When Did The Term "Racist" Turn Into A Political Tactic?

I had always thought that being a racist was a bad thing. The dictionary defines a racist as someone who expresses "hatred or intolerance of another race or races." In my understanding, a racist considered a certain set of people to ALL have the same negative or undesirable characteristics, without exception. Hate, intolerance, stereotyping some people as being all the same without considering, respecting, and celebrating the individual, all very nasty stuff.

But now I am not so sure my understanding of what constitutes a racist is correct any more. These days, it seems you are a racist by simply disagreeing with someone, especially if you disagree with a politician. Consider the following examples:

- In early April, 2010, New York Congressman Charles Rangel, during the debate leading up to the passing of Obama's health care reform legislation, said: "The group that were in Washington fighting against the health bill and fighting against the President, they looked just like and sounded just like those groups that attacked the civil rights movement in the South."

- Around the same time, also in relation to the opposition to Obama's health care legislation, Texas Congresswoman Shelia Jackson Lee said: "All those who wore sheets a long time ago lifted them off to wear tea party clothing." (an obvious reference to the virulent racism exhibited by the Ku Klux Klan)

- According to an Orlando Sentinel online article, Florida Congressman Alan Grayson recently said on a radio show that: "These are people who were wearing sheets over their heads 25 years ago." (another reference to the Klan and in response to the questioner stating that those attending the Glen Beck rally were" mostly old, white, mostly McCain-Palin leftovers.")

- When Arizona passed its illegal immigration law in the spring, there were numerous accusations that those supporting the toughened enforcement requirements of the law were racists and against Latinos.

- Recently there were two dueling rallies in southern Manhattan, one supporting the construction of the Muslim mosque on the current site and one calling for it to be moved some distance away from the Ground Zero 9-11 site. The Associated Press article covering the events quoted one of the people at the rally supporting the mosque at the current site. In her opinion, those against building the mosque on its current site were racists.

So let me see if I get this right. In this new world:

- You are a racist if you honestly disagree with the passing of a piece of legislation such as Obama Care even though you have serious doubts of whether it will work or not since it never addressed the underlying core problems of rising health care costs, it is becoming even more obvious that it will increase the Federal deficit, and it will criminalize millions of Americans if they do not purchase health care insurance as mandated by the political class. In this case, you can be a racist without expressing hate or intolerance of another race or races, you just have to disagree with a piece of legislation.

- You are a racist if you attend a political rally whose ideals and principles are in conflict with a politicians' view of the world. In this case, you can be a racist without expressing hate or intolerance of another race or races, you just have to attend the "wrong" political rally.

- You are a racist if you are old or if you are white. Not only did the talk show host above make this insinuation, but many on the left side of main stream media have made that same assertion. In this case, you can be a racist without expressing hatred or intolerance of another race or races, you just have to be light skinned and a senior citizen.

- You are a racist if you are concerned about the human trafficking and drug smuggling going on across the Mexico border with the U.S. and the potential for violence and crime that comes with it. In this case, you can be a racist without expressing hatred and intolerance of another race or races, you just have to be concerned about your safety and the safety of your family from illegal immigration.

- You are a racist if you are against a state law that is trying to protect the safety of its citizens in light of the inability of the Federal government to both control illegal immigration or come up with a coherent, rational immigration plan. In this case, you can be a racist without expressing hatred and intolerance of another race or races, you just have to object that the Federal government is not doing its job in the illegal immigration arena.

- You are a racist if you are a relative of someone who died in the 9-11 attacks and have asked for a little compassion and understanding that building the mosque close to Ground Zero would be very difficult for these relatives to cope with, given what they experienced on that Tuesday nine years ago and would appreciate it if the mosque was moved a little further away. In this case you can be a racist without expressing hatred and intolerance of another race or races, you just have to ask for a little compassion and understanding of what Ground Zero means to you personally.

Wow, I think I got it now. Objecting to government policy, attending a political rally, being old, being light skinned, and asking for some compassion now make you a racist. My, how the world has changed.

Dr. Martin Luther King would be so out of place today. He thought, as did I, that a racist actually was an individual that displayed irrational hate and intolerance of another race or races, that a racist stereotyped all members of a race as having the same negative traits, that a racist could never view an individual for their personal traits and assets. Back in 1963, Dr. King said: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Dr. King felt that once content of character was the only judgment of an individual, we would emerge from the abyss of racism.

