Harris Interactive is the company that produced this survey. There were a total of 15 questions, all were negative questions about what people believed concerning President Obama. People were asked if they thought Obama was a Muslim, s Socialist, if he wants the terrorists to win, if he wants to turn the country over to a one world government, etc.

To be fair, Harris could have asked a few positive questions. Do you believe that Obama is the embodiment of the second coming of Christ? Is Obama the greatest man that has ever lived? Will Obama bring peace to all the world? I would wager that at least 20% of democrats surveyed would say yes to those questions, but we will never know.

It was interesting to read all the results of this poll. On the question about Obama being the Anti-Christ, not only did 24% of republicans say yes, but 8% of democrats agreed, and even 4% of people with graduate degrees. 15% of democrats believe he is a Muslim and 8% of democrats believe that Obama was not born in the US. The big story to me is not that a minority of republicans had negative feelings toward Obama, but that a small percentage of democrats had those same negative feelings. You won’t hear that on MSNBC.

Now it’s time for the really big questions. Does anyone on the staff of the White House think Obama is the Anti-Christ? Any congressmen? If 51% of the American people polled had said he is the Anti-Christ, would that make him the Anti-Christ since this is a democracy? What does Obama believe about himself? Does Michelle sleep with one eye open some nights?

When I was 18 I cast my first vote in a presidential election for Jimmy Carter. I was a southern white boy and was happy that somebody from the hood was respected. I didn’t care whether he was democrat or republican. It wasn’t long until people were saying that Carter was the Anti-Christ. His initials were JC (Jesus Christ), hmmmmmm. Maybe the characteristic mark of the Anti-Christ will be, BO.

Enough of this insanity. The timing of this poll was when the healthcare debate was at it’s hottest. A lot of Americans are angry and very upset with Obama. There are some genuine fears about this behemoth government program and it’s too bad the media has no time for thoughtful debate. It seems that debate today is only about making the other side look dumb.

Shame on Harris for this idiotic survey. Shame on reporters for giving time to this outrage. Maybe the pollsters and the media could star in the next version of “Dumb and Dumber”.

Healthcare costs are too high. Too many people do not have insurance. Insurance companies make too much profit. Too many people are dying because they do not have access to healthcare. The problem has gone on too long and something has to be done. This is the simple argument for reform.

If all these problems could be solved with this healthcare bill and the CBO report is accurate, then I too would be giddy. But I have serious doubts. And I am sick of their continued use of the term “reform”.

Over the years I have witnessed Washington tackle many reforms. We’ve enjoyed tax reforms, education reform, campaign finance reform, ethics reform, and many others. The promise of reform is always the same – cost savings with a simpler system. In my view, every time a reform is passed it costs more money and the system becomes more complex.

During all this talk I have yet to hear the term “bureaucracy”. The first thing that happens when the government gets involved with anything is create bureaucracy. I’ve heard of 12,000 additional IRS agents that will be needed to enforce the tax laws in this bill. There will be many new government agencies, departments, offices, staff, processes, rules, procedures, etc. The 535 congressmen and President Obama will not have nearly enough family and friends to fill all the positions.

The 2500 pages of this bill is now a blur to me. The promises are impossible  to believe anymore. Take this one example. You have heard that the bill will save $500 billion by stopping Medicare fraud. Really? If it is so easy to stop the fraud, why didn’t they do it 20 years ago or even last year? I expect about as much success here as the “war on drugs”. I bet there is nothing in this new bill that protects us from the new fraud that crooks will invent to steal money from this plan.

I am ashamed at the behavior of some of my conservative brethren. Their insensitivity to the uninsured sick is beyond imagination. But don’t miss the conservative point. The issue is not just about money, we question the assumption that this bill is going to save lives. Health insurance is no guarantee of quality health care.

I am not giddy about this heathcare mess.

To save time I looked at the department in my own state – Illinois. It is called the Illinois Department of Insurance. I was shocked to to read the mission statement in the center of the top banner. It said, “The mission of the Department of Insurance is to protect consumers by providing assistance and information, by efficiently regulating the insurance industry’s market behavior and financial solvency, and by fostering a competitive insurance marketplace.”

Do you see why I was shocked to read this? The purpose of this agency is to regulate and foster competition within the insurance industry. Do you know what this whole healthcare bill is about? Whether or not the government should regulate and control health insurance to foster competition. Is that not the exact same thing?

