Posts Tagged ‘health care’

TO:                        President Barack Hussein Obama

FROM:                 Conservatives of all stripes

REFERENCE:    Invitation to bipartisanship

Mr. President:

We welcome your invitation to participate in debating so called “Health Care Reform.” Please understand we will not be used for political ends and will only engage in meaningful discourse. If by bipartisanship you mean for us to abandon our principles then let us assure you that will not happen.

Firstly, let it be known that health care is not a right but a privilege and therefore falls completely outside the scope and purview of Constitutional government. We will not compromise on this fundamental truth.

Secondly, it needs to be pointed out what dismal failures other government sponsored initiatives (such as Medicaid and Medicare) continue to be. These unconstitutional and misguided programs were doomed at their inception. As predicted they have swollen far beyond all initial estimates and completely failed to check costs. To call such moral disasters opportunity is a lie. We will not help you create yet another bureaucracy boondoggle and purloin more freedom from our citizens.

In conclusion let us zero in on the basis of our continued discord. It is not your goals with which we take issue but your methods. Nearly every policy you propose eradicates some freedom. The issues are valid but depriving the populace of freedom, be it personal, economic, etc. will never be a viable option, never! If you are hopeful that “putting everything on the table” demands we consider turning our backs on the principles of personal freedom and personal responsibility the answer is a resounding NO!

Mr. President, are you willing to discuss methods? If so we look forward to a meaningful dialogue.

PS.  Can you help us identify the fundamental principles you and your party will never abandon? We are sure there must be at least one.

Completely Sincerely,

We, the People, of the United States of America

Congressional Democrats have passed so called Health Care Reform legislation and Progressives and Liberals are hailing it as a great victory. Well, the existence of a victor presupposes the existence of the vanquished. Such an immense success surely warrants investigation; so let’s explore the nature of this victory, the victor and the vanquished.

WHO

Political leftists of all stripes are, undoubtedly, the winners in this social and political battle. The legislation has been voted on and, even if by the strictest of party lines, has passed. House and Senate versions must be reconciled, no easy task to be sure, but Democrats are confident and still riding high on the wings of their “victory.”

So…who are the vanquished? It is the American people who have been defeated. Period! An over-whelming majority of the American public is “uneasy” about further government involvement in their health care with a solid majority out and out opposing more government involvement. Democrats have succeeded in overcoming the obvious will of the American people who they are supposed to represent. That brings us to another victim in this struggle: Representative government. But it is in actuality more of a transformation rather than a defeat. We now see operating “special interest” representative government. The will of the governed no longer matters, at least not to the Liberals.

WHAT

The object of victory is legislation which brings the USA by leaps and bounds towards a more thoroughly socialized health care system. Progressives and liberal Democrats move us by design in the direction of European style health care. This comparison makes them nervous for obvious reasons. Where ever socialized health care has been implemented it has proven disastrous. The idea is not new and untried and there’s no need to take my word for it. Please feel free to consult Mao, Lenin or Hitler for verification.

I am compelled to point out just where in the entire world those who are sick and suffering desire to come for treatment…the United States of America! We enjoy the most advanced level of medical care in the world. This is the same care over which the Democrats now claim “victory.”

WHEN

“To the victor go the spoils” the old adage tells and we would expect this political battle to be no different: only it is different. For the so called victors in this struggle do not plan to claim their spoils until after the next presidential elections. Curious! What possible motive could they have for delaying implementation if what they have won is so grand?

In summary I wish to draw attention to the modus operandi of Social Progressives in our nation over the past several decades. Like a malignancy socialistic ideas have lurked, sustained by the healthy host of a free capitalistic society. And like a cancer leftist ideas have attacked the host. If unable to infect the heart the disease takes hold where ever possible and grows. Just as an undetected cancer destroys the life of the host, and thus its own life, so the destruction caused by Progressive ideas has begun. We see it clearly manifested in atrocious public schools, in propagandizing universities and in social programs which have produced nothing but a systematic enslavement of the poor and disadvantaged.

While the Left celebrates we might well ask just how many more of these “victories” our nation can withstand!

This morning I was reading the April issue of Men’sHealth magazine. Those of you who know me personally might be asking yourself, “What does he do with a Men’sHealth, eat it?” But, I like to at least think healthy; that’s why I always get a Diet Coke with my Big Mac. But anyway…

There was a list polls conducted about health care, and there was one question that caught my eye: “Who should be responsible for health insurance?” And at first the response was surprising- 63% government and only 13% employer. Later after thinking about the staff of Rodale Publishing and the readers of Men’sHealth, the poll lost its shock value. But it did lead me to wonder “how many other people think this way, and why?”