Today's politicians would disagree with Dr. King. We have allowed our politicians to define anyone or any group of Americans as racists who disagree with their view of the world. Consider some more words from Dr. King's speech and how far we have strayed from his advice by naming anyone with a different opinion as a racist: "In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline." Our current politicians do not drink from the mere cup of bitterness and hatred, they drink directly from the keg of bitterness and hatred. If any of them achieved a high plane of dignity and discipline, most would probably faint from attaining such lofty principles for the first time in their political lives.

Why do politicians act like this, using whatever despicable descriptions and accusations they can to divide America along racial, religious, political, sexual orientation, wealth, and other demarcation lines? They do it to get elected over and over, without concern as to what it is doing to the fabric of the country. It is more important to "energize their base" then it is to solve the problems facing the country. If the other side gets branded as a racists, that's fine, as long as they get elected. There is no dignity, there is no discipline, only the breeding of hatred and intolerance, which really makes them the present day racists, not the American citizens honestly voicing their concerns on issues that affect them and their families.

Before closing out, please take the following quiz to test your ability to identify the racist:

Who stated that President Obama was "a light skinned African American...with no Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one." Was it:

a) Sarah Palin

b) Rush Limbaugh

c) Sean Hannity

d) Glen Beck

e) Bill O'Reilly

f) None of the above.

If you selected f), you are correct. The statement was actually made by Nevada Democratic Senator Harry Reid. Talk about a racist comment, attributing a man's skin color and his way of speaking to his race. Thus, the people we have in office even stoop so low to degrade and debase their fellow politicians along racial lines, imagine what they think of those that have a different opinion from their positions.

There is only one way to get out of this rut and elevate the political discussion to the levels Dr. King pined for back in the 1960s. Come November, all incumbents must go and be replaced with individuals that celebrate diversity, recognize the individual, and will focus on solving our problems and not "energizing their bases." Longer term, we must institute Step 39 from "Love My Country, Loathe My Government," a step that would institute term limits on all Federal politicians. Only then will be able to return the word racists to its former despicable place in the world and remove it as an election and campaign tactic.

Walter "Bruno" Korschek is the author of the book, "Love My COuntyr, Loathe My Government - Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom and Destroying The American Political Class," is available at http://www.loathemygovernment.com and online at Barnes & Noble. Our daily dialog on freedom in American canbe joined at http://www.loathemygovernment.blogspot.com.

Best Health Insurance Through Schemes

Many people are still apprehensive over the recent health care bill of the Obama administration. For one, it hinders them from exercising democracy, whether to subject themselves to insurance policies or not. They are, after all, compelled to purchase an insurance policy either from the government or from a private insurance company. Moreover, there is the continuous rise on health insurance costs. Health insurance through schemes may just be an option.

Health insurance is vital. Without it, there is no clear support on the increasing prices of health care in the country. It is the immediate contingent plan that can be implemented in times of emergencies. Besides, there are different health insurance schemes to choose. It is much easier to pick one that sounds more affordable and practical:

PPO

This stands for Preferred Provider Organization. It is composed of health care professionals and facilities that have signed a contract with the insurance company. They guarantee they provide the necessary services to their clients based on the fee schedule. The main advantage of a PPO is you already have a good idea of doctors who can render medical services at a much lesser cost. Though you still have to shoulder a portion of the total amount, you are still going to enjoy savings for every treatment. More health care services are also added every year.

HMO

HMO or health maintenance organization is a very popular health insurance plan. It is the one usually given by companies to their employees as one of the fringe benefits. The insured individual can go to a clinic or a health care facility that is approved or under the HMO plan. He or she can approach only those health care professionals who can accept your chosen HMO. One of the biggest advantages of the HMO is its very low premiums. The insurance premium can be subdivided among the number of enrolees. Moreover, many insurance companies offering HMO are offering lifestyle programs to their clients to ensure that they do not get sick or meet emergencies often.

The downside is that the health care services may be quite limited. If you want to obtain an HMO plan, always check the number of health care facilities and services you can take advantage.