The republicans in congress should object to the president’s plan on the grounds that we already have a department in every state to do what he is suggesting. The democrats should say fine, now let’s move on to the entitlement part to make sure everyone has health insurance.

I wonder if the bill eliminates the state departments? It should, since they have obviously failed at their task. I’m sure the individual departments would say they can’t do their job without more money and staff. Will the democrats agree to cut these state bureaucracies if the bill passes? Democrats would never cut a government office.

I couldn’t find out how many government employees work at the Illinois Department of Insurance. Their website outlines their organization with an Executive Staff, Legal Department, Consumer Market Department with 7 subsidiaries, a Financial-Corporate Regulatory Department with five sections, and support staff. What are they doing?

There are huge healthcare questions that need to be answered. Why do x-rays cost thousands when they should cost hundreds? How do we keep premiums down so most people can afford them? How do we provide insurance to the poor, the people un-insurable with pre-existing conditions, and yes, the people who live irresponsibly? How do we promote research for new and better medical devices, drugs, and procedures? How do we get the right people to the summit table to answer these questions?

Let me be clear – I don’t believe the government can effectively manage the healthcare of 300 million people. It will be slower, more costly, and take the lives of countless Americans. The government should be about the business of regulating and taxing. Government is necessary for establishing insurance industry rules so that citizens are protected. They can redistribute wealth so that the disadvantaged has access to medical care. End of story!

Now, what do we do about these state insurance boards?

I used to have employees. My business was providing marketing research, sales consulting, and sales services to small technology companies. All my employees worked from home and were located in several states. The work was all on computers and phones. It seemed so simple.

Enter the IRS. They have rules. You can buy the 20 volume “US Code of Federal Regulations” written by the IRS from the Government Printing Office for $974. This does not include around 100 volumes of the court tax cases nor individual state tax laws. If a business has employees they are required to know the latest tax rules and pay federal taxes, state taxes, social security taxes, and employment security taxes for each employee. If you happen to make a mistake you could face interest, fines, and imprisonment.

I had one employee in Oklahoma who I had to let go due to tax issues. Oklahoma could not agree on how to classify my business, so they were going to charge a tax on my services. It is really important to know which box to check on these government applications!

Deductions are another wild ride on the IRS train. I guess it is made complicated by all the big shots paying for legislators to give them loopholes. I spend a lot of time looking for loopholes. For example, take the vehicle deduction. Everyone I know uses the per mile formula for getting their deduction. It is certainly easy. Did you know there is another way to deduct your car? It is called the Actual Method. You deduct all expenses of the vehicle including depreciation. It is complicated to do, but you will have a much larger deduction. IRS = time and money. Good for lawyers and accountants, bad for small business.

Enter the Obama administration. They were elected on the promises of higher taxes, nationalized healthcare, and Cap and Trade. All the stimulus money given to Wall Street and state governments are just late additions to the power game. All of this spells death to the small business. Thank goodness we are still a capitalist economy with the hope of large profits to cover massive government intrusions.

Now that the banks have been saved, everyone wonders why people are not lining up to borrow money. I can answer that – small business owners are scared to death! Why would they take a risk and borrow money knowing they will have to adjust their business to every whim of this gigantic government?

If I need help now, I pay independent contractors. A 1099 form for each contractor at the end of the year and it’s done. It’s not the best way to do business, but it’s safe. Nationwide, this is not good for the economy.

Small business is not looking for a government handout or bailout. We just need the government to get out. If the government really wants people working and the economy to grow, look to small business. Reduce the tax burden, relax the rules on employment, and stop protecting big business.

The obvious question is, do men really need the added 3 inches? But this is not the question that I intend to answer in this article. I want to deal with the political and economic side of the debate.

Now that Scott Brown is a rock star senator from Massachusetts, he will be a part of this debate. He won Ted Kennedy’s senate seat. Kennedy was well known for his sexual conquests and now he may have the perfect successor. When in college Brown was named Sexiest Man Alive by Cosmo Magazine. He also appeared nearly nude for the mag. What would he say about the 3 inches?

If the promise of the pill is true, I would like to know who paid for the research. Did our tax dollars go to scientists for this discovery? Are their any congressmen that sponsored this research and what are their names?

I have no doubt that there are congressmen who would purchase these pills. In full disclosure, it should be made public. I am impressed with the sexual activity of these old guys in Washington. Too often we hear of interns pleasing their elected bosses, presidents getting bj’s, and even gay sex. Each time I see Robert Byrd sleeping in his congressional seat (92 year old rep from Virginia), I never know if it is because of age or if he is just worn out!

