I've said before that my adult handicapped son is on SSI. When he turned 21, our insurance company kicked him off the insurance. When I called to ask why, saying didn't Obama make it to where you could have your kids on your insurance until they were 26? They answered only if they're a full time student. I have Tricare Prime, which is in essence government health care. I explained about being his legal guardian, yada, yada, yada. If I wanted to keep him on my insurance, I had to find a Pass and ID office that had a certain form (they don't mail you one) and gather up all the proof that he is my son, he is handicapped (letter from a doctor, who won't see him now that he's been kicked off the insurance plan) proof of who he is, etc. And yet, the government gives free health care to illegal aliens.
So, I started using the Medicaid that he qualifies for through SSI. Well, last August, he came out of his room on a Saturday crying in severe pain. He's Down Syndrome and autistic. I have to know the right questions to ask him, I can't just say, "What happened?" All I could get from him was he hurt his wrist, and it was swollen, and it had something to do with his 20 pound dumbbell. He lifts weights while he watches TV. You wouldn't believe the upper body strength of that kid. Good thing he's good natured.
Being a Saturday, we took him to the nearest emergency room to see if he broke his wrist. I asked in the ER if they took Medicaid, and they said they have to take whatever insurance we have. They didn't even get his Medicaid information until AFTER the visit.
I got a bill from Baylor, Garland and I ignored it. He has Medicaid, so I figured they'd file like they do with Tricare. I got another bill saying my insurance denied the charges and I owed $1248.89. I called. They said Superior Health had denied the charges and were refusing to pay. I called Superior Health. After jumping through the hoops of their phone system, and getting a real person, I was asked how I got that number. Frankly, I had pushed so many buttons, I didn't know. I said I answered all their little questions and that's where I ended up. Apparently it wasn't the right place, so she transferred me. I explained the situation and they said they'd review it.
The next month I get another bill. It was a Saturday, so first I verified they had his Medicaid number and weren't trying to bill Tricare. They did. That Monday I called again. They said Superior had determined it wasn't an emergency. So now, they can diagnose through the phone/mail? I would like to know when they think I got my medical license that I can tell a sprain from a break. After jumping through all the hoops again, and getting transferred, and 45 minutes on the phone, my only option was to file a complaint with the State of Texas. I was told Baylor doesn't accept Medicaid. I thought all emergency rooms were supposed to take whatever insurance you had? I was also told that I should have either known this, or called to verify. When you call the number on the back of the card, the first words you hear are if this is a true emergency, you should hang up and proceed to the nearest emergency room, which is what I did. I explained about his disability. If the lady hadn't been Hispanic, I would have asked if all the illegal aliens have this problem. It's not like I use the ER for a doctor, taking my kid when he has a sniffle. I THOUGHT HE HAD A BROKEN WRIST! I told her if his wrist had actually BEEN broken and I had waited until Monday, they would have taken him away from me for being negligent. Or accused me of breaking it.
Then a couple days ago, I get another call for more information. I was told that if there was any doubt, I should have called the free 24-hour nurse hot line. I said there wasn't any doubt as to whether it was an emergency or not. My mom is a nurse, I know the only way to determine if a bone is broken is to x-ray it. A nurse on the phone is not going to tell me if his wrist is broken or not. I reminded her that the first words I hear are if this is a true emergency, please hang up and proceed to the nearest emergency room. I also explained about the way I have to get information from him. I suppose next time, I'll have to put the phone on speaker and let them try to question him. Again, I got a Hispanic woman, or I would have asked if all this information is something I'm supposed to just know, like a 3rd generation welfare recipient, or is it written down somewhere? And why are government rules for getting care so much different than common sense? Oh, wait, I answered that in the first part of the sentence: government health care. It's not about service to the community, it's about making the public say, "Please, may I have some more, please?" He's the only one in my household on Medicaid, so therefore, my taxes are paying for his health care. What about all the people who every member is on Medicaid? I pay for their health care too.
So, this is how Obama plans on paying for his Obamacare? By denying services and making you pay the hospital yourself? That will save a lot of money for the government. All you people who expect a handout better sit up and take notice. Unless you think it's only going to happen to me, or people who have a job and pay taxes.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Monday, March 19, 2012
Government Handouts in other Countries
There was a comment on The Blaze (sorry I can't give credit for who it was from, my memory isn't what it used to be) that sparked some research on my part. The comment was concerning welfare and communist countries. The post said that communist countries don't have welfare systems, they just give you what you need in exchange for work. The theory follows that if you don't work, you don't get anything. I decided to do a little research.
