And the health care debate begins again... I am beyond mad right now. People are just so...so...MEAN! I will warn you right now, don't "go there" with me if you don't want me to go there, because I will. So there.
Where did all of this nastiness in politics come from? Why do we have people booing an active duty soldier because he is gay? Are his sacrifices worth less because he is gay? Anyone who booed this soldier should be sent to Afghanistan. Then the cheering over someone dying due to lack of health care? Are you kidding me? That really upsets me, because it is really happening on a daily basis. Let me explain one thing, right now: no one expects free health care. Please get that through your head.
Now here is where I tell you WHY health care is so important to me. I had a great dad. He was far from perfect, but he was a great dad. He took me roller skating, to feed the ducks, to the beach, he always had time to DO things with me. We were far from rich, but he always worked. He had to quit school when his dad got cancer, so he was not the most educated man, but he always, always worked. When he was 21 he got a tooth infection that spread to his heart. He almost died, but ended up coming back. They even read his his last rites, but he had something else in mind. All was well until he was 43 or so. He was WORKING when he had a sudden heart attack. He had no insurance, but he went to the ER anyway. Due to his prior heart problems, his body took the heart attack hard and he got sicker and sicker, and thinner and thinner. He kept working though. In early 1996 he was so sick that he had to stop to catch his breath to cross a room, and he kept passing out when he tried to walk. Obviously working was no longer an option. Because he worked, he couldn't get Medicaid. Because he couldn't get Medicaid, he went to the ER a lot. Finally when they put the pacemaker in, he knew he would not improve enough to return to work this time, so he applied for Social Security Disability. He was denied the first time within a couple of months, and the second time just ten days after he died. He died on January 2, 1997 at the age of 45.
Now, what I want is for one of you people who are screaming about the lazy people who don't want to work and take care of themselves, what could he have done differently? He didn't ask for this heart condition to pop back up in his 40's. He thought it was done with. He also didn't have the approximate million dollars that his treatment cost. I did what I could, but I was just 23 with a child.
I really am glad that some people have it all figured out. Good for you. Life is so planned that you will never have an issue with your health that you can't handle. You have plenty of money to cover any medical expenses that may come up. But I want you to remember, before you hit "post" on that hateful message about lazy people who want free healthcare, how hard my dad worked his entire life and how much it hurt me to let him go. He was cheated out of his full life, and I was cheated out of my dad.
These people who are dying are not just numbers. They are fathers, mothers, grandparents, brothers, sisters, and children. I have seen people called "retarded" (oh how I hate that word!), lazy, stupid, and so on. I can assure you that my dad was non of those. My dad would have turned 60 this year. He will never get the benefit of the Social Security that he paid into, nor did he see his daughter grown up, and he missed out on his grandson growing up. He is a great grandfather now. He was so looking forward to new years eve 1999. He was just sure something big was going to happen.
I just want each of you to remember that for each issue that is discussed there are actual people that are impacted by each issue. Don't be so quick to judge. But for the grace of God, it could be you next. I don't want you to learn by going through the same thing that I did. Just please discuss the issues and put away the grade school name-calling.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Animals
I love animals. I know, I know, you already knew this about me. But, did you know that I work full time, I am working on my Masters, and I volunteer for a rescue? I love helping out at the rescue, it is wonderful and gives the heart a warm fuzzy feeling.
Now, if you know me, you know that I am partial to law and politics when I write, with a tendency to lean towards current events. So how do these two come together? Give me a minute, I am getting there. Stay with me...
I have had some people who are clearly on the right get on me about my support of animal related causes, one even telling me that I should focus more energy on causes for kids. I support many causes for kids. I fund raise for MDA every year, and I save box tops even though I have no kids in school. However, time and time again I see these same people let their animals reproduce. Sometimes multiple times. These are the people who will share a story on Facebook about the deficit, then post about the litter their pet just had. Some may hunt and think the animals are "needed." Whatever their well intended reason may be, I think they are not using their heads.
If you are one that is screaming from the rooftops about the deficit, let me ask you: Is your pet fixed? As cute as your kittens and puppies might be, chances are some of them will end up at the shelter. The county shelters are usually supported by tax dollars. So, the upkeep and administration costs of the county pound are supported by our taxes. Let me take this a bit further...
The officers who respond to calls about abused and abandoned animals are paid from tax dollars. The vehicles they drive are supported by tax dollars. The facility is supported by tax dollars. The minimum wage salaries most workers are paid are supported by tax dollars. Who feeds the animals while they are there? You guessed it!
Now I am by no means suggesting that we do away with animal control-it is a necessary service. I do hope that days comes though. The rescue that I volunteer with is strapped right now. We are operating on a shoestring budget, and getting in more dogs faster then we can adopt out what we already have. I can imagine the county pound is no different. It takes money for medical, food, and shelter when an animal is abandoned. It even takes money to put an animal down.
