Tea Party/CNN Debate

Well I watched the debate, or at least most of it when I was not watching the Pats, and I must say I was not really impressed much by anyone. They all seemed to be pulling stuff out of their - hats. I had another word in mind other than hats, but you get the picture. Mind you, not a big fan of the one known as Obama, but I was seriously hoping the GOP slate could give a really good alternative. So far, ain't happening for me. Not saying I will vote for Obama, but there are certainly some on the GOP ticket I will vote against. The problem is, some of these I would vote against have a serious chance of being the Republican candidate next year.

Let me note a few things I heard worth noting. First, there was a question on how Republicans are going to garner the Latino vote. The responses immediately diverged into a discussion of illegal aliens and protecting our borders. Might I suggest that candidates realize there is a very substantial portion of our "legal" population that is Latino and ranting about illegal immigrants ain't necessarily going to win the vote of those who are legal.

One point Mr. Romney made that got some traction with me is the concept that medical care is in part expensive because after a deductible or copay the patient no longer has financial skin in the game. He did not suggest this, but let me do so; why not replace deductibles and co-pays as they now exist with insureds paying a percentage, say 10%, of every medical bill with the insurer paying the rest? Certainly would give folks financial skin in the game. Now this is done to a certain extent already. I know my co-pay varies on prescriptions, depending on whether I go name brand or generic, but I think more of this needs to be done.

There were a lot of stupid things said in the debate but the top on my list was by Ron Paul. I like the guy but he went down a rabbit hole on a hypo about a 30 year old single healthy guy deciding not to buy medical insurance. The guy gets seriously ill and cannot afford to pay for his care. Now Ron started off scoring for the Tea Party audience noting that it was this guy's choice and he should take responsibility, but he was then asked - should we just let him die? Ron's response was to note back in the day churchs would help out as well as friends and family. Excuse me, but this is absolutely stupid. Last thing I want is to have to pay the medical bills of friends and family or feel guilty for them dying. I much prefer to pay some taxes and let the government deal with it. And the last time I checked churches were not just gushing with resources to help out every Joe who either chose to or could not afford to buy insurance. And ultimately the cost is still shifted to the rest of it because we are not going to just let people die. If I were the moderator my next question would have been, let's assume there is no church, friend or family willing or able to pay the cost, do we let him die? So we let him die and there is no money to pay for a funeral, do we just leave his freakin' dead carcass rotting on the sidewalk?

Reading the surveys, most Americans agree we have no good choices right now and right now is a time when we really need some good choices. Where is the next Ronald Regan or Bill Clinton? We need a leader and we need vision. Moreover, we need the two parties to compromise for the better good. Will the next leader please step forward.

China to the rescue?

I heard that the late day rally in the U.S. market was due to Italy's request to China that it fund Italy bonds and help avoid an EU meltdown. This apparently was good news to the market, i.e. that Italy needs help from China. I guess it is possible China may do this to help the EU and protect one of the major consumers of its products, so we will see what happens, but China has a few issues of its own at the moment. If China does help Italy, however, who next? Spain, Greece, Portugal, the U.S.? China cannot save everyone and it may want to keep its resources to help its own people.