Supposedly there are only 5 countries that are communist: China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam and Laos. I only got to researching China before I just had to write.
It said that unemployment benefits, pensions and sick pay are unheard of. You might get a small severance if you're laid off, but it's not enough to live on. You're expected to find another job or have your relatives pay for you. Sometimes they give people in the fishing villages free nets or saplings so they can fish or grow bamboo. That would explain all the bamboo knitting needles being sold on Ebay.
Can you imagine what would happen in the United States if our government did this? Instead of a government check, you'd get some sort of aid in getting you a job, tools of a trade, etc. How well would this go over after 80 years of government aid?
If you think this is far-fetched, give this a little thought. President Obama wants to declare college a right. All student loans now go through the government. Is it a stretch to say the government would say that since they are loaning you the money, they can tell you what to study? Is it a stretch since they already said if you do volunteer work for a set amount of years, they'll forgive your student loans?
Now they want to lower everyone's mortgages...if you get an FHA loan. If they own your loan, what happens if they suddenly decide you're in too big of a house, seeing as you don't have a job? They take it. They tried taking over the banks already for those who don't have FHA loans. In Communist countries who are the well off? The elite. We saw this in Russia. We've heard the lady who was raised in East Germany and now tours with the TEA party telling her story. You work, you get food (what the government is willing to let you buy), a small place, not the farm you had.
The Democrats have a history of prejudice. They founded the KKK, bet you thought that was Republicans, didn't you? Not one single Democrat voted for the amendment that gave blacks the right to vote. They didn't want them voting. But, now everyone is equal. So, instead they started Planned Parenthood. Most abortions are performed on blacks.
I just heard a very interesting commercial. Did you know that 1 in 5 African-American men will get prostate cancer? The Obama administration wants to not pay for prostate exams, just like they want women to wait until they're 50 to get their first mammogram. Is cancer rare? No. 1 in 5. That's a high number. They claim there are too many false positives that cause extra unneeded tests and undue stress. Really? Maybe they're afraid once this country becomes communist, there won't be enough stuff for the elite, so let's get rid of the poor now.
Democrats are pretending to be interested in the poor, those on welfare and food stamps and unemployment to get their votes. Once they get the votes, they can do whatever they want. Look to your history. The Communist Party supports Obama and his policies. If this country becomes communist, those who are 3rd generation welfare recipients won't last long. The communists don't want someone who won't be productive to society. That's why they are against the very young and very old. If everyone is getting the same amount, how do you take care of an aging parent? How do you take care of children? It would be more beneficial to not have children, as you get the same pay whether you have them or not. I don't have the link but Cass Sustein has been heard on record saying that a human is not really a human until it's 2 years old. Anyone out there lose a child at 18 months? Did it feel like you lost a dog, or your child?
Yes, these are hard questions, and I'm sure the liberals will flame me for it. I got news for those who would rather sit at home and get their government check than go out and get a job: us who work will have it a lot easier down the road. We already have the work ethic. Mark my words, if we don't get this man out of office, there will come a time when no work means no benefits.
Supposedly there are only 5 countries that are communist: China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam and Laos. I only got to researching China before I just had to write.
It said that unemployment benefits, pensions and sick pay are unheard of. You might get a small severance if you're laid off, but it's not enough to live on. You're expected to find another job or have your relatives pay for you. Sometimes they give people in the fishing villages free nets or saplings so they can fish or grow bamboo. That would explain all the bamboo knitting needles being sold on Ebay.
Can you imagine what would happen in the United States if our government did this? Instead of a government check, you'd get some sort of aid in getting you a job, tools of a trade, etc. How well would this go over after 80 years of government aid?
If you think this is far-fetched, give this a little thought. President Obama wants to declare college a right. All student loans now go through the government. Is it a stretch to say the government would say that since they are loaning you the money, they can tell you what to study? Is it a stretch since they already said if you do volunteer work for a set amount of years, they'll forgive your student loans?
Now they want to lower everyone's mortgages...if you get an FHA loan. If they own your loan, what happens if they suddenly decide you're in too big of a house, seeing as you don't have a job? They take it. They tried taking over the banks already for those who don't have FHA loans. In Communist countries who are the well off? The elite. We saw this in Russia. We've heard the lady who was raised in East Germany and now tours with the TEA party telling her story. You work, you get food (what the government is willing to let you buy), a small place, not the farm you had.
