ask a dumb question about Obama?
If Barack Obama's mother is white and his father is black, why is he the first African American candidate to be his party's nominee for president (assuming there is no Clinton diving catch to seal the democratic nomination)? Frankly, I don't care whether Barack Obama is black or white, I think his policies for this country will send it into an economic tailspin in short order. However, I find it odd, and almost a little racist that the press and everyone who writes about Obama refers to him exclusively as "the first black candidate" or the first "African American candidate". Isn't this a slap in the face of his mother and her family? Why does the white side of his family defer to the black side in the eyes of the media? I honestly don't know and I really hope that his race plays no factor in whether or not he is elected president of the United States. I think the time has come when the US will readily and easily accept and embrace a black man (or woman) as president, I just think that Barack Obama is the wrong man, black or white, for the job based on his leftist views, inexperience, and poor judgement. I would love to support Condie Rice or Colin Powell for president. I wish someone could talk JC Watts into re-entering the national political scene. However, it strikes me as odd that the Obama's black father makes him black and his white mother, still makes him black.
In an ideal scenario, a candidate's race wouldn't enter in the thought process for political office, but "firsts" will always be noted by the press. The time will come when the United States has a minority as president. I hope when the time comes, though it will be duly noted in the press, it will be an after thought in the hearts of the voters who elected him....or her.
In an ideal scenario, a candidate's race wouldn't enter in the thought process for political office, but "firsts" will always be noted by the press. The time will come when the United States has a minority as president. I hope when the time comes, though it will be duly noted in the press, it will be an after thought in the hearts of the voters who elected him....or her.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Energy Crunch, What Energy Crunch. Here is the Answer
I had some time to kill in between dinner and a new episode of "Deal or No Deal" so I thought I would go ahead and solve this energy crunch that has manifest itself with gas prices approaching 4.00 per gallon. Ready? Here we go, Green light to off shore drilling and oil exploration in ANWR Announce plans to authorize permits to double the nation's nuclear power generation capacity Announce plans to double the nation's oil refining capacity Remove the shackles from America's massive coal reserves and exploit advances in new clean coal technology. Over the long term this plan would demonstrate America's actionable resolve to become far more energy independent over the long term. Over the short term this new found resolve would take the wind out of the oil speculator's sails which would result in siginificant and immediate price reductions in the cost of crude oil. Let's face it, absent political constraints, this is not a hard problem to solve. We need to make the most of the resources we have, we need to remove the self-inflicted constraints to our energy independence, and let the market delivery technology-based solutions over time. Think about the efficiency of our politcians. Here is a workable plan to solve the energy problems we all detest, developed while waiting to watch "Deal or No Deal" and I still have time to get some ice cream.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
The Wrong Chickens
Jeremiah Wright, the America-hating preacher and mentor for Barack Obama is right about one thing, the chickens have indeed come home to roost for the United States. The problem is that reverend Wright had the wrong flock of chickens. Wright had his head up his rear when he was talking about the American foreign policy chickens coming home to roost on 9/11. No the chickens that have come home to roost are the ones that the United States congress hatched by refusing to allow off-shore and ANWR drilling for gas and oil reserves. The chickens coming home to roost were hatched when congress bowed to hippie environmentalists by not investing more in clean coal technology and new nuclear power facilities. These chicks are indeed in the roost thanks to weak-kneed, spineless congressmen and women who focused on their re-elections instead of leading this country.
As oil prices race past $ 120/barrel on their way to $ 200/barrel in the near future and gas prices hit $ 5.00/gallon in 2009, when will the American people demand that their leaders actually lead through this crisis and take demonstrable action to exploit our massive energy reserves? I am all for alternative energy and am certain that there is a technological solution to the energy crunch we face today. However, the ultimate solution(s) to our long term energy needs may be several years if not decades in the future. The answer to our energy needs is not growing in an Iowa cornfield. We have seen what a debacle that governmental stroke of brilliance has become.
Want to get out of this energy box? The answer is so strikingly easy, one would think that even politicians in Washington cold figure it out:
Use our massive coal/shale reserves; build new nuclear power plants; drill in ANWR and off shore; double our refining capacity over the next 10 years.
