Thursday, July 30, 2009

Young Americans Still Want to Marry

News flash!

Young Americans still want to marry! With all things considered, that is good news.

Let's be honest though. The American marriage culture has taken a beating over the last few years. From the lingering cloud of low-fault divorce, the ongoing battle over homosexual marriage to a general disenchantment of marriage by the under 30's crowd, marriage in America is a bit wobbly.

However, Washington Times reporter Cheryl Wertstein has penned an informative article on the refreshing news that young Americans still want to be married or plan to be married somewhere in the future.

Here it is.

The bottom line-Americans still want to marry.

"Calibrate" Equipment Not Words

According to Webster, when you calibrate something, you are: "fixing, checking or correcting an item or machine."

You don't calibrate words.

President Obama, apologize when you misspeak. We all do it. Don't calibrate your words. It makes your apology appear very insincere.

Careful What We "Fix?"

Like most Americans, I would concur that our current health care system needs reform. I don't like the $1500 per month premium nor the 80/20 payout after my family's $3k cap. Oouch to my wallet. And to top it off, whenever I call for a little customer service, I get someone who cannot speak English or cannot find my account.

Over and over, the Canadian health care model is held out to by many reformers be a shining example of patient care and fiducial responsibility. Really?

Here's a thought. If the Canadian system is so good then why do thousands of Canadians motor south to the USA for immediate care? And, why do Mexican immigrants stop here and not continue onward to our northern neighbor?

These facts give me pause. Perhaps, our health care system is not all that bad when compared to other places...

Monday, July 27, 2009

The Next Frontier in American Marital Evolution

After the homosexual and transgenderedc communities, the polyamorists will be next.

Haven't heard of them yet? Here's the story and the definition of who they are.

Health Insurance is Not Health Care

Most Americans mix the two up.

Let's be clear. Access to health care is not health insurance. Let me explain.

Health insurance occurs when a group of people pool their money together to help pay for the costs of health care. But, health care was never designed to give the payer a free ride from health care costs. You use it to help pay in part your costs for health care. Great health insurance does not guarantee great health care.

Today, free health insurance has become an entitlement in the minds of many Americans. This notion has sprouted legs in our culture because many businesses, in order to retain good employees, either have given their employees free health insurance as a perk or have limited the cost. But still, its not free. Either the employee pays it or the employer pays it.

On the other hand, health care is not health insurance. Yet, like every other aspect of our nation's economy, it is a business which many people make their livelihood on. A profit motive here is not necessarily a bad thing. With the profit incentive comes research and development for new life saving drugs and clinical procedures. In my last blog, I wrote about a friend whose father has pancreatic cancer. Several years ago, this would have been a death sentence. Now through extensive research and development (fueled by profits), new drugs and therapies are extending his life.

Here are two facts about the future impact of a public health care option funded by the government:

1- Quality health care will diminish. The government plan will pay health care providers less money for their services, reducing the profit incentives. Plus, the government option will eventually put private insurers out of business. Less pay means fewer docs and other health care providers. Privately owned hospitals will also contract or be bought out by a government run option similar to the current VA system. Once again, see Canada if you want a peek about hospitals under government operation.

2- Taxes will increase. Conservatively, the additional tax burden on American taxpayers will exceed 1 trillion dollars each year if Obama's plan is implemented. This is a cost our families cannot afford to bear.

I am all for helping fellow Americans access quality health care. Helping the helpless is a big deal for me. Reforming our broken health care system is a family issue, something that the Rocky Mountain Family Council deems as vital to our families. But, helping the clueless is a different story.

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Obama Care and Its Impact on Your Family

I want to give the President a chance to explain his health care plan. I agree that our current system is too expensive, too complicated and uncovers many Americans.

But please, a government solution? If you want to build your confidence in the proposed public option, take a peek at other current government businesses like Amtrak and the US Postal Service. Makes me feel safe!

Who is President Obama kidding?

Last night's prime time Presidential news conference was another foray into the fogbank. I am sorry but the man makes no sense. He has had his chance. I don't think he has read his own plan. Obama either does not know his own plan; lives in a parallel universe; has no understanding of a free market economy or simply thinks he can fake us all out.

Here are a few ideas to ponder:

-Competition will not happen. If private companies (who have to show a profit) have to compete with a public option (who does not have to show a profit), they will fail. Employers, when faced with the cheaper public option, will cancel their current health care plans and put employees in the cheaper public option.

-Cost. No one really has an answer for it. Not even Obama. Most estimates are probably too conservative. Few government run plans come in on time and at budget. The economic reality is that our nation cannot afford this program. Who do you think will pay for it?

-Quality of care. Eventually, health care decisions will be made by a government agent who will decide who gets what care and when. The days of your doctor diagnosing your condition and prescribing immediate care will end (for more info on this one visit Canada). Also, forget about your privacy. All medical records under the public option will be put on a CD and be housed in some office in Washington, DC. This one scares me.

-The development of new drugs and treatments. A good friend's father has advanced pancreatic cancer. Until recently, this was a death sentence. However, thanks to ongoing research and development over the last 20 years, new anti pancreatic cancer drugs are now available to put the cancer into remission. What drives research and innovation is not just the desire to find a cure but the financial reward for finding a life-saving drug. It's called the profit incentive and its the little secret behind a free market economy (See point #1). There will be no incentives for private companies to do research and to find those future drugs that will save people 20 years from now. Obama care will snuff this out.

-Finally, control. Do you want the government to control your health care decisions. I don't think that's what most American bargained for when they voted for Obama in November of 2008. But this is what "the change we can believe in" is coming to be. If the government takes over health care, one sixth of the American economy will be under its control.

