For those that were curious about the results of the polls that were on the sites of M V Consulting, Inc. about the presidential election I have the numbers. These polls were on the site for a year, and visitors were able to vote only once each.

The visitors of the M V Consulting, Inc. sites broke down as follows:

28.5% Democrat

53% Republican (not including Michael Vass)

16.3% Independent

And believe it or not 2.2% checked of that they didn’t think their vote matters – which I disagree with

In addition 84.2% stated they were old enough to vote, 81% had voted before 6% were to young prior and 6% just did not vote. 50% had family members in the military and 17% of those were in Iraq. 83% felt their jobs were not secure.

29% believed one candidate was a dead-on choice for them, 64% felt one candidate was 50% or more aligned with their views.

43% felt the next President would affect their daily lives a lot or more, 28% thought the effect would be a little or not at all, and 29% were unsure.

83% follow politics everyday.

The top issues affecting America were ranked from most important to least

Economy
Iraq/Afghanistan
Education
Illegal Immigration
Crime
National healthcare
Foreign Policy
National Defense
Race Relations
Other

Final votes ended up as 64 million votes and 52% overall for President Obama, 56.4 million voters and 46% of overall votes for Senator McCain.

So do you agree with my readers that voted? Do you feel these results reflect the concerns and attitudes of the nation?

Labels: Democratic Party, foreign policy, illegal immigration, Iraq, M V Consulting, national healthcare, political poll, Presidential election race 2008, race in America, Republican Party, U.S. economy

I listened intently last night as Senator Barack Obama accepted the nomination at the Democratic National Convention with some 70,000 democrats looking on. If Senator Obama didn’t want to look like a celebrity, this was not the way to do it. But as the first African American to reach this history making level a bit of fanfare is warranted.

Now I could rip into Obama’s speech, line by line. I can highlight all the improbabilities, and all the things that will end up costing America more than we can afford. I can even point out all the mistakes of Presidents Carter and Clinton that he seems to be determined to repeat.

But instead I will just make this easy (my shoulder injury has not healed yet). Senator Obama promises to lower taxes of 95% of Americans receiving paychecks. He plans to increase taxes of business. That is a problem. Because I expect that this will equate to less hours at more pay for the average American, and adding in the higher cost of food (because of expanded corn ethanol production) and the increase taxes and cost of energy will mean less money overall. And that’s before a nationalized healthcare plan.

With nationalized healthcare will come lower quality medical treatment and lines for x-rays and doctor visits – like those found in Canada and England right now. Seeing a doctor will become a trip to the post office, won’t that be great?

Obama is a great speaker, and part of a President’s job is communication. But also part of the job is the ability to pass legislation, which Obama is not bi-partisan enough to do. A President must be able to show strength, which Obama’s demand to run from Iraq does not inspire. And a President must have a unified Administration, which Senator Biden does not provide (he opposed several policies of Senator Obama, as well as believing he is not qualified for the Presidency – as he has stated).

Senator Obama is a strong intelligent capable man. He loves America and has a great vision for the future. But he has neither the experience, nor political flexibility, to achieve his grand plans. No matter how you want to do the math, his initiatives are more expensive than he has claimed requiring more of your money than you may think. His voting record shows his desire to stand by the most far-left of Democratic policies, and that is too extreme for the centrist average of America.

But I will leave you with the speech that Senator Obama spoke yesterday. I remind you that Joe Biden represents the same ‘old’ politics that McCain supposedly embodies. I remind you that the Surge has worked. I remind you that the economy is slowing, and energy prices are rising – both are equally the fault of Democrats and Republicans.

Senator Obama is a great man, creating history before our eyes. But as you listen to his speech ask yourself is he a war-time President, that can stimulate the economy and move America into a safer better America – which requires more than just words.


Part 1


Part 2


Part 3


Part 4

Labels: African American, Democratic National Convention, DNC, Iraq, national healthcare, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, tax policy

**This is also found at Children's Health Blog, where I am a contributing author.**

So, everyone wants to talk about nationalized healthcare. Presidential candidates, Congress, Conservatives and Liberals. There are just massive amounts of communication on the issue. You hear about it from pundits on cable news channels, listen to answers (and half-answers) about it from candidates, read polls on it in newspapers and countless blogs like this one discuss all aspects of the issue. Except one.