Done, problem solved. If we announced this energy program, oil speculators would dump their positions, oil prices would drop sharply, and in 10 years we would be masters of our own domains. I solved this problem in 5 minutes after dinner. The dopes in Washington still can't find their asses with both hands and a map. Anyone feeling better about the clowns "leading" the charge? ....me either.
As oil prices race past $ 120/barrel on their way to $ 200/barrel in the near future and gas prices hit $ 5.00/gallon in 2009, when will the American people demand that their leaders actually lead through this crisis and take demonstrable action to exploit our massive energy reserves? I am all for alternative energy and am certain that there is a technological solution to the energy crunch we face today. However, the ultimate solution(s) to our long term energy needs may be several years if not decades in the future. The answer to our energy needs is not growing in an Iowa cornfield. We have seen what a debacle that governmental stroke of brilliance has become.
Want to get out of this energy box? The answer is so strikingly easy, one would think that even politicians in Washington cold figure it out:
Use our massive coal/shale reserves; build new nuclear power plants; drill in ANWR and off shore; double our refining capacity over the next 10 years.
Done, problem solved. If we announced this energy program, oil speculators would dump their positions, oil prices would drop sharply, and in 10 years we would be masters of our own domains. I solved this problem in 5 minutes after dinner. The dopes in Washington still can't find their asses with both hands and a map. Anyone feeling better about the clowns "leading" the charge? ....me either.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Uhhh, Okay, I Guess So...
For all of the tapes we have heard from Senator Obama's pastor railing on the United States and making hateful comments about the United States...this is a church right? I didn't hear much about saving souls, getting to heaven, and loving thy neighbor. Call me crazy, but I don't go to church to hear a political hate speech. Aparently Reverend Wrigth hates America, hates Jews, hates whites, and sympathizes with those who kill innocent Americans. Obama has been a pupil of reverend Wright for 20 years and is just now figuring out that Wright holds radical and incindiary views? Who does Obama think is the dummy here?
Hilliary Clinton has been able to let everyone else do her bidding on the Reverend Wright issue, so she has turned her considerable mental capacity towards the economic challenges of the coming year. In a typically rear-view-mirror fashion, Hilliary proclaimed that had she been president over the past year she would have averted the present economic turbulence by increasing government regulation and oversight in the financial markets. Really? So when has increased government regulation and oversight helped foster economic growth? The answer is "never" and this would have been the first time in history. Uh, okay.
Hilliary Clinton has been able to let everyone else do her bidding on the Reverend Wright issue, so she has turned her considerable mental capacity towards the economic challenges of the coming year. In a typically rear-view-mirror fashion, Hilliary proclaimed that had she been president over the past year she would have averted the present economic turbulence by increasing government regulation and oversight in the financial markets. Really? So when has increased government regulation and oversight helped foster economic growth? The answer is "never" and this would have been the first time in history. Uh, okay.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Change For America - the speech that, sadly, you will not hear
I envision an America of independence, one where the relevance of government is lessened and the power of the individual is maximized and leveraged for competitive advantage. This sounds like yet another platitude, but what does this really mean?
It means an America where citizens are free to cut their own path, earn a living and keep the lion's share of their income. In my America, Americans keep enough of their income so they do not have to rely on government for healthcare but can afford to choose their own healthcare. In my America, government mandates, regulation, and bureaucracies are limited to bare minimums so the free market drives down healthcare costs to market rates that are affordable and efficient for everyone.
In my America, people keep enough of their earned income so they do not have to rely on the government for retirement incomes. In an America where people keep the rewards of their labor, an "opt out" option for social security would be the preferred choice for most once they realize that they can do far better for themselves than the paltry returns of the American ponzi scheme.
In a truly free America, parents have real choice where to send their children to school and are freed from the shackles of failing public school systems. Choice at the family level will create great flight from failing schools which will trigger a fierce competition for parent's education dollars between public, private, and religious schools. This will be a boon to the efficiency of the American K-12 system with the ultimate beneficiary being the students and families who get to choose the best option for their education from a variety of alternatives.
