Random Thoughts on Health Care Reform.

Taxing income earners who are making over 200,000 or 250,000 is going to generate enough money to give everybody in the United States health care, really? It seems too good to be true, unless you make over 200,000 or 250,000.

Listener comments heard on KFI-640 AM radio on Monday, March 22, 2010 on the John and Ken Show. "Are those who will be paying more into the healthcare system so others can benefit allowed to get in the face of someone who is overweight and glucking down a bunch of Big Macs, pies, or both?

John and Ken chimed in with "Will Health care simply be "rationed"? You get whatever you want, but you may have to wait months for the procedure". If the same number of services or procedures are offered as before, but now there are another 35 million people eligible for the services, that could lead to dilution of health care services, or, what can also be called rationing.

Will the I.R.S. have more power to see what we spend or don't spend on universal health care? Is it true that buying catastrophic health care only will not be considered adequate health care coverage?

-end KFI comments

I wonder if universal health care will motivate more illegal immigration since I presume both legal and illegal residents will have access. It appears Barack Obama has promised support of universal amnesty to get support from some congress people.

Beneath the surface, most of Barack Obama's "do gooding" appears to leave the elderly behind. As I became involved in my mother's and father's healthcare I realized that it can become a self defeating prophecy to try and do what is required without assistance from another family member.

The elderly will probably just give up on certain treatments if the timeline to get the treatment is increased because of health care rationing.

In my opinion, unless a cap is put on the amount of time one has to wait for treatment, any attempt at health care reform will be tainted since it will mean that those now paying more into the system may actually get worse health care than they had before.

Please Download the Chase Bank Protest Flyer for FREE, and then all that needs to be done is just give a few copies out, it is really that simple.

KNBC News Under Reports Tax Protest Crowd of 15,000 by 95 Percent!!! John and Ken of KFI AM 640 California Anti Tax Increase Rally a Huge Success.

15,000 Southern California Tax Protestors participated in a KFI AM 640 anti tax rally. In a rather strange twist, KNBC reported the grass roots protest crowd as "hundreds" of protestors, under counting the attendees by 95%!

The Los Angeles Times refused to cover the rally, and instead ran a story about a protest in Sweden that had half the attendance. Later on, The La Times Internet edition ran a story from another newspaper and added their own snide comments to the article. KABC declined to cover the event. Apparently KTLA, an ally of the Los Angeles Times, may have not covered it as well.

I suppose the television and newspaper industries view radio DJ's such as John and Ken of KFI-AM 640 radio no differently than an attorney that advertises their services on television, but I would disagree. John and Ken marshaled 15,000 people to come out on their own time to Fullerton, California. Thousands more gave up because of traffic jams that occurred around the protest site in Fullerton, California.

This is a big deal, that is for sure.

A side note to all you PUMA blogs. I just googled KFI Tax Protest, Daily PUMA appeared on the first page because this article is only an hour old, but when I then googled "news", Daily PUMA does not show up at all. Is Daily PUMA being obstructed from the news section of google? I'll continue to check and see if this article ever appears on the news portion of google.

-------------------------------

It's approximately 19 hours later. When I google KFI Tax Protest. under the news option, only 8 hits come up, and Daily PUMA is not one of them. Since the KFI Tax Protest just happened, in theory, there should be almost as many hits for the google "news" option as there is for the standard google search.

Something is not right here. Google has figured out a way to not allow blogs to have their articles be considered "news". In case you don't understand what google news is, Google will list story links from the last 20 days. You can change the amount of days you search for, but the KFI Tax Protest is a NEW story, and it is a NEWS STORY, yet google news only revealed 8 News story links to a story that may have been discussed on several hundred blogs.

Maybe Google should add a "newscraping" category for all of us lowly bloggers that report about the news.

Judges Blurring the wrong line regarding Proposition 8.

Excellent Radio discussion on Dec. 15th, 2008 about Prop-8 Protesting Strategies from the John & Ken Show, KFI-640 AM. A MUST LISTEN for anyone involved in Proposition 8.

I think judges are making a mistake by blurring the line between making a donation to a human being, and making a donation to a ballot measure proposition.

Link - Judges rule full donation disclosure is acceptable.

When it comes to donating to a politician, I think donation disclosure makes sense. A donation to a politician can mean an ongoing alliance, so keeping this a secret does not seem ethical. Some political contributors donate to more than one politician, and may have even donated to a politician that didn't become the nominee. These two scenarios help blur the line as to how someone may have voted.

I like blurring the line when it comes to finding out how someone voted simply because our whole voting system is based on the privacy of a voting booth, and frankly, caucus style of voting just doesn't seem to cut it. However, donations made to people should be documentable, it just seems logical to do so.

Regarding donation disclosures and ballot measure propositions, a ballot proposition, once voted on, cannot be approached later on for additional favors. Favors maybe initiated by the people involved in enforcing or spending money as it relates to a proposition, but the proposition itself is not a human being.

Donations made to a proposition is probably going to represent the way that contributor voted on that issue. I've never made a donation to a ballot proposition because after the vote has been tallied, the losing side can try to overturn the result in court. Why would I ever donate money to any proposition ballot measure knowing that the result can be overturned by a judge after the fact, and I don't even get my money back!

I am in favor of voting in the privacy of a voting booth, yet having people know how I voted anyways by how I contributed on a ballot measure seems to supercede the privacy of voting in a voting booth. I've now been given another reason to never donate to any ballot measure in the future.

Prop 8 lost because Gavin Newsome made a short speech in which he stated, "It's gonna happen, whether you like it or not".
That is not the way to win friends and influence people. This quote by Newsome was gleefully played over, and over, and over by the proponents of Prop 8. Newsome was against Proposition 8, yet the Pro 8 side used his quote in their ads. I find it ironic that an opposing side can take someone's comment without mentioning in the ad that Newsome was against Prop-8. I sometimes think that the laws are too lax in certain areas of the law when it comes to political advertising.

I wish people would focus on why Prop 8 lost rather than try and witch hunt people who may have been reacting to Gavin's over the top statement, (see youtube video, plus a news story, of Gavin's famous comment, below).

Prop-8 won because they played what I call the Gavin Newsome commercial several hundred times before the Nov. 4, 2008 elections.

The juxtaposition of Gavin Newsome twice stating "It's gonna happen, whether you like it or not" bookending a boring but scholarly looking middle section was a powerful one two three punch that certainly swayed many people who hadn't decided which way to vote yet.

This news clip explores the quote heard the world... News Clip about "Whether you like it or not". My opinion that Gavin's sound bite was the difference maker is also held by others in the media. This article includes two such links, one to the news clip, and the John and Ken Radio Show link.

Was it ethical to play the clip of Gavin Newsome over and over and over, when the original speech only happened once? This gets into a very sticky area of freedom of speech. I think it is manipulative in a dishhonest way to take one portion of one speech, and literally play it so many times that people can't stand the clip and mistakenly believe that Gavin Newsome is saying it over and over.

Publicizing ballot measure donation disclosures will just make it harder for future ballot measures to get donations.