The one item is quality of the care. Whether any citizen is able to get private care, or publicly funded medical coverage or any other solution that may be proposed the real issue is how good the quality of the care they receive is. This is no more critical than when the quality of care given to children is concerned.

I want to thank Dr. Risa Lavizzo-Mourey for the article she wrote on a recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine. The study was based on 1500 children, and conducted by Children's Hospital and Regional Medical Center in Seattle, the University of Washington School of Medicine and the RAND Corporation, with support from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Roughly 80% of the children had private medical coverage and nearly all had some form of coverage.

What the study found was shocking. 46% of the care that the kids should have gotten never happened. While treatment for something like the common was mostly appropriate, but for asthma and other chronic ailments it was half as effective. Let me be clear, out of 175 items that should be part of child care – including the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up – many items were never done. And this is among children that had the money.

Imagine that. Your kids are not getting the treatment they need, and politicians are arguing over how to pay for what they aren’t being given in the first place. The priorities seem to be fundamentally flawed. The question that should be asked appears to be why is the quality of care as low for children in a nation with as many resources and experts as America does?

No matter the political affiliation, I believe that everyone loves children. None would wish them harm and want only the best for them. Yet political bickering is oblivious to this issue, stuck in a quagmire of how to pay. I am not a parent but I am sure that every parent I know hasn’t a single care about cost when their child is sick. If you gave them a million dollars and stated their child would remain ill, or have lifelong complications from failing to get the right treatment, the parent might throttle you for such a suggestion. Yet that is the political environment today.

I am insulted to learn this information and to hear of this lapse. This is America, a land where the best of everything exists and the standards in virtually every aspect of life are the envy of every nation in the world. Yet our children lag far behind. Not behind our potential, but behind our actual ability to provide care. That is an insult, our children deserve more.

Labels: cable news, child health, Congress, national healthcare, New England Journal of Medicine, RAND Corporation, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

I read something that is quite interesting. It deals with the standing of the Democratic Presidential candidates, and the Democratic Party in general. It’s a view that is actually obvious, but no one seems to take on seriously. There is basically one voice among the Democrats, and that voice is far from the center.

From the various positions Democratic candidates have mentioned, like national healthcare and retreat from Iraq, and their actions, like going to the Daily Kos convention while ignoring the DLC convention, we see a picture that runs towards the left. That is an important observation, not because that is a good or bad thing, but rather that it is not what the average American agrees with. The average American is acknowledged to not be severely right or left on the political spectrum, but in the center. There may be an issue that they will go to the left and another that goes right, but the balance is to the center overall.

Given that fact, I have to wonder what will happen after the primaries. Given that the top Republican Presidential candidates are closer to the center than the extreme right, what will Democratic candidates do? It may be fine to be targeting an extreme vocal portion of an individual party to win a primary but that won’t work in a general election. Or will it?

Immigration is a huge issue. Will the Democratic Primary winner that the view of the extreme left, and if they don’t how can they pull back from positions made so far? National healthcare affects millions of Americans, and the extreme left want a more socialized medicine, as espoused by pundits like Michael Moore. Yet average Americans do not want to absorb the cost or usual inefficiencies found in government run programs (I submit the effectiveness of the DMV and Veterans Administration as examples). And the question of an immediate retreat from Iraq, as has been promised my virtually every candidate, matching the desires of the extreme left and similar to the disapproval of the war held in the general populace. Still most military advisors note that such an action will lead to instability that will definitely cause more American military loses of life and eventually attacks on America itself. Can the democratic primary winner back away for an instantaneous retreat the extreme is calling for and still win?

There are many issues and many views for each. I do not question which is right or wrong. I merely wonder that if presidential candidates have aligned themselves with extreme views of their respective parties, can they still serve the more centrist general populace in a manner they will approve of. I have to wonder that if extreme views are held today, and more centrist views are stated after the primaries, what position will a presidential candidate actually pursue after being elected.

Maybe it’s me but I wonder which points of view will be the ones affecting the nation and our lives for the next 4 years?

