The Obamacare Challenge

You like Obamacare more than you think you do.

 

You know how everybody---everybody as in the conservative Republican nitwits-complains about Obamacare? I have a suggestion for them. Prove how much you hate it. Take this little challenge and let me know how it goes.

 

The Challenge.

Deny yourself all of the access you and your loved ones get to health care because of Obamacare. Why? Because it is ruining society as we know it, right? Prove that it is unnecessary and that our health care system was unbroken as it was before Obamacare came into effect. 

 

  1. Take your children who are aged 22-25 off of your insurance policy because they would not have any kind of health insurance coverage otherwise. Save yourself money and just take your kids off the policy. If they get really sick, just pray and hope that they get better. 
  2. If you or one of your family members has a pre-existing condition, change insurance policies. When you hear that you can have coverage for your pre-existing condition, let the insurance company know that you are volunteering not to be covered for anything that you might actually need health insurance coverage for. 
  3. If you want preventive screening for free, don’t take it. Just ignore that part of the policy and assume that you are well. Let your health get out of hand so that you will have to pay more later on.
  4. Tell your state that you do not want any money to be spent on preventive diseases. Let the state give the money back. Because spending money on disease prevention is not a good decision, right?
  5. If you are a senior, don’t use any of the drug prescription cuts. Just ignore them because everything in Obamacare is bad for you, right? 

 

Let me know how it goes. If you are really so upset about Obamacare, you won’t use any of the provisions in it, right? Understand that it is not just the rights of people without health care that is affected. Understand that the Affordable Care Act directly impacts all Americans in a positive way. Don’t make a mistake and try to take back the rights that we as Americans have gained. 

 

Or, if you want, take my little challenge and do the above. 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.mtdemocrat.com/letters/women-and-obamacare/

http://www.cdc.gov/hai/stateplans/aca/aca-funded.html

http://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/news/2012/08/affordable-care-act-helps-states-prevent-fight-infectious-diseases.aspx

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/features/index.html

 

Clint Eastwood at the RNC: "Go ahead, make my day."

Clint Eastwood yells at a chair during RNC.

I’ve missed way too much of the Republican National Convention. Unfortunately, I didn’t miss Clint Eastwood, who was “yelling at a chair.” The chair was a metaphorical chair that was supposed to be President Barack Obama, who has definitely seen the footage somewhere else. 

During his time on stage, Clint Eastwood got into character and sat next to a chair. Clint Eastwood’s complaints were about President Barack Obama’s supposed broken promises.

While Clint Eastwood was yelling at the chair, I was yelling at the TV and trying to figure out what he was doing. Was he this addled that he truthfully thought that Mitt Romney would be the better choice for President? Had he been coerced and swayed by Ann Romney’s charm? 

 

I couldn’t figure out what Clint Eastwood’s motivations were, so I texted a friend and we agreed that Clint Eastwood had lost his mind.

 

Clint started yelling at the Obama chair about the war in Iraq, which was kind of strange since the war was started by Republicans and ended by President Barack Obama. He then started yelling about Afghanistan and the surge. Fair enough, but according to my recollections and THIS ARTICLE, John McCain also wanted the surge. 

 

So, what is happening with Clint Eastwood? To be fair, Clint Eastwood did call the Obama chair Mr. President. And Clint Eastwood did not harm the chair in any way. President Obama actually reclaimed the chair on Twitter himself with a Tweet and a picture of himself in a chair correctly labeled “Mr. President.”

 

Clint Eastwood then told the entire Republican National Convention and the United States viewing audience to, “Go ahead and make his day.” 

 

Repeatedly. 

 

The Republican crowd, of course, totally loved it. But all I could think was that Clint Eastwood had suddenly become as lame as Arnold Schwarzanegger. For the purposes of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, he started chanting his signature line. 

 

Granted, it might just push the Republican party to the middle, but at what cost? If a Republican Administration is elected because of endorsements from actors like Clint Eastwood and other celebrities with handy one-liners to say, it will be at a truthful cost to the United States and its judiciary. 

 

I’m sorry, Mr. Eastwood, but you did not make my day with your little play. 

Representative Akin: Dividing the Republican party?

Are Republicans against women?