POS

It means point of service plan. It shares certain attributes with HMO and PPO. It is like the former since primarily you can only ask for medical help from their list of doctors and facilities. However, should you require specialized assistance, the doctor can refer you to those who do not belong to the network--just like in PPO. The good news with POS is you have more control on the professionals you want to deal. Moreover, you can ensure you can give yourself the right kind of treatment it deserves. The only disadvantage is you have to pay extra every time you work with an out-of-network professional.

When you are in the process of selection, make sure you can talk with a reputable insurance agent or broker. This way, you have better understanding of your options, and you can choose the one that fits your present needs as well as preferences.

Explore your insurance options and make sure you are Buying Individual Health Insurance that best suits your needs.

The Recession Was Avoidable

Basically what has happened to our economy, the means of exchange has decreased significantly.

The Committee For Economic Reform and a Better Economic Future has developed an Alternative Economic Stimulus plan to restart our economy. It does not require the Federal government to create a huge deficit, to return consumer's deposable income.

CSUB Professor of Economics Mark Evans was quoted as saying, we are going to have to live with large deficits for a long time, and there is no other way. We disagree with that statement. The Committee believes that there is another way. President Obama is relying on Keynesian Economics. John Maynard Keynes policies put governments into massive debt, to stimulate the economy and return people's disposable income. Over time more government programs are created, increasing the size of government, as our economy cycles through periodic periods of recession and inflation.

Consumption and home creation represents 75% of the economic activity in our economy. The economy will not fully recover until the consumer's financial condition and confidence improves. Investor confidence, in making long-term investments, needs to improve also. This will happen as the economy improves and when we enact the Zero Inflation Taxation Policy.

When the Federal Reserve lowered the Fed rate and the banks and other financial institutions could not follow the Fed' lead, of lowering the cost of the means of exchange, the collapse of employment and the stock market occurred. If lower interest rates had been available, for credit worthy borrowers, the money supply would have quickly expanded, creating enough of the means of exchange for our economy to continue to work.

The recession would not have gotten out of control, causing the massive layoffs, decreasing people's disposable income, there-by causing the economy to continue its downward spiral. Consumer and investor confidence was thus lost.

The enterprise economic system cannot operate efficiently, without the correct amount of the means of exchange (money) being in balance with available supply.

They are asking you for your endorsement and support of the Alternative Economic Stimulus Plan. They are asking you to please review it at their web site. They also want you to read the other economic policy papers first, so you will obtain a complete picture of why we are repeating the mistakes of the Great Depression. Without the changes we need to improve our economy, we will continue to repeat the mistakes of the past.

They said that we could make this happen. We have the opportunity to leave our posterity a more secure and stable future. We are a nation of free people. We are responsible for the laws that are enacted and for the policies that guide our economy. We can make a difference. Do it for your grand children and great grand children. End the recession now, without a huge federal government deficit and another cycle of inflation.

Committee For Economic Reform and a Better Economic Future web site is http://www.economysflaw.wordpress.com/ The Committee is made up of noted economist, retired Economic Analyst, Businessman, Financier, Investor, Author, and former candidate for the California Congress.

Creating an Image - Can a Speech Do It?

Many reading this would have watched Barack Obama address the Chicago crowd on the night he won the US Presidency. I do not live in the US, but listening to this speech certainly moved me. Others I have spoken to had a similar experience. His story of Ann Nixon Cooper, the 106 year old lady and the changes she has experienced in her lifetime, was simply brilliant.

So this is probably an appropriate time to look at the impact a person's public speeches (such as a CEO or electoral candidate) has on the audience.

Through social science research, we have known for some time that the use of rhetoric, imagery and metaphors can positively impact how the audience perceives and acts on the message. However a recent study has now taken this one step further. The results of the research by James J Naidoo and Robert G. Lord in the June edition of the Leadership Quarterly, suggest that not only does the use of such tactics impact audience behaviour, used well, they also have a positive affect on how we perceive the charisma of the speaker.

Listen once again to some of the rhetoric, imagery, and metaphors candidate Barack Obama used in his now (almost) famous race speech in March ...

"I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton's Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas.

I've gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world's poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners -- an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters."