In a truly free America, the government gets off the back of its citizens about what they eat, whether or not they smoke, and with who they are in a committed relationship. What someone eats, smokes, and who they sleep with at the end of the day is no concern of those in Washington, state capitols, or local city halls. I am not sure that America needs to call homosexual relationships "marriage" because it is certainly different than the heterosexual union in marriage, but in a truly free America, committed people of the same sex need to have legal recognition under the law, out of decency if nothing else to provide rights of survivorship, next of kin, and power of attorney when situations arise. When these folks decide to recognize their relationship in a legal bond, they should be able to serve beef tenderloin, and chocolate eclairs and smoke Marlboro Lights at their reception if they choose.
In a free America, American traditions of generosity and philanthropy is the first layer of safety net for those who fall an hard times and minimalist government programs are the layer of last resort for those who face overwhelming problems.
In a free America, Americans are free to fail, and are free to right themselves and try again. In a free America, no one is held back to the pace of the "least common denominator" to avoid hurt feelings or offended sensibilities. In a free America, Americans self-limit their success by their willingness to work, take prudent risk, and their God-given abilities. No one is guaranteed any level of success, nor is anyone prohibited from full participation in the American Dream.
I know there are issues that are not addressed in this rant, but this would be a nice start towards a better, freer country. It would be great to hear one or two of these points in the presidential conversations over the next several months, but I am not holding my breath. If Obama really wants change, he ought to try this sort of change, rather than the change of government where we all are forced to depend on an inefficient, poorly managed, and ineffective central government. Want to give American hope for the future and reason for optimism? Then leave them alone, let them carry on their lives, and stop trying to shove well intended, ineffective government programs down their throats. How's that for change?
It means an America where citizens are free to cut their own path, earn a living and keep the lion's share of their income. In my America, Americans keep enough of their income so they do not have to rely on government for healthcare but can afford to choose their own healthcare. In my America, government mandates, regulation, and bureaucracies are limited to bare minimums so the free market drives down healthcare costs to market rates that are affordable and efficient for everyone.
In my America, people keep enough of their earned income so they do not have to rely on the government for retirement incomes. In an America where people keep the rewards of their labor, an "opt out" option for social security would be the preferred choice for most once they realize that they can do far better for themselves than the paltry returns of the American ponzi scheme.
In a truly free America, parents have real choice where to send their children to school and are freed from the shackles of failing public school systems. Choice at the family level will create great flight from failing schools which will trigger a fierce competition for parent's education dollars between public, private, and religious schools. This will be a boon to the efficiency of the American K-12 system with the ultimate beneficiary being the students and families who get to choose the best option for their education from a variety of alternatives.
In a truly free America, the government gets off the back of its citizens about what they eat, whether or not they smoke, and with who they are in a committed relationship. What someone eats, smokes, and who they sleep with at the end of the day is no concern of those in Washington, state capitols, or local city halls. I am not sure that America needs to call homosexual relationships "marriage" because it is certainly different than the heterosexual union in marriage, but in a truly free America, committed people of the same sex need to have legal recognition under the law, out of decency if nothing else to provide rights of survivorship, next of kin, and power of attorney when situations arise. When these folks decide to recognize their relationship in a legal bond, they should be able to serve beef tenderloin, and chocolate eclairs and smoke Marlboro Lights at their reception if they choose.
In a free America, American traditions of generosity and philanthropy is the first layer of safety net for those who fall an hard times and minimalist government programs are the layer of last resort for those who face overwhelming problems.
In a free America, Americans are free to fail, and are free to right themselves and try again. In a free America, no one is held back to the pace of the "least common denominator" to avoid hurt feelings or offended sensibilities. In a free America, Americans self-limit their success by their willingness to work, take prudent risk, and their God-given abilities. No one is guaranteed any level of success, nor is anyone prohibited from full participation in the American Dream.