Why should we depend on the government for health care. Do we depend on them for life insurance? Isn’t it just as important? What about car insurance? Again, just as important- and required in most states. Here’s something to consider - you will die, there is no maybe, the probability is 100%, and yet 77 million of us don’t carry life insurance. Why? Because, we’re dead, and the rest is left to the people left behind? When you buy life insurance, you shop around, look at 10,20,30 different policies, do you need term-life, whole-life, how much is enough, should I carry a common carrier clause, what about dismemberment? Here’s my point- you seriously shop around, trying to get the best coverage for the best price, because you can. You might get sick, the probability depends on several factors, age, diet, location, etc., but it’s not 100%, and if you do, you can get care – it’s the law. Yet we can’t imagine a day without health insurance. It’s so important to us, that were are willing to rob Peter to make sure Paul is covered.

Here’s another analogy. Car insurance; it’s required in most states, and yet we are forced to find our own, and if you file a claim, the insurance company can drop you at will. Why shouldn’t government be responsible for insuring all motorists? Have you ever wondered why they don’t? Perhaps it’s because were all crazies behind the wheel. The claims would bankrupt America; we make the choice to drive the way we want, risk life, limb, and liberty, and then shop around for the most affordable insurance. It’s a matter of choice; if we get a ticket our insurance goes up or we find another carrier.

Did hear Washington and supposedly the majority of Americans scream about not being able to afford life insurance when they want it or car insurance when they have to have it? Of course not, why? A whole lot less government intervention. Like those others, health insurance is a personal choice; if people don’t want it, don’t force them carry it, let them pay cash. If people want to pay more for hangnail coverage, give them the option – remove the regulations, let us shop across state line, give us ala carte options, and then get out of the way.

Nicholas Ballasy over at CNSNews has posted a great article quoting Daniel Akaka saying he’s not aware of the Constitution giving Congress the right to include the individual mandate. Go ahead pick up your jaw; now, before you assume the pride of the Aloha state has flipped his liberal lid, Akaka also says the lack of such authority doesn’t matter. But, then again what Constitutional authority or lack thereof has ever really mattered to these folks anyway?

Regardless, it’s a good piece revealing the state of mind of those supporting ObamaCare and the individual mandate.

When CNSNews.com asked whether the Constitution gives Congress the authority to make Americans buy health insurance, Sen. Akaka said: “I’m not aware of that; let me put it that way. But what we’re trying to do is to provide for people who have needs, and that’s where the accessibility comes in, and one of the goals that we’re trying to present here is to make it accessible.”

Oh, so it’s about accessibility. Using that defense, Congress should make everyone who is eligible by a car, so those who can’t (or won’t) drive, can ride the bus. I know, it doesn’t make sense to me either

When asked if there was a specific part of the Constitution that gives Congress the authority to make people buy health insurance, Akaka said: “Not in particular with health insurance. It’s not covered in that respect. But in ways to help citizens in our country to live a good life, let me say it that way, is what we’re trying to do, and in this case, we’re trying to help them with their health.”.

Wait, what, so it’s about health then. Okay, so everyone should be forced to buy a gym membership, so those who don’t want to work out, can go sit in the sauna at the Y. Again, doesn’t make sense to me either.

“It’s an idea of making it possible for people and this is what it’s all about,” he said. “I don’t look upon that as a penalty but as a way of getting help with health insurance.”

Um, uh, hmmm, what?

In 1994, when Congress was considering a universal health care plan proposed by then-President Clinton that included a mandate that all individuals purchase health insurance, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) studied the issue and discovered that the federal government had never in the history of the United States mandated that individuals purchase any good or service.

“A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action,” said the CBO. “The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”

In an analysis published this July, the CBO said that an attempt to justify a mandate that people buy health insurance by using the Commerce Clause—which gives Congress the power to regulate commerce “among the several states”—raises a “novel issue.”

Not a “novel issue,” a Constitutional issue.

See the whole interview here.

Today on the House floor, Minority Leader Boehner said the GOP has it’s own health care reform bill. It’s about freaking time.

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, the American people have said that the number one thing they’re concerned about with regard to health care is the cost of health care.  And the Speaker’s 1,990-page government takeover of health care, raises the cost of insurance for America’s families and it will add to our already exploding debt.   The cost of the Speaker’s bill is now at $1.3 trillion and counting.  It’s a debt that’s going to be paid for by our kids and our grandkids.  And to make matters worse, it will increase taxes, impose job-killing mandates and cut seniors’ Medicare benefits.  There’s a better way.