In a poll taken shortly after this speech, Obama was shown to be leading Hilary Clinton in the Democratic nomination race by 53 to 41 per cent. The behavioural impact stats are there, but did the speech impact our perception of Obama's charisma?

Press reports concerning the advice being given to Obama at the time included; "get specific - lay out concrete plans", "describe your experience in government - make Americans comfortable with you as their CEO", "hammer your opponent above and below the belt". None of this advice had anything to do with charisma - it's all about facts, logic and detail.

The other presidential candidate, John McCain used very little rhetoric, imagery and metaphor, but a lot of reason and logic in his speeches. For example, in his address to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council in March, only his opening paragraph gives any imagery or metaphor concerning McCain as a person. The remaining 34 paragraphs all talk about reason and logic, saying nothing about the character of the man. As one press report concluded; "McCain appears dependent on a teleprompter, delivering even the most personal passages with an odd detachment. In his telling, his difficult five-and-a-half years as Vietnam prisoner of war might have happened to someone else." However, McCain did do well in less formal settings, like town hall meetings and one-on-one conversations. But his discomfort behind the podium was a distinct disadvantage as he struggled for national media attention.

Initially, the race between the two presidential candidates was well and truly led by Obama. Audiences loved his charisma. Then the race became much closer. Audiences were starting to listen for what was behind the message in terms of the reason and logic that was likely to affect their day to day lives. The research by Naidoo and Lord bears out these poll results. They say that "high speech imagery will result in higher state positive affect in followers, compared to low speech imagery". So it appears as if Obama's advisors were now on the right track - he'd developed an appropriate charisma in the eyes of the voting public, then it was time to move to reality.

What advice was given to McCain?

More importantly for us mere mortals as managers and in particular for CEOs, what's the message from this latest research?

There are three . . .

Firstly, when speaking publicly, a manager or CEO needs to use personal imagery and metaphors, so that the audience can see and feel the character of the person.

Secondly, such imagery works best when the situation is critical or the audience perceives they are in a crisis. People want the big picture and in particular, to hear and feel how the speaker has lived through similar times him or herself.

Finally, the detail - the reason and logic - is best handled one on one and in small group settings. For CEOs this means a very structured process of explicit communication down through the organisation as to how the big picture will translate locally.

Looking back at the successful Obama campaign, his strategy clearly is in line with the research. People loved the charisma of the man. But they also knew what his policies were. Watching sound bites of potential voters in the US, Democrat supporters were more often able to quote Obama's specific policies. Republicans were more often unable to do so.

Communicating and connecting with large audiences is a fascinating challenge!

Bob Selden is the author of the newly published "What To Do When You Become The Boss" - a self help book for new managers. He is currently researching topics for his new book on teams. Please email your suggestions for inclusion to Bob via http://www.whenyoubecometheboss.com/

Government Deficit Spending Means More Taxes, High Inflation, and a Weak Dollar

Everyone knows that Government spending today will mean higher taxes tomorrow. Far fewer realize that the huge budget deficits being created now will almost certainly bring us high inflation, even hyperinflation, and a significantly devalued dollar. This year the Government will need to borrow at least $2 Trillion, and if the Obama Administration has its way, trillions more will be needed during the next several years. However, regardless of Mr. Obama's appetite for spending, the magnitude of U.S. public debt and its size as a percentage of our gross domestic output are projected to grow at astounding rates during the next several decades

How will we pay it all back? Historically, the Government raised money by issuing debt that Americans and foreigners alike eagerly held as investments. Currently, Americans, including our Government, and foreigners each own half of our public debt. According to a recent report by Fox News, China alone owns a quarter of our debt and is seen as the most likely buyer going forward, given its rapidly expanding appetite for our debt in recent years. But China too has its own economic problems and is getting serious reservations about increasing its exposure going forward. The other method of repaying debt is to raise taxes, but doing so in any meaningful way during this recession would be ill-advised. So where will the money come from?

