Monday, October 13, 2008

Can Beatty Turn The #136th Blue?

Missouri State University Professor Nick Beatty is trying to upend conventional wisdom in central and western Springfield by flipping a traditionally Republican House seat being vacated by B.J. Marsh. But Republican Eric Burlison is also working the district hard, and should have some natural demographic advantages.
In 2006, B.J. Marsh was re-elected 56% to 44% over Democratic challenger James Owen . . . Can Beatty make-up 12 points in an open seat?
Kellie Freeman Rohrbaugh, who's working for Beatty, tells The Notebook: "We're seeing the McNixican trend in this district, and those voters are more open to listening to Nick."


emudd said...

Beatty isn't a professor. He's an instructor.

Kris said...

Burlison's experience as a bean counter at Cox does nothing for the uninsured. Even if Eric could magically reduce the cost of an emergency appendectomy by 20% (from, say, $30,000 to $24,000) who amongst the average uninsured could afford even the reduced price for their son or daughter? They'll still end up declaring bankruptcy.

It's about time the Republicans get called out on their phoney-baloney rhetoric about "access to affordable healthcare." The only solution is to get everyone insured so that the costs and risk can be evenly distributed. Plus, overall spending on healthcare could be reduced if folks were able to get regular checkups and catch problems while they cost $1,000 to fix, not $100,000.

First and foremost, though, Beatty is right... we have to restore the medicaid cuts to the poor and disabled who were wrongfully removed.

Brian R said...

This isn't a socialist country(yet)! Why shoud my tax dollars go to pay for someones health care who won't get off of their lazy butt and get a job. Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say the government is responsible for those who take no responsibility for themselves. I'm sorry if McDonalds or Wal-Mart are the only jobs out there at times but as my dad used to tell me "a crappy job is better than no job at all". That being said, I do believe that businesses like mine should be able to band together to provide more affordable insurance. Obama's suggestion that pre-existing conditions should be covered and transferrable if you change jobs is also a great idea (I'm still voting for McCain) that should be adopted. I agree that the cost of insurance is rediculously high and that the insurance companies search for a reason to deny a claim if they can, but the notion that those of us who work our butts off should carry the load of those unwilling to work is only going to give these people 1 more reason not to find a job. I also agree with Kris that preventative care would greatly reduce costs rather than treating an illness later. There are great ideas on both sides of the issue that need to be acted on but demonizing either party like she's doing here only drives us farther away from an acceptable solution. For the record I am uninsured and it does scare the heck out of me but socialism absolutely terrify's me. The truly disabled should be cared for but there needs to be checks and balances to ensure there are no abuses.

Kris said...

Health insurance is socialism. Since the average person can't afford to pay out of pocket for anything but the most basic procedures, a big group of people pay a little bit into a big pot. The all hope and pray nothing bad happens, but when something does happen to one the group, the big pot pays the cost. My friends, that is socialism.

Now, those who don't have insurance are the irresponsible ones. They don't pay into the pot, but they just pray extra hard that they don't ever get really sick. When they do, they still get health care, they just file bankruptcy when the time comes to pay for it. Those bills get passed on to the rest of us. that is also a form of socialism, as far as I'm concerned.

Brian R said...

In a socialist country you get medical care provided to you by paying much higher taxes on everything you have or purchase and the waiting period to actually get a procedure done is outrageous. As far as people paying for their bills, only those who CHOOSE not to make payment arrangements are irresponsible and they make the rest of us pay. Most hospitals will work with you to make payments that are reasonable rather than pay a collections agency to harass you until you DO declare bankruptcy or to pay the legal fee's associated with garnishing your wages if you have a job (which they definately want you to keep). As long as you make an EFFORT to pay, most judges won't throw you to the wolves. It all boils down to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Redistributing the wealth of those who studied all through high school (instead of getting drunk and high) to get the grades to go to college on a scolarship only to give up 4-8 more years of their lives on little sleep and even less money to make a future for themselves is rediculous, arrogant, and selfish. After they graduate they're paying off student loans and trying to save some as well as affording the cost of living. Who are we to say that after all of their sacrifices, time, money, and effort they should be forced to give up their hard earned money to people who chose an easier road for less pay. If they choose to donate their time or money, God Bless them. If we try to take one of the biggest incentives (money) away from them by force, we'll have a shortage of QUALIFIED healthcare providers and we'll all suffer. My mother is an RN and she went to school for years working 2 jobs to get through school and take care of our family. She has earned her money, donated alot of her time, and help countless numbers of people. She's pushing 60 years old and still attending classes to further her education. Is she "rich"? No! She lives within her means. If more people followed her example we would be a much better country.