Has anyone investigated the healthcare bill to see if it provides coverage for enlarging sex organs? I heard that certain sex change surgery is available. If that’s true, then it would not be a stretch (pardon the pun) to have treatments covered by insurance that increase or alter sexual performance tools.

This would also be a big help to the uninsured. Many of them do not have jobs and could use a lift during these hard times. I will no longer apologize for the puns.

This subject gives new meaning to the phrase “big government”. And what is big government famous for? “Stimulus” plans! We can now answer the question, “How do you measure a good politician?”

Herbert Hoover promised “a chicken in every pot”. This illustrates how far we have strayed when living with economic trials. In the past politicians focused on pots, now they focus on pants.

We all want affordable healthcare available to every citizen. The current healthcare system stinks and the thought of millions of people uninsured is disgraceful and unacceptable for a nation so blessed. Both the house and senate versions of healthcare reform make me want to cry. I think a philosophical reform should happen first.

The only credential I have to speak to this issue is a long life experiencing the best and worst of the medical world. I read, listen, observe, and think of more effective ways of accomplishing things. Here is my answer to the healthcare mess – eliminate group insurance. Let individuals decide what coverage they want and which companies to buy it from. Insurance would then not be affected by job changes.

It seems the only solution our leaders can think of is in terms of group insurance. There is employer provided, association group plans, Unions, and the dreaded government public option. Group insurance does not have a long history and one has to ask if it is the best idea for today.

The first modern group insurance was formed in 1929. Some teachers in Dallas, TX worked out a plan with Baylor Hospital for medical services. Believe it or not, the depression decade of the 30′s was the start and boom for big insurance companies, including “non-profit” organizations Blue Cross and Blue Shield. Employer provided insurance expanded during WWII when the government froze wages. Companies got around the freeze by providing health benefits. Unions successfully bartered for tax breaks on healthcare and greater insurance benefits in the 50′s and beyond.

The medical world has changed a lot since the depression era. Science has enabled us to live much longer with thousands of new drugs, therapies, and procedures becoming available. The needs and desires of each person are profoundly different. What group plan can meet these demands?

For example, let’s say a company has 10 women 55 years old and 10 women 25. How will this company deal with maternity coverage? It’s very important to the 25 year old and not as valuable to the lady who is 55. If it were an individual plan the person would not be paying for unnecessary coverages and could purchase a tailor made plan. The employers can focus on better employee pay rather than paying for endless negotiations and insurance bureaucracy.

In the depression times African Americans life expectancy was 6 years less than whites. Today it is still 6 years less. How can this be with all the medical advances? Could it be that group insurance favors the majority of people – whites?

Insurance companies would have to compete for each individual or family (the only group that makes sense), just like auto insurance. I imagine that many would specialize in niche markets, like old men who cliff dive and drive race cars. The government’s job would be to regulate the industry and provide backup to the insurance companies in the event of disasters. Require basic insurance for all and if the private charities fail to assist the poor, raise taxes and start paying the premiums.

The current healthcare plans in congress are not about saving lives, but saving careers. It is important for certain politicians to get this thing passed quickly so they can be elected again. Healthcare is too important to be used as a political volleyball. Will you join me in this debate?

Sam Walton was the founder of Wal-Mart. The first store was opened in 1962 and grew by providing American made products at the lowest prices. Today, Wal-Mart employs over 2 million people full-time and of the top 10 richest people on the planet, half are the sons and daughters of Sam Walton. Sam was, like private insurance companies, most concerned about profit. Walton knew the way to riches was to meet the needs of his customers.

I am not happy with the performance of insurance companies. I completely disagree, however, that the federal government can do a better job of meeting the healthcare needs of people than profit seeking companies. Who do you think could provide the best services most effectively and repeatable over a broad spectrum of locations, economies, etc. – Uncle Sam or Sam Walton?

I fear government control of healthcare. Government managed programs and services are marked by inefficiencies, higher costs, waste, and corruption. Obama tells us that Medicare fraud alone costs us $500 million.

The following points should help clarify why I think a profit seeking company can do a better job than government.