The Government will likely have no choice but to print the extraordinary amount of money it needs, which will be highly- if not hyper- inflationary. (There is no agreement on a definition of hyperinflation but suffice it to say that if you quote monthly, rather than annual, inflation rates you're probably there.) Checking inflation won't be easy either. Normally, during periods of high inflation, especially inflation induced by expansionary monetary policy, the Government raises interest rates to choke off inflation. But this time its hands would be tied by a seriously debt overburdened American public that would suffocate from the proportionately greater impact that higher interest rates would have on its household finances; finances dominated by high levels of mortgage, auto and consumer credit. Consequently, the Government is unlikely to curb our prospective high inflation by potentially pushing our economy into another Great Depression.

Needless to say, deficit-spending-induced high inflation will devastate our currency. The likely combination of high inflation and a weak dollar will further diminish the purchasing power of all Americans, especially retirees living on fixed incomes. Many economists believe that a good proxy for an economy's stability and strength is the stability and strength of its currency, so a weak and unstable dollar will likely tarnish America's star status in the world economy. America will also be seen as a riskier place to invest and cause many investors to flee our capital markets; effects that will further raise our interest rates and weaken our dollar.

I am hopeful none of this will happen, but many believe it will, at least to some degree, if we don't change our spending habits. Given the risk of this scenario playing out, it would not be surprising to see investors favor inflation-hedges such as gold and other commodities and U.S. companies with significant exports abroad. Investors will also shy away from dollar-denominated investments by generally diversifying globally.  The implications for our policy makers should be crystal clear: be extremely careful when spending our money, especially money we don't have and need to borrow.

More articles by this author are available at http://joedelcasino.blogspot.com Books are available at http://www.Xlibris.com

The Real Pro-Gay Party

Two ineluctable facts stand out when scrutinizing politicians' actions on gay issues over the past 30 years: (1) Republicans are not anti-gay and (2) Democrats are not pro-gay. By 2009, there are few differences between Republican and Democratic politicians on gay issues, except that Democrats are more likely to jerk gay voters around and Republicans are more likely to quietly favor pro-liberty stances. There may have been a difference between the two parties once, but that hasn't been the case for a long time.

In 1978, California governor Ronald Reagan opposed the Briggs Initiative, which would have barred gays from teaching in public schools. In an op-ed penned as he was beginning his presidential campaign, Reagan wrote, "Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual's sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child's teachers do not really influence this." This, in the late 70s, while Jimmy Carter was publicly refusing to meet with gay groups. The initiative was overwhelmingly defeated, mostly due to Reagan's efforts, and this momentum was instrumental in forming the Log Cabin Republicans.

Reagan was the first president to invite two openly gay men-interior decorator Ted Graber and his partner-to spend the night at the White House. Washington Post reporter Robert Kaiser called Reagan a "closet tolerant." If Reagan was closeted, it was because no one asked him his views, not because he was hiding anything.

The number of gays discharged from the military dropped every year under Reagan. In contrast, the number of gays discharged increased every full year under Bill Clinton except one, doubling from 617 in 1994 to 1,231 in 2000. The number of gays discharged decreased again every full year under George W. Bush except one, halved from 1,273 in 2001 to 612 in 2006. Gay rights groups report the number of gays discharged over decades, but they never break it down by administration, because the numbers make Democrats look bad and Republicans look good.

More recently, Obama claimed he would repeal the ban on gays in the military-and has spent precisely zero time working to fulfill this promise. He refused to issue an executive order staying the investigation of gays until the law is changed, and is content destroying through inaction the military careers of servicemen like Arabic translator Dan Choi.

Our Gay Marriage Opponent-in-Chief kicked off his inauguration with an invocation by Rick Warren, robust financial sponsor of the anti-gay marriage Proposition 8. Happy days are here again!

Independent Gay Forum reports that around the 100-day mark of Obama's presidency, WhiteHouse.gov removed discussion of almost all gay issues from its Civil Rights page including mention of repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell, cut its number of "promises" to gays from eight to three, and slashed discussion of gay issues from half a page to a few sentences. After bloggers objected, some material returned but not the promise to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act or a quote about gay civil rights. "Change we can believe in" apparently means we can be confident that campaign promises to gays will get scrubbed from Obama's website on a regular basis.

Similarly, in Washington D.C., former Democratic mayor Marion Barry recently woke up from a nap to realize he had accidentally voted with a unanimous City Council to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, and subsequently asked the council for a do-over so he could take back his vote.