Labels: Democratic Party, election 2008, immigration policies, Iraq War, national healthcare, presidential candidate, republican

The debates continue to rollout one after the other as we approach the 2008 primaries, and the level each needs to rise up to supposedly increases. There have been debates that the various Presidential candidates have gone to, and others that were suspiciously avoided. The advent of technology has even provided the general public a chance to directly question the candidates on issues that John and Jane Q. Public find to be of importance.

This is a great thing, in theory. One might expect that this much attention being given to who might be the next President of the United States would spur conversations and help drive people to one candidate or another. One might think that the majority of Americans would be beyond the basic questions in the debates, and focusing on the finer points of the various platform policies. And if you thought that you would be wrong.

There are reports that suspect somewhere between 40-60% of Americans do not know, nor are they sure where to find, the actual positions of the various candidates. There could be many reasons for this. The prevalence of discussion on the War versus virtually any other question is potentially part of the problem. The fact that many are not familiar enough with the internet to find the information is another. But I believe the fact that getting a televised full answer to say nationalized healthcare is the cause.

Each candidate, in both parties, are prepared to answer most any question in a 30 second soundbite. The media has no problem in presenting the abbreviated responses. But how often are the candidates shown or reported as giving a complete answer? How often are quotes of a couple of paragraphs, that stay on topic throughout their entirety, found for any candidate on any and all topics?

Are there a lot of candidates? Yes, no matter which party you chose. Would more full debates take longer? If we got real answers they could. But isn’t it worth the extra time to know where everyone stands? Don’t we deserve to know who we are choosing in a primary or the election in 2008. Shouldn’t more people be able to say, in plain English that Presidential candidate XYZ stand for this on whatever issue, and here is a quote that they made supporting this stance.

There are many more debates to go, and some of the candidates will be at some of them. But when will we get a better answer that takes more than 30 seconds to proclaim. I just wonder.

Labels: election 2008, national healthcare, political debate, presidential candidate, United States

This is turning out to be quite the Presidential race. With this early start we the public have been given the opportunity to delve deeper than ever before about each of the candidates. The news media have taken time to make sure we know exactly what is going on.

So far we have heard hard hitting news on hairstyles, best television episodes, and suntans at the beach. We have been reminded of how many times a candidate has been in drag, who is quitting smoking, and who won’t win at American Idol.

The depth of what we know is massive.

Yet who can tell me what exact plan each, or any candidate has to exit Iraq (or to stay there)? What coverage has been heard of exactly who will pay for national healthcare, or how the pharmaceutical industry will remain motivated to seek out new drugs to cure diseases plaguing our aging populace? Where did the Presidential candidates outline their planned efforts to manage the economy?

I can tell you how much the various homes of the candidates cost, how much money they have raised on the internet or by corporate donors, and how much of a carbon footprint their private jets leave.

But what do we know about HR 180 IH? Has one candidate even mentioned it? For that matter, how many things that affect the daily lives of Americans have actually been mentioned by the candidates? I don’t mean the recent (they all started talking about the environment about 1 month ago, just as it got more attention in the news media) hot topic, I mean how schools will be improved. How about transportation to get you to work, or infrastructure that will get cheaper, higher quality cell phone service to those in Middle America where it doesn’t exist. What about ensuring that terrorists are assuaged from entering the nation from our northern border that never gets discussed.

With all this extra time, to find out so many details, why don’t we have actual answers? Why is it that we have plenty of pat, rote, 30 second soundbites that are virtually the same along party lines for each candidate?

"If HIV/AIDS were the leading cause of death of white women between the ages of 25 and 34, there would be an outraged outcry in this country."

Nice line. Really pumps up people. Of course it was only mentioned to a specific target group, and does not answer what to do about the problem. Why do the candidates, with all this extra time, not mention a plan to resolve these issues. The above quote could have been made to the public, in one of the various interviews or via the internet (like on YouTube), so that Primetime America could hear that HIV/AIDS is still killing people in THIS nation. A plan could be outlined saying that X dollars could be spent to organize a governmental directive to lower the number of new cases by year 200X. That nothing less than reducing the 1.3 million cases known in this nation to 1 million in 2 years was a goal. That protecting the nation from diseases like this is why we need national healthcare.

