Now that our health care industry has been nationalized and taken over by the Kremlin on the Potomac, I have finally received a response from my non-representing representative. Of course with the amount of emails and calls he received, he most likely sent out an email that went to everyone. However his email is full of half truths, manipulations, and lies all the while not touching on the constitutionality of the bill.
His letter is as follows:
Dear Mr. Bergstresser:
Thank you for contacting my office regarding healthcare reform. On Sunday, March 21, 2010, the Senate's version of healthcare reform (HR 3590) and the reconciliation package (HR 4872) passed out of the House of Representatives, both with my support.
During the campaign and throughout the last year, it has become increasingly apparent that Americans can no longer tolerate the status quo when it comes to affording healthcare in this country. Double digit increases to insurance rates are bankrupting families, small businesses and our nation. Insurance costs for small businesses have increased 129 percent over the last 10 years and Oregon's insurance rates have gone up almost 20 percent per year for the past 7 years.
Many of my concerns in November about cost containment in the House version of healthcare reform have been addressed in the combined final healthcare package. The subsidy levels to help lower income individuals afford healthcare are more appropriate and approximately $200 billion below what was included in the House healthcare bill. These levels continue to taper off in the out years as rising insurance costs continue to moderate. The number of folks added to Medicaid is reduced in the Senate version to a more reasonable 138 percent of the federal poverty level to encourage more personal responsibility in our healthcare. I lobbied aggressively for reductions in premiums for individuals who practiced healthier lifestyles and I authored a strong comparative effectiveness research (CER) piece of the bill. CER would give an independent authority the ability to foster solid, peer reviewed research into the best diagnostics, treatments and healthcare delivery. The research CER makes available will help doctors and patients have the best information to make their own healthcare decisions. Both of these elements are included in the final healthcare package.
More significantly, I and a few others refused to sign onto the final reform package until Congress and the Administration pledged to stop the Medicare reimbursement discrimination against Oregon and other states that provide high quality, low cost healthcare as the result of an antiquated reimbursement formula dating back 40 years. Currently, Oregon, which practices quality, cost effective medicine, receives half the reimbursement rate of inefficient areas on the East coast. We won the battle. Legislative language was included in the bill, along with a signed letter and personal guarantee by the President, that will move our system from one that encourages waste and unnecessary tests and procedures to one that reimburses health care providers like Oregon based on successful health outcomes. These changes will dramatically reduce the cost of healthcare nationally.
The new Medicare reimbursement methods will mean more doctors will be willing to see and treat seniors who rely on Medicare. Seniors will see an immediate $250 rebate on prescription drug costs. The legislation also provides for a 50 percent discount on brand name drugs and eventual closing of the Medicare Part D prescription drug donut hole by 2020.
Effective immediately, this bill eliminates co-pays or deductibles for preventive care under Medicare or new private plans. Health insurers may not drop people from coverage because they are sick, refuse coverage to children with pre-existing conditions, or impose lifetime or annual limits on coverage in new plans. There will be a temporary risk pool for uninsured that may have pre-existing conditions and temporary reinsurance for 55-64 year old retirees until exchanges are available. Young people up to 26 years of age will be able to stay on their parents' health plan. There will be new investment in training primary care doctors, nurses and public health professionals to take care of the expanded population that now have access to healthcare. By 2014, these benefits will be available to all Americans through state exchanges that allow consistent regulation and decreased costs.
The final package is also much friendlier to small businesses. In this legislation, 96 percent of small businesses are not subject to providing healthcare for their employees. Larger businesses (over 50 employees) are encouraged to provide healthcare but in a much more flexible and affordable way. The only requirements large businesses must adhere to are deductibles per individual must not exceed $2,000 and the cost per employee must not exceed 9.5 percent of a family's income. Small businesses with low average payrolls are eligible for tax credits up to 35-50 percent for healthcare costs if they choose to provide healthcare for their employees. Businessmen and women are also allowed to deduct the full cost of their insurance for the first time and the exchanges allow small businesses to pool their collective associations' buying power to give them the same ability as large employers to negotiate advantageous insurance rates.