Meanwhile, gay-friendly candidates and policies are making inroads even in the religious wing of the Republican Party. In the 2008 presidential primaries, televangelist Pat Robertson endorsed Rudy Guiliani, the most pro-gay major Republican candidate, a man who shacked up with a gay male couple after his divorce and promised them if New York ever legalized gay marriage he would preside over their ceremony.

Focus on the Family, James Dobson's group, recently expressed their openness to a gay Obama Supreme Court nominee: "The issue is not their sexual orientation. It's whether they are a good judge or not." Sexual orientation "should never come up. It's not even pertinent to the equation."

If, in 2009, gays want to support the Democratic Party because they happen to agree with every one of their non-gay-related positions, fine. It's a bit suspicious that so many gays tout the full Democratic Party line, from global warming to Guantanamo Bay. But if they're voting for Democrats because of their superior stance on gay issues, they're not getting much out of the bargain.

How about these "pro-gay" positions? Republicans are more aggressive than Democrats in the war against Islamic extremists, who are extraordinarily harsh in their condemnation and punishment of gays.

Republicans are tougher on law enforcement than Democrats-a boon for gays, who are more likely to suffer bias crimes. Republicans are more likely to support gun rights, as in the recent D.C. gun law Supreme Court case, which included as plaintiff a gay man who wanted to protect himself against anti-gay violence.

Republicans favor lower taxes than Democrats, and gays have more disposable income than heterosexuals.

Why is the Republican Party the real pro-gay party? The fact that Republican politicians aren't anti-gay and Democratic politicians aren't pro-gay helps. The fact that Republican positions make more sense than Democratic positions on some gay issues (e.g., opposing "hate crimes" laws for preferred minority groups) also helps. But the main reason is that the Republican Party is more inclined to protect individual liberties, inarguably in economic realms, and even in some social realms (e.g., smoking and nutrition-related). They're more likely to support tough law enforcement that allows liberties to be protected. And they're more likely to support national defense, which allows us to maintain a country that protects rights in the first place.

If the Republican Party is better for this country, and the party that is better for this country is better for all of us, then the Republican Party is the real pro-gay party.

Know About California Health Insurance

California Health Insurance is at an all time popular high. Over 87 percent of California residents have medical insurance, whether it is direct through their employer, through the state or through themselves individually. California State has devised a program which aims to help people find the best possible health insurance. It is one of the first states in the country to do but has received very mixed results from the program which you will see below.

In contrast to other states if you in dispute with your California health insurance company, e.g. your insurance company refuses to pay out, or does not pay out as much as they agreed in the original contract etc, the state has a team of people designed to help you out of this tricky situation. They are meant to do everything for you, including taking the insurance company to court in order for them to pay out to you. And best of all its completely free of charge to California citizens.

Even though health insurance in California is one of the most complex systems of its type, there are many organizations which can help you through the hassle. Medical, Medicare, and Healthy Families are such companies which help you out and can show you the best plans for your needs. They are completely neutral, so you know you will be getting a fair quote.

However as a whole, the government plan to give medical insurance to everyone in the state at fair prices failed quite miserably. Although the majority of people in the state do have California health insurance, the larger companies are still raking in all the money, whilst the smaller companies are struggling to get by. Barack Obama wants to use California "fail" on health insurance policies to influence the United States on things which made the system collapse as is has done.

One of the main problems of the Health insurance in California was the dispute with the Mexican citizens. Mexican newspapers were advertising that Mexican people could get health insurance from just crossing the border at a fraction of the price they were being charged. And when the Mexican citizen get sick in California they go to the hospitals; insured or not. As the hospitals cannot turn anyone away who has a medical emergency the state starts to lose money, as because the Mexican citizen are not citizen of the United States they cannot be forced to pay the hospital bills, making the taxpayer pay them.

As you can see the medical insurance system in California is very much in chaos. There are plans to correct it and return it to how it should be, but so far none have been properly implemented, and thus the Mexican people keep coming up and effectively stealing from the United States citizens. Unless something is done soon ordinary people may have a hard time getting approved for medical insurance, or even in the worst cases get turned away from hospitals because there is simply not enough room.

California Health Insurance Quotes
For instant California Health Insurance Plans visit http://www.healthratesus.com