Drug Benefits (I tried to graduate, but I got high)

I agree with Brandon’s opinion that taking and passing a drug test should be a condition for receiving government benefits (food stamps/TANF). I understand his frustration in seeing hard earned tax dollars from hard working citizens squandered on drugs. But I would take it a step further by saying I think  a drug test should also be a criteria for receiving financial aid for college because there are students who use their financial aid to buy alcohol and marijuana while in school. Young people are inundated with ads offering drink specials every week to entice them to spend their financial aid (other people’s money) on liquor. They are hounded by drug dealers (which may very well be another student) to purchase drugs. Billions of tax payer's money is wasted on parties, alcohol and drugs by students. They are not using the money for their education. A drug test should be administered before receiving financial aid every semester. Is it ethical? Hell yes! I do not want my taxes to pay for their parties and drug binges! How can they become productive citizens if all they have done while in school is use the funds to get high and party? They are not studying, they are getting high!

Tag You're It! (Vascetomy: A Woman's Ultimate Liberation)

This is in response to Tran’s “Pro Abortion Law” blog in which he states his support of Texas abortion ban and the closing of Planned Parenthood clinics in Texas. Like Tran, I do not believe in abortion, however, I do not believe that banning abortions and/or restricting a woman’s or a man’s (some men do want the woman to have an abortion) right to choose is the answer.  Tran’s comments are a typical example of society laying the blame and sole responsibility of the unwanted child on the woman, simply because she is the carrier (incubator) for nine months. It takes two (a man and a woman) to conceive. So it’s not just her “mistake”; it is his and her mistake. Insisting that a woman carry the burden alone is cruel and antiquated. 

I personally advocate vasectomies for men, because it is a way for men to be sexually responsible, and not leave birth control  in the hands of their girlfriend, mistress or random (lay) by default. If there are no sperm; there are no unwanted pregnancies, no child support payments and definitely no baby-mama-dramas all over town. If a man knows without a doubt that he does not want any children ever, I think having a vasectomy would be the smart way to go. There should be an increase in pamphlets given out at school and clinics detailing and promoting vasectomies with just as much vigor as birth control pills and abstinence (which is not realistic). I think vasectomies are the answer to three major society ills; abortion, welfare and health care…children will not die because of abortion, they will not die from starvation and they will not die because of lack of heath care. Plus vasectomies are much cheaper ($350 to $1,000) than tubal ligation ($1,500 to $6,000).

Lastly, the potentially deadly side effects from contraceptives are also cruel and unusual punishment dealt out to women. Women play a game of Russian roulette every time they take a birth control pill or use one of those prescribed contraceptives. The Mayo Clinic states the following about long term use of birth control pills:

"Scientific evidence suggests using birth control pills for longer periods of time increases your risk of some cancers, such as cervical cancer and liver cancer, but it also decreases your risk of other types of cancer, including ovarian cancer and endometrial cancer. " 

I think a vasectomy is a woman's ultimate liberation! Seriously! I know because my ex-husband (21 years) got a vasectomy after our third child. I was so grateful! However, there is a warning ... it will not prevent an STD and a man's DNA can still be traced in the event of a rape.

America Deserves a Sober Congress

A few weeks ago I was appalled to read about the House Republican’s drinking binge on the eve of their shutdown in Washington to oppose Obamacare. My first thought was that our leaders wield great power and influence and they should not be making decisions under the influence of alcohol because it impairs judgment. I would be fired if I was caught drinking on the job. So why should these men and women who hold the most prestigious and powerful positions in our nation have the leisure of drinking on the job? They are in the driver’s seat of this country for God sake−why are they drinking while intoxicated? Their unrestraint was in total disrespect to the positions they hold and in complete apathy towards how their actions affect the lives of citizens they serve.

My second thought was that I hate hypocrisy! I think those who serve in office should be held under the same scrutiny for use of drugs and alcohol like everyone else.  There should be a law that forbids  representatives in office (including the president) from consuming alcohol while serving. Period! They are in strategic positions of power and they should be sober. As long as they hold a position in office they should not be allowed to consume alcohol. Honestly, I think a federal worker sobriety law would force some of those old farts to finally leave Washington, DC. Some of them really do need to go home!

I understand their job comes with overwhelming pressures and that alcohol helps to relieve some of the tension. I get it! However, after watching this last fiasco (government shut down) by the Republicans, I am convinced that these people are foolish drunkards and need to be a member of an  AA meeting instead of members of Congress. Seriously, what other reason would the Republicans shut down the government without a plan to secure a favorable outcome? I think there should be a sobriety test given to any member of Congress before every session. America deserves clear-headed leaders when it comes to leading this nation. 

The Affordable Care Act is a Law - Deal with It!

In her Washington Post article The GOP Endangers Democracy, Anne Applebaum grapples with the lunacy of the Republican Party to shut down the government with the hope of derailing Obamacare. She states that, “Without legitimate representative and executive institutions—bodies that can translate the will of the people into concrete policies—democracy always fails.” In other words our elected representatives swore to enact, to uphold and to protect the laws of the land and to be the voice of the people; and if they fail to do these basic duties; there is no democracy.

What is going on? Is our nation being run by anarchists and extremists who care for no one but themselves? Did we put these men and women into office to run a muck? NO! They were sent to Washington to represent “the people”. We said what we wanted and that was Obamacare; we voted on it, it was passed by the previous Congress, the Supreme Court deemed it constitutional and it was signed into law by President Obama; so why did the Republicans scheme to defund Obamacare by shutting down the government? It is certainly not because they care about the sovereignty of the people, it is because they are “lapdogs” for big business or business lobbies in the health care industry. In other words, deals were made and they are trying to make good on their promises—so screw the people and the country!

 The Affordable Health Care Act is a law; so the Republicans need to swallow this bitter pill and move on. I agree with Ann’s statement, “A portion of one of those branches is not now legally or morally empowered to change that law by holding other parts of the government hostage, no matter how strongly its members of their constituents feel.” The Tea Party cannot hold the whole nation at ransom because they do not want the law; it is an abuse of power and privilege. Their battle cry is big government—they do not want the government to regulate the health care industry; and consequently their secret deals with large health insurance companies, pharmaceuticals and major health care providers.

Do you want America to run without government? I know I do not! Government oversight is definitely needed in some areas and affordable health care is one of those areas. But you know, if the health care industry had not charged patients $100 for a cotton ball, we would not need health reform; now would we? If they had not given high accolades (and pay) to executives who garnered the most insurance denials (carnage); we would not need government oversight—would we? I am sure many whose love one died because they did not have health insurance or sufficient insurance would not mind paying an extra $300 a year for health insurance with Obamacare if it meant having their love one with them today. I will not broach the issue of insurance denial because of pre-existing conditions—let’s not go there! In conclusion, I think the Republican is foolish to ignore the voice of the people.

Over the years I’ve doled out a lot of money for health insurance premiums just to discover I still had little to no coverage. I believe the Affordable Health Care Act is not perfect, but it is much better than what we have had so far (duh, nothing). Senator Jay Rockefeller says, “The law cracks down on the worst insurance industry abuses. The law makes these companies spend their money on you-they must spend at least 80 percent of the premiums you pay on actual health care rather than on fancy buildings or executive bonuses.”[1] —this sounds beneficial to me. So count me in!

 

[1] Rockefeller, Sen. Jay. The Affordable Care Act Will Work. readersupportednews.org. Readers Supported News 2013.  Web 4 Oct. 2013.

 Jon Stewart Blasts GOP Over Shutdown:

Welcome!

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" - George Orwell