Finally, the healthcare package attacks the rising cost of healthcare on our national budget and debt. According to the impartial Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the package reduces the national deficit by $138 billion in the first 10 years. Furthermore, the CBO estimates that the deficit will be reduced even more as the positive aspects of the health care overhaul affect different parts of the health care industry and economy. The CBO also feels the federal budgetary commitment to healthcare will decrease during the decades following the 10 year budgetary window.
I consider these all strong, positive reasons to vote for the healthcare reform proposal. There is more work to be done as we flesh out some of the outlines in the reform. The bottom line is that this work begins to address the desperately needed transformation of our 40 year old healthcare delivery system which is on the brink of implosion. If we like our current healthcare, we need to make these changes to be able to afford it in the 21st century.
I will continue to fight for the policies that best reflect the needs of the 5th Congressional District of Oregon. For more information on the final health care package, please visit my website at http://schrader.house.gov.
Sincerely,
KURT SCHRADER
Member of Congress
My response to his letter is as follows:
"Many of my concerns in November about cost containment in the House version of healthcare reform have been addressed in the combined final healthcare package."
If he was concerned about the costs why is it he voted for the bill without the "cost containment" in it. Notice in the beginning of the letter he says that he voted for both versions of the bill.
"The subsidy levels to help lower income individuals afford healthcare are more appropriate and approximately $200 billion below what was included in the House healthcare bill."
The word "subsidy" is also known as money that is taken from contributers and is redistributed to the non-contributer/zero liability people. This may offend some people; if it does, suck it up. What is a non-contributer or a zero liability person? These are not interchangeable terms. A zero liability person is not always a non-contributer, however a non-contributer is always a zero liability person. When you file your taxes, if you get everything you paid in back or if you get more than you paid in back, you are a zero liability person. The non contributer is the person who sits on their ass all day and gets government assistance without having to work for it. So the tax payer funded "healthcare" ended up being less than they started. Well isn't that nice of them; my taxes will still go up but not as much as they first expected. Thanks for thinking of me.
"The number of folks added to Medicaid is reduced in the Senate version to a more reasonable 138 percent of the federal poverty level to encourage more personal responsibility in our healthcare."
Even when people are able to make a living, even with the increased taxes, the feds will continue to give them "free" healthcare through the Medicaid program. I have a novel idea, lower the tax rates to everyone and they will be able to be more independent. Oh that's right, this isn't about helping people, it's about more control over all of our lives.
"I lobbied aggressively for reductions in premiums for individuals who practiced healthier lifestyles..."
This is just the first step to controlling what we eat and our activities. How far of a leap is it to expect that in the coming years they will require everyone to exercise and eat the kinds of foods that they approve while they outlaw foods that aren't considered contain the proper nutritious value. While I am not opposed to healthy living or eating or exercise, I am opposed of government micromanaging our lives. It's a liberty thing, they wouldn't understand it.
"The new Medicare reimbursement methods will mean more doctors will be willing to see and treat seniors who rely on Medicare. Seniors will see an immediate $250 rebate on prescription drug costs. The legislation also provides for a 50 percent discount on brand name drugs and eventual closing of the Medicare Part D prescription drug donut hole by 2020."
This paragraph and the previous one are especially offensive. The previous paragraph talks about "ending the Medicare reimbursement discrimination against Oregon and other states..." Why shouldn't Oregon and other States take the lead and take responsibility for our own senior's who were sold the bill of goods called Medicare. Show the rest of the States that we are more efficient than the federal government and start the dismantling of the beast. Medicare Part D was one of the ways that Bush showed how he wasn't a conservative but was at best a Decepti-Con and at worse, a RINO.
"Effective immediately, this bill eliminates co-pays or deductibles for preventive care under Medicare or new private plans. Health insurers may not ... refuse coverage to children with pre-existing conditions, or impose lifetime or annual limits on coverage in new plans."
What is wrong with paying a co-pay or deductible for preventative care? Why are those visits so expensive? Because people stopped paying for them and instead let insurance companies pay for them which means more paperwork and more people to process the paperwork. I know a doctor that used to charge $35 for a regular check-up but after years of increased costs and inflation finally raised the cost to $54 per check-up. Talk about breaking the bank. This means that you may have to forgo going out to dinner one or two times for each visit. As for the last part about preexisting conditions, you can usually still get coverage for everything else. After all these evil health insurance companies are still trying to make money too. When did profit become an bad word? If you take out the profit, you take away the motivation too. As for dollar limits on coverage; at some point you are more trouble than you are worth. Would you rather be dropped next time it comes to renew your policy? If you show that you're a good customer who isn't overusing your insurance, you will be more likely to be seen as a valued customer and your rates may actually decrease.