I know there are issues that are not addressed in this rant, but this would be a nice start towards a better, freer country. It would be great to hear one or two of these points in the presidential conversations over the next several months, but I am not holding my breath. If Obama really wants change, he ought to try this sort of change, rather than the change of government where we all are forced to depend on an inefficient, poorly managed, and ineffective central government. Want to give American hope for the future and reason for optimism? Then leave them alone, let them carry on their lives, and stop trying to shove well intended, ineffective government programs down their throats. How's that for change?
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Losing the old fashioned way, giving it away.
My team was down by 3 touchdowns early on in the game. It seemed like the game had just started and we were getting waxed. We were losing the battle on the field and were losing the support of the fans. We were hearing boos from the home team crowd we thought would support us. Instead of cheers for any play we made that was remotely positive we heard jeers. However, in the locker room at half time we gathered ourselves. We altered our game plan, made some position changes, and rededicated ourselves to getting back into this game and turning an embarrassing loss into a win. We were playing harder than we had ever played. This was the game of our lives. We started to win back the support of our fans. We cut into the lead. We made plays, forced turnovers, gained ground, and put the ball in the end zone. We tied the game in the 4th quarter with a big touchdown run. Our defense turned forced a turn over and we were driving for the winning score. We were in the red zone in a tied game and were looking like were were going in for the winning score. Then the call came from the sideline. "Punt the ball away" What? Punt the ball away? We are in the red zone. We are getting ready to score, if we are going to kick the ball, let's kick a field goal and win the game. "Nope, the next play will be a punt".
We punted, and we ended up losing the game, snatching defeat when victory was in our hands.
Does this sound like the dumbest thing you have ever read? Listen to Hilliary and Obama's plans for the war in Iraq and explain the difference to me, because their plan for Iraq is the dumbest thing I have ever heard...and their tax and trade policies set a pretty high bar for the dumbest things I have ever heard, but this one takes the cake.
We punted, and we ended up losing the game, snatching defeat when victory was in our hands.
Does this sound like the dumbest thing you have ever read? Listen to Hilliary and Obama's plans for the war in Iraq and explain the difference to me, because their plan for Iraq is the dumbest thing I have ever heard...and their tax and trade policies set a pretty high bar for the dumbest things I have ever heard, but this one takes the cake.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Let's Get Real...for once
NAFTA has been an engine for American prosperity and economic growth through trade. Anyone who states otherwise is too stupid to recognize the truth or too disingenuous to state the facts. Neither one is a good characteristic for a presidential candidate...Hilliary...Obama.
Let's face it, low skill manufacturing jobs have been leaving our shores for decades. These jobs belong elsewhere. Blaming NAFTA for this job migration is either obtuse or dishonest...Hilliary...Obama...which is it?
The law of large numbers makes it easy to find many people who....have lost manufacturing jobs, do not presently have health insurance, or believe that aliens have tried to kidnap them at some point in their lives. We have over 300m citizens in the United States. If less than half of one percent of people have lost their jobs due to jobs migrating offshore, then there are over a million and a half people who are in this condition. That is a big number, when examined in a vacuum. However when considered in the context of a population of over 300m, the number is not statistically significant. So should we trash NAFTA and the other trade agreements that have fueled the greatest economic expansion in the past 50 years? Hilliary...Obama....why would you shoot the golden goose?
Hilliary and Obama are smart people. They know the truth about NAFTA. They understand the numbers on the uninsured. They just believe that their election prospects trump the truth, trump economic reality, and trump the best interests of everyone besides themselves....which makes them like every other common politician.
BTW, is whining about being picked first to answer questions in a debate a good precursor for how one will respond in the White House when real issues arise?
Don't take my word for it:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/the_democratic_trade_myths.html
Let's face it, low skill manufacturing jobs have been leaving our shores for decades. These jobs belong elsewhere. Blaming NAFTA for this job migration is either obtuse or dishonest...Hilliary...Obama...which is it?