Any one of the candidates could have said that. None have. None have said anything effectively. So why all the extra time.

If the Presidential race is only about who was divorced, who got cheated on, who looks good, or who can rattle off the most effective 30 seconds of fluff, WE have the wrong candidates. If the election is about the improvement of the nation, backed up with plans and goals, then we will have a better America.

Don’t you think so?

Labels: AIDS, american idol, HIV, HR 180 IH, Iraq War, national healthcare, presidential election

At my M V Consulting website, many people have had the chance to review letters that I have sent to several of the Presidential candidates. Since December 2006 several of the leading candidates of both parties have received letters directly from me, and others that have copied and forwarded these letters. So far, there has been no response. Which makes me wonder why?

Part of that may be the questions that were asked. None are simple 30 second, soundbite generating questions. They are thought out, balanced, non-partisan, real questions that require a real serious answer. These questions are not just of interest to a particular party, a region of the nation, or any race found in the nation. Here is one example given to former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani,

“Considering the strong stance against organized crime and for law enforcement, as seen from your actions mentioned above and in your work as a U.S. Attorney, what stance do you believe America should take under your potential leadership towards countries such as Iran, and towards terrorist groups such as Al Quida?”

Another was posed to Senator Barak Obama,

“In terms of national healthcare, do you agree with the push for a national healthcare system? If you do how would you have this program funded? What would you do to motivate institutions and individuals to seek out new innovations with the profit motive removed? How would you ensure that a national program would not function in the same manner most feel other government institutions do, such as the education system (which most feel is a failure)?”

The abovementioned question is an important one. I have asked many of our potential future Presidents this question in one form or another. And I have noticed the swelling of interest about a national healthcare program. In particular I have noticed a few things that have come out recently that I think should get more attention.

One item is the response by the various candidates to the Accountability Coalition. Now I realize that this article I read was written by the Democrat staff writer, Gretyl Macalaster, and the Accountability Coalition is based in New Hampshire. Bias may exist. Still the fact is that the Accountability Coalition is a group of Americans that want to understand what the candidate plan to do on national healthcare, and not just the 30 second soundbite that is provided on the news and at ‘debates’. Only 4 Republican candidate representatives and 7 Democratic showed up to a bipartisan event that invited all the candidates.

That is a pretty piss poor response if you ask me, and I mean that for both parties. But I also found out why the response may have been so lukewarm, as well as why I cannot get an answer to my questions on this subject.

Continued in part 2...

Labels: Accountability Coalition, M V Consulting, national healthcare, presidential candidate, Rudy Guilliani, Senator Barak Obama

Continued from Some spin about the Presidential candidates Part 1...

But why is Senator Clinton so polarizing? What makes this one candidate so despised on one side and loved on the other? Is it the anger some have over the war in Iraq? Is it the actions of President Bush that is the real motivation, masking the actions of Senator Clinton?

Negative ads are bad. 30 second soundbite answers do no justice to the populace as we seek serious answers to serious questions affecting current and future generations. But to gloss over the failure in American politics as being a one-sided group of events is to be either naïve or ignorant of the truth.

Both parties have corporate backers spending millions on promoting one candidate or another. All the backers will obviously want some kind of consideration for the winning candidate. All the candidates have weaknesses. Several have serious character flaws, and many have flipped positions that bring their real political standpoints into question.

I don’t mind that everyone is interested in this Presidential race. It’s an important one. It will affect this country and the world at large for decades. But to look at it in a myopic view is ridiculous to me. I have yet to see a candidate that is not taking large funds from corporations and ultra-rich individuals that have a specific agenda. Not one of the candidates has been explicit in their positions on critical issues.

By that I mean, while several have stated in no uncertain terms that they will remove our troops from Iraq, they have not mentioned how this will be done nor what they will do to ensure that future aggressors will be prevented from creating a base once we are gone. While several candidates have said they will seek to create a national healthcare system, none have mentioned how this will be funded, how pharmaceutical companies will be motivated to create new drugs, nor what will prevent this system from being run like the Post Office, VA, or the DMV [the inefficiencies of each are too vast to go into detail about].