"Young people up to 26 years of age will be able to stay on their parents' health plan."
Since when did we consider a 26 year old a child? At 23 I was just getting out of the military and the last thing on my mind was moving back in with my Mom. If, at 26, you can't make it on your own, or at least buy your own medical insurance, you probably are at best a zero liability person and at worst a non-contributer. Get off your ass and do something productive for a change. On a side note, if you are trying to get assistance for college and are under the age of 25, you need to have your parent's income filled in order to fill out the forms completely. I oppose government involvement with paying for you to go to college. The only exception is veteran's benefits.
"...In this legislation, 96 percent of small businesses are not subject to providing healthcare for their employees. Larger businesses (over 50 employees) are encouraged to provide healthcare but in a much more flexible and affordable way. The only requirements large businesses must adhere to are deductibles per individual must not exceed $2,000 and the cost per employee must not exceed 9.5 percent of a family's income."
It's nice to know that in this bill small businesses don't have to provide healthcare insurance for their employees. I have read and reread the Constitution and I can't find anywhere in there that gives the federal government the authority to tell businesses what benefits they have to provide for their employees. I know they use the "Commerce clause" as the catch all in regulating any and all aspects of business but their reasoning, if they were to see what was meant in the wording and why the Constitution was written with the words and phrases as they are. "Regulate Commerce ... among the several States" does not mean that you meddle in every aspect of commerce but make sure that the individual States aren't imposing taxes or tariffs anytime that a product crosses its borders. This means that federal minimum wage laws are unconstitutional as are the all federal agencies that regulate any aspect of intrastate and many aspects of interstate trade. This includes this area of the bill, specifically, and the entire bill generally.
"Finally, the healthcare package attacks the rising cost of healthcare on our national budget and debt. According to the impartial Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the package reduces the national deficit by $138 billion in the first 10 years."
The reason that they are able to make the claim of a deficit reduction in the first ten years is because the bill will not be fully in place until 2014 so anything money that is supposed to put the money aside to run this bill will help show a cost reduction. Notice how the CBO isn't saying what the second ten years will do to the deficit.
If you notice in the letter Mr. Schrader doesn't mention the fact that everyone will be required to purchase healthcare insurance or face a fine. The last I saw, the fine for not having the proper amount of health insurance is $2000 or 2.2% of your income. So now just because you are alive, you will be required to purchase a good or service even if you do not want to. Even if you decide to set up a Health Savings Account (HSA) you will be required to buy health insurance or you risk facing a fine. If you refuse to pay the fine you will be sent to jail.
Why do people like me and millions of others oppose the health care bill? We value our freedoms and liberty and think that we are better equipped to take charge of our lives instead of relying on the government. I am not calling for violence but I am advocating for anyone who wants to stand up to a tyrannical government and tell them to back off.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Liberty Died with Socialized Medicine
Sunday liberty died in a 219-212 vote in the House of Representatives. Late last week it was reported that Rep. Peter DeFazio had switched to a no vote on the health care reform bill but in the end all four Demarxists voted in favor of the bill and in doing so, put a stake through the heart of liberty. Before the ink was dry on Tuesday, when Dear leader signed the bill into law, a number of State AG's filed suit in federal court saying that the bill was unconstitutional. Most say that it is because of the federal mandate that all individuals must carry an "acceptable amount" of health insurance regardless of whether they wanted it or not.
If the courts do not strike the bill down as unconstitutional our last hopes to get rid of this monstrosity will come either in the mid-term election in 2010 and 2012. This is not the only way to get rid of this tyranny though. Our last, best, hope, to reign in the tyranny of the federal leviathan is if at least 34 States call for an Article V convention; or a Constitutional Convention also called a Con-Con. In the past when this remedy was brought up, those who called for it were either laughed out of polite society, called kooks, or were accused of wanting to see the libs take over and rewrite the Constitution into a Marxist utopia. Lately, though, more and more people are changing their minds to the idea. What is bringing these people over to our way of thinking? This health care bill helped with a big push. Why would we be afraid that the libtards would take over the Con-Con when they are running rough-shod over us already? Nazi Pelosi and her ilk have been doing as they damn well please since 2007 when they came into power and now that Dear leader is in the White House, they don't have to worry about any of their bills being vetoed. So tell me again why having a Con-Con is a bad idea.