• If the federal government runs a program poorly, there are no consequences. A government program can’t go bankrupt.
• Private sector managers routinely cut costs to produce a profit. Government managers have no pressure to reduce costs. In many cases it would be stupid to do it, considering their budgets would then be lowered the next year.
• Without a profit motive there is no incentive to improve services. At Wal-Mart you are welcomed by greeters. When going to a government facility you are greeted with arrows directing you to the correct line. Neither greeters or arrows are a guarantee of great service, but it does speak volumes as to who is trying hardest to please the customer.
• Profit is fueled by innovation, new ideas, and improved ways of doing things. There is no innovation in government bureaucracies, just new layers of paperwork and procedures.
• Federal pay is tied to longevity not performance. In the private sector if you don’t perform you don’t endure.
• Federal employees are never fired, unless they are caught committing a crime. When Jack Welch was the CEO of GE he required each department to cut or move 10% of the least productive employees every year. There was accountability. You will never see this in government.

Most democrats want a single-payer system. That means insurance companies would eventually be eliminated and government would be the only option. I think democrats really believe that government would care about people more than private companies. That may be true, but even abusive parents love their kids. The government systems usually become flawed and impossible to change or eliminate.

I will take my chances with capitalism, with companies who are seeking profit. At least they know that to grow and generate more profit they have to please me. The government is about mandates, laws,and standardization of care. No thanks.

If the big issue is the uninsured, make a law that insurance companies have to insure them and then pay for it. Next issue, please.

I have found 7 clear winners and 7 clear losers. The uninsured are on both sides of the ledger. They are winners because the people who currently can’t get insurance due to pre-existing conditions or just can’t afford it, will be given access. This is certainly a win. They are also our first loser. They will not get the benefit until 2013 or 2014. The house bill starts in 2013 and the senate bill 2014. Say hello to the speed of government!

The biggest financial winner is Wall Street. Have you noticed the rise in stock prices for insurance companies during this debate? They are at their highest for the year. Insurers will make loads of money when 30 million join the ranks of the insured. Health insurance will be mandated. If you can afford it you will be required to buy it and if you can’t pay for it, then taxpayers will. Either way, the insurance companies get the money.

The biggest financial loser is small business. They will have the choice of paying for employees health insurance or paying the government an 8% tax. They will also face rising premiums. This may be enough to close some small businesses, for others expect higher prices for their products/services.

There are still lots of unanswered questions in the bill regarding doctors. I look at the fact that we don’t have enough doctors in the system now and we are about to add 30 million patients into the mix. This makes it a win for quack doctors and a loss for conscientious doctors. The quacks need more patients and the conscientious doctors can’t take any more. This probably means the good doctors will be mandated to bring in more patients resulting in longer waits and reduced services.

With the additional people getting healthcare this will create more jobs. Whether it is a skilled nurse or a hospital janitor, more jobs right now is huge. The loser economically is the American people. You need medication if you think healthcare costs overall will go down with this reform.

The lawyers may be the biggest winners. This bill is a dream come true for all ambulance chasers. There are no limits whatsoever. The millions they get for malpractice suits will keep their butts in plush offices and fancy cars forever. I have a doctor friend that pays over $100,000 a year in malpractice insurance alone. Keep that in mind the next time you complain about the doctor bill.

Another group of losers in this reform bill are the terminally ill. Finding cures is not what this legislation is about. There may not be “death panels” but it is obvious that the terminally ill and elderly are not going to be a favored class.

It is truly Christmas for scammers and con-artists with this bill. We already know that Medicare is the biggest target for criminals. 60 Minutes reported back in October that Medicare fraud is a bigger business than illegal drugs! The proposed healthcare program makes Medicare look like a hot dog stand in comparison.

Polls show that 85% of Americans are happy with their insurance. All of these people are going to be losers. It will not be devastating, but there is a cost. Premiums will go up, services will go down, lines will be longer, doctor visits will be shorter, and we will more resemble countries with socialized medicine. If everyone can have access to medical care, maybe it will be worth it. Time will tell.

Politically, the big winner is Barack Obama. He will be viewed as the President who finally got it done. It doesn’t matter if it works or if its good. He pulled a Nike and “just did it”, and that is what counts in politics. The losers in this are the republicans. They had no voice and could not get the easiest things done. Eighty percent of Americans would like tort reform and they couldn’t even get that included.

Big government has won and free market has lost on this one. But honestly, the free market folks did not care or give one thought to the uninsured. I believe a free market is key for a vibrant growing economy, but if we let people starve in the streets, it’s not worth it.

A welfare state is when a country assumes primary responsibility for the welfare of its citizens. At a minimum, it is a “safety net” with varying degrees of welfare. Some would say that its the middle ground between communism and capitalism.