The law of large numbers makes it easy to find many people who....have lost manufacturing jobs, do not presently have health insurance, or believe that aliens have tried to kidnap them at some point in their lives. We have over 300m citizens in the United States. If less than half of one percent of people have lost their jobs due to jobs migrating offshore, then there are over a million and a half people who are in this condition. That is a big number, when examined in a vacuum. However when considered in the context of a population of over 300m, the number is not statistically significant. So should we trash NAFTA and the other trade agreements that have fueled the greatest economic expansion in the past 50 years? Hilliary...Obama....why would you shoot the golden goose?
Hilliary and Obama are smart people. They know the truth about NAFTA. They understand the numbers on the uninsured. They just believe that their election prospects trump the truth, trump economic reality, and trump the best interests of everyone besides themselves....which makes them like every other common politician.
BTW, is whining about being picked first to answer questions in a debate a good precursor for how one will respond in the White House when real issues arise?
Don't take my word for it:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/the_democratic_trade_myths.html
Healthcare by the Numbers
Has anyone noticed that the number of uninsured in America has risen steadily as the democratic presidential campaign have rounded the final turn and headed for the home stretch? When the campaigns started six months ago the number of uninsured Americans stood at about 30m - at least according to the stump speeches. The past six months must have been really bad ones for Americans and healthcare because the number of uninsured Americans apparently has swelled to 47m, or as the crack journalists at Rueters reproted today, about one sixth of Americans.
I think we can agree on one thing, the number of structurally uninsured Americans is well under 47m. I have seen analysis by objective groups who estimate that the real number of uninsured Americans is less than half of the "campaign" figure of 47m. For argument sake, let's agree to a very high end number, that real Americans who are living and working normal lives, but without any health insurance is 25m. That represents, in Rueters terms, just over 8 % of the population of the United States. Even at inflated 47m number, which we all know is wrong, the percentage of uninsured Americans would stand at just over 15%.
So what problem are we really trying to solve? Depending on the numbers you chose to believe, between 85% and 92% of Americans have health insurance. The number is more likely closer to 94% of all Americans.
Let me get this straight, we are going to raise the crap out of our taxes, create a government program whose size would warm the heart of the even the most ardent supporter of the collapsed Soviet Union, and potentially tank the US economy so that we can cover the uninsured 4-8% of the American population. Has anyone in Washington ever heard of diminishing marginal returns?
I really think that this is the democrats game plan...if everyone is not prosperous, then no one will be prosperous. Let's tank the entire American health system and the US economy along with it so we can offer healthcare to the small minority of Americans who do not have it. (Legitimate estimates of the uninsured run as low as 8m or 3% of the US population) Is this really what we want? Trashing the health care system that is the envy of the world so we can all get saddled with a government run or mandated system? You have to be kidding me, unfortunately, neither Hilliary or Obama are kidding. They want us all to live in shared mediocrity...while they live high on the hog.
I think we can agree on one thing, the number of structurally uninsured Americans is well under 47m. I have seen analysis by objective groups who estimate that the real number of uninsured Americans is less than half of the "campaign" figure of 47m. For argument sake, let's agree to a very high end number, that real Americans who are living and working normal lives, but without any health insurance is 25m. That represents, in Rueters terms, just over 8 % of the population of the United States. Even at inflated 47m number, which we all know is wrong, the percentage of uninsured Americans would stand at just over 15%.
So what problem are we really trying to solve? Depending on the numbers you chose to believe, between 85% and 92% of Americans have health insurance. The number is more likely closer to 94% of all Americans.
Let me get this straight, we are going to raise the crap out of our taxes, create a government program whose size would warm the heart of the even the most ardent supporter of the collapsed Soviet Union, and potentially tank the US economy so that we can cover the uninsured 4-8% of the American population. Has anyone in Washington ever heard of diminishing marginal returns?
I really think that this is the democrats game plan...if everyone is not prosperous, then no one will be prosperous. Let's tank the entire American health system and the US economy along with it so we can offer healthcare to the small minority of Americans who do not have it. (Legitimate estimates of the uninsured run as low as 8m or 3% of the US population) Is this really what we want? Trashing the health care system that is the envy of the world so we can all get saddled with a government run or mandated system? You have to be kidding me, unfortunately, neither Hilliary or Obama are kidding. They want us all to live in shared mediocrity...while they live high on the hog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)