Republicans have outlined a plan to lower costs and expand access at a price our nation can afford.  This includes letting families buy health insurance across state lines, allowing small businesses to pool together and offer health insurance to their employees at much lower costs, just like big businesses and unions can today, giving states the tools to create innovative reforms that lower costs and ending junk lawsuits that contribute to high health care costs.  Given all that’s at stake, the American people deserve to see the Republicans’ smart, fiscally responsible plans debated here on the House floor side-by-side with the Speaker’s 1,990-page bill.   And I hope we will see that debate and a vote as soon as possible.

Buying across state lines, small business pooling, tort reform… brilliant. I wonder why it only took them ten months to write down the ideas of every conservative pundit in America.

In an effort to make government-run health care more appealing to those against it, the left is trying to change the name. Yesterday, Miss America (Nancy Pelosi) referred to the public option as the “consumer option,” and her colleague Debbie Wasserman Schultz called it the “competitive option.” Both suggesting the new moniker might help trick, err- suffice any doubters “among the public, consumers, or competitors.”

from the AP

“You’ll hear everyone say, ‘There’s got to be a better name for this,’” Pelosi said. “When people think of the public option, public is being misrepresented, that this is being paid for with their public dollars.”

I thought all government dollars were our public dollars? Oh, my mistake I forgot all dollars are really Congressional dollars.

As for having the votes to pass such a measure, both women said a public option would survive. They wouldn’t get into numbers of congressional supporters, but said it was simply a matter of picking which type of public option to pursue.

With all due respect, Madam Speaker, I have a suggestion; how about the failed option? No?  Give it three or four years, that name might grow on you.

Patrick Henry said, “Give me liberty, or give me death!” Where have the liberties gone? Did we ever really have them?

We are legally required to where a seatbelt while driving, we can’t talk on the phone, and my four-year-old son must now be in a booster seat until he’s eight. Okay, perhaps those laws are for my safety, but isn’t my safety my business. How about this, in some areas we can’t fly our own flag, we can’t speak our minds, we can’t where a particular shirt, because we might offend someone. Oh, I’m sorry, but isn’t being offended a personal thing. When was “unless found to be offensive” added to the First Amendment?! Aren’t I entitled to my opinion? No, not anymore; being offensive is a matter of interpretation, but it’s also apparently illegal.

James Madison said, “It is the reason alone, of the public, that ought to control and regulate the government.“ Do we control the government?

We are being force fed a healthcare bill that at the least is unwanted by the majority of Americans, and at the most unconstitutional; we will be required to carry health insurance or pay a tax! Isn’t that my choice? I seem to remember another tax many years ago that taxed my choice – the poll tax! Oh, but the government cares, it wants to help us, it’s its duty to provide for the “general Welfare of the United States.” Remember Hillary Clinton’s, “it takes a village to raise a child.” Truthfully, it takes a family to raise a child, and a village to raise a village idiot. Government doesn’t want to help us; it wants to rob us. Alright, yes we elect our representatives every so often, and they campaign proposing to represent the electorate, but after taking the oath, it’s not about constituents anymore, it’s about staying in office. We don’t control the government, it controls us!   

Thomas Jefferson said, “The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.”

Wow, would Tommy be mad now. “Spending money to be paid by posterity” is the standard operating procedure for Congress today; everything has a ten or 20 year plan. How does the bill affect the deficit in 10 years; we will balance the budget by 2012; whatever. The problem is that each new session of Congress extends the “posterity.” The national debt is approaching $12 trillion; I would say we’ve been swindled on a large scale. What did Jefferson mean? Borrow it today, pay it back before the next election; anything is else is crooked accounting. Hmmm, I wonder if anyone is serving time for crooked accounting.

Thomas Jefferson also said, “On every unauthoritative exercise of power by the legislature must the people rise in rebellion or their silence be construed into a surrender of that power to them?” I wonder where the “angry [tea party] mob’; the “manufactured outrage” at town hall meetings, and Take Back American got their ideas? And, yet our rise in rebellion was squashed, silenced, or at least ignored by our representation.

John Adams said, “Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” It’s obvious to me we don’t live in a republic any more, and the democracy (majority rule) is only in DC. We can all hope that suicide transpires on November 2, 2010.

crossposted at ConservativeNC.