Thanks to the idiocy of Republican Representative Todd Akin, the abortion debate has threatened to divide the Republican political party just before their political convention. The Republican position has long been split on the issue of abortion in the instances of rape and incest, but the division has significantly increased with the reality that some elected officials are now trying the define “rape” vs. “legitimate rape.” 

Republican Representative Todd Akin’s position, as you may have heard, is that “legitimate rape rarely causes pregnancy.”

The Republican party is already trying to get Representative Todd Akin to leave his race for Senate.  As it stands now, the Republican National party’s official stance on abortion is that there should not be any exceptions for abortion; Mitt Romney believes that there should be exceptions for abortion in the cases of rape, incest, or when the mother’s life is endangered. 

 

The national Democratic party has dubbed the official Republican Party platform as the “Akin Plank” because its stance on abortion offers no exceptions, even when a woman has been raped or her life is in danger. 

 

The Republican party had the same stance on abortion in the last two presidential election cycles, but with the recent remarks of Republican Representative Todd Akin, it is much easier for the Democrats to highlight the extremely conservative nature of the Republican party’s stance in regard to women. Some have described the nature of the debate as downright hostile to women. 

 

Can you imagine being raped, being told you are pregnant, and having the United States Senate tell you that you probably weren’t raped because rape is unlikely to cause pregnancy because the body is shutting down. Can you imagine the nightmare that a young woman would have to go through if she had to prove, as Mitt Romney would have her do, that she had been raped to have an abortion? Can you imagine the horror that women would have to face if the Republicans had their way and outlawed abortion altogether?

 

We need to protect women and we need to get politicians in office who understand the ramifications of their words and positions on both individuals and society. Electing more politicians like Republican Representative Todd Akin into office won’t help. 

Republican Todd Akin's views on rape

"Legitimate rape does not get you pregnant."

I am a big fan of sex education in schools because I believe that teaching the simple facts of life can avert many unplanned pregnancies. Thanks to this news, which I learned via Gawker, I am also a big fan of sex education for Republicans in the mid-west. 

Republican Todd Akin, who is incidentally the Republican nominee for the United States Senate for the great state of Missouri, is not concerned about women getting pregnant if they have been the victims of rape because women seldom get pregnant from “legitimate rape.”

Whatever that means.

First of all, what is the legal definition of “legitimate rape?” I was always taught that no means no and that rape was always rape. Is anyone reading this from the state of Missouri? Are the laws different there about what consitututes rape?

Secondly, how is it possible that women can’t get pregnant from rape, but can get pregnant from other kinds of intercourse that are more “legitimate?” Again, I’m not from Missouri, but I’m kind of wondering if the women there have different anatomy or if the rapists of Missouri have been sterilized because that is the only possible explanation that makes any sense at all to me.

It doesn’t take a doctor to understand how dangerous this line of thinking is for women if more men like this get in power. And Todd Akin wants to be a United States Senator.

The Washington Post has some interesting statistics which disprove Senator Todd Akin’s basic premise about that rarity of pregnancy in the case of rape.

From the Washington Post:

"According to a 1996 study, approximately 32,000 pregnancies result from rape annually, and about five percent of rape victims are impregnated."

Assuming that the study is still accurate, that results in 1,600 pregnancies resulting from rape in a single year. Of those 1,600 pregnancies, it’s likely that very few of the victims would want to carry their pregnancies to full term. The women and girls who got pregnant from rape would be forced to carry their pregnancies to full term if Todd Akin and the conservatives like him had their way.

Fortunately, the Democrats are betting against that ever happening. Akin’s views on women are so out of tune with the rest of the country’s views on women that his race has been targeted nationally by the Democrats and his opponent Claire McKaskill is receiving even more support nationally because of Todd Akin’s conservative and Draconian views on women’s reproductive rights.

You can help Claire McKasill’s candidacy by clicking on this LINK. 

 

Lil bit ‘o hillbilly

It’s in my blood. Oh, how I wish it wasn’t, but there it is.

Do you have a part of you that you wish you could just kill? I think we all have something inside us that we wish we could deny, or destroy and forget about. Whether it’s a bad habit, a tendency to do something embarrassing, or even memories of past regrets, there are things in all of our lives we wish we could be done with.