If everyone who reads this blog would simply spay & neuter their pets, think of the savings! Maybe we need fewer officers to pick up abandoned or abused animals eventually. Maybe each county shelter could take ONE truck off of the road. Maybe, just maybe, the shelter would not be strapped for cash and over-crowded. And the best part of all, maybe our furry four legged friends would enjoy the quality of life that they deserve. They give so much to us, is it too much to ask for us to take care of them properly?
Warm fuzzies AND saving money-what could be better?
Now, if you know me, you know that I am partial to law and politics when I write, with a tendency to lean towards current events. So how do these two come together? Give me a minute, I am getting there. Stay with me...
I have had some people who are clearly on the right get on me about my support of animal related causes, one even telling me that I should focus more energy on causes for kids. I support many causes for kids. I fund raise for MDA every year, and I save box tops even though I have no kids in school. However, time and time again I see these same people let their animals reproduce. Sometimes multiple times. These are the people who will share a story on Facebook about the deficit, then post about the litter their pet just had. Some may hunt and think the animals are "needed." Whatever their well intended reason may be, I think they are not using their heads.
If you are one that is screaming from the rooftops about the deficit, let me ask you: Is your pet fixed? As cute as your kittens and puppies might be, chances are some of them will end up at the shelter. The county shelters are usually supported by tax dollars. So, the upkeep and administration costs of the county pound are supported by our taxes. Let me take this a bit further...
The officers who respond to calls about abused and abandoned animals are paid from tax dollars. The vehicles they drive are supported by tax dollars. The facility is supported by tax dollars. The minimum wage salaries most workers are paid are supported by tax dollars. Who feeds the animals while they are there? You guessed it!
Now I am by no means suggesting that we do away with animal control-it is a necessary service. I do hope that days comes though. The rescue that I volunteer with is strapped right now. We are operating on a shoestring budget, and getting in more dogs faster then we can adopt out what we already have. I can imagine the county pound is no different. It takes money for medical, food, and shelter when an animal is abandoned. It even takes money to put an animal down.
If everyone who reads this blog would simply spay & neuter their pets, think of the savings! Maybe we need fewer officers to pick up abandoned or abused animals eventually. Maybe each county shelter could take ONE truck off of the road. Maybe, just maybe, the shelter would not be strapped for cash and over-crowded. And the best part of all, maybe our furry four legged friends would enjoy the quality of life that they deserve. They give so much to us, is it too much to ask for us to take care of them properly?
Warm fuzzies AND saving money-what could be better?
Monday, September 26, 2011
Testing for Welfare?
I just read this story: http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20110926/BREAKINGNEWS/309260004/Judge-hear-arguments-about-drug-testing-Welfare-recipients?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Home
I am one that has mixed feelings about this. This article says that testing welfare applicants is a violation of constitutional rights, however, I don't think that I am prepared to go quite that far. No one is telling them that they HAVE to apply for welfare, but if they do, they must be tested. The article states that 2.7% of about 2000 applicants have been denied benefits for a positive test-roughly 54 people. This isn't keeping the masses from getting benefits that they need.
But, what happens to those who are denied? Are their kids going hungry because they can't get benefits? I have heard some people say that the state should then take the kids. Putting kids in foster care costs an immense amount of money-isn't the purpose of testing to save money? We defeat the purpose of the drug testing requirement if we then overload the foster system.
Another issue that is the elephant in the room, but I will go there...can we all agree that there is a difference between someone who borrows a pain pill from a friend, or someone who has a small amount of THC in their blood in comparison to a raging meth head? Does someone who tests positive due to borrowing a pain pill deserve to be cast aside as a common druggie? In this situation it seems as if this policy does more harm than good. If someone ingested a small amount of THC three weeks prior does that make them deserving of losing everything? Usually by the time someone applies for welfare, it is their last chance.
It will be interesting to see if we see cases of crimes committed after denial of welfare benefits. In my opinion, the new program will simply keep people who know they will test positive from applying in the first place. If no work can be found, it may be easier to simply commit a crime then apply for meager welfare benefits. As a taxpayer I don't want to support someone else's drug habit either, but their drug habit is already out in society if we like it or not. As a community we are going to pay one way or another. I just don't know if this is the right way to do it.
I am one that has mixed feelings about this. This article says that testing welfare applicants is a violation of constitutional rights, however, I don't think that I am prepared to go quite that far. No one is telling them that they HAVE to apply for welfare, but if they do, they must be tested. The article states that 2.7% of about 2000 applicants have been denied benefits for a positive test-roughly 54 people. This isn't keeping the masses from getting benefits that they need.
But, what happens to those who are denied? Are their kids going hungry because they can't get benefits? I have heard some people say that the state should then take the kids. Putting kids in foster care costs an immense amount of money-isn't the purpose of testing to save money? We defeat the purpose of the drug testing requirement if we then overload the foster system.
Another issue that is the elephant in the room, but I will go there...can we all agree that there is a difference between someone who borrows a pain pill from a friend, or someone who has a small amount of THC in their blood in comparison to a raging meth head? Does someone who tests positive due to borrowing a pain pill deserve to be cast aside as a common druggie? In this situation it seems as if this policy does more harm than good. If someone ingested a small amount of THC three weeks prior does that make them deserving of losing everything? Usually by the time someone applies for welfare, it is their last chance.
