That's right. Why should we insure sick people anyway? It is just not the right thing to do at all ! If you think insurance is what sick people need,  you stay away from me when I am sick! If you are sick do you want me to take you to your insurance agent ? Of course not! Sick people need treatment, not insurance!

Health Insurance is not for everybody and certainly not for people with preexisting conditions. So why in the world would we be trying to force anyone to insure people who are uninsurable? The entire precept lacks any common sense.

Now the obvious question is what do we do with the people who have preexisting conditions and need care and do not have insurance? The government proposes we use the IRS to pressure people to buy health insurance under penalty of law.

Well after pondering the insanity of fining people up to $250,000 and /or 5 years in prison for tax evasion if they did not purchase your product, and were unable to pay the tax penalty , I came to the conclusion that solution didn't make sense .

The idea of Timothy Geithner having people arrested for not paying a tax penalty for failure to purchase insurance was too much irony for me.Yet my mind kept thinking , Geithner, health care, taxes and the IRS~how could that be a solution ?

Then it struck me ! As bizarre as it sounds, could you imagine the IRS actually giving incentives to solve the crisis? Instead of taxing tax payers for not buying insurance instead we give people tax incentives?

That's right. Give Doctors, Hospitals and Drug Companies dollar for dollar tax credits for treating people with pre-exisiting conditions.

My State Representative was recounting a mindset he brings to Harrisburg. Lets use small numbers to illustrate the issue. If we both recognize there is a problem that we have to address and you say it will cost $15 and I say it will cost $20, since we agree there is at least a $15 problem we fund the $15 and debate the balance later.

Everyone agrees there is a insurance gap that is complicated by pre-exisiting conditions. Everyone recognizes there is a care giver shortage. Everyone recognizes we are broke. Those are all things reasonable and honest people agree on. We should immediately start giving dollar for dollar tax breaks to doctors, clinics and hospitals for the care they give to people who have pre-exisitng conditions and for a window of time for the insurable uninsured. Of course there is a potential that this could be abused, yet our first concern should be that people who are ill receive treatment . End the emergency and claim your political victory for helping people truly in need already !

When I get sick I do not need to see my insurance agent. When I get sick I really don't need to see the government!  When I am sick I need treatment. It is important that we keep focused on what solutions the government is offering and whether it addresses the causation or the symptom. Relieve the symptom and work on a long term solution for the causation; treatment for the uninsurable. In the meantime, let's make sure that treatment is available to those who are not able to get it while we work out a better plan.

Don't Insure Uninsurable Sick People, give doctors and hospitals tax incentives to treat them instead because health insurance is not for everybody.

Would it be expecting too much for the Commander-in-Chief  to display a level of consistent behavior? Consistently Inconsistent is not an attribute that is acceptable for the Commander in Chief, yet it accurately describes Barack Obama recent actions.

On Friday the President said the entire nation is grieving for those slain at Fort Hood, and he urged people not to jump to conclusions while law enforcement officers investigate the shootings. (Well I will give him this much, at least he learned a lesson from the Cambridge incident.)

Then on Saturday during his weekly address the President gave the defense attorney major fodder by pronouncing "This past Thursday, on a clear Texas afternoon, an Army psychiatrist walked into the Soldier Readiness Processing Center, and began shooting his fellow soldiers." Excuse me? The President is a attorney at law. He knows better than to say this and the ramifications of potentially tainting a jury pool. What is he trying to do....beside jumping to a conclusion?

"Well, look, we -- we have seen, in the past, rampages of this sort. And in a country of 300 million people, there are going to be acts of violence that are inexplicable. Even within the extraordinary military that we have -- and I think everybody understands how outstanding the young men and women in uniform are under the most severe stress -- there are going to be instances in which an individual cracks. I think the questions that we're asking now and we don't have yet complete answers to is, is this an individual who's acting in this way or is it some larger set of actors? You know, what are the motivations? Those are all questions that I think we have to ask ourselves. Until we have these answers buttoned down, I'd rather not comment on it."

If I am Hasan's defense lawyer I am smiling ear to ear. Here is the Commander in Chief, Hasan's boss, openly commenting on his case and tainting the jury pool. Then potentially providing a alternative defense for him? As a lawyer and law professor there is no excuse for the President to be acting as foolishly as he is in a murder case on a military base. 

President Obama needs to get a grip on his lip and realize that his actions are undermining the morale of the Armed Forces who look to their Commander to bring Justice and provide stability, not to play pundit on the subject of a murder on a military installation.. This is the ultimate disrespect to the victims of the shootings at Ft. Hood.

One can only wonder what he does for a encore! Offer to be the JAG ? Cede to the United Nations and try him under Sharia Law? Tune in to the next episode of Barack Obama, Commander in Chief.

Un-freaking-believable.

Last night was your classic political gamesmanship. We had your classic Catch-22 in progress and all the players were scoring their political points and padding their voting records.

According to lifenews.com,  "Reps. Joe Pitts, a Pennsylvania republican, and Bart Stupak, a Michigan Democrat, combined for a bipartisan amendment to prevent mandated abortion coverage in the essential benefits package"

Talk about a game of strategy.  The Stupak Amendment as it was called last night, forced everyone who has any concern about their pro-life voting record to vote for the amendment. But what does this amendment do? It provided cover for people to vote for the bill because they were not funding abortions, a hot button issue at the moment.

By bringing the Amendment to a vote and it passing, it provided the extra votes needed to pass HR 3962. So in effect, the trap was baited and despite knowing it was baited , the Congressman had no choice but to vote for the Amendment ensuring that extra votes needed to pass the bill onto the upper chamber.

Few believe that Senate version will mirror the House version and that what Mrs. Pelosi pushed through the House will pass in the Senate. If the bill comes back from committee without the Stupak Amendment in it, there will be additional votes lost in the House.

This bill allowed the House leaders to flip off the people who have sounded out about healthcare reform and they are hoping that it will ice their efforts , taking the wind out of their sails. It was some very good gamemanship. Mrs. Pelosi learned the art of Politics very well.

Now as we marvel at how good of a politician she is, let us reflect upon the economy when she took over the reins of the House in January 2007. And let us reflect on all the spending packages that have come through her house. Under her leadership the country has amassed debt like no other time in history.

The Congress and specifically the House of Representatives is the body that crafts our budgets and handles the economic aspect of the government. How were you in 2007? How are your today? Remember who has been in charge of the nations purse strings since January 2007.Nancy Pelosi-Master Politician-bringing California economics to Washington DC.. What a player!.