I have a little bit of hillbilly in me. I wish I could deny it, but I just can’t seem to do it. While I’ll condemn NASCAR for being stupid and pointless and a waste of the environment at best, if you drag me to the stockcar races, well… I’ll have a bloody good time.

Though I’m against guns and we don’t own one, if you put one in my hands I might just outshoot you if the game is cans and we’re using pistols. In fact, I used to love to do just that with my dad when I was ten years old.Yes, I will sneer at the neighbor’s crass colloquialisms like “Y’uns” and “Y’all,” but it’s mainly because I don’t like her to begin with, because I have plenty of people I am related to who say the same things—and while in college in Missouri’s boot heel, I often found myself saying the same things, too. In fact, every so often I’ll say something that’s 100 percent redneck—I don’t mean just a saying but my very speech itself!—and my husband will just look at me incredulously and laugh hard, knowing it bothers me. I hate country music with a passion—the more trendier it gets, the more I seem to hate it—but if you play anything prior to 1995, from Kenny Chesney to Johnny Cash, I’m going to tap my foot to it beneath the table (and probably play it louder on Spotify in private).

Part of me dislikes these things because I think they are wrong in my heart. But part of me, I must admit, just hates them because they’re so country, so hillbilly, so everything that I don’t want to be in the first place but cannot deny that I am, even so, just a little. And I’m not sure I can ever be a complete person until I get rid of this part of me once and for all—or just learn to accept it, embrace it, and love it as a part of me.

Does anyone else have this same issue? If so, how do (or did) you work it out?

Did Santorum Say What I Think He Just Said?

Probably not, but I don't mind the outcry

There's been a bunch of hubbub around the internet about a few questionable syllables uttered by GOP hopeful Rick Santorum during a recent speech in Wisconsin. In the video, he's in the middle of blasting Obama for not following up on his campaign promises when all of a sudden something that sounds like it's about to be a racial epithet tumbles out. Santorum has defended his bumble by claiming he was saying "governmentnik", but plenty of political bloggers heard a "g" on the end of that compound.

A few progressive commentators have pointed out that the phrase "government n****r" is sometimes used by white people in the south to describe black people who receive welfare or other government benefits. Is it possible that Santorum was about to trip up by spouting a colloquialism that might be accepted in his inner circle, but certainly isn't acceptable for use in the public arena?

Well, maybe. Neither phrase really makes any sense in context. Santorum was describing how Obama's anti-war politics turned out to be more of a facade than anything, luring voters in with the promise of peace when really he's continued to maintain more or less the military status quo. What does that have to do with welfare? By contrast, I've never heard of such a thing as an "anti-war governmentnik" either. Was he trying to Sovietize common English? Is he calling Obama a communist? What's going on in there?

To me, it sounds like Santorum's just burping up word salad for a minute there. I'm pretty sure even he knows that the n-word isn't allowed in political speeches (or any white person's speech, ever) and he doesn't look like he was half a second away from a verbal land mine. You'd think if he caught himself about to use that word about the president, he'd have a bit more of an oops-face going on. 

There are plenty of reasons to dislike Santorum as he stands. He doesn't even need to slip up this late in the game. His entire platform is enough to demonstrate his incompetence. But this widespread accusation of racist language might be the nail in the coffin for him. In which case, I guess it's a good thing that he's being misheard. The thought of even the slightest possibility of a President Frothy makes me want to curl up under my bed for the next four years. 

Illinois: Actually Making a Difference in the Primary

In 2012, the Illinois primary may actually mean something.

As a resident of the fair state of Illinois, I have not usually put much stock in the primary election. By the time it gets to our state, it is usually a done deal. I will vote my conscience, because I always do, but in reality I understand that it does little good.

 

This year is different.

 

Romney has not yet solidified the win, and the election is next week. This means that Illinois actually has some power over who ends up on the Republican ticket in 2012. This makes me excited to get out there and vote.

 

Interestingly, this is the first time since 1988 that Illinois is important in the primary race. Even the victories on Super Tuesday for Romney were not sufficient to clinch the nomination, and Illinois has 54 delegates for the taking.

 

With Illinois being a “Rust Belt” state, Santorum actually has some hope of doing well, as he has been performing well in these states up until now in these states. The campaign is turning a little nasty, though. Political ads bashing one or the other candidate are easy to come by when you turn on prime time TV.