These are just a few of the issues that need to be discussed. Until there are clear answers, picking on either party or candidate is useless and worse distracting.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: Democratic Party, Iraq War, national healthcare, presidential candidate, Republican Party, Senator Hillary Clinton

In reading about the candidates I came upon an article from the Southwest Nebraska News that discussed the Presidential candidates’ position on AIDS and other infectious diseases. The subject has recently become more of an issue with the attention that Mr. Andrew Speaker brought in his trans-Atlantic flight while having tuberculosis.

I do not recall any of the candidates speaking on this issue, outside of condemning the actions of Mr. Speaker. Yet this is a major issue not only to the American public, but the world at large. Millions across the world are at risk from not only AIDS and tuberculosis but malaria, bird flu, and other diseases that the average American will most likely never get. That is until the day that we do, and on that day we have the potential for hardship on epidemic levels. Addressing these diseases in other parts of the world helps us protect our own nation, and as Mr. Speaker made clearly apparent that can protect us as well.

But the part of the article that really got my attention was the comment that 68% of Americans polled were concerned about health issues, AIDS in particular. While that would be a great thing, it’s not what I have noticed in my own polls.

In my poll (found at www.vassconsult.com/politics/election2008.html) I see that the leading concern at this moment is the economy, at 17%, followed by national security, education and anti-terrorism efforts all tied at 13%. Now I must admit I don’t have healthcare (national or otherwise) on my list of choices, but I have not received any comments stating that it is a major issue. To further defend my lack of listing healthcare, I felt that social services and foreign policy covered them both (each at 9%).

While pundits and Presidential candidates are mentioning a nationalized healthcare system, I’ve notice most people are worried about making more money and maintaining their lifestyles. I know of no one that wants the government to provide health services, the general consensus being that it would turn into a DMV or Post Office clone. Even less thought has been voiced, by those I know and interact with, on the question of what aide is being given to combat AIDS and other diseases in other nations.

Perhaps more attention should be paid to these items. I agree that improving healthcare is a vital requirement for the next President, and those that follow. I cannot say that I feel it is the most pressing issue though. I also do believe that most Americans share my thoughts. The downside of this consensus is that AIDS and other diseases plaguing the rest of the world are not getting combated as they should. Of course without a strong economy, good national defense, and limits of illegal immigration we can’t help anyone else either.

Am I right? How important is healthcare, national or otherwise, to you?

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: AIDS, Andrew Speaker, national healthcare, national security, presidential candidate, presidential election, tuberculosis

Continuing from Talking about Cancer Part 2...

Nothing is worse than suddenly knowing you have a tumor, especially when it’s the size of an orange or more. Nothing affects your loved ones more than knowing that you have an affliction that could have been worked on years earlier if someone just checked and paid attention. It just shouldn’t happen. Yet the mortality rates prove that it does.

Politicians may want to talk about national healthcare and affordability, but no one seems willing to talk about quality of care and accuracy. No one mentions that there hasn’t been a cure to anything since Polio. No one mentions that many studies find that the care given to African Americans, Latinos/Hispanics and other minorities is not the same as to Whites. No one mentions that various medications do not affect men and women the same. Having healthcare is not the same as getting good healthcare. It’s not about money, at least not from what I have observed in those close to me.

I hope I am wrong. I hope these are exceptions and not the rule. But somehow I don’t think so. I’d love to hear someone ask this of the various Presidential candidates. Perhaps a question similar to one posed by myself to Senator Barak Obama (who has not to date responded in any manner):

What would you do to motivate institutions and individuals to seek out new innovations with the profit motive removed? How would you ensure that a national program would not function in the same manner most feel other government institutions do, such as the education system (which most feel is a failure)?

[To be fair, none of the Presidential candidates has formed any response to any of the questions I have sent to them. The reason for this lack of response is open to question, but the fact that they were sent these questions months ago is a fact. You can see all of the questions I have asked at Letters to Presidential candidates.]

This is a serious subject. I hope it has provided some thoughts. I will be discussing it more in the future.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Talking about Cancer Part 1

Talking about cancer Part 2

Labels: African American, Hispanic American, national healthcare, presidential candidate, Senator Barak Obama

While everyone is busy being afraid about the potential problem that Mr. Andrew Speaker has posed to the health of various airline passengers around the world, I have focused on another matter. True, one person can cause a huge problem, infecting enough people to quickly spread an infection to multiple nations and thousands of people. Yet, given the low transfer rate of this form of Tuberculosis and the relatively limited time to contract the disease, my concern is more focused.