The Democrats have a history of prejudice. They founded the KKK, bet you thought that was Republicans, didn't you? Not one single Democrat voted for the amendment that gave blacks the right to vote. They didn't want them voting. But, now everyone is equal. So, instead they started Planned Parenthood. Most abortions are performed on blacks.
I just heard a very interesting commercial. Did you know that 1 in 5 African-American men will get prostate cancer? The Obama administration wants to not pay for prostate exams, just like they want women to wait until they're 50 to get their first mammogram. Is cancer rare? No. 1 in 5. That's a high number. They claim there are too many false positives that cause extra unneeded tests and undue stress. Really? Maybe they're afraid once this country becomes communist, there won't be enough stuff for the elite, so let's get rid of the poor now.
Democrats are pretending to be interested in the poor, those on welfare and food stamps and unemployment to get their votes. Once they get the votes, they can do whatever they want. Look to your history. The Communist Party supports Obama and his policies. If this country becomes communist, those who are 3rd generation welfare recipients won't last long. The communists don't want someone who won't be productive to society. That's why they are against the very young and very old. If everyone is getting the same amount, how do you take care of an aging parent? How do you take care of children? It would be more beneficial to not have children, as you get the same pay whether you have them or not. I don't have the link but Cass Sustein has been heard on record saying that a human is not really a human until it's 2 years old. Anyone out there lose a child at 18 months? Did it feel like you lost a dog, or your child?
Yes, these are hard questions, and I'm sure the liberals will flame me for it. I got news for those who would rather sit at home and get their government check than go out and get a job: us who work will have it a lot easier down the road. We already have the work ethic. Mark my words, if we don't get this man out of office, there will come a time when no work means no benefits.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Tricare Prime vs Tricare Standard
I just heard a report on talk radio that the government wants to get rid of Tricare Prime. My husband has Tricare Prime. I've written about this before. Our co-pay for meds just went up 60% for generic and 75% for non-generic. Plus, all of our doctors are now charging between $12-25 just to write a prescription (if we don't have an office visit).
So I decided to do a side by side comparison of Standard and Prime. When my husband was getting ready to retire from the military, 11 years ago after serving 20 years, we compared the two programs and decided Prime was best for us. At the time, there was a yearly fee for Prime, and then you paid a co-pay for each visit. Standard didn't have the yearly, and you paid 20% of what Tricare allowed. Providers who agreed to take Tricare insurance, accepted whatever the government allowed and wrote everything else off. We have a special needs son, who possibly would need another heart surgery. Prime was the best choice for us, even under those conditions.
Those conditions have now changed. With Standard, you not only pay the 20% (25% if you're retired) of what is billed, but you have to pay whatever wasn't "allowed." In other words, if the doctor bills you $200 for an office visit, but the government only allows $100, you pay $25 (for your 25%) plus $100 that wasn't allowed. With Prime, it doesn't matter what the doctor bills, you pay $12 for an office visit. With Standard, there is no yearly fee, but you don't have a primary care physician. You can go to anyone on the "list." With Prime, everything (including referals) have to go through your primary care physian. So, in order to see a specialist, you have to first go to your primary and get permission. With Prime, you pay a yearly fee. I came in (and for the past 11 years have paid) $460 a year. I don't mind that going up a bit. Nothing else costs the same as 11 years ago. It just went up 13% to $520. I put away each paycheck spread out over a year so that I can pay that when it comes up every June. I JUST found out it was going up. My premium is due in 4 months and I have to make up that extra money.
Also, with Prime, I only pay $25 for out-patient surgery and $30 for emergency room treatment. With Standard, I would pay 25% of what is billed for the ER plus 25% of any doctor's bills. Have you ever been to the ER? You see a doctor, a technician, if you get x-rays, you have an x-ray tech. I'd wager to say you see at least 4 people. So I'd pay 25% of 4 different doctors/technicians, plus 25% of the actual er bill. NOW, I will also pay what is above what they "allow." I've seen what the government reimburses at. They pay 12% of what is billed for an MRI. Let's use $100 so it's easier to figure out. So, the ER will charge me $100 for an MRI. The government will pay them $12. I pay $3, so they actually only pay $9. That leaves $88 that I'm responsible for. Plus the copay of $3 that I already paid, I'm now paying $$91 for that MRI while the government paid $9. This is worse even than Medicaid. At least with Medicaid the hospital has to accept whatever the government pays.