 

So I, for one, am looking forward to Tuesday, knowing my vote might actually matter. In the 2008 presidential election, I felt there was no hope for defeating Obama, as he was the Illinois “favorite son,” which made my vote feel pointless. This time, it feels like I have a reason to vote, which has not been the case in a primary before. So I am excited for the chance to cast my vote!

Romney Squeaks out Win in Michigan

While Santorum may get more deligates, Romney is the winner.

In a very heated race, Romney squeaked out a win over Santorum in Michigan this week. There was much discussion over whether or not he could win here, and what a loss would mean to his overall campaign. With this win, small is it may have been, Romney may have sealed the nomination, especially after his win in Arizona as well.

Romney only beat Santorum 41 percent to 38, but it was still a win. Instead of going into the birth control debate, which has started to overrun the Repbulican party of late, he stuck to his economic message and the push to reduce unemployment.

If the results continue as estimates indicate, the win may actually be a mixed bag for Romney. While he won the popular vote, Santorum could win more delegates when the count is in. Still, this would not be a problem for the Romney camp, as he leads with 165 delegates to Santorum’s 85. The winner will need 1,144 total delegates, so the race is far from over. 

It was Romney’s opposition to Obama’s bailout of the auto industry that could have cost him the win in Michigan. Because it did not, many are pointing to Romney as the party’s answer to getting Obama out of the white house. While some still do not like his moderate stand on certain issues, it is possible that he could bring the party together in a united front against the current administration.

Still, he has to win the nomination, and he has a long way to go to do that. But Republicans may need to start getting used to Romeny’s face, as it could be the one to lead the election come November.

 

The Meaning of a Romney Loss in Michigan

What happens if Romney loses next week in Michigan?

At the beginning of the primaries, many analysts thought Romney had the electing in the bag. Yet, Santorum’s continued success as well as the success of some of the third and fourth place individuals has shown that Romney still has his work cut out for him. Romney loses the Michigan primary next week, he could be in for a long battle.

Romney is a native son of Michigan. This means a Michigan loss would create a bit of a PR mess. But the campaign has plenty of funds and is very well organized, so they would be able to pull out after a Michigan loss. It would just mean that his work is going to have to double to triple in scope through the end of the primary season.
Does Santorum have a chance? Up until recently, Romney has led the polls in Michigan, but that is starting to change. Santorum is increasing popularity, and he has pulled ahead in some of the pools. Romney is attempting to respond by attacking Santorum’s credibility, which is a strategy that worked in defeating Gingrich in Florida and Iowa.

Romney also has the advantage of being able to point to his Michigan heritage. By tossing around local terms during speeches, he is able to garner some local support. People know his name, and when it comes time to vote that can be a very important factor. Even if he loses, he will get a lot of delegates because the vote is expected to be close, and the election is not a “winner takes all” type.
 

Fellow Republicans, Let's Use Our Heads (and Google)

Before hitting "share," let's make sure the image or information is accurate.

I am a conservative Republican who enjoys social media. Since I work online, I tend to spend a lot of time with my Facebook page open. Not all of my Facebook “friends” share my political and moral ideology, and that is fine, because diversity makes the world go round. It was through one of these friends’ comments about the actions of many conservative Republicans that I started thinking about this blog post. This week, I want to talk about thinking before you post.

 

Look, we Republicans have an incumbent to unseat. I get that. And I am no fan of the Obama administration and some of the decisions our leader has made. With that said, we need to do what we can to shed light on his failures, point out the errors of his policies, and showcase the benefit of a change in administration.

 

This does not happen by pointlessly re-posting photoshopped images of our Commander in Chief in compromising, idiotic situations. One of my “favorite” images currently being passed around the world of social media is one of President and Mrs. Obama saluting the flag with the wrong hand. The image looks valid because the placement of the rings is accurate, but seriously people, this is simple to do in photo editing software. A simple search of Snopes clearly shows that.

We have a campaign to win, a “war” to wage if you will. We do not strengthen our position by passing around falsified information. In fact, we make ourselves look rather foolish, especially when a simple Google search can yield the truth behind such images. So let’s stop this nonsense and focus on promoting information that will give us a strong leg to stand on when the 2012 election really picks up steam.

Pages