On April 9th Mike Church is holding an Article V symposium at the Sirius/XM studios in Washington D.C. Those who will be attending will be a who's who of modern day patriots. Dr. Kevin Gutzman, Dr. Thomas Woods, Rep. Susan Lynn of Tennessee's State house and others. Some will be attending in studio and others will be calling in on the phone. The point for holding this symposium is to get as much information out to those who are still on the fence or who may still hold out a little opposition to a Con-Con.
I, personally, have been on board for holding a Con-Con for almost a year and would love to see my State as one of the States that signed on to it. However, I know that with the current make-up of the legislature in Salem, the chances of getting them to sign on is somewhere between slim and none. What is giving me some hope is that there is a number of State representatives that are, for the first time in years, going to have a challenger running against them this November.
The stake may have gone through the heart of liberty but we may be able to revive it soon. If we are unsuccessful, we can change the name of our nation from the United States of America to the United Socialist States of America.
If the courts do not strike the bill down as unconstitutional our last hopes to get rid of this monstrosity will come either in the mid-term election in 2010 and 2012. This is not the only way to get rid of this tyranny though. Our last, best, hope, to reign in the tyranny of the federal leviathan is if at least 34 States call for an Article V convention; or a Constitutional Convention also called a Con-Con. In the past when this remedy was brought up, those who called for it were either laughed out of polite society, called kooks, or were accused of wanting to see the libs take over and rewrite the Constitution into a Marxist utopia. Lately, though, more and more people are changing their minds to the idea. What is bringing these people over to our way of thinking? This health care bill helped with a big push. Why would we be afraid that the libtards would take over the Con-Con when they are running rough-shod over us already? Nazi Pelosi and her ilk have been doing as they damn well please since 2007 when they came into power and now that Dear leader is in the White House, they don't have to worry about any of their bills being vetoed. So tell me again why having a Con-Con is a bad idea.
On April 9th Mike Church is holding an Article V symposium at the Sirius/XM studios in Washington D.C. Those who will be attending will be a who's who of modern day patriots. Dr. Kevin Gutzman, Dr. Thomas Woods, Rep. Susan Lynn of Tennessee's State house and others. Some will be attending in studio and others will be calling in on the phone. The point for holding this symposium is to get as much information out to those who are still on the fence or who may still hold out a little opposition to a Con-Con.
I, personally, have been on board for holding a Con-Con for almost a year and would love to see my State as one of the States that signed on to it. However, I know that with the current make-up of the legislature in Salem, the chances of getting them to sign on is somewhere between slim and none. What is giving me some hope is that there is a number of State representatives that are, for the first time in years, going to have a challenger running against them this November.
The stake may have gone through the heart of liberty but we may be able to revive it soon. If we are unsuccessful, we can change the name of our nation from the United States of America to the United Socialist States of America.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
My email to Rep. Kurt Schrader
With the looming vote for the government to take over our health insurance, I have called in to my non-representing representative. Because the people in the office claim that Rep. Schrader is still undecided on how to vote and won't make a decision until he reads the entire bill, I felt it necessary to send him an email so he has a permanent record as to how I feel about the issue. I have called and emailed Schrader before on a variety of issues and have yet to receive any kind of response from him. I will now wait and see if he decides to respond to my message.
This the message that I sent to Schrader.
Mr. Schrader,
I am email you to tell you to vote "No" on the current health care reform bill. I have a number of reasons that I oppose the bill in its current form but I will limit this email to the top two reasons.
My first reason for opposing the bill is because Congress does not have the constitutional authority to take over or interfere with any part of health care or health insurance. There is one exception to this statement and that is to properly use the Commerce Clause by breaking down any and all barriers that prevent people in one state from purchasing health insurance in another state. You may not think that this would do anything to insurance rates but think about any other type of insurance that you are able to buy, including life insurance. The reason that auto, home, and life insurance rates are able to remain low and competitive is because you can chose from a number of companies across the nation.