I have stage 4 Breast Cancer. I can't even wrap my mind around how much I would be forced to pay if I had to switch to Tricare Standard. I might as well just die. But I suppose that's what they want in the first place. If you're healthy, it won't cost you anything. And if you're not healthy, the government has no use for you.
So I decided to do a side by side comparison of Standard and Prime. When my husband was getting ready to retire from the military, 11 years ago after serving 20 years, we compared the two programs and decided Prime was best for us. At the time, there was a yearly fee for Prime, and then you paid a co-pay for each visit. Standard didn't have the yearly, and you paid 20% of what Tricare allowed. Providers who agreed to take Tricare insurance, accepted whatever the government allowed and wrote everything else off. We have a special needs son, who possibly would need another heart surgery. Prime was the best choice for us, even under those conditions.
Those conditions have now changed. With Standard, you not only pay the 20% (25% if you're retired) of what is billed, but you have to pay whatever wasn't "allowed." In other words, if the doctor bills you $200 for an office visit, but the government only allows $100, you pay $25 (for your 25%) plus $100 that wasn't allowed. With Prime, it doesn't matter what the doctor bills, you pay $12 for an office visit. With Standard, there is no yearly fee, but you don't have a primary care physician. You can go to anyone on the "list." With Prime, everything (including referals) have to go through your primary care physian. So, in order to see a specialist, you have to first go to your primary and get permission. With Prime, you pay a yearly fee. I came in (and for the past 11 years have paid) $460 a year. I don't mind that going up a bit. Nothing else costs the same as 11 years ago. It just went up 13% to $520. I put away each paycheck spread out over a year so that I can pay that when it comes up every June. I JUST found out it was going up. My premium is due in 4 months and I have to make up that extra money.
Also, with Prime, I only pay $25 for out-patient surgery and $30 for emergency room treatment. With Standard, I would pay 25% of what is billed for the ER plus 25% of any doctor's bills. Have you ever been to the ER? You see a doctor, a technician, if you get x-rays, you have an x-ray tech. I'd wager to say you see at least 4 people. So I'd pay 25% of 4 different doctors/technicians, plus 25% of the actual er bill. NOW, I will also pay what is above what they "allow." I've seen what the government reimburses at. They pay 12% of what is billed for an MRI. Let's use $100 so it's easier to figure out. So, the ER will charge me $100 for an MRI. The government will pay them $12. I pay $3, so they actually only pay $9. That leaves $88 that I'm responsible for. Plus the copay of $3 that I already paid, I'm now paying $$91 for that MRI while the government paid $9. This is worse even than Medicaid. At least with Medicaid the hospital has to accept whatever the government pays.
I have stage 4 Breast Cancer. I can't even wrap my mind around how much I would be forced to pay if I had to switch to Tricare Standard. I might as well just die. But I suppose that's what they want in the first place. If you're healthy, it won't cost you anything. And if you're not healthy, the government has no use for you.
Friday, January 6, 2012
News on Me
I've kept everyone who reads this blog caught up on my status, so I'll continue to do that. I will have the opportunity to see how Obamacare has effected the medical field. My remission is over and the cancer is back.
I had a PET scan in mid-December and got the results on Jan. 3rd. They weren't good. I had my breast cancer come back last year (starting my chemo treatments in January, 2011). It had come back in the lining around my left lung and on the T5 vertebrae of my spine. After 4 and a half months of chemo, it was announced that I was in remission. I had 2 clear PET scans during the following 7 months, but this last one lit up. There is evidence of active metastasis in the lining of the left lung again as well as T5. Also involved are 3 lymph nodes, one in my left armpit, one in or near the little hollow at your throat and one on the right side of my neck, down low where the muscle (forget the name, trapezoid?) is.
The doctor said that since chemo didn't keep it away very long, we won't go that route again. He's planning radiation treatments and a monthly shot that blocks the hormone receptors (mine is HER2 Positive, meaning it's affected by hormones). I'll continue the herceptin and zometa. Herceptin is also a hormone blocker and zometa will help keep my bones healthy. Apparently the form of bone metastasis I have causes too much inferior bone to be made, so zometa inhibits calcium. It's better than not making enough bone and causing holes.
The hardest thing this time around is that I have pain this time. I didn't have bone pain last time.
