So this weekend Houston defeated #5 Oklahoma State on the road improving to 2-0 on the season. A very big win indeed. Their reward? Being ranked below Oklahoma State in the AP and Coaches’ Poll.
Even when non-AQ teams prove it on the field, voters can choose to not respect the victory. Shame on the coaches and media voters.
Richard Zuercher
Dear Government,
I support comprehensive health care reform.
The status quo will not solve the problem of 50 million Americans uninsured or under-insured.
The status quo will not stop insurance companies from denying coverage to the sick.
The status quo will not solve the ballooning costs of health care in America.
The status quo will only make Americans increasingly unhealthy.
A VOTE AGAINST REFORM IS AN ENDORSEMENT OF THE STATUS QUO.
I urge you to put politics aside. Don’t let specific provisions in the bill you disagree with be a reason to reject it. The proper role of government is to provide for the general welfare of the people. You are the government. It is your responsibility to change the system to make Americans healthier.
Thank you very much.
Please copy and paste this message and send it to your representative. Follow the links provided to the right of this post. Thank you. The dream will never die.
Richard Zuercher
After you get the Trojan Horse inside its walls, the trick to sacking the city is to burst out of it. We need to start calling it what it is.
Conservatives have been screaming their heads off for the last month in opposition to Democrat led reforms calling it socialist, communist, and fascist. They are using their best tools, in the most organized fashion, while heavily funded, and with more cohesion than ever. They have stoked enough anger and fear into good Americans that many of them believe in their hearts that President Obama, a non-citizen, is pushing governmental policy intended to explode the national debt, cripple private industry, enslave the working population and euthanize the elderly and infirm.
And us.
Oh yeah. We got this “public option.”
No wonder we’re losing this debate.
I’ll tell you what we have. We have the Trojan Horse inside Congress. We have five committees out of six supporting a single-payer, government-run health insurance plan. A plan that would inevitable make private insurance pay the price for their decades of despicable actions. Cutting coverage, rising premiums. Deductibles. Cause we want to make sure you are really sick before we take a chance on saving your life. $250 per month so that I can still pay $4000.00 deductible, $80 co-pay, 20% of the rest. Junk.
And I’m one of the lucky ones.
To think that there are some who will never know that one day they might be able to make enough money to declare bankruptcy from hospital expenses and denied claims pains my heart.
The public option would not only punish those responsible for helping create one of the most detestable domestic humanitarian crises in recent history, it would also release the American people from a financial stranglehold.
We spend more money per capital than any other industrial country for the worst health care. We get worse care than many developing countries. We pay hundreds of dollars for prescriptions that Canadians pay mere pennies. Why? Their taxes are higher. But they pay fewer tax dollars toward health care costs than Americans pay in health care premiums. And they don’t have a deductible. Sure, they may have to wait a few weeks or months to get knee-replacement surgery, but they won’t have to pay for it when they get it. Nor will they pay co-pays, deductibles, fees, advertising, CEO bonuses. Tears, sorrow, loss. Funerals.
Notice when France and Germany came out of recession?
Socialism outperforming capitalism.
Why not just call our public plan what it is.
THE PUBLIC OPTION IS WHAT WE’VE BEEN WAITING FOR.
Socialized medicine.
No longer will saving a rich one’s life be more profitable than a poor one.
Please contact your representative and tell them you want the government to take over medicine in this country. Tell them that you want them to support the public option because it will eventually lead to socialized medicine. And that socialized medicine is the morally right thing to do.
The other day I was talking about the benefits of government-run health care. My friend explained to me that the government is not capable of doing anything right, so he opposes the current health care legislation. I told him that according to his logic, he should oppose ANY government action, no matter how good it is. He capitulated and said that the government can do SOME things right–fire department, police, infrastructure, national defense, etc.
I told my friend that Medicare (a government-run, single payer health care system) reports higher customer satisfaction, gives patients more choice in who their doctor is, and costs less per patient than private insurance. While the private market attempts to insure people who the industry considers low-risk, Medicare insures people who routinely require frequent doctor visits and expensive prescription drugs-and it still costs less than the private market.
My friend chuckled and said, “Well if you like Medicare so much, why don’t you just buy it?”
I chuckled. I am only 26 years old and will not be legally eligible for Medicare for another 40 years. I told my friend that the “public option” is like Medicare for anyone who wants to buy it. “Moreover,” I said, “The public option is likely to be even cheaper because the younger-and healthier-population likely to choose to buy into the program are a lot less expensive to cover than the elderly.”
My friend realized that he was losing this argument. So he quipped, “By that logic, everyone would want to buy the public option. If that happened, then the private market would be run out of business.”
“If that happened,” he continued, “then people would lose their jobs in the private market. And then government would be in control of our medical decisions.”
Did I really have to explain to him what our Democracy is all about? Did I really have to point out to him that if everyone wanted the public option, then they should get that option-even if it meant a private industry would be broken?
In the 1800s, fire departments were private entities. When there was a fire, sometimes two or three different crews arrived and tried to put out the fire. Competition. Sounds good, right? Wrong. Poor areas rarely attracted private fire brigades. And when a “worthy” structure caught fire, crews often brawled with each other for the “rights” to extinguish it so they could get paid (and often pillaged the blazing structure for valuables to sell). Although many fires were competently dealt with, people became aware that for-profit fire-fighting was not in the best interest of the people. The modern, government-run fire department was born from the ashes of the private industry’s failure. With a modest tax increase to pay for it, we now all have a “right” to fire protection. Most of the private fire-fighters took jobs working for the government-run fire department. Others lost their jobs.