Here is my bottom line: the current system is broken and in need of reform. The Obama plan will not solve any of the issues only worsen the system.

Here is an excellent link and analysis of the Obama plan.

Getting "High" in Denver

I will confess that I live near the "Mile High" city of Denver. It used to be that "mile high" proudly referred to the elevation of Denver, rooting for the Broncos, cool nights, close proximity to the Rocky Mountains, clear majestic views and all of the other good things that go with living at altitude.

However, its taken a new meaning. A smoky "haze" is now descending on the Mile High City. Here is the latest story on the medicinal use of marijuana.

The elected officials in Denver are caught up in this haze. It seems like the only adults in town right now are the Feds and local law enforcement (the folks that deal everyday with drug addicts).

Yesterday, the ubiquitous Denver Post ran a less than heartily followup story on medicinal marijuana. Unfortunately, the majority of confidential Denver registry of folks who claim pain and need medicinal marijuana are males with an average age of 24.

Sounds like a scam to me!

Here's the key quote the Denver Post (which I agree): "Pardon our skepticism, but that profile seems tilted awfully heavily toward young Coloradans."

Really. Here's more: "It's one thing for people who are at the end of their lives or who are truly suffering to find some relief in the use of marijuana. It's another entirely if people who want to see marijuana legalized are using medical marijuana provisions and friendly doctors to do an end run around drug laws."

This Denver law needs to be repealed. Clear away the haze!

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Is There Hope for the American Marriage?

This was the title of a July 2nd article in TIME magazine (which I normally do not read).

This is an interesting article particularly from a reliably liberal news magazine like TIME. My parents used to get the old TIME magazine while I was growing up before it morphed into what it is today.

Here is the link to this article.

Here are a couple of thoughts.

First, I find it a bit humorous that the TIME staff would even be interested in such a topic. Afterall, TIME has been at the forefront championing homosexual marriage. They have led the party that is celebrating the advent of open homosexuality and its practices in our country.

Second, my skeptisicm is rooted in my piqued interest as to the true intent of this article. Its either a celebratory "I told you so" postmortem on traditional marriage or its a mea culpa that they have taken a bridge too far.

Third, Caitlin Flangan's premises (the authoress)are surprisingly accurate and conservative in tone. "There is no other single force causing as much measureable harship and human misery in this country as the collapse of marriage. It hurts children, it reduces mother's financial security, and it has landed with particular devastation on those who can bear it least: the nation's underclass." Wow. Right on...

Fourth, the marriage gap. Flanagan hits the nail on the head here. There is a growing marriage gap threatening our nation today. She is right on when she chronicles the plight of the underclass, who are uncoupling parenthood with marriage. One of the greatest predictors of poverty are under-educated single women having children. These fragile families are destined for the ash hill of public substinence. For the "priviledged" the marriage trend today is to battle middle-age boredom with realtional trysts which bring the wrecking ball to their families and children---see Governor Mark Sanford et al.

Fifthly, and this is the a-ha moment of the article. Quoting noted feminist researcher and author Sara McLanahan, she states that "Growing up without a father has a deep psychological effect on a child. The mom may not need that man, but her children do." Wow.

Perhaps there is a third reason for this article. Could it be that the folks who have tried to demolish marriage for decades are seeing the light?

Thursday, July 02, 2009

Obama and Homosxuals-Update # 2

Several months ago when we did our first "Obama and Homosexuals" update, we told you that we would continue this frequently and as new information came out.

Homosexuals are a major constituent group of the Democratic party. In recent weeks, homosexual activist groups have been clamoring to Obama for support payback. Frankly, it has gotten nasty.

Here is the latest since June 1st.

-The Obama White House has proposed the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. If passed, this bill would add gender and sexual orientation to hate crime laws.

-Urging Congress to repeal the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

-Ensure national adoption rights for homosexual couples.

-Passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. This bill would expand it protections to cover sexual orientation and gender identity.

-Repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy towards homosexuals. This is controversial and will take time. Homosexuals would then be allowed to serve openly.

Wednesday, July 01, 2009

Ritter's Car Tax HIts Home

It's here. If you have not seen it yet, you will. Just wait until your annual car renewal license bill comes and it will be huge.

All of this courtesy of Guv Ritter and his Democratic allies in the state legislature.

Below is an excellent op-ed piece from our good friend and State Senator Kevin Lundberg on this issue. Read it and weep.

Senate bill 108 is a quarter of a billion dollar (per year) car tax. Some are calling it Bill Ritter's Car Tax.

Never in my legislative experience have I seen such a reaction from the people of Colorado after a law has taken effect. For the last several weeks hardly day goes by without at least one constituent calling me at home to complain about SB-108.

Not only do they resent the more than doubling of the cost of registering an older car, but the penalties for late registration are an incredible shock. It is a mandatory, one size fits all formula of $25/ month, up to four months ($100) for any late registration. This applies to even the little trailer you may have around that you rarely use.

How would you react if you expected a nominal ($10-30) registration cost and are handed a bill for well over $100? This late fee even applies for the months before the bill became law! Many people with multiple older vehicles or motorbikes have told me they may never register them. Others have threatened to go to another state.

But wait... there's more. SB-108 also set up a system for tolling existing roads and several new bureaucracies for administering these taxes, fines, and tolls. For all of these reasons not one Republican, in either house, voted for SB-108. We spent long hours in the Senate and the House arguing against this new car tax, but in the end the governor had the votes from his own party to pass both houses and then he signed it with great fanfare.

In the next session I will be introducing a bill to repeal parts of SB-108. I trust that the people will have, by that time, convinced enough legislators in the governor's party to agree to get rid of at least the worst parts of the Bill Ritter's Car Tax.

For more information about SB-108 go to:

Elections have expensive consequences.