I don't know how the health system is affecting my treatment just yet. I do know that I'm 48 and nearing that arbitrary age Cass Sustein determines to be of no more use to society. My doctor got clearance for a shot, but I don't know if it was the first one he asked about. I was told they don't normally carry it, and I have to wonder why he would ask for a shot they don't normally carry. I wonder if he was told, we won't authorize that one, but we will this one? I'll have to ask when I get it. I don't recall the name he told me or the name of the one approved.
I have my radiation consult on Monday, and get my first shot on Tuesday. I skip a week, and then get the shot, herceptin and zometa the next week.
I'll keep everyone posted.
Lori Ann Smith
I had a PET scan in mid-December and got the results on Jan. 3rd. They weren't good. I had my breast cancer come back last year (starting my chemo treatments in January, 2011). It had come back in the lining around my left lung and on the T5 vertebrae of my spine. After 4 and a half months of chemo, it was announced that I was in remission. I had 2 clear PET scans during the following 7 months, but this last one lit up. There is evidence of active metastasis in the lining of the left lung again as well as T5. Also involved are 3 lymph nodes, one in my left armpit, one in or near the little hollow at your throat and one on the right side of my neck, down low where the muscle (forget the name, trapezoid?) is.
The doctor said that since chemo didn't keep it away very long, we won't go that route again. He's planning radiation treatments and a monthly shot that blocks the hormone receptors (mine is HER2 Positive, meaning it's affected by hormones). I'll continue the herceptin and zometa. Herceptin is also a hormone blocker and zometa will help keep my bones healthy. Apparently the form of bone metastasis I have causes too much inferior bone to be made, so zometa inhibits calcium. It's better than not making enough bone and causing holes.
The hardest thing this time around is that I have pain this time. I didn't have bone pain last time.
I don't know how the health system is affecting my treatment just yet. I do know that I'm 48 and nearing that arbitrary age Cass Sustein determines to be of no more use to society. My doctor got clearance for a shot, but I don't know if it was the first one he asked about. I was told they don't normally carry it, and I have to wonder why he would ask for a shot they don't normally carry. I wonder if he was told, we won't authorize that one, but we will this one? I'll have to ask when I get it. I don't recall the name he told me or the name of the one approved.
I have my radiation consult on Monday, and get my first shot on Tuesday. I skip a week, and then get the shot, herceptin and zometa the next week.
I'll keep everyone posted.
Lori Ann Smith
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Is our Constitutional Republic Being Replaced by a Guided Democracy?
I know I can't be the only one to see it. Our media, including Fox News, is doing everything in their power to "guide" us to the candidate they want elected. That would be Mitt Romney. I've see the ads. You know the ones, where Mitt Romney says he's pro-choice, he won't get in the way of a woman's decision about abortion. Then he turns around and suddenly he's pro-life. The footage where he says some guns need to be banned, then turns around and says he's pro 2nd Amendment. Then there's RomneyCare, that everyone knows was a blueprint for Obamacare. He can say it works on a state level, but is unconstitutional on a national level all he wants. He is Obama Light. He is NOT a conservative.
I haven't made up my mind yet who to vote for. They all have good and bad points. I haven't even eliminated Ron Paul. I know a lot of people that like Michelle Bachmann. Why has the media eliminated those 2? Why did Cain get driven out of the race?
If you do a little research on Obama, that's how he won his Illinois Senate seat. He eliminated the competition. Why has no major media outlet attacked Romney? FoxNews brought it up a little, but they let Romney wiggle out of it and let him get by with his excuses.
Have you ever researched the term Guided Democracy online? While I don't entirely trust Wikipedia, here's the definition from them of Guided Democracy:
"Guided democracy, also called managed democracy, is a term for a democratic government with increased autocracy. Governments are legitimated by elections that, while free and fair, are used by the government to continue their same policies and goals. Or, in other words, the government has learned to control elections so that the people can exercise all their rights without truly changing public policy. While following basic democratic principles there can be minor deviations towards authoritarianism. Under managed democracy, the electorate is prevented from having a significant impact on policies adopted by the state through the continuous employment of public relations techniques." [Reference numbers removed.]