I told me friend, “Our health insurance industry is brawling over the “rights” to insure the healthiest and wealthiest individuals, while leaving the neediest and sickest behind. I am not afraid of a government-run system because the government is WE THE PEOPLE. If you trust the government to put out a fire, you can trust the government to provide medical insurance. And it works! Old people love their Medicare!”
“I haven’t thought of it that way,” my friend begrudgingly admitted. “You mean to tell me that the public option will cost less AND provide better care?”
“Yes.”
“Why haven’t we done this sooner?”
Good question.
The big banks have just received billions of dollars in government money to lend out to people around the country who need a helping hand.
Don’t forget that they have been given free money and the ability to borrow at .25% despite being proven to be one of the biggest credit risks by losing billions of dollars during deregulation in the last 10 years.
Are there any new banking programs for people who need a lower rate in these troubled times? Or did these banks just pocket the money so they can ride out the storm in a nice government shelter while the rest of us are forced to swim the tidal wave?
We have a good income. We make our payments on time. We’ve been making payments on all sorts of debt for many years. Now is our chance to consolidate that debt at a low interest rate, deducting that interest from our taxes, and possibly have the ability to make improvements on our house. If that isn’t enough to get a loan, I don’t know who in the world would qualify.
Take me to the land where everyone is a millionaire–even the millionaires who were saved by a government bail-out–because it seems as only the wealthy deserve “equal” treatment.
Richard Zuercher
OK, it’s been a long time since I have posted anything and I thought what better time than now to show some beautiful pictures of my child-to-be! Enjoy!
Richard Zuercher
Baby Scream
Baby Profile
BSU deserves to be in the BCS over Utah. Here’s the argument:
1.) BSU had a harder schedule than Utah
- BSU defeated more bowl eligible opponents than Utah (8 wins vs. 5 wins)
- BSU only played 3 teams with losing records, Utah played 6. Each played an FCS school of which I have not calculated stats.
- BSU had a more rigorous non conference schedule than Utah (at 9-3 Oregon, 6-6 Bowling Green, at 6-6 Southern Mississippi vs. 8-4 Oregon St., 3-9 at Michigan, 3-9 Utah St.)
2.) BSU has superior Statistics than Utah
- BSU ranks 12th in ppg, Utah ranks 15th
- BSU ranks 13th in ypg, Utah ranks 31st
- BSU ranks 3rd in scoring defense, Utah ranks 12th
- BSU ranks 16th in total defense, Utah ranks 18th
The counterargument is thus:
1.) Utah defeated 3 teams in the top 25 (BYU, TCU, Oregon State – all at home), BSU defeated 1 (Oregon – on the road)
2.) Utah defeated 2 10-win teams (BYU, TCU), BSU defeated none.
3.) Utah had a stronger conference this year
All very good arguments but…
Even if no one buys this argument (I really do think that Utah deserves to be in a BCS game this year), there is no excuse for not allowing BSU to play for the big money too! Selecting the “best” teams to play in the big bowl games based solely on how much money they will make is NOT the way to do it.
What else does BSU have to do? Ranked higher, better record, better stats, conference champ. There will never be parity in college football until all school are given a fair chance to play.
Read this article from MSNBC.com to understand why excluding cell phone data for national polls is inaccurate. Good job me!
Richard Zuercher
Many polls in the US right now are reporting a very close race between Presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama. The way these polls are conducted by private corporations and media outlets like Gallup, Rasmussen, CNN/Time Warner, and MSNBC. (visit this website for the most and most recent polling results) The method in which these companies collect polling data is not available to the public for proprietary reasons.
However, we do know that these pollsters collect data largely by using computers to dial telephone numbers. After the computer has dialed a random number, then a researcher asks the person on the other line what they think about the election. They ask questions like: “Are you a registered voter?” “Are you supporting McCain?” Etc.
But there are many drawbacks to this method. As recently as 2003, many households have abandoned the trusty landline in favor of a cell phone. Instead of one phone number representing an entire household–where the man of the house usually answers the researchers’ questions–phone numbers represent individuals.
Also, computers are not allowed to dial cell phone numbers as per FCC regulations. Therefore, fewer and fewer people are in the pool of possible respondents. Cell phone-only households have increased from 3% in 2003 all the way to 16% in 2008 according to MediaMark Research. What does this mean?
It means that pollsters are asking the right questions to a non-random sample. A whopping 16% of the population is immediately excluded from the sample because they no longer have a landline–myself included. So who are the people without a landline?
Young people. Women. Travellers. People with little access to relaible telephone service–AKA poor people. And who do these people tend to favor in the Presidential election?
So if we assume that the polling data that comes out puts the Presidential race at a dead heat, then which way will the people actually vote? My bet is that Barack Obama will have a surprisingly easy victory in November because people are not expecting an extra 16% of the population to lean toward the Democrat. I’m not saying the ALL of the 16% will vote Democrat, but it is safe to assume that a majority of them will.
Let’s all get out there and vote. Lets prove the country wrong! This is NOT a dead heat. We Americans will CHANGE WASHINGTON by electing Barack Obama the next President of United States of America.
Source:
Look at this picture of President Bush signing the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act. Where is John McCain in this picture?
Zuercher