The second reason I oppose the current health care reform bill is because no matter what anyone thinks, this will result in either health care rationing or increased taxes on everyone so that those who get hardship waivers are able to get medical insurance. If we want to see what happens when health care is rationed, we only have to look to Canada of the United Kingdom. When it comes to increased taxes to pay for health insurance, these increased taxes will result in increased unemployment. This fact is one of the basics of economics. To see the results of increased taxes you only have to look at Michigan and California to see what happens when politicians view their constituents as a source of never ending revenue.
I urge you to carefully consider the points that I have made when you make your decision on how you vote for the health care bill. I will leave you with this last statement, if you vote in favor of this health care reform bill I will work tirelessly to make sure you do not get re-elected in November.
If Nazi Pelosi and Dear leader are to be believed, I should know how Schrader votes this weekend even if he decides not to respond to my email. If the vote doesn't happen this weekend, other Demarxicrats have said that the vote may not take place until after Easter. Anyone who may be reading this post, keep calling and emailing your representative and urge them to oppose this bill. The senate switchboard number is 202-224-3121. Remember to be courteous and respectful even when the socialists don't deserve it.
This the message that I sent to Schrader.
Mr. Schrader,
I am email you to tell you to vote "No" on the current health care reform bill. I have a number of reasons that I oppose the bill in its current form but I will limit this email to the top two reasons.
My first reason for opposing the bill is because Congress does not have the constitutional authority to take over or interfere with any part of health care or health insurance. There is one exception to this statement and that is to properly use the Commerce Clause by breaking down any and all barriers that prevent people in one state from purchasing health insurance in another state. You may not think that this would do anything to insurance rates but think about any other type of insurance that you are able to buy, including life insurance. The reason that auto, home, and life insurance rates are able to remain low and competitive is because you can chose from a number of companies across the nation.
The second reason I oppose the current health care reform bill is because no matter what anyone thinks, this will result in either health care rationing or increased taxes on everyone so that those who get hardship waivers are able to get medical insurance. If we want to see what happens when health care is rationed, we only have to look to Canada of the United Kingdom. When it comes to increased taxes to pay for health insurance, these increased taxes will result in increased unemployment. This fact is one of the basics of economics. To see the results of increased taxes you only have to look at Michigan and California to see what happens when politicians view their constituents as a source of never ending revenue.
I urge you to carefully consider the points that I have made when you make your decision on how you vote for the health care bill. I will leave you with this last statement, if you vote in favor of this health care reform bill I will work tirelessly to make sure you do not get re-elected in November.
If Nazi Pelosi and Dear leader are to be believed, I should know how Schrader votes this weekend even if he decides not to respond to my email. If the vote doesn't happen this weekend, other Demarxicrats have said that the vote may not take place until after Easter. Anyone who may be reading this post, keep calling and emailing your representative and urge them to oppose this bill. The senate switchboard number is 202-224-3121. Remember to be courteous and respectful even when the socialists don't deserve it.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Definitions
There may be some questions about the definition of certain words or phrases that may be used in my ranting and raving. In order to get my point across, I feel it is necessary to define them. Because I may interject new words or phrases, I will from time to time, come back to this posting and add to it instead of creating a new posting. The definitions posted aren't arranged alphabetically or chronologically but the list shouldn't be all that long and should be easy enough get through. When I add new words and phrases after the initial posting, I will separate them by putting a date above them to let you know when they were added.
Decepti-Con. This is a term created by Mike Church, who is a conservative host on satellite radio. Decepti-Cons people who claim to be conservative and claim to desire to reduce the size of government but really only want to manage the current size of government. I will sometimes use the word instead of RINO to describe someone as a Decepti-Con as both are very similar.
RINO. A RINO is a Republican In Name Only. An example of a RINO was Senator Gordon Smith who lost his bid for re-election in 2008. He would vote with the Democrats on a regular basis in order to show how bi-partisan he could be. Olympia Snow and Susan Collins are also current RINOs but hopefully they will be replaced soon.
Nazi Pelosi. Her real name is Nancy Pelosi and is the current Speaker of the House of Representatives. She has been acting like a Nazi ever since she took control of the House in 2006 and started running roughshod over the Constitution ever since. If you disagree with her then she bitches and complains that she knows what is best for the "American People" no matter how much opposition she runs into.