And for those of you who are a little fuzzy on the definition of autocracy:
"An autocracy is a form of government in which one person is the supreme power within the state. It is derived from the Greek αὐτοκρατία: αὐτός ("self") and κρατείν ("rule"), and may be translated as "one who rules by himself". It is distinct from oligarchy ("rule by the few") and democracy ("rule by the people"). Like "despot", "tyrant", "strongman" and "dictator", "autocrat" is a loaded word with a negative value judgment." [Reference number removed.]
This is the form of government that Indonesia has, a guided democracy. Basically put, you are free to vote, but we'll decide on who you vote for. This is controlled in our country by eliminating the conservatives, whether Democrat (yes, I believe there are a few of those left) or Republican. It is also the premise behind President Obama wanting more power, and trying to eliminate our checks and balances.
Herman Cain scared the bejesus out of the establishment politicians. Rick Perry does, too. They are both unconventional, swear they'll change things, and that's what scares the establishment. Just like the insider trading not being called insider trading when Congress does it. I read an article on The Blaze that said the two major members of congress that DON'T do insider trading are Michelle Bachmann and Ron Paul. I have to admit that I personally didn't care much for Ron Paul, until I heard that. I know it takes courage to not go along with the crowd. I've been a teenager that didn't go along with the crowd, but it wasn't easy. We have a congress full of grown men acting like teenagers affected by peer pressure. "There's no law against it, and besides, everyone is doing it." I have to say the same thing my mom told me: If everyone was jumping off the Mississippi bridge, would you do it?" And yes, I've used that analogy before and someone asked me which bridge on the Mississippi. I grew up in Cape Girardeau, Missouri. We only had one bridge across the Mississippi. We didn't call it the Bill Emerson Memorial Bridge. We called it the Mississippi River Bridge.
But, it's early and I haven't had a full cup of coffee yet, so I digress. Just because CONGRESS hasn't made a law saying it's illegal for CONGRESS to trade on information they are the only ones in possession of, doesn't make it morally right. Of course there's no law against it. Congress is the one who makes the laws. If they made it illegal, as it is for the rest of us peons, how would they come into Congress with a modest amount of money and leave millionaires or billionaires?
The establishment doesn't WANT anything to change. They want the same policies in effect. That's why they're pushing Romney. Romney has a record of saying what he thinks the public wants to hear. He made the decision to be a little more liberal as Governor of a liberal state. Now he's running for President, and sees the reaction of the country to liberals, so he's hiding behind conservative rhetoric.
I have two theories. 1. The establishment wants to run someone who won't change things, or at least not by much, so they're guiding us to who they think that will be. 2. They truly don't believe any of the candidates have a chance to win against Obama, and know he can only legally serve one more term, so they want to run someone they don't really care gets tarnished by the run. They'll put their chips behind a true conservative in 2016.
I don't really believe the second one, as much as the first one. I would like to see a list of the Tea Party candidates (those supported by the Tea Party in 2010) and what their finances looked like before they got into Congress, as opposed to now. How many of them have been corrupted by the power they attained? Why hasn't anything ever changed? Have you seen President Obama's approval rating? I believe it's at something like 39%? I know it was lower than President Carter's at the same time in his term. With approval ratings like that, how could he possibly get re-elected? Hasn't just about everyone been saying, "Anyone but Obama?" So why is the media concentrating on a moderate so that, in their words, he has a chance to beat Obama? Why does the media, including Fox, say that we need someone who is capable of beating Obama? I've heard of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. I've also heard of Hitler's tactics of tell a lie often enough and people will believe it. The media is going out of the way to tell us that only a moderate can beat Obama. Is that why over 50% (I think it was something like 60%) of the country identifies themselves as agreeing with Tea Party values? Even Democrats are moving more conservative.
I don't have a solution on how to change our path away from becoming a Guided Democracy except through education. If you like this blog and agree with it, please share it with as many as you can. Just keep my name with it.
Lori Ann Smith
Fighting for Freedom with my last breath
I haven't made up my mind yet who to vote for. They all have good and bad points. I haven't even eliminated Ron Paul. I know a lot of people that like Michelle Bachmann. Why has the media eliminated those 2? Why did Cain get driven out of the race?
If you do a little research on Obama, that's how he won his Illinois Senate seat. He eliminated the competition. Why has no major media outlet attacked Romney? FoxNews brought it up a little, but they let Romney wiggle out of it and let him get by with his excuses.