It will be interesting to see if we see cases of crimes committed after denial of welfare benefits. In my opinion, the new program will simply keep people who know they will test positive from applying in the first place. If no work can be found, it may be easier to simply commit a crime then apply for meager welfare benefits. As a taxpayer I don't want to support someone else's drug habit either, but their drug habit is already out in society if we like it or not. As a community we are going to pay one way or another. I just don't know if this is the right way to do it.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Troy Davis-Justice Denied
As I fell asleep Wednesday night I was waiting for the Supreme Court's decision on Troy Davis. Like many others, by the time the alert came to my phone, I was asleep and Troy Davis was dead, executed for a 1989 murder of an off duty police officer. Davis' camp fought long and hard to have the case looked at again, as Davis said he was innocent. I won't rehash all of the details of the case here, as I'm sure anyone who watches the news knows about this case. My concern falls to the effort of the "powers that be" to keep this case from being reexamined prior to Davis' execution.
Of course, innocent people have been executed from the dawn of time. We don't set out to do things this way, but our system isn't perfect. We can only process a case with the hands that we are dealt. Lack of funds of the part of the defendant can also be problematic as to seeing justice served. Court appointed attorneys do not have the resources that the state has. There are virtually unlimited funds to convict you, but limited funds to defend you, unless you are wealthy. But I digress...
How can we be sure the person that we are executing is really guilty? If your answer is that they have been convicted by a jury of their peers, please reread the last paragraph. Let's be honest, it can take a LONG time to get from conviction to the execution chamber, I believe I read somewhere it is an average of twenty years. How much can technology change in twenty years? Think about how much has changed since 2001; I bet you didn't have a cell phone then, but if you did it was the size of a briefcase. Now our phones can almost replace our home computer. Just like cell phone technology, forensic technology has changed as well. There are new investigative tools that were not available twenty years ago. At what point should these new advances be available to convicted inmates?
In every execution I would like to see a nice guilt-wrapped package, such as with Timothy McVeigh, but we very rarely get such certainty. But at the same time, we can't essentially retry each case prior to execution. We also can't simply give more attention to those who scream the loudest. We must find a middle ground. In the Davis case, many witnesses said they had lied on the stand, giving into police pressure. We also know that eyewitness testimony is the least reliable. In my opinion, that alone is enough to send up a red flag in this case. Why were the "powers that be" so resistant to review this case?
While I don't pretend to say that Davis was an angel, nor will I go as far as saying he is innocent, I do think this case needed a second look. He asked for a lie detector test before his execution, which was denied. This simple request that would have been at little to no expense to the state was denied. Why? Had Davis failed the test, end of story. Had he passed, then they would have HAD to look at the evidence in this case. I assume that was why it was denied.
No one want to see a bad guy go lose, but if we have the wrong person in jail, the bad guy is still running around in society. I think as a civilized nation, we owe it to our citizens to be sure that we are sure before we kill someone. Technology changes, people change, and the judicial system needs to keep up with these changes.
Of course, innocent people have been executed from the dawn of time. We don't set out to do things this way, but our system isn't perfect. We can only process a case with the hands that we are dealt. Lack of funds of the part of the defendant can also be problematic as to seeing justice served. Court appointed attorneys do not have the resources that the state has. There are virtually unlimited funds to convict you, but limited funds to defend you, unless you are wealthy. But I digress...
How can we be sure the person that we are executing is really guilty? If your answer is that they have been convicted by a jury of their peers, please reread the last paragraph. Let's be honest, it can take a LONG time to get from conviction to the execution chamber, I believe I read somewhere it is an average of twenty years. How much can technology change in twenty years? Think about how much has changed since 2001; I bet you didn't have a cell phone then, but if you did it was the size of a briefcase. Now our phones can almost replace our home computer. Just like cell phone technology, forensic technology has changed as well. There are new investigative tools that were not available twenty years ago. At what point should these new advances be available to convicted inmates?
In every execution I would like to see a nice guilt-wrapped package, such as with Timothy McVeigh, but we very rarely get such certainty. But at the same time, we can't essentially retry each case prior to execution. We also can't simply give more attention to those who scream the loudest. We must find a middle ground. In the Davis case, many witnesses said they had lied on the stand, giving into police pressure. We also know that eyewitness testimony is the least reliable. In my opinion, that alone is enough to send up a red flag in this case. Why were the "powers that be" so resistant to review this case?
While I don't pretend to say that Davis was an angel, nor will I go as far as saying he is innocent, I do think this case needed a second look. He asked for a lie detector test before his execution, which was denied. This simple request that would have been at little to no expense to the state was denied. Why? Had Davis failed the test, end of story. Had he passed, then they would have HAD to look at the evidence in this case. I assume that was why it was denied.
No one want to see a bad guy go lose, but if we have the wrong person in jail, the bad guy is still running around in society. I think as a civilized nation, we owe it to our citizens to be sure that we are sure before we kill someone. Technology changes, people change, and the judicial system needs to keep up with these changes.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)