What could be more of a concern for me? What is more devastating than this well-hyped health scare? Our northern border.

I do not blame Canada for allowing a U.S. citizen to enter their country, and to leave it. They had no idea who this guy was, nor did we tell them to look out for him. Canada did nothing wrong. But how does a person who is flagged and sought after by the American government enter the nation? Through Mexico, crossing the border with illegal immigrants in the dead of night across difficult terrain? No, a casual drive over the northern border is all it takes.

I’ve spoken about this several times,

“…But if we are to posture about security and claim a need to patrol and defend the southern border, no less attention needs to be directed at our neighbors to the north….”

I further stated,

“The government may wish to stick its head in the sand, and assume that if we protect one border all are safe. The public at large may wish to assume that one culture is more dangerous than another. But the fact is, and is shown to be again, that such precepts are both false and dangerous.”

In that post I spoke of 17 terrorists, in this one we discuss a man who carried a virulent disease, was flagged by the nation, and used his passort that stated exactly who he was. Yet there is rampant terror about what happens at the southern American border. How much more ridiculous does this all get?

I have mentioned this several times, and as often as the media discusses various individuals entering America from the north, nothing is being mentioned by our politicians. That’s quite troubling. Think about it, if you were a demented fanatic and you see the world news where American pundits are arguing about the Southern border – yet let Mr. Speaker pass without hesitation – where would you head to cause trouble? Fanatics may be sick, but they are not necessarily stupid.

When will we stop being obsessively worried about the darker-skinned and more obvious neighbors to the south, and pay attention to the larger, least watched border to the north? If 17 terrorist, among the many others we know have already crossed into the U.S., are not enough of a wake-up call this one incident definitely is. Border security is not a one sided issue, nor should it be focused against one type of people. That’s a huge group of –ism’s that only lead to one thing, a nation less safe for it’s population.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: border crossing, Canada, homeland security, national healthcare, tuberculosis

I noticed something recently while writing the previous post. We all know that the race of the Presidency in 2008 has already begun. We have heard candidates speak on how great they are, thus being deserving of our votes. Respective of their political parties they have all claimed to be exemplifying the core values that voters want. But they haven’t told us anything really.

Yes, as the previous post proves there are some subjects that the potential candidates cannot avoid, but beyond that one subject what have they really said? If you have taken a look at my various questions posed to several of the main Presidential candidates, I have asked question on a spectrum of subjects. Taking out specific questions concerning health, age, and religion they all have been asked essentially the same thoughts. These thoughts have not been addressed by any of the candidates (nor have any of them been bold enough to respond).

In terms of healthcare, what has been said? Who is for national healthcare, and how do they expect to pay for it? How do they plan to keep taxes affordable? Who will help small business creation or growth? What initiatives will they champion for better race relations in the nation, or how about providing better educations to our children?

Can you honestly say that the WHOLE nation has been told these thoughts? Or have there been a lot of selective comments targeted to specific areas and groups that may contradict comments made to other areas and groups? Has anything said to raise money been specific or has it just been superficially all encompassing and popular enough to get free advertising?

Before you send out $1 to any candidate, check out the questions I have sent and have not been responded to. Ask yourself if you know the answers to the questions I posed, and if the nation knows that answer as well. I mean a detailed answer, not a cursory redirection of the answer. Ask them why they won’t answer, or respond, to the questions I have sent out since December 2006. Ask why they believe that questions from individuals, especially those that interact with tens of thousands of voting citizens, are unimportant while they ask for your money. Even asking while contacting you via the same medium that you and I are using now.

These are important questions. You should know the answers. Because once they are running, or are elected to office, it’s too late to say ‘this isn’t the guy I wanted’ or ‘I didn’t know you were for that’.

By the way, in polls on my various sites, Senator Obama is leading with 31% of votes, and Senators Clinton and McCain are tied for second with 21%. This includes the votes of visitors 18-65+. Just so you know.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: national healthcare, presidential candidate, presidential election, Senator Barak Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain, small business