Dear leader. Chairman Maoboma. Franklin Delenobama. All are phrases describing Obama. He has been trying to ram through his agenda ever since taking the oath of office on January 20, 2009. He acts like Hitler, Mao, and Roosevelt depending on the situation. When he tries to coerce the public to sign onto one of his agendas, he is acting like FDR. When he sends the union thugs after those who disagree with him he is acting like Hitler. When he uses the federal government and people in his administration after dissenters, he is acting like Mao. Just like FDR, though, he doesn't give a damn about the Constitution and doesn't think he is bound by any of the limitations that the document places on the federal government or, specifically him or his office.
Robert "liar, liar" Gibbs. He is the White House spokesman. He is the mouthpiece of the propaganda wing of Obama and his administration.
Kremlin on the Potomac. This is the term given to Washington, D.C. The Kremlin part has been given because the seat of the Soviet Union was located in Moscow and was named the Kremlin. The Potomac part is because D.C. is located on the Potomic River between Maryland and Virginia. Since both sides of Congress act like they are guided by the Communist Manifesto instead of the Constitution, they "rule" us from the Kremlin on the Potomac.
Decepti-Con. This is a term created by Mike Church, who is a conservative host on satellite radio. Decepti-Cons people who claim to be conservative and claim to desire to reduce the size of government but really only want to manage the current size of government. I will sometimes use the word instead of RINO to describe someone as a Decepti-Con as both are very similar.
RINO. A RINO is a Republican In Name Only. An example of a RINO was Senator Gordon Smith who lost his bid for re-election in 2008. He would vote with the Democrats on a regular basis in order to show how bi-partisan he could be. Olympia Snow and Susan Collins are also current RINOs but hopefully they will be replaced soon.
Nazi Pelosi. Her real name is Nancy Pelosi and is the current Speaker of the House of Representatives. She has been acting like a Nazi ever since she took control of the House in 2006 and started running roughshod over the Constitution ever since. If you disagree with her then she bitches and complains that she knows what is best for the "American People" no matter how much opposition she runs into.
Dear leader. Chairman Maoboma. Franklin Delenobama. All are phrases describing Obama. He has been trying to ram through his agenda ever since taking the oath of office on January 20, 2009. He acts like Hitler, Mao, and Roosevelt depending on the situation. When he tries to coerce the public to sign onto one of his agendas, he is acting like FDR. When he sends the union thugs after those who disagree with him he is acting like Hitler. When he uses the federal government and people in his administration after dissenters, he is acting like Mao. Just like FDR, though, he doesn't give a damn about the Constitution and doesn't think he is bound by any of the limitations that the document places on the federal government or, specifically him or his office.
Robert "liar, liar" Gibbs. He is the White House spokesman. He is the mouthpiece of the propaganda wing of Obama and his administration.
Kremlin on the Potomac. This is the term given to Washington, D.C. The Kremlin part has been given because the seat of the Soviet Union was located in Moscow and was named the Kremlin. The Potomac part is because D.C. is located on the Potomic River between Maryland and Virginia. Since both sides of Congress act like they are guided by the Communist Manifesto instead of the Constitution, they "rule" us from the Kremlin on the Potomac.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Nanny State Strikes Again
A state assemblyman from Brooklyn, NY introduced a bill in Albany that would ban the use of salt in restaurant cooking. The wording of the A 10129 states, "No owner or operator of a restaurant in this state shall use salt in any form in the preparation of any food for consumption by customers of such restaurant, including food prepared to be consumed on the premises of such restaurant or off of such premises."
The author of the bill, Felix Ortiz, said that the salt ban would allow restaurant goers to decide how salty they want their meals to be. He went on to say, "In this way, consumers have more control over the amount of sodium they intake, and are given the option to exercise healthier diets and healthier lifestyles" What would happen if a restaurant chooses to ignore the salt ban? Of course in true nanny fashion, there would be heavy fines imposed of $1000 per violation.
One question I have in regards to this new proposed legislation. Will this ban all salt in the recipe or will a little salt be acceptable? The reason I ask this is because many recipes require that salt be added in order for the recipe to turn out. Cookies require salt. Soups, stews, and chowders all call for salt in one form or fashion. What about breads and cakes. Almost any dish that is cooked needs some salt in some form or fashion and at some level. But don't listen to anyone who cooks for a living or for pleasure.
