Read. Research. Write.
December 13th, 2007 | 
Author: Earlier tonight, I accidentally stumbled on a blog focusing on politics. Normally, I don’t participate in political arenas and don’t feel highly educated in that area. However, something about this blog made me want to voice my opinion about the topics.
My purpose for this post is not to discuss politics, but to encourage you to know your facts before expressing an opinion. My motto is ‘read. research. write/edit.’ To write without research will only show carelessness, lack of knowledge and an uneducated opinion. Sounds kind of harsh but is very often true. In fact, I go so far as to not even comment / express a strong opinion in a conversation about something I don’t fully understand. I drive my husband nuts sometimes because I won’t say anything initially, but give me a few hours or days, and well, in his words I become ‘stubborn.’ Once I do my research, know the facts and can apply those facts, it takes a miracle to get me to change my opinion. Anyway, back to the politic blog and the need I feel to comment some more on it.
What amazed me about the two blog posts that I commented on was the lack of …. well, now I can’t think of the word. The first post was about the endorsement of a candidate by a dean at Bob Jones University. Amongst other things, my response was ‘who cares?’ Who a dean at BJU chooses to endorse has no bearing on my vote. Perhaps I will look into the candidate a little more, but I haven’t been overly impressed with the candidate anyway! The blogger felt led to launch into the ‘black spots’ of BJU’s past, i.e. inter-racial dating. Somehow he connected that with Romney being a Mormon and the Jones family’s attack on Mormonism in years gone by. What was wrong with the post? First, some of his basic facts were wrong. Second, his evidence (quotes from articles) was a minimum of 7 years old. Third, he was holding the univeristy as a whole responsible for decisions made years ago (do we hold Harvard or Yale accountable for refusing to allow female students? What about the state of Alabama whose constitution still states that schools can be segregated?). Fourth, the university’s stance on inter-racial dating has absolutely nothing to do with the dean’s support of a candidate. Basically, the post amounted to nothing more than a rant against the ‘wackos’ that attend(ed) BJU. As a former ‘wacko,’ I don’t believe I came away scarred for life as he implies. I also have to add that I was very proud to see other BJU attendees stand up and voice their opinion – particularly one lady who was inter-racially married, pregnant and attending BJU. Her post pretty much burst the blogger’s bubble. 
The second post was about Bush’s veto on the re-authorization of the S-CHIP bill. Yes, many families will be hurt by the failure of S-CHIP to be re-authorized. But, again, if you do your homework (something our blogger did not do), you will realize that S-CHIP is costing far more than it is saving and it is at the expense of the poorest families. S-CHIP was created to help families who were ‘too rich’ to qualify for Medicaid, but who still did not have health insurance. The government spends twice the amount, dollar-for-dollar, on S-CHIP than it does on Medicaid. Having spent the last 3-1/2 years of my life living in one of the 100 poorest counties in the nation, I feel I have more of a right to speak on the matter than some person who probably makes more than entire income of our county combined (slight exaggeration, but you get the point). Many families around here benefit greatly from S-CHIP; however, some take advantage of it. They have the income to afford health insurance. They just choose to not have it. Then it becomes the government’s responsibility to support them. The income qualification for S-CHIP is 200% of the federal poverty level. For a family of 4, that is a little over $40,000. Private health insurance is affordable on that income….IF you don’t have new vehicles and a large mortgage payment and the nicest toys and…. In the meantime, while the S-CHIP class is enjoying their toys, those who are truly in need are being hurt with not enough funding available for Medicaid recipients (many who have physical impairments that prevent them from doing the work to earn more money and advance themselves in life). To raise the income caps for S-CHIP will not only cost the government more, but also take away from Medicaid. Is that wise? My solution is to mandate that doctors can’t charge $75 (or other large ridiculous amounts) for an office visit! Is my 15-minute visit with my doctor really worth $75? Did s/he truly impart $75 worth of care and knowledge to me? More than likely not. A very workable solution is to base doctor visit cost on income levels. Our healthcare facility does that here and I find it very beneficial. A general office visit for low income is $10, lab tests are 90% off, child wellness visits are free. Is that inconceivable? Not really! If it can be done here, why not elsewhere?
So anyway, all of that to say, express your opinions but be educated about your topics.
Related posts:
Posted in