State v. National

I would like to first preface this blog post by saying I do not support a lot of President Obama's policies. However, I still think he is a good person trying to make some important changes. Also, it is not my intent to offend anyone with this post.

And that leads me to today's blog of annoyance:

Tuesday's gubernatorial races, the media craze surrounding them, and the references made to President Obama.

For those of you who have no connection to the outside world, or don't know what "gubernatorial" means (heh, heh, it sure is fun to say/type though!), there were two governor races voted on this past Tuesday -- one in New Jersey and one in Virginia. The main talking points were the tight race in NJ, which has had a Democratic governor for a long time, and the huge lead the Republican candidate in Virginia had -- a state that had gone to Obama in the 2008 election.

Now, President Obama did some campaigning for both the Democratic incumbents -- and rightly so, being a Democrat. Obviously you want as many of your party in influential positions throughout the nation as you can get. But even with his strong backing, both states went to the Republicans (an almost unheard of event in NJ!).

Now, much of the media, especially FoxNews (and now a collective cringe), jumped on this outcome as possibly a hit against the president's policies and questioning if this was a hint of the 2010 Senate/House races.

**Ok, I want to interject here that I watch FoxNews alongside CNN and I also read the NYTimes and the Wall Street Journal. Just want to make clear there is no bias or anything here. Pure opinion.**

Now, here is where I get annoyed. The media keeps trying to tie in the outcome of these gubernatorial races with President Obama's policies. They keep asking the question, "Is this an indication of the voters turning back from supporting Obama as a result of some of the policies he is suggesting?" (More or less the standard question). Well, first off, these are STATE races based on STATE issues. It is my firm belief that Obama's policies had little to do with the way the voting went in NJ and Virginia, especially NJ.

In NJ, it was more or less a choice between the lesser of two evils. And after the whole corruption scandal recently, the voters decided on a change, even though the margin of victory wasn't huge.

In Virginia, a long-standing "purple" state, voters decided to go with a Republican governor again after not being satisfied with the job done by the Democratic incumbent. No real surprise here, in my opinion.

The crux of this annoyance is how the media kept harping on how the outcomes of the state elections reflected a snub on President Obama. In my opinion, voters were more concerned about the issues in their respective states at this point in time -- jobs, taxes, etc. Yes, Obama has been working on national issues concerning this, but at this point in time, the voters were focused on state issues -- what was going on right at home.

So, it is just annoying to me to read and listen to the news constantly questioning the president on issues on the state level!

Who's really caring about my health?

I will be completely honest...

I do not believe the government is the best judge of what kind of health care I can have or what kind my employer can have. And before I get tons of angry comments saying that's not what President Obama is going for, yes, you are completely right. I watch the news, read the articles online. (And for those of you wondering, I watch both FoxNews and CNN, read the NYTimes and the Wall Street Journal, so my opinions are not based on only one source.)

I am totally behind the idea that everyone is entitled to health care. Also, I am behind the idea that those more unfortunate people who are unable to afford health care will be able to be under some kind of plan. However, I do not agree on the route that is being taken to pay for this.

The figure being thrown around is around $1 trillion over the span of 10 years. That is a lot of money. And before you bring up the fact that this issue has been at the forefront of the problem with passing this health care bill, yes, I know. But first I want to take a different tack that I have not, to my knowledge, heard brought up on any of the news sites.

The government is setting aside funds to subsidize their own health plan, formally known as the "public option." This has many politicians riled because it has the potential of undercutting the private health insurance sector. But my gaffe is not about that. What I have a problem with is, what happens after those 10 years?

Ok, case in point. My family does not have health insurance because it's not affordable for us. And we have had our share of hospital stays, bills, etc. So let's say this healthcare bills passes and, because it is cheap insurance, we sign up under whatever plan the government offers. Now, fastforward 10 years and about $1 trillion+ later and suddenly, the money is not there for the health insurance plans. Now what happens? Does the government suddenly drop millions of people from this plan because it can't pay for it?

Which leads me to my second point and the one most hotly contested--how to pay for this plan. President Obama has assured, reassured, and reassured (well you get the picture) the middle class that the taxes will only hit the "rich" upper levels of the American classes. But what happens when the rich decide they don't like being taxed? Will the government renege on it's promise and start lowering the income level for the surtax in order to keep the health care program going? Will this plan become another Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid? And then again, maybe all classes of Americans will be taxed one way or another to pay for this bill, be it through a tax on "unhealthy" foods, cigarettes, alcohol, etc? Or maybe it will come to not only paying for this health care plan, but also being taxed for it on top of the premiums? It would be like paying for car insurance, then getting in a wreck that your insurance covered, but still paying to have it fixed.

I do believe President Obama is trying to do a good thing. I just believe he's going about it the wrong way.

And please feel free to comment!