Who thinks this is a great idea? You guessed it, the dictator-in-chief, Mayor Michael Bloomberg. For those who don't know about Bloomberg, he is one of those people who pours salt on his Saltine crackers. Apparently he doesn't subscribe to the idea of, "What's good for me is good for thee."
Besides the issue of government micromanaging the lives of New Yorkers and anyone else who visits the state, my biggest beef with this proposed legislation centers on those of us who don't add salt to their meals after they are cooked. If I don't add salt when the food is being cooked or baked, I will not add it after it is completed. When I get fries at a fast food place I will typically tell them to either go light on the salt or no salt on the fries. Do I want the government to get involved and tell them they can't put salt on the fries? Hell no!
I have a novel idea, those who want to lower their salt intake, don't go out to eat as much or find a place that offers low salt dishes. Believe me, if there is a market out there for a restaurant that caters to those who want to limit their salt intake, one will pop up and will be successful without government intervention, if not, it will fail.
Oh, and one more question. If it were to become law, would the new law pertain only to salt by itself or would it include any seasoning or spice that has salt in it? Seasoning salt, garlic salt, onion salt, celery salt,lemon pepper mix, taco seasoning, Italian seasoning, and the list goes on. What do these items have in common? They all have some sort of salt in them. Will this proposed law include butter and margarine? They have salt or sodium in them. Instead of trying to ban a naturally occurring substance, why don't you let us make our own decisions and live with the results of our own choices. If someone has health problems because they eat too many foods that are high in salt, don't blame the salt; blame the person who made irresponsible choices.
Call me crazy, but I think that people should start taking more responsibility for their actions and choices instead of playing the victim. Shut up and take responsibility for yourself.
The author of the bill, Felix Ortiz, said that the salt ban would allow restaurant goers to decide how salty they want their meals to be. He went on to say, "In this way, consumers have more control over the amount of sodium they intake, and are given the option to exercise healthier diets and healthier lifestyles" What would happen if a restaurant chooses to ignore the salt ban? Of course in true nanny fashion, there would be heavy fines imposed of $1000 per violation.
One question I have in regards to this new proposed legislation. Will this ban all salt in the recipe or will a little salt be acceptable? The reason I ask this is because many recipes require that salt be added in order for the recipe to turn out. Cookies require salt. Soups, stews, and chowders all call for salt in one form or fashion. What about breads and cakes. Almost any dish that is cooked needs some salt in some form or fashion and at some level. But don't listen to anyone who cooks for a living or for pleasure.
Who thinks this is a great idea? You guessed it, the dictator-in-chief, Mayor Michael Bloomberg. For those who don't know about Bloomberg, he is one of those people who pours salt on his Saltine crackers. Apparently he doesn't subscribe to the idea of, "What's good for me is good for thee."
Besides the issue of government micromanaging the lives of New Yorkers and anyone else who visits the state, my biggest beef with this proposed legislation centers on those of us who don't add salt to their meals after they are cooked. If I don't add salt when the food is being cooked or baked, I will not add it after it is completed. When I get fries at a fast food place I will typically tell them to either go light on the salt or no salt on the fries. Do I want the government to get involved and tell them they can't put salt on the fries? Hell no!
I have a novel idea, those who want to lower their salt intake, don't go out to eat as much or find a place that offers low salt dishes. Believe me, if there is a market out there for a restaurant that caters to those who want to limit their salt intake, one will pop up and will be successful without government intervention, if not, it will fail.
Oh, and one more question. If it were to become law, would the new law pertain only to salt by itself or would it include any seasoning or spice that has salt in it? Seasoning salt, garlic salt, onion salt, celery salt,lemon pepper mix, taco seasoning, Italian seasoning, and the list goes on. What do these items have in common? They all have some sort of salt in them. Will this proposed law include butter and margarine? They have salt or sodium in them. Instead of trying to ban a naturally occurring substance, why don't you let us make our own decisions and live with the results of our own choices. If someone has health problems because they eat too many foods that are high in salt, don't blame the salt; blame the person who made irresponsible choices.
Call me crazy, but I think that people should start taking more responsibility for their actions and choices instead of playing the victim. Shut up and take responsibility for yourself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)