Bush State of Confusion

I've been a bit blog-absent, while working on a book proposal. But, I did watch Sir Bush do his State of the Union thing, hoping (foolishly) that perhaps some distance and time spent away from following his every word, would give me some sort of, I don't know, calmness to decipher whatever he was rambling about, before resorting to swearing at my TV.

But, I just couldn't do it. Because, he's just not of this planet.

On his planet, perhaps people can afford health-care, and would be even more involved with private health insurance, if only they had a tax deduction to, you know, spur them along. I may have missed it, while yelling at my TV, but I'm sure Bush didn't say anything about how private health insurance companies guage private insurees, and that millions of people not only can't afford insurance, they can't access it.

A tax break is not going to dial Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and apply and receive single-payers insurance. A tax break won't force Oxford to pay for doctors they don't want to recognize, even though they recognize all the premiums. A tax break isn't going to have a conversation with CIGNA about covering more preventative care. And creating health savings accounts for a country with a negative savings rate, isn't an investment necessity, it's a total impossibility.

Oh, but the real reason we can't afford or get health care easily from private insurance companies is all the lawsuits, not say, because health insurance premiums are under absolutely no scrutiny, regulation, or capping? Seems that if private insurance companies increased the number of people they cover, while reducing individual rates so more of those people could both pay for and receive coverage, everyone would be happier. Why didn't Bush suggest that? Maybe, because he doesn't worry about losing coverage himself, or being undercovered, like most of the other people living in the country?

On another topic, he said that what we need is to impose spending discipline in Washington, D.C. Uh, he said the same thing in his State of the Union Address in 2003, or precisely, that we should show some spending discipline in Washington. Repetitive? maybe. Effective? not so much. This is coming from a man who's now overseen more emergency war addendums passed under his administration that throughout all of American history combined.

And reduce gasoline usage by 20% in ten years? What does that even mean? And, why 20% in ten? Did he take out some special economic calculator that produced that very percentage after that much time? Why not 30% in fifteen or 5% in two? This is the guy that signed a huge gas company tax break bill while on vacation at his ranch, while cutting the budget for the very part of the Energy Department that researched alternative fuels by 40% that same year.

As for more troops in Iraq, that was the point at which I had to turn down the volume, and just watch the hand gestures...it had all become too tragic and too similar.

Comments

[Leia]

Interesting to know.

[Leia]

Interesting to know.

[Chad]

I absolutely love your work! I came across you on Myspace a couple of years ago. At the time I was working for Bank of America as a manager. Since that time I have lost my job due to the financial meltdown we all have experienced. I commend you on all of your books and writing. I am currently reading Other People’s Money: The Corporate Mugging of America. Keep up the fabulous work. Would love to talk to you on a more personal basis about things that are going on in America. Feel free to contact me when you get the chance.

Chad