Do you remember prop 187? In 1994 a ballot initiative was put to the California electorate to prohibit illegal immigrants from using social services, health care, government schools, etc. It passed the 59%/41%, BUT was later deemed to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. And, should the new health care bill include a public option, illegals would not be prohibited from using it, here’s why… the equal protection clause and case precedent.

According to Fox New’s Andrew Napolitano, who suggested that illegals will be covered because of the Constitution’s “equal protection” clause. “The last time the Supreme Court looked at this,” Napolitano said, “is when Texas tried to prevent municipalities from educating the children of illegals. The Supreme Court said the government can’t do that because the Constitution doesn’t distinguish between ‘legal’ and ‘illegal’ when it comes to education or health care. The court will invalidate any provision that tries to punish people.” Constitutional attorney Shannon Goessling agreed with Napolitano’s, and said, “Here you have the President of the United States, a graduate of Harvard Law School, suggesting that he doesn’t know the consequences of the public option. President Obama is playing politics and the public should be forewarned.” Obama… playing politics? Imagine that…

For what it’s worth Constitution didn’t distinguish between “slave and free” until 1865.

Fox News – Bill O’Reilly

The rule of law is the very fabric of a free and civil society. Lev Rex is Latin for “law is king” and represents a fundamental principle upon which the American experiment rests. Central to our consideration is the stability conferred to the general public by the rule of law. For it is the absence of arbitrary law that enables individuals to make rational decisions regarding their futures and fortunes. Lex Rex is the sure foundation upon which a free and civil society can be and has been built.

But reverse the order, make “king is law” the rule and what results is the personification of arbitrariness!  If the ruler makes, rather than follows and enforces the law, then freedom and civility are destroyed. The random, unsure nature of this type system provides no certain principles upon which to base rational decisions. This presents businesses with incalculable risks, discourages investment and job creation. (Not to mention the deleterious effects of the rulers now being the focus of business rather than the customer.) Clearly, the common man benefits under the rule of law.

Now, for the really uncomfortable part.

President Barack Hussein Obama has appointed dozens of so called “czars” accountable only to himself. Neither the voters nor their elected representatives have had any voice in their selection, confirmation or, indeed, in whether the positions even ought to exist! This is the act of a Sovereign, a King and not a president. A president’s job is to act as chief protector of the citizen’s freedom by enforcing the particulars laid down in the constitution of the U.S.A.

F. A Hayek in his classic “The Road To Serfdom” describes how a free democratic people become enslaved. First a “crises” is seized upon to make political capitol. Then come the inevitable debates resulting in political stalemate. Finally a leader emerges promising to “change” the state of affairs if given enough power (temporarily, of course.) Authority is gradually concentrated until all opposition is squelched. The fact that this sounds like today’s headlines should be cause for alarm and action!

What can possibly result from appointing czars but an administration and governance reflective wholly of the president’s personal will? Where are the representatives of the people? The congress is being marginalized and the will of the citizen is becoming less and less relevant.

There is no easy or politically correct way to state it so I’ll just be blunt. Our free and civil society cannot survive the consolidation of power now taking place under Barack Hussein Obama. This situation represents nothing short of Rex Lex. The king is law. Only America doesn’t have a king…or do we?

Michael Moore wants us all to go to heaven; at least I think that’s what he meant on Hannity last night. Hannity, interviewing Moore about his new movie, Capitalism: A Love Story (I haven’t seen it and don’t plan to), was introducing Moore, when he adamantly interjected that he was a Christian. So Michael, welcome to the family.

Moments later, while Hannity was trying to establish Moore’s wealth, and that he wouldn’t have been able to amass his millions without capitalism, Moore made these defining statements,

“I believe what Jesus said…Jesus made it very clear, ‘the rich man is going to have a very difficult time getting into heaven…we’re going to be judged on how we treat the least among us.”

See, he wants us all to go heaven.

Those in the religious left have a litany of issues that are in direct contrast to those on the right; but wealth distribution seems to be the issue of the day. With health care and the economic crisis now at the forefront, it is the social responsibility of the government to take from the rich, and like Robin Hood, give to the poor, because it’s ordained by God or that’s what Jesus would want.

But is it? Jesus taught us to sacrifice; where is the sacrifice in taking care of the needy through higher taxes? Where is the righteousness in the government taking my money and giving it to the “least among us?”

Well, Mike, thanks but I too believe what Jesus says, and that is getting to heaven is an individual thing. We will be judged on what we do individually, not collectively.