"Word of Mouth"

            I have a friend who, when I stated that Paul Ryan's views were pretty much anti-women's rights (he really is the slightly saner Santorum) refused to believe it because "I haven't heard it out of his mouth." Many who might make this statement are totally willing to believe anything any conservative pundit says about the President without applying the same even handed approach. What, I wonder could cause such a double standard?  On the one hand, blame Biden for his comments relative to race (unwise and unproductive, though they were) and yet refuse to read the truth about the President while taking anything negative said about him or his policies as truth. What is it about President Obama that causes so many on the right to have unconditional negative regard about anything he does? Is he just too "tall?" It seems that if it's negative about the Right, it doesn't count if I didn't hear it personally from the lips of the person in question, but If Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh says the president butchered a 6 year old in the Oval Office, that's good enough for me!

            While we're at it, since when did my Medicare and Social Security, one of which I have paid into all my 49 working years, and the other since 1964 (and in fact, still pay for (Medicare part B) become "entitlements???"  The use of the word implies a negative aspect, like it's a government gift or welfare. The Tea Partiers  and, Romney's campaign use it like a curse word.  The issue with Social Security is that in the 1930s, when the act was passed, 65 was old, and, in fact the average male lived a bit less than that. Since then two things have changed the playing field, neither one of which is anyone's fault. First, we live and are healthier  longer, thanks to advances in medicine, so the eligibility age should be increased to reflect this longevity. Moving it to 67 was a good start, but to reflect the same statistical norm as the law was intended to, the age for full benefits should probably be raised to 70 or 72.  Second, the demand on Social Security is higher because the "boomers" are moving through the eligibility window. This situation will increase over the next 15 to 20 years and then diminish.  The real problem is that no one of either party wants to do what is required. It's not the system that's flawed, but the fact that the playing field is altered by natural causes and no one wants to call it what it is. And, please spare me the "privatization" rhetoric. Paul Ryan keeps talking about privatization of Medicare. Imagine  the possibilities if a Rick Scott or Bernie Maddoff was handling a guaranteed revenue stream of funds from a mandatory government program. The persons handling Medicare at present aren't perfect, but the administrators have no profit motive, as would be the case with private insurers.

            Those on the right who trumpet "privatization" as a cure for anything would do well to consider the number one motive for any corporation  - "make money for the stockholders."  For those with money to invest, that's the risk/reward factor of business. For those who live hand to mouth, the risk is unacceptable. If you want to fix Medicare, require everyone to have some sort of insurance (as the Affordable Health Care Act does), since as everyone knows (except, apparently, some in  Congress) preventive medicine saves lives and tons of money, but the uninsured don't, as a rule, get preventive care, and as a consequence wait until they are desperately sick and go to an emergency room.  Secondarily, jail Medicare fraud cases and pull medical licenses of doctors convicted of complicity. Jail a  Rick Scott and his ilk. Hold the top of the Financial pyramid accountable for what occurs on their watch.  Maddoff  is the sole case I can cite where the top of the food chain suffered punitive consequences, vice taking their "golden parachute" and slipping into luxurious retirement. And I do believe that's all I have to say about that!