Have you ever researched the term Guided Democracy online? While I don't entirely trust Wikipedia, here's the definition from them of Guided Democracy:
"Guided democracy, also called managed democracy, is a term for a democratic government with increased autocracy. Governments are legitimated by elections that, while free and fair, are used by the government to continue their same policies and goals. Or, in other words, the government has learned to control elections so that the people can exercise all their rights without truly changing public policy. While following basic democratic principles there can be minor deviations towards authoritarianism. Under managed democracy, the electorate is prevented from having a significant impact on policies adopted by the state through the continuous employment of public relations techniques." [Reference numbers removed.]
And for those of you who are a little fuzzy on the definition of autocracy:
"An autocracy is a form of government in which one person is the supreme power within the state. It is derived from the Greek αὐτοκρατία: αὐτός ("self") and κρατείν ("rule"), and may be translated as "one who rules by himself". It is distinct from oligarchy ("rule by the few") and democracy ("rule by the people"). Like "despot", "tyrant", "strongman" and "dictator", "autocrat" is a loaded word with a negative value judgment." [Reference number removed.]
This is the form of government that Indonesia has, a guided democracy. Basically put, you are free to vote, but we'll decide on who you vote for. This is controlled in our country by eliminating the conservatives, whether Democrat (yes, I believe there are a few of those left) or Republican. It is also the premise behind President Obama wanting more power, and trying to eliminate our checks and balances.
Herman Cain scared the bejesus out of the establishment politicians. Rick Perry does, too. They are both unconventional, swear they'll change things, and that's what scares the establishment. Just like the insider trading not being called insider trading when Congress does it. I read an article on The Blaze that said the two major members of congress that DON'T do insider trading are Michelle Bachmann and Ron Paul. I have to admit that I personally didn't care much for Ron Paul, until I heard that. I know it takes courage to not go along with the crowd. I've been a teenager that didn't go along with the crowd, but it wasn't easy. We have a congress full of grown men acting like teenagers affected by peer pressure. "There's no law against it, and besides, everyone is doing it." I have to say the same thing my mom told me: If everyone was jumping off the Mississippi bridge, would you do it?" And yes, I've used that analogy before and someone asked me which bridge on the Mississippi. I grew up in Cape Girardeau, Missouri. We only had one bridge across the Mississippi. We didn't call it the Bill Emerson Memorial Bridge. We called it the Mississippi River Bridge.
But, it's early and I haven't had a full cup of coffee yet, so I digress. Just because CONGRESS hasn't made a law saying it's illegal for CONGRESS to trade on information they are the only ones in possession of, doesn't make it morally right. Of course there's no law against it. Congress is the one who makes the laws. If they made it illegal, as it is for the rest of us peons, how would they come into Congress with a modest amount of money and leave millionaires or billionaires?
The establishment doesn't WANT anything to change. They want the same policies in effect. That's why they're pushing Romney. Romney has a record of saying what he thinks the public wants to hear. He made the decision to be a little more liberal as Governor of a liberal state. Now he's running for President, and sees the reaction of the country to liberals, so he's hiding behind conservative rhetoric.
I have two theories. 1. The establishment wants to run someone who won't change things, or at least not by much, so they're guiding us to who they think that will be. 2. They truly don't believe any of the candidates have a chance to win against Obama, and know he can only legally serve one more term, so they want to run someone they don't really care gets tarnished by the run. They'll put their chips behind a true conservative in 2016.
I don't really believe the second one, as much as the first one. I would like to see a list of the Tea Party candidates (those supported by the Tea Party in 2010) and what their finances looked like before they got into Congress, as opposed to now. How many of them have been corrupted by the power they attained? Why hasn't anything ever changed? Have you seen President Obama's approval rating? I believe it's at something like 39%? I know it was lower than President Carter's at the same time in his term. With approval ratings like that, how could he possibly get re-elected? Hasn't just about everyone been saying, "Anyone but Obama?" So why is the media concentrating on a moderate so that, in their words, he has a chance to beat Obama? Why does the media, including Fox, say that we need someone who is capable of beating Obama? I've heard of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. I've also heard of Hitler's tactics of tell a lie often enough and people will believe it. The media is going out of the way to tell us that only a moderate can beat Obama. Is that why over 50% (I think it was something like 60%) of the country identifies themselves as agreeing with Tea Party values? Even Democrats are moving more conservative.
I don't have a solution on how to change our path away from becoming a Guided Democracy except through education. If you like this blog and agree with it, please share it with as many as you can. Just keep my name with it.
Lori Ann Smith
Fighting for Freedom with my last breath
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)