Missouri Progressive Bloggers Support Child Sex Slave Trafficking

Got your attention, didn't I.  The title isn't a publicity stunt - I'm actually going to use the reasoning of the progs to show how they are best buddies with the people who run Child Sex Slave rings.

I'm proposing a bill to take 50% of income of all progressive bloggers in Missouri to be used to create a multi-national fighting force that will eradicate child sex slave trafficking across the globe.  The money will be automatically deducted from any deposits into the bank accounts of said bloggers, and if they don't contribute at least $2000 a month, we're going to assess a penalty to them for not working hard enough to eradicate this scourge from the planet.

Now, we can all agree that child sex slave trafficking is horrible, and it is a crisis that must be addressed.  3000 girls a day are forced into this trade, and over the next decade, we'll see 10 million young women put into this heartbreaking industry.  We know that if young girls are educated and saved from being sex slaves, they can grow to be healthy citizens of the world who can work and provide taxes, and maybe there's an Einstein or a Mother Teresa or a Michelle Obama in there!  If we can stop all child sex slave trafficking the results will be good for the world, and it's a moral imperative.

So my bill, which takes money from the bank accounts of Missouri progressive bloggers directly, and which asseses a penalty for not working hard enough, is directly aimed at solving a problem, and we need to pass it immediately.  There are those that say my bill is not the best solution, and we should take the time to find another, more effective way that doesn't unfairly penalize progressive bloggers. To that I say we've been working on stopping child sex slavery for almost 3300 years, when the Israelites wiped out the Baal worshippers in ancient Judea. 

Those Missouri progressive bloggers who don't want this bill to pass are protecting the status quo.  They know that child sex slave traffickers make obscene profits, and while I can't prove that ShowMeProgress and FiredUp are funded by child sex slave executives, I do know that it makes no sense to allow a vocal minority to disrupt the process of ending the abuse of young girls.  Why would they stand in the way of something so important?  Why Sean Nicholson standing up for billions of dollars in profit to greedy and violent criminals?  Where is his compassion? 

So there you have it.  Progressive bloggers need to sit down and be quiet, and let us go about solving the problems of child sex slave trafficking.

This is the logic of the left on healthcare.  Progs verbally assault those of us who see a greater danger in massive government intervention in the free market portions of our healthcare system as best buddies and pals of the insurance industry.  The president and his astroturf allies accuse us of supporting the status quo, when it is the president and his astroturf allies who are working with the major companies that will find a way to benefit financially from this so-called healthcare reform.  We simply asked the representatives read the bills, show us the language, and be accountable for their votes.  For this we're called un-American, treasonous traitors funded by shadowy corporations and the GOP?

We've reached a point where the left has stopped pretending to be reasonable.  They are liars and thieves who lack the stones to sell their ideas on their own merits.  They propose a public option designed to drive us to single payer, and their only response, is "no it doesn't."

Don't fall for it.  I won't be lectured by lazy bloggers unwilling to debate the issue in public, especially when those progressive bloggers support the kidnapping and abuse of small girls in the global sex slave trade.   They should be ashamed.  And if any of them has the courage, that offer to debate is still open.  So far, none of them are willing to actually discuss the issues.  They can only snipe from the shadows, creating wild conspiracies in the face of overwhelming public anger.

Comments

[bryan]

Do you think that the government should be the insurance provider for anyone?

[bryan]

I think that my question above isn't at all where I was trying to go. You have done an amazing job of covering the politics of the health care debate. In the past you wrote about how you like the choice that you have in health care for your family. I think you wrote that it was costing you about $700 a month. It seemed to me you may have thought that it was a little expensive but, having choice was worth it. What I don't remember you expounding on is how you believe the overall, national health-care system should be set up.

You know that we often disagree on things. That doesn't mean I don't think you are smart. Wicked smart even. You seem to have an ability to think through complex subjects and develop a strongly held opinion. I am much less thinking and way more likely to react to emotion. Why not fix health care in our country right here? I'm not being facitious or flip. I mean lay out a plan. I think your big picture vision may have merit.

I don't want a debate. I suck at it. I'm looking for a (dialog?). Here is where we stand as I see it:

Health insurance from corporate insurers - Most people get it at work. They pay some or none themselves with the companies picking up the majority. Some people who don't/can't get it at work pay out of pocket(your family and mine)to corporations for their coverage.

Medicare - strictly for older people who must enroll or loose some or all of there social security benefits. Administered by the federal government and pays health care providers directly.

Medicaid - basically pays for poor people who don't have insurance. Some people register for it and get regular benefits like having corporate coverage except it is administered by the states. The revenues come from the federal government and state taxes(I think that is accurate...).

Self insured - some people through choice or they can't get insurance pay out of pocket for all their care.

I think that covers all the options. Please add to or correct me. Now to the problems, real or perceived, with this set-up:

Corporate insurance - They don't cover pre-existing conditions. Most of the time those conditions are covered after a year of coverage. Sometimes they are not. Often they prevent getting any insurance at all.
You can be dropped from an insurer at any time, at their discretion. This can end up with people not qualifying for any corporate coverage. If the family's income is to high they won't qualify for medicaid leaving them without coverage.
Costs are increasing. The average family of 4 averages a little over $12,000 per year.(we are at $13,333.32 per year without vision,dental or maternity.bought on the open market,no group but no major health problems either). Many families don't make enough to afford that and can't get it at work.
Denial of service. It seems you hear a fair number of complaints about claims being denied as well as reports that that is a standard practice by insurers to hold down costs.

Medicare - Coverage seems pretty good. I know an 87 year old woman who just got her shoulder replaced because the one she was born with bothered her. Medicare paid for it all. Re-imbursements to providers is less than corporate insurance in most cases. Some cite rampant fraud. The program has run in the red and will only get worse, much worse in the future.

Medicaid - Everyone cites rampant fraud and waste with this one. Often the poor seem to over-use the emergency room for care that probably would have been prevented or better handled before it got there. Same problem as Medicare in the indebtedness situation. Not only is the program under water, it threatens to drag down the economy with it.

I hope I haven't rambled too much, or abused spelling and grammer to the painful point. What do you think the ideal program should look like? Is there a place for government sponsored health insurance? Should the obvious problems with private/government insurance even be addressed? How? Should we do anything about the people who can't afford,get or quaify for corporate/government insurance?

I hope you respond to this Jim. It seems like you are spending alot of your time on the He said/She said of this problem instead of the larger and much more pressing issue. I think I am challenging you to speak to what "Health-care in America Should BE". Maybe a manifesto kind of thing...

Say Hi to the wife and kid for me. Amelia just started kindergarten today. It's pretty cool.