The best example of a successful modern welfare state is Denmark. Citizens in Denmark have healthcare provided for them, retirement, education, and much more. Education is paid for all the way through graduate school. Studies reveal that Denmark people are happy with their system. They have low unemployment since 38% of the people work for the government.

The big negative to any welfare state is taxes. Denmark has the highest taxes in the world. They have a 25%VAT (Value Added Tax) tax. This is a 25% tax on everything you buy. Income tax is 40-60% depending on how much money you make. The automobile tax is 180%. Add the VAT and the taxes on a $10,000 car is over $20,000. Gas is $10 per gallon because of taxes. Not surprisingly, most people take public transportation or ride bikes to get around.

Before you think that the US can join in this fun, let me remind you of some differences between the 2 countries. Denmark is a geographically small nation with a total population equaling about half that of Chicago metro. Economically, they produce their own oil and export about 6 times more than they use. They don’t spend much on military. In WWII they surrendered to Hitler in the first 2 hours of the invasion. I doubt they will be much help against any threat today.

The real cost of a welfare system is economic freedom. Most of your money will go to the government for redistribution to its citizens. People in the US want the benefits of a welfare state, but without the cost. We must be willing to sign over our checks to the government, trust them to provide good services, and submit to their decisions regarding personal issues. I oppose this and it explains why conservatives are against a national healthcare plan.

I also believe America is unique. Liberals despise that attitude. America has been the most successful capitalistic enterprise in the history of the world. Where would Europe be today without the capitalism of America? It provided the resources necessary for a victorious campaign in WWII and the Marshall Plan, paid for by Americans, to rebuild Europe after the devastation. If Hitler had won, where would Denmark be today?

We don’t want any citizen to go hungry or live with inadequate healthcare. I believe the answer is capitalism. To get the full benefits of capitalism the government needs to start with tax reform. Instead of our complex, outdated, and unfair system we could do something like Denmark’s VAT. Do away with all taxes and then establish one tax with no loopholes. It would be a consumption tax paid at the point of purchase of any product or service. Proponents of this “FairTax Plan” say that  to pay for current government expenses it would take around 25%. As people and businesses prosper they will buy more and the government will have more money.

Honest capitalism should raise that standard of living for every citizen and even foreign business partners. Instead of traveling the world and apologizing for America, Obama needs another summit to study what made America great. Obama campaigned on the promise to grow the welfare state. Is this really what we want?

Progressives,  Socialists, Marxists, and Communists want government control and have problems with profit based corporations involved with human services. Conservatives, Independents, Libertarians, and Capitalists trust for-profit businesses and fear government intervention. Healthcare is a core need for every citizen, so who do we give our hearts to – government or insurance companies? By the way, the Republicans, Democrats, and Moderates were not listed above because they are spineless and can go either way.

Two big issues have driven us to this place. One is the number of people who can’t get insurance. Many would buy it if they could, but it is not their choice. The second is the cost of healthcare. We have heard the stories about families being driven into bankruptcy due to medical challenges. These are not new issues but Washington has decided that now is the time to act.

I don’t know if it is better to have insurance provided by an employer or by a public option (government). I don’t know if it is better for the government to control what a doctor is paid or allow the doctor to make as much as she can. Politicians would be best at making the system more fair. The profit motive of industry drives innovation and would probably make the system better, faster, and maybe cheaper.

The negatives are obvious. The government program would be restrictive, slow, and subject to change at the whims of politicians. The Bible speaks to the problem of capitalism when it says “The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil” (I Timothy 6:10). Honestly, I hate the thought of being controlled by either insurance companies or government.

I believe there is a better way. I say eliminate public options, employer provided insurance, HMO’s, PPO’s, group plans, and the rest. I want to control my insurance and healthcare decisions. Pay a fair wage and let me go into a free market to choose among insurance providers and then choose the doctors, clinics, and hospitals that I want. I might go to a cheaper local clinic if I have a case of the sniffles. On the other hand, I might be willing to pay much more for a reputable hospital if I have a life threatening disease. But I should decide.

I want to be the sole authority on my healthcare. The government should step away and healthcare companies should win my business through lower costs and better products/services. The government can do what it does best,  provide assistance to those who cannot afford insurance or healthcare.

Americans are stuck with the idea that the only way to get health insurance is for someone else to be the provider. Stop believing this lie. Why do you want to give this power to someone else? Tell your congressmen to stop trying to control healthcare and start changing the rules to give the individual more rights in making their own life saving decisions.

Politicians and greedy CEO’s should no longer be invited